Foreign Policy Blogs

A Global Suicide Note?

José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, has been a leading proponent of strong action against climate change, not only in the 27-nation European Union, but globally.  The EU has been in the vanguard, particularly when the executive branch of the US was for eight years a captive to special interests and a politics of regression in most things.  “Europe has passed its credibility test,” Barroso said last December.

With Copenhagen looming in just 15 days, and with the eyes of the world already focused on what can be expected to happen – and what should happen – it is not without purpose to hearken back to an article written by President Barroso in September:  Edge back from the abyss – It’s time to deliver on climate change.  The EU has already committed to a 20% reduction in GHG emissions from 1990 levels by 2020 (along with a 20% share for renewable energy, and a 20% boost to energy efficiency) – and they say they’ll produce a 30% reduction in GHG if others make a similar commitment.

Barroso, among many others, has noted the need to move ahead with speed and determination.  He wrote in his article that the draft text for Copenhagen to come out of the UNFCCC talks in Bonn in June was a “…a feast of alternative options…”  Barroso said:  “If we don’t sort this out, it risks becoming the longest and most global suicide note in history.”

There’s much more to say, obviously, about where we are and where we’re going.  For now, see this succinct video from President Barroso.

 
  • njcons

    The jig is up on this “science”.

    It’s been exposed as a hoax.

    “The University of East Anglia’s Hadley Climatic Research Centre appears to have suffered a security breach earlier today, when an unknown hacker apparently downloaded 1079 e-mails and 72 documents of various types and published them to an anonymous FTP server. These files appear to contain highly sensitive information that, if genuine, could prove extremely embarrassing to the authors of the e-mails involved. Those authors include some of the most celebrated names among proponents of the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).”

    Mr. Mosher offered this summary of the rest of the e-mails that he had found:

    And, you get to see somebody with the name of phil jones say that he would rather destroy the CRU data than release it to McIntyre. And lots lots more. including how to obstruct or evade FOIA requests. and guess who funded the collection of cores at Yamal.. and transferred money into a personal account in Russia[.] And you get to see what they really say behind the curtain.. you get to see how they “shape” the news, how they struggled between telling the truth and making policy makers happy. [Y]ou get to see what they say about Idso and pat micheals, you get to read how they want to take us out into a dark alley, it’s stunning all very stunning.

    • http://www.HewittComm.com Bill Hewitt

      NJCons – ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ! A tempest in a teapot. See this story from Nature, and these items from RealClimate, Grist, and DeSmogBlog (this and this) on this nearly non-story.

  • njcons

    Oh my aching sides…

    Let’s start with your first source…Nature (who’s been shown through these e-mails to have been duped): The strongest argument is:

    “I’m not going to comment on the content of illegally obtained e-mails,” says Mann.

    Njcons- That’s it??? Michael Mann does nothing to dispute the exposure of his fraudulent “science”?

    All he has is that the truth came out “illegally”.

    Your next source is Real Climate (a wholly biased site):

    Their primary argument is this “Since emails are normally intended to be private, people writing them are, shall we say, somewhat freer in expressing themselves than they would in a public statement.”

    Njcons- or put another way…more honestly expressing themselves!

    They spoke the truth! They were “hiding” “manipulating” and “tricking” folks into believeing their BS.

    I don’t deny that they “freely” expressed this…

    And finally we have from Grist :

    “Scientists often use the term ‘trick’ to refer to ‘a good way to deal with a problem…”

    njcons- really? Scientists often use the term “trick”? Show us some peer reviewed science that invokes this now “scientific term” “trick”!!! Please….a “good way to deal with a problem?

    Now “magic” and “science” share a common language?

    You are simply drinking the kool-aid from which everyone will soon be running.

    • http://www.HewittComm.com Bill Hewitt

      I teach climate change and international relations so on with my professor’s hat. It’s time for a quiz.

      The National Academies of Science of over a dozen countries are deeply concerned about manmade greenhouse gases and global warming because:
      (a) they’re stupid
      (b) they’re Democrats
      (c) they’re in the pay of the renewable energy industry
      (d) they like to feel important
      (e) none of the above

      Barack Obama wasn’t born in the US.
      True or False.

      Republican Governors like Tim Pawlenty, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jon Huntsman and Charlie Crist are concerned about warming and acting to mitigate it because
      (a) they’re really Democrats
      (b) they’ve been duped by the liberal media
      (c) they’re in the pay of the energy efficiency lobby
      (d) their children are little environmentalists and they don’t want to upset them
      (e) none of the above

      The Holocaust didn’t happen.
      True or False.

      The Pope, the Dalai Lama, Rick Warren, the Evangelical Climate Initiative and other religious leaders are concerned and active on the climate crisis because
      (a) it’s a vote getter
      (b) they think their followers are stupid so this is a good way to keep them in thrall
      (c) they’ve been smoking crack
      (d) they like to have photo ops with Leonardo Dicaprio and Al Gore
      (e) none of the above

      Ban Ki-moon is the AntiChrist.
      True or False.

      The World Trade Center Towers were destroyed by:
      (a) al Qaeda
      (b) explosive charges set off at Dick Cheney’s orders
      (c) Rudy Giuliani’s press agent to improve his image
      (d) all of the above

      The CEOs and Boards of Alcoa, BP America, Dow Chemical Company, Duke Energy, DuPont, Exelon Corporation, Ford Motor Company, FPL Group, General Electric, Johnson & Johnson, PG&E Corporation and Siemens Corporation, among others are concerned enough to be pressing Congress for a cap-and-trade systems because
      (a) they want to bankrupt their companies
      (b) they’re chumps
      (c) they’re hippies
      (d) they know that climate change is real, it’s anthropogenically produced, it has and will have devastating impacts, it’s critical to reduce greenhouse gases sooner rather than later (and by 80% by 2050), and they know that a low-carbon world will be safer and better for their bottom lines

  • http://www.streamline-power.com/ Lee

    we need a major world leader to be more vocal regarding these matters.

  • njcons

    you forgot a few questions.

    it is widely known that Michael Mann and Phil Jones are two of the worlds leading climate “scientists”. It was their work that produced the now infamous “hockey stick” graph that was all the rage in 1998 and lead to the Kyoto Protocols. It was also their work that was highly touted in the IPCC AR 4 that suggested alarming outcomes in the next 50 years.

    1) The hockey stick graph is now known:

    a) To have been validated thru peer review.
    b) To have even become more pronounced with the passage of a decades time.
    c) To have never been peer reviewed and subsequently found to be a complete fraud. In fact the model was built in such a way that even random data elements would have produced the same shaped curve.

    see here if you need help with the answer:

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/monckton_what_hockey_stick.pdf

    2) It now has come to light refgarding Mann, Jones, and their esteemed colleague Keith Briffa that:

    a) The trio have manipulated data in order to “hide” undesired outcomes.
    b) The trio have refused to share their underlying data with third parties, thus badly hampering peer review.
    c) When asked to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests they destroyed data and e-mails.
    d) When asked to comply with freedom of information act requests they asked others to destroy data.
    e) all of the above.

    3) Mann, Jones, and Briffa are guilty of:

    a)scientific misconduct.
    b)breaking UK’s FOIA laws
    c)fraud
    d)all of the above.

    • http://www.HewittComm.com Bill Hewitt

      Forest for the trees?

  • njcons

    Well…

    when “the forest” is:

    - fewer than 10% of the worlds nations,

    - Politicians

    - The Pope and the Dali Lama

    - Only 14 of the fortune 500 CEO’s who all missed the 2008 economic downturn (their area of expertise)

    I would surmise “the forest” is badly lacking in the field of science.

    Science isn’t done by consensus.

    Science isn’t done by consensus of non-scientists duped by fraudulent “scientific” reporting.

    Science isn’t done by consensusof scientists.

    Science isn’t done by consensus….period.

    Science is done by the scientific method.

    And thus far, AGW has yet to move beyong the stage of hypothesis.

    This latest revelation of fraud, deception, and biased outcomes have to come as an affront to any self-respecting scientist…in anmy field.

    It could take decades to over-come.

  • njcons

    The “less than 10% of nations” came from your assertion that

    ” over a dozen countries are deeply concerned about manmade greenhouse gases”….

    It’s your number….

    and your suggestion that those who signed on to Kyoto believe in AGW is really a stretch….

    150 of those nations couldn’t care less about the trumped up “science”….they were in a win- win situation…

    what possible reason would Honduras have for NOT signing on?

    Look…we disagree on this.

    Your lack of concern over the lack of discipline and integrity here speaks volumes…about you.

    many in the scientific community are expressing disgust.

    You seem ready to sweep it under the rug….boys being boys I suppose.

    I guess that’s what passes for “higher eductaion” these days.

    • http://www.HewittComm.com Bill Hewitt

      I said “The National Academies of Science of over a dozen countries…” These are from major world powers. And yes, I think Honduras cares quite a lot about climate change as they’ve been badly hammered by the more intense tropical storms that are a result of the higher sea-surface temperatures that have been measured, remeasured, verified and measured again. As to my alleged lack of concern over scientific discipline and integrity, that’s a bit of a hoot.

  • njcons

    Actually Hondurans, along with the rest of the planet have enjoyed relatively mild hurricane seasons for quite some time.

    “Global hurricane activity has decreased to the lowest level in 30 years.”

    wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/12/global-hurricane-activity-has-decreased-to-the-lowest-level-in-30-years/

    and even recently:

    “Slow hurricane season for U.S. was the same across the globe”

    carbon-based-ghg.blogspot.com/2009/11/slow-hurricane-season-for-us-was-same.html

    So if the world community is going to throw some dollars at Honduras for a make believe problem…..sure…if I were them I’d be saying…where do I sign?

    you are correct however that oceans have been measured, re-measured verified and measured again. In fact very sophisticated “robots”…3,000 of them globally, are constantly measuring ocean temps at various depths…and what they’ve found is

    at least five years of ocean cooling .

    “In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.”

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

    and

    “The average temperature of the water near the top of the Earth’s oceans has significantly cooled since 2003”.

    http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/sep/HQ_06318_Ocean_Cooling.html

    As far as your apparent lack of concern over the misconduct of the leading climate “scientists”…I took that from your assertion that it is a “non-story”.

    If I misunderstood that statement then I apologize.

    It’s beyond me how anyone in the field cannot be appalled by the scientific misconduct on display here.

    • http://www.HewittComm.com Bill Hewitt

      The “Financial Times” – can we stipulate that they’re not a pack of thieves? – have this editorial today on the subject. Here’s what I think is the heart of the matter: “The most important point to make about the leaked correspondence is that it does not undermine the scientific case for cutting emissions of carbon dioxide to fight climate change, which is growing more rather than less compelling. None of the e-mails seized on by sceptics shows manipulation of the science itself.”

      Perhaps some of the scientists involved with these emails showed frustration at and extreme distaste for denialists. I can certainly sympathize with that. You can huff and you can puff all you like, but it doesn’t really look like you’re going to blow the house down.

  • njcons

    or we might consider the thoughts of George Montbion, a huge believer in AGW and author on the subject:

    It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging(1). I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

    Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released(2,3), and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request(4).

    Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics(5,6), or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(7). I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.

    at last these “scientists” will be compelled to conduct their work openly and honestly and actually consider conflicting data elements…and not just bury them. At least some real semblance of peer reviewing will need to take place.

    Credibility will never be established until all data and code are open to the wider scientific community.

    • http://www.HewittComm.com Bill Hewitt

      “…peer reviewing…”! You’re really showing your lack of basic reason to have the audacity to accuse these climate scientists of avoiding peer review. Because some nonentity like Steve McIntyre is on a self-anointed crusade to disrupt the work of real scientists – doing real work – by filing hundreds of FOIL requests for information does not constitute these scientists avoiding peer review. Peer review means submitting your work to, well, peers – scientists who have qualifications, and who work to review work in an orderly, time-honored tradition, with rigorous protocols.

      And, if it gives you some satisfaction to know that not everyone who lives on Planet Earth and recognizes the dangers inherent in our civilization’s poor choices in pursuing environmentally malignant technologies thinks George Monbiot has all the answers, then I hope you’ll be happy.

  • njcons

    I absolutely accuse these individuals of corrupting the peer review process. They admit as much through these e-mails that have recently been made public.

    From Phil Jones to Michael Mann:

    “ I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
    them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !”

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=419&filename=1089318616.txt

    Keeping out papers that contradict their work? Where is that found in the scientific process? I thought the IPCC reports were to be transparent and include all points of view?

    Or this ..when asked for five individuals who are expert in the field who could provide unbiased review of their work …we have this from Phil Jones to the team:

    “Dave Thompson is a good suggestion.
    I’d go for one of Tom Peterson or Dave Easterling.
    To get a spread, I’d go with 3 US, One Australian and one in Europe.
    So Neville Nicholls and David Parker.
    All of them know the sorts of things to say – about our comment and
    the awful original, without any prompting.”

    “all of them know what to say”???? This is “peer review”?

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1003&filename=1249503274.txt

    Or this suggestion from Phil Jones that a date on an e-mail be changed so that a report may be included in the IPCC report:

    “You likely know that McIntyre will check this one to make sure it
    hasn’t changed since the IPCC close-off date July 2006!
    Hard copies of the WG1 report from CUP have arrived here today.

    Ammann/Wahl – try and change the Received date! Don’t give those
    skeptics something to amuse themselves with.”

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=816&filename=1189722851.txt

    Falsifying documents is now part of the scientific process????

    Yet more Phil Jones e-mails attempting to keep information out of the public domain:

    “You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but
    this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim
    have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we’ve found a way
    around this.”

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=816&filename=1189722851.txt

    And

    Mike,
    Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
    Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
    Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t
    have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=891&filename=1212063122.txt

    Ch 6 of IPCC AR 4 was quite controversial. It provided a “spaghetti graph” showing 1000 years of temperature reconstructions…including highly questionable tree-ring data from Briffa’s version of the Yamal series (which has now been shown to have been fraudulently constructed).

    Why would Jones want things ‘kept quiet”..and look for ways “to get around” requests for their data? Ordering the deletion of e-mails?

    And while they keep their own data/communications out of the public eye…they work behind the scenes to keep opposing points of view out of the public eye as well. That’s quite a nice little scheme they have going if they can pull it off.

    PS Re CR, I do not know the best way to handle the specifics of the
    editoring. Hans von Storch is partly to blame — he encourages the
    publication of crap science ‘in order to stimulate debate’. One approach
    is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their
    journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation
    under the guise of refereed work. I use the word ‘perceived’ here, since
    whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about — it is
    how the journal is seen by the community that counts.

    I think we could get a large group of highly credentialed scientists to
    sign such a letter — 50+ people.

    Note that I am copying this view only to Mike Hulme and Phil Jones.
    Mike’s idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not
    work — must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually
    fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer,
    etc. I have heard that the publishers are not happy with von Storch, so
    the above approach might remove that hurdle too.

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=307&filename=1051190249.txt

    As far as Steve McIntyre goes, he wouldn’t need to file FOIL requests if these folks would just publish their data and code for all to see. I would think you would be extremely thankful that Steve exposed Mann’s hockey stick for the fraud that it was. Isn’t the truth what everyone is after here? Or is it an agenda. Do you not agree that the more we know about the data and methodology the stronger the science becomes? Are we to simply “trust” the assessments of a few? Since when is science done this way?

    The credibility of all that’s been to this point is now in question. I agree with Monbiot…Jones, Mann and Briffa need to resign their positions and have no further input to IPCC studies.

    All data and code need to be put out on the internet with detailed explanations as to what was included…and why…

    and what was excluded…and why.

    All methodologies and model assumptions need to be made public as well.

    Only then can this “science” move forward.

    • http://www.HewittComm.com Bill Hewitt

      Such rectitude. Such moral probity. Admirable.

      Listen, if anyone cares at this point about this topic – the tempest in a teapot over arguably “bad behavior” by some climate scientists who, at the end of the day, have been doing important work, you might like to see one of my favorite writers these days, Andrew Leonard at salon.com, and his posts, this one in particular which I think is informative – and the inevitable slew of comments, some of which NJcons and I have produced for you here in microcosm.

      NJcons – I’m done with this. I’ve got other cats to whip.

  • Mary C

    It appears that East Anglia is giving up their data.

    Good call njcons. Do you think this will appease the deniers?

  • Windy City Kid

    The latest NOAA Climate Assessment Report indicated that if the 10+ year trend of no warming continues into 2014, that GCMs would be falsified at a 95% level of significance and the notion that CO2 is the primary cause of a warming planet would be disproven.

    If CO2 is not the reason for warming and we have missed the real reason for warming due to scientific fraud, then we may end up creating our own tipping point out of scientific hubris.

    • http://www.HewittComm.com Bill Hewitt

      Here we go again? I would guess that the good folks at NOAA would challenge your assertion. Their report indicates nothing but further and deeper impacts for the future. No warming? Not really. Here is some climate science. Carbon dioxide is responsible for 43% of warming. See this.

  • Windy City Kid

    Here is the exact passage from the NOAA Report on the warming pause:

    We can place this apparent lack of warming in the context of natural climate fluctuations other than ENSO using twenty-first century simulations with the HadCM3 climate model (Gordon et al. 2000), which is typical of those used in the recent IPCC report (AR4; Solomon et al. 2007). Ensembles with different modifications to the physical parameters of the model (within known uncertainties) (Collins et al. 2006) are performed for several of the IPCC SRES emissions scenarios (Solomon et al. 2007). Ten of these simulations have a steady long-term rate of warming between 0.15° and 0.25ºC decade–1, close to the expected rate of 0.2ºC decade–1. ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2–25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations (Fig. 2.8b).
    Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

    • http://www.HewittComm.com Bill Hewitt

      Which report exactly, if you please, released when, and on what page?

  • njcons

    Mary C…

    firstly the “deniers” are looking more like the realists and vice/versa…

    secondly, I had originally hoped that finally was going to be introduced to this discussion and relevant data would be shared…

    but now we find that all of the raw data has been destroyed…

    where does science go from here?

    except back to square one.

  • njcons

    Bill H states> I would guess that the good folks at NOAA would challenge your assertion. Their report indicates nothing but further and deeper impacts for the future.

    njcons- but their reports are based on models that have time after time resulted in inaccuarte outcomes:

    1) higher levels of droughts—-wrong

    2) higher levels of hurricane activity—-wrong…

    3) higher global temps from the late 1990′s —wrong…

    why would anyone believe in these very same models long-term assessments???

  • njcons

    So much for a “tempest in a tea-pot”

    So much for a “ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ”

    So much for a “non-story”

    Phil jones-being investigated and temporarily suspended…

    M Mann – being investigated…

    the “science” has been rocked to its core…

    all that’s left is a handful of completely unreliable climate models….

    now what?

    • http://www.HewittComm.com Bill Hewitt

      Njcons – You and your fellows in this bizarre endeavor of denying what the evidence all around you clearly shows – and even denying that the evidence exists – are something for the record books. You’ll forgive me if I continue to snooze at the CRU story. (The investigation, by the way, is more along the lines of who hacked – illegally – into the emails. But the illegality of the matter shouldn’t bother you. You are just like Galileo, aren’t you? So courageous.)

  • Windy City Kid

    Bill,

    Here is the info you requested. The chapter I reference is titled:

    Do global temperature trends over the last decade falsify climate predictions?—J. Knightht, J. J. Kennededy, C. Folllland, G. Harris, G. S. Joneses, M. Palmelmelmer, D. Parkeker, A. Scaifefe, and P. Stott

    It is found on pages 23 and 24 in this report:

    STATE OF THE CLIMATE IN 2008
    Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
    Vol. 90, No. 8, August 2009
    T. C. Peterson and M. O. Baringer, Eds.
    Associate Eds.: H. J. Diamond, R. L. Fogt, J. M. Levy, J. Richt er-Menge,
    P. W. Thorne, L. A. Vincent, and A. B. Watkins

    The above report is 198 pages long but I have located a link to the 2 page report (pages 23 and 24) where I pulled the information for my earlier post.

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/global_temperatures_09.pdf

    Best Regards WCK

    • http://www.HewittComm.com Bill Hewitt

      Kid – Your first note on this referenced a NOAA report. What you are really referring to here is a report from the UK’s Met Office Hadley Centre. The press release from them on this quotes Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice at the Met Office: “Decades like 1999–2008 occur quite frequently in our climate change simulations, but the underlying trend of increasing temperature remains. We cannot be complacent. Indeed, other signals of climate change are increasing as fast, or even faster than ever due to the combined effects of global warming and natural variability — the rapid loss of summer Arctic sea ice is one such example. Early action to reduce the extent and impacts of climate change remains vital.” The two-pager that you referenced – and thanks for giving us the complete information here – says, quite clearly: “The simulations also produce an average increase of 2.0°C in twenty-first century global temperature, demonstrating that recent observational trends are not sufficient to discount predictions of substantial climate change and its significant and widespread impacts.”

      I appreciate your civil approach in offering what you seem to think is science that does not show warming but, at the end of the day, the work you’ve referenced – as does all the work that I’ve cited here, from a dozen National Academies of Science, to thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles, to the work over 20 years of the IPCC, shows the unequivocal baleful influence of manmade greenhouse gases on our climate system.

  • Windy City Kid

    Bill,

    I really have enjoyed the exchange and apologize for the clumsy style of my initial 2 posts. I do understand and accept the theory of AGW. I have done research (medical and nutrition) and I have an engineering background with some experience in modeling, plus I have the luxury of having a relative that writes code for climate models. It is because of this background that I understand that science requires an open mind and measurable parameters of falsification for models. Every scientist who models understands this.

    As you noted the MET study says, “The simulations also produce an average increase of 2.0°C in twenty-first century global temperature, demonstrating that recent observational trends are not sufficient to discount predictions of substantial climate change and its significant and widespread impacts.”

    The reference to “recent observational trends” means the lack of warming which MET says is .07C degrees over the last 10 years instead of the .18C degrees predicted by the models (its in the MET paper I linked).

    The MET paper also states:

    “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

    I simply meant to inform you that climate scientists at the MET Office have now set the parameter for falsification of the IPCC models at a 15 year trend of no warming. This doesn’t mean it hasn’t been warming in the past or that it won’t warm in the future, it just means that the 2C degree GMST predicted by 2100 by the models, would be too high. This is a very good thing as it acts as a quality control measure in assuring that future predictions are based on accurate models so that policy wonks can make informed decisions.

    Best Regards

    WCK

    • http://www.HewittComm.com Bill Hewitt

      Kid – No need to apologize. Sorry that I didn’t grok your original question in fullness. (I’m rereading Stranger in A Strange Land after about 40 years.) Your grasp of the science is admirable. For a mere political scientist, environmentalist, writer and wonk like myself, it certainly is useful to see and understand the QC/QA perspectives.

  • njcons

    Bill…really????

    Denying what the evidence shows?

    The evidence…as presented by the climate scientists themselves show global cooling over the past decade and not a single model even allowed for such a possibility…

    we now know that the “science” no longer resides in the historical record but in models…

    and they all got it wrong.

    • http://www.HewittComm.com Bill Hewitt

      Njcons – I thought we’d been over this before, but if you keep saying something over and over, then magical thinking will produce the appearance – in your mind, not mine – that what you’re saying (over and over) is true. We also sometimes call this The Big Lie. Try this concise bit of explanation from Skeptical Science.

  • njcons

    Bill…I’d love for you to show me where I’m wrong.

    Are you really suggesting that the measured temps don’t show cooling?

    I’ll be happy to provide the data the “scientists” claim are accurate.

    (although mysteriously the hadcrut3 data set has deleted the temps back to Feb 2009???? Why?)

    • http://www.HewittComm.com Bill Hewitt

      How about this summary of the data from NASA and from the Hadley Center. “The Hadley estimate does show 1998 as the warmest year, but the NASA estimate shows 2005 as the warmest. For both, the five-year moving average has continued to increase.” [my emphasis]

  • njcons

    Another case of cherry-picking data.

    Why stop at 2005? Why pick the two allegedly warmest years on record and determine “the five year moving average was increasing for both?

    Doesn’t that just stand to reason? Could it be any other way?

    Fine…the summary says you need to look longer term and look at trends.

    The five year moving averages in 2007 and 2008 were in decline according to Hadley (using the HADCRUT3 datatset) found here:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

    do the math.

    Folks say it’s cooling because it is.

    The deniers here are the AGW proponents.

    • http://www.HewittComm.com Bill Hewitt

      Njcons – Joe Romm, who “Time Magazine,” another one of those left-wing publications without integrity, calls the “web’s most influential climate blogger,” had this post recently. But then I have little doubt that you consider Romm to be part of this vast conspiracy and therefore any information he cites from NASA must be disallowed. Hey, now that I think of it: NASA! Aren’t they the ones who faked the moon landings too?

  • Windy City Kid

    Re: “How about this summary of the data from NASA and from the Hadley Center.”

    Bill do you know if the summary was ENSO adjusted? Your link doesn’t say. Again MET’s analysis of GMST from 1999 to 2008 is ENSO adjusted and is 0.00°±0.05°C decade and gives the true picture of man caused increase in GMST after natural variations are removed. The 10 year trend from 1999 to 2008 was zero.

    Here is the passage from the MET paper link in my ealier post:

    El Niño–Southern Oscillation is a strong driver of interannual global mean temperature variations. ENSO and non-ENSO contributions can be separated by the method of Thompson et al. (2008) (Fig. 2.8a). The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08±0.07°C decade–1, fully accounting for the overall observed trend. The trend after removing ENSO (the “ENSO-adjusted” trend) is 0.00°±0.05°C decade–1, implying much greater disagreement with anticipated global temperature rise.

    • http://www.HewittComm.com Bill Hewitt

      Kid – The item from Joe Romm references the influence of El Nino. Remember though, that I am but a humble political scientist and environmentalist. For the seriously heavy science, you will be much better enlightened at RealClimate, Climate Feedback, and a host of other sites, including Better Nature which has the item we’re discussing here. And yes, Davies is taking El Nino into account.

  • njcons

    Bill first declares that five year moving averages are the way to go. His cite states:

    “When scientists talk about climate change, they are not talking about year-by-year fluctuations, because many factors cause short-term fluctuations. Rather, they are talking about longer-term trends. “

    When the recent moving average shows temp declines, Bill comes back with a source showing extrapolations of partial year temps. The complete opposite of what the first source suggested.

    Yet Bill assures us that both are authoratative.

    As far as NASA is concerned….is this the same NASA that:

    - Boldly accounced that 1998 was the warmest on record for the US…only to have a blogger point out an error in their data resulting in NASA conceding that 1934 was the warmest?

    http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/347541/nasa_admits_that_1934_not_1998_was.html

    - boldly announced that October 2008 was the warmest October on record only to have to backtrack after having it pointed out to them that Septembers temps were re-loaded into October for various Russian stations?

    http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/article/24359/Warmest_October_Claim_Was_Wrong_NASA_Admits.html

    -dramatically revised historical temps such that pre 1970 temps were reduced….and post 1970 temps were increased?

    wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/28/nasa-giss-adjustments-galore-rewriting-climate-history/

    I know you’ll understand that the world would like to see the “science” behind t hese adjustments before just taking them on faith.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/

    • http://www.HewittComm.com Bill Hewitt

      As always, your source material is impeccably, uniformly radical right-wing. I believe the term is often “wingnut.” In any event, I’ll stick with the sources I’ve been citing. Thanks anyway.

  • njcons

    the sources are actually pretty irrelevant…

    any dispute with the facts presented?

    • http://www.HewittComm.com Bill Hewitt

      See my post today, Temperature 101.

  • njcons

    A “tempest in a tea pot”???

    A “ZZZZZZZZZZ”???

    I think not:

    Now we have:

    The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.

    The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6945445.ece

    I suppose some will simply dismiss this fact and accuse The Times of being a right-wing “wing-nut” rag.

    • http://www.HewittComm.com Bill Hewitt

      The press release from the Met Office on this says it will release some data. It does not say it’s going to take three years to reexamine data. It says it’s going to release the new data next week. “This subset is not a new global temperature record and it does not replace the HadCRUT, NASA GISS and NCDC global temperature records, all of which have been fully peer reviewed. We are confident this subset will show that global average land temperatures have risen over the last 150 years.” I venture to say that the reporter has embellished his story quite a bit. He does not, at any point, quote any officials.

      As to the politics of “The Times,” it’s owned by News Corporation. Rupert Murdoch is the CEO. Murdoch also owns the “Wall St. Journal” and Fox. Both the Journal and Fox are famously opposed to all attempts to promote clean energy and to combat climate change. So you can extrapolate the politics of The Times.

      By the way, the article you reference further asserts that “…public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered…” My latest post belies this peculiarly subjective conclusion from a journalist. Failing Journalism 101 here.

Author

Bill Hewitt
Bill Hewitt

Bill Hewitt has been an environmental activist and professional for nearly 25 years. He was deeply involved in the battle to curtail acid rain, and was also a Sierra Club leader in New York City. He spent 11 years in public affairs for the NY State Department of Environmental Conservation, and worked on environmental issues for two NYC mayoral campaigns and a presidential campaign. He is a writer and editor and is the principal of Hewitt Communications. He has an M.S. in international affairs, has taught political science at Pace University, and has graduate and continuing education classes on climate change, sustainability, and energy and the environment at The Center for Global Affairs at NYU. His book, "A Newer World - Politics, Money, Technology, and What’s Really Being Done to Solve the Climate Crisis," will be out from the University Press of New England in December.



Areas of Focus:
the policy, politics, science and economics of environmental protection, sustainability, energy and climate change

Contact

GreadDecisions in foreign policy discussion group ad v2