EnviroLink Forum

3.(used)
>Envelope-to: f046@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 11:27:48 +0100 (BST)> From: T Johns > Subject: Re: Climate Sensitivity> To: d.viner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> Cc: tcjohns@xxxxxxxxx.xxx > Status:>> Hi David,>> I have just got back from leave today - sorry for the lack of response> to your emails.>> On climate sensitivity, the equilibrium sensitivity in HadCM2 was difficult> to get a definitive answer for initially as the conventional slab experiment> was unstable, so we estimated it from part of a transient coupled run> instead. We quoted 2.5 K in the original Nature paper. Recently we> have done a HadAM2 slab experiment (modified sea ice and slab ocean physics)> which indicated 4.1 K rather than 2.5 as an equilibrium value. This is> quoted in a paper submitted as a CMIP study. The HadAM3 conventional> slab experiment gave the 3.3 K figure I think. The HadCM2 discrepancy> indicates the perils of this yardstick; other research here suggests that> the effective climate sensitivity does respond to climate change feedbacks> in transient experiments (with HadCM2 particularly). The early 2.5 K> estimate has been revised upwards based on a long coupled run of HadCM2 to> be closer to the 3.3 K we got from HadCM3 equilibrium slab experiments.>> Comparing transient temperature responses to similar time-varying forcing> may be a better indication of real sensitivity, but so long as we quote> single climate sensitivity numbers I fear that there is scope for confusion.> > Tim.>> PS: I will try to get an update on the HadCM3 references sorted out for you.>>> Tim>>>> I'm a bit confused as now I have seen a numeber of different values, in>> HCTN2 you mention that HadAM3 has a climate sensitivity of 3.3 degrees K>> and that this is similar to HadCM2. Is this the case and is such a value>> available from a comparable HadAM2 experiment.>>>> Many regards>>>> David >>>> PS Did you get my message about references?> #-------------------------------------------- # Dr. David Viner # Climate Impacts LINK Project # Climatic Research Unit # University of East Anglia # Norwich NR4 7TJ # UK # mailto://d.viner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx # WWW: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/link # WWW: http://ipcc-ddc.cru.uea.ac.uk # Tel: +44 (0)1603 592089 # Fax: +44 (0)1603 507784 #---------------------------------------------

While hyping the alleged effects on climate change, NBC’s May 6 “Nightly News” tried to localize the impact by citing a different problem in each region. The broadcast played a clip of Burr Morse, a seventh-generation maple syrup producer from Montpelier, Vermont, stating that this season’s weather had been too warm. Contrary to this clip’s implications, Morse told the MRC’s Business and Media Institute that cold weather actually did more to harm this year’s maple syrup season.

Morse complained that NBC had selected a short sample of his full remarks to “support their point which was global warming.” Morse said he didn’t want “to be the cause of any hysteria,” emphasizing that he is confident in the future of the maple syrup industry and its ability to “circumvent the weather with technology.”

NBC White House Correspondent Peter Alexander told “Nightly News” that “Short winters are already harming Vermont maple syrup famer Burr Morse.” Then, NBC played a clip of Morse saying “It didn’t quite get cold enough at night.”

Anybody who spent the 2013/14 winter on the East Coast should immediately have become suspicious as the winter remained cold through March, incidentally when the maple syrup harvest typically begins.

In fact, Morse claimed that winter “hung on a month longer than it usually does.” Because of this lingering cold, Morse started tapping his maple trees in April instead of March. By April, however, the nights were slightly too warm for the ideal 20 degree temperature, hence the actual context for NBC’s excerpt.

One of the world's most eminent climate scientists - for several decades a warmist - has defected to the climate sceptic camp.

Lennart Bengtsson - a Swedish climatologist, meteorologist, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and winner, in 2006, of the 51st IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for his pioneering work in numerical weather prediction - is by some margin the most distinguished scientist to change sides.

For most of his career, he has been a prominent member of the warmist establishment, subscribing to all its articles of faith - up to and including the belief that Michael Mann's Hockey Stick was a scientifically plausible assessment of the relationship between CO2 emissions and global mean temperature.

But this week, he signalled his move to the enemy camp by agreeing to join the advisory council of Britain's Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the think tank created by the arch-sceptical former Chancellor Lord Lawson.

Though Bengtsson is trying to play down the significance of his shift - "I have always been a sceptic and I think that is what most scientists really are" he recently told Germany's Spiegel Online, denying that he had ever been an "alarmist" - his move to the GWPF is a calculated snub to the climate alarmist establishment.

Dr. Richard Tol writes about a new revelation coming from an analysis of Cook’s climate publications volunteer raters, conducted by Brandon Shollenberger:


My comment on Cook’s consensus paper has at last been accepted. It was rejected by three journals — twice by Environmental Research Letters and once by two other journals for being out of scope. Fifth time lucky.

As these things go, my comment is out of date before it is published.

One of my main concerns was the partial release of data. The data that was available suggests that all sorts of weird things were going on, but without the full data it was hard to pinpoint what went on. Cook’s resistance to release the data, abetted by the editor, the publisher and the University of Queensland, suggested that he may have something to hide.

Patrick Moore, when he was a young activist a co-founder of Greenpeace and then a few weeks ago when testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works and told them there is no scientific evidence that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming. Moore also noted global warming is occurring at a modest pace and does not seriously threaten human welfare regardless of its cause. Needless to say be resigned from Greenpeace some time ago.

“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” said Moore. “If there were such a proof, it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists. Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on Earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species.”

After co-founding Greenpeace in 1971, Moore remained active with the environmental organization through 1986. Moore testified that after 15 years as a top Greenpeace official, he left the organization because it had become more motivated by leftist politics than environmentalism. Moore observed environmental activist groups’ focus on global warming issues since the late 1980s fits this disturbing trend, with political agendas rather than sound science driving global warming alarmism.

Two months ago, a petition bearing more than 110,000 signatures was delivered to The Post, demanding a ban on any article questioning global warming. The petition arrived the day before publication of my column, which consisted of precisely that heresy.

The column ran as usual. But I was gratified by the show of intolerance because it perfectly illustrated my argument that the left is entering a new phase of ideological agitation — no longer trying to win the debate but stopping debate altogether, banishing from public discourse any and all opposition.

The proper word for that attitude is totalitarian. It declares certain controversies over and visits serious consequences — from social ostracism to vocational defenestration — upon those who refuse to be silenced.

This spike at the end may be related to the “late data” problem we see with GHCN/GISS and NCDC’s “state of the climate” reports. They publish the numbers ahead of dataset completeness, and they have warmer values, because I’m betting a lot of the rural stations come in later, by mail, rather than the weathercoder touch tone entries. Lot of older observers in USHCN, and I’ve met dozens. They don’t like the weathercoder touch-tone entry because they say it is easy to make mistakes.

And, having tried it myself a couple of times, and being a young agile whippersnapper, I screw it up too.

The USHCN data seems to show completed data where there is no corresponding raw monthly station data (since it isn’t in yet) which may be generated by infilling/processing….resulting in that spike. Or it could be a bug in Goddard’s coding of some sorts. I just don’t see it since I have the code. I’ve given it to Zeke to see what he makes of it.

Yes the USHCN 1 and USHCN 2.5 have different processes, resulting in different offsets. The one thing common to all of it though is that it cools the past, and many people don’t see that as a justifiable or even an honest adjustment.

To figure out the best way to estimate the effect of adjustments, we look at four difference methods:

1. The All Absolute Approach – Taking absolute temperatures from all USHCN stations, averaging them for each year for raw and adjusted series, and taking the difference for each year (the method Steven Goddard used).

2. The Common Absolute Approach – Same as the all absolute approach, but discarding any station-months where either raw and adjusted series are missing.

3. The All Gridded Anomaly Approach – Converting absolute temperatures into anomalies relative to a 1961-1990 baseline period, gridding the stations in 2.5×3.5 lat/lon grid cells, applying a land mask, averaging the anomalies for each grid cell for each month, calculating the average temperature for the whole continuous U.S. by a size-weighted average of all gridcells for each month, averaging monthly values by year, and taking the difference each year for resulting raw and adjusted series.

4. The Common Gridded Anomaly Approach – Same as the all-gridded anomaly approach but discarding any station-months where either raw and adjusted series are missing.

The results of each approach are shown in the figure below, note the spike has been reproduced using method #1 “All Absolutes”:

Fence sitters ever wonder what goes on inside the IPCC. Here you go.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-a ... el-climate

Bet you didn't know government officials played such a large role in "the science" did you.

14,000 hits. Keep it coming fence sitters.

A globally-renowned climate scientist has been forced to step down from a think-tank after he was subjected to 'Mc-Carthy'-style pressure from scientists around the world.


Professor Lennart Bengtsson, 79, a leading academic from the University of Reading, left the high-profile Global Warming Policy Foundation as a result of the threats, which he described as 'virtually unbearable'. The group was set up by former Tory Chancellor Lord Lawson and are sceptical about radical policy changes aimed at combating global warming.


The Swedish climatologist, who has published more than 200 papers, said he received hundreds of emails from colleagues criticising his decision to switch to the organisation. His 'defection' was described as the biggest switch from the pro-climate change lobby to the sceptic camp to date.

He was also abused on science blogs, with one describing the people who condemned him as 'respectable' and that his actions amounted to 'silliness'. Another described him as a 'crybaby'.

However, the main pressure came from the US, where a government employee refused to be a co-author on a paper because of his links to the controversial group. Prof Bengtsson, who had only been in the position for three weeks, told Mail Online: 'There were quite a lot of people who were upset when I joined GWPF.

'I received emails from colleagues all over the world telling me it was a "questionable" group. 'But what made me the most upset was when a colleague from the US resigned as co-author of a paper, simply because I was involved.

Fence sitters once again if the Cultists have right, facts, and the true science on their side why do they feel the need to behave this way?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... world.html



Sounds like corrupt science. Sounds like leftist politics of personal destruction. Don't refute the man based upon science and method. Just destroy his character and exclude him from the arena. The people see what's going on here.