CRU's Phil Jones: "Maybe because I'm in my 50s, but the language used in the forecasts seems a bit over the top re the cold."

The Powerline blog has done an excellent job of summarizing the issues surrounding the Climatgate/CRUtape Letters in the past couple of days. Since they reference WUWT in the most recent article, it seems relevant to also post here.

It seems Dr. Jones frets about the “weather, not climate” issue that we have been so often chastised for, whenever WUWT covers a record cold event, or a record snow event. We’ve seen quite a few of those lately. It seems CRU is concerned this “weather” may become a trend. Maybe they’ll just blame it on China and SO2 emissions. There’s an app for that. – Anthony

http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningzone/clips/images/previews/s_math/s_math_ec_05362_16x9.jpg

TV weather forecast from the UK -"over the top re cold"?

POWERLINE:

We’ve written about the leaked emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Center here, here and here. Another intensely interesting email thread, which doesn’t seem to have gotten much notice, relates to the fact that the last decade, contrary to the alarmists’ predictions, has tended to get cooler, not warmer.

At the end of 2008, the scientists at East Anglia predicted that 2009 would be one of the warmest years on record:

On December 30, climate scientists from the UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia projected 2009 will be one of the top five warmest years on record. Average global temperatures for 2009 are predicted to be 0.4∞C above the 1961-1990 average of 14 ∫ C. A multiyear forecast using a Met Office climate model indicates a rapid return of global temperature to the long-term warming trend, with an increasing probability of record temperatures after 2009.

We know now that the alarmists’ prediction for 2009 didn’t come true. What’s interesting is that in January of this year, another climate alarmist named Mike MacCracken wrote to Phil Jones and another East Anglia climatologist, saying that their predicted warming may not occur:

Your prediction for 2009 is very interesting…and I would expect the analysis you have done is correct. But, I have one nagging question, and that is how much SO2/sulfate is being generated by the rising emissions from China and India…. While I understand there are efforts to get much better inventories of CO2 emissions from these nations, when I asked a US EPA representative if their efforts were going to also inventory SO2 emissions (amount and height of emission), I was told they were not. So, it seems, the scientific uncertainty generated by not having good data from the mid-20th century is going to be repeated in the early 21st century (satellites may help on optical depth, but it would really help to know what is being emitted).

That there is a large potential for a cooling influence is sort of evident in the IPCC figure about the present sulfate distribution–most is right over China, for example, suggesting that the emissions are near the surface–something also that is, so to speak, ‘clear’ from the very poor visibility and air quality in China and India. So, the quick, fast, cheap fix is to put the SO2 out through tall stacks. The cooling potential also seems quite large as the plume would go out over the ocean with its low albedo–and right where a lot of water vapor is evaporated, so maybe one pulls down the water vapor feedback a little and this amplifies the sulfate cooling influence.

Now, I am not at all sure that having more tropospheric sulfate would be a bad idea as it would limit warming–I even have started suggesting that the least expensive and quickest geoengineering approach to limit global warming would be to enhance the sulfate loading…. Sure, a bit more acid deposition, but it is not harmful over the ocean…. Indeed, rather than go to stratospheric sulfate injections, I am leaning toward tropospheric, but only during periods when trajectories are heading over ocean and material won’t get rained out for 10 days or so.

In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability–that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong.

Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us–the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc.

Sulphur dioxide, like carbon dioxide, is emitted as a result of industrial activity. Unlike carbon dioxide, it is actually a pollutant. But whereas carbon dioxide tends to warm, sulphur dioxide tends to cool, and MacCracken suggests that SO2 emissions from China and India may well be offsetting the temperature impact of CO2. The net effect of human activity, therefore, may be much closer to neutral than the alarmists have been claiming.

How did the British scientists, whose careers are committed to the proposition that human activity is causing catastrophic warming of the globe, respond? Surprisingly, Tim Johns reacted with insouciance:

Mike McCracken makes a fair point. I am no expert on the observational uncertainties in tropospheric SO2 emissions over the recent past, but it is certainly the case that the SRES A1B scenario (for instance) as seen by different integrated assessment models shows a range of possibilities. In fact this has been an issue for us in the ENSEMBLES project, since we have been running models with a new mitigation/stabilization scenario “E1” (that has large emissions reductions relative to an A1B baseline, generated using the IMAGE IAM) and comparing it with A1B (the AR4 marker version, generated by a different IAM). The latter has a possibly unrealistic secondary SO2 emissions peak in the early 21st C – not present in the IMAGE E1 scenario, which has a steady decline in SO2 emissions from 2000. The A1B scenario as generated with IMAGE also show a decline rather than the secondary emissions peak, but I can’t say for sure which is most likely to be “realistic”.

The impact of the two alternative SO2 emissions trajectories is quite marked though in terms of global temperature response in the first few decades of the 21st C (at least in our HadGEM2-AO simulations, reflecting actual aerosol forcings in that model plus some divergence in GHG forcing). Ironically, the E1-IMAGE scenario runs, although much cooler in the long term of course, are considerably warmer than A1B-AR4 for several decades! Also – relevant to your statement – A1B-AR4 runs show potential for a distinct lack of warming in the early 21st C, which I’m sure skeptics would love to see replicated in the real world… (See the attached plot for illustration but please don’t circulate this any further as these are results in progress, not yet shared with other ENSEMBLES partners let alone published). We think the different short term warming responses are largely attributable to the different SO2 emissions trajectories.

So far we’ve run two realisations of both the E1-IMAGE and A1B-AR4 scenarios with HadGEM2-AO, and other partners in ENSEMBLES are doing similar runs using other GCMs. Results will start to be analysed in a multi-model way in the next few months. CMIP5 (AR5) prescribes similar kinds of experiments, but the implementation details might well be different from ENSEMBLES experiments wrt scenarios and their SO2 emissions trajectories (I haven’t studied the CMIP5 experiment fine print to that extent).

Cheers,

Tim

Got that? Here is a translation: assumptions about SO2 emissions do have a “quite marked…impact” on global temperatures under the warmists’ various models. What impact they have varies from model to model. Which model is correct (if any)? Who knows? But as a result of increased SO2 in the atmosphere, there is “potential for a distinct lack of warming in the early 21st C.”

That must come as a great relief, since everyone involved in this exchange has been telling the public that global warming is an imminent catastrophe. But no! The prospect of a “distinct lack of warming in the early 21st C[entury]” is bad, because “skeptics” would “love” it!

Phil Jones, Director of the Climate Research Unit, now weighs in. Does he welcome the idea that, contrary to his own predictions, there may be little or no warming in coming decades? No!

Tim, Chris,

I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020. I’d rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office press release with Doug’s paper that said something like -half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on record, 1998!

Still a way to go before 2014.

I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.

Better that the Earth experience the cataclysm of global warming than that the skeptics be proved right? It makes one wonder how seriously Jones believes in the catastrophe of global warming. Jones then frets about whether the weather is really as cool as the weathermen are saying:

Chris – I presume the Met Office continually monitor the weather forecasts. Maybe because I’m in my 50s, but the language used in the forecasts seems a bit over the top re the cold. Where I’ve been for the last 20 days (in Norfolk) it doesn’t seem to have been as cold as the forecasts.

So the very climate scientists who keep saying that global warming will be an unparalleled disaster for humanity are telling the Earth: Heat up, damn it!

But let’s go back to the main point. Apparently the alarmist climatologists acknowledge that SO2, frequently emitted in conjunction with CO2, nullifies, wholly or in part, any warming tendency associated with the CO2. What is the net effect? This is, obviously, an empirical, quantitative question. But these scientists can’t answer it, not only because each of their models gives a different answer, but because they have no idea how much SO2 is being emitted by the main countries that produce that pollutant, India and China. Having no idea what the facts are, their models are useless. It does appear, however, that one obvious alternative to impoverishing humanity in a most-likely-futile effort to stave off global warming would be emitting a whole lot of SO2 over the ocean, and continuing those emissions indefinitely rather than banning them as is currently contemplated by the warmists’ models.

Climate science is in its infancy, and every proposition is controversial. What climate scientists like those at East Anglia don’t know dwarfs what they do know. They can produce a model for every occasion, but are the models any good? If so, which one? One thing we know for sure is that they don’t generate reliable predictions. In every scientific field other than global warming, a scientific hypothesis that generates false predictions is considered disproved. When it comes to global warming, however, there is no such thing as falsification. Which is the ultimate evidence that the alarmist scientists are engaged in a political enterprise, not a scientific one.

Please visit the Powerline blog here.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Greg

So, what I don’t get, if it’s hotter then the hottest it’s ever been, where are the grapes growing in London like the Medieval warm period? Can grapes grow in this?

P Wilson

Phil Jones tells us that global warming is the great evil and then in the same breath hopes for a warmer future, just to stick two fingers up at sceptics.
Isn’t that veering on psychopathy?

Eve

Bets are they were going to go with the second method.
At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent
lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at
the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend
relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second is to remove
ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the observed data.
Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second
method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.
These sums complement Kevin’s energy work.
Kevin says … “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of
warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”. I do not
agree with this.

Acid rain cures global warming?
I vote for warmer.

John M

Actually, last I checked, globally, 2009 may be within spitten’ distance of a top five. All depends on how much the El Nino impacts Nov and Dec.
Of course, since it wasn’t “fair” to point out dropping temperatures during a La Nina year, it’s not “fair” to point out rising temps during an El Nino year, is it?
Of course, that would never happen.

Andrew Scott

Hey I just downloaded the Zip from peer to peer, opened up an email and found this (rather disappointed scientist):
***
From: Gary Funkhouser
To: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk
Subject: kyrgyzstan and siberian data
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:37:09 -0700
Keith,
Thanks for your consideration. Once I get a draft of the central
and southern siberian data and talk to Stepan and Eugene I’ll send
it to you.
I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material,
but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk
something out of that.
***
From 0843161829.txt

Graeme W

China and India to the rescue!
Now this is something I can appreciate. What looks like happening is decent science. Someone proposes a theory, and make a prediction (that there would be cooling). Their prediction has come true, though that may be simply coincidence. More research is required. eg. What are the S02 levels in paleoclimatology? Is there a way to tell? Can we get a graph that combines CO2, S02 and temperature?
I think if someone gives me a billion now, I can start work on this, and I’ll be back this time next year for another cash installment….

P Wilson

I studied vineyards, today there’s some 400 although none further north than Westow, Yorks. The furthest recorded in the MWP is at Hadrians Wall, further north. Vineyards were maionly attached to monastries where the records are still kept.. however, there’s more interest in wine thesedays than in those

From Australia today:
Longer November heatwave 130 years ago

12:57 EDT The most recent heatwave was record-breaking for many areas, but in November 1878 a heatwave lasted almost twice as long, according to weatherzone.com.au.

Tony Hansen

‘Apparently the alarmist climatologists acknowledge that SO2, frequently emitted in conjunction with CO2, nullifies, wholly or in part, any warming tendency associated with the CO2.’
Or could it exceed the affect of CO2?
Or could it greatly exceed the affect of CO2?
Especially if we do not know how much SO2 is being emitted.

R Shearer

[snip -lets not repeat the same mistake made by others]

wxmidwest

The Warmists are going to be in for a big surprise. The -PDO longterm cycle is here and the signaling of the next 3 or 4 solar cycles will end up something like the Dalton Minimum. Analoging +ENSO events, one always seems to happen around this time in the solar cycle. In the end, more Nina events will outnumber Nino events in the next 30 years. This does not favor the global warming crowd.

Paul Vaughan

Well-said:
”What climate scientists […] don’t know dwarfs what they do know.”
More funding is needed – to research natural climate variations – and it should NOT go to the shysters.

Paul Vaughan

These guys need to look beyond atmospheric chemistry.

Glenn

Greg (19:57:35) :
“So, what I don’t get, if it’s hotter then the hottest it’s ever been, where are the grapes growing in London like the Medieval warm period? Can grapes grow in this?”
There are vineyards in the UK today, and I found this:
“London’s first vineyard planted”
http://www.decanter.com/news/281860.html
The vines today are hybrids, cold resistant. Here’s an example:
“The three new grape varieties are broadly adapted to the cold winter climate of East Coast wine growing regions and produce high-quality wines.”
http://www.winebusiness.com/wbm/?go=getArticle&dataId=45482

Patrick Davis

“Roger Carr (20:29:34) :
From Australia today:
Longer November heatwave 130 years ago
12:57 EDT The most recent heatwave was record-breaking for many areas, but in November 1878 a heatwave lasted almost twice as long, according to weatherzone.com.au.”
That’s really interesting however, all other MSM outlest I have viewed so far report recent weeks here in the south and east of Australia as being the hottest ever, record breaking events.

rbateman

Two things here:
1.) .4 C warming over a monkeyed 1961-1990 average is still a monkeyed figure prediction.
2.) S02 emitted from China & India as the solution to the unexpected cooling is playing the Climate Change card off the bottom of the deck. Why not just come out and say “Better Climate through Chemistry” is what we are aiming for?

We had 2 days of hot weather and our PM said it was proof of global warming, now we are having 2 days of cold weather but he hasn’t said its proof of global cooling – I’m confused !

rbateman

Patrick Davis (21:04:48) :
Two sets of books on temps.
One is truncated to make room for ‘new’ highs while the other one is the full record and shows it much warmer in the past. 1878 was warmer in Australia, but if your looking back only 50 years or so, 1878 is never considered.
AGW mischief.
The truncated record is politically correct, don’tcha know.

Jeff L

Maybe a component of warming (if real) was from our 70’s campaign to reduce acid rain & the associated reduction in sulfates – it’s our fault because we’re keeping the Earth too dang clean ! That would be highly ironic if true.

Brian Johnson uk

The BBC offer this [in their usual AGW format] and I am not expecting any less bias towards AGW in the near future.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8375576.stm
Where is Richard Black these days?

Mattb

Hey Greg at the top… what I don’t get is that you ask such a stupid question about grapes, when a simple google will show you that there are many vineyards in England. http://www.english-wine.com/vineyards.html
As for the article, it is quite clear that they are confident the greenhouse warming trend is there, and hope that it results in warmer years so that people get the message and take action, rather than have some other forcing cool things a bit resulting in a sceptical field day.
He does not hope it warms just to be proved right, or to spite skeptics… he hopes it warms so that it convinces folks to take action before it is too late.

Dr A Burns

Alarmists had claimed SO2 caused the 1940 to 1970 cooling … then CO2 was supposed to have caused warming to 1998, now SO2 cooling again. Of course man’s CO2 output was very low before 1945, so the rapid warming between 1910 and 1940 was caused by who knows what, but certainly anything other than natural causes. Are they serious ?

AndyW

The problem the Met Office have to counter more and more is that the more they push the CRU and their own warmest favouring guys viewpoint and the more the British Public sees it clashing with “reality” even if it is short term the more they will feel uncomfortable. Even this year they were dragged over the coals because the yet again forecasted “BBQ summer” did not materialise ( at least by that point, September was very nice!). That’s 2 summers in a row.
They should be just putting out forecasts based on the current factors and not try to add a weighting based on long term warming as well. That will continue to make them overestimate temps etc.
Andy

Anthony

Mattb, nice try, trying to defend a corrupt scientist who has shown himself to have no morals, ethics, or any sense of what the scientific method is all about.
He should resign immediately, and if he won’t do that, then he should be fired.
As a person who greatly values and respects science, honest scientific research and the scientific method, it disgusts me beyond belief that these clowns have tainted the whole realm of climate science and all those honest and hard-working scientists out there. The best thing that climate researchers can do now is to demand an in-depth investigation into this whole sorry scandal in order to save their field of science from ridicule. Those climate scientists who have defended the indefensible (i.e. Phil Jones and his ilk) only cast themselves, and their profession, into utter disrepute.

Mattb

Anthony – that reply is like expecting me to accept being told that Hitler had a pumpkin for a head, and when I say “no he didn’t” you say “oh yeah nice try , trying to defend the head of the Nazis and all his crimes against humanity.”
There is a real risk that the more tenuous links people make to genuinely innocent portions of the emails, the less likely you are to get traction with the interesting bits… heared of crying wolf anyone.
There is nothing in the email exchange above… waste of time thread.

Madman

Mattb:
“He does not hope it warms just to be proved right, or to spite skeptics… he hopes it warms so that it convinces folks to take action before it is too late.”
So, you’re saying he hopes it heats up so that folks will take action to cool it down? Wouldn’t it just be better all around to hope that the cooling (or non-heating) trend continues?
Craig

Mattb

No madman, not if your opinion of the science was that the greenhouse forcing was being opposed by a short term cooling, which would eventually cease, leaving the full force of GHG warming. So in this example one would assume that China will eventually clean up its act (as developed economies did), removing the cooling forcing of the SO2, and warming returns after we’ve wasted 5 years where we could have been addressing emissions.
You don;t have to agree with that assessment of the science, but that is the crux of what he is saying.

OKE E DOKE

are we having an ENSO effect or not? november temps are 2-3 degr above normal so far in Iowa
Stuart Varney (subbing for Neil Cavuto on Fox) also had a segment on the hacked e mails— along with a warmist-apologist.
now if we can get this on Oreilley————

Eric Anderson

Mattb wrote: “There is nothing in the email exchange above… waste of time thread.”
Typical, “Nothing here to see. Move on.” mentality.
In fact, the email thread is interesting. Forget the vineyard distraction for a moment. What does the email thread show? Admission of lack of data, lack of knowledge of resulting effect; clear pre-conceived notions about what “should” happen in the climate; hoping the data will change change in order to save the theory, rather than a willingness to re-examine the theory in light of the latest data; juvenile paranoia about being proved wrong; etc.
Pretty pathetic, and this is just one email exchange at the tip of the iceberg.

Queenslander!

There used to be a saying about someone blacklisted and shunned, “Sent to Coventry”.
From now on it might be “Sent to East Anglia”.

Patrick Davis

We’ve had one or two hot days here in the inner west of Sydney, Australia and the media are lapping it up and blowing it all out of proportion (Well there’s a surprise). Almost all of the bush fire near people/property were started by arsonists and/or power line failure, some were as a result of lightening too.
Today, although there is nearly a 20c degree diffeernce to that over the w/e, 40+, 39-ish where I live (And it was horrid to have to work almost the entire w/e in that heat without aircon), predictions still abound….”It’ll be worce than last summer” etc etc.
We’ll see.

Mark.R

Here a chance for you to say what you think. It say to Send your greetings to COP15 – the UN Climate Change Conference 2009.But im sure we can think of something to say.
http://en.cop15.dk/climate+greetings .

Patrick Davis (23:04:51) — Back to Hanrahan, eh, Patrick?
“We’ll all be rooned,” said Hanrahan
In accents most forlorn…

Kate

Global Warming Religion Unaffected by Massive Data Fraud
Reaction to the antics of the man-made global warming zealots don’t include any recantation of their religious doctrine.
Myron Ebell, director of global warming and international environmental policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a US free-market think-tank, said the e-mail exchanges were a “scandal that has knocked down the global warming house of cards”.
Bob Ward, policy director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science, called for a thorough investigation into the matters raised by the e-mails. He said: “The selective disclosure and dissemination of the messages has created the impression of impropriety, and the only way of clearing the air now would be through a rigorous investigation…There needs to be an assurance that these e-mail messages have not revealed inappropriate conduct in the preparation of journal articles and in dealing with requests from other researchers for access to data.” He was more sympathetic about the e-mails railing against sceptics, saying climate researchers had been the target of “an aggressive campaign by so-called “deniers” over a number of years”.
Damage Control
Some climate change experts moved to discount the damage done, arguing that the language used against skeptics amounted to little more than the normal banter used on e-mail among colleagues, and that the basics of climate change science were not called into question by the e-mails.
Prof John Burrows at the UK’s Centre for Ecology & Hydrology said: “The peer review process was created to try to avoid conspiracies on an issue…The current discussion is a perfect example that, while it doesn’t always look perfect, an open debate, backed up by peer review, is what science is all about.” But he said scientific consensus that global warming was happening and attributable in large part to human actions was “established” fact and not called into question by the e-mails.
Prof Stephan Harrison, of Exeter University, agreed: “Irrespective of what may or may not have been said in some private e-mails, this doesn’t change the physical properties of carbon ­dioxide, and doesn’t change the fact that human activity is warming the planet. There’s a lot of politics in all of this debate, but it is the science that has to drive policy.”

The whole SO2 theory is ad hoc used BS, since “they” were not able to explain 1940-1980 colder period. Now we know, that it is caused by oceanic oscillations.
Had the SO2 be responsible for present cooling, China/India´s industrial areas should have experienced the most colder anomalies on Earth. But this is not the case. Industrial part of China has warmed by 0.8 deg C within last 50 years (value without UHI, Phil Jones own study) which is in line with the rest of northern extratropics.

AlanG

I’m guessing, but Phil Jones must be thinking about retirement soon. He works in the public sector so will probably have a juicy defined benefit index linked pension. Then there is the lure of the well paid lecture circuit. The guy is famous after all now. Expect him to retire after a ‘decent interval’ – 3 to 6 months.
PS. Sorry to give the moderators yet another post to process. I hope you guys get some sleep anytime soon! Thanks for everyone’s hard work on this story. Time to make my 2nd donation.

michel

It is true that in the UK last winter, Norfolk, or rather a little triangular shaped bit of it, extending roughly from Bacton to south of Great Yarmouth, and inland as far as UEA at Norwich, was the only part of the country not to be hit by very severe winter weather, blizzards and so on. It was also apparently much warmer. Acquaintances living there would also ask what on earth the fuss was about when we talked. Meanwhile, in most of the rest of the country, people were freezing and getting snowed in.
Professor Jones needs to get out more, and not mistake local effects for national ones, still less global ones. Or maybe he needs to watch the national news. This was a local warm anomaly in an area measuring roughly 15 miles on one coastal side by about 25 miles on the other two.

Kate

BBC’s Newsnight Covers Massive Data Fraud
See the first item on Newsnight with interviews of some main players
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00p6bn0/Newsnight_23_11_2009/
The item lasts 13 minutes 49 seconds, and doesn’t include any admission of wrongdoing by UEA.

Martin Mason

Mattb, I for one don’t need what he said spun by an apologist/propagandist like yourself, it is very clear what he means. The bottom line is also absolutely clear as a bell. AGW has, as we have been saying all along, is either non-existent or overstated to meet a political agenda only. There is no threat to the planet nor any to human life only to our wallets and our freedom from interference and control by the eco-left.

Of course the alarmists are insouciant about the SO2 explanation. They concoct it precisely as a way to continue to blame whatever happens on human activity. If it starts getting cold, then again, human population and economic activity are at fault and must be curtailed.
All evidence says that the primary driver of global climate is solar magnetic activity, not CO2 or SO2 or any other human cause. CO2 and SO2 have SOME effect, but it is relatively trivial. The obvious explanation for the cooling is our quiescent sun, just as with previous episodes of prolonged solar minimum. But the alarmists will never mention the obvious. Only human causes will fit their luddite agenda.
They are adherants of an eco-religion that sees human population growth and economic activity gobbling up the natural world. In this zero sum game, they side with the supposedly imperiled natural world, and hence need some excuse to drastically curtail human activity.

stephen skinner

Global warming science alarming, say climate experts
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8375576.stm
Three UK groups studying climate change have issued an unprecedented statement about the dangers of failing to cut emissions of greenhouse gases.
The Royal Society, Met Office, and Natural Environment Research Council say the science underpinning climate change is more alarming than ever.
They say the 2007 UK floods, 2003 heatwave in Europe and recent droughts were consistent with emerging patterns.
Their comments came ahead of crunch UN climate talks in Copenhagen next month.

Paul Vaughan

Jeff L (21:26:39) “Maybe a component of warming (if real) was from our 70’s campaign to reduce acid rain & the associated reduction in sulfates – it’s our fault because we’re keeping the Earth too dang clean ! That would be highly ironic if true.”
That’s the kind of thing they DESPERATELY want you to imagine. You see, it HAS to be anthropogenic to support their politics (which is why they are STUCK scientifically).
The irony is that if these guys would just come out and say, “Our goal is to oppose toxic pollution,” people like me (an ecologist & former stats teacher, with years of professional experience analyzing weather/climate data) would support them instead of having to cut them down for misleading the public with climate models based on untenable assumptions. Their mistake is deliberately & erroneously conflating a real issue with fabricated one and the cost is a blow to both science & the environmental movement, two worthwhile endeavors that should be supported with forthright honesty, rather than undermined by nefarious subversion.

SandyInDerby

Greg (19:57:35) :
So, what I don’t get, if it’s hotter then the hottest it’s ever been, where are the grapes growing in London like the Medieval warm period? Can grapes grow in this?
Watch last weeks Hugh Fearnley-Whittinstall The River Garden cottage guy. I happened to catch part of it and there is an item about a someone in London making his own wine from Pinot Noir grapes (I think) grown in his backyard.
Not really evidence of the man made element to anything but quite interesting.

How funny to hear this guy lamenting the lack of scientific integrity.
Isn’t he the one who day after day was on page 1 of WordPress preaching it was all a hoax?
The strange thing is how his views and their singular orientation match his photo. Incredible. It is as if his views were part of his DNA.

Espen

Is it “settled science” that tropospheric SO2 actually is a significant cooler? I know that SO2 from large volcanic eruptions cool, but in these events the SO2 reaches the stratosphere.

Patrick Davis

“SandyInDerby (00:36:48) :
Greg (19:57:35) :
So, what I don’t get, if it’s hotter then the hottest it’s ever been, where are the grapes growing in London like the Medieval warm period? Can grapes grow in this?
Watch last weeks Hugh Fearnley-Whittinstall The River Garden cottage guy. I happened to catch part of it and there is an item about a someone in London making his own wine from Pinot Noir grapes (I think) grown in his backyard.
Not really evidence of the man made element to anything but quite interesting.”
You can grow almost anything anywhere, in small quantities for personal consumption. I had mangos growing in front my garden here in Strathfield, Inner Western Sydney. They were small and not a sweet as those that come from the tropical north, Queensland, where they are farmed, but they grew and you could eat them. I grew banans in South Yarra, Melbourne. Again, small and not as sweet, but still, edible.
That’s the differnce, I believe, between growing grapes (Or anything) for your own consumption and farming them large-scale in vinyards for wider consumption. If vinyards were viable in Southern England today, as they were in the MWP, then grapes would be grown again. But there are EU subsidies to consider now and, as I understand it, EU subsidies favour crops grown for bio-fuels.
Greenland was named Greenland for a reason and it had nothing to do with emissions from SUV’s, Flatscreen TV’s, garden patio heaters and power stations.
IMO The River Garden Cottage is an interesting view on living, growing stuff and how food is produced however, you need quite a bit of land to achieve that and there just aren’t enough planets like the Earth for everyone to live like that. In New Zealand, we called these “life stylers” who had 1 acre of land or more with running stream and plenty of wind. I nearly made it work, but ran out of money. It was rediculously expensive off-grid power sources, and at that time, circa 2002, a 12v fridge (To match the voltage of the generating system for maximum efficiency) was NZ$12,000.
If you have money, time, land, you can grow food and sell/trade surplus. Sounds familiar doesn’t it?

Paul Z.

Dr Phil Jones – “all gut feeling, no science”
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=440&filename=1098472400.txt
===
Bottom line – their is no way the MWP (whenever it was) was as warm globally as the last 20 years. There is also no way a whole decade in the LIA period was more than 1 deg C on a global basis cooler than the 1961-90 mean. This is all gut feeling, no science, but years of experience of dealing with global scales and varaibility.
Must got to Florence now. Back in Nov 1.
Cheers
Phil
===
I hope this charlatan gets the sack soon.

Robinson

I wouldn’t read too much into the growing of grapes! They actually do rather well in Urban settings as it’s quite a few degrees warmer (yes, ubran heat island!) and there are quite hardy breeds out there. If we had a thriving orange, lemon and cocoa industry, then I might agree.

Icarus

Paul Z. (01:34:48) :
Dr Phil Jones – “all gut feeling, no science”
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=440&filename=1098472400.txt
===
Bottom line – their is no way the MWP (whenever it was) was as warm globally as the last 20 years. There is also no way a whole decade in the LIA period was more than 1 deg C on a global basis cooler than the 1961-90 mean. This is all gut feeling, no science, but years of experience of dealing with global scales and varaibility.
Must got to Florence now. Back in Nov 1.
Cheers
Phil
===
I hope this charlatan gets the sack soon.

Scientists are allowed to have ‘gut feelings’. When you see them presented as objective evidence of AGW in the peer-reviewed scientific journals, let us know.