Daily Mail: The Jones U-turn

>>People often note strange ad placement from the
>>Google adwords at WUWT. Seems it’s a global problem.
By the way Anthony Google ads are triggered not only by key words you search for but also by location. Even if you did not do a keyword search but clicked on a suggested link you might see a different Google ad in the USA as compared to someon in the UK. Adword advertisers can choose geographic limitations for their ads.

@Justin in Wales: It’s because CO2 can be directly tied to human activity. Try asking people to stump up money to control water vapour or even methane. “You want us to tax clouds and cow farts?”

Does this mean that Flash Gordon and his pet Milipede will have to apologise for prospectively calling Jones a “flat earther?”
Especially if we get the Prof. to take a look at: http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

quote
Q – If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?
A – The fact that we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing . . .
unquote
What papers explain the warming in those ‘similar periods’ and what do they suggest produces the up-slope from 1910 to 1939? That most helpful of bloggers, Tamino, calculated the forcings from CO2 for that period and what we might term ‘the Hansen warming’. .25 w/m^2 vs 2 whole w/m^2. Eight times the CO2 forcing in the second warming period. So there was 1.75 w/m^2 in the first period from extra solar, or there was 1.75 w/^2 cooling in the second period or some combination of the two.
Or something else is going on.
This last statement is the one missing from CO2 science, the admission of ignorance: however, reading their emails or just looking at their pictures, one should not expect the leaders in the field to do modesty.
If I were them I’d abandon pure physical explanations and have a look at the biology. A recent paper (peer reviewed for what that’s worth nowadays) demonstrates the ability of bacteria to control precipitation over rain forests. The science of di-methyl sulphide’s (DMS) contribution to boundary layer cloud formation over the oceans is understood at least at a qualitative level. If we have disturbed the biology of the upper ocean then there is plenty of reasons to expect fluctuations in temperature/cloud.weather.
‘Can’t think of anything else’ is not an indication of sound science, it’s the sign of a limited mind. Here you go, here’s two ‘elses’:
1. Dissolved silica in the oceans from massive land disruption caused by agriculture has tilted the balance of nutrients away from the (very reflective) calcium-fixing plankton (which are good at producing DMS and preferentially fix light carbon) to diatoms, which are comparatively poor at DMS and poor at discriminating against C13. A silica-rich ocean will a)warm — fewer clouds b)warm — lower albedo c) pull down C13 leaving the atmosphere comparatively rich in C12.
2. Oil spill and surfactant pollution have changed the thin layer which divides the ocean from the atmosphere. This layer (confusingly known also as the boundary layer) will control waves, salt condensation nuclei, the exchange of gases between the atmospheric and dissolved states, reduce evaporation. Polluted oceans will a)warm — fewer clouds because of fewer CCNs b)warm — lower evaporation reduces nutrient flow to the surface, fewer plankton, lower albedo c) send out a higher atmospheric C12 signal as starved phytos revert to C4 metabolism or are replaced by C4 phytos d)warm because smoothed waters emit less energy compared to waters which roughen up naturally when the wind blows e)warm because C4 phytos are not as good at DMS production f)warm because the coccolithophores, immensely reflective, will be unable to bloom.
3. Something else we haven’t thought of.
I bet that a research effort with real money behind it could explain the whole of Climate Change science and a few extra bits and pieces that the current hypothesis sweeps under the carpet using 1 and 2.
Prediction: no science without prediction. OK…. Err…. Cod fry eat phytoplankton and not diatoms. How’s that?
Julian Flood

“Climatology expert threatened for climate change views
By MICHAEL COREN, QMI Agency
Recently I interviewed professor Tim Ball on my TV show. Ball is a highly qualified and experienced academic with an expertise in historical climatology who rejects most of the current hysteria around climate change and global warming.
He is a modest, gentle man who, in spite of his enormous work in the field and the chairing of inquiries and commissions into environmental causes, is now libelled, slandered, abused and threatened for his opinions.
“If people knew just how deep and dark this conspiracy is — yes, conspiracy — they’d be amazed,” he explains. “More and more academics are standing up to refute climate-change theories, but it’s still dangerous to do so. It can mean the end of a career, the targeting of someone by well-organized fanatics.”
I rather doubted this man who is arguably Canada’s leading scientific opponent of climate-change fundamentalism until the e-mails poured in after his television appearance. People wrote that he was in the pay of big oil, was a simple high-school geography teacher, was insane and worse. In fact, he is a university academic with impressive graduate degrees and doctorates and, unlike so many global warming advocates, is not in the pay of anybody.”
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/michael_coren/2010/02/12/12859851.html

“Julian in Wales (03:13:12) :
Can someone tell me: If one removes the hockey stick data what other compelling evidence is there out there of a direct correlation between C02 build up and warming?”
Correlation? What correlation?
CO2 vs temp HadCRUT3 :
http://vademecum.brandenberger.eu/grafiken/klima/tempco22008.gif
CO2 vs temp UAH
http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/01/satellite-confirms-that-global-temps-continue-decline-trend-a-minus-151f-per-century-rate.html

I did say some time ago that Phil Jones could be forgiven for his sins if he admitted he was wrong and stated he would pursue the proper cause of action to find the truth. He’s getting there but not far enough. In a way this smells of a whitewash and I prefer he went all the way and categorically announced that AGW is a scam, or he was charged with fraud and made to face the courts.

Re: Cold Englishman (Feb 14 03:41),
Well, yes, there is a lot of economic inertia in having the CO2 as the culprit , so even if the brain washing is removed, the taxes might come, unless gods, or Gaea have a good sense of humor and escalate the cooling trend. Nothing can survive two more cold summers and winters.

Jones has had a pivotal role in the AGM scam and has now sort of come clean.
As important as he is, I still think that he was just a cog in the works. Mann must go but the exposure of AGM will start to have more meaning when Hansen is sacked and most importantly when someone investigates why it really happened. What really is the WWF? Who is Maurice Strong? Has George Soros had a role? I don’t like “conspiracy theories” – usually propagated by odd people, but it’s very strange the way the IPCC was set up, the way it was tuned to work in one way only, the way the “world government” aspects of Copenhagen (where there was a standing ovation for Hugo Chavez!) were grafted in. There’s a massive scandal here and it’s only starting with the crashing of AGW.

Follow the current Boulton story at Climate Audit – and consider the impact of these issues (a) the resignation of Philip Campbell from Sir Muir Russell’s team; (b) CA is now demonstrating that Prof Geoffrey Boulton already is heavily involved as an AGW supporter.
Both these choices of team members put grave doubts over Sir Muir’s claims that his team has no conflict of interests, or his own capacity to be neutral or to understand the depths of the problem.
This development is really important IMHO. It shows clear evidence that any enquiry needs to drill even deeper, to get to the deep roots of the problem. It points back beautifully to Richard Courtney’s Global Warming: how it all began and Maggie Thatcher’s key role in putting the whole of UK research into an alarmist, and eventually fraudulent, spiral of degeneration.
Sir Muir, it is indeed worse than predicted.

Sorry if this is a little off-message, but I received an email this morning from the RSPB (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds) exhorting me to sign an online petition to politicians to do more to combat climate change. They’ve probably been peddling this stuff for a time, but I hadn’t noticed it before. Here it is
http://www.rspb.org.uk/applications/lettertothefuture/index.aspx?source=LTFITH0010
While the scam unravels at one end, its proponents appear to be knitting furiously at the other.