“Tim, Chris, I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020”
Question: If warming really threatens to destroy human civilization, why was Jones hoping for warming?
And if the world was still warming in 2009, why did Jones refer to “lack of warming”?
Tim, Chris, I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020.
…
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.
Maybe he needs a backup plan:
MacCracken suggests that Phil Jones start working on a “backup” in case Jones’ prediction of warming is wrong
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. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.
We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared.
Best, Mike MacCracken [Note that Obama’s chief science advisor, John Holdren, is copied on this email]
Thanks to Tom Nelson for spotting these
These guys want the world under trouble so they can win with their politics. This is a political stance — but it has nothing to do with real science.
@son of mulder says:
November 30, 2011 at 2:23 pm
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Son of mulder
I would be interested in seeing a source for your comment. If you have a link to any data covering sulphate emissions through the 1970s (preferably as from 1940) onwards, I would certainly like to have a look at it.
Incidentally, I recall reading in some of the released emails that data on that was poor which suggests that there is some data but likely to be unreliable (or perhaps not much assistance to ‘the cause’).
PS. Perhaps Mr Gates, if you are reading this, you may be able to assist since you are usually able to refer to a wide ranging data bank.
Sure, a bit more
> > acid deposition, but it is not harmful over the ocean (so we
> > only/mainly emit for trajectories heading out over the ocean)
But, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, BUT! I thought all these warmist types were so very, very worried about CO2 causing “increased acidification of the ocean” (still don’t understand how something so far from being an acid, such as the high pH ocean, can get “increased acidification”, but oh well. Anyway, how is that Sulphur oxide acid deposition is better than (weaker) CO2 acidification?
Just wondering; I’m no chemist 🙂
Was James Hansen copied on this one?
After all he recently came out with a paper suggesting that sulphates effects had been underestimated by a factor of three…..
Malcom;
But, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, BUT! I thought all these warmist types were so very, very worried about CO2 causing “increased acidification of the ocean” (still don’t understand how something so far from being an acid, such as the high pH ocean, can get “increased acidification”, but oh well. Anyway, how is that Sulphur oxide acid deposition is better than (weaker) CO2 acidification?>>>
Better still, how is it they claim there will be a positive feedback from warmer temps because as the oceans warm they will release more CO2 to the atmosphere, causing the amount of CO2 to increase, while also claiming so much will be absorbed that it will change the pH of the ocean…
Up is down. Left is right. Colder is warmer. More rain causes drought. It is all very logical once you get used to it.
richard verney says:
November 30, 2011 at 7:21 pm
PS. Perhaps Mr Gates, if you are reading this, you may be able to assist since you are usually able to refer to a wide ranging data bank.
Unfortunately, aerosol measurements only go back in a reliable format only a few decades, but a good source, is the Earth System Global Monitoring division. The general site for aerosols is here:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aero/net/mlo/index.html#plots
With a nice chart showing the increase over the past decade here:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aero/net/mlo/stat_plots/BaG0_TimeSeries.html
Aerosols have undoubtedly increased over the past few decades, with a combination of sources being the cause, multiple medium to smaller volcanoes as well as increases from China.
“Smug Grins”!!!! It seems every time I read something by Jones he simply shows himself to be even more shallow than I thought he could be!
Can he not stop, even for a short time and imagine the good all that money he and others have wasted could have done for real environmental/health projects? Apparently the ego’s of these “Scientists” are above a little humility!
R. Gates;
The general site for aerosols is here:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aero/net/mlo/index.html#plots
With a nice chart showing the increase over the past decade here:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aero/net/mlo/stat_plots/BaG0_TimeSeries.html
Nicely done R. Gates. Declare yourself a source of good information, claim expertise, post a link or two, draw some conclusions. Yup, BaG0 sure looks like it is increasing since they started collecting data in 1995. From that same site:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aero/net/mlo/stat_plots/N_TimeSeries.html
decreasing since 1975
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aero/net/mlo/stat_plots/BsR0_TimeSeries.html
pretty much flat (very slight increase) since 1975
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aero/net/mlo/stat_plots/BsG0_TimeSeries.html
flat since 1975
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aero/net/mlo/stat_plots/asBR0_TimeSeries.html
declining since 1975
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aero/net/mlo/stat_plots/wG0_TimeSeries.html
declining since 1995
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aero/net/mlo/stat_plots/wG1_TimeSeries.html
declining since 1995
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aero/net/mlo/stat_plots/BsG1_TimeSeries.html
flat since 2000
Really R. Gates? Cherry picking? How many graphs on that page are flat or declning compared to the one (short one at that) which shows an increase? You like getting wedgies? You like losing bets?
What keep you going anyway?
That could change. Most of that is due to regulations imposed by the executive branch agencies of various governments.
“The colder atmosphere does not warm the surface directly. It prevents it from losing heat as fast. Which has the identical effect. Just like putting a colder blanket on a bed “warms” the bed.”
Help me out here…
If the DeltaT between the cold atmosphere and the surfaces increases, how is the surface heat “prevented” from losing heat. I think it’s the opposite, that the heat losses/unit time would increase.
An old question for engineering exams was: “You are at an Antarctic Ice Station. You are delivering coffee to a colleague at a sub-station 100 meters away. You have to go outside in -50 degree weather to deliver the coffee. The person getting the coffee likes it as hot as possible.
He also likes it with cream.
So the question is, should you put the cream in the coffee before, or after, you cross the 100 meters in minus 50 degree temperatures.
We were taught that it was a semi-log relationship, that the larger initial Delta T, the faster the temperature change.
So why would a colder atmospheric temperature vis a vis the surface PREVENT or even slow surface heat loss?
Make him use cremora???
Anna Lemma:
You provide an elegant attempt at dangling a red herring in your post at November 30, 2011 at 11:42 pm.
Your question has been answered several times by several people (including me) on WUWT so – if you honestly want an answer – then search this site and you will get it. But your question is not relevant in any way to the subject of this thread which is the behaviour of Jones (and his cronies) in response to recent lack of global warming.
I shall refuse to answer your question here because it is a blatant attempt to side-track the discussion. And I ask all others to ignore it, too.
Richard
I’ve only scanned previous comments so apologies if this has already been mentioned.
After Jones says that he hopes the lack of warming won’t carry on to 2020 he goes on to say:
“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!”
That’s a sixteen year period and at the time Jones wrote that email, January 2009, HADCRUT3 hadn’t shown any of the intervening years breaking that 1998 record. That’s nine years – ten if Jones already had the 2008 figure – so Jones should already have known that it was already impossible that half the years to 2014 could be warmer than 1998 because fewer than half were left. It might have been just an oversight, or it might have been Jones making a mistake with primary school level maths, but with everything else that’s gone on can we rule out the possibility of some jiggling to make a few years after 1999 that weren’t quite warm enough for him a little bit warmer?
Whilst all right thinking people now know that this AGW is a crock, how come the Governments around the world are still wasting money when times are hard? Perhaps corruption is wider spread than I realise.
Greg Holmes:
At December 1, 2011 at 1:19 am you ask:
“Whilst all right thinking people now know that this AGW is a crock, how come the Governments around the world are still wasting money when times are hard? Perhaps corruption is wider spread than I realise.”
No, it is simpler than that. And the reason “Governments around the world are still wasting money” explains why politicians have been and are so keen to fund Phil Jones et al.
Governments need to raise taxes.
People don’t like to pay taxes.
So, Governments desire a tax that people want to pay or, failing that, a tax that people feel they cannot reasonably oppose.
No moral person could object to paying a tax that is to save the world for our children and grandchildren.
The need for taxation increases “when times are hard”.
Richard
“richard verney says:
November 30, 2011 at 7:21 pm
I would be interested in seeing a source for your comment. If you have a link to any data covering sulphate emissions through the 1970s (preferably as from 1940) onwards, I would certainly like to have a look at it.”
Richard, Try this. It’s been one of my hobby horses since i first looked at AGW. The overall balance of sulphate aerosols has been to reduce in the west with the clean air acts after massive post war growth and subsequent rise in the east. Historically steady rise since 1850 so suppressing bounce back from little ice age then large growth and redistribution since the war.
http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/News-sulfur-emissions-rise-after-10-year-decline-021511.aspx?xmlmenuid=51
Hidden agenda. It has never been about global warming but about keeping the research funds flowing and taxation powers.
They were losing public when we had the ‘hottest’ 10 years on the record. If it cools in the decades to come then it game over! The fingerprint of natural variation (or sulfate ;O) would have ruled the waves.
You, dear sir, are giving liars a bad name. Stop it!
Campaign against Climate Change
Make sure you get to
BRITAIN’S BIGGEST-EVER DEMO AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE on Sat Dec 3rd in London
The London Climate March will go past 10 Downing Street where a letter will
be handed in demanding that the British government reaffirm its commitment
to a climate treaty with legally binding targets, before finishing at the US
embassy where the speakers will include
Michael Meacher MP (Environment Minister 1997-2003)
George Monbiot
Norman Baker MP (Lib-Dem Shadow Environment Minister)
Caroline Lucas MEP (Green Party)
Plus Fazlun Khalid from IFEES (Islamic Foundation for Ecology and the
Environmental Sciences), Ruth Jarman from Christian Ecology Link, Peter
Bunyard science editor from the Ecologist, Nick Rau from Friends of the
Earth and a speaker from Rising tide.
More details http://www.campaigncc.org
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0312.txt&search=s.www
“BRITAIN’S BIGGEST-EVER DEMO AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE”
King canute has already signed up!
Belief has nothing to do with it. He is either right or wrong, and increasingly the observed evidence is against him. Jones is not an honest scientist. He is a political scientist doing his best to drive the agenda forward. Future generations will read your posts and come to understand how self delusion illustrates itself.
And I keep telling them that the models don’t work and to look at the real data but they won’t listen.
I actually read somewhere that the global warming thing is a cyclical event that happens every so-and-so millions of years, which actually explains a lot of geological events.
Personally I do not think that we are the cause for global warming, just a catalyst. The whole theory might have sprouted off a scientist making a few experiments that somehow got blown to bigger proportions.
I am not a scientist and I do care about Earth a great deal, I will try and do anything to take better care of our home, but I really don’t think that we are causing global warming.
A Lovell says:
November 30, 2011 at 12:47 pm
The previous release of emails contains this little treasure from Phil Jones in 2005.
: “As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.”
These people have brainwashed themselves. The term “climate change, for CAGW is in itself intensley political. If CAGW does not happen if will not prove the science “right” as science is never “wrong’ it only indicates something, via the scientific method, until further facts and observations, via the scientific method, show otherwise. Science, currently shows that the polotics of CAGW are very wrong.
I would think that someone predicting, acurately, long range temperature trends would not only solidify their reputation, but gain support for their theories on what the future holds. If there is to be a 10 year hiatus, and you predicted it, celebrate it! But to fear the truth is illogical, and shows an adherance to a religious faith instead of any type of scientific endeavor.