First widespread snow of winter on its way

Getting the forecast details for next week will be real challenge: nothing new there then! It makes a change for the east side of the country to get some snow.



Interestingly, most of the independent weather sites have been predicting a cold spell during February and depending on how you read the predictions, most seem to be more than reasonably accurate.



Just for the record, I won't be joining in discusions that are packed full of technical data unless someone is willing to post something the majority can understand.

If you believe in global warning ignore this alert, but go out at your own risk tomorrow. But then again doesn't snow proof that the world is becoming a warmer place, if you believe that you have been watching too much of "Day after tomorrow"

Thanks Paul, think that might change family plans for Sunday lunch in the Peak District! Make that call Sunday am.



Have fun next week! What we get. we get.

#2. - Sheffield_city wrote:

"If you believe in global warning ignore this alert, but go out at your own risk tomorrow. But then again doesn't snow proof that the world is becoming a warmer place, if you believe that you have been watching too much of "Day after tomorrow""

Of course, all of this cold weather is obviously the result of "climage chaos" caused by "global warming". :-)

Quaesoveritas. I hope that is your tongue in cheek sense of humour, rather than waht you really believe. Enjoy the snow over the weekend.

Snow on its way - but in the east FOR A CHANGE - really Paul H - I don't think so! The east tends to be snowier, surely. It certainly will be if the wind swings into the north or east. Notice there are some pretty powerful looking depressions out in the Atlantic - aswell as the continental cold. Perhaps this pattern will repeat itself? But it seems "winter will have another flight" for sure. Groundhogs- go back to bed!



Mr Bluesky #1 So independant forecasters have predicted cold in Feb have they? Well there's a pretty safe bet! As for being "reasonably accurate": have you been asleep for the last 5 months? Rarely has there been such a clear demonstration of their abject inability to forecast accurately as this last autumn/winter. Yet, already we have someone who seems to have forgotten this (-20c in October /November anyone?).



How do independents get away with it? : QED.

Yes I did forget about the -20c. I have had a sleep since then.

It could be that the independents get away with their long range predictions because the methods they use are better than the ones the Met office use.



Anyway, back to the snow event on Saturday: I am looking forward to seeing the white stuff and later on next week, more snow is predicted! Great!!

On a brighter note, NASA have said that this year should be a good one for Aurora activity. Hopefully, I will get to finally see this wonderful event whilst on holiday in the outer hebrides.



Of course that depends on having clear skies but as this summers forecast is for lots of sunny, dry and hot weather so there should be a good chance.



And by the way, the prevailing weather comes from the west so here in the east, snow isn't as common as you think jkiller56.

#5. - Sheffield_city wrote:

"Quaesoveritas. I hope that is your tongue in cheek sense of humour, rather than waht you really believe. Enjoy the snow over the weekend."

Yes, I tried to indicate that with a wink, but unfortunately only ended up with a smiley!

Mr Bluesky



The indies get away with it, yes.



But the MO "method" is basically to admit that LR forecasts CANNOT be accurately made (except in broad probability terms - with increasing levels of uncertainty built in): ie they do not try to dupe the public with pseudoscience and "concrete"/dramatic statements that can have no basis in fact. This may not satisfy public demand for predictions - but it is honest (as well as true!).

jkiller56



I agree, but didn't the met office stop doing long range forecasts after the infamous barbecue summer fiasco whilst at the same time, some of the independents were saying the opposite?



I look at a dozen different weather sites including the met office and take a broad view of them all, looking for similarities in predictions.



I do think that in time, more credence will be given to one or two of the independent forecasting sites as science will inevitably prove that there methods are correct. That is not to say that the met offices methods are incorrect, just that they need to be open to change.



Anyway, bring on the snow and loads of it!!

From previous:_



"And yet not one single result has been overturned or even called into question as a result of the revelation of these emails........... NOT ONE!!!”



2009 ClimateGate email



Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip. I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip". [Tom Wigley, to Phil Jones and Ben Santer]"



"And yet not one single result has been overturned or even called into question as a result of the revelation of these emails........... NOT ONE!!!”



No need to the result had already been "overturned"

QuaesoVeritas I like the smile :-).

greensand @ #12



Here we go again........! This shows just how easy it is to mislead people with an extract from a conversation given without its full context.



It's a shame that you still didn't post all of the email. In fact, this was for a report being written for the Electric Power Research Institute. It was NOT, as you have presented it here, describing an attempt to fiddle the temperature record. The following article describes the problem Wigley was discussing:



https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/of-buckets-and-blogs/



You may note if you read carefully that the adjustments were actually to remove a WARMING bias in the SST trend.



Paul

Can somebody explain to me, why when industrial production went through the roof after the 2nd world warm, the temperature of the earth dropped? We also had snow on the ground for months, once it it fell in February 1947, that could happen this year. If the weather is bright and sunny on Candlemass, it says this could set in cold weather for a while. Happy ground hog day.

#11. - Mr-Bluesky wrote:

"I do think that in time, more credence will be given to one or two of the independent forecasting sites as science will inevitably prove that there methods are correct. That is not to say that the met offices methods are incorrect, just that they need to be open to change."



If any of them are still in existence, and haven't closed, like Positive Weather Solutions, who used to be all over the t.v., claiming better accuracy than the M.O.

Mr Bluesky and weather forecast watchers.

My Holly bush forecast has proven remarkably accurate so far. Evidence for this is posted below as timed and dated posts on earlier threads. Just got the soaking wet spring to go and then we're home and dry (or should that be wet).



Gales continue to batter Britain 2:02pm on 09 Jan 2012

Holly bush update: still showing a few berries.

Interpretation: continued mild UK January temps with a risk of brief cold snap from 30th Jan - 15th Feb. Soaking wet end of Winter/Early spring thereafter.

The Holly Bush has spoken.



UAH Satellite global temperature update 11:27am on 20 Dec 2011

Note to all who showed an interest in my garden Holly Bush a few weeks ago. It appears that it's 'predictions' for a mild winter have been borne out so far - indeed, I suspect that it has out forecast many of the professionals! So, in respect of its success so far, I can report that it still bears the sign of the berry, which I contrive to interpret as an indication of a generally mild January for the UK.




A stormy end to November
11:50am on 28 Nov 2011


possibly of interest to jkiller . . . since quite a few people are throwing their hats into the ring regarding winter forecasts I shall offer the following observation, which may be completely stupid, but there you go. Seven years ago I cut holly and berries from a mature tree in my garden - at the start of December to use as decoration. I did this a for few years in a row in what I remember as relatively mild Lincolnshire winters. Over the last 2 or 3 years, this has not been possible, because all of the berries had gone by the start of November. I remember these as relatively cold winters. I notice this year that the berries are still around. What, if anything could we deduce from that? Okay - probably not much since it's just one observation from one tree in one garden, but I rather like the idea that my Holly bush could be used as a reliable winter forecaster. Can't fare much worse than anyone else at the moment.

What say you - pure coincidence or something to do with birds, annual rainfall or temperatures?


Well young Mr Hudson - you should know that forecasting in these situations is not really that taxing!!



Once its cold you just forecast cold until it changes - that way you only get it wrong the once!!!

@ PB,



Yet again the thread is shut before i can respond.



Yet again you shift the discussion.



It's infuriating trying to discuss these points with you as you constantly miss the point i'm raising and then go on a diatribe about something tangentally related.



You misrepresnt the situation and actually contradict yourself in the process. You are aware of how many times you contricted yourself in those last few posts right? It's a staggering level of logical blindness, i can only take my hat off to you.



I give you direct examples of when you are wrong- go to great length to explain that i'm not applying an example to a certian situation, then you use a full post attacking me for that position.



I find it incredibly worrying that you claim to be an experienced scientist paul. I really do.



Short of getting the crayons out, i'm not sure what else to do with you Paul.

@14. Paul Briscoe



Paul, many thanks for responding and linking to the “Of buckets and blogs” - gavin @ 1 June 2008. I had read it quite awhile back and it was good to revisit.



It relates to the problem of the differing thermodynamic properties of buckets and the “transition” (if it could be called that) into engine inlet recordings and the work required to “blend” any perceived bias out.



The resultant change in HadSST2 is clearly shown in the chart headed “Colocated Anomalies” also shown in Rayner 2006, which is used to produce HadSST2 anomalies.



So I am not clear why Wigley is still trying to resolve this “problem” in Sept 2009? Are you sure he is not talking about a different problem?



I don’t understand your point about this just being for a report to Electric Power Research Institute? I am sure that you are not saying that it is OK to show different numbers to differing entities?



Also as it was for a report being written for the Electric Power Research Institute why is there a need to remove “the blip”, why not just show it and notate it?



"You may note if you read carefully that the adjustments were actually to remove a WARMING bias in the SST trend."



It is of no concern whether it is a warming or cooling bias, if it is there why not show it!



A long time ago an old mentor very dramatically pointed out to me “Data is not capable of bias, only humans do bias.” The dramtaic bit is not allowed on this blog but it involved questioning my parentage and mental capability. Come to think of it he really was quite astute.



And yes I am biased, I know it, I recognise that it sometimes has an effect on my interpretations so I have to work very hard to limit them, especially with regard to this overly emotive subject. The way I do this is to try to stay with actual observational data hence I get "touchy" at any hint of data being interpreted as having a bias. Because whoever it is that reads a bias into the data has to work very hard to remain impartial.

Well Mr Hudson I have not been around for bit - too busy elsewhere, but I see you still have the people who have not spotted it isn't warming any more - well they're pushing the "press handouts" from CAGW central and ignoring the evidence.



I said a year ago that many were developing an exit strategy from AGW and it is more apparent as every day goes by now, especially as the world is finding it has loads of energy (gas & Oil) in the shale - several centuries in some places. They only have to find a way of keeping the funding going as they exit - the current swerve is to admit the models are not working that well and the uncertainties are larger than we thought, so we need even more money to develop better ones. Oh! of course the ones we already have are so good that we are certain you need to spend huge amounts of money to avoid catastrophe!!!



AGW forecasts never right, but never in doubt. These people have no shame.



We now have 7000 ClimateGate emails - all of which are taken completely out of context of course, like the one that "greensand" quoted above - neatly countered by Paul Briscoe, using his crib-sheet handout of excuses from CAGW central. Have you actually read any of the emails Paul B?



How out of context is this



https://www.real-science.com/new-giss-data-set-heating-arctic



Q&A with the Icelandic Met Service



a) Were the Iceland Met Office aware that these adjustments are being made?

No we were not aware of this.

b) Has the Met Office been advised of the reasons for them?

No, but we are asking for the reasons

c) Does the Met Office accept that their own temperature data is in error, and that the corrections applied by GHCN are both valid and of the correct value? If so, why?

The GHCN “corrections” are grossly in error in the case of Reykjavik but not quite as bad for the other stations. But we will have a better look. We do not accept these “corrections”.

d) Does the Met Office intend to modify their own temperature records in line with GHCN?

No.





If the data doesn't agree with your story - change the data.



No doubt there will be a crib-sheet excuse about suspicious data - which is any data that doesn't fit the AGW hypothesis. We can't let history get in the way of a good alarmist story - warmest year etc. etc. The newspaper articles shown in the link tell all.



All taken completely out of context of course.

It is now snowing in S25, which is 20 minutes before the predicted time of 3pm.

Greensand said . . .

"A long time ago an old mentor very dramatically pointed out to me “Data is not capable of bias, only humans do bias.” The dramtaic bit is not allowed on this blog but it involved questioning my parentage and mental capability."



Ah, so this is what the SB law is - I've been wondering what that was about.



(please take in good spirit!)

greensand @ #20



"So I am not clear why Wigley is still trying to resolve this “problem” in Sept 2009? Are you sure he is not talking about a different problem?"



Only Wigley himself is capable of answering that, although he was obviously discussing in relation to writing a report. Given that he wasn't the one who had done the original work on the adjustment, perhaps he was simply trying to clarify things in his own mind.



There's no question that he was talking about the issue covered in the article I linked to, as Wigley stated in his submission to the CCE review:



"The key phrase here seems to be ... "if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC…"



This is just shorthand for ...



"if, when the correction to the SSTs due to the change in instrumentation identified by Thompson et al. (Nature, 2008) is applied, and if this correction were, say, 0.15 degC ...""



Paul

Feetinthesnow @ #21



I have no intention of getting dragged into yet another pointless "debate" about the real meaning of stolen emails.



I have shown above just how easy it is for a perfectly innocent private discussion between scientists, covering topics only they understand the full significance of, to be taken out of context to suggest malpractice.



Only the scientists themselves know the full context of the discussions. Sadly, though, it seems that you would prefer to accept the interpretation fed to you by "sceptics" committed to discrediting the science. Well there's a surprise!



Paul

Paul Briscoe. It is time to go on holiday, because you will never proof something that is untrue. However I would leave it a few days, until the snow clears. Your credibility is being damaged, the more you argue that man made global warming is true. Aside to yourself. I was glad to see that the Brazilian government is fighting back against destruction of the amazon forest, which is far more important than reducing C02. Any decent business will wish to reduce their energy consumption, to make more profits. Reducing real pollution is a benefit to us all and any responsible business will go out of their way to achieve, they don't need taxing to do it.

Paul, I must be missing something (not an unusual occurance):-



Thompson et al. (Nature, 2008)



https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7195/abs/nature06982.html



"Here we call attention to a previously overlooked discontinuity in the record at 1945, which is a prominent feature of the cooling trend in the mid-twentieth century. The discontinuity is evident in published versions of the global-mean temperature time series1, but stands out more clearly after the data are filtered for the effects of internal climate variability."



"We argue that the abrupt temperature drop of approx ~0.3 °C in 1945 is the apparent result of uncorrected instrumental biases in the sea surface temperature record. Corrections for the discontinuity are expected to alter the character of mid-twentieth century temperature variability but not estimates of the century-long trend in global-mean temperatures."



So Thompson is trying to correct a cooling "bias"?



Yet Wigley:-



"Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip."



Must admit I have not read the full Thompson paper, will see what I can do and will re-read the Wigley email string, if I can find it again.

LabMunkey @ #19



This post is just a collection of uncorroborated assertions and opinions from a blogger with NOTHING of real substance to add to the "debate".



You talk of me shifting the goalposts, yet I would remind you that was I, not you, who provided links to clarify and back up what I was saying. Your posts are simply a case of "LabMunkey states so it must be so"! Then, rather than actually comment on my carefully argued points, you simply accuse me of not addressing your assertions. I'm entirely comfortable with my responses to you. I think they speak for themselves, whilst the lack of substance in yours also speaks for itself.



Real scientists base their conclusions not only on the evidence supporting a theory, but also on the evidence (or lack of it!) for other mechanisms. So if you were truly objective, you would be concerned by the lack of evidence that actually contradicts the IPCC's findings. The fact that you are not tells me all I need to know about you.



By all means keep on reinforcing your own misconceptions if you want, LabMunkey, but the moment you demanded PROOF of "cAGW" you betrayed both your bias and how little you know about the way science works in the real World.



Paul

greensand @ #27



There are actually 2 separate issues under discussion here. First there is the exisiting adjustment to SST's described by Folland and Parker (1995) which corrected a warming bias (see the first graph in the Realclimate article). The much more recent Thompson paper appears to have identified another "blip" which conicides with the end of World War II and represents a cooling bias.



Both are clearly relevant, though I have no idea what role (if any!) Wigley had in any of this.



Paul

@29 Paul Briscoe



"There are actually 2 separate issues under discussion here. First there is the exisiting adjustment to SST's described by Folland and Parker (1995) which corrected a warming bias (see the first graph in the Realclimate article). The much more recent Thompson paper appears to have identified another "blip" which conicides with the end of World War II and represents a cooling bias."



Well, three really with Rayner 2006 et al in the middle.



But enough, I don't normally "do the emails" they are usually outside my scope of interest which I try to keep to actual observational data.



I think the only conclusion we can draw is that we don't know why Wigley thought there was a need to remove a "blip" in SSTs. Maybe one day we will be privileged to receive an explanation?



Paul thanks for your contribution and I do mean that, especially reminding me of “Of buckets and blogs”.



So onward and upward we go? Maybe not for awhile its a few inches thick outside. My Sunday lunch in the Peak District is looking decidedly “ iffy”.

Its snowing heavily here on the east coast: great isn't it?



I don't know much about global warming but from what I have read over the past few years, it seems that the earth is going through a natural cycle which could be the reason for 'global warming'/'global cooling'. I do think that the relentless emissions pumped out around the world are contributing somehow to the warming or cooling (depends on your point of view) cycle the earth is currently undergoing.



Heres a question for all you quasi-global warming climatologists/pseudo-scientists that frequent this blog:



When the massive earthquake that caused the tsunami in Indonesia happened and the earth was shifted slightly off its axis (allegedly), has this shift had any effect on the current thinking around global warming/cooling?



Just interested.

alleged by whom?

@23. lateintheday wrote:



"(please take in good spirit!)"



No worries "late"!



Have fun!



and yes it was the SB Law, he however called it a rule. But he did not use it as a rule, for that purpose he brandished a 2' metal rule which he was a bit too keen on using.

It was widely reported in the media: apparently, the earthquake caused the earth to wobble, shifting it slightly off its axis. It was also reported by Nasa that the Japan earthquake had the same effect.



I found this quote on the wonderful web:



"The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami did not do anything to the Earth's axis.



But the earthquake that caused the tsunami did. The shift of mass and the massive release of energy during the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake (not the tsunami) very slightly altered the Earth's rotation.

Theoretical models suggest the earthquake shortened the length of a day by 2.68 microseconds due to a decrease in the oblateness of the Earth.

It also caused the Earth to minutely "wobble" on its axis by up to 2.5 cm (1 in) in the direction of 145° east longitude.



However, because of tidal effects of the Moon the length of a day increases at an average of 15 microseconds per year, so any rotational change due to the earthquake will be lost quickly.

Similarly, the natural Chandler wobble of the Earth, which in some cases can be up to 15 m (50 ft), will eventually offset the minor wobble produced by the earthquake.



So blaming global warming on a 1 inch shift by an earthquake is really hunting to find something else to blame, rather than us taking responsibility for the consequences of decades of fossil-fuel burning and deforestation."



It seems the question has been asked before.....



Anyway, spring will be starting the same way that February will be ending.

This March is going to be a very cold one with widespread snow and some severe gales towards the end of the month.



(Forecast from me looking at weather records from the past 20 yrs and taking into account an almanac I was looking at the other day).

LabMunkey wrote:



"Yet again the thread is shut before i can respond."



It is frustrating and has happened on occasion to me too. If you are really interested in having a debate on climate issues somewhere that doesn't close after a set time I invite you to use my blogs. I can set up a separate thread, just give me a topic for a title and invite whoever, and you can hammer out these issues. It will be interesting to see where it goes.

For anyone interested in the Icelandic Met Office issue Feetinthesnow mentions, see:

https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2012/01/reykjavik-and-ghcn-adjustments.html

The people who still believe in Global warming by man, remind me of "general Custer at the battle of the little big horn" and we all know what happened there. Quality not quantity of facts are the answer. The new Tata air car will make a big dent in real pollution, along with many other new solutions. How much C02 do humans produce as a species, you are very off the track with your theory.

Bloody hell! We've got two feet of snow here!



https://t.co/Tdy8WPGY ;)

We had about four inch in S25, which will give people a chance to get used to it. The main roads are clear. I can imagine that more will come when it is ready. My friend in Iowa was expecting a foot last night.

4 inches? I hope your new snow resistant roof stood up to these exceptional snow levels.

millenia - love the photo. Most unexpected!

Not a drop of snow has reached eastern Northern Ireland as yet. We appear to be under the influence of the warmer Atlantic front.



Sheffield City: good to see 'global warming' has been cancelled by 4'' snow in Sheffield - in February.

John thanks for your concerns, my new roof could take up to three or four feet before I would be concerned. I thinking of selling snow rakes for roofs. Newdwr54. Last year when we had a foot and half of snow, people said we were only a small part of the world. The snow we had last year has fallen over most of Europe this year. It is funny that we didn't have snow for 10 to 15 years and now it is becoming more normal again, I would say that is down to God turning down the temperature of the sun. You will be all able to hide in snow drifts, rather than face the ridicule that will come your way, for trying to hide the truth, as winters get worse.

P.S. John Cogger. Remember this is the first wave, remember last year.

Sea near Sandbanks freezes over in Dorset cold snap

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-16889200



That's something that we don't normally get!

@43 Sheffield_city



I think you are mistaking 2010 for 2011. The heavy snow was in 2010. 2011 had little in the way of snow events.

You know, if this Mann Made Global Warming (tm) gets any worse Im going to have to buy a new snow shovel! :)



Labmonkey said "Short of getting the crayons out, i'm not sure what else to do with you Paul."



You are right...it is worrying that a, supposed, scientists can be so blind...but we have been down this road with Paul many times. Then again, to retain ones belief in the religion of Mann Made Global Warming (tm) one HAS to completely ignore climategate 1 and 2 and everything those two events highlighted that is so wrong with climate science. Heck, they even trot out the discredited sites such as realclimate (run by the very people at the centre of the problem of Mann Made Global Warming (tm)) and skepticalscience (who are anything BUT skeptical about Mann Made Global Warming (tm)) to reinforce their religious beliefs.



Regards



Mailman

Quake@36,



Sorry, Im still none the wiser...why did they arbitrarily lower past temperatures while not touching present temperatures? How come every single change ever made is always in one direction...cooling the past?



Regards



Mailman

Mailman @ #48



"How come every single change ever made is always in one direction...cooling the past?"



You are incorrect. The following article explains why and gives quite a lot of examples of where the adjustment is the other way:



https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2009/12/darwin-and-ghcn-adjustments-willis.html



"...why did they arbitrarily lower past temperatures while not touching present temperatures?"



It isn't arbitrary. When you are making an adjustment, it make sense to apply it to the older data rather than having to adjust all of the more recent data, including new data as it comes in.



Paul

John_cogger. If you want to nit pick, last winter, which it was

Nit pick maybe, but much better to rely on facts rather then anecdotes.

@lazarus # 35. Agreed. I'm game if you are, it's certainly be easier to keep track of who said what too.



@ my old friend, pb.



Paul, you've done nothing of the sort.



In your head, I'm sure your arguments come across as well written and thought out, I'm afraid to myself (and I hope others) its all rather transparent.



A reminder, I've been trying to dissuade you from relying in 'authority' to support your arguments. I've demonstrated that it's a flawed premise, especially in science and given you a direct and recent example of when the authority was wrong (and guilty of data suppression).



Now the really amusing thing about this whole argument we're having is that it's an absolute none-point. You admitting that the consensus means nothing, scientifically, does not actually weaken your position. I for one, although I discount completely your assertion that the number of people saying one thing makes it more true, do not think that the removal of this consensus affects the argument one jott.



....

... Cont.



Its this absolute refusal to even consider that the consensus and by extension, those you have invested so much in intellectually, could be wrong that betrays your motives.



It's a non-point, but you can't even see it.



As for your other points, I've provided no evidence as these are abstract points; scientific consensus and the use of a null hypothesis.



You want to discuss anything technical, go ahead I'm more than cspable of supporting my arguments in a scientific wAy- I do it every day after all.



It was just your pontification on the 'climate pscience' standard of work that I had to comment on. It's certainly not what I recognise as science.



I invite you to take Lazarus up on his offer too. I'm sure we could agree on a format and stop hijacking this thread.

Lateintheday # 17



Nice of you to give me another plug, but haven't we had this conversation about the holly bush before (seems to be a trait in you sceptics -or are you getting bored of an evening?)? I think it was decided that the variability of berries from year to year was down to bird numbers and whether they were able to find suitable food sources : ie the colder - the more likely your berries were to be eaten.



I will however, add another little titbit to this : that a characteristic of birds is that they tend to be imitative of each other - so where one starts to feed, others quickly notice and join in. I had a small holly stripped very early this year - but there are plenty of others still untouched.



To others:

This EMAIL lark :



The proof in the pudding is surely that the whole squalid affair seems to have gone quiet and completely run out of steam. Despite being hailed as part of "the greatest scientific scandal of our age" - only those with a vindictive and determinedly predjudiced turn of mind are still taking it seriously.



It is a near feeble minded re run of the same trick played and found groundless last time! The truth is that it says far more about the desperation and duplicitousness of the accusers than it ever can about either climate scientists or climate science.



Those of you who think it sensible to rely on the testimony (no,too noble a word - more like "innuendo") of criminal hackers, rather than the scientists only demonstrate the depth of your own gullibility, the weakness of the sceptic position in general and even an irrational craving to support anything that might discredit AGW science, no matter the cost to credibility or integrity.

LabMunkey @ #52



Yet again you are attempting to put words in my mouth. Why would you do that if you had anything of value to say?



For the record, I said:



"Consensus in science does NOT mean nothing - it means that the overwhelming majority of scientists find a particular body of scientific evidence convincing, especially in the absence of other credible explanations. Also, the fact that consensus can sometimes be overturned is NOT evidence that every consensus is wrong - ie. your argument is a logical fallacy."



I also said:



"I would agree that a scientific consensus doesn't prove that a theory is correct. However, it does tend to mean that the theory provides the most credible explanation for observations, ESPECIALLY IN THE ABSENCE OF ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS."



So I actually said the OPPOSITE of what you're claiming.



Perhaps you see my point that a consensus does not represent proof of the theory as being an admission that you are correct? Absolutely not, because, as I have been at pains to point out, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PROOF IN THIS TYPE OF SCIENCE:



https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof



"The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes."



https://digipac.ca/chemical/proof/index.htm



"We don't prove theories (and hypotheses) true. We just use the observations to convince ourselves (and others) that we have a good idea. Scientists have a lot of confidence in scientific theories, because they know there is a lot of evidence to back them up."



Paul

LabMunkey @ #53



"Its this absolute refusal to even consider that the consensus and by extension, those you have invested so much in intellectually, could be wrong that betrays your motives."



What did I say in the previous thread?:



"I would agree that a scientific consensus doesn't prove that a theory is correct. However, it does tend to mean that the theory provides the most credible explanation for observations, ESPECIALLY IN THE ABSENCE OF ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS."



So where, exactly, did I suggest that the consensus couldn't be wrong? However, which is more likely - that experts in the field and the major science academies are correct or that you and other bloggers are correct? Who is better qualified to judge the evidence?



I couldn't have been much clearer, LabMunkey, so please stop this nonsense!



I have also found an excellent blog post which explains most of the points I've been trying to elucidate. It explains very clearly the difference between your lab-based science and climate science - the latter has far more in common with my own research field:



https://bridgetfm.blogspot.com/2010/08/proof-of-climate-change.html



I may take Lazarus up on his offer of doing a guest post at some point, but I'm certainly not going to waste my time arguing with someone who consistently misrepresents what I have said!



Paul

“So I actually said the OPPOSITE of what you're claiming. “



Well yes and no Paul. You did in fact say “I would agree that a scientific consensus doesn't prove that a theory is correct. However, it does tend to mean that the theory provides the most credible explanation for observations, ESPECIALLY IN THE ABSENCE OF ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS.”



But then you completely undermined your point by doing a complete about-face and said this:



“The problem you have to face up to is that it is almost inconceivable that all of the World's leading scientific academies would have endorsed the science as presented by the IPCC if you, an amateur blogger, were correct”



Which is as I have gone at great lengths to show you Paul, demonstrably false. They Have been wrong before, they have subverted science and blocked research before, it CAN happen again (though again, I’m not saying that this is the case this time- just showing the possibility undermines your position).



You may claim I’m misrepresenting your position, but for every statement where you accede to my (correct) claim, you then add a paragraph or two completely backtracking and justifying your belief in the high church. I am NOT misrepresenting your position Paul, I’ve got it pegged pretty good actually.



You see, you fully accept that consensus means nothing, except in the case of climate science where the overwhelming majority (highly debatable) of climate scientists agree with you, Which you then use to bolster your argument.



How can you not see that?



“Perhaps you see my point that a consensus does not represent proof of the theory as being an admission that you are correct? Absolutely not, because, as I have been at pains to point out, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PROOF IN THIS TYPE OF SCIENCE:”



Well, no, as I went out of my way to explicitly state that this was not the case:

“You admitting that the consensus means nothing, scientifically, does not actually weaken your position. I for one, although I discount completely your assertion that the number of people saying one thing makes it more true, do not think that the removal of this consensus affects the argument one jot”



Which goes to nicely prove another point of mine- you don’t respond to my posts only to my position- i.e. the other side to you. If you actually look at this paul, I’m arguing a very narrow point which in no way affects the science- I’m amazed you can’t s

LabMunkey wrote:



"@lazarus # 35. Agreed. I'm game if you are, it's certainly be easier to keep track of who said what too"



I have set up a link page here;

https://reallysciency.blogspot.com/p/debates.html



With a direct link to your debate here;

https://reallysciency.blogspot.com/2012/02/first-debate.html



You can summarise the issues so far or at least copy your last post from here as a comment to get it all working.



Looking forward to following and perhaps joining in.

as for that blog... are you serious??????!

BLAST!!! Laz- i meant the blog PB linked not yours!!! LOL.

As a non-scientist, unfamiliar with the routine practices of peer review I found this link very surprising. I'd be interested to know if this is an accurate reflection of how peer review works in other science fields and if so, how it is justified. Please note that although this link includes reference to Phil Jones (and emails), it's the generality I'm interested in rather than any targeted Phil Jones bashing.



https://hro001.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/phil-jones-keeps-peer-review-process-humming-by-using-intuition/



jkiller - yes, those were simply copies of earlier posts and yes, from memory both yourself and newdwr54 had some very credible explanations for the Holly bush observation. Purely out of interest, I'm looking to see how well the 'holly bush predictions' fare. So far, I'd say they've done very well indeed. For those of us without a science background, I think it may help to get a better understanding (maybe just a better gut feel) of chance/probability.

LabMunkey @ #57



Oh I see! Now you say I'm contradicting myself because YOUR uncorroborated assertion is correct! That's another logical fallacy. I disagree with your assertion and simply point you back to jkiller's post at #54 - I couldn't have said it better myself!



"you fully accept that consensus means nothing"



NO I DO NOT! A theory is based on evidence and qualified scientists accept that theory if the available evidence supports it - it's as simple as that. So if the scientific community reach consensus it indicates that your assertion, that the evidence is not sufficient to justify this, is likely to be wrong.



The problem with your argument is that for "cAGW", the IPCC's position is the ONLY credible explanation, which is why the consensus is so strong. So the argument that the consensus MIGHT be wrong is just plain silly........ and your approach of simply trying to rubbish the science whilst making no attempt to propose credible alternatives makes your agenda VERY clear.



"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PROOF IN THIS TYPE OF SCIENCE" You now say:



"Well, no, as I went out of my way to explicitly state that this was not the case:"



........ except you did not "explicitly state" what you're now claiming. Meanwhile, on the last thread, in response to this statement from me:



"The implication was that there is an onus on scientists to PROVE the theory.......”



...... you responded:



"I’m not entirely sure how this fits into your argument, as it’s the basic tenant of all science. I’m guessing you typed it quickly and didn’t fully form the sentence correctly- so I won’t comment on the implied absurdity."



No LabMunkey, EVIDENCE is the basic tenant of all science. So which LabMunkey do we now believe? The one who clearly stated that proof is the basic tenant of all science, or the one that now says it isn't?!



It strikes me that you are using the same tactics Christopher Monckton uses when his arguments are found wanting:



https://skepticalscience.com/the-monckton-maneuver.html



"Which goes to nicely prove another point of mine- you don’t respond to my posts only to my position...."



Too many kettles and pots, LabMunkey!



Paul

Paul



"Oh I see! Now you say I'm contradicting myself because YOUR uncorroborated assertion is correct!"



I presume you're reffering to my repeated example of the stomach ulcer debacle that showed that a majority consensus can not only be wrong- but deliberatley subvert research?



This is a reasonably well know case, so if you want to corroborate it just google mate.



"The problem with your argument is that for "cAGW", the IPCC's position is the ONLY credible explanation"



Which is exactly the position put forward by the stomach ulcer consensus.



"So the argument that the consensus MIGHT be wrong is just plain silly........ and your approach of simply trying to rubbish the science whilst making no attempt to propose credible alternatives makes your agenda VERY clear."



No, it's a valid argument but again Paul, i am NOT using this as a way to discredit the science. I have been crystal clear on this. This is a side point of order as it were, nothing more.



""THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PROOF IN THIS TYPE OF SCIENCE" You now say:



"Well, no, as I went out of my way to explicitly state that this was not the case:"



........ except you did not "explicitly state" what you're now claiming. Meanwhile, on the last thread, in response to this statement from me:"



I don't follow this section at all- sorry. Could you re-pose it as a question?



"No LabMunkey, EVIDENCE is the basic tenant of all science. So which LabMunkey do we now believe? The one who clearly stated that proof is the basic tenant of all science, or the one that now says it isn't?!"



Again the preceeding section doesn't quite make sense, but i'm assuming that you're talking about the nature of challenging a theory- i.e. that those trying to disprove don't need to offer an alternative- only prove that the current is not possible.



If so then you're either taking my comments out of context in an attempt to portray a position i don't hold or far more likely- you're not actually reading what i post.



I invite you over to laz's blog (on his behalf natch). He's already got the ball rolling.

Paul@49,



Your link doesn't have anything in it that explains why all adjustments of past temperatures are always down...sort of like why all IPCC errors are always in one direction (making things seem Warner than they are).



Mailman

LabMunkey @ #63



Regarding scientific consensus, we're going around in circles here. I was under the impression you were claiming that climate scientists had deliberately subverted research. Even so, for your stomach ulcers example, I can counter with MMR. I can also point out that there is strong consensus in favour of the Theory of Evolution despite there still being considerable uncertainties over some elements of it.



I can also pose the same question Sir Paul Nurse did to James Delingpole:



Say you're seriously ill and the overwhelming majority of medical experts recommend a particular course of treatment as giving you the best chances of survival. Does this consensus mean NOTHING? Would you really turn against it in favour of the recommendations of a quack? Of course, the treatment the experts recommend is simply the best based on available evidence. This does not mean it will remain the best treatment for ever, but you'd still be foolish to ignore it in the here and now!



Is it not just as likely that pressure groups that don't like a particular consensus might try to skew the science in their direction? There's an obvious precedent for this too - from the tobacco lobby........ and the same think tanks which did their dirty work are now arguing against AGW!!



"Again the preceeding section doesn't quite make sense, but i'm assuming that you're talking about the nature of challenging a theory- i.e. that those trying to disprove don't need to offer an alternative- only prove that the current is not possible."



No, it's self-explanatory. In post #57, the 2 sentences beginning "“You admitting that......" certainly do not "explicitly state" that there is no such thing as proof in this type of science.



On the previous thread at post #115, you clearly indicated that you believed the onus was on scientists to prove a theory. Indeed, you dismissed the "implied absurdity" of my claim to the contrary. The same argument is implicit in much of what you have said over recent threads. In post #115 you merely confirmed it.



As pointed out above in various links, there is no such thing as proof in science......... only evidence.



Paul

Lazarus @ #58



Thanks for your effort, but I have no interest in duplicating the debate that we're having here at present - I simply don't have time to provide comprehensive answers to the same points at 2 separate blogs at the same time, as I have work to do as well! Please feel free to transcribe some of my points yourself.



I may take you up on your offer of a guest post at some point, but given that I'm going away at the weekend, now is not a sensible time.



Paul

newdwr54 wrote on an earlier topic:



“ No I haven't done this, as I don't have the raw data. Can you point me to it?



Can you confirm whether the non tree ring data supports or contradicts the tree ring data? “



You can find the raw data here:



https://www.climateaudit.info/data/mbh99/proxy.txt



As far as I can remember only 4 of the series make any significant contribution: fenno-new (massaged Tornetrask), namer PC1 and PC2 (say no more), and Tasmania (teleconnection?).



After that I wouldn't worry about the confidence intervals.

Mailman @ #64



"Your link doesn't have anything in it that explains why all adjustments of past temperatures are always down"



That's because at the bottom of the page Nick Stokes has posted 17 examples of stations where there has been an adjustment larger than the Darwin one but in the opposite direction. In other words, your contention that "all adjustments of past temperatures are always down" is incorrect.



Paul

The RSS global anomaly has now been published:

Global = -.060c, compared to +0.114c in December

N.H. = -0.077c, compared to +0.165c in December

S.H. = -0.042c, compared to +0.064c in December.



The RSS anomalies are relative to 1979-1998 and after adjustment to 1961-90, the above figures are equivalent to +0.087c, +0.084c and +0.95c respectively.

The adjusted global and N.H. figures are lower than the equivalent UAH figures and the S.H. is about the same.

More confirmation of the likely large fall in the global HadCRUT3 figure for January.

@ 65 Paul



"Is it not just as likely that pressure groups that don't like a particular consensus might try to skew the science in their direction? "



Yes, absolutely 100%. That, in part is my whole point.



" Even so, for your stomach ulcers example, I can counter with MMR."



Again, completely my point- a consensus for, or against is meaningless



"I was under the impression you were claiming that climate scientists had deliberately subverted research"



It can be argued that some have- though the vast majority i'm reasonable confident, have not in any way and are just trying to perform science to the best of their ability.



"you clearly indicated that you believed the onus was on scientists to prove a theory."



Yes, and i stand by that- the term 'proof' was a loose phrase- provide evidence for, would be better.



"Thanks for your effort, but I have no interest in duplicating the debate that we're having here at present "



A shame- it would stop us dragging this dlog into digression so often.

newdwr54,



In the previous blog topic (comment #25), you made the following comment:



"(BTW, increased winter precipitation (snow) is a specific projection of increased warming.)"



I don't know if you were serious, or joking, but there were a number of responses suggesting that the forecasts were for more precipitation, but less snow.



Did you have a source for your claim that the projections were that there would be more snow due to warming?



I am not asking this in an attempt to prove you wrong, but I am genuinely interested to know if there have been such projections.

67. RobWansbeck wrote:



"As far as I can remember only 4 of the series make any significant contribution: fenno-new (massaged Tornetrask), namer PC1 and PC2 (say no more), and Tasmania (teleconnection?)."

___________________



'fenno-new' seems to show a strong warming trend averaged over the last century, but a strong cooling trend over the last 50 years. PC1 shows strong cooling over those periods; whereas PC2 is similar to fenno-new. Tasmania is fairly flat over the last 100 years but rises over the last 50.



I don't even know what these represent, to be honest. Surely the point of the 'Mann graph' was the comparison of these proxy data with the instrument record?

71. QuaesoVeritas wrote:



"In the previous blog topic (comment #25), you made the following comment:



(BTW, increased winter precipitation (snow) is a specific projection of increased warming.)



I don't know if you were serious, or joking, but there were a number of responses suggesting that the forecasts were for more precipitation, but less snow.



Did you have a source for your claim that the projections were that there would be more snow due to warming?]

____________________________________



Sorry, I didn't see those comments.



Yes, that was badly put. What I should have said was that extreme snowfall *events* are a specific projection of global warming. In their 2009 CO2 endangerment warning, the US EPA said that extreme winter precipitation "events" were a likely outcome of increased warming. Admittedly they were referring to the USA, but the general principal remains the same.



When relatively warm, moist air meets a cold front, such as is happening now in dramatic fashion across the British Isles, the result is precipitation as snow. For instance, tonight in N Ireland it is around +5.5C (according to my garden thermometer). There is no chill in the air whatsoever. Temperatures are well above average for February. As I understand it a few short miles away 'East Britons', such as yourself, are under the cosh of the 'Beast from the East'?



All of that snow that fell came from the warm, moist air that is coming off the Atlantic weather systems. Otherwise there wouldn't have been any snow - there would just have been dry cold air. Those Atlantic systems are dominating the Irish weather just now.



As for a source: it's a bit ragged; you'll have to scan down a bit; but this section of the EPA response to criticism of their 2009 report is the best I can find at present:



“In fact, one impact of climate change is expected to be an increase in snow cover in many areas due to increases in precipitation, which have been observed as noted above. As the TSD notes in Section 5(a): “…heavy precipitation events averaged over North America have increased over the past 50 years … consistent with the observed increases in atmospheric water vapor, which have been associated with human-induced increases in GHGs.”



https://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/petitions/volume1.html

LabMunkey @ #70



Regarding "consensus", I find it illuminating that you have totally ignored the points about evolution and Sir Paul Nurse's example and simply mentioned the ones you think you can "fit" to your "model"!



""you clearly indicated that you believed the onus was on scientists to prove a theory."

Yes, and i stand by that- the term 'proof' was a loose phrase- provide evidence for, would be better."



Now we're getting to the crux of the matter. The difference between "proof" and "evidence" couldn't be greater. In practice, all scientists can do in the case of "cAGW" is accumulate evidence, test observations against predictions (mainly with models) and reduce uncertainties...... in just the same way they did in the case of CFC's.



Whatever you may say to the contrary, it is absolutely clear that your expectations of climate scientists go WAY beyond what you can reasonably expect of them. Some of it is almost certainly down to the fact that you come from a different discipline of science and simply don't "get" the very different approach required - your silence over the articles I've linked to making this point is telling.



In practice, what you are saying is that scientists haven't yet provided enough evidence to convince YOU...... and there's the problem. Someone who doesn't WANT to accept the science can (consciously or otherwise) set the goalposts so unrealistically high as to make it IMPOSSIBLE for the scientists to provide sufficient evidence. THIS is the reason why the consensus is so important in this case: on the one hand, pretty well everyone researching the field AND major scientific academies (ie. those best qualified to judge) consider that the evidence IS sufficient; on the other hand those attacking the science, most of whom have little relevant experience, attempt to “trash” its entire basis. It is totally inconceivable that the scientific community would have got it THAT badly wrong.



Paul

@72, newdwr54 wrote:



“ … 'fenno-new' seems to show a strong warming trend averaged over the last century, but a strong cooling trend over the last 50 years. PC1 shows strong cooling over those periods; whereas PC2 is similar to fenno-new. Tasmania is fairly flat over the last 100 years but rises over the last 50.

I don't even know what these represent, to be honest. Surely the point of the 'Mann graph' was the comparison of these proxy data with the instrument record? … “



The file gives the actual proxy data which needs to be centred and normalized before being used in a reconstruction.



The 'fenno-new' suffers from the 'decline'. It is tree-ring data from Fennoscandia (Tornetrask in Sweden). It was a lot worse until Briffa adjusted the last century to give a better correlation with the instrumental record.



The 'namer' PC series are artefacts of the method used to create them. Don't worry about the orientation; some series can go up with temperature, others down. This is no problem if you screen proxies for the expected orientation but can lead to problems such as the Tiljander débâcle if you don't.

The inclusion of Tasmania in a NH reconstruction is interesting. The reason given is that large scale patterns persist across the globe yet when it comes to the MWP these same people claim that only some regions have elevated temperatures.



So for a NH reconstruction we have:



1 'adjusted' series, fenno-new.

3 mathematical artefacts, namer PCs.

4, yes 4, series from Quelccaya in the SH.

1 series from Patagonia in the SH.

1 series from Tasmania in the SH.

Which leaves us with the Urals series, with its own issues, and France, Greenland and Morocco which get lost in the mix.



I don't know what the point of the graph was but we all know how well Mann did from it.

75. RobWansbeck wrote:



"The 'fenno-new' suffers from the 'decline'. It is tree-ring data from Fennoscandia (Tornetrask in Sweden). It was a lot worse until Briffa adjusted the last century to give a better correlation with the instrumental record."



If Briffa had an input into that data set then they aren't the sets used by Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998, 1999) - the source of the 'Hockey Stick' charts. How do you substantiate your claim that the data was adjusted "o give a better correlation with the instrumental record" and not for some other, legitimate, reason.



76. RobWansbeck wrote:



"I don't know what the point of the graph was but we all know how well Mann did from it."



I don't.



Is there any evidence that Mann corrupted the evidence to personally benefit from this graph?



It seems to me that it is the 'sceptics' who have done more to publicise it (and him) than his graph does. Maybe he's so smart he planned this all along? Another conspiracy theory to be getting on with!

Paul



"Regarding "consensus", I find it illuminating that you have totally ignored the points about evolution and Sir Paul Nurse's example and simply mentioned the ones you think you can "fit" to your "model"!

"



I also find it illuminating that i countered your use of evolution as an example as the two do not fit. Not reading my posts again paul?



"Now we're getting to the crux of the matter. The difference between "proof" and "evidence" couldn't be greater."



On this i can concede- i tend to use proof as a lax term for evidence- it's a foible of mine and you're 100% right that in this context it is not correct. In future wherever i say proof i mean evidence :-/



"Whatever you may say to the contrary, it is absolutely clear that your expectations of climate scientists go WAY beyond what you can reasonably expect of them"



What like archiving their data??



" It is totally inconceivable that the scientific community would have got it THAT badly wrong"



And again we're back to this point. Paul i've shown you one, direct example of when the consensus HAS got something THAT badly wrong. How can you not connect the dots here? AGAIN i'm not saying that it disproves cAGW at all- just that it removes the validity of relying on consensus to back your position.



"In practice, what you are saying is that scientists haven't yet provided enough evidence to convince YOU...... and there's the problem"



Well no, they havent privided enough evidence to convince tens if not hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world.



As i said there are only 3 avenues of reasearch that actually support the theory- none are developed enough to put it beyond reasonable doubt.

LabMunkey @ #78



"I also find it illuminating that i countered your use of evolution as an example as the two do not fit. Not reading my posts again paul?"



I do indeed read your posts, LabMunkey. The problem is that much of what you say is just uncorroborated opinion. You are using a single example of where a consensus failed to argue that every consensus is unreliable. Yet there must be THOUSANDS of examples of consensus across science as a whole. The key message is that SCIENCE WORKS



There are actually lots of parallels between the Theory of Evolution and the matter under debate here and I have already drawn attention to these. However, the one which is most relevant to this argument is that the example you give to support your assertion that consensus means nothing is one where only the researchers themselves were really judging the evidence. In the case of evolution and climate change the public interest is such that the major academies (and MANY others) have independently assessed the evidence and found it convincing.



"What like archiving their data??"



What you perceive as bad practice has not impacted in any material way on the science. This is why I find your fixation with this and your tendency to bring it up, when we're actually discussing scientific evidence, so perplexing.



"And again we're back to this point. Paul i've shown you one, direct example of when the consensus HAS got something THAT badly wrong. How can you not connect the dots here?"



I say that's irrelevant because it is based on a logical fallacy. We rely every day on scientific consensus....... and the example from Sir Paul Nurse was an especially good example.



"Well no, they havent privided enough evidence to convince tens if not hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world."



I don't think anyone has precise figures on this..... but again I say that it is the views of the real experts that really count. Saying that so many thousand disagree ignores the fact that many of those thousands almost certainly will not be aware of, let alone have reviewed, all the evidence.



"As i said there are only 3 avenues of reasearch that actually support the theory- none are developed enough to put it beyond reasonable doubt."



This is where you start to show once again how poorly you understand the way scientists evaluate evidence. The consensus is NOT based on just 3 avenues of research. It is based primarily on confidence in empirical science. It's based on the fact that CO2 IS a greenhouse gas that D

LabMunkey (continued)



"As i said there are only 3 avenues of reasearch that actually support the theory- none are developed enough to put it beyond reasonable doubt."



This is where you start to show once again how poorly you understand the way scientists evaluate evidence. The consensus is NOT based on just 3 avenues of research. It is based primarily on confidence in empirical science. It's based on the fact that CO2 IS a greenhouse gas that DOES cause other planets to be warmer than they would otherwise be. It's based on a huge amount of evidence from the fossil record and the ice cores showing that past changes in global temperature cannot be explained without a significant warming effect from CO2. It is based on predictions which Tyndall made over 150 years ago being shown to be correct (nights warming faster than days/winters warming faster than summers). It is based on the fact that other known mechanisms cannot explain recent warming........ and all this is before we get to the computer models which you reject but which were also central to research into CFC's.



ALL of the above (and I'm sure there'll be some I've missed) support the theory........ yet you still think it's sound science to ask for "proof" and say the "null still stands" (you see, I DO read your posts VERY carefully!) without being able to offer ANY evidence that contradicts the above. It's blindingly obvious what's happening, LabMunkey...... and one day I'm sure you'll see it too!



Paul

#73. - newdwr54 wrote:

"As for a source: it's a bit ragged; you'll have to scan down a bit; but this section of the EPA response to criticism of their 2009 report is the best I can find at present:"



Thanks for the reference.

In the response, there is the following statement:

"By focusing on just one season and arbitrarily using only part of the available dataset, the Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF Graph #1) provides an incomplete analysis, which does not change or undermine projections for future declines in snow cover over North America."

and:

"The petitioner’s evidence and arguments do not show that models projecting future decreases in snow cover are flawed. In fact, observed long-term snow cover trends over both North America and the Northern Hemisphere are directionally consistent with future projections. Therefore, the information presented by the petitioner is inaccurate and does not support their claims."

So it does appear that the models do project lower snow cover (at least in N.America), and that any claims that they are incorrect is based on biased data.

However, even if this were true, I don't think it necessarily proves that the models are accurate, since if cover does fall, it may only be coincidence.

Also I think that some of the arguments used in the response to the petition are flawed, for example going back to 1967 in the case of the Rutgers GSL data, when the model projections clearly don't relate to that period. It is clear even from that data that there has been an upward trend in winter snow cover since around 2000, when the models start.

It appears that like DEFRA and the UKMO in the U.K. the U.S. EPA is engaged in a propaganda war to prove that climate change is happening, using selective use of data to prove it's case.

It appears that all variation in snowfall is due to "climate change", whether it is increasing or decreasing.

The Paul Nurse show was indeed eye opening, but not for the reasons you state Paul B.



First we learn that he simply took a NASA climate scientist's advice on the relative proportions of natural and anthropogenic CO2 emissions as read. No question - anthropogenic CO2 emissions are seven times that of natural emissions. Bet he now wishes he'd checked that out. I suspect that in his mind, perhaps like yours Paul, it is inconceivable that a leading scientist in another field is going to give him duff information. Add that to my link @61 and you'll soon see how much faith is placed in other scientists doing their job properly. This is one very good reason why the argument that "every major scientific institution etc etc" is weak, though not entirely irrelevant.



And for the record, this doesn't go anywhere near conspiracy, it's simply shows that human nature and hierarchical institutions are intrinsically poor bedfellows. Add in a bit of politics and the system is doomed to occasional catastrophic failure. The reluctance of scientific institutions to recognise these failures within the lifespan of it's most influential, senior members is evidenced by from phlogiston to plate tectonics and beyond.



The medical analogy Paul Nurse used is highly dubious. We have an entirely different relationship with our care provider than with some distant, faceless scientist. We are at our most susceptible when faced with illness or injury and rational thought goes out of the window. We tend to trust consensus medical diagnosis or treatment partly because there is nowhere else to turn, not because we necessarily believe it to be right. Case in point, your local NHS hospital says you need a potentially life-saving but dangerous operation. If money were no object, would you seek a second, third or even fourth opinion? What action would you take if, as is often the case, medical opinions differ?



At post 79 you state that Science Works. I'd say 'Science works eventually' would be equally accurate. To continue the medical analogy for one moment, the skeptics view AGW as a potential misdiagnosis, with an unlikely prognosis leading to a risk of unnecessary life threatening surgery. The consensus AGW view is that the diagnosis is sound, the prognosis is probably sound and that the treatment will be relatively minor surgery, giving up smoking and a bit more exercise. The hospital administrator (politician) only wants to know which decision is going to land him personally in the deepest mess if the hospital gets it wrong. He'll back that, irrespective of the quality of the diagnosis.



Finally, picking on Delingpole and Monckton is easy meat (like skeptics picking on Al Gore) and scores points in advocacy only. If that's your aim - well fine, you're entitled to defend your position any way you choose.

correction - The hospital administrator (politician) only wants to know which decision is going to land him personally in the LEAST mess if the hospital gets it wrong. He'll back that, irrespective of the quality of the diagnosis.

@77, newdwr54 wrote:



“ … If Briffa had an input into that data set then they aren't the sets used by Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998, 1999) - the source of the 'Hockey Stick' charts. How do you substantiate your claim that the data was adjusted "o give a better correlation with the instrumental record" and not for some other, legitimate, reason. … “



They are. There is some discussion, including Briffa's reasoning here:



https://climateaudit.org/2005/03/27/briffas-tornetrask-reconstruction



See also an updated version here:



https://people.su.se/%7Ehgrud/documents/Grudd%202008.pdf



You continue:



“ … It seems to me that it is the 'sceptics' who have done more to publicise it (and him) than his graph does. Maybe he's so smart he planned this all along? Another conspiracy theory to be getting on with! … “



I think that multiple appearances in IPCC literature and Al Gore's video, not to mention an earlier version in Nature, had already given it more than enough publicity.



Perhaps he just got lucky; it was a desperately wanted picture and no one was concerned about the provenance.

lateintheday @ #82



Oh I see! Just because a TV programme oversimplified a known scientific phenomenon (although the point they were clearly getting at was absolutely correct!) that means that Sir Paul's point about scientific consensus is suddenly flawed! I thought you rose above such arguments, lateintheday!



As for your other link, I am not at all surprised at what Phil Jones said. Mr McIntyre might have all the time in the world to nitpick over every last bit of data to find fault, but most working scientists don't. As I've said before myself, it is NOT actually normal to ask another scientist for data unless you're intending to use it for further study. If you REALLY want to check if someone else's work is reliable your best bet is to see if you can REPRODUCE it. As explained in the scientific method video I've linked to in the past, reproducibility rather than data checking is the key to sound science.



"The medical analogy Paul Nurse used is highly dubious."



I completely disagree. Yes, there ARE situations where different specialists have different views........ in which case there isn't a consensus. However, in the hypothetical case Sir Paul cited, where pretty well the entire field are united in one view, you would be a fool to disagree.



"To continue the medical analogy for one moment, the skeptics view AGW as a potential misdiagnosis, with an unlikely prognosis leading to a risk of unnecessary life threatening surgery."



As I've pointed out several times, science AND scientific consensus are based on evidence. So I have to ask where your evidence is to suggest a "misdiagnosis"...... and I mean REAL evidence rather than innuendo.



Paul

"Oh I see! Just because a TV programme oversimplified"

The programme didn't oversimplify. Sir Paul Nurse either didn't know what he was talking about or he misrepresented the science - you choose.

lateintheday @ #86



"The programme didn't oversimplify. Sir Paul Nurse either didn't know what he was talking about or he misrepresented the science - you choose."



In fact, it was those who attacked Sir Paul who were being disingenuous, as the point the programme made, although technically flawed, actually gave a far more accurate picture of the real situation than those who sought to criticise it. The problem was that to give a technically accurate description would have required an in depth discussion of the carbon cycle - something which made up a WHOLE MODULE of my degree course!



In fact, anthropogenic releases ARE far larger than the NET emissions from natural sources, so Sir Paul is getting grief for the want of a single word! However, the real message here is that certain people were looking for sticks to beat him with because his message made them uncomfortable.



Paul

I disagree Paul (there's a surprise), correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will) but isn't it the case that 97% of atmospheric CO2 is natural carbon cycle and 3% is a mix of anthropogenic and volcanic source. Of which anthropogenic CO2 is seven times larger than the volcanic source?

The programme as you call it (I'd say Paul Nurse), gave the distinct impression that total atmospheric CO2 was seven parts anthropogenic and one part natural.



If that's even close to being right, it wasn't very difficult to say, nor should it have been for Paul Nurse.

lateintheday @ #88



"correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will) but isn't it the case that 97% of atmospheric CO2 is natural carbon cycle and 3% is a mix of anthropogenic and volcanic source. Of which anthropogenic CO2 is seven times larger than the volcanic source?"



My figures from university days will be way out of date now, but given that CO2 has risen by around 40% since preindustrial times, the anthropogenic component, as a percentage of all atmospheric CO2, will surely be over 3%.



"The programme as you call it (I'd say Paul Nurse), gave the distinct impression that total atmospheric CO2 was seven parts anthropogenic and one part natural."



I don't remember the exact words used, but my recollection was that they were discussing the cause of the INCREASE in CO2 levels.



The thing that matters here is that the natural carbon cycle is in balance, so the NET release of CO2 from the biosphere is close to zero. As such, it is the CO2 from anthropogenic sources and volcanoes that contribute to the INCREASE in atmospheric CO2.



So, apart from the fact that the word "net" was omitted, the correct impression was given of the actual situation. Given that most viewers would have missed the significance of this detail, I think it's unfair to suggest that the programme was misleading. It would certainly have been FAR more misleading to say that natural emissions exceeded anthropogenic ones, even though, at the most basic level, it's true!



Paul

"However, in the hypothetical case Sir Paul cited, where pretty well the entire field are united in one view, you would be a fool to disagree."

I've looked at youtube to remind myself what Paul Nurse said in his medical analogy and I'm afraid you're wrong Paul. Paul Nurse says to Deligpole "say you had cancer, there would be a consensus about how you would be treated" and then asks why Delingpole would question that consensus.

You're saying the 'entire field are united in one view' which leads me to suspect that you've forgotten what Nurse actually said. The specific treatment of an individual patient can be a matter of wide ranging opinion and much depends on the Hospital you're at and the relative expertise of the clinical consultants you see. There is no 'one view' as you put it.



I think you're arguing the case for the science behind various alternative cancer treatments being sound. That's fine, but that is not what Paul Nurse was saying.



Fool to disagree? Only an idiot takes advice uncritically.

lateintheday @ #90



You really must be pretty desperate to prove me wrong!! To be honest, I couldn't remember what illness Sir Paul used in his discussion as I didn't have the video to hand, but frankly it was not relevant to the hypothetical argument he was using.



OK, so I too have now been and watched the video on Youtube and Sir Paul uses the words "there will be a consensual position" with regard to treatment. This may not be true of all cancers for all individuals, but it is absolutely clear that he was talking hypothetically about a cancer where there IS a consensus treatment for a patient under a particular set of circumstances. Is he wrong for the hypothetical example given? No! Are you nitpicking? Yes!



Paul

Apparently one of Germany's most prominent environmentalists now has doubts over the predictions of the IPCC on future temperature rise:

https://thegwpf.org/international-news/4923-solar-shift-rock-germany.html

My apologies to "warmists" for posting a link to the GWPF site. I hope you can bring yourselves to read it!

I knew it!

This cold weather IS due to "global warming"!

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/science-behind-the-big-freeze-is-climate-change-bringing-the-arctic-to-europe-6358928.html

QV #92



the original article is on line in German for those who read German here



https://www.bild.de/politik/inland/globale-erwaermung/die-co2-luege-klima-katastrophe-ist-panik-mache-der-politik-22467268.bild.html



basically they are saying that the IPCC has underestimated the influence of the sun



this is definitely another brick in the wall

QV @ #93



"This cold weather IS due to "global warming"!"



As the article points out, this isn't a new idea and we've discussed the previous paper by Petoukhov and Semenov on earlier threads.



Having said that, when the subject was brought up in discussions at Realclimate quite recently, Gavin Schmidt urged caution. Low solar activity appears to produce similar effects, so although there appears to be a scientific basis to it, it will take a lot more years of data to have real confidence.



Paul

Paul Briscoe,

It appears that for the time being, sceptics can't win.

If it's warm it's climate change!

If it's cold it's climate change!

If it's dry it's climate change!

If it's wet it's climate change!

If the weather is totally normal, it's climate change!

There is no way to disprove this rubbish, because it is impossible to prove

that it *isn't* climate change.

QV @ #96



If it's any consolation, I don't see it that way.



As I understand it, physics predicts that we should expect more extreme weather events as the planet warms, but my own reading suggests that the majority of scientists think it's still too early to positively attribute any individual weather event to climate change.



Paul

So the freezing over of the Thames in the dark ages was down to global warming. I would say it was because there was no sun spot activity. Cycle 24 has been a damp squib and cycle 25 is forecast to be as bad as in the dark ages. What concerns me, is that we aren't planning for this eventuality.

#97. - Paul Briscoe wrote:

"If it's any consolation, I don't see it that way."

As you might expect, it's no consolation.

It appears that even if temperatures fall for the next 20-30 years,

it won't be the models which are wrong, it's just that "climate chaos" prevented

them from being correct!



"As I understand it, physics predicts that we should expect more extreme weather events as the planet warms, but my own reading suggests that the majority of scientists think it's still too early to positively attribute any individual weather event to climate change."

That doesn't seem to stop them *claiming* that they are!

Will London become a major tourist attraction when the Thames ices over during the next 10 years. If the sea off Bournemouth can, it won't take a lot of extreme cold to ice the Thames. We will be having Christmas fairs on the Thames again. When talking about global warming, think of all those people in this country, who are suffering from fuel poverty. Its no joke for some and Carbon Management doesn't help.