## Al Gore's Letter to the Telegraph

here . Gore has much to say on the hockey stick.

1. Posted Nov 19, 2006 at 4:55 PM | Permalink

Steve,

You should write to the Telegraph to put Gore straight on the matter. I’m pretty sure that it would be published.

2. Gerald Machnee
Posted Nov 19, 2006 at 4:59 PM | Permalink

Well, I know why I did not go to see the movie.
Would they have given me a refund?

3. Hans Erren
Posted Nov 19, 2006 at 4:59 PM | Permalink

To begin with, there is a reason why new scientific research is peer-reviewed and then published in journals such as Science, Nature, and the Geophysical Research Letters, rather than the broadsheets. The process is designed to ensure that trained scientists review the framing of the questions that are asked, the research and methodologies used to pursue the answers offered and even, in some cases, to monitor the funding of the laboratories “¢’¬? all in order to ensure that errors and biases are detected and corrected before reaching the public.

They don’t, I prefer to read the un-peerreviewed science of the pre-WWII Analen der Physik

4. Posted Nov 19, 2006 at 5:09 PM | Permalink

Re: #3 ..otherwise you find serious scientists producing crap like this. You just can’t make it up.

5. Jean S
Posted Nov 19, 2006 at 5:10 PM | Permalink

The NAS stated that the late 20th-century warming in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the past 1,000 years and probably for much longer than that.

I guess he has his own version of the NAS report.

6. Mark C
Posted Nov 19, 2006 at 5:34 PM | Permalink

The Katrina reference added meaningful input to the global warming discussion?

Lucky for him most people won’t actually read the NAS report.

7. Hans Erren
Posted Nov 19, 2006 at 5:37 PM | Permalink

Moreover, direct observations from the 20th century, from the last ice age and from the atmosphere’s response to volcanic eruptions, all give estimates of the earth’s sensitivity to extra CO2 that are exactly in line with model results (around a 3C warming for a doubling of the CO2 concentration).

High frequency climate sensitivity estimates are below 1C for CO2 doubling (Hoyt, Douglass) GCM model results are in the range of 1-3C for CO2 doubling.

Posted Nov 19, 2006 at 6:12 PM | Permalink

The American Al Gore talking down to Lord Monckton and British Newspapers? For you British readers, Al Gor e always talks down to people. It’s a habit. Maybe this will incite the British folk to reconsider the Global Warming racket.

Jean writes:

I guess he has his own version of the NAS report.

Poor scholarship. The “thousand years” line appeared in newspaper headlines about the NAS panel report. It came from suggested talking points provided with the report for lazy journalists.

The NAS Panel report was bad enough. It’s purpose was to give the appearance of scientific debate to a controversy, specifically the tree ring proxy study, criticize it, nevertheless corroborate the hjockey srtick findings with cherrypicked other proxies, untested by the same panel.

The NAS panel, or some staffer who spun the report, did well for itself. As I wrote welsewhere the purpose was to seek a “Fake But Accurate” product. It will be prominently placed in upcoming IPCC papers which was it’s purpose. To signal to the world that top Americans have disposed with the hockey stick problem.

9. Jean S
Posted Nov 19, 2006 at 6:44 PM | Permalink

Some truly unprecedented numbers (just in from my Matlab, didn’t triple check yet) for Al:

MBH99 (aka MBH98 AD1000 step) stats:

calibration:
RE=0.1305 (=CE)
r^2=0.4034
Spearman’s \rho=0.6277

verification:
RE=-0.0027
CE=-1.3867
r^2=0.0018
\rho=0.0239

10. James Erlandson
Posted Nov 19, 2006 at 7:49 PM | Permalink

” … direct observation … from the last ice age …” He’s a lot older than he looks.
Meanwhile, for those with a subscription to the Wall Street Journal

Is federal court the proper place to address the effects of global warming? In our latest Legal Banter column, a lawyer for the Sierra Club says a recent case brought by California against auto makers over the effects of global warming is fair game. A defense-side lawyer, however, says global warming is a matter best left to lawmakers.

11. per
Posted Nov 19, 2006 at 7:54 PM | Permalink

john brignell has set up a computer model to analyse Gore’s letter here at the bottom of the page.
per

12. Steve McIntyre
Posted Nov 19, 2006 at 8:24 PM | Permalink

RE failure on the AD1000 step – this is delicious and rather stop the press news.

13. George
Posted Nov 19, 2006 at 9:50 PM | Permalink

I’ve noticed that quite often when examples of “pollution” are shown (whether they be true air pollution or greenhouse gas emissions), power plant cooling towers are shown (as in the article here). It’s true that water is the most significant greenhouse gas…but I suspect that that is NOT what they had in mind.

The same thing has happened when articles about the risks of nuclear power plant leaks are discussed: show those cooling towers!

Then again, since CO2 is invisible, you can’t show it — and you have to show SOMETHING! Might as well be cooling towers.

14. Loki on the run
Posted Nov 19, 2006 at 10:39 PM | Permalink

It’s so funny thinking about Al “Global Warming” Gore when you see articles like this:

Seeing the Wood.

15. Brooks Hurd
Posted Nov 19, 2006 at 10:46 PM | Permalink

I went to see the Gore movie and made mental notes of at least some of the inconsistancies.

One point that Gore made in the movie, but not in the book that accompanied the movie, was that a record number of typhoons struck the main islands of Japan in 2004. He stated clearly that he believed that this record of landfalling typhoons in Japan was clear proof of the effect of global warming.

In all Gore’s world travels, it seems that he spent very little time in East Asia in 2004 or he would have known that the storm tracks were unusual that year. Strong winds pushed most typhoons to the northeast away from Taiwan and Fujian and sent them toward Japan. Based on my review of the data at the Taiwanese Central Weather Burea, 2004 was pretty much a normal year for the number and the intensity of Western Pacific typhoons.

16. bender
Posted Nov 19, 2006 at 11:16 PM | Permalink

Storm formation is such a highly stochastic process that any trend (human-caused or otherwise) in annual storm frequency must account for a very, very low percentantage of the total annual variation in storm frequency. There are numerous posts at CA on the analysis of hurricane time-series demonstrating this fact.

17. Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 1:46 AM | Permalink

Here is a little analysis of the NAS report. Any comments?

Some Comments on the recently released
National Academy of Sciences Report on global climate change
( Report is at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html )

The below is cut and pasted from the report with our comments in [brackets]

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years
Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years,
National Research Council
From Page 111 (sheet 126) bold added:

OVERALL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Based on its deliberations and the materials presented in Chapters 1-11 and elsewhere,
the committee draws the following overall conclusions regarding large-scale surface temperature
reconstructions for the last 2,000 years:
* The instrumentally measured warming of about 0.6àÅà⟃ during the 20th century is also reflected in borehole temperature measurements, the retreat of glaciers, and other observational evidence, and can be simulated with climate models.
…….[This verifies that there was about a 0.6àÅà⟃ temperature increase during the 20th century (see below)]
* Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the “Medieval Warm Period”) and a relatively cold period (or “Little Ice Age”) centered around 1700. The existence and extent of a Little Ice Age from roughly 1500 to 1850 is supported by a wide variety of evidence including ice cores, tree rings, borehole temperatures, glacier length records, and historical documents.
……[This re-affirms the existence of a “little ice age”]
Evidence for regional warmth during medieval times can be found in a diverse but more limited set of records including ice cores, tree rings, marine sediments, and historical sources from Europe and Asia, but the exact timing and duration of warm periods may have varied from region to region, and the magnitude and geographic extent of the warmth are uncertain.
….[This re-affirms the existence of a “medieval warm period”]
….[Remember the famous “hockey stick” chart? It DOES NOT show either the “little ice age” or “medieval warm period”. This omission disproves the “hockey stick” chart and the data/methods used to create it. Much of the climate field uses similar data and methods.]
* It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies.
….[This is the headline for many newspapers. Most forgot to mention that the “preceding four centuries” started in the middle of the “little ice age (above). In other words, we are warming up after the little ice age.]
* Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. The uncertainties associated with reconstructing hemispheric mean or global mean temperatures from these data increase substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully quantified.
* Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900 because of sparse data coverage and because the uncertainties associated with proxy data and the methods used to analyze and combine them are larger than during more recent time periods.
…..[ This says that we really don’t know enough about climate before A.D 900. This suggests that we are incapable of judging today’s climate in a proper historical context, considering that there has been 12,000 years of ups and downs since the last ice age. We only know about 10% of this time span to a sufficient degree.]

———————————- From page 21 (sheet36) Bold Added ————————————
Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.
…..[Note that this claim is only “plausible”, not likely or probable or “supported by a wide variety of evidence” (see above)]
The substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming. Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium” because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales.
….[Here is the often heard statement that we are the warmest in 1000 years. It is given “less confidence” than “plausable” (see above). Effectively, it is shown to be baseless.]

——————————— Some Thoughts About the Above Report ——————————

We believe that the two most gripping claims about global warming have been shown to be wrong. The other major claim, that we are the warmest in 400 years is essentially a statement that we are warming after the “little ice age.” Is that bad?

—————————— Are you being lied to? ——————————

Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research described the scientists’ dilemma this way: “On the one hand, as scientists, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but-which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but; human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This `double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”
From: DISCOVER, OCTOBER 1989, Page 47, bold added (Note: Stephen Schneider is founder and editor of the scientific journal Climate Change.)

The whole NAP report: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html
The Wegman factsheet: http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_fact_sheet.pdf
The Wegman report: http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf
Website run by Mann: http://www.RealClimate.org
Website run by critic of the hockeystick: http://www.ClimateAudit.org

18. Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 2:02 AM | Permalink

I note that Gore seems certain that climate sensitivity to CO2 is 3C, despite the IPCC estimate being
1.5C to 4.5C. He’s probably refering to Annan and Hargreaves, 2006. An intersting story from Annan’s
own blog on May 12th 2006:

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_archive.html

19. Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 3:02 AM | Permalink

It appears that Al Gore is seriously compromised. He is chairman of Generation Investment Management – a company that advises people to invest in “climate friendly” companies. These can be described as companies that will make heaps of money out of heavily subsidized renewable generation, carbon credits, carbon trading, carbon taxes and like.

Putting it another way, this company and the companies they invest in may well go bankrupt if dangerous man-made climate change is proved to be a myth. But it may not even take that to sink his ship. All it needs is for a rational government to decide that, for instance, nuclear power generation is far more sensible and gives a bigger CO2 “bang for the buck” than subsidizing renewables such as wind farms, solar power, bio-fuels and the like.

I am amazed that this is not already a public scandal, especially as the “global warmers” don’t hesitate to try and paint the sceptics as tools of the oil companies. He is far more compromised than a scientist who has got some of funding from an organization that, in turn, gets some of its funding from an oil company.

He could be asked. “You are chairman of Generation Investment Management. If investors decided that the risk of dangerous man-made global warming has been greatly exaggerated, (or was bunkum) would there be a significant drop in its share price?”

20. Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 4:13 AM | Permalink

Re #19

You know Bryan, the longer this debate goes on, the less interested I am in who’s funding what or who’s “associated” with whom.

I think I’m more interested in the quality of argument than financial interest or political allegiance. The fact that both Martin Juckes and William Connelley are political candidates for the Green Party may be interesting in biographical terms, but does not in my opinion, make any difference as to the quality of their science. It may explain motivation but not scientific results.

I fail to see why it is surprising that Al Gore is behaving like a politician. By the same token I don’t see why he should not be challenged just like any other politician and brought to account like any other politician.

21. Paul Dennis
Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 5:08 AM | Permalink

Not strictly on topic, but relevant.

Am I the only person in the UK to see an advert for an album of music with artists such as the Buena Vista Social Club, Sting and others advertised on television last night?

The closing line was ‘all benefits go to the victims of global warming’!!

Tell me I’m imagining things please!

22. Dave Dardinger
Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 7:32 AM | Permalink

re: #21.

Well, many of the rich rock stars have beach-front villas. So if there’s AGW it will result in sea-level rise and that will damage their property and they will be victims, so….

23. Paul Gosling
Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 9:17 AM | Permalink

RE #21

Maybe they mean all those starving Kenyans we see on the BBC almostly nightly at present, who are described as victims of drought brought on by global warminng. Makes you wonder what casused the long drough of the 1960s/70s in Kenya when the global temperaturees were quite a bit cooler and going down. It seems that warm or cool you get drought in Kenya, if only we can stabilise global temperatures at just the right level…….

24. Demesure
Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 9:47 AM | Permalink

Well, many of the rich rock stars have beach-front villas. So if there’s AGW it will result in sea-level rise and that will damage their property and they will be victims, so….

Anything by the Brits wouldn’t be a surprise: they have reached the GW hysteria tipping point long ago.
Soon, it would read “all benefits would go to the victims of island sinking”. Indeed, England is sinking at a rate of 2mm/year, about the same rate of sea rise. And that’s not a “result” from models. That’s real.

25. Demesure
Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 9:52 AM | Permalink

#23 The cause of drought is highly dependent on Al Gore’s mood 😉

26. Demesure
Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 9:57 AM | Permalink

Uoups, images can’t be posted anymore in the blog’s new version?
Here is the image for post #25

27. jae
Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 10:28 AM | Permalink

There are a lot of outright lies in Gore’s paper, but the worst one is this:

all of the peer-reviewed evidence, from scientists around the world, points in the same direction.

28. Michael Jankowski
Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 1:07 PM | Permalink

I note that Gore seems certain that climate sensitivity to CO2 is 3C, despite the IPCC estimate being
1.5C to 4.5C.

Gore points to the scientific “consensous,” except when he “knows” better, or when his answer is more effective. His proclamtions of sea level rise in “An Inconvenient Truth” fly in the face of the IPCC. When George Stephanopolous(sp?) asked him about this, Gore responded with, “[The scientists] don’t know…they just don’t know.”

Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 1:48 PM | Permalink

I would look forward to a debate between Al Gore Jr. and Steve M. Maybe right here, if Gore could be convinced to do it.

30. jae
Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 1:55 PM | Permalink

Steve S. LOL. I’ll bet Gore doesn’t know r2 from r2d2.

31. Roger Bell
Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 2:05 PM | Permalink

There’s some interesting data on comparisons between the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the present Current Warming Period (CWP) at co2science.org. The Idso’s, who run the site, had the goal of providing sufficient real-world evidence to convince most rational people that the MWP was (1) global, (2) at least as warm as, but likely even warmer, than the CWP and (3) of duration significantly longer than that of the CWP. They divided the data into 3 groups: Group I consists of papers making a quantitative comparison between the CWP and MWP; Group II consists of papers making a qualitative comparison and the Group III papers show that the MWP did occur in the region under study at the appropriate time.
In the Table below, 1,1,5 for Africa indicates 1 Group I paper,1 Group II and 5 Group III.
Africa, 1,1,5
Antarctica, 0,3,1
Asia, 1,6,8
Australia & NZ, 1,1,0
Europe, 11,4,9
N America 1,6,13
N Hemisphere 1,0,0
Oceans 0,0,2
S America 1,3,2

Roger Bell

32. Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 2:55 PM | Permalink

Re #20:
“You know Bryan, the longer this debate goes on, the less interested I am in who’s funding what or who’s “associated” with whom.

I think I’m more interested in the quality of argument than financial interest or political allegiance.”

JK:You are absolutely correct in forums like this.

Unfortunately, on the street, where people do not/cannot understand science or the facts, they rely on things like who is providing the funding. I frequently hear people dismiss the anti-warming side as funded by the oil companies. Also important are newspapers columns, TV and newsletters from various groups, few of which understand science either.

The warmers have dominated these sources and likely will until the other side goes beyond just facts. (Facts are important, but not sufficient, IMHO)

Thanks
JK

Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 3:16 PM | Permalink

The ultimate oil company link – Al Gore Jr. and Occidental Petroleum.

Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 3:30 PM | Permalink

Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.
…..[Note that this claim is only “plausible”, not likely or probable or “supported by a wide variety of evidence” (see above)]

That’s the jewel. Forget the proxy examination text, that statement “plausible” is weasel words, media friendly and will be used to publicly validate anything criticized in more detail within the NAS report. The report was written for two different audiences.

35. Monckton of Brenchley
Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 3:46 PM | Permalink

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY

Anyone who would like a well-referenced, 24-page, paragraph-by-paragraph refutation of Gore’s article
in the Sunday Telegraph replying to my pieces on the science and economics of climate change should send
an email to bikerbikerbiker@hotmail.com. – James Rowlatt, Clerk to Lord Monckton.

36. Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 4:54 PM | Permalink

Do you folks – and Lord Monckton – think that Al Gore actually believes that the NAS panel has “debunked” the criticism of the hockey stick graph? Does he believe all the other weird things that he keeps on promoting?

37. Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 5:14 PM | Permalink

A clerk to Lord Monckton has deigned to write to this humble blog. Should we kneel?

38. John Hekman
Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 5:16 PM | Permalink

Lubos:

Yes. He believes. Someone told him that the NAS report had vindicated the hockey stick, and so when he looked at the report he saw what he expected to see.

BTW, where have all the trolls gone?

Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 5:24 PM | Permalink

RE: #36 – Gore is far slicker than most would give him credit for. The dude is a VC (little known fact) and besides some likely conflicts of interest related to carbon credit trading from the energy side of his investment management, he has a whole other side linked in with Khosla, Beyer, Perkins et al, trying to fund ethanol and solar cell start ups.

40. David Smith
Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 5:29 PM | Permalink

Looks like an interesting article on the thermohaline circulation, for anyone with a Nature subscription.

The reports of a sickly thermohaline circulation and Icebox Europe seem to be premature. Mass evacuation can wait a few more months, I suppose.

41. jae
Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 5:34 PM | Permalink

Yeah, he’s SLICK, all right. In a disgusting way. Being married to Mrs. Catsup, he has plenty of wherewithall to get involved in anything he wants to. But I don’t think he understands science at all. I’ll bet he has a staff who write all the crap he spouts. But the staff must not be very bright on science, either. Otherwise they would not have written “all of the peer-reviewed evidence, from scientists around the world, points in the same direction.” BTW, what is a VC?

42. Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 5:40 PM | Permalink

Dear jae,

I think VC is a Venture Capitalist. WC is a Water Closet, on the other hand.

Thanks, Steve S., I completely believe you that he is an extraordinary person in many respects – otherwise he couldn’t be suggested as a leader of the civilized world – and he is getting profit from many energy-related companies. I don’t have too much against him in person, in fact.

But does it really answer whether he believes what he says about the debunking? John might be right: they tell him and he believes because it is plausible to believe. They tell him what pages he should look at in the report in order to feel great, and he looks at the pages or sentences that seem to confirm that the NAS panel has debunked M&M.

Of course, the panel hasn’t said a single negative thing about M&M and has confirmed virtually everything, but they don’t need to know this additional fact. 😉

Best
Lubos

43. Jean S
Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 5:45 PM | Permalink

Lubos (and others into math), don’t miss #9 … it was no joke (from my part at least) … more to come to this blog one day 🙂

Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 6:01 PM | Permalink

Sorry about the Silicon Valley speak – VC = Venture Capitalist. Mr. Gore spends a fair bit of time on Sand Hill Road, aka VC Gulch.

45. Reid
Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 6:06 PM | Permalink

Jean S,

46. Jean S
Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 6:10 PM | Permalink

re #45. See #12

47. bender
Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 6:17 PM | Permalink

Re: #12 Please elaborate on the significance of these results for the “civilian” readers. (Or can we expect a post soon?)

48. Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 6:17 PM | Permalink

Re #41

Being married to Mrs. Catsup

It is John Kerry married to Mrs Catsup, not Al Gore. I will admit they are both very confusing!

Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 6:18 PM | Permalink

It appears that Al Gore is seriously compromised. He is chairman of Generation Investment Management – a company that advises people to invest in “climate friendly” companies. These can be described as companies that will make heaps of money out of heavily subsidized renewable generation, carbon credits, carbon trading, carbon taxes and like.

In the least suspicious. As for renewable generation I’m for researching that, and more. I believe a national program, funded by the government, should invest in resources and technologies to get our vehicles off oil whether that be hydrogen or electricity. This will make the American economy grow with businesses and jobs replacing foreign oil. And it will lessen pollution.

I am amazed that this is not already a public scandal, especially as the “global warmers” don’t hesitate to try and paint the sceptics as tools of the oil companies.

Because there probably are oil companies funding press releases debunking “global warming.” They do so because some of the Kyoto effects would privilege Natural Gas and other energy sectors over oil because oil is dirtier.

I am an environmentalist by tendency. But I know the Kyoto is a financial con game bootstrapped onto the two-decade long academic discussion about carbon and climate. Most people I talk to can easily believe that oil companies are against anti-global warming solutions. People want something done about pollution and our “addiction to oil” as Bush put it. Bush has set out the problem but offers no real solutions or leadership. The carbon trading lucre stepped into this vacuum.

It is unknown to the general public what economic interests are pushing anti-global warming solutions. I suspect some energy companies like BP gamed heavily investing in ng so as to get a competitive advantage over those more invested in oil, then promoting carbon laws to price oil out. Lucre is the motive, but we might get less pollution so I don’t lose any sleep over that. Media stories about anti-global warming proposals usually drop references about investments in alternative energy, etc. That sounds good to most people. The carbon/gw discussion has taken over the public discourse about energy independence and pollution.

The “big bad” of Kyoto and Kyotos-by-another-name is IMO the international carbon trading schemes. (Some Europeans might hate “green taxes” first.) Kyoto has a various interests behind it, but the biggest backers are the funds and countries pushing these schemes. Look at some Democrats’ latest push for “global cooperation” on credit trading. They aren’t talking about “getting off foreign oil” anymore. Blair didn’t travel to California a few months ago to cut deals with that state for “clean coal” research or other investments, he travelled there to secure a market for the new British Carbon Trading market. As I said before, I believe this scam collapse in California, that there will be no international cap or tax & trade, due to internet transmission of debate. Also it will fail because US domestic industries will kill it – they’ll want their take, they aren’t going to let Britain subsidized the closure of plants Britain is due to close anyway.

I hope this helps you see why the full scandal is unseen. Returning the discussion about anthropogenic carbon-based average global warming ot a sane, reasonable debate will take the blocking of carbon trading lobbying in the USA. I think this will end soon. I sense the carbon lobbies fear carbon trading ideal will collapse soon. I do not think Congress will pass such laws. Bush has his people, and Democrats will fear signing up to a scam two years before they expect to retake the Whitehouse. Without the carbon trading lobby money the Kyoto-type proposals will die, and so will the economic incentives for AGW-supporting academic work.

As for the alternative/independent energy interests that are tagging along with the carbon lobbies, they will survive. They don’t need “carbon” for validity. Rather I believe carbon has occluded the voices for energy independence and with the carbon lobbying dying in America its prominence will return – at least in America.

50. Jean S
Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 6:22 PM | Permalink

re #47: bender, Steve is now working on this issue, and he’ll come out with when he’s done (whenever he’s ready). I can promise there are interesting things to come. But now let us all be patient. I just could help myself yesterday, when I was reading Al’s letter and the results came…

Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 6:26 PM | Permalink

Lubos writes at #36-

Do you folks – and Lord Monckton – think that Al Gore actually believes that the NAS panel has “debunked” the criticism of the hockey stick graph?

It’s possible. Put it this way, the report can be read two ways. You can read the long paper for all its debunking attributes and other scientific approaches in light of your education and skills. But there is another audience, the public, for which the paper offers general statement that sound like even if the tree-ring studies were criticized, their findings about recent global warming are accurate by conincidence.

I am not a scientist and I many others posting here, I presume non-scientists, reacted the same way.

52. Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 6:34 PM | Permalink

re: #43

VC = Venture Capitalist. Mr. Gore spends a fair bit of time on Sand Hill Road, aka VC Gulch.

This is the kind of stuff, rather than scientific facts, that may be much more effective against his garbage with his true believers and other non science types.

Thanks
JK

53. bender
Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 6:39 PM | Permalink

Re #50 Patience granted.

54. Dave Dardinger
Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 7:21 PM | Permalink

BTW, the Monckton document is worth sending for. I haven’t read every word of it, and I don’t suppose there’s a ton we don’t already know, but if someone asks a question it gives good points to bring up.

BTW, my wife and I just read the Crichton “State of Fear” book and found it quite gripping, if there’s anyone else who has postponed reading it. You have to be a skeptic to really enjoy it, but there’s little poor argumentation. And a lot of the stuff he points to as warmer tendencies is still happening.

55. McCall
Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 7:21 PM | Permalink

Perhap Mr Sadlov can also comment: I believe that both former VP Gore and President Clinton actively supported the recent Proposition 87 Tax on oil drilling and in favor of alternative energy resources? Their participation was not enough, but perhaps they swung a few more votes make that proposition closer to passing? Regardless, that was definitely a undisclosed VC conflict of interest on the VP’s part — perhaps on the former presidents, as well?

56. Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 8:47 PM | Permalink

Dear Jean S #43, your numbers in #9, would not only prove global cooling but they would also prove that Steve and Ross were wrong, too. 😉 Have you gotten such numbers before?

57. joel Hammer
Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 9:51 PM | Permalink

Al Gore must think his supporters are idiots. At least we agree on that. This quote is just hilarious:

And with regards to some of the financial implications suggested by the Stern report, one need only look to the insurance industry for validation of the potential costs of global warming. On Wednesday, the reinsurance giant Munich Re reported, “driven by climate change, weather related disasters could cost as much as a trillion dollars in a single year by 2040”.

Imagine trusting an insurance company.

Readers of the Wall Street Journal have learned that Warren Buffett and the rest of the big reinsurers have made billions this year in Florida, thanks in part to the global warming scare (and Katrina) driving up insurance premiums.

Record profits were made this year and LAST year by the insurance industry. The sad part is that many people who think of themselves as well informed know nothing of this sort of information.

Insurance Property Insurers See Blue Skies
By LIAM PLEVEN
November 4, 2006; Page A2

No hurricanes have struck the U.S. coast during the storm season that is about to end — a sharp contrast from the previous two years. Industry executives convening in Seattle next week will be debating whether the calm means it’s time for the cost of disaster insurance to cool down too.

A few thousand people are expected to attend the annual meeting of the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, which runs Sunday through Wednesday, says a spokesman. The insurers will have a lot to celebrate.

The cost of catastrophe reinsurance soared after last year’s hurricanes. By June and July, when a number of other reinsurance contracts expired, there was a severe supply crunch. But payouts have fallen sharply. After paying out $48 billion in insured property losses for catastrophes in the third quarter of 2005, U.S. property/casualty insurers are expected to pay out only$971 million for losses in the same period this year, most of it from severe weather in the Midwest and Tropical Storm Ernesto, according to Insurance Services Office Inc.

As a result, insurers and reinsurers have pocketed billions so far this year. The U.S. property/casualty insurers are on pace to beat their record for profit, which was set last year despite the storms. Some reinsurers, many of which are based in Bermuda, also have reported strong financial results.

On Jan. 1, many insurance contracts come up for renewal, including for catastrophe reinsurance, which is what insurers buy to spread the risk of losses from hurricanes and the like. Many insurers, brokers and customers argue that prices should come down from their summer peaks. Some reinsurers counter that one calm year doesn’t mean the threat of heightened hurricane activity, embodied by the storms of 2004 and 2005, is past.

“Both sides are putting forward their arguments pretty well,” says Julian James, the director of world-wide markets for Lloyd’s, one of the main markets for catastrophe reinsurance, who is speaking at the meeting. Those arguments can be expected to heat up at next week’s conference.

The debate will have bottom-line consequences not only for the insurers and reinsurers, but also for many businesses and individuals on the coast who buy coverage themselves.

Write to Liam Pleven at liam.pleven@wsj.com3
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116260201334413193.html

58. bender
Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 10:37 PM | Permalink

Imagine trusting an insurance company.

I trust their analyses. Just as I trust they’ll never show them to you.

59. Steve McIntyre
Posted Nov 20, 2006 at 11:23 PM | Permalink

#56. Jean S’s numbers are for the AD1000 MBH99 step, whereas we’ve reported numbers for the AD1400 MBH98 step. It does look like there is something quite odd going on with the AD1000 step, as Jean S said – this is certainly not inconsistent with anything that we’ve published. MBH is really quite a banquet of errors and there’s plenty of food for all. This looks like rather a rather delicious dessert in a couple of senses – Mann and Wahl and Ammann have huffed and puffed about RE statistics as an arbiter of paleoclimate reconstructions and it does appear that the MBH99 step fails this test(in addition to failing other tests.) Because Mann has never archived his unspliced results, one has to make certain deductions and Jean S approach looks valid tonight, but I need to sleep on it.

Jean S has made another very interesting observation that I’ll write up in more detail. In trying to figure out what the Team does, one is frequently forced to reverse engineer. I’d applied a method used here by Jean S on the AD1400 data set and it didn’t reverse engineer. So I gave up trying to deduce what Mann did. Jean S has got 100% reconstruction on part of the MBH99 AD1000 step thereby proving the method. The same method applied to the AD1400 network is close but doesn’t quite match.

There is only one possible (and remarkable) conclusion which Jean S arrived at (and was staring me in the face but I didn’t think of it): after all this fuss, the proxies that Mann has archived for the AD1400 are not correct. He’s archived something close to what he used – but Jean S has persuaded me that it still isn’t a correct data set and that, rather than a still unreported methodological quirk, is what accounted for remaining discrepancies in the AD1400. It’s hard to figure out what the discrepancies might be. They could pertain to series in the NOAMER network – remember the corrigendum. However, now that Jean S has convinced me that there’s something wrong with the proxy network, we might be able to figure it out.

We’re still no closer to figuring out the confidence intervals.

60. Steve
Posted Nov 21, 2006 at 12:58 AM | Permalink

To jae #27. You have simply dismissed Gore’s claim it out of hand without providing any evidence. That is worse that making an inaccurate statement.

In fact, from what I can tell the figure is accurate. What are your sources that you make the claim that his comment about papers is “the worst outright lie”.

61. Posted Nov 21, 2006 at 1:33 AM | Permalink

To Steve #60:

To jae #27. You have simply dismissed Gore’s claim it out of hand without providing any evidence. That is worse that making an inaccurate statement.

In fact, from what I can tell the figure is accurate. What are your sources that you make the claim that his comment about papers is “the worst outright lie”.

from #27:

There are a lot of outright lies in Gore’s paper, but the worst one is this:

all of the peer-reviewed evidence, from scientists around the world, points in the same direction.

Readers of this blog don’t need an explanation because they regularly see references to peer-reviewed evidence, from scientists around the world, that point in other directions:

For instance,
Length of the Solar Cycle : An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated with Climate, E. FRItS-CHRISTENSEN AND K. LASSEN, SCIENCE, VOL. 2 54, pg 698

and

Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle nucleation under atmospheric conditions
BY HENRIK SVENSMARK, JENS OLAF P. PEDERSEN, NIGEL D. MARSH,
MARTIN B. ENGHOFF, AND ULRIK I. UGGERHàÆàÅJ
Proc. R. Soc. A, doi:10.1098/rspa.2006.1773

You can get a simplified explanation of the above at:
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Cosmic_rays_and_climate.htm

You might want to browse junkscience a bit, it seems to have a lot of links to ” peer-reviewed evidence”.

Thanks
JK

62. Louis Hissink
Posted Nov 21, 2006 at 4:54 AM | Permalink

Viscount Monkton has replied to Gore, and JohnA you should have received a copy of it your email.

I can’t really do any additions to Geoheresy from where I am at present (Halls Creek in the Western Australian Kimberley) so his latest missive won’t go up for a couple weeks. Bandwidth is lousy and Word does strange things to HTML from a cut-and-past angle.

I you haven’t received the document let me know and I’ll send you a copy during the next day or so.

63. Louis Hissink
Posted Nov 21, 2006 at 4:56 AM | Permalink

Whoops I dinna get a cigar – Misspelt his name 🙂 Monckton.

64. Posted Nov 21, 2006 at 5:12 AM | Permalink

Regarding cosmic rays and climate, there has long been paleo-evidence reported for this. Bas van Geel is one of the main researchers in the area, e.g.
van Geel B., van der Plicht J.; Kilian M.R., Klaver E.R., Kouwenberg J.H.M., Renssen H., Reynaud-Farrera I., Waterbolk H.T. (1998), “The sharp rise of Δ14C ca. 800 cal BC: possible causes, related climatic teleconnections and the impact on human environments”,Radiocarbon, 40: 535–550.

(The work of Svensmark & Friis-Christensen [1997] is cited on p.546–547.)

I was at the 1997 conference where he presented this work. His argument was derided, or ignored, then.

65. Mick
Posted Nov 21, 2006 at 6:07 AM | Permalink

#61

“For instance,
Length of the Solar Cycle : An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated with Climate, E. FRItS-CHRISTENSEN AND K. LASSEN, SCIENCE, VOL. 2 54, pg 698”

The above reference was comprehensively demolished by Damon and Laut in Eos in 2004. You can find a pdf copy here: http://www.realclimate.org/damon&laut_2004.pdf

66. Nicholas
Posted Nov 21, 2006 at 6:12 AM | Permalink

If we’re going to take papers which are “comprehensively demolished” off the table, MBH98, MBH99 and some of the others would have to go too (thanks to Mrs. McIntyre & McKitrick).

67. Nicholas
Posted Nov 21, 2006 at 6:15 AM | Permalink

err… I guess I meant Messrs, not Mrs. That’s the proper plural of Mr. I guess. Sorry.

(Is there an abbreviation for that term which isn’t confused with Mrs.? Mr.s perhaps?)

68. Michael Jankowski
Posted Nov 21, 2006 at 8:05 AM | Permalink

The dude is a VC (little known fact)

It’s actually BRAGGED about by his supporters despite the clear conflict of interest.

It appears that Al Gore is seriously compromised. He is chairman of Generation Investment Management – a company that advises people to invest in “climate friendly” companies.

He’s already compromised. I have no doubt he is a crusader for his beliefs (“Earth in the Balance” came well before GIM), but I do find it amazing that people are applauding him for this. There couldn’t be a greater conflict of interest. There couldn’t be a more blatant example of a situation where someone can profit directly from the fruits of his public advocacy.

To jae #27. You have simply dismissed Gore’s claim it out of hand without providing any evidence. That is worse that making an inaccurate statement.

So if someone says, “1+1=3,” and I say “wrong” without proving that 1+1=2, that is “worse than making an inaccurate statement?”

Is the position “all of the peer-reviewed evidence, from scientists around the world, points in the same direction” really defensible? If so, how? And if not, then yes, it’s appropriate to dismiss the claim without providing any evidence.

Of course, as I pointed-out earlier, when almost all of the “peer-reviewed evidence, from scientists around the world, points in the same direction” regarding the magnitude of anticipated 21st century sea level rise, Gore chooses a DIFFERENT answer and states that, “[The scientists] don’t know…they just don’t know.” Not only can one cherry-pick data, one apparently can also cherry-pick when a “scientific consensus” is necessary to follow and when a “scientific consensus” is just a bunch of guesses that can be over-ruled by a non-scientist.

69. bender
Posted Nov 21, 2006 at 9:06 AM | Permalink

Re #65
That paper outlines the very same endpoint pinning effect used by Emanuel (2005), and crticized by Landsea (2005), to get an uptick in hurricane frequency going into 2005.

70. jae
Posted Nov 21, 2006 at 9:24 AM | Permalink

#60. You must not have read much in this blog. There are literally HUNDREDS of peer reviewed studies that point in the OPPOSITE direction. Read some of them, OK?

Posted Nov 21, 2006 at 10:33 AM | Permalink

RE: #55 – Gore overtly supported Prop 87. As for Clinton, what I know for sure, he is a member of the board of Oracle Corp, the software company. I don’t know if he is on boards of any ethanol or solar cell (or semiconductor equipment) companies – that would make an interesting investigation.

72. jae
Posted Nov 21, 2006 at 11:19 AM | Permalink

#65: Has this paper been discredited?

73. Posted Nov 21, 2006 at 11:26 AM | Permalink

#9

Now I see, clever reverse engineering 😉 Got different calibration RE though..

74. Paul Linsay
Posted Nov 21, 2006 at 12:41 PM | Permalink

#65. You’ll notice that Damon & Laut have a quibble with the last 4 data points but can’t make the agreement between 1860 and 1960 go away. The fall in temperature after 1940 correlates nicely too. The AGW models need to invoke magic aerosols that were never measured to get the same temperature drop.

As for Friis-Christensen & Lassen not agreeing with the temperature records from 1990 to 2000, it depends on which temperature measurement is used. If you use the satellite measurement they got it right. Of course if you are an AGW believer then you’d use Hansen’s GISS reconstruction and they’re way off. Me, I take the satellites over thermometers in parking lots.

75. george h.
Posted Nov 21, 2006 at 1:26 PM | Permalink

Could someone link or post Monkton’s reponse to Al Gore — I never received it. Also, is anyone else getting the impression that this huge edifice of GW junk science is starting to crumble, kind of like those pictures Gore shows of the glaciers calving in the Arctic?

76. Jean S
Posted Nov 21, 2006 at 1:40 PM | Permalink

re #73: 🙂

77. David Smith
Posted Nov 21, 2006 at 1:59 PM | Permalink

bender, I see that the snow and sleet made it as far south as Savannah, Georgia today, but not quite to Florida. Pretty cold for November 21

Posted Nov 21, 2006 at 2:55 PM | Permalink

RE: #77 – Not a good day for launching space shuttles (/very dark humor).

79. bender
Posted Nov 21, 2006 at 3:11 PM | Permalink

Hopefully the FSU game isn’t snowed out. THAT would be tragic.

Posted Nov 21, 2006 at 3:51 PM | Permalink

I must apologize to all. Amidst my wordy posting how could I forget that Al Gore has become an agent of the U.K. government?

A STARK warning of the economic costs and damage to the world that could result from global warming will be set out today in a report to be submitted to the Government.

Sir Nicholas Stern, the former chief economist at the World Bank, will advise that the costs of confronting climate change are far outweighed by those of failing to act in time. His 700-word report forecasts floods, famine, mass movement of people and the destruction of species if the Earth’s temperature continues to rise.

Gordon Brown, who commissioned the report, will accept its main recommendation for a global carbon-trading scheme to enforce limits on greenhouse gas emissions. The Chancellor will also announce that Al Gore, the former US Vice-President, is to advise him on environmental policy.

81. Posted Nov 21, 2006 at 4:21 PM | Permalink

82. David Smith
Posted Nov 21, 2006 at 4:41 PM | Permalink

I have a ill-conceived question for any physicist who might be around. It is this:

As the atmosphere warms, it expands outwards (towards space). In the last 50 years it looks like the constant-pressure surfaces (geopotential heights) have increased by about 0.4%, so for talking purposes let’s say that the height of the atmosphere has increased by 0.4%.

Now, I figure that means that the atmosphere is less dense – there is more distance between molecules. My question is, does that atmospheric expansion aid the release of IR from the earth? It seems like it would, perhaps by 0.4%. Or, maybe not. That’s my question.

0.4% of 235 W/m2 is about 1 W/M2, which is not insignificant.

Thanks

83. Dave Dardinger
Posted Nov 21, 2006 at 5:32 PM | Permalink

re: #82

Since the column density of GHGs would be the same, I don’t expect there’d be any difference to speak of. If the re-emission time of CO2 were close to the mean time between collisions there might be an effect, but at least at lower levels collision is so rapid that it wouldn’t matter. And since the whole reason the atmosphere would rise is because the temperature was higher, the speed of the molecules would be faster anyway which would offset the density difference.

84. David Smith
Posted Nov 21, 2006 at 7:50 PM | Permalink

Re #83 Thanks. I need to do some reading. My mental image is that IR escaping the earth’s surface through a clear sky has two general obstacles. One is the high-H2O, high resistance lower levels where the “escape path” is only upward. Then the IR enters an easier, low-H20, low-resistance upper troposphere where escape to outer space is both upwards and sideways. The column density of GHGs would be the same, but once in the upper regions there is greater opportunity for IR to leak out sideways from the column. Anyway, my problem to wrestle with.

Posted Nov 21, 2006 at 8:04 PM | Permalink

Re: # 81

Monckton’s reply is a ripper! I fully expect that AGW-Al will now promptly abandon that field of battle.

86. KevinUK
Posted Nov 22, 2006 at 3:31 AM | Permalink

#80 FTM

“Gordon Brown, who commissioned the report, will accept its main recommendation for a global carbon-trading scheme to enforce limits on greenhouse gas emissions. The Chancellor will also announce that Al Gore, the former US Vice-President, is to advise him on environmental policy.

Doesn’t this just make you sick to the base of your stomach. As a UK tax payer I’m now not just paying for the nonsense output by the IPCC and its supporting cast of thousands but I’m now expected to pay Al Gore for environmental policy advice? Just yet another reason to not vote for the “Chancer” at the next general election. Only problem is that it looks like the only alternative I might have is UKIP since “Stuntman Dave” and the “Geriatric Scot” are equally sold on the AGW myth.

KevinUK

87. KevinUK
Posted Nov 22, 2006 at 3:34 AM | Permalink

I fully agree. I stared reading it late last night as so I have yet to finish it. So far it is excellent, particularly his refutation of the cherry picked content of “The Inconvenient Truth”.

KevinUK

88. Stan Palmer
Posted Nov 22, 2006 at 6:39 AM | Permalink

The following is an extract from today’s column by John Ibbitson in the Toronto Globe and Mail newspaper. Ibbitson is commenting on a poll that shows that the “environment” is now the most significant concern tp teh Canadian public. The sincerity of the concern has to be matched with the additional finding that it does not extend to support for higher taxes or other measures address global warming

Because most Canadians, while increasingly concerned about the warming, deteriorating air, are not yet worried enough to submit to higher taxes, higher fuel costs, slower economic growth and other possible consequences of truly going green, most politicians confine themselves to talking about the environment, while doing next to nothing about it.

The Liberals and the Conservatives repeatedly promised swift and effective action to fight global warming and air pollution. But, as Mr. Duffy freely admits, the Liberals did virtually nothing during 13 years in power, while the Tories’ Clean Air Act proved to be rhetoric devoid of substance.

So maybe the environment will join health as an issue in which politicians promise, accuse and prevaricate, while the public demands solutions that cost it nothing, and we all just stand and watch while things go down the tube.
Because most Canadians, while increasingly concerned about the warming, deteriorating air, are not yet worried enough to submit to higher taxes, higher fuel costs, slower economic growth and other possible consequences of truly going green, most politicians confine themselves to talking about the environment, while doing next to nothing about it.

The Liberals and the Conservatives repeatedly promised swift and effective action to fight global warming and air pollution. But, as Mr. Duffy freely admits, the Liberals did virtually nothing during 13 years in power, while the Tories’ Clean Air Act proved to be rhetoric devoid of substance.

So maybe the environment will join health as an issue in which politicians promise, accuse and prevaricate, while the public demands solutions that cost it nothing, and we all just stand and watch while things go down the tube.

89. Paul Linsay
Posted Nov 22, 2006 at 7:29 AM | Permalink

On page 13 of his reply Monckton states:

More recently, however, NASA
has found that its satellite sensors had been pointing in the wrong direction. Satellite tropospheric temperature trends now accord with those at the surface. Balloon temperatures were also out of alignment with both surface and satellite temperatures for many years. Recently, however, a correction has been made to the handling of the data and they now
conform.

Does anyone know anything more about this? Over at JunkScience.com the plots of satellite temps are still considerably lower than the ground based temps, especially GISS.

90. Sara Chan
Posted Nov 22, 2006 at 9:17 AM | Permalink

Page 7 of Monckton’s reply says

… the shortfall between the observed 20th-century temperature increase of 0.45 to 0.6C and the 20th-century increase of 1.6 to 3.75C that would have been expected from the projections made by the models upon which the UN relies is unwarranted…. This shortfall between reality and the UN’s projections is well established in the scientific literature (see, for instance, Hansen, 2006)

The reference should be to Hansen et al. [Science 2005]; the relevant figures are in the Supporting Online Material.

Hansen et al. found that the NASA climate model was unable to well simulate temperature across the 20th century. Are there other studies of models (coupled, without “flux adjustments”) that attempted to simulate 20th-century climate? If so, how well did other models do?

(I suppose the IPCC 4AR will answer that question, but this isn’t available to me. I am curious about the correctness of the above quote.)

91. Michael Jankowski
Posted Nov 22, 2006 at 10:27 AM | Permalink

Re#90,

Not quite 20th century, but I thought you might find this interesting.

Both the Canadian and Hadley models predict 21st century warming and precip changes. The differences might appear negligible on the surface, but when those two factors are combined to model soil moisture content, the difference between the models is enormous.

As far as the 20th century goes…the model output resolutions for the 21st century don’t approach the regional changes observed for the 20th century for precipitation and soil moisture. It seems likely that the observed 21st century changes would have the same detail and resolution as the observed 20th century changes, yet the model has extremely broad strokes.

It’s a perfect demonstration for how difficult it is to model something as complex as the climate. Looking at the observed 20th century changes compared to the broad brushes of 21st century predictions, it’s obvious how much greater detail is necessary for summer soil moisture content than the two factors it is dependent on (temperature and precip). Climate modeling is full of interdependent interactions (such as with feedbacks). Being just a little bit off can have huge repercussions.

92. Sara Chan
Posted Nov 22, 2006 at 12:57 PM | Permalink

Re #91,

Thanks. The Canadian model, though, uses flux adjustments. See Coupled Climate Model Appraisal (2005), Table 1, last column.

Basically, Monckton’s point seems to be that if there is no good model for the 20th century, then we should not pay too much attention to what the models predict for the 21st century. This seems like it might be an important point, but it rests on the claim that there is no good model for the 20th, and Monckton does not properly establish that claim. Also, the errors in the NASA model, cited by Monckton, are generally only a few tenths of a degree.

93. jae
Posted Nov 22, 2006 at 1:36 PM | Permalink

92: You say:

Also, the errors in the NASA model, cited by Monckton, are generally only a few tenths of a degree.

A few tenths? Does this mean that the error is as large as the predicted change?

94. Pat Frank
Posted Nov 22, 2006 at 2:15 PM | Permalink

#92 — No one has ever calculated a confidence limit on a GCM, Sara, by running the parameter uncertainties and measurement errors through a climate projection calculation. Until that is done, there is no way to put an accuracy limit on climate projections. Without an accuracy limit, how does anyone know whether the projections are reliable? Or indeed whether the increase in atmospheric CO2 is having a net impact on global temperatures at all?

95. KevinUK
Posted Nov 22, 2006 at 3:08 PM | Permalink

#92 SC

Well it looks like flux adjustemenst are still require deven with the HADCM3 GCM when improve dagreement with regional SSTs is required. Here is a relevant link.

KevinUK

96. bender
Posted Nov 22, 2006 at 3:14 PM | Permalink

the errors in the NASA model, cited by Monckton, are generally only a few tenths of a degree

Who believes this?

97. Posted Nov 22, 2006 at 8:43 PM | Permalink

I discovered this 25K global warming contest endorsed by Gore on the Weather Channel’s new web site and blog for climate scientist — One Degree. According to Fast Company the WC is looking for a 100 objective climate change bloggers to educate the public. The WC thinks there is money to be made by depoliticizing climate change information. The goal is to make money, by providing “accurate climate change information.” I highly doubt the skeptics on this blog will ever be allowed to post “accurate information,” as it does not fit the AGW templet.

Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth was released Nov. 21st on DVD. Due in large part to the dialogue around the film, global warming is now part of the public discourse. From US Magazine to The Colbert Report, everyone knows something about global warming. Great. But what are you actually doing about it?

TreeHugger.com, the largest pure environmental site on the web, and Seventh Generation, Inc., the leading natural home products company, want you to put your money”¢’¬?or at least your time and a video camera”¢’¬?where your mouth is, by inspiring and inciting your peers to take action against global warming.

We call the contest Convenient Truths ($25,000 value in prizes!) as an ode to Al and a way of encouraging next steps: We’re clear on what the problem is, now it’s time for the solutions. Tell the world about the steps you and your peers are taking to stop global warming. Mr. Gore has called the contest “a great way to spread the word and bring the issue into our daily lives.” Convenient Truths, launched November 21st and is intended to create an open forum for Americans to motivate others to take action and address this hot (pun intended) topic. If any additional motivation is needed, TreeHugger.com and Seventh Generation will be dangling sustainable prizes valued at$25,000 in front of your nose like an organic, locally grown carrot.

Posted Nov 22, 2006 at 9:10 PM | Permalink

To KevinUK:

Doesn’t this just make you sick to the base of your stomach. As a UK tax payer I’m now not just paying for the nonsense output by the IPCC and its supporting cast of thousands but I’m now expected to pay Al Gore for environmental policy advice?

It was news to me when I read Monckton write that the IPCC is basically a UK operation. The mechanism of how that works I don’t know – direct payments to the UN?

The revelation satisfies one question I had, Kofi, Strong and the UN crew were pushing AGW and the IPCC so much I assumed the UN would be getting a cut out of the carbon trading markets, or even operate it, similar to how the corrupt Iraqi Oil for Food Program operated. But so far I can’t find anything to the effect they would get such cuts. Maybe their interest comes not from a percentage, but direct payments from your country’s treasury.

99. Pops
Posted Nov 24, 2006 at 11:35 PM | Permalink

Recent record oil-company profits occurred because of events restricting the availability of oil. If oil companies wish to increase profits, they should consider funding AGW promoters rather than skeptics. (Perhaps Al Gore is secretly driven by his Occidental connections rather than his professed environmental affectations.)

100. Proxy
Posted Nov 25, 2006 at 3:37 AM | Permalink

Re #99 Pops – the market doesn’t work like that. Yes the recent shortage of supply and high demand increased profits; however a future falling demand due to CO2 legislation and the resulting over supply will reduce profits. Oil companies are well aware which way the wind is blowing and they will adapt, so investments in successful companies will probably be safe for some time. Compared with the funding provided by governments for “global warming” research and mitigation at the behest of pressure groups and increasingly worried voters, the financial support for skeptics by oil and related fossil fuel industries is almost negligible.

101. Willis Eschenbach
Posted Nov 25, 2006 at 4:07 AM | Permalink

Sara, thank you for your post #92. You say:

Also, the errors in the NASA model, cited by Monckton, are generally only a few tenths of a degree.

I fear this statement is too vague to have much meaning. A few tenths of a degree per year? Per century? And how are we to measure these “errors”? Globally? Regionally? Finally, what does a small error really mean?

One big problem with climate models is that they are “tuned” to reproduce the past climate. That is to say, various parameters are adjusted until the output of the model provides a good match to the past climate. The correct response to this close match is … so what?

As an illustrative example, let me take the stock market. I could write a computer program that, by weighting various factors (e.g. the money supply, the population growth, the historical temperature, etc.), would give me a very good match to the changes in the market from say 1975-2005. Now, does that mean that my computer program will let me make millions in the market in the future?

Absolutely not, and there are lots of people who went broke trying it. All it means is that I have tuned my model to the historical performance, but that says nothing about the future. Now, I could say “The errors in my model are generally only a few tenths of a percent”, but that only means I’ve done a good job tuning the model. It means nothing about the future performance of the model. Someone wiser than I once said “It’s easy to predict the future … as long as it’s just like the past”. But the future is never like the past.

In fact, when looking at other climate metrics that the models are not tuned to replicate, such as the changes in the energy absorbed by the ocean, the models fare very poorly. Our understanding of the climate is far, far from complete enough for us to model it successfully. Every week something new is added to our understanding of climate.

It should be no surprise that the climate should be horrendously difficult to model, as climate is a hugely complex, turbulent, chaotic, multi-stable, driven non-linear system, and our understanding of modeling non-linear systems is in its infancy. For example, modeling ordinary ocean waves in a computer is easy, because waves are linear systems. Breaking ocean waves, however, are turbulent, non-linear systems, and modeling them is very difficult. If it is hard to model a single wave … what are our odds of forecasting a century’s worth of climate?

My best to you,

w.

102. Proxy
Posted Nov 25, 2006 at 4:17 AM | Permalink

Re #100 supplemental

Graph of the forcing provided by funding, over \$40 billion has been pumped into the rarefied atmosphere of the climate change world since 1993.

103. Proxy
Posted Nov 25, 2006 at 4:29 AM | Permalink

Re #102 (second attempt at posting an image)

104. bender
Posted Nov 25, 2006 at 8:37 AM | Permalink

Re #101

when looking at other climate metrics that the models are not tuned to replicate, such as the changes in the energy absorbed by the ocean, the models fare very poorly

Interesting proposition. Sounds like a topic for a post. I wonder if that argument has been made anywhere in the literature. Anyone?

105. Steve McIntyre
Posted Nov 25, 2006 at 2:22 PM | Permalink

Ross and I sent a letter in to the Telegraph replying to Gore. I wonder if it will get published. I’ll post it up if it doesn’t.

106. Willis Eschenbach
Posted Nov 25, 2006 at 5:55 PM | Permalink

Re #104, bender, you say:

I wonder if that argument has been made anywhere in the literature.

Model shortcomings include

“⠠ ~25% regional deficiency of summer stratus cloud cover off the west coast of the continents with resulting excessive absorption of solar radiation by as much as 50 W/m2

“⠠ deficiency in absorbed solar radiation and net radiation over other tropical regions by typically 20 W/m2

“⠠ sea level pressure too high by 4-8 hPa in the winter in the Arctic and 2-4 hPa too low in all seasons in the tropics

“⠠ ~20% deficiency of rainfall over the Amazon basin

“⠠ ~25% deficiency in summer cloud cover in the western United States and central Asia with a corresponding ~5°C excessive summer warmth in these regions.

In addition to the inaccuracies in the simulated climatology, another shortcoming of the atmospheric model for climate change studies is the absence of a gravity wave representation, as noted above, which may affect the nature of interactions between the troposphere and stratosphere.

Source: Climate simulations for 1880-2003 with GISS modelE, J. Hansen et al.

The comment about the 20 W/m2 error in tropical net radiation is particularly telling, since this is the main region for radiation absorption and emission, and is the main determinant of the amount of energy absorbed by the ocean …

w.

107. gb
Posted Nov 26, 2006 at 4:17 AM | Permalink

Re 101.

Parameters in climate modesl are restricted by observations. However, the obseravtions are limited/inaccurate and still leave some room for uncertainties in the parameterisations and therefore some tuning is possible. But parameters are not just given some unrealistic values. Moreover, if parameters are tuned, for example in ocean models, they are tuned to obtain a realistic circulation, not to obtain the correct mean global temperature. Models are not just a statistical fit to past climate records but are based on our (somtimes limited) knowledge on the physics.

108. Steve McIntyre
Posted Nov 26, 2006 at 7:58 AM | Permalink

Willis, that’s a good summary of model issues. Here’s one in IPCC TAR that was amusing: in the models used in IPCC TAR, there was an error of over 4 wm-2 in the NIR absorption of water vapor resulting from a clerical error transcribing measurements in HITRAN-1996. This error had been identified in time to be known to the IPCC TAR authors, but not in time to correct the models. Instead of disclosing the error and arguing that it didn’t matter, IPCC TAR failed to report the known problem.

109. Hasse@Norway
Posted Oct 2, 2007 at 3:55 PM | Permalink

Well before Al Gore was trying to stop global warming he first had a go at heavy metal. Didn’t go very well though. The lock on Al Gore’s face at the end of this clip is inconviniently funny 🙂

You can’t stop rock n roll….