[andykn]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

Not really. I like solid evidence rather than speculation. You speculate that because you don't know the sources, the article must be being fed.

Ah, misunderstanding and misrepresentation straight away.

Posting from obscure secondary sources is evidence (but not proof) that he is getting those links from somewhere other than his own searches. It's solid because I can link back to them.

I speculate that he must be being fed, not because I don't know the sources, but because I do, that's how I know how obscure they are.

If they best you've got is to point out that they aren't obscure to the people that live there, many thousands of miles away, you might as well give up. My blog's not obscure to me but I don't go around posting it as some source of truth.

This is the same speculation Monbiot and others have used to suggest some kind of conspiracy or group feeding scepticism. They have them, ie CaCC, so presumably sceptics must have them.

Yet there is no evidence. Surely after all these years, some sceptic may have converted and leaked some emails, or anything showing the existence of such groups?

Like the NIPCC, you mean?

By secret, I mean he's keeping his source secret from us, not that the source itself is necessarily hidden away. It would be like if you tried to hide the fact you read Watts' blog by posting links to what he covers but keeping secret where you'd got the story from.

Or it could be like the often quoted '97%' of scientists say their funding prefers global warming.

It's not a quote I use myself, but wasn't it 97% of Climate Scientists?

Misleading, when you look at the actual evidence.

Quite.

[elfcurry]

I found a site with that acronym.

It's very snazzy with pretty pictures and bouncing letters but the 'content' is all (well, I say 'all' but I only spent 20 seconds there, so my impression is about the same depth as the site's "science" ) shite as far as I can see.

Examples, accompanied by pictures trying to distract you from thinking about these misleading words...

• Discover the neglected pertinent science!
• Learn the benefits of atmospheric CO2!
• Marvel at the resiliency of the biosphere!

It's sort of funny to see them get it so wrong but if ordinary people see it some of the less discerning or less educated may think it's honest. (Look into my eyes... these pretty pictures mean the words can go straight into your shallow mind with no worries about whether they might be true....)

How much more misleading or unhelpful could it be?

There are sources of information on climate science and related issues: scientific journals, universities, schools, libraries and reputable news media. If you ignore non-specialist opinions and local print media and any websites claiming everyone else is lying to you, you'll get a much better picture of reality.

[Orri]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

So rather than the snark, what's wrong with Nahle's paper? ie specific areas where he may or may not have made mistakes.

A few for starters,
He takes a high value for the partial pressure of h2o with no justification, and at the same time with no reason other than to avoid the tedium of providing a spread sheet.
I assume that his messing about is all to do with the 390 ppm value for co2 being due to it being a dry air value, however what he seem intent on doing is not seing how adding h2o lowers that value, which should set alarm bells ringing, but it seems instead he is treating the atmosphere as having 5% h2o and then adding the co2 which would as a consequence reduce that level. Surprise, surprise, the effect of that is going to lower the h2o level. Even then the formula he uses doesn't look right.

All that aside, he assume that no matter the make up of the atmosphere he's treating it as a fixed quantity, he's ignored the fact that the total volume has to grow. His common sense idea only works if you are dealing with a fixed volume, and it only works if the volume of gas does not work as a source of energy.

[alanwarwic]

It seems that the The head of the Met Office, John Hirst has been asked to 'think again too'.

At least I do assume this is the intention of the "death threats" he has been getting.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...-sceptics.html

''It is not confined to the Met Office. Around the time of Climategate there were many instances of people involved getting unsavoury emails.''

[elfcurry]

Does anyone know whether the weather is anomolous at present? Is there somewhere I can check?

I seem to remember we had a colder than usual period in December (compared with recent times) in the UK but now it's quite warm for April. It's like summer here - shorts and tee shirt today and has been like this for some days.

I'm wondering because those who claimed the climate couldn't possibly be warming up because it was chilly in December where they were don't seem to be saying anything now it's warmer than usual in April.

What's up? Haven't they noticed or is there some reason they only point out anomolies in one direction?

[andykn]

Originally Posted by elfcurry

Does anyone know whether the weather is anomolous at present? Is there somewhere I can check?

I seem to remember we had a colder than usual period in December (compared with recent times) in the UK but now it's quite warm for April. It's like summer here - shorts and tee shirt today and has been like this for some days.

I'm wondering because those who claimed the climate couldn't possibly be warming up because it was chilly in December where they were don't seem to be saying anything now it's warmer than usual in April.

What's up? Haven't they noticed or is there some reason they only point out anomolies in one direction?

I wouldn't worry about it, I don't think they realised how badly they weakened their case by thinking what would have been a completely unexceptional winter 25 years ago was somehow absolutely rather than anomalously bad, thereby highlighting how good the weather had been over the last two decades.

And they didn't realise how good the rest of the winter would turn out, either.

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by andykn

I wouldn't worry about it, I don't think they realised how badly they weakened their case by thinking what would have been a completely unexceptional winter 25 years ago

Not quite..

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/h..._mean_sort.txt

Dec 2010 was on average the 2nd coldest in the CET's record

Monthy max temperatures also show clear signs of global warming-

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/h...t_max_sort.txt

with only January, July and September setting records since 2000.

As for April. Top 3 max years were-

16.5 in 1893
16.4 in 2007
15.0 in 1914

and for average-

11.2 in 2007
10.6 in 1865
10.5 in 1943

But that's all just weather.

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

It seems that the The head of the Met Office, John Hirst has been asked to 'think again too'.

''It is not confined to the Met Office. Around the time of Climategate there were many instances of people involved getting unsavoury emails.''

Like
"Can I see your data please?"
"Why have you just got a 25% payrise when your organisation keeps getting it wrong?"
"How do you like working for the WWF?"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/we...-pay-rise.html

[Devon Miles]

Originally Posted by elfcurry

Does anyone know whether the weather is anomolous at present? Is there somewhere I can check?

I seem to remember we had a colder than usual period in December (compared with recent times) in the UK but now it's quite warm for April. It's like summer here - shorts and tee shirt today and has been like this for some days.

I'm wondering because those who claimed the climate couldn't possibly be warming up because it was chilly in December where they were don't seem to be saying anything now it's warmer than usual in April.

What's up? Haven't they noticed or is there some reason they only point out anomolies in one direction?

I have noticed over the past few years in this country (well in the SE at least) what seems to be a distinct change in our weather patterns - April & May in recent years often seem to be really nice and then July / August / Sept quite poor. We then often seem to have another warm patch around late October / early November..

Of course these are just my observations and i don't have any data to back them up..

Also of course a warm April in the UK is no indication that global climate is warming any more than a particularly harsh UK winter is any evidence that global climate is cooling