China, the USA, Japan, Russia, Canada, India and Brazil refused to sign up to new Kyoto style targets or to join a new Treaty about global warming. It has left the Europeans rather isolated on this issue. Now China is to publish a Chinese translation of large amounts of peer reviewed research which questions global warming in “Climate Change reconsidered” on June 15th. The Chinese Academy of Sciences wishes to make clear it does not endorse these views. It is good to see these matters being debated.
June 13, 2013
Good for them the AGW catastrophe exaggeration fails on so many, many levels.
First the idea that higher concentration will cause large and catastrophic increases in temperature, with damaging positive back mechanisms, is highly doubtful.
Second a little warmer is probably better on balance anyway.
Third the solution proposed wind and PV are absurdly expensive and do not even work in C02 terms.
Fourth C02 is only one of thousands of factors affecting the weather systems over many of which we have not control what so ever.
Finally, even if what all the green priests say is all true, it need world cooperation which is simply not going to happen.
See what happens and adapt if needed is clearly a far more logical approach. Especially as we have had no recent warming for 15+ years.
Finally just consider the caliber of people who support the agenda. Huhne, Yeo, Major, Julia Gillard, all the Libdems, Davies, Cameron, Gore, the EU, (various probably false allegations followed re these people ed)
June 13, 2013
I did not think I had made any allegations sorry if I did.
The BBC as usual bears much of the blame for setting this fake green agenda, though few now believe them I note. The BBC now seem (after listening to woman’s hour and endless similar stuff) to have moved on to push with the EU the 50% woman every where agenda (for fairness as they see it). As it is very clear that many women do not want to running industries or similar (or even studying science & physics it seems), this can only therefore be done by blatant anti male discrimination by law which it seems is what the BBC would like.
Doubtless we will have a part time PM, and perhaps a new head of RBS, working just Monday and Tuesday afternoons soon. So as preserve a work life balance.
June 13, 2013
First the idea that higher concentration will cause large and catastrophic increases in temperature, with damaging positive back mechanisms, is highly doubtful.
Fortunately the evidence that continually increasing temperature will eventually cause huge problems isn’t in doubt.
Second a little warmer is probably better on balance anyway.
Try telling that to the people in Africa who are suffering droughts and crop failures because it’s too hot to grow crops and all their water evaporated.
Third the solution proposed wind and PV are absurdly expensive and do not even work in C02 terms.
All scientific evidence does show that wind and PV do produce less CO2 than other methods. It’s only the deniers who claim otherwise because the power generation methods they support produce huge amounts of CO2.
Fourth C02 is only one of thousands of factors affecting the weather systems over many of which we have not control what so ever.
Given that industrial activity produce huge amounts of CO2 every year it’s clear that human do have an influence over this. Also just because the planet’s temperature is too complex for you to understand doesn’t mean other people can’t understand it.
Finally, even if what all the green priests say is all true, it need world cooperation which is simply not going to happen.
Actually we only need the cooperation of the countries that produce the most CO2, not world cooperation.
See what happens and adapt if needed is clearly a far more logical approach. Especially as we have had no recent warming for 15+ years.
No matter how many times you repeat this lie it will never become true. Over the past 15 years the average global temperature has increased.
June 14, 2013
Even the green movement admit no statistically significant warming in the 15 years.
June 14, 2013
Your attempts to back up your discredited claims by claiming that the green movement supports it isn’t fooling anyone. Scientific evidence shows that there has been warming over the last 15 years.
June 14, 2013
Uni,
The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit.
Since 1880, when reliable temperature records began to be kept across most of the globe, the world has warmed by about 0.75 degrees Celsius.
From the start of 1997 until August 2012, however, figures released last week show the answer is zero: the trend, derived from the aggregate data collected from more than 3,000 worldwide measuring points, has been flat.
Oh dear!
June 14, 2013
Phil Jones has gone on the record (on the BBC) and stated that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1998.
And even the chairman of the ludicrously named energy & climate change committee thinks majority of climate change is natural.
Follow the money to appreciate the exaggerated claims of the AGW rent seekers.
June 14, 2013
No – a relative handful government-funded “scientists” may say that but many more reputable scientists, (unlike Pachauri, the IPCC’s so-called climate “expert” who is in reality nothing more than a railway engineer), say there has been no global warming in the last sixteen years – in fact there’s even been some cooling.
Stop being such a sheeple and try thinking for yourself …..
June 14, 2013
@uanime5
I thought the decline of African agriculture had more to do with the likes of Mugabe stealing farms from farmers and giving them to his cronies.
June 14, 2013
Care to explain the decline in African agriculture in every African country outside of Zimbabwe. Specifically why these countries’ farmland is turning to desert.
June 13, 2013
Fatalistic nonsense rant pretending to be fact.
You cannot even grasp a small economic/human problem. and believe that reducing cleaners rights and safety will somehow make more jobs and higher pay for them in an oversupplied labour market, by it very nature, and low pay make the commuting area small. Except you do not believe this do you? You just want cheaper cleaners at any price even if this reduces their numbers. In the same way its interesting to note that no self-sustaining environment has been created by man and lasted very long so what makes you so sure the earth will be merciful to humans if change is happening by the release of CO2?
Just can’t get the staff.
June 13, 2013
The claimed reductions are all based on false accounting too. even on the lowest level, when signing up for a council lease car (limit 130g/km) you have to tell them what you are replacing and how many miles you do. They don’t take into account that older cars have more honest mpg/co2 figures or that once I have a car that does 60mpg rather than 30mpg I’ll take the opportunity to do twice as many miles.
Nor do they bother to ask if I will be keeping my old 204 g/km hot hatch for weekend use rather than flogging it for a grand.
June 13, 2013
Never though I would thank the Chinese, not that I have anything against them, we would make hay in just the same way if they allowed us to!…
The important point you mention is “peer reviewed research”, will this be international peer reviews, I hope so as if it is only domestic then cries of foul will abound from the AGW lobby (regardless of any scientific fact) simply because China is a ‘CO2 rich’ economy. Interesting times…
June 13, 2013
Given that they’re being translated from Chinese they’ve probably only been peer reviewed by the Chinese. It will be interesting to see if these reports can stand up to international scrutiny.
June 14, 2013
@U5: English is a international language, do you realise just how many Chinese have been learning English, even more so since China took control on Hong Kong?! Oh and it’s not standing up to peer reviews that worries me, evidence and facts are evidence and facts after all, but if the AGW pushers will accept such peer reviews if they show that there are no “hockey-stick” rises in temperature etc.
June 14, 2013
The fact that many Chinese people can speak English doesn’t change the fact that a paper written in Chinese is unlikely to have been peer reviewed by anyone who is not Chinese. Therefore this paper is very unlikely to have been internationally peer reviewed.
Also given that it’s unknown to most people what this paper contains it’s entirely possible that it will claim the “hockey-stick” rises in temperature is correct.
Reply You are missing the point and misunderstand what is happening here more than usual.
June 13, 2013
I believe global warming was cooked up in response to the global financial crash to :
– open up a new derivative market in carbon trading for a bust financial sector.
– raise a new carbon tax base for bust govt
I also think it was cooked up right here in the UK and the data was fit to achieve the desired outcome. It is also a monumental failure.
June 13, 2013
I don’t dismiss the possibility that mankind’s activities could significantly affect the climate . Nobody with an open mind would .
Carbon credits become a tax without representation to fund global government and enslave us yet further .
The political and financial classes in the West have completely appropriated the wealth of ordinary people and enslaved them in debt for several generations .
It’s a game of monopoly where the rich have houses and hotels on every square of the board .
They have won outright ! We have nothing left for them to take !
You know some of these people John . Can you not just tell them that we all submit and accept any terms of surrender short of sacrificing our children to them ?
How ironic that the last chance for ordinary people of the West should lie with the minority of countries which have refused to be integrated into the West .
It’s like sitting in a debtors prison hoping your countries adversaries will bomb you a way out .
June 13, 2013
Global warming was first noticed in the 19th century, so it’s obviously not been created in response to something that happened in 2008.
June 14, 2013
You talk so much rubbish on so many levels its unbelievable. I really don’t have time to correct your very limited understanding of climate science and current developments being published. You clearly want to follow the Guardian and BBC agenda without doing any further and wider research, so it’s pointless trying to educate you.
June 14, 2013
The fact that you were unable to point out any errors with my statement indicates that you don’t understand climate science. Perhaps if you didn’t blindly believe everything in the Mail and telegraph you might understand this issue.
June 13, 2013
@Gary
Margaret Thatcher, a former research scientist, had this to say as far back as 1989:
“It is mankind and his activities which are changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways […] Every country will be affected and no one can opt out […] Each country has to contribute, and those countries who are industrialised must contribute more to help those who are not.”
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107817
Reply And said something critical of global warming theory in 2002.
June 16, 2013
Indeed Lady Thatcher was taken in too, just for a while.
June 13, 2013
Nice try Gary
Global warming became the orthodoxy long before the politicians crashed the banking system
June 13, 2013
Hooray! At last AGW is getting to be yesterday’s idea.
It will have absolutely no effect on the Greenies though. I talked to one today. The Carbon Tax, I learned, was one of the very best things we ever did…….
I am sure that a great number of very rich people (no names, please) would warmly agree!
June 13, 2013
Exactly. The one thing I have never been able to understand about global warming proponents (usually more to the left) is that the consequence of their policies is to make rich people richer and the poor poorer.
June 13, 2013
Dr John Galan: “is that the consequence of their policies is to make rich people richer and the poor poorer.”
I think, those of a lefty persuasion tend to be more ’emotional’ about such things, if there is a koala bear getting wet in the rain forest, SOMETHING MUST BE DONE! Since they rarely have a rationale for their demands, when their chosen course of action is counterproductive, they cannot easily see cause and effect, so SOMETHING MUST BE DONE, AGAIN….
Ad nauseam.
The poor dears.
June 13, 2013
But concentrate power in the hands of the state, and the bigger the state the better.
The rich people can always be dealt with later.
June 13, 2013
At last some sanity from some governments. Pity ours is so busy ripping us off with taxes and payoffs to it’s green buddies. I suppose they have to get their consultancy fees, from somewhere.
June 13, 2013
Its nice to see China taking the lead on global warming. Odd, isn’t it, that the beneficiaries of Kyoto change their minds when they have to make some concessions themselves. It’s a pity that the UK is the only country in the world to enshrine this belief system in law. The lamb has already been slaughtered.
June 13, 2013
Presumably they are more concerned about their economies and the cost of energy than they are about ‘global man-made warming’.
It is time our politicians woke up to this and looked again at the environmental impact of our ‘sparrow in the Pacific’ contribution, and sufficiently quickly to prevent even more of our manufacturing base disappearing.
Oh! I forgot about all of these green economy jobs which are being created.
Silly me
June 13, 2013
The UK was losing its manufacturing base long before we tried to reduce our CO2 levels, while Germany has maintained their manufacturing base even after reducing their CO2 levels. Therefore it’s clear that the decline of manufacturing has nothing to do with reducing CO2 levels.
June 13, 2013
It’s the CATASTROPHIC global man-made warming that is soooooooo dangerous!
June 13, 2013
None of this will stop the zealots in our government impoverishing the majority to enrich the few.
June 13, 2013
Interesting to see how the comments on this site never mention this religious belief. The trickle down effect is infallible. Fatalistic belief in the inevitability of a financial aristocracy and this view being put on CO2 now emissions too.
June 13, 2013
It will be interesting to see what the Chinese government has to say.
Will they see it as being in China’s interests to encourage its international competitors to commit economic suicide?
Or will they decide that for the time being China still needs those other countries to do something to earn the money to provide markets for its goods?
If the latter, would it better for them to come out against the theory, or would it be better to confirm it and then make sure that they supply the solar panels and low energy light bulbs and whatever else is needed by their competitors in their efforts to save the planet from doom?
Whatever the Chinese say, whichever way they fall, they will no doubt follow the well-established pattern of drawing conclusions for reasons which are much more political, in fact geopolitical, than scientific.
June 13, 2013
Whilst I am a global warming sceptic of the largest order, I agree about being careful of Chinese intentions with this research. Their Government still looking for themselves first. We’ll see. Its starting to unravel for the green climate change religion.
June 13, 2013
The University of East Anglia will soon fine reasons to discredit the Chinese research!
June 13, 2013
When money / capital is involved it is amazing how research can be messaged.I expect all those who have done research are aware of the freedom to emphasise and negate some findings at their will . Collective will of the powerful is even more subject to manoeuvre.
June 13, 2013
Who trusts “research” from politically controlled leftist authoritarian regimes. Reminiscent of Lysenkoism.
Good job we have free market, small state, economic liberal China providing the truth that (statist-ed) President Barroso hates.
Though the truth is all around. After 34 years of alleged CAGW there is no trace of any. anything
June 13, 2013
Though the truth is all around. After 34 years of alleged CAGW there is no trace of any. anything
Just because you ignored all the scientific evidence that the average global temperature has risen over the past 34 years doesn’t mean there’s no evidence.
June 14, 2013
And the rises in temperature Pre industrial revolution were caused by???
Of course I don’t expect an answer. The simple mention of Frost Fairs usually has supporters of the AGW fantasy religion squirming.
June 14, 2013
The last time CO2 levels were this high was 200 million years ago, at a time when the earth was very different. Care to explain why they didn’t rise this high again until after the industrial revolution.
June 13, 2013
Interesting – all the major emitters of CO2. I wonder how the EU, BBC, Lib Dems and the rest handle this?
June 13, 2013
They’ll ignore it!
June 13, 2013
Ignore it probably and prattle all the more about OUR need to tackle GLOBAL warming.
I can certainly see other excuses being cobbled together to excuse the huge amounts wasted and the empires built up; biodiversity, energy security, whatever.
June 13, 2013
John,
Thanks for this – I shall look forward to reading it!
June 13, 2013
This is development is, I believe, profoundly significant.
The response of the UK political establishment to this will be very revealing. I note, in passing, that the Royal Society was in the vanguard of those promoting the CAGW hypothesis. But by 2010, under pressure from dissenting FRSs the then President, Lord Rees, issued a statement “There is little confidence in specific projections of future regional climate change”. The RS then issued a new guide on Climate Science which stated “The size of future temperature changes and other aspects of climate change are still subject to uncertainty and some uncertainties are unlikely ever to be significantly reduced”. I believe I have commented here before that the science chapters of the IPCC report c2002 also noted that it was impossible to forecast outcomes in a dynamic, chaotic system that is the Earth`s climate. This qualification was, of course, omitted from the summaries produced for governments and policy makers. The EU and the UK has ignored the doubts and uncertainties and has ploughed ahead with hopelessly wrong and economically damaging policies.
The Chinese paper has the potential to make Western governments, including the UK and the EU, look very stupid indeed. Not to mention certain elements of the scientific establishment.
June 13, 2013
You quote:-
“The size of future temperature changes and other aspects of climate change are still subject to uncertainty and some uncertainties are unlikely ever to be significantly reduced”. I believe I have commented here before that the science chapters of the IPCC report c2002 also noted that it was impossible to forecast outcomes in a dynamic, chaotic system that is the Earth`s climate.”
Indeed what scientist, who was even half awake, could believe anything else? The royal society should be very ashamed.
June 14, 2013
Your attempts to misquote the IPCC isn’t fooling anyone. These uncertainties are minor, which is why the IPCC can predict what will happen if CO2 levels continue to rise with over 95% certainty.
June 13, 2013
Your attempts to misrepresent scientific evidence to fit with your own ideology aren’t fooling anyone. The scientists said that you cannot exactly predict that average global temperature increases but that they could produce a range of temperature increase that will be correct. So far the temperature increases have remained within this range.
June 14, 2013
Forecasts or predictions based on models are not scientific evidence. Evidence is acquired through observation of the outcome of experiments under controlled conditions, or of nature. Professor Feynmann famously and succinctly pointed out the attempt to define the laws of science started with a guess that was then tested by experiment and observation. If experiment and observation did not match the guess, then the guess was wrong. That is the status of the CAGW hypothesis.
June 14, 2013
Actually the scientific evidence supports the CAGW hypothesis that increasing CO2 levels will increase the average global temperature.
June 14, 2013
That simply isn’t true at all.
Just look at this chart from the IPCC’s draft 5th review:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ipcc_ar5_draft_fig1-4_without.png
June 14, 2013
A website made by deniers isn’t proof of anything. Either provide a link to this graph on the IPCC’s own website or admit that you don’t have any evidence.
June 13, 2013
I can’t believe that China would dispute the view of 97% of the world’s scientists on global warming ,particularly when the BBC also agrees.[trending innocent!]
There are no doubt good political reasons for China to be different from the left liberal consensus ; a refusal to be patronised is one.
These are early days but it is good to see the glimmers of scepticism from a super power.
A pity it is not the EU doing this .
Roll on 15 Jun !
June 13, 2013
“The EU rather isolated”
So their and our response will be ?
Even more legislation and targets, with fines for exceeding these new limits ?
All of these other Nations must be laughing their socks off as we slowly commit business suicide, whilst they continue to grow.
When will our lot wake up from the dream World ?
June 13, 2013
Alan ,
By presenting AGW as a proven theorem rather than a hypothesis , H.M. government it is assured that there will be irreparable psychological consequences .
Many British citizens have readily succumbed to a form of Stockholm Syndrome to empathise with the Govt which is trying to use AGW hypothesis to control them .
They want to believe in AGW and will dismiss anyone telling them differently .
Adults with a healthy dose of scepticism might think that they have been unaffected but saturation brainwashing is effective and even if you try to resist the message will have been planted deep into peoples brains .
As for children they have much longer to carry this damage around with them and what has been done to them is criminal .
I don’t suppose H.M. Govt that they might ever have to disabuse people of the notions they were planting into peoples head .
June 14, 2013
Actually if anyone is suffering a form of Stockholm Syndrome it is the deniers who refuse to accept that all the scientific evidence that shows they’re wrong and that global warming is due to man made CO2 emissions.
June 13, 2013
Does that mean we can reopen Didcot Power Station? Before the lights go out.
June 13, 2013
Hopefully. Perhaps Cameron can find a fig leaf in the form of so environmental mods to be added one day?
June 13, 2013
Since that wasn’t closed due to CO2 emissions, no.
June 14, 2013
Didcot was the power source for the JET fusion research project at Culham. You need energy to research the next generation of energy.
June 13, 2013
Because global warming relies on modelling, it has been hijacked by vested interests.
It is a terrible indictment of the BBC that it has also used this subject as a propaganda tool rather than giving us balanced information.
I don’t suppose the Chinese information will be any less tainted by spin.
With this subject the BBC had a golden opportunity to show how it could stay above the fray and present the issues in an even-handed way and show the world that we in the UK could shine a light on the truth. The BBC blew it.
We now have no reliable source for well presented, unbiased information on this subject.
All we can hope is that the bias from the Chinese balances the bias from other vested interests like the BBC and we arrive at some kind of consensus. However I don’t hold out much hope for us in the UK, because the BBC has the transmitters, the studios etc and can set the agenda
We can see from the reaction in Greece the kind of opposition there would be if we tried to reform the BBC.
June 13, 2013
All the evidence shows that climate change is caused by man made CO2, so it would be inaccurate of the BBC to give air time to cranks spewing their discredited claims.
June 14, 2013
@U5: Wrong. All the evidence that the AGW pushers have published shows what they want it to show, there is a mountain of evidence (some that has now been leaked/hacked) that show other trends or reasons, on top of all this is the naturally occurring CO2 that the AGW pushers conveniently keep quite about.
June 14, 2013
Firstly the evidence comes from scientists, not AGW pushers.
Secondly this evidence shows that climate change is caused by man made CO2. The fact that you don’t like this doesn’t make this evidence wrong.
Thirdly if the denier had any real evidence to support their claims they’d actually use this evidence, rather than smear campaigns.
Fourthly the fact that you couldn’t provide any evidence to support your claims, despite claiming there’s a mountain of this evidence, indicates that you have no evidence.
June 15, 2013
@U5: Firstly, scientists are paid from AGW research grants etc. – no AGW (research), no work, no pay!
Second, third and fourthly, see point one…
Sorry U5 but you are the one who seem to be unwilling to provide any evidence, or accept that there are legitimate arguments to be had, you just keep repeating the ;same AGW pushing propaganda, tell mus how man6y tonnes of CO2 have been emitted from deep sea events this year alone,tell us what effect sun spots/flares have, tell us why the climate in Roman Britain was warm enough to grow grape vines as far north as Cumbria etc.
June 14, 2013
Uni,
I very much dislike your use of the words “denier” and “crank”.
One has a strong historical link to those who refuse to accept the deaths of millions by the Nazis happened and the other is a politically incorrect slang term for those who suffer with mental health problems.
Additionally crank was a label often applied to people in dictatorships before they were dragged off to camps as being mentally ill without trial for holding views deemed wrong by the State.
Both show an underlying determination to close down debate by aiming personal attacks on anyone with differing views to your own.
A dangerous road to be on.
June 14, 2013
As long as the deniers continue to deny something proven by scientific evidence because it conflicts with their ideology I will continue to call them deniers and cranks. Especially when the only response of deniers and cranks is either to make claims that they can’t back up with any evidence or abuse because they can’t rebut my arguments.
June 15, 2013
@U5: But nothing has been proven, all that has happened is a bunch of people have basically said “Trust us, we are doctors” and when asked for proof they keep coming up with excuses such as data ownership and get very upset when the data gets leaked/hacked and we find it shows that some data is showing the exact opposite to what has been claimed and that this data has either been ignored or changed.
U5, do you work for/at the University of East Anglia?
June 13, 2013
@Kenneth: I don’t believe any UK based media outlet (print, web or broadcast) has given balanced information regarding AGW, this is not a BBC only issue – the BBC stands out though because it does try and cover it. Many within the media seem to have given up attempting to give balanced information because once these types of debate get closed down by vested interests those who go against the ‘accepted’ wisdom simply risk abuse (often personal), easier to just keep quite, or allow people like Mr Farrage do the talking.
June 13, 2013
China, the USA, Japan, Russia, Canada, India and Brazil refused to sign up to new Kyoto style targets or to join a new Treaty about global warming. It has left the Europeans rather isolated on this issue.
Your attempts to discredit climate change border on outright lying. Firstly 191 countries and the EU have signed up to Kyoto, though in the first period only 37 countries had binding targets. Secondly only Canada and the USA have withdrawn from Kyoto. Thirdly while Japan and Russia haven’t signed up to new targets they are still trying to reduce their emissions based on the targets in the first period. Fourthly China, India, and Brazil never had any targets so it’s no surprise that they didn’t agree new targets. Fifthly Australia agreed to new targets so it’s not just Europe who is trying to reduce their CO2 footprint.
So John just because several countries that didn’t have any targets under Kyoto didn’t agree new targets or just because several countries with targets in the first period didn’t agree to further cuts in the second period doesn’t mean that all the scientific evidence showing that climate change is man made is wrong. All your claims show is just how biased you are.
Now China is to publish a Chinese translation of large amounts of peer reviewed research which questions global warming in “Climate Change reconsidered” on June 15th.
George W. Bush tried to fund research to criticise the evidence that climate change wasn’t man made and it was immediately debunked by actual scientists. I expect the same will happen to this Chinese research.
June 14, 2013
@U5: “Fourthly China, India, and Brazil never had any targets so it’s no surprise that they didn’t agree new targets.”
Bingo, exactly! After all if CO2 is causing such catastrophic climate change and considering that CO2 has no respect of international borders these countries should have been a part of the first round of Kyoto, not given an opt-out to enable them to emit very high levels of CO2 so that they can industrialise when other developed countries are having to basically de-industrialise. More evidence, as if it was needed, that the AGW scam is more about would wide socail levelling than climate.
June 14, 2013
@Jerry
“More evidence, as if it was needed, that the AGW scam is more about world wide social leveling than climate.”
This sounds like a conspiracy!
June 14, 2013
The first round of the Kyoto Protocol was in 1997, at a time when most of the CO2 was emitted by developed countries so there was no reason to include China, India, and Brazil. Your really should learn some history.
June 15, 2013
@U5: Exactly my point! These opt-out countries were allowed to emit huge amounts of CO2, what is the point of the west cutting CO2 emissions if the opt-out countries are simply putting double the amount into the atmosphere.
June 13, 2013
Excellent news. It has been clear for some time that all of the climate models have failed to predict the current sixteen year hiatus in global temperatures. It is thought that the most likely reason is an erroneous assumption of both the numerical values, and possibly even the polarity of the feedback factor leading to enhanced atmospheric water vapour. Currently no reliable measurements of this climate sensitivity are available. But until recently those publicly funded climate scientists have refused to accept that this guess, yes guess, might be incorrect.
June 13, 2013
No surprise here as there are so many fundamental problems with the AGW modelling that there is no chance that they are right.
1. The biggest influence on our weather is the Sun, it cycles, random events and solar wind. Our knowledge on how this works is incomplete. This will immediately invalidate any model, as assumptions would have to be made to cover this lack of knowledge and of course it cannot cover the randomness.
2. Water vapour and cloud are one of the biggest influences with CO2 in comparison just a minor trace gas.
3. The modelling is only over a 133 year period. This is like putting an alien into London then in Sydney for 1 second to note the weather. Their conclusions that London has 24 hour darkness and must use the river and ocean currents to keep it habitable and for Sydney with 24 hour daylight they use rivers and the sea to keep it cool. Why don’t they model AGW over a longer period, because their models don’t fit historical facts from ice core data!
4. Catastrophe theory: Examples are earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, magnetic pole flipping (affects solar wind), polar axis fluctuations (Japanese earthquake changed this by 1m), slight random changes in the Earth’s orbit (this is why atomic clocks have to be periodically adjusted by 1s). The very nature of these random events means they cannot be modelled.
So I would have been shocked if their predictions had been correct, which we know they are not from where the earth is currently not warming.
Another example of modelling is by economists, how good and right have they been on GDP growth over the last few years? Once you had the catastrophic change of people realising that AAA sub-prime bonds were anything but, this change made all economic models wrong as they rely on reasonable steady steady data, this year will be approximately be like the last with a few tweeks.
The simple fact is that humans can’t predict the future anything that proves to be correct is a insightful at best or lucky guess.
In the late 1960’s the concern was of another overdue ice age. Now that really would be catastrophic and the end on Northern civilization as we know it. We know they form very quick in as little as 12 months and last thousands of years but we don’t know how or why they happen. We are still in an ice age with the current one starting 1.6million years ago, when the ice caps formed again. In the last 100,000 years the majority of the time we have been in ice ages with short warm periods. IMHO any slight warming of the earth is to be welcomed if this helps to stop another cold period where most of the Northern hemisphere is covered in ice and it is impossible to grow any crops.
June 14, 2013
I agree re solar activity effecting climate – the sun is the complex and still not fully understood engine that drives our planet and it is interestng to note that our recent poor summers and prolonged winters seems to correlate with a downturn in solar activity, in simple terms, greatly reduced sunspot count.
We are in solar cycle 24 of the notional 11-year solar cycles and at measured 40 months into cycle 24 the monthly smoothed sunspot number was about 55. Compared with earlier cycles at the same 40 months point cycle 21 peaked at about 165, cycle 22 at 158 and cycle 23 at 100. In short, solar activity in cycle 21 was 3 times the present cycle 24, which is a sobering thought and it seems clear that the sun appears to be entering a cooling phase, much as it did which led to mini ice ages in Europe (e.g. Google Maunder Minium when the sun went very quiet for over 40 years) and in northern Europe rivers and coastal seas froze for months on end each winter.
Climate change protaganists acknowledge the sun has some effect on climate, but of course claim that any reduction in solar activity will only have a small cooling affect on global warming. Sadly, for them increases in global temperatures have been less than supportive of their claim. So yes, we might well be about to enter another mini-ice age.
June 14, 2013
@Martyn G
” it is interestng to note that our recent poor summers and prolonged winters seems to correlate with a downturn in solar activity”
First google geoengineering
And then, when we get a clear day, have a look at the sky, note the milky blue colour as opposed to the vivid blue we used to see. Note how many “vapour trails” from planes no longer vanish behind the plane but rather hang in the atmosphere from horizon to horizon and slowly spread out to form clouds. Then do some more googling and learn about increased levels of aluminum in soil samples.
Keep mind open (and eyes).
June 14, 2013
Given that the little ice age lasted about 300 years, not 40, it’s unlike that it was entirely due to the sun’s 11 year cycle.
Also scientific evidence shows that the sun has been in it’s “cooling” phase for some time but the average temperature continues to climb. So it’s unlikely that the sun will magically fix everything for you.
June 14, 2013
1) The effects the sun has on earth follow an 11 year cycle, so it’s easy to predict how it will effect earth. The fact that you don’t know how the sun works doesn’t make any climate models invalid.
2) Water vapour and clouds are only present in the atmosphere for a few days, therefore they cannot be responsible for an increase in temperature that has lasted for over 100 years.
3) Your claims about aliens and ice cores are farcical. AGW is about whether man made CO2 is causing the planet to warm and so far all the evidence suggests that it is. This includes ice cores which have shown that such rapid temperature increases haven’t happened before.
4) None of the things you mentioned have any effect on climate change, thus they don’t need to be included in any models. All you’ve done is illustrate how little you understand about this issue.
Your attempts to equal science to economics just shows you don’t understand how either of them work. The failure of some economists to predict something does not make scientific evidence about something else wrong.
June 13, 2013
It will be fascinating to see this peer reviewed research. Why does the Chinese government need to publish it? Wasn’t it already out there? If not, why not?
Who exactly is doing this peer reviewed work, and why should we believe that over peer reviewed work which suggests the opposite?
June 13, 2013
Just over the past year the debate on this issue has changed markedly, with many scientists and scientific institutions questioning the received wisdom of doom through man-made global warming. It will be interesting to see whether and how the global warming establishment attempts to discredit this Chinese research. Back to UK politics: the way things are going the Government’s ‘green agenda’ is going to look absurd by 2015. The Conservatives should therefore at least announce a root-and-branch review of the current research on this issue, with no re-conceived conclusions, and allowing sceptical scientists and other experts to be properly heard. Hopefully we are nearing the point when the absurd and expensive green policies which follow from the global warming theory of the last 25 years can finally be abandoned.
June 14, 2013
@Richard1
“allowing sceptical scientists and other experts to be properly heard”
Don’t forget the BBC Head of Comedy!
June 13, 2013
Central heating on in June.
Daily bike ride yesterday with a wooly hat on.
Damn this pesky global warming.
Strikes me we have global cooling (well – okay – UK cooling) and the sooner we start burning some carbon the better.
June 14, 2013
Mike, you mustn’t say global warming anymore.
Having dropped the “catastrophic” bit recently, it is now to be referred to as “climate change”.
This covers them when it gets cooler as well.
They change their title nearly as often as the EU.
June 14, 2013
@Edward2
“it is now to be referred to as “climate change””
Since when did the Earth have a variable climate?
June 13, 2013
well done China
June 13, 2013
The flaw in this latest development and in many of the fantasists minds is that clean efficient energy will have to be developed sometime as the pollution of fossil fuels in the vast new cities and larger urban areas will be unacceptable. CO2 will have to be reduced anyway as more energy, but cleaner energy will be needed. The dirt in the atmosphere in many Chines cites is beyond the pale and the rest of the countries mentioned have many energy problems explaining why they do not want to have any restrictions on energy production, but in the end they will have to come up with answers, so the idea that we just continue in a race to the bottom is not economically realistic.
How many of the free market apologists are supporting large corporations paying little taxes and allowing access by states to spy on them. Utility companies ripping off the customer, and not paying any taxes. Companies who’s income comes from the tax payer not paying taxes and allowing access by the state to peoples phone and internet activities.
These facts are not unrelated especially in world terms. The idea that releasing massive amount of CO2 will have no effect and that we cannot do anything about it if it is bad is for the birds. Common sense tells us this, but free market religious fatalistic fundamentalist insist this is the case.
June 13, 2013
There appears to be some misinterpretation of this blog item. It relates to this news from the Heartland Institute, ” Climate Change Reconsidered – Translation by the Chinese Academy of Sciences Joseph Bast, Craig Idso, S. Fred Singer, Robert M. Carter – June 11, 2013″
“All three men will be in Beijing for the Chinese Academy of Sciences event on June 15, 2013 to speak about the translation of Climate Change Reconsidered.”
The originals were published in English in 2009, 2011.
Reply Indeed!
June 13, 2013
I’m interested to see whats there. I don’t know what the truth is BUT I want both sides of the argument put forward. We can guess what coverage if any it gets.
June 13, 2013
I’m disappointed that you are reduced to using so called peer reviewed evidence from a one party communist state. You may trust that sort of society others do not.
Reply They are translating into Chinese peer review material from a variety of places!
June 14, 2013
An interesting development. I wonder if we will hear more details on the BBC?
June 14, 2013
BP have just published their annual Statistical Review of World Energy – a treasure trove of data on oil, gas, coal, electricity, solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, biofuels and emissions.
It reveals that China now accounts for some 27% of global CO2 emissions (the UK is just 1.5%), and 50% of global coal consumption. If there is a country that could do something that meaningfully affected emissions on a global scale, it is China. Yet the increase in their emissions year on year once again exceeded the total UK emissions.
This collection of research explains why they have such little concern. Perhaps the MPs, civil servants and journalists who consider the science on climate to be settled need to do some reading for themselves, by taking a few leaves out of this Chinese compendium.
June 14, 2013
Alternatively politicians could encourage China to use other methods to generate their energy. Perhaps using solar panels.
June 15, 2013
@U5: Why should they when there is no AGW?!
U5, do you work in/for a “Green” industry, one that is either making money from selling such technology or receiving subsidies/grants?
June 15, 2013
The Statements on the Chinese Translation of the“Climate Change Reconsidered—NIPCC Report”
The Chinese translation of the “Climate Change Reconsidered—NIPCC report” was organized by the Information Center for Global Change Studies, published in May 2013 through Science Press, with an accompanying workshop on climate change issues in Beijing on June 15, 2013. However, the Heartland Institute published the news titled “Chinese Academy of Sciences publishes Heartland Institute research skeptical of Global Warming” in a strongly misleading way on its website, implying that the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) supports their views, in contrary to what is clearly stated in the Translators’ Note in the Chinese translation.
The claim of the Heartland Institute about CAS’ endorsement of its report is completely false. To clarify the fact, we formally issue the following
statements:
(1) The translation and publication of the Chinese version of the NIPCC
report, and the related workshop, are purely non-official academic activities the group of translators. They do not represent, nor they have ever claimed to represent, CAS or any of CAS institutes. They translated the report and organized the workshop just for the purpose of academic discussion of different views.
(2) The above fact was made very clear in the Translators’ Note in the book, and was known to the NIPCC report authors and the Heartland Institute before the translation started. The false claim by the Heartland Institute was made public without any knowledge of the translator group.
(3) Since there is absolutely no ground for the so called CAS endorsement of the report, and the actions by the Heartland Institute went way beyond
acceptable academic integrity, we have requested by email to the president of the Heartland Institute that the false news on its website to be removed. We also requested that the Institute issue a public apology to CAS for the misleading statement on the CAS endorsement.
(4) If the Heartland Institute does not withdraw its false news or refuse to apologize, all the consequences and liabilities should be borne by the Heartland Institute. We reserve the right for further actions to protect the rights of CAS and the translators group.
Information Center for Global Change Studies,Scientific Information Center for Resources and Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences,June 14, 2013.
http://www.llas.cas.cn/tzgg/201306/t20130614_3866222.html
http://english.cas.cn/Ne/CASE/201306/t20130615_104625.shtml