Monday
Apr042011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Huppert on CCS
Apr 4, 2011 Climate: MWP Climate: Surface Just watching a recording of Herbert Huppert's Bakerian lecture at the Royal Society. Huppert was a member of the Oxburgh panel - one of the ones that Rees and Davies thought would come to the inquiry with "questioning objectivity".
The subject is carbon capture and storage, but there is also a potted history of the global warming hypothesis. I really had to stop having seen this part as it was so interesting. One of the things that struck me was this curiously truncated surface temperature graph...
There was also this outing for the Hockey Stick...
Not much sign of any questioning going on here.
Reader Comments (28)
Neatly trimmed off the temp drop after 2000, did they?
Still hiding the decline? Surely not!
Link broken -sorry. To Feb 11, satellite data.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Feb_2011.gif
That one looks more like a cock-up than a conspiracy. If he'd really intended to truncate the graph, he wouldn't have left the axis there, would he?
Surely we aren't going to pump all that valuable gas underground??
"Long-term contracts for investment in low-carbon technology together with a carbon price
floor are required to decarbonise the electricity sector. These are the electricity market
reform recommendations made by the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) in its 4th
Carbon Budget.
The CCC’s analysis suggests that these measures are required to deliver investment in 30-
40GW of low carbon plant during the 2020s, which would reduce emissions to around
50gCO2/kWh by 2030. This will require annual investment of £10bn during the decade.
The CCC’s recommendations are the first of a series of hotly anticipated announcements
relating to the future electricity market. DECC and Treasury are expected to launch the
Government’s consultation on Electricity Market Reform (EMR) policy options imminently.
In this briefing note, we look beyond the headlines to review the CCC’s recommendations
in more depth and consider the implications for investors and market participants."
"The CCC recommends that the minimum
carbon price should be at least £27/tCO2
in 2020 rising to £70/tCO2 in 2030 and
is supportive in principle of the proposed
reform of the Climate Change Levy for
delivering this solution."
http://www.ilexenergy.com/pages/Documents/Reports/Electricity/EMR_CCCBriefingNote_v1_0.pdf December 2010
You should always give credit where its due , and you have to give it to CRU for picking such 'independent’ people for the Oxburgh review.
As for the graph, given the performance of this panel in the review , incompetence is as good as bet as any other.
"Not much sign of any questioning going on here."
- Andrew Montford
Why would there be any questioning? It's merely reporting science that has been endlessly and independently replicated by climate scientists all over the world, with not even a hint of a successful attempt to show the core parts of the science to be wrong.
To question that would take a very strange person indeed. It's an extreme fringe view, and, frankly, I'd question the motivations of anyone who felt the need to do so........
Oh.
it might have been more interesting to look at the next graph where the truncated graph example has been called the "projected changes in global temperatures" where their projection starts at the end of the first truncated graph in 1999, but overlay the next 12 yrs of missing data instead ;^)
"questioning"
Read the OP, Zed.
How many scientific no-nos are there in each of the graphs? That is a question for our resident "scientist" zebedee. We are waiting.
How many scientific no-nos are there in each of the graphs? That is a question for our resident "scientist" zebedee. We are waiting.
Apr 4, 2011 at 9:59 PM | Phillip Bratby
What is the emotional maturity of someone whose first reponse is to make up nicknames in their reply? That's my question for Philip Bratby.
Sorry ZDB none of this will wash. The Royal Society's motto is "nullius in verbia" and this obliges them to question everything rather than merely, as you put it, to report. Further, the graph with the hockeystick is not in any way science. It is a splice of a fraudulently constructed back-projection of global temperatures - see the very detailed analysis at Climate Audit - with the recent instrumental record, cut off to conceal the recent lull in the increase in recorded temperature anomalies. It has never been replicated without resorting to tricks such as including sediment proxy values UPSIDE DOWN, and creating reconstructions that purport to exclude the dodgy bristlecone data but that rely on it at second hand.
None of this is opinion, it is all fact, and fact that you could find out for yourself if you had an open mind. The posts on CA even show you the code, which they finally obtained after many years of obstruction, to prove that this is what Mann, Briffa, Jones etal did.
Finally there are numerous other examples of dishonest slides in Huppert's speech, which is a disgrace to the Society.
And don't get irritated with PB for playing the woman, not the ball - it is something you do all the time.
Does falsifying the Mannean Hockey Stick falsify AGW?
@BBD - on its own, no it doesn't.
It does, however, fatally undermine the credibility and reliability of those who support or promote it (IMHO).
woodentop
Agreed bar the 'fatally'.
It just makes them look bad, eg noble cause corruption.
turning tide-"That one looks more like a cock-up than a conspiracy. If he'd really intended to truncate the graph, he wouldn't have left the axis there, would he?"
1/Nice straw men..
2/No one is talking "conspiracy"..just group think..ineptitude..sloppy science..follow the money.
3/He obviously did intend to truncate the graph..thats why he did it.!!
4/ Its a new axiom that if someone is being sloppy in science..that they never make a mistake.. :)
And you would call using the hockey stick..again..groan..as "just" some more "cock-ups"..
Unbelievable...
The "curiously truncated temperature graph" (with actual temperatures only until 1999) credits the projections in the "future" (beyond 1999) to "IPCC 95", which would appear to be the IPCC's Second Assessment Report. It would seem to be a simple matter to update the graph to AR4, but, as Bishop says, the talk was about the mechanics of CCS, with only the most superficial discussion of motivation.
What I found humourous was that, in introducing this graph, Prof Hubbert says, "Now everything I've told you so far is data from the past. What I want to do now is to present some data from the IPCC report which predicts what the temperature might be in the future." And then shows the graph containing predictions about what is already past. [To be fair, the graph does project until 2100, so most of it is about the future.]
Does zebedee ever answer a question?
Does zebedee ever answer a question?
Only with another unrelated question, pointless ever replying which I no longer do and is the best policy.
That first chart looks like it was used to predict 2100 temperature - could that be the top of some text visible top right at 20 C? The 1998 peak is indicated and that is where the chart is covered (so just the 19 of 1998 shows). We are clearly being encouraged to extrapolate the trend from 1998, but the chart title suggests that what we are seeing is the temperature record up to 2005.
Climate change zealots have learned not to show tree-ring proxies beyond 1960. Here we have the global temperature record truncated to 1998, junking the most relevant 12 years to validate the trend but pretending that data up to 2005 is shown.
There is a fascinating book online called 'Reflections on the decline of science in England, and on some of its causes' written in 1830 by Charles Babbage, mathematician, philosopher, inventor, and mechanical engineer who originated the concept of a programmable computer. It is a veritable broadside fired at the Royal Society, its political and institutional mafia, and its agendas. It seems the same furrow has been ploughed for centuries. I draw attention in particular to a chapter on fraudulent practices in science where fiddles very similar to those we are witnessing today in climate science are described, around about page 178 on 'trimming' and 'cooking'. The whole book is on this link
http://books.google.com/books?id=3bgPAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=charles+babbage&hl=en#v=onepage&q=charles%20babbage&f=false
Finally, someone with a beard tells us that, in spite of what Huhne et al would have the sheeple believe, i.e. that stored CO2 will stay where it is for millions of years, we now know that leakage of stored CO2 is certain. Furthermore, if the fools keep injecting after the CO2 has found a leak, then eventually ALL the CO2 that has been injected will escape!
In the dying moments of the lecture he pointed out that if the UK stopped emitting CO2 completely, it would not make the slightest difference because of China and India emissions.
Oh but wait, Huhne knows that, but it is for the UK to set an example to the rest of the world, even if the UK enters a new stone age even earlier than we thought it would last month.
Since last month the Westminster members have made things much worse by the introduction of the £16.00/tonne of CO2 discharged tax on all gas, coal and oil fired proper power stations from 2013. Thus it is likely that the ancient 3.1GW oil-fired due to close 31 December 2015, will close in 2013 instead. Some of the remaining condemned coal fired plants may also choose to shut 2.5 years earlier as well.
Trebles all round!
'Not much questioning ...' - of course not!
He and his colleagues and The Team and CRU etc etc etc ought to be made to watch Professor V.Courtillot's video.
That would teach them how real science is done!
Brownedoff
I've been banging on about the non-impact of UK emissions abatement policy on global CO2 levels for a long time.
And the only answer I have ever had is the one you quote - moral leadership.
So the carbon fabulists and the witless members of Parliament will destroy the national economy to set an example to BRIC which it will not (cannot afford to) follow.
And the Dale Vinces of this world will fill their boots while the rest of us get issued with smart meters and extra body bags for the winter.
BBD
Is this the Dale Vince you meant?
http://www.moonbattery.com/
Scroll halfway down until you get to the picture of "the new $96,000 Fisker Karma plug-in hybrid sports car."
Al Gore is getting one!
Brownedoff
Actually, no, this appears to be some chap in Orange County.
But our very own Dale 'Ecotricksie' Vince has indeed spend vast sums of our money on funding some other people to design an electric sports car of questionable utility to the masses.
Sorry. I just cannot get the name of his company right.
EcotrickeryNo, b****r it, that's not it either.Ecotwisty?Something like that. Ah! Yes! Ecotricity. That's the one.
'Sustainable Profitability from Ecotrickery'. Or something like that.
Big in windmills. Lives in Stroud with all the other rich pseudo-hippie vermin.
Pharos,
Perhaps the Royal Society has reached its 'period of dotage'. See p 176 of Babbage's book.