Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Byway robbery - Josh 374 | Main | More stink - Josh 373 »

More climatologists for the Royal Society

The Royal Society has announced the latest cohort to be elevated to the fellowship. As always, the climatologists are prominent: with Ted Shepherd and Corinne Le Quere getting the nod. Adair Turner seems to have wheedled an honorary fellowship for himself as well. 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (175)

What a curious choice of word: “burdens”

Not really, it is a bog-standard, widely accepted, well-defined usage of the word in atmospheric chemistry, for example the intro to the IPCC Chapter on AC opens

This chapter investigates greenhouse gases whose atmospheric burdens and climate impacts generally depend on atmospheric chemistry. These greenhouse gases include those listed in the Kyoto Protocol – methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) – and those listed under the Montreal Protocol and its Amendments – the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), the hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), and the halons.

A Google search for atmospheric + burden returns >15m hits. LMGTFY

Presumably, this was done in the limited confines of a laboratory; does this effect exist within the considerably more dynamic environs of the atmosphere?

I provided the link so those genuinely interested could read the paper.

May 3, 2016 at 2:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Ah. So this work is done in models. Interesting. From what I can gather in the plethora of citations, these are computer models, not real-life, let’s-see-what-truly-happens physical models. It is also interesting to note the concept of “…less computationally expensive”. Now, what is not obvious is: have any of these results been tested in the real world?

May 3, 2016 at 3:30 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

RR. Ah yes, I now recall you making that claim before. But at my age the world speeds by so quickly that I forget things and get so easily confused. I need help, and more people than ever are saying that recently.

She did strenuously reject your thesis though at the time. Do you think she was protesting too much?

I am concerned, her zany quotient is way, way down.

May 3, 2016 at 4:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

As I was saying to my Sister-in-Law, Mrs Trellis (she is from North Wales) it is all about CO2Spiritzy, a delicious blend of lemon, quinine enriched Tonic, and lashings of Gin. It really puts the fizz into hics and cups. The Heidi-Nation, also known as Switzerland, is happy to look after all the money.

May 3, 2016 at 5:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterGwendoline Caroline (Mrs)

Computer modelling is a form of intellectual masturbation for those scientists who can't access the real thing and do practical experiments. It's also touted as cheaper than experiments on the real World, until one assesses the cost of persistently being wrong.

May 3, 2016 at 6:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterNCC 1701E

NCC 1701E, Computer modelling also lets them publish a dozen papers while the experimentalists are still putting on their lab coats. When academic 'productivity' is measured in papers published, that means there can be only one winner.

May 4, 2016 at 3:34 AM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

@M Hart: agreed. However, at some stage the modellers have to be brought to account for their blatant failures. For example, the claimed low level cloud optical feedback (d alpha/d tau) is a factor of 4 lower than reality from assuming 2x real LWP. Low level cloud albedo is 1/3rd higher than reality. The result of these errors is to create imaginary 'positive feedback' whilst eliminating most of the negative feedback by the water cycle.

In 2007, the UKMO admitted the albedo mismatch in their unified model compared with real satellite observations. No professional scientist would ever associate his or herself with such blatant scientific dissembling, obvious to any competent individual. But Climate Alchemists are paid to dissemble.

May 4, 2016 at 9:19 AM | Unregistered CommenterNCC 1701E

Please recite after me "The stimulation of simulation is greater than the pleasurement of measurement but it makes you go blind".

May 4, 2016 at 1:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterThe lesser plank

One of the greatest claims for the accuracy of computer generated climate science is how often their models back each other up.

They take pride in their consistency, even though they are consistently wrong.

May 4, 2016 at 1:19 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Regarding models, this may interest.

"Expert judgement and uncertainty quantification for climate change
Posted on April 28, 2016 | 388 Comments

by Judith Curry

When it comes to climate change, the procedure by which experts assess the accuracy of models projecting potentially ruinous outcomes for the planet and society is surprisingly informal. – Michael Oppenheimer"

May 4, 2016 at 1:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterMick J

From a certain Royal Society bio - " is no longer a circus but a never-ending series of airline tickets."


May 5, 2016 at 8:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Barry Woods, global warming experts do say that they have targetted the airline industry. You would have thought that they had sufficient research information by now, and could produce computer generated models of the financial consequences of not flying all over the world. They still seem to conclude that their bank accounts are improved by flying whenever possible.

The UK needs to introduce a 98% tax band for supreme hypocrisy. It won't stop them, but it might pay them to fly abroad, and not come back.

May 5, 2016 at 9:27 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Gwen C. Can my granddaughter, who plays the clarinet, join your 98% tax band? She's very good and would be eager to meet climatologists of different genres. She says my one piece band "needs improvisation". Cheeky minx!

May 5, 2016 at 10:43 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Alan Kendall, it depends on the nature of your Granddaughter's one piece band. Michael Mann is desperately trying to repair his broken Hockey Stick with a series of rubber bands, so it may flex, rather than snap, when examined under the slightest pressure.

Modern jazz does involve constant improvisation, such that the intended tune gets lost in random noise, it can never be reproduced, note for note, and there is always scope for someone else to join in, take the money, leaving everybody clueless about their musical ability. I am not a fan of Modern Jazz, or Climate Science

May 5, 2016 at 11:29 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

The lesser plank 4 May 1.15pm

That reminds me of :

The pellet with the poison's in the vessel with the pestle; the chalice from the palace has the brew that is true! Right?

.....No! The pellet with the poison's in the flagon with the dragon! The vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true!


May 5, 2016 at 7:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterMessenger

If total solar energy impinging on the earth is +/- 1376 watts/ sq. meter then 2.25 watts/ sq. meter is something less than 0.2% of it. Can this be even measured with any confidence - never mind with an error envelope as small as +/- 5%? If so I would love to see the measurement data.

May 5, 2016 at 11:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterGlebekinvara

Glebekinvara, anything in climate science can be measured with sufficient accuracy to secure funding.

May 6, 2016 at 1:51 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Glebkinvara. I'm sure if you ask for it (but lose that sceptical tone) the data will be given to you. Climatologists have such a good track record for being helpful. However, there's a strong chance the data will already have been published and you will, with courtesy, be directed to it. Do not under any circumstances hint that you might want to use the data to prove them wrong. Doing this will result in a flurry of not very nice emails, some from university press officers, or even lawyers. Then it will all come out and your original requests will be, quite unfairly, branded as time wasting nonsense.

Better not go there, accept the data as gospel, rejoin the true faith.

May 6, 2016 at 6:38 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

I have been thinking further about the 98% tax band for this supreme Hypocrisy fellah.
Does he do climate Rap?
Do you write his material for him? Full of innuendos about hockey sticks no doubt?
Perhaps, like the Who, they break their instruments on stage.
Not sure that would be appropriate for my granddaughter's eyes and ears. Nor for my pocket book. Unlike hockey sticks, clarinets do not grow on trees.

Take five

May 6, 2016 at 8:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Alan Kendall, When HotMann and Gavin, the dynamic science busting duo, Kerranged onto the international arena, it was Wham! T'Pau! Take That! as under Santa's guidance they took established science down the Dark Side of the Moon, and Beat It, and steam Roller Stoned flat the climate record.

Launched like a Sigue Sigue Sputnik, Love Missile F1-11, they tore around in the Bat-Out-Of-Hell Mobile, singing Money! Money! Money!, in an attempted Total Eclipse of the Heart of science.

May 6, 2016 at 10:23 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Reviewing your CD collection Gwen, or your misspent yuf?
My favourites were You've lost that loving feeling, and I can't get no satisfaction, both illustrative of my climate science quest.

May 6, 2016 at 11:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Alan Kendall, should your Granddaughter wish to know more about 1980s culture and music, and what went wrong, I can recommend Sigue Sigue Sputnik Love Missile F1-11. Available on YouTube, while eardrums last. Their other songs had different names, but sounded the same.

May 6, 2016 at 2:02 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Some of the warmist clan have been claiming on this thread that the use of 'catastrophic' is never used by alarmist scientists when discussing climate change.
A search of the phrase "catastrophic climate change" on google scholar will very quickly demonstrate that some alarmist scientists have indeed hung their hat on catastrophism.
Go on Phil and Ken, get searching on google, I dare you.

May 6, 2016 at 2:51 PM | Unregistered Commenterdavid smith

david smith, on a technicality, it is Climate Science that has been a Catastrophe. Climate Change never has, and there are no reasons to suppose it will be.

For the benefit of Google and other internet search engines, it is worth repeating Catastrophic Climate Science. Catastrophe has been predicted by Climate Science, and Climate Science has delivered Catastrophe.

May 6, 2016 at 3:14 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

It's a terrible tragedy that the hallowed Royal Society has blown its centuries-old axiom "Nullius in Verba"

May 14, 2016 at 4:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterCoeur de Lion

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>