Sunday, July 22, 2007

Climate Cuttings #6

His Eminence's Climate Cuttings #6 provides the usual interesting round-up of climate change stories. What is becoming increasingly obvious is that not only does the "concensus" not exist but that those who claim that it does must be considered either to be ignorant or to be pathological liars.
Glacier melt has been something of a theme for the week. Roger Pielke notes a paper describing the advance of the Siachen glacier in the Himalayas, and points out that this evidence needs to be taken into account when considering the oft-repeated claims that glaciers are retreating everywhere. William Connelly says that nobody is saying this. Lonnie Thompson (a man who is perhaps best known for not archiving his data) then somewhat takes the ground from under Connelly's feet when he is quoted in the New York Times as saying that glacial ice loss is “a repeating theme whether you are in tropical Andes, the Himalayas or Kilimanjaro in Africa.”

The reaction to the Lockwood report (which maintained that the sun was having no effect on warming) continues.
Reaction to the Lockwood paper, which claims that the sun can't be causing recent warming, rumbles on.
Climate scientist Eduardo Zorita describes a Nature post lauding the results as "an example of what science journalism should not be". He goes on to explain why the Lockwood paper might be considered superficial.

Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist and co-author of a book on the solar theory of climate change with Henrik Svensmark, is interviewed in the London Book Review. He points out that the earth has stopped warming despite continued rises in CO2, a fact that supports the solar theory better than the CO2 one.

John Brignell of Numberwatch, in common with other commentators, takes issue with the odd smoothing algorithm used by Lockwood.

Astronomer David Whitehouse weighs in too.

Do go and read the rest.

No comments: