2012-01-30 06:19:13Measurements show Earth heating up, think tanks and newspapers disagree
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
134.225.187.225

Link.

 

I haven;t had time to put the references in yet. Otherwise, please have a go at it!

2012-01-30 07:54:37
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.108.131

Second paragraph, first sentence should say something about how the HadCRUT update is the first of the two bits of news.  You may want to link my Annan-Whitehouse wager post, where I mentioned HadCRUT4 as well.

For the second bit, a link to my Archibald post would be in order, which also has a link to Jones et al.

Global warming stopped link.

Heh, the scribbled OHC graphic is funny :-)

Under the paragraph talking about short-term data (before the "However" sentence), adding in the escalator graphic might be good.

2012-01-30 09:03:29
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.76.90

Love the title. Pissed myself laughing at figure 1 and the accompanying text! Only slight quibbles I have are:

-maybe you should finish off talking about the Earth heating up. 

-linking to Jc's(?) post showing even a Maunder-like Solar Minimum will barely make a difference to BAU global warming this century.

2012-01-30 09:23:17
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Mark,

See What Does GWPF Really Stand For? by MA Rodgers. DeSmog Blog, Jan 27m 2012.

 

2012-01-30 10:30:43
KR

k-ryan@comcast...
68.34.93.62

Oh my. Much laughing.

2012-01-30 11:13:46
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.162.187.46

I like the plot of the data political cartoon!

Benny Paiser - that would be Peiser.

.. data and ignore the vast majority of data since it disagrees with their opinions. Science journalists who want to try to inject?  project? impartially and to accurately report on science, informing their readership about the wonders of scientific endeavour, should not rely on the wild statements of politically motivated think tanks. Sound-bite 'science' is not proper skeptical science.

2012-01-30 15:51:06
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Mark,

Also check out:

Two incontrovertible things: Anthropogenic Global Warming is Real, and the Wall Street Journal is Political Rag posted on Greg Laden's blog.

Remarkable Editorial Bias on Climate Science at the Wall Street Journal by Peter Gleick, Forbes, Jan 27, 2012 

 

2012-01-30 15:51:47
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
23.17.186.57

Mark,

Brilliant!  More doctoring of figures by the deniers.....

2012-01-30 20:11:00
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
134.225.187.225

I decided my theme was to go heavily on cherry picking and ignoring science and scientists, and the crossing out of data makes it more obvious, so I went with that for another graph. I love the denial escalator, but it just didn't seem obvious where to put it in.

Added most links now, didn't include the Archibald one because I felt it was a tangent. Added the Michaels deletes stuff one because he's of the same ilk. Thoughts now?

2012-01-30 21:55:01
Kevin C

cowtan@ysbl.york.ac...
144.32.72.165

Awesome! Sometimes humour is the most powerful argument. I wish I could do it!

Extaneous newline after 'deleting' in the Micheals link. 'Graph by crossing out data' is probably missing a word.

2012-01-30 23:33:25
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
192.84.150.209

Agree with Kevin, when dealing with MSM garbage misinformation humor is a powerful weapon.

2012-01-31 02:12:19
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

My suggested edits for the introductory section are shown in red.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a British political think tank that attacks climate science. Its commentary is often regurgitated by journalists at newspapers with similar political opinions on climate science such as the Daily Mail, Express and Telegraph (whose consulting science editor is on the GWPF board). [Two sentences are punchier.]

The Daily Mail recently published an article covering two bits of science news. One is that the UK Met Office and their partners are updating their global temperature data and including more measurements from Russia and around the Arctic. The data aren't publicly available yet, but graphs from a Met Office presentation suggest that 2005 and 2010 could be warmer than the previous record holder (1998) bringing the British data into agreement with NASA and the National Climatic Data Centre. [Eliminate the colon in the first sentence.]  

The other bit of new  science news is research on how the Sun is expected to cool down slightly in the coming decades. The "the likely reduction in the warming by 2100 is found to be between 0.06 and 0.1K" (Jones, Lockwood & Stott, 2012), much less than the 0.17 C warming per decade measured since the 1970s (1 K is the same size as 1 degree Celsius). [Two sentences are better than one.]

Gareth Jones, the climate science expert who led the Met Office research said, "this research shows that the most likely change in the Sun's output will not have a big impact on global temperatures or do much to slow the warming we expect from greenhouse gases."

The Daily Mail's interpretation is the opposite of what the scientists reported and the journalist dutifully parrots the GWPF's think tank talking points. It The article claims we're that the world is possibly heading for a "mini ice age", that there has been "no warming for 15 years," and quotes the GWPF's Benny Peiser's prophesising propheses of doom for climate models.

2012-01-31 02:38:02
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
192.171.166.133

Thanks John, changes made.

2012-01-31 03:04:03
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Looks good Mark.  I've got this on the schedule for tomorrow.

2012-01-31 04:24:22Met Office response
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Mark, see the Met Office response to this Daily Mail story.

2012-01-31 04:26:01
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Dana,

You should also repost the Met Office's response.

2012-01-31 04:27:12
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Mark,

You're welcome.

2012-01-31 05:50:16
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
134.225.187.225

Perhaps it would be worth including the Met Office response in a green box at th end. Maybe add it a few days later even.

If commenters come up with saying 'you're distorting the met office', then we can just point them to the Met office.

2012-01-31 07:19:08
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I think we should definitely either make a note of the Met Office response at the end, or incorporate it somewhere into the text.  A link and a quote should suffice.  Can you find someplace to put it, Mark?  If not, I can work it in there somewhere, if you don't object.

2012-01-31 07:44:23
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
23.17.186.57

MarkR and Dana,

Small nit.  I think this would be a better figure to use for OHC, it is more current.  I also second the suggestion to inlcude the Met Office statement or the relevant portions with a link.

 

2012-01-31 08:19:49
Kevin C

cowtan@ysbl.york.ac...
94.2.106.237

Pentadal? That's a cromulent word! (And if google is anything to go by, almost unused outside climate science.)

2012-01-31 09:04:02
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
23.17.186.57

Hi Kevin,

Yes, it is an odd one, but it is used in my field too from time-to-time.  Read a lot about pentads during my PhD....

2012-01-31 10:03:32
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.21.156
2012-01-31 10:04:32
skywatcher

andycasely@hotmail...
122.107.164.176

Looks good to me, but agreed the Met Office response should be in there.  I love the GWPF guide to global warming graphic - so much painful truth in there!  In the event it goes viral - worth having a skepticalscience.com logo on the image?

Or a more general version of the image would be  (like the going down the up escalator) to entitle it "the skeptics guide to global warming"

2012-01-31 10:14:35
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.15.182

Mark R - are you able to embed a larger version of figure 2? It's not that clear at that size.

Agreed skywatcher, it certainly has the potential to go viral. It would be prudent to have a skeptical science logo on the images.  

2012-02-01 00:32:18
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
134.225.187.225

I'll try and add the suggestions when I get back from work tonight.

2012-02-01 09:50:15
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
134.225.187.225

I added them in as I thought best. But I'm very rushed so dana, if you think it needs changing then go for it. I'm happy with it as is, but I'm far too tired to properly assess it!