2011-05-11 07:16:08Prof Humlum and his fellowship (Norway) - back again


Hi all,

I wrote to John a month ago or so to share an article (reader's letters) published in a widespread weekly newspaper called Teknisk Ukeblad in Norway (it can be translated by Technical weekly letters).

The letter was written by Professor Humlum and two other PhDs, Erik Bye and Kjell Stordahl. I copy the translation I've made below. To sum up, their point is that there is no scientific justification for what they call "the CO2 hypothesis", namely that increased CO2 concentrations are responsible for the current warming. Their point is, any hypothesis must be tested against evidence - and if you follow their reasoning, the best way to check if the hypothesis is right is to wait until we are at +5 and maybe, maybe they'll acknowledge it might perhaps be CO2.

To support their point, they name that the 90% confidence interval of the IPCC that the current warming is anthropogenic is taken from nowhere - or, actually, that these 90% come from a kind of vote, so that 90% of the scientists judge that it is the case, so they just wrote 90% in the reports. Apparently such a claim was made by a lead author of AR4, Prof Eystein Jansen, during a TV debate with Prof Humlum. I haven't checked this claim but intend to do so (as you'll see).

Interestingly, the same day Rob posted an article on SkS dealing precisely with Profs Humlum website, http://www.climate4you.com. See http://www.skepticalscience.com/crux-of-a-core3.html

In particular check out Fig 1 in Rob's post, and his answer to the misuse of GISP2 among others.

Now, today I open the last issue of TU... and find out that the three guys are back, and not only do they write about the same thing BUT they get a FULL PAGE with their picture on, and worst of all THEY USE FIG 1 again, without giving a s*** about Rob's comments and debunking.

Rob wrote in his post that "[he] wouldn't lump him in with the denier crowd at all. [Humlum] is closer to a true skeptic but definitely with a lean toward "it's not so bad" as far as [Rob] can tell."

Given that Humlum has been made aware of the post and comments, and that he has published the same bs more than a month later, I think he can definitely qualify for the denier category.

I will translate the article tomorrow and post the translation as a follow up of this thread. Now I think these guys could deserve a bit more attention; it is not the first time that they appear in the Norwegian media attacking the results of the IPCC and scientific consensus.

I would like to write an answer to their second article - sending remarks to the newspaper that they are publishing bs is not enough. That's why I want to check first that the quote they use from Prof Jansen is actually true.

Any help would be appreciated!

Thanks, Julien

I copy here the translation of their first letter:

Climate models and certainty
One of the central questions in the climate debate is how large the probability is for climate change being anthropogenic. The IPCC works based on the assumption that CO2 is the main reason for the increase in global temperatures. And this is, again according to IPCC, CO2 that comes from the burning of fossil fuels, i.e. coal, gas and oil. In 2007, Professor Eystein Jansen, main author of the science part of the IPCC report of the same year, stated during a discussion with Professor Ole Humlum in the NRK (National TV and radio channels) show "Worth to know" that according to the IPCC it is 90% certain that changes in the climate during the last 50 years are mainly due to human activities. In the same show professor Jansen explained further that it is not possible to compute such a certainty. Those 90% show only the share of scientists working for the IPCC supporting the idea that CO2 has a large effect on climate. In other words, in reality it has never been a question of certainty in a statistical meaning.
Forgetting this huge and complete misunderstanding, even a computation of the certainty of the reasons for climate change is completely worthless. Especially when it is not demonstrated in the first place that what one's attempting to assess (here, the hypothesis that CO2 is responsible for global warming) is correct. The CO2-hypothesis as it is formulated right now does not even fulfills the requirements of science, so we are miles away from being able to calculate a meaningful certainty on it. The reason for its lack of scientific foundation is the lack of ability for the CO2-hypothesis to come with forecasts that can be checked now or within a couple of years' time. Usually it is said that we have to wait 50 to 100 years to check if the hypothesis is correct, which is completely unrealistic in a scientific context. Science must obviously follow its own established rules. If the rules are broken, the result becomes meaningless and unscientific. Therefore, we are in the awkward situation where a lot of planning today is done based on an idea that cannot be checked scientifically.
Hopefully the IPCC is not considered as a scientific organization but as a process. But there are many scientists participating in this process. Among others, there are many that are calling themselves climatologists. So it is a huge paradox for us that the process can still operate with such a wrong scientific certainty. The models that the IPCC is relying on are actually not based on an established and recognized theory. The whole thing is an hypothesis that is not verified, and it becomes completely wrong, yes, unscientific, to come up with a certainty estimation. This is a theoretical certainty, and there is no method to handle it. It would have been something else if "the uncertainty" had been an expression for the uncertainty in the climate models, disregarding the uncertainty in the measurements, but it is not the case.
And the big paradox we are facing lies first and foremost in that so many scientists accept this sort of theoretical unscientific certainty. Now its is known that a couple of scientists have withdrawn from the IPCC. But we are still left with hundreds. What is it that prevents the scientists from protesting, or from reformulating the hypothesis they often base their own work on?
Erik Bye (PhD), Ole Humlum (Professor), Kjell Stordahl (PhD)
2011-05-11 07:58:39
Dana Nuccitelli

I don't know how the IPCC formulates its certainty levels (likely, very likely, etc.), but it's not through a vote.  It's not like they ask every contributing author to vote on every statement of certainty in the report, and if 90+% vote yes, they call it 'very likely'.  That seems to be what Humlum et al. are suggesting, but that's just silly.

And then to suggest that because they doubt the IPCC 90% certainty, we therefore can't verify the "CO2 hypothesis" is grossly ignorant.

2011-05-11 18:31:38


sure it's silly and ignorant - that's why their articles can't go unchecked ;)

As I said I'll translate their latest stuff today, and try to get in contact with Jansen to check their initial argument.

2011-05-12 07:27:36


Ok, I have translated the text, see below.

No need to say, it has been extremely frustrating, not only to read their bs but also to try and formulate it in an objective way as close to the original text as possible...

There are many many things to talk about. First and foremost, I wonder how they can brag about their PhD degrees and professorship when they show such an intellectual dishonnesty, lack of knowledge of basic climate science, and try to turn around the discussion so it gravitates around some kind of "ideal scientific process" that they believe the IPCC and the CO2 hypothesis does not respect - in the meantime, their own hypothesis (it is completely natural!!! Yeepeee!!!!) hasn't been justified by anything else than their crapy graph.

And btw they do not even seem to understand that it takes time for CO2 to actually be reflected in temperature increases - but for that they should maybe use a GLOBAL TEMP graph rather than extract from GISP2. Oh, maybe they are perfectly aware of that, actually. Because they always write carefully that they compare the temperature to the SIMULTANEOUS co2 concentration. The average reader not necessarily knows/remembers thermodynamics and the inertia of the climate system...

They are for sure very effective to convince anybody who doesnt know anything to the subject. A first year student in physics could understand that they are writing bs, if only ppl tried to dig a bit behind the lines...

Oh, and I hadn't noticed the first time I read the article, but the Jansen they mention in the beginning of their article is Professor Jansen they were referring to in their original correspondance. I have tried to contact him to check the quotes but havent received any answer yet.

Still there is a lot of work to do because of these guys. If Preben (oslo) or any Norwegian speaking contributor wants to correct the translation varsågod :)

Still dominated by natural climate changes

We appreciate that Eystein Jansen commented in TU1311 our correspondence, even if he means this is "strange". EJ criticizes that we are not concrete enough in our critic of the CO2 hypothesis. This was in the meantime not our goal. Our critic was more oriented towards a general scientific aspect. In addition we wished to point out that the IPCC's attribution of the current climate changes to humans with 90% certainty misses a statistical foundation, and looks more like a common vote.

We are followers of the classical scientific tradition, in which ideas for explanations are grounded in observations of the nature. On this basis a hypothesis is formulated, that is subsequently used to make predictions about other conditions in the nature. These can then be observed in the present or in a short time span. This way, the hypothesis is tested against the facts so it can be quickly decided whether it is worth developing further. Such trials for falsification are what either rejects a hypothesis, or confirms with time that it becomes a theory. the process of falsification is in our meaning at the very heart of scientific quality checking.

The CO2 hypothesis predicts higher temperatures in 50 or 100 years, and assumes a confidence in these long term predictions without falsification process. Many articles take on the duty of supporting this hypothesis, but well meant support in itself has no room in science. EJ cites as support for the CO2 hypothesis many points, among other that the warming since 1975 has been larger over land than seas. We agree with this. The problem with this type of argument is in the meantime that such a warming would be observed whatever the cause, has it something to do with CO2 or not. A test must naturally be performed in conditions that are unique for the actual hypothesis. We are not seeing the defenders of the CO2 hypothesis proposing forecasts that can be tested in the present. Therefore the CO2 hypothesis remains as unscientific.

Beyond that, we can follow the challenge posed by EJ to be more concrete about some details in the CO2 hypothesis. We do not fight against the need to predict global warming if more CO2 is present in the atmosphere. The problem lies in the fact that the effect of CO2 in itself is relatively weak, and that a potentially large hypothetical effect on the temperature can be reached only if many other processes unfold with the CO2 increase. A supposed important process is increased water evaporation, since water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. The CO2 hypothesis assumes that the quantity of water vapor in the atmosphere will increase in pace with CO2 causing a slight temperature increase. Unfortunately analyses show that the quantity of water vapor in the atmosphere has decreased since 1948, in direct opposition with this basic condition [for the CO2 hypothesis to be true]. Cloud cover as well is important for the radiative balance, but this one cannot be modelled correctly either. This is not so surprising, since cloud formation takes place on a mm scale or less, whereas the global climate models have a horizontal definition of 150km.

A fundamental uncertainty is linked in the meanwhile to the question of whether the CO2 hypothesis is in any way empirically relevant; one can immediately realize that other hypotheses can be considered. For example we could have a look at our own interglacial period, from which we have good data of temperature and CO2 from ice cores. The diagram above shows the temperature and atmospheric concentration of CO2 through most of our current interglacial. The top figure shows the temperature changes at the top of the inlandsis in Greenland, which usually is considered as a good proxy for the global temperature, with the exception of some parts of the Southern atmosphere, Antarctic included. The left hand scale shows the temperature at the top of the inlandsis, while the right hand side scale shows the approximate change of the mean global temperature relative to 1961-1990. The data series stop around 1855, and we have suggested the overall temperature change until now would be with a full red line.

The lower part of the figure shows variations of the atmospheric CO2 as deduced from ice cores drilled on Dome C in the Antarctic. The atmospheric CO2 is usually considered to be well mixed (the differences being up to 4%), so that a reconstruction from the Antarctic provides with a good estimate for the variations of the global atmospheric CO2. These data cover a time span up to 1780; therefore the recent increase to 390 ppm is not seen. The latter would lie well above the scale limits, even if the simultaneous temperature increase isn't especially anormal. The effect of CO2 is obviously not large. On the figure it can be clearly seen that the atmospheric CO2 hasn't had a mentionable net effekt on throughout the current interglacial either. For instance CO2 has exhibited during the last 6-7000 years a regular increase while the temperature has been dropping. The increase from about 260 to 280 ppm should according to the CO2 hypothesis result in a global temperature increase of about 0.3 degree. In reality the temperature has sunk by 0.8 degree. No variation of the CO2 concentration is observed related to the significant temporary temperature increases that have taken place every 1000 years for the last 4-5000 years. Other factors than CO2 must have been determining the recorded temperature evolution.

We respect the work put into building GCMs. In the meanwhile we do not have a reciprocal trust in the usefulness of their results. The net effect of CO2 is probably overestimated. What is crazy is supposedly that the assumed companion processes (among others, water vapor and clouds) do not take place as programmed in the GCMs.
The past shows with high clarity (the figure above) that the current climate changes are not especially worth noting. Similar or larger changes have taken place earlier due to many different reasons, and these show generally no clear relationship with the simultaneous changes in CO2 concentrations.
We mean consequently that an obvious alternative explanation for the current climate state us that it is mainly steered by natural variations. We have a larger and growing confidence in this explanation than in the CO2 hypothesis. And we are completely sure that the uncertainties (the one of the IPCC as well) must be computed following classical statistical rules.

2011-05-12 08:01:33
Dana Nuccitelli

Quite a few myths in that article.  Here's how I would suggest responding:

Write a response letter to submit to the newspaper.  If you'd like, you can say you're a contributor to the climate science blog Skeptical Science, if you think that might make them more likely to publish it.

In the response, the main point to address is their claim the "CO2 hypothesis" (which I would suggest noting is actually called the anthropogenic global warming theory) is not falsifiable.  The easy response is that there are many "fingerprints" or "signatures" of man-made global warming.  If we didn't observe these fingerprints, the theory could be falsified, but we do observe them.  For supporting evidence see "it's not us".

I'd also recommend discussing Rob's post where he illustrated that Humlum's GISP2 graph is flawed.  And I'd also point out that the AGW theory doesn't say that CO2 is the only factor which can impact global temperatures, so Humlum's argument about Little Ice Age cooling as CO2 rose is a strawman.

Humlum's claim that water vapor has decreased since 1948 is absurdly wrong.  Ari has compiled references proving otherwise.  My favorite is Dessler et al. (2008):

"Height-resolved measurements of specific humidity (q) and relative humidity (RH) are obtained from NASA's satellite-borne Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS)...The water-vapor feedback implied by these observations is strongly positive, with an average magnitude of λq = 2.04 W/m2/K, similar to that simulated by climate models."

And although the cloud feedback is a significant uncertainty, Dessler (2010) concluded it's likely positive.

If you write this article, I'd suggest posting it here for feedback, and I'd also encourage making it into a blog post that we can publish on SkS.  We can also post your translation of Humlum's article as a reference.

2011-05-16 00:10:14


I send an english draft hopefully by tonight. Thanks a lot Dana for providing with references, I guess we will need more in the final letter.

As you mention it, it might be better to publish the answer on SkS as well, given that we cannot be sure that it will be published in TU -even less in its original form as they can edit as much as they want the text.


2011-05-16 00:12:43


Oh btw, I have been thinking about a nickname for those guys. What about Humlum Hallucinations? :)

2011-05-16 03:36:11
Dana Nuccitelli

Not bad :-)  But unless we're going to do a whole series on Humlum, we don't necessarily need a series title.

2011-05-16 03:41:23


Climate science at its worst



In their Kronikk in TUXXXX that followed an initial letter in TUXXXX, Dr. Bye, Prof. Humlum and Dr. Stordahl (BHS in the following), attempt to refute what they call the “CO2 hypothesis” (usually called in the literature Anthropogenic Global Warming, or AGW theory –it is a theory). Their argument is articulated as follows: firstly, they dismiss categorically a methodology that allows attributing the current observed warming to human activities with a confidence of at least 90%. BHS pretend that the IPCC assigns confidence levels to scientific positions based on the outcome of a simple vote. The more votes a statement (e.g., “global warming is mostly due to human activities”) receives, the higher confidence would be assigned. As discussed below, this is by no means how the IPCC determines confidence levels. BHS are criticizing the IPCC for something it does not actually do.

Having seemingly wiped out the entire AGW hypothesis theory by this ingenuous but incorrect argument, BHS then take on the challenge to propose an alternative explanation to the increase in the mean global temperatures observed since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution –increase that they do indeed accept as real and scientifically valid. Namely, mostly natural phenomenon would be at its origin. To support their hypothesis they rely on a simple figure database (incidentally also present on the website of one the authors) showing the evolution of the atmospheric CO2 concentration as well as the simultaneous temperature record taken from the GISP2. Proud of their achievement, they end the correspondence by reminding the reader that they are strong defenders of the true and pure scientific methodology.

Unfortunately for BHS, we feel obliged to notify them that nothing in their communications comes close to such an ideal, unbiased and intellectually honest scientific approach. This letter aims at providing with some clarifications that have been regrettably omitted from the BHS correspondence, and that we feel are essential for the interested reader to take a stand on the issue of AGW.

Their whole critique is directed towards the attribution of climate change: basically, is it mostly natural (the BHS hypothesis) or mostly anthropogenic (the AGW hypothesis theory)? The Working Group I of the IPCC has dedicated Chapter 9 to this question in its latest assessment report (AR4WG1), to which we refer in the following. We also provide throughout this letter links to peer-reviewed scientific papers, or to web pages linking to such publications, because we believe that any claim must be substantiated by relevant and solid supporting evidence.


About the likelihood of AGW

Let us start with the definition of the likelihood [1]. BHS base their work on a single quote coming from a single scientist (see TUXXXX). This is not scientifically rigorous, especially when the quote is taken from a TV show that by nature does not allow for complexity to be discussed in details and where approximations are often tempting to make for the sake of brevity. One should know that scientific methods have never been defined on air but in the peer-reviewed literature.

The IPCC works with likelihoods, summarized in Table 9.4 of Chp. 9. Likelihood “refers to a probabilistic assessment of some well defined outcome having occurred or occurring in the future” [2].

The likelihood for the observed surface warming of the Earth in the last 50 years is very likely (>90%) not to be due to natural causes alone, and very likely (>90%) to be dominantly caused by greenhouse gas forcing [3]. In other words, taking into account all the known factors contributing to defining the behavior of the climate system, and in particular the human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases, the probability of obtaining the current surface temperature (including increased ocean temperatures) is more than 90%.

The method followed to derive these probabilities that define likelihood “may be based on quantitative analysis or an elicitation of expert views” [2]. In addition, whatever the outcome of the estimation process, sources of uncertainty must be mentioned and discussed. The treatment of uncertainties by the IPCC is discussed in Section 1.6 of AR4WG1, and has been the subject of a recent meeting of the panel experts.

So no, the 90% likelihood that global warming is due to human activities is not the result of a poll among climate scientists but stems from complex statistical methods. The fact that 97% of practicing climate scientists support the theory of AGW is actually a consequence of this extremely strong likelihood, rather than a cause, as BHS want us to believe.

BHS will rightly point out that the likelihood determination, following the IPCC guidelines, also can be done following an “elicitation of expert views”, when purely statistical methods cannot provide with a satisfying estimation. So let us review some facts BHS have forgotten but that experts know about.


The CO2 and warming fingerprints

A critical step in determining the likelihood of the warming to be anthropogenic is to gather information about the phenomena. The more data is gathered the better it is, especially if they come from distant scientific fields, because the test a given hypothesis is submitted to becomes harder to pass. This way more hypotheses can be falsified.

There are many observations that support the hypotheses that the recorded mean surface temperature increase is mainly caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions: less heat escaping to space, more heat radiated back to the surface at the CO2 absorption wavelengths, cooling upper atmosphere, heightened boundary between the lower and upper atmosphere, more warming during nights than days, etc.

In the meantime, the likelihood for natural factors alone to explain the increasing global temperatures and these observations is less than 10% (FAQ 9.2 of AR4WG1).

Instead of mentioning the larger temperature increases over land than in the seas, that can be due to other causes than increased GHG concentrations as they rightly point out, we suggest that BHS start by scientifically refuting the CO2 fingerprints above-mentioned. Because that would precisely falsify the CO2 hypothesis AGW theory they want so much to tear down, and perhaps the likelihood of their hypothesis would rise above 10%. In doing so, BHS would simply follow the scientific method they are proud proponents of, and all awkward jumps to the conclusion that “it’s not us” will be avoided.


Cherry-picking and inventing data

A particular point BHS touch upon is the “hypothesis” that increased CO2 concentrations leads to increased water vapor content in the atmosphere. This “hypothesis” is thermodynamically founded. Warmer air can hold more water vapor in absolute amounts, so any factor leading to increased atmosphere temperatures ultimately leads to higher water vapor contents. And a human-caused increased atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases (also called heat-trapping gases) is no exception to the rules of thermodynamics, despite what BHS pretend.

Increased water vapor content and its corresponding radiative forcing have indeed been both recorded (see here for numerous references). Dessler et al. (2008) even write that "the water-vapor feedback implied by these observations is strongly positive, with an average magnitude... similar to that simulated by climate models". The same that BHS dismiss as incapable of dealing with this issue.

Our last comment concerns their way of demonstrating how increased GHG concentrations cannot explain the recorded temperature increase. BHS rely on the GISP2 database to draw their graph. Unfortunately, GISP2 is concerned with local temperatures that have absolutely nothing to do with global ones – not even with the Northern Hemisphere. Drawing conclusions on the global climate based on GISP2 amounts to pretending that the whole world is affected by heavy rainfalls based on the precipitations in Bergen.

More disturbing is that this critique and a rebuttal of their graph had been published some weeks before the second publication of BHS, that Prof. Humlum had been made aware of. His way of “correcting” his mistakes does not qualify for very scientific, as is detailed in our reference. Worse than that, comparing the simultaneous temperature and CO2 concentration is extremely misleading, as every concerned person knows that the climatic system has a large inertia. This means that the full effects of the explosion of the CO2 atmospheric content we are causing will be seen in several decades only –but then again the GISP2 data won’t be representative of the global situation.

We have tried very hard to understand how BHS could pretend to disprove the laws of thermodynamics and cherry-pick data, but could not come with an explanation in line with their will to respect a pure scientific method.



We have been very critical of the correspondence of BHS. Some might even say harsh. But we must acknowledge that their contributions are very interesting. In fact, their letters provide with a perfect example of the strategies deployed by climate skeptics to twist the debate and sow doubt in the mind of the public. Articulating their argumentation around the defense of an ideal of scientific method they believe in while clearly violating the rules they pretend to respect. Citing irrelevant quotes or taken out of their context, misunderstanding fundamental concepts, concentrating on precise points without looking at the broad picture, cherry-picking or even inventing scientific facts and data in order to provide with justifications to their hypotheses, etc.

So we would like to thank them from the heart, because they have chosen to be good examples of how science should not be done, how climate science can be at worst when left to the sole hands of so-called climate skeptics.


Notes and references:


[1] An issue with Norwegian is that there exists only one word for the two technically different concepts of probability and likelihood. The inputs to a problem define the probability of an outcome (if my dice is perfectly balanced there is an equal probability of obtaining each number from 1 to 6), whereas the likelihood of the outcome is determined as a function of the inputs (if I obtain more 6s than other numbers after a large amount of tests, the likelihood of the dice being loaded is high). Incidentally, the likelihood of an event to be due to a given factor is defined as the probability of its occurrence given the factor.


[2] Guidance Notes for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on Addressing Uncertainties, 2004, available here. See as well IPCC Expert Meeting on Detection and Attribution Related to Anthropogenic Climate Change, 2009, available from the same website.


[3] Interestingly, the IPCC aggregates into surface warming the increasing ocean temperatures. Looking at this broader scale than merely surface atmospheric temperatures actually follows a stringent scientific approach: ignoring the increase of the ocean would amount to estimating the size of an iceberg solely by looking at its emerged tip. The informed reader will notice that so-called climate skeptics very seldom mention the ocean in their quest against the AGW theory, since doing so would severely impact their conclusions.

2011-05-16 08:23:07com`
Dana Nuccitelli

What's "Kronikk in TUXXXX"?

You should define "BHS" before using it like this: "Bye, Humlum, and Stordah (BHS) from the University of..."

This sentence could be clearer: "This method, that BHS pretend has been adopted by the IPCC, has no scientific basis since it would merely consist in a vote – the more votes in favor of the “CO2 hypothesis”, the more its likelihood would be."

I would suggest something like this: "BHS assume that the IPCC assigns confidence levels to scientific positions by a simple vote, so the more votes a statement (i.e. "humans are causing global warming") receives, the higher confidence they assign to it.  However, as discussed below, this is not in reality how the IPCC determines its confidence levels; BHS are criticizing the IPCC for something it does not actually do.

After noting that their assumption is wrong, I would modify the next sentence a bit: "Having seemingly wiped out the AGW hypothesis theory with this ingenious but incorrect argument..."

"critic" should be "critique"

"We also provide throughout this letter with links to peer-reviewed scientific papers"

"diurnal temperature difference" is too technical for the general public.  It's better to either say "more warming during nights than days" or "minimum daily temperatures warming faster than maximum temperatures".

"We take the opportunity here to precise that this “hypothesis” is thermodynamically founded."

"Basing a theory on a quote coming from a single scientist" => You need to first explain the Jansen quote and how they used it.

"without checking whether it is true or not, has little or close to nothing of is not scientific."

In the IPCC paragraph, I would be specific that the IPCC confidence levels are determined using statistical methods, not by voting. (By the way, it took me about 5 seconds to find this information in a Google search, which just shows how incompetent BHS are in this article).

In general I would suggest trying to shorten the article, because newspapers don't usually want to publish anything longer than 800-1,000 words.

2011-05-16 18:10:51


Thx for the feedback. I agree, it is way too long - we were thinking anyway to skip the technical details about likelihood/probabilities as it is not 100% necessary.

I'll send an updated draft today :)


2011-05-17 19:44:56


Ok, it takes more time than I thought, I have found additional information so I am still improving the text.

BTW I am wondering where the claim of BHS that water vapor content has decreased since 1948 could come from. Anybody has ever heard this before? Cos I guess that could be another example of cherry picking data - both spatially and temporally.


2011-05-17 20:24:40


I have just updated the text post - see above. Much longer than 1000 words though - maybe this could be a "SkS version", and we'd need to strip it down to 1000 words for publication in TU.

And to answer your question, "Kronikk in TU" is like "opinion in Teknisk Ukeblad" :)

2011-05-18 01:46:11blog post
Dana Nuccitelli

Okay julien, I made some minor edits and made your article into a blog post.  I also put your translation of the BHS letter here and linked it in the post.  And I put the blog post in the blog post forum for review by the other SkS users.

I put you as the author of the post of course, so you should be able to go in and edit it (and also the BHS article translation).  For the newspaper response, you can definitely shorten it by removing a lot of the details.