Oral testimony at UK Parliamentary Inquiry

[Henk Elegeert]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

2010/2/23 Cees Binkhorst <ceesbink at xs4all.nl>

> REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl
>
> Onze parlementarieërs worden geacht hun tijd beter te besteden?
>
> Dit soort shows vinden géén waarheden, noch duidelijkheid.
> Kijk maar naar de 'autoshows' in het Congress in de USA.
>
> Hoe zou jij de te onderzoeken vraag (vragen) formuleren?
>

De belangrijkste is natuurlijk, Cees, het bewijs voor de veronderstelde
invloed van de mens op het klimaat, en tevens dat de genomen maatregelen dat
klimaat dusdanig beïnvloeden dat die werkelijk geen verkeerde of vervelende
gevolgen daarvan gaat ondervinden? Gevolgen die mogelijk onvoorzien erger
zijn dan het vermogen van het weersysteem om zich(zelf) weer te herstellen.

Verder:

http://geenklimaat.blogspot.com/2010/02/phil-jones-loopt-helemaal-leeg-op-de.html

" *Geen Klimaat*
De belangrijkste vraag die we hier niet proberen te beantwoorden is:
"Beïnvloedt de mens het klimaat op aarde?". Onder de noemer "Geen Klimaat"
zal een beperkt aantal individuen met behulp van wetenschappelijk
onderbouwde argumenten, hun ongenuanceerde mening over dit onderwerp geven.

maandag 15 februari 2010
Phil Jones loopt helemaal leeg op de
BBC<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm>
<http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_HN2WDmsAoOw/S3kyZtHbeuI/AAAAAAAAANg/7tKGamDSuM4/s1600-h/phil+jones.png>
Phil Jones heeft onder dwang een lijst vragen van de BBC moeten
beantwoorden, hij staat onder curatele en de vragen zijn benatwoord alsof
onder ede.
De vragen zijn van Roger Harrabin, een BBC klimaat specialist die zeer
recentelijk 180 graden gedraaid is op het klimaat punt en zich persoonlijk
bedonderd voelt en nu bloed wil zien.
De antwoorden zijn verhelderend. Als je alles wil lezen, klik op de titel
van deze pos. Hieronder een paar pakkende vragen en antwoorden:

Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

Phil Jones is director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the
IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998
were identical?

An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've
assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the
record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the
marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met
Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of
sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880
period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and
1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different
(see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a
very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are
similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Here are the trends and significances for each period:
Period Length Trend
(Degrees C per decade) Significance
1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no
statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009.
This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95%
significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance
level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more
likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been
statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is
negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically
significant.

D - Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed
significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so,
please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative
forcing over the period in Watts per square metre.

This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes
over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and
natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate
system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period
could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences
from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would
exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period.
Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have
expected some cooling over this period.

E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are
mainly responsible?

I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I
would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the
warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.


G - There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global
or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon,
would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface
atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were
unprecedented?

There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in
extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America,
the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in
extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the
tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few
palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer
than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then
obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the
other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then
current warmth would be unprecedented.

We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do
not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption
that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the
northern hemisphere.
"
Heb jij een nog onbeantwoorde vragen?
Henk Elegeert

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66 uwvoornaam uwachternaam
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********