Oral testimony at UK Parliamentary Inquiry

[Cees Binkhorst]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

Heb net nog even zitten luisteren naar Lomberg op CNN.
Hij vindt dat de kritiek te ver gaat ;)

Groet/ Cees

Henk Elegeert wrote:
> 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
> **********
>
>

**********
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
**********