cc: "Briffa Keith Prof \(\(CRU\)\) f023" date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 11:00:58 -0000 from: "Alan Kendall" subject: Re: Fossil Fuels to: "David Viner" David, pity the author of that New Scientist piece doesn't know all of the literature. As you are aware, there are now dozens of peer-reviewed papers identifying the MWP and LIA outside of the North Atlantic. In addition, I believe that the last modelling done involving the Gulf Stream demonstrates that this does not convey much heat to Europe, its lost its heat well before that. Thus even a reduced gulf steam should not have caused the LIA. Objections to the "hockey-stick" do not entirely reside with the reality (or not) of the MWP or LIA. As I read the criticism, it mostly concerns the invalidity of the statistical manipulations used. I also thought that the Osborn & Briffa diagram you used last week did identify the MWP and LIA, so why are you seemingly supporting the "hockey-stick" by recommending a "nice article in this weeks New Scientist" ? As for supplying references, why bother? Any, like the Peruvian glacial study, are immediately ignored or explained away as being local. AlanK ----- Original Message ----- From: [1]David Viner To: [2]Alan Kendall Cc: [3]Briffa Keith Prof ((CRU)) f023 Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 4:01 PM Subject: Re: Fossil Fuels Hi there There is a nice article in this weeks New Scientist on the "Hockey Stick" graph, page 9. If anyone can send me any published literature (in the peer-reviewed journals) that does support the view that the current rapid rise in CO2 (and other GHG concentrations) and associated temperature changes are not down in part to human activity please do send them to me. Also if anyone can find the literature that states that 1990 were not the warmest decade of the last millennia please d send me the paper. Cheers have a good week end D +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr David Viner Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ Tel: +44 1603 592089 SKYPE Address: drdavidviner (Intermittent) Home Page: [4]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/link Climate Change Masters Course: [5]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/env/msc/ [6]http://www.e-clat.org Tourism and Climate Change The C-Change Trust [7]http://www.thec-changetrust.org/ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ On 1 Dec 2006, at 10:51, Alan Kendall wrote: Dear all, I trust you enjoyed the seminars yesterday. I certainly did, and from those of you who came to talk with me afterwards I gained the impression that you found it informative and stimulating. Perhaps you learned more about how academic argument occurs and have formed your own opinions about this. If so, then the entire idea of having these seminars has been worthwhile. Because the final minutes were taken up by an unscheduled "presentation" I was unable to make certain remarks, hence this e-mail. 1. Next week's lectures will be given by Dr. Congxiao Shan who will speak upon fuel use and transport, and upon the hydrogen economy (using fossil fuels) as well as using China as case histories. 2. Wednesday week 12's lecture will be given by Dr. Kieth Tovey, who will discuss carbon trading. I will finish up the lectures the next day with one reviewing the entire contents of the unit with perhaps something rather political - watch this space. I will of course be seeing you in the seminar slots. 3.Next week's seminars are upon 1) clouds and landuse changes influencing climate change, 2. the deficiencies of climate models, and 3.other causes of climate change, in particular solar changes. I have given advice to individual members of all three groups but if you need help with references, websites &c. please contact me by e-mail and I'll try to help. 4. Peter Brimblecombe will sit in on next week's seminars, but Dave Viner and Kieth Briffa have "threatened" to come as well. Is this because they were stimulated by the idea of these seminars or because you need to be "put right" after being subjected to undue influence by your's truely? Regardless, they are very welcome. 5. Finally can I emphasize that you are being asked to present the evidence for the proposition that evidence exists that is contrary to the commonly accepted "consensus" and to answer questions from this particular viewpoint. You are not being asked yourselves to assume any particular stance. In this regard it might be better for you to quote material from "reputable (?)" sources rather than assume these views yourself. Following on from this, you should know that I thought some of the criticisms directed at members of yesterday's presenting groups was perhaps unwarrented and unjustified. I was very impressed with some of you who stood up to such comments extremely well. To be absolutely fair, David Viner made some of the same points and commented favorably about some of the responses you made. I think you made a very creditable showing AlanK