date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 11:00:58 -0000
from: "Alan Kendall" <A.KendallatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: Re: Fossil Fuels
to: "David Viner" <d.vineratXYZxyz.ac.uk>
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.
----- Original Message -----
From: David Viner
To: Alan Kendall
Cc: Briffa Keith Prof ((CRU)) f023
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 4:01 PM
Subject: Re: Fossil Fuels
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.
have a good week end
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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/link
Climate Change Masters Course: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/env/msc/
http://www.e-clat.org Tourism and Climate Change
The C-Change Trust 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
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