Well, there is a new paper in press in the Journal of Climate:

Improved methods for PCA-based reconstructions: case study using the Steig et al. 2009 Antarctic temperature reconstruction by Ryan O’Donnell, Nicholas Lewis, Steve McIntyre, Jeff Condon

The abstract states:

A detailed analysis is presented of a recently published Antarctic temperature reconstruction that combines satellite and ground information using a regularized expectation-maximization algorithm. Though the general reconstruction concept has merit, it is susceptible to spurious results for both temperature trends and patterns. The deficiencies include: (a) improper calibration of satellite data; (b) improper determination of spatial structure during infilling; and (c) suboptimal determination of regularization parameters, particularly with respect to satellite principal component retention. We propose two methods to resolve these issues. One utilizes temporal relationships between the satellite and ground data; the other combines ground data with only the spatial component of the satellite data. Both improved methods yield similar results that disagree with the previous method in several aspects. Rather than finding warming concentrated in West Antarctica, we find warming over the period of 1957–2006 to be concentrated in the Peninsula (≈0.35°C decade−1). We also show average trends for the continent, East Antarctica, and West Antarctica that are half or less than that found using the unimproved method. Notably, though we find warming in West Antarctica to be smaller in magnitude, we find that statistically significant warming extends at least as far as Marie Byrd Land. We also find differences in the seasonal patterns of temperature change, with winter and fall showing the largest differences and spring and summer showing negligible differences outside of the Peninsula.

Meanwhile, Ross McKitrick writes:

“NEW PAPER ON CONTAMINATED SURFACE TEMPERATURE DATA: In 2007 I published a paper with Pat Michaels showing evidence that CRU global surface temperature data used by the IPCC are likely contaminated due to socioeconomic development and variations in data quality. In 2009 Gavin Schmidt published a paper in the International Journal of Climatology claiming our results, as well as those of de Laat and Maurellis who independently found the same things we did, were spurious. My rebuttal, coauthored with Nicolas Nierenberg, has been accepted at The Journal of Economic and Social Measurement.

McKitrick, Ross R. and Nicolas Nierenberg (2010) Socioeconomic Patterns in Climate Data. Journal of Economic and Social Measurement, forthcoming.

Data/Code archive here. The paper provides a complete and thorough refutation of Schmidt’s critique. Why JESM? First, because it is a journal that focuses on the critical evaluation of policy-relevant databases, and its editors and reviewers have considerable econometric depth, and this paper is fundamentally an application of econometrics to the evaluation of data quality. Second, we submitted the paper to the IJOC in April 2009, on the assumption that, having published Schmidt’s paper, they were interested in the topic. Evidently their interest only extends to analyses that support IPCC views. After 10 months we found out that IJOC was rejecting our paper on the basis of some inane referee reports to which Nico and I were not given a chance to reply. We did anyway, and if anyone thinks the rejection by IJOC amounts to a knock against our paper, please read our response letter for some perspective. Whether or not the IJOC editors read it, they refused to reconsider our paper. Interestingly, we learned from the Climategate release that Schmidt’s paper, which focuses on defending Phil Jones’ CRU data against its various critics, was sent by the IJOC Editors to be reviewed by Phil Jones of the CRU. As you can imagine his review was shallow and uncritical, but evidently impressed the editors of IJOC. They didn’t ask deLaat or me to supply a review, nor did they invite us to contribute a response. Every interaction I have had over the years with the IJOC has left me very unimpressed.”

Summary of McKitrick & Nierenberg (2010):

To generate a climate data set, temperature data collected at the Earth’s surface must be adjusted to remove non-climatic effects such as urbanization and measurement discontinuities. Some studies have shown that the post-1980 spatial pattern of temperature trends over land in prominent climate data sets is strongly correlated with the spatial pattern of socioeconomic development, implying that the adjustments are inadequate, leaving a residual warm bias. This evidence has been disputed on three grounds: spatial autocorrelation of the temperature field undermines significance of test results; counterfactual experiments using model generated data suggest such correlations have an innocuous interpretation; and different satellite covariates yield unstable results. Somewhat surprisingly, these claims have not been put into a coherent framework for the purpose of statistical testing. We combine economic and climatological data sets from various teams with trend estimates from global climate models and we use spatial regressions to test the competing hypotheses. Overall we find that the evidence for contamination of climatic data is robust across numerous data sets, it is not undermined by controlling for spatial autocorrelation, and the patterns are not explained by climate models. Consequently we conclude that important data products used for the analysis of climate change over global land surfaces may be contaminated with socioeconomic patterns related to urbanization and other socioeconomic processes.

Northern Ireland hit a new low of -9.5C (15F) at Lough Fea, Co Tyrone, and in Wales, a record minimum of -18C (0F) was reached at Llysdinam, in Powys.

Snow is still falling in Scotland, Northern Ireland and north-east England, and Edinburgh, Glasgow and Derry airports have been closed.

Forecasters say the cold spell will continue well into next week.

BBC News website, 28th November 2010: Coldest November night on record in parts of UK

In order to let people (media, politicians, scientists, ordinary people) we organize – parallel to Cancun – the  III. international climate & energy conference in Berlin at dec 3.  & 4. It will be held in english and german with simultaneous translation.

I would be glad if you would accept our invitation for this conference in Berlin at dec 3.  & 4. See details in attached leaflet below. An online application form you will find here:

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/registration-3rd-international-conference-on-energy-and-climate-berlin-2010/

Energy

The Democrats’ signature energy legislation, the so-called cap and trade bill to limit carbon emissions, passed the House of Representatives but stalled in the Senate amid Republican opposition.

There is virtually no chance the bill will be enacted into law in the next two years, and the Republicans staunchly oppose energy policies that would increase regulation of industry or result in new costs.

Both Republicans and Mr Obama have called for expanded use of nuclear power and “clean coal” technology, so any forthcoming energy legislation is likely to focus on those areas.

On Wednesday, Mr Obama acknowledged there was no way forward for cap and trade but said he hoped to see co-operation between Republicans and Democrats on reducing carbon emissions and promoting clean energy.

“Cap and trade was just one way of skinning the cat,” he said. “It was a means, not an end, and I’m going to be looking for other means to solve this problem.”

BBC News website: US elections 2010: Democratic losses and Obama’s agenda

2010 Hurricane Factoids

Adam Lea, of University College London, shares these interesting hurricane factoids related the the remarkable dearth of US hurricane landfalls in recent years.  His comments are reproduced here with his permission:

As the 2010 hurricane season (with 10 hurricanes) starts to wind down I thought I would share a few statistics on how unusual this season has been historically for its lack of US hurricane landfalls:

1. Since 1900 there is no precedent of an Atlantic hurricane season with 10 or more hurricanes where none has struck the US as a hurricane. The five previous seasons with 10 or more hurricanes each had at least two hurricane strikes on the US.

2. The last precedent for a La Nina year of the magnitude of 2010 which had no US-landfalling hurricane is 1973.

3. Since hurricane Ike (2008) there have been 16 consecutive non US-landfalling hurricanes. Such a  sequence last happened between Irene (1999) and Lili (2002) with 22 consecutive non US-landfalling hurricanes, and between Allen (1980) and Alicia (1983) with 17 consecutive non US-landfalling hurricanes.

4. The period 2006-2010 is one of only three 5-year consecutive periods without a US major hurricane landfall (the other two such periods were 1901-1905 and 1936-1940). There has never been a six year period without a US major hurricane landfall.

5. Historically one in four Atlantic hurricanes strike the US as a hurricane. Thus the recent dearth in strikes should be ‘corrected’ in the next few years.

The 2006 – 2010 RMS Hurricane Damage Forecast

Climate Fools Day Rally
Wednesday Oct 27th 2PM at Parliament

“Politicians are more prepared to have people die of extreme weather events
than undermine their Climate Change scam…”

Look what was said in 2008…
Snow blankets London for Global Warming debate “Snow fell as the House of Commons debated Global Warming yesterday – the first October fall in the metropolis since 1922. The Mother of Parliaments was discussing the Mother of All Bills for the last time, in a marathon six hour session.” by Andrew Orlowski www.theregister.co.uk

Climate Change Bill makes chilling reading “As MPs droned on about the need to fight global warming, Peter Lilley drew the Speaker’s attention to the fact that, outside on the streets of Westminster, snow was falling. It was London’s first October snowfall for 70 years, and similarly unseasonal snow was carpeting a wide swathe of Britain. In all that six hours of debate, only two MPs questioned the need for such a Bill, which had swept through its second reading with only five opposed. The sole MP who tried to raise the matter of the cost of the Bill – which could run to trillions of pounds if all its measures were implemented – was Mr Lilley. He was ruled out of order by the Speaker. If the Bill’s intent is taken seriously, the cost of cutting our CO2 emissions by 80 per cent would cripple our economy, closing down much of what remains of our industry and rendering most motorised transport impossible.” by Christopher Booker Daily Telegraph.

Nigel Lawson’s speech before the House of Lords “Nevertheless, we have the amendments that come back from the Commons to us today. The Bill will go down in history, and future generations will see it, as the most absurd Bill that this House and Parliament as a whole as ever had to examine”….”I should like to address as briefly as I can—because I do not propose to speak on any subsequent occasion on this subject— why I think that the Bill is so absurd. Let us pretend that the planet is warming. We know, of course, that it is not. The figures published each year and, indeed, monthly, by the Met Office or the Hadley Centre, which is a department of the Met Office in association with the climate research unit of the University of East Anglia, show without any doubt that there has been no warming so far this century at all. Some people say that there has been a cooling but, although that has been the slight trend, I think that the margin for error is so great that I would not press that, but there has certainly been no warming.”

UK: Climate Change Bill 28th October – Laws should not be passed without evidence by Piers Corbyn As written to arrive on MPs Email at dawn on Oct 28th 2008. Piers says “The response then to the simple question for MPs to show evidence to support their Climate Change Bill measures was zero evidence. There were a small number who asked for further information from us and conversations revealed that most of those prepared to even talk about it went along with the Bill even it was nonsense because:
(i) they couldn’t afford (politically) to oppose it &/or
(ii) they wanted it to be used in another mission like taxing airlines because they believed such measures were right irrespective of justification. One notes ‘The means justifies the ends’ approach has led to at least one war recently.
There is one shining exception – Sammy Wilson DUP MP for East Antrim – who has spoken out in favour of evidence based legislation and we expect to hear from him at the Conference on Oct 28th.

Why are we STILL Waiting? There has still been no response to the letter to the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon from ‘The gang of 13′ world scientists requesting evidence of CO2 driving Climate”: See Letter to UN Sec General 14 July 2008 or the letter 3 months earlier initiated by Hans Schreuder Analytic Chemist to Dr Rajenda Pachauri chair of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (still carried on a UN site!)
Of all these or related letters sent to the UN Gen Sec, the IPCC chair, the UK House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee and the Prime Minister’s office only one has replied at all namely Gordon Brown’s office which took the form of the Met Office writing back on his behalf directing us to the UN IPCC.

http://climatefoolsday.com/

Now Vilimelis and more than 50,000 other Spanish solar entrepreneurs face financial disaster as the policy makers contemplate cutting the price guarantees that attracted their investment in the first place.

“You feel cheated,” he says. “We put our money in on the basis of a law.”

Zapatero introduced the subsidies three years ago as part of an effort to cut his country’s dependence on fossil fuels. At the time, he promised that the investment in renewable energy would create manufacturing jobs and that Spain could sell its panels to nations seeking to reduce carbon emissions.

Yet by failing to control the program’s cost, Zapatero saddled Spain with at least 126 billion euros of obligations to renewable-energy investors. The spending didn’t achieve the government’s aim of creating green jobs, because Spanish investors imported most of their panels from overseas when domestic manufacturers couldn’t meet short-term demand.

Stark Lesson

Spain stands as a lesson to other aspiring green-energy nations, including China and the U.S., by showing how difficult it is to build an alternative energy industry even with billions of euros in subsidies, says Ramon de la Sota, a private investor in Spanish photovoltaic panels and a former General Electric Co. executive.

“The government totally overshot with the tariff,” de la Sota says. “Now they have a huge bill to pay — but where’s the technology, where’s the know-how, where’s the value?”

Read the full article here:

Bloomberg: Spain’s Solar Deals on Edge of Bankruptcy as Subsidies Founder

Chris Huhne, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, said nuclear power will be a key part of the energy mix over the next 40 years.

He announced eight sites around the country where nuclear power stations could be built.

However there are already concerns about the cost of cleaning up the radioactive waste.

The UK is already paying out up to £100 billion to decommission the nuclear power stations currently in use.

Mr Huhne said there will be no public subsidy for new nuclear reactors.

However, he said the Government will have to take on liability for both accidents and cleaning up the radioactive waste, so that power companies are confident of investing in the new technology.

Read more:

Telegraph.co.uk: Public to pay for new nuclear era

Whichever way you look at it, £1 billion is a lot of money. That is £1,000,000,000.00, and it is our money – more money than you and I will ever see, or ever dream of earning. It is a sum of money that would buy 150,000 hip replacement operations. It would pay the energy bills for two million pensioners for a full year, or pay the university fees for 600,000 students. More specifically, and of some personal interest, it would pay for 100,000 life-saving heart operations.

Yet the *******pictured is going to take that amount of money from us to play around stripping plant food from coal-fired electricity generation and bury it deep in a hole in the ground.

Wang, B., Y. Yang, Q.‐H. Ding, H. Murakami, and F. Huang, 2010. Climate control of the global tropical storm days (1965–2008). Geophysical Research Letters, 37, L07704, doi:10.1029/2010GL042487.

Abstract:

The tropical storm days have a consistent global record over the past 44 years (1965–2008), which provides an alternative metric for integrated information about genesis, track, and lifespan. Seasonal-reliant singular value decomposition is performed on the fields of the global storm days and sea surface temperature by using the “best track” data. The leading mode, which dominates the variability of the global total number of storm days, displays an east-west contrast between enhanced activity in the North Pacific and reduced activity in the North Atlantic and a north-south contrast in the Southern Hemisphere oceans between active tropics and inactive subtropics, which are coupled with the El Niño and a positive phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). The second mode reveals a compensating trend pattern coupled with global warming: upward trends over the North Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific warm pool (17.5°S–10°N, 70–140°E) and downward trends over the Pacific, especially the South Pacific. However, the global total number of storm days shows no trend and only an unexpected large amplitude fluctuation driven by El Niño-Southern Oscillation and PDO. The rising temperature of about 0.5°C in the tropics so far has not yet affected the global tropical storm days.

World Climate Report: No Trend in Global Hurricane Activity