I haven't read all the documents involved in detail, but if someone does and wants to write it up as blog post that would be nice.
Bolt cites Lockart et al, (2009) Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L24405, which questions in relatively tentative terms ("explores an alternative explanation") the statistical methodology used by Karoly (2003) to attribute drought in the Murray-Darling Basin to global warming.
Bolt goes on to quote a reader:
"Karoly was cited very extensively in the AR4 WG1 paper.e.g. Chapter 9 9.4.2.3 Studies Based on Indices of Temperature Change and Temperature-Precipitation Relationships."Studies based on indices of temperature change support the robust detection of human influence on continental-scale land areas. Observed trends in indices of North American continental scale temperature change, (including the regional mean, the mean land-ocean temperature contrast and the annual cycle) were found by Karoly et al. (2003) to be generally consistent with simulated trends under historical forcing from greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols during the second half of the 20th century. In contrast, they find only a small likelihood of agreement with trends driven by natural forcing only during this period."
Ok.
First, the Karoly et al. (2003) critiqued in GRL is:
Karoly, D. J., J. Risbey, and A. Reynolds (2003), Global warming contributes to Australia's worst drought, research report, World Wildlife Fund, Sydney, N. S. W., Australia.
while the Karoly et al. (2003) relied on by the IPCC is:
Karoly, D.J., et al., 2003: Detection of a human influence on North American climate. Science, 302, 1200â1203.
(As suggested by the IPCC quote, this deals with North America, not the Murray-Darling basin.) On scanning this document it does not appear to use the methodology critiqued by Lockart et al.
What does AR4 say about Australian drought? In FAQ9.1, just near the section Bolt quotes, Australian drought is mentioned as an example of an extreme event for which the correct methodology is to look at changes in likelihood rather than individual attributions. In the 9.4.2.3 the IPCC does mention work which appears to rely on the method critiqued by Lockart et al., but qualify around what looks like the same issue that is now raised:
"By removing the rainfall-related component of Australian temperature variations, thereby enhancing the signal-to-noise ratio, Karoly and Braganza (2005b) detect an anthropogenic warming signal in south-eastern Australia, although their results are affected by some uncertainty associated with their removal of rainfall-related temperature variability."
Joe K: Bolt has absolutely no idea what "error in AR4" means. IPCC relies on science available at the time. If it is later shown to be incorrect (it hardly was, this time) then there is not much they can do about it, can they?
Tim,
Don't know if you've had your debate Lord Mockton yet, but if you haven't, don't let him throw the massive snow storms we're having in the U.S. mid-Atlantic in your face. I live outside of D.C. and the mega-storms are being caused in part by WARMER than normal water off the coast of North Carolina. This pumps moisture into the atmosphere which then falls as snow when it hits cold air in land. These are almost like hurricanes w/ snow.
Also be sure to tell him he'll get my flyrod from my cold, dead hand. ;-)
Many of you may not be aware of the storm that is brewing concerning ClimateFraudit's involvement in the bogus FOIs. Not only that but John Mashey has just produced a whopping 115 pg document that is worth perusing (I have not read it yet, it is immensely complex and detailed) if you want to know more about Wegman, M&M and others in the denialist camp: http://www.desmogblog.com/plagiarism-conspiracies-felonies-breaking-out…
Eli Rabett and DeepClimate also have some pretty damning evidence against the M&M team, and DC in particular has two excellent articles. Well worth a visit to their sites.
Scitt M, do you have a ink to your information or analysis regarding this current storm and warmer water? I've heard some talk about that but I have been busy digging snow and not for information. Thanks.
Always eager to help with your friendly, open conversations here, so I thought you might be keen to read this from an official review commenter on the IPCC AR4, chaper 9, you know, th eone that was supposed to prove that global warming was man-made:
"There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasn't the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community - instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted."
Oh God, I hear you cry, not more M&M. Well, no, actually, it's from a colleague of James Hansen at GISS. One of those frightfully brainy types with an M.Sc and a P.Hd in physics - obviously a real 'stinks' type and a swot, to boot! Now what was it you were all saying about consensus ...?
Gee, Duffy - WTFWT and Hill tell you to jump, and you say "How high"? Or is it more like you're bent over, and say "Yes sir, may I please have another"?
Revkin has already discussed what Hill and Watts don't tell you. That kind of game is so typical of the denialists - tell half-truths. Another sign of their deep intellectual dishonesty. See
Oh dear, 'Derecho64', having difficulty reading are we? It was Dr. Lacis I was quoting not either of the other gentlemen you mentioned. But thank you for your link to the, er, controversial Mr. Revkin who points us to this less than gushing endorsement:
âThe revised chapter was much improved,â he [Lacis]said. âThatâs different than saying everything in there is nailed down, but I think itâs a big improvement.â
Duffer, Lacis' comment,made in the first order review of Ch.9, was noted and rejected. Part of the process was a second-order review. The Executive Summary that he criticized is not the ES that we see published in AR4.
Typical of the quote-mining dimwit Hill to promote this as significant,and to equate criticism of a draft ES with the entire finished chapter. He's one of the ethically vacuous liars who published an 'analysis' of the stolen emails. In any other context,you'd rightly find that sort of behavior horrifying.
El Gordo @7 says "In a few weeks it will be possible to walk from Stockholm to St Petersburg across the ice."
and @15 "Telling 'half truths' is propaganda and I believe AGW supporters have the monopoly on that."
Here's some more gems from over the last few months :
el gordo
Sat 22 Aug 09 (04:04pm)
Tom...over that time, in July, the SST has gone up half a degree.
This is understandable, it takes time for the seas to absorb heat from the land mass. What we see, looking in a rear vision mirror, is the last hurrah of a climate optimum.
Get a grip on yourself man, we are about to experience global cooling.
el gordo
Sat 22 Aug 09 (11:35am)
The developing El Nino will be âstill bornâ or Iâll eat my hat.
Never thought I would see the day when so much heat could be generated just from talking about the weather.
Had a look at the SST and the impression is that its been falling since July 19.
el gordo
Wed 23 Sep 09 (07:38am)
It now appears that this El Nino will be âstill bornâ and as a natural consequence the farmers will sleep a little easier.
el gordo
Wed 23 Sep 09 (02:44pm)
Inaction is good from a denierâs point of view, because we need at least six more months to prove that AGW is a crock, beyond any doubt.
A cool PDO and NAO, neutral IOD, still born El Nino, should see temperatures stop rising.
el gordo Sun 25 Oct 09 (01:31pm)
All those you mentioned will have egg on their faces as temperatures trend down.
el gordo Sun 25 Oct 09 (11:35am)
The average punter suffers from climate change overload and doesnât have a clue. The propaganda has been pervasive.
Cherry-picking is good for our morale, so I support the idea whole-heartedly.
Eventually it will âsink-inâ that itâs getting cooler, a particularly nasty northern hemisphere winter should seal it.
el gordo
Mon 02 Nov 09 (10:26am)
As the world becomes cooler you will see extremes in the mid-latitudes. Like NZâs August temps being the warmest in 155 years, while in October they were the coolest in a quarter century.
Northern China and Japan are experiencing early snow and its quite heavy. So this northern hemisphere winter will be one to watch.
Iâm a big fan of cherry-picking when the weather is in my favor.
el gordo
Sun 08 Nov 09 (07:12am)
Global warming is not happeningâ¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦.
"is an environmental consultant and professor of philosophy of science best known for his books challenging the assumptions of scientific objectivity, discussing the science wars and post-normal science."
"is an environmental consultant and professor of philosophy of science best known for his books challenging the assumptions of scientific objectivity, discussing the science wars and post-normal science."
The phrase only appear on six webpages at the time I post this (but Watts up quoting will raise that number soon).
I think, Revolution9, that El Gordo was clearly joking in some of those comments.
I mean, no-one would seriously believe that the ocean gets its heat content by absorbing/transferring it from the land mass.
That's the thing about El Gordo - always the jester. In fact, most of those on the anti-global warming side have a truly wicked sense of humour! I fall for it every time.
Derecho - My own Watts story is this. He simply erased me.
Back when Watts was embarrassing himself with his inability ti understand what an anomaly is, and finally admitted that he was misunderstanding, I pointed out that his post was wrong, and was still there. He argued that it wasn't really wrong, that choice of baseline for anomalies really did matter, and that he was going to write another post in the series to explain why.
A couple months later, I pointed out that he still had not done the third post, that his original post was still wrong, and asking when he was going to either fix the original post or supply the promised third post.
Anthony responded by banning me from WUWT. Apparently, reminding Anthony of his promises is too rude for him to stand. He then went back and systematically erased every comment I had ever made at WUWT, and edited his own comments to remove references to me, and to make himself look less.. wrong.
el gordo Wed 23 Sep 09 (02:44pm)
>*Inaction is good from a denierâs point of view, because we need at least six more months to prove that AGW is a crock, beyond any doubt. A cool PDO and NAO, neutral IOD, still born El Nino, should see temperatures stop rising.*
el gordo are you working on your five more months progress report?
I suggest that in your report you could make it clear that "forever" is also "at least six more months" away?
ABSTRACT
Recent changes in the seasonal timing (phenology) of familiar biological events have been one of the most conspicuous signs of climate change. However, the lack of a standardized approach to analysing change has hampered assessment of consistency in such changes among different taxa and trophic levels and across freshwater, terrestrial and marine environments. We present a standardized assessment of 25 532 rates of phenological change for 726 UK terrestrial, freshwater and marine taxa. The majority of spring and summer events have advanced, and more rapidly than previously documented. Such consistency is indicative of shared large scale drivers. Furthermore, average rates of change have accelerated in a way that is consistent with observed warming trends. Less coherent patterns in some groups of organisms point to the agency of more local scale processes and multiple drivers. For the first time we show a broad scale signal of differential phenological change among trophic levels; across environments advances in timing were slowest for secondary consumers, thus heightening the potential risk of temporal mismatch in key trophic interactions. If current patterns and rates of phenological change are indicative of future trends, future climate warming may exacerbate trophic mismatching, further disrupting the functioning, persistence and resilience of many ecosystems and having a major impact on ecosystem services.
Deech56,
Sorry I don't, one of the local weather forecasters was explaining it on the news. Off the OBX area the air temp as 60 degrees just before the storm. Of course I should hasten to add picking any one weather event, even an entire season is a bogus argument when discussing climate change, but unfortunately, that's the kind of red herring someone debating a denialist has to deal with.
Scott
Scott M, thanks. Last evening I did find this nugget on Climate Progress, so maybe the Jeff Masters piece linked there was read by your local guy. Of course, the usual caveats apply, but the warm water and large volume of moist air meeeting cold air is not at all consistent with any "global cooling" meme.
"Of course I should hasten to add picking any one weather event, even an entire season is a bogus argument when discussing climate change, but unfortunately, that's the kind of red herring someone debating a denialist has to deal with."
But Scott, when there was little snowfall, it provided the alarmists with a platform for urgent action.
So, what are the alarmists to do now that we are up to our knees in snow? Hmmmm....
I got it! They could say something like this....
"Of course I should hasten to add picking any one weather event, even an entire season is a bogus argument when discussing climate change, but unfortunately, that's the kind of red herring someone debating a denialist has to deal with."
Andrews, I did reply in that other thread - not my problem if you don't pay attention. That was before he erased me. I was very clear with Watts that I was able to say everything I wanted to say over there in the comments, and that I had no interest whatsoever in linking my reputation and name to his site as an article contributor.
Why? Does the fact that I declined to write for him, somehow excuse Watt's dishonesty and idiocy?
Betula: would you like to be held accountable for the tripe spewed by, for example, Sen. James Inhofe? By some kind of association, are people who think that AGW is a problem forced* to agree with the democrat senators on this issue? These senators are not scientists, so they should not be the primary source regarding this scientific issue**.
*Just like 'sceptics' are not forced to agree with everything that Plimer, EG Beck, Monckton, Spencer, Gerlich and Tscheuschner, Lindzen and Choi (etc) say. That would result in a serious case of cognitive dissonance.
**Regarding this kind of issue, see Chris's link in #27. That's more like it - you need a big data set to draw significant conclusions.
Being fairly young, I only joined these kind of climate change discussions quite late, around 2006. There have been heatwaves, droughts, floods, snowstorms etc etc since then. I'm pretty sure I've never, even in the days when I was fresh and young, attributed a single event or season to climate change.
Hey Mike (#18). Winter is not over in the Northern Hemisphere yet. It could still happen this year ! I'll laugh if it does - 'don't you worry about that' ! :-)
The UK Met Office is looking at weather as climate...
Your assertion is not supported by any evidence at the link you provided.
They are reporting on annual weather records, which are distinct from (average) climate trends. If you don't or won't understand this...
And for what it's worth, I lived in a city in Scotland for a few years a few decades ago. One night it was -26 degrees C, which was lower than even the -22.3 degrees C the article mentioned.
I was responding to the "tripe spewed by" Scott M @28 with "tripe spewed by" people who actually attempt to influence policy based on snowfall amounts.
Dave & Dave Rado, I thought I saw one of those Darwin graphs in Monckton's slides.
And yes, that dodgy "analysis" of Darwin really appeared (at least to me) to be arguing that known errors in instrumentation should NOT be corrected. Astonishing.
Meanwhile a bunch of people ran around and argued that other errors in instrumentation MUST be happening due to site location and changes, and should be fixed.
That website (or at least the commenters) appear to be talking about prosecuting someone or something for fraud.
Maybe we should encourage them! Nothing like a high profile court judgement basically declaring you to be an idiot to make you reconsider...er, to make you include the judiciary in your conspiracy theory along with practically everyone else.
What they show is exactly what I said: much of the higher latiitudes have experienced a very mild month, with below-normal temperatures restrcited essentially to a narrow belt of central and werstern Europe and the southeastern United States.
Lotharsson - yes, I noticed the Darwin graphs towards the end of his presentation. Eschenbach's analysis was comprehensively dealt with for the nonsense it was at the time over here. It's one of the areas that Monckton will be weak on and that Tim could exploit - although I echo others in saying Tim should concentrate on the science more than he debunks Monckton's anti-science.
Bud, I think you're right in the sense that there's not enough time to cover enough debunking in the debate...but if you can work it in and get people to wonder enough to (say) come to the blog...
...pretty tall order for a bunch of true believers though.
I also find the idea of a reverse-Gish gallop entertaining (here's a quick list of all the things wrong with his slides...) but it doesn't work for true believers either. They just reflexively think you are full of crap. It's a strange affliction.
sidcup - Seeing as his first post contained an enthusiastic link from a Swift Boat Scientist for Truth, who describes AGW as a socialist conspiracy, I think we can see the direction that this blog is headed.
This bullshit concept of post-normal science needs a serious slapping down from someone though. The whole thing is an arrogant joke, at least the way it's being claimed by the pseudo-skeptics.
Lee,
I have got a first name but I know you are quite a rude person who has been 'dining out' on your supposed bad treatment at WUWT for the past few years so I won't get upset.
So, it appears that Andrews has a first name, but no answer.
I couldn't care less whether Watts treated me well or badly - he isn't worth the energy.
I do care that Watts is seen for what he is - because his dishonesty and idiocy are damaging and dangerous. It's amazing to me that folks like you defend him, when the unanswered issues and questions and the dishonesty are so freaking clearly displayed over there.
It's weather, not climate, except when it's really hot. The msm has been cherry-picking for years to reinforce the notion that the world is getting warmer, but there is hardly a peep out of them when it gets unusually cool. Anyway, we all know global warming works in mysterious ways.
Vancouver is warmer than normal for this time of year, as are other places around the world, so can you explain to me exactly what is causing that anomaly?
1. This report shows the UK Met treating cold "weather as climate"
2. [Me:] There's no mention of trends or averages [or even the word "climate"] there
3. Well, if it had been hot weather they would have...
Having successfully forecast this NH winter, I would like to have a crack at what next season has in store.
It will be a backward Spring across Europe and North America, cool and wet. Have a look at the Arctic Oscillation Index and keep in mind that we are now in a cool PDO.
In Australia we can expect massive floods because of a strong La Nina and low solar activity will create a lot more moisture worldwide.
There is one more thing, which should get a few laughs from the jackals amongst you, this NH summer could see some serious hurricanes in the Caribbean.
So Andrew Bolt thinks he's found another error in AR4. This time in Working Group I, which would be more significant so I thought I would take a look.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comme…
I haven't read all the documents involved in detail, but if someone does and wants to write it up as blog post that would be nice.
Bolt cites Lockart et al, (2009) Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L24405, which questions in relatively tentative terms ("explores an alternative explanation") the statistical methodology used by Karoly (2003) to attribute drought in the Murray-Darling Basin to global warming.
Bolt goes on to quote a reader:
"Karoly was cited very extensively in the AR4 WG1 paper.e.g. Chapter 9 9.4.2.3 Studies Based on Indices of Temperature Change and Temperature-Precipitation Relationships."Studies based on indices of temperature change support the robust detection of human influence on continental-scale land areas. Observed trends in indices of North American continental scale temperature change, (including the regional mean, the mean land-ocean temperature contrast and the annual cycle) were found by Karoly et al. (2003) to be generally consistent with simulated trends under historical forcing from greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols during the second half of the 20th century. In contrast, they find only a small likelihood of agreement with trends driven by natural forcing only during this period."
Ok.
First, the Karoly et al. (2003) critiqued in GRL is:
Karoly, D. J., J. Risbey, and A. Reynolds (2003), Global warming contributes to Australia's worst drought, research report, World Wildlife Fund, Sydney, N. S. W., Australia.
while the Karoly et al. (2003) relied on by the IPCC is:
Karoly, D.J., et al., 2003: Detection of a human influence on North American climate. Science, 302, 1200â1203.
(As suggested by the IPCC quote, this deals with North America, not the Murray-Darling basin.) On scanning this document it does not appear to use the methodology critiqued by Lockart et al.
What does AR4 say about Australian drought? In FAQ9.1, just near the section Bolt quotes, Australian drought is mentioned as an example of an extreme event for which the correct methodology is to look at changes in likelihood rather than individual attributions. In the 9.4.2.3 the IPCC does mention work which appears to rely on the method critiqued by Lockart et al., but qualify around what looks like the same issue that is now raised:
"By removing the rainfall-related component of Australian temperature variations, thereby enhancing the signal-to-noise ratio, Karoly and Braganza (2005b) detect an anthropogenic warming signal in south-eastern Australia, although their results are affected by some uncertainty associated with their removal of rainfall-related temperature variability."
Joe K: Bolt has absolutely no idea what "error in AR4" means. IPCC relies on science available at the time. If it is later shown to be incorrect (it hardly was, this time) then there is not much they can do about it, can they?
Lockart has already been shown to be wrong. I'll have a post on this one soon.
Tim,
Don't know if you've had your debate Lord Mockton yet, but if you haven't, don't let him throw the massive snow storms we're having in the U.S. mid-Atlantic in your face. I live outside of D.C. and the mega-storms are being caused in part by WARMER than normal water off the coast of North Carolina. This pumps moisture into the atmosphere which then falls as snow when it hits cold air in land. These are almost like hurricanes w/ snow.
Also be sure to tell him he'll get my flyrod from my cold, dead hand. ;-)
Scott M
Springfied, VA
Sorry for the repost, but IMHO this is important.
Many of you may not be aware of the storm that is brewing concerning ClimateFraudit's involvement in the bogus FOIs. Not only that but John Mashey has just produced a whopping 115 pg document that is worth perusing (I have not read it yet, it is immensely complex and detailed) if you want to know more about Wegman, M&M and others in the denialist camp:
http://www.desmogblog.com/plagiarism-conspiracies-felonies-breaking-out…
Eli Rabett and DeepClimate also have some pretty damning evidence against the M&M team, and DC in particular has two excellent articles. Well worth a visit to their sites.
Scitt M, do you have a ink to your information or analysis regarding this current storm and warmer water? I've heard some talk about that but I have been busy digging snow and not for information. Thanks.
Deech56 Frederick, MD
In a few weeks it will be possible to walk from Stockholm to St Petersburg across the ice.
Meanwhile, in Vancouver things aren't looking all that flash for the Winter Olympics:
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/global-warning-for-2010-games-no-snow-could…
#7,I'll sponsor you,El G.
Always eager to help with your friendly, open conversations here, so I thought you might be keen to read this from an official review commenter on the IPCC AR4, chaper 9, you know, th eone that was supposed to prove that global warming was man-made:
"There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasn't the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community - instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted."
Oh God, I hear you cry, not more M&M. Well, no, actually, it's from a colleague of James Hansen at GISS. One of those frightfully brainy types with an M.Sc and a P.Hd in physics - obviously a real 'stinks' type and a swot, to boot! Now what was it you were all saying about consensus ...?
Thanks to 'my Lord Bishop Hill':
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/2/9/hansens-colleague-evisc…
Scitt M? Oops, I meant "Scott M". Sorry.
Gee, Duffy - WTFWT and Hill tell you to jump, and you say "How high"? Or is it more like you're bent over, and say "Yes sir, may I please have another"?
Revkin has already discussed what Hill and Watts don't tell you. That kind of game is so typical of the denialists - tell half-truths. Another sign of their deep intellectual dishonesty. See
[Does an Old Climate Critique Still Hold up?](http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/does-an-old-climate-critiq…)
Oh dear, 'Derecho64', having difficulty reading are we? It was Dr. Lacis I was quoting not either of the other gentlemen you mentioned. But thank you for your link to the, er, controversial Mr. Revkin who points us to this less than gushing endorsement:
âThe revised chapter was much improved,â he [Lacis]said. âThatâs different than saying everything in there is nailed down, but I think itâs a big improvement.â
Yeeeees, quite!
Duffy, too bad you didn't read Revkin's piece in its entirety.
What is it with denialists that they can't see the whole picture, but only want to focus on one small part that they believe shows what they want?
You guys ought to work for a cherry farm. Your cherry-picking skills are without parallel.
Telling 'half truths' is propaganda and I believe AGW supporters have the monopoly on that.
Duffer, Lacis' comment,made in the first order review of Ch.9, was noted and rejected. Part of the process was a second-order review. The Executive Summary that he criticized is not the ES that we see published in AR4.
Typical of the quote-mining dimwit Hill to promote this as significant,and to equate criticism of a draft ES with the entire finished chapter. He's one of the ethically vacuous liars who published an 'analysis' of the stolen emails. In any other context,you'd rightly find that sort of behavior horrifying.
Hill is definitely one of the seamier denialists, right down there with Watts.
You mean like saying it'll soon be possible to walk across the Baltic Sea?
Or does this el gordo gem not technically count as a "half-truth" because it's complete crap?
Yes,that's the problem for dumbnialists; they never know when they're joking.
El Gordo @7 says "In a few weeks it will be possible to walk from Stockholm to St Petersburg across the ice."
and @15 "Telling 'half truths' is propaganda and I believe AGW supporters have the monopoly on that."
Here's some more gems from over the last few months :
el gordo
Sat 22 Aug 09 (04:04pm)
Tom...over that time, in July, the SST has gone up half a degree.
This is understandable, it takes time for the seas to absorb heat from the land mass. What we see, looking in a rear vision mirror, is the last hurrah of a climate optimum.
Get a grip on yourself man, we are about to experience global cooling.
el gordo
Sat 22 Aug 09 (11:35am)
The developing El Nino will be âstill bornâ or Iâll eat my hat.
Never thought I would see the day when so much heat could be generated just from talking about the weather.
Had a look at the SST and the impression is that its been falling since July 19.
el gordo
Wed 23 Sep 09 (07:38am)
It now appears that this El Nino will be âstill bornâ and as a natural consequence the farmers will sleep a little easier.
el gordo
Wed 23 Sep 09 (02:44pm)
Inaction is good from a denierâs point of view, because we need at least six more months to prove that AGW is a crock, beyond any doubt.
A cool PDO and NAO, neutral IOD, still born El Nino, should see temperatures stop rising.
el gordo Sun 25 Oct 09 (01:31pm)
All those you mentioned will have egg on their faces as temperatures trend down.
el gordo Sun 25 Oct 09 (11:35am)
The average punter suffers from climate change overload and doesnât have a clue. The propaganda has been pervasive.
Cherry-picking is good for our morale, so I support the idea whole-heartedly.
Eventually it will âsink-inâ that itâs getting cooler, a particularly nasty northern hemisphere winter should seal it.
el gordo
Mon 02 Nov 09 (10:26am)
As the world becomes cooler you will see extremes in the mid-latitudes. Like NZâs August temps being the warmest in 155 years, while in October they were the coolest in a quarter century.
Northern China and Japan are experiencing early snow and its quite heavy. So this northern hemisphere winter will be one to watch.
Iâm a big fan of cherry-picking when the weather is in my favor.
el gordo
Sun 08 Nov 09 (07:12am)
Global warming is not happeningâ¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦.
The list just gets bigger and bigger.
Anything to add EG ??
Anthony Watts plagiarizes Wikipedia:
WUWT
"is an environmental consultant and professor of philosophy of science best known for his books challenging the assumptions of scientific objectivity, discussing the science wars and post-normal science."
Wiki
"is an environmental consultant and professor of philosophy of science best known for his books challenging the assumptions of scientific objectivity, discussing the science wars and post-normal science."
The phrase only appear on six webpages at the time I post this (but Watts up quoting will raise that number soon).
I think, Revolution9, that El Gordo was clearly joking in some of those comments.
I mean, no-one would seriously believe that the ocean gets its heat content by absorbing/transferring it from the land mass.
That's the thing about El Gordo - always the jester. In fact, most of those on the anti-global warming side have a truly wicked sense of humour! I fall for it every time.
I have a personal beef with Watts that I'll have to tell the whole sordid story sometime.
Suffice to say that he plays very dirty games. Very dirty.
Derecho - My own Watts story is this. He simply erased me.
Back when Watts was embarrassing himself with his inability ti understand what an anomaly is, and finally admitted that he was misunderstanding, I pointed out that his post was wrong, and was still there. He argued that it wasn't really wrong, that choice of baseline for anomalies really did matter, and that he was going to write another post in the series to explain why.
A couple months later, I pointed out that he still had not done the third post, that his original post was still wrong, and asking when he was going to either fix the original post or supply the promised third post.
Anthony responded by banning me from WUWT. Apparently, reminding Anthony of his promises is too rude for him to stand. He then went back and systematically erased every comment I had ever made at WUWT, and edited his own comments to remove references to me, and to make himself look less.. wrong.
I guess he showed me.
Revolution, that for reminding us of this beauty;
el gordo Wed 23 Sep 09 (02:44pm)
>*Inaction is good from a denierâs point of view, because we need at least six more months to prove that AGW is a crock, beyond any doubt. A cool PDO and NAO, neutral IOD, still born El Nino, should see temperatures stop rising.*
el gordo are you working on your five more months progress report?
I suggest that in your report you could make it clear that "forever" is also "at least six more months" away?
And gordo, did you ever take yourself seriously?
It has been a wicked NH winter and the UK Met failed to predict it, we should have a little more faith in the old farmer's almanac.
Can I draw people's attention to the following paper just out in Global Change Biology:
[Trophic level asynchrony in rates of phenological change for marine, freshwater and terrestrial environments](http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123233053/abstract)
ABSTRACT
Recent changes in the seasonal timing (phenology) of familiar biological events have been one of the most conspicuous signs of climate change. However, the lack of a standardized approach to analysing change has hampered assessment of consistency in such changes among different taxa and trophic levels and across freshwater, terrestrial and marine environments. We present a standardized assessment of 25 532 rates of phenological change for 726 UK terrestrial, freshwater and marine taxa. The majority of spring and summer events have advanced, and more rapidly than previously documented. Such consistency is indicative of shared large scale drivers. Furthermore, average rates of change have accelerated in a way that is consistent with observed warming trends. Less coherent patterns in some groups of organisms point to the agency of more local scale processes and multiple drivers. For the first time we show a broad scale signal of differential phenological change among trophic levels; across environments advances in timing were slowest for secondary consumers, thus heightening the potential risk of temporal mismatch in key trophic interactions. If current patterns and rates of phenological change are indicative of future trends, future climate warming may exacerbate trophic mismatching, further disrupting the functioning, persistence and resilience of many ecosystems and having a major impact on ecosystem services.
Deech56,
Sorry I don't, one of the local weather forecasters was explaining it on the news. Off the OBX area the air temp as 60 degrees just before the storm. Of course I should hasten to add picking any one weather event, even an entire season is a bogus argument when discussing climate change, but unfortunately, that's the kind of red herring someone debating a denialist has to deal with.
Scott
Scott M, thanks. Last evening I did find this nugget on Climate Progress, so maybe the Jeff Masters piece linked there was read by your local guy. Of course, the usual caveats apply, but the warm water and large volume of moist air meeeting cold air is not at all consistent with any "global cooling" meme.
Scott M @28...
"Of course I should hasten to add picking any one weather event, even an entire season is a bogus argument when discussing climate change, but unfortunately, that's the kind of red herring someone debating a denialist has to deal with."
But Scott, when there was little snowfall, it provided the alarmists with a platform for urgent action.
Here's a flashback for you...
http://www.breitbart.tv/flashback-clips-snow-levels-cause-democrats-to-…
So, what are the alarmists to do now that we are up to our knees in snow? Hmmmm....
I got it! They could say something like this....
"Of course I should hasten to add picking any one weather event, even an entire season is a bogus argument when discussing climate change, but unfortunately, that's the kind of red herring someone debating a denialist has to deal with."
Lee,
Re WUWT, were you not offered the opportunity to write a post and did you not bottle it?
I have asked you this before but you have never replied.
Andrews, I did reply in that other thread - not my problem if you don't pay attention. That was before he erased me. I was very clear with Watts that I was able to say everything I wanted to say over there in the comments, and that I had no interest whatsoever in linking my reputation and name to his site as an article contributor.
Why? Does the fact that I declined to write for him, somehow excuse Watt's dishonesty and idiocy?
Betula: would you like to be held accountable for the tripe spewed by, for example, Sen. James Inhofe? By some kind of association, are people who think that AGW is a problem forced* to agree with the democrat senators on this issue? These senators are not scientists, so they should not be the primary source regarding this scientific issue**.
*Just like 'sceptics' are not forced to agree with everything that Plimer, EG Beck, Monckton, Spencer, Gerlich and Tscheuschner, Lindzen and Choi (etc) say. That would result in a serious case of cognitive dissonance.
**Regarding this kind of issue, see Chris's link in #27. That's more like it - you need a big data set to draw significant conclusions.
Being fairly young, I only joined these kind of climate change discussions quite late, around 2006. There have been heatwaves, droughts, floods, snowstorms etc etc since then. I'm pretty sure I've never, even in the days when I was fresh and young, attributed a single event or season to climate change.
Ah, so it's measured in Friedman Units? ;-)
Hey Mike (#18). Winter is not over in the Northern Hemisphere yet. It could still happen this year ! I'll laugh if it does - 'don't you worry about that' ! :-)
*It has been a wicked NH winter* says the ever annoying el gordo.
Not in Arctic it hasn't. Not over much of Canada it hasn't. Not in southern Europe it hasn't. Not in Japan it hasn't.
And he is mistaking weather with climate - again.
Why do you not just go away, chubby one?
The UK Met Office is looking at weather as climate, with record low temperatures breaking long held records.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/8492333.stm
... just as much of the Arctic has been way above normal again this past January.
As I said, el gordo, please spare us from your pointless musings.
The jet stream is responsible for the anomalies, but what made it go awry?
Your assertion is not supported by any evidence at the link you provided.
They are reporting on annual weather records, which are distinct from (average) climate trends. If you don't or won't understand this...
And for what it's worth, I lived in a city in Scotland for a few years a few decades ago. One night it was -26 degrees C, which was lower than even the -22.3 degrees C the article mentioned.
The huge amount of misinformation and hot air spouted by the likes of Monckton moved the jetstream, ok?
Anyone know a good rebuttal to this?
Stu @33...
I was responding to the "tripe spewed by" Scott M @28 with "tripe spewed by" people who actually attempt to influence policy based on snowfall amounts.
Again...
http://www.breitbart.tv/flashback-clips-snow-levels-cause-democrats-to-…
So if you think someone should be held accountable, I agree.
We'll see in November.
@Dave Rado
[Tim dealt with the Darwin nonsense a while ago.](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying…)
Ken's "analysis" seems to consist of removing any homogenisation without bothering to provide any justification for doing so.
Dave & Dave Rado, I thought I saw one of those Darwin graphs in Monckton's slides.
And yes, that dodgy "analysis" of Darwin really appeared (at least to me) to be arguing that known errors in instrumentation should NOT be corrected. Astonishing.
Meanwhile a bunch of people ran around and argued that other errors in instrumentation MUST be happening due to site location and changes, and should be fixed.
Consistency is not a strong point.
That website (or at least the commenters) appear to be talking about prosecuting someone or something for fraud.
Maybe we should encourage them! Nothing like a high profile court judgement basically declaring you to be an idiot to make you reconsider...er, to make you include the judiciary in your conspiracy theory along with practically everyone else.
Just for el gordo: check out the satellite temperature anomalies for January 2010:
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_0h0eJBMr-uE/S21I_2JHszI/AAAAAAAAAyQ/ijefDJX-Vmg/s…
What they show is exactly what I said: much of the higher latiitudes have experienced a very mild month, with below-normal temperatures restrcited essentially to a narrow belt of central and werstern Europe and the southeastern United States.
So the Winter Olympics should be right to go, with snow in abundance everywhere?
[Riiight](http://tiny.cc/EordT)...
Lotharsson - yes, I noticed the Darwin graphs towards the end of his presentation. Eschenbach's analysis was comprehensively dealt with for the nonsense it was at the time over here. It's one of the areas that Monckton will be weak on and that Tim could exploit - although I echo others in saying Tim should concentrate on the science more than he debunks Monckton's anti-science.
Bud, I think you're right in the sense that there's not enough time to cover enough debunking in the debate...but if you can work it in and get people to wonder enough to (say) come to the blog...
...pretty tall order for a bunch of true believers though.
I also find the idea of a reverse-Gish gallop entertaining (here's a quick list of all the things wrong with his slides...) but it doesn't work for true believers either. They just reflexively think you are full of crap. It's a strange affliction.
I see that Paul Dennis, claimed by some to be the CRU 'whistleblower', has started a blog:
http://harmonicoscillator.wordpress.com/
sidcup - Seeing as his first post contained an enthusiastic link from a Swift Boat Scientist for Truth, who describes AGW as a socialist conspiracy, I think we can see the direction that this blog is headed.
This bullshit concept of post-normal science needs a serious slapping down from someone though. The whole thing is an arrogant joke, at least the way it's being claimed by the pseudo-skeptics.
Lee,
I have got a first name but I know you are quite a rude person who has been 'dining out' on your supposed bad treatment at WUWT for the past few years so I won't get upset.
So, it appears that Andrews has a first name, but no answer.
I couldn't care less whether Watts treated me well or badly - he isn't worth the energy.
I do care that Watts is seen for what he is - because his dishonesty and idiocy are damaging and dangerous. It's amazing to me that folks like you defend him, when the unanswered issues and questions and the dishonesty are so freaking clearly displayed over there.
It's weather, not climate, except when it's really hot. The msm has been cherry-picking for years to reinforce the notion that the world is getting warmer, but there is hardly a peep out of them when it gets unusually cool. Anyway, we all know global warming works in mysterious ways.
Vancouver is warmer than normal for this time of year, as are other places around the world, so can you explain to me exactly what is causing that anomaly?
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/COXANDFORKUM.jpg
Shorter el gordo:
1. This report shows the UK Met treating cold "weather as climate"
2. [Me:] There's no mention of trends or averages [or even the word "climate"] there
3. Well, if it had been hot weather they would have...
At least it's good for a laugh.
Having successfully forecast this NH winter, I would like to have a crack at what next season has in store.
It will be a backward Spring across Europe and North America, cool and wet. Have a look at the Arctic Oscillation Index and keep in mind that we are now in a cool PDO.
In Australia we can expect massive floods because of a strong La Nina and low solar activity will create a lot more moisture worldwide.
There is one more thing, which should get a few laughs from the jackals amongst you, this NH summer could see some serious hurricanes in the Caribbean.
Climate doesn't kill people, weather does.
Cite please. Where did you predict the warmer than usual January in Vancouver?
Armies don't kill people, soldiers do.
Can't hide the decline.
>*Having successfully forecast this NH winter...*
I would like to forcast that the SH will have a winter next.
Siap. Any responses to the guest post by Bruce hall on Watts' site questioning Dr. Meehl's work on Record high temps. in US far outpacing record lows.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/16/hall-of-record-ratios/
Thanks for any help.
RE:62 Found one over at greenfyres
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/deniers-record-high-incoheren…
SMH story, mostly on Plimer's mining links and a little speculation on funding for Monckton's trip.
Apparently some goon has been boasting about his involvement in events leading up to, and shortly after, the CRU cyber-attack.
Jimi Bostock is a 'left sceptic' and possibly a nerd, but doubt his involvement in the CRU hack.
Willis Eschenbach has a post up at Watts - 'Congenital Climate Abnormalities'. Catchy title, but it will never make it into the msm.