Penny Wong makes a 3,000 - word speech on climate change, a wide-ranging one addressing many of the recent controversies, reasserting her confidence in the science etc etc etc
The Oz singled out two sentences and conflated them into one that misrepresented her. Its lead paragraph said: "Australia's most iconic beaches, including Bondi, Bells and those on the Sunshine Coast, could erode away or recede by hundreds of metres over the coming century, according to Climate Change Minister Penny Wong."
So, did Penny Wong actually say that Bondi and Bells could erode away or recede by hundreds of meters? No.
Here's the relevant reference from Wong's speech (cited further down in the same story: "Not only are our assets and environments at risk, many of our sandy beaches could erode away or recede up to hundreds of metres over the coming century. It is possible that with climate change, and without large and expensive nourishment programs, Bondi Beach, Sunshine Coast and Bells Beach may no longer be the beaches we know today."
So, she's not saying that Bondi and Bells specifically will disappear, just that beach nourishment programs will be needed.
Three sources are then interviewed for a response. Two are Bondi beachgoers aged in their 50s and 60s whose reaction boils down to this line of reasoning: I'm not worried, I've been coming here a long time and I haven't seen any change, so I see no reason to think it will change in the future.
Maybe they should have consulted a scientist? Ah, but they did! The third source is an old friend:
"Bob Carter, a geologist and environmental scientist with James Cook University in Queensland, said Senator Wong's comments appeared to be an attempt to panic the public. Pointing to historical rates of sea level rise of an average 1.6mm per year globally over the past 100 years, Mr Carter said it was reasonable to expect a total rise of 16cm in a century."
Same spurious logic.
"Dr Carter said: 'Have you noticed Bondi beach being destroyed in the past 100 years by that rise? He said that in some areas around the Australian coast, the sea level was actually getting lower. In some places, the geological substrata is sinking, which adds to sea-level rise, and in other places it's rising, which subtracts from sea-level rise,' Dr Carter said.'So you can't have a sea-level policy for the whole of the Australian coast -- that's just stupid, and that's what the states are doing.'
That's it. No balance, no depth, no common sense, no mainstream climatologist to point out the bleedin' obvious.
Oh, they did quote Wong on one other thing:
"She urged people not to listen to critics using isolated errors in the UN climate change panel's report to undermine action, claiming the report had been subject to 'breathless, scandalised claims' implying the world had been hoodwinked by scientists."
In the UK, there's an election likely in May. The Tories will probably get in, though it may be a hung parliament. [Johann Hari writes in the Independent](http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-ha…) today on the vast gulf between leader David Cameron's (rather recently adopted) stance on climate change and the rest of his party. For a small sample, note the [consistent picture on Tory blogs](http://www.nextleft.org/2009/10/help-can-anyone-find-tory-blogger-who.h…) (though I have some sympathy with the one blogger who is merely confused by all the different opinions they're hearing.)
>The ethics of lying are easy; you're off the hook. You just make up whatever suits you and see what sticks.
Not that I think anti-AGWers are all lying; I don't think most people are generally capable of that level of deception consistently. But they *are* off the hook, in a way that climate scientists can never be. I wonder how to change that? Gosh - wouldn't it be nice if the Guardian started doing some proper investigation of the anti-AGW world, rather than giving us headlines about critics being 'censored...' Dream on.
An interesting article. Climate change denialism is rampant in the Tory Party. If you go to the blogs of some of their MPs you can find plenty of evidence of this. A few months ago Douglas Carswell was championing Ian Plimerâs Heaven and Earth, and supposedly super-intelligent John Redwood was claiming most CO2 emissions come from natural sources. It was a Tory activist who leaked the email to James Delingpole that led to [this](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/jan/27/james-d…).
I donât think Cameron is going to change their public position on climate change, but he will try to ensure the true feelings of the backbenchers and the grassroots are kept private (a bit like they did over apartheid in the 1980s). How he behaves when it comes to negotiating emissions cuts will be interesting.
The UK Met is predicting more snow over Wales and southern England. This winter will be the coldest in two decades, so I did a followup and found that the previous winter was the coldest in a decade.
Back in those days the Met was a lot more cocky, saying in their press release that it would have been colder except for global warming. Can we now expect next winter to be the coldest in 30 years in the UK?
the vast gulf between leader David Cameron's (rather recently adopted) stance on climate change and the rest of his party
The Liberal (read conservative) party in Australia is split right down the middle on climate science and recently changed its leader from pro-climate science to anti-climate science by a tiny majority. With the other Australian conservative party, the National (or farmers) party, who are rock solid anti-climate science, the conservative parties in Australia have a strong majority of anti-climate science members.
Check the winter stats for most of Canada and the Arctic. Since December, temperatures in northern Canada have been > 5 C above average - heck, in much of the Yukon it was above freezing last week, ditto northern Quenec. Unprecendented.
The only below-average parts of the northern hemisphere this winter have been a belt across central Europe and eastern Asia. Check GISTEMP global temperature data for January - it shreds your puny attempt to make a point.
gordo@7: Who can say? Given January 2010 was the warmest within the global satellite record, I'd the exact effect global warming will have on the UK's seasons is far from decided. Let's face it, if the press pendulum wasn't currently swinging in the denier direction, they'd be all over the 'gulf stream weakening' theory that did the rounds a few years ago.
tonight is my last night in Fukuoka after a 6 week stay - I'm heading off to the steamy seaside town of Beppu. It snowed here this morning, which is completely and in every way normal for this day in Japan - make of that what you will.
I aim to head off through what remains of the cold to "Disrespecting your parents Street" and sample every bar there. You're all welcome to join me...
Admittedly, sea ice is looking a little thin at the moment.
It certainly is Fatso, unless you are attemtping to imply that just because it has recently tracked back above the all-time minimum cover for this time of year, there is no longer a problem.
Sheesh. It's still more than 2 standard deviations below the 1979-200 mean.
What will you say when it dips back below the current minimum record?
The Kara and Berents Seas were 3 to 5 degrees above normal in January. In a new study these areas are taking longer to freeze in Autumn, but this anomaly has nothing to do with AGW.
The NSIDC recognise that there was an unusually low pressure over the Central Arctic and unusually high pressure over Western Europe and Asia. The negative AO/NAO will determine weather patterns in that part of the world for some time.
If it dips back below the current minimum the denialosphere will go quiet.
How do things look in that spot of Australia now, where Schumacher was recording from?
Also: I've always thought, if I wanted to go rogue and make up a plausible-sounding anti-AGW theory, it would go a bit like this: we get oxygen from plant respiration. We've been removing forest and plant cover from the planet for much longer than we've been burning coal. So, the main driver of increased CO2 in the atmosphere is lack of plants and forests to recycle the existing co2. Putting effort into reducing human co2 output is pointless: we need to plant trees.
I actually don't know the answer to that, anyone got any suggestions? What role, overall, has the removal of plant matter and forest had on historical co2 levels in the atmosphere, given the [vital role vegetation plays](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_cycle-cute_diagram.svg) in the carbon cycle?
Just in case anyone thinks they have read the looniest piece of "science" writing ever I have to disappoint you. This piece recently posted on Greenfyres has got to take the biscuit for looniest ever. I doubt it will ever be challenged.
I found it very interesting when I read that Carbon 14 Dioxide (C14O2) was named the fastest growing form of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in the Atmosphere and the
Leading Indicator of real Climate Change in the UN IPCC Report on Climate Change when it was released. On September 11, 2001 Mankind or NATO turned off the
Resonating Electro Magnetic Radiant Energy transmitted by the public Wireless Telecommunications Industry over North America for 6 hours. This one event caused the only measurable positive impact in the Atmosphere in 30 years. All the Green Efforts together to date have not had this impact. There was both a temperature change and a measurable decrease in C14O2 in the Atmosphere.
Scientifically unsubstantiated News Reports reported that the grounding of the Airplanes for three days caused a reduction in Global Dimming and this was the resulting effect. Most Scientist in the world, agree that a Reduction in Global Dimming should have caused an increase in the Suns production of C14O2, the opposite occurred!
On September 11, 2001, for 6 hours NATO turned off the Electro Magnetic Radiant Energy Frequencies that cause Oxygen Atoms to Resonate 54 to 66
Giga-Hertz. We use these Frequencies to transmit long distance Wireless Telephone Calls. Studies have been done by the Telecommunications Industry tof ind ways to overcome âSignal Lossâ caused when Oxygen Atoms absorb the Electro Magnetic Resonating Radiant Energy transmitted.
Have only watched the first few minutes but my first thought was that the waterfall has probably dried up and the cleared land is probably now saline.
I'll watch the whole thing and try to get back to you with a more detailed response.
"2) That there are a variety of climatological, meteorological, astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics that can effect world weather phenomena and that the significance and interrelativity of these factors is largely speculative;..."
Clarified your stament for you el gordo. I know you would want to twist things:
>*The true estimate of* [**future**] *sea level rise is still uncertain.*
And from the article:
>*"Retraction is a regular part of the publication process," he said. "Science is a complicated game and there are set procedures in place that act as checks and balances."*
Derecho64: cheers for that link, that's a really good (and alarming) article. I'm not sure I agree with the word 'orchestrated' though. I doubt these email attacks on scientists are centrally led. I'm sure, as anyone here who's attempted having a sensible discussion on WUWT knows, there are plenty of people out there with enough non-specific fury to vent. All that's needed is for emails to be included in the right comments sections. These attacks are more like a particularly nasty flock of something.
Terrifying thought that it could have swayed the opposition's leadership election though; hopefully that's not true. (Impossible to show either way I guess.)
The government has a worse case scenario, yet there are many highly qualified scientists who disagree with this 6 ft sea level rise by the end of the century.
This from the Times Online (Jan 10, 2010)
Jonathan Gregory, a sea-level specialist at the Met Office, said: "We do not know enough about the physics of large ice sheets to predict how global temperature rise will affect them. My concern about these extreme predictions is that they could discredit the whole process because they are not backed up by solid science and that is vital in such a political area of research.â
>*The government has a worse case scenario, yet there are many highly qualified scientists who disagree with this 6 ft sea level rise by the end of the century.*
What evidence do you have el gordo that Wong was citing "a worse case scenario"?
>>*There is a major difference [between denial and truth seeking]. When IPCC et al are alerted to errors - they correct them.*
>Can you imagine the errata volumes required if dinialists were to correct the source of information they depend on (blogs!)?
>No need for denial errata though, becasue denialst by definition are only interested in factiods that appear to support the finding they want. Hence errata on their supporting material are superfluous to their goals.
Chinese whispers and dog whistles on the otherhand, they are core methodologies.
I know you are a step above many denialists el gordo, thus I expect your limited clarification was possibly just an oversight?
What I find most curious about this: it appears Gary *must* have known his interpretation was completely incorrect. Surely? Have I got that wrong? Is it possible he went into the literature so intent on finding a smoking gun that, finding anything, he stopped there?
All the commenters lap it up, of course. Somewhere, there should be a site for this: person makes mistake, and here's a box we'll come back and change from red to green when they've acknowledged the mistake and corrected it. How would that look for people on different sides of this debate?
An old story from WattsUpWithThat, around the time of the Copenhagen conference, just sprang into my mind unbidden. It's been niggling at me, and I couldn't quite find a way of articulating why. For some reason, the bonkersness of it just struck me. (If you google 'Copenhagen carbon footprint', that'll do just as well - straight to a Fox News story making the same point: as WUWT puts it, 'a day that will live in hypocrisy'.)
Now, that's odd, isn't it? If I was reading this story from someone who actually cared about the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, fair enough. But what do we have here? A parallel: allied forces in World War Two arrive at Dachau, only to discover the camp guards have secretly been keeping the inmates in reasonable condition, lying to their superiors all the while. British and American governments are in uproar: how dare the Nazis be inconsistent in their application of the final solution?
Wouldn't happen, of course. Why not? Well, we don't tend to protest when people we disagree with do something we approve of. The telegraph article WUWT quotes says, "The temptation, then, is to dismiss the whole thing as a ridiculous circus." Again, I'm picturing the allies saying that to less-than-consistent Nazis: "call yourself fascists! You're a bunch of clowns. You can't even gas jews properly. Hypocrites."
Of course, as I say, there's nothing wrong in pointing out inconsistencies in someone else's position. And I've bought the Nazis into it. But it does seem that extreme: many of the sources I've quoted are happy to accuse us warmists of totalitarianism. I just thought they'd be happy to see organisations using plenty of CO2 and fossil fuels; isn't that what they want? I think it must be the odd tone of moral outrage that I can't understand. If the aim was to keep printing anything that painted us warmists as characters of moral turpitude, I could see the point.
The government has a worse case scenario, yet there are many highly qualified scientists who disagree with this 6 ft sea level rise by the end of the century.
1.8 meters? The most pessimistic estimate from 4AR (WGII 6.3.2) is 0.58 meters relative to the 1980-1999 level. They could definitely be wrong about this, but not necessarily the way you think.
Here's the kind of thing which is very unhelpful, to say the least, and is exactly the kind of thing that breathes new wind into denialist sails:
"Scientist Tim Flannery has been appointed to chair the next phase of this report and he says the graphic assessment needs to be treated seriously.
"If you get a six-metre sea level surge with a cyclone on a place like the Gold Coast you have got very serious trouble," he said.
"The thing about sea level rise is that its inexorable, it strikes at all coasts at the same time.
"Anyone who thinks we we may be able to adapt to this, I beg you to think again, because the scale at which you would have to build sea walls or coastal defence barriers is so massive."
"
Frankly, what a load of crap.
The average sea level doesn't have to go up by 0.58m, 0.7m, or even 1.1m for a 6m storm surge to present a serious problem.
The relevant thing is the modelling showing the additional damage over time caused by the increased average height of such storm surges. Or perhaps their increased frequency, which is entirely unrelated to sea level rise and shouldn't be confused with it.
'Senator Wong also used today's launch of the report to take a swipe at climate change sceptics in the Coalition, saying the science in the report shows that climate change is real.'
Yes, El Gordo, Climate change is indeed real - lest we forget Tony Abbott's mentally defective line: "Climate change is crap". [Note - I got this quote from somewhere on the internet where it was tidied up a bit, but I know it is an accurate representation of Abbott's demented views].
So we have a leader of the Liberal Party who believes in fairies at the bottom of the garden. Great. After Turnbull put so much effort into restoring his party to credibility, along comes the Abbott fruitcake to blow it all away.
*The Government distributed a clipping from a local Victorian paper in which Mr Abbott was quoted from a speech on Wednesday saying ''The argument [on climate change] is absolute crap. However, the politics of this are tough for us. Eighty per cent of people believe climate change is a real and present danger.*
And leading up to damage limitation on Sunday:
*[Laurie Oakes](http://today.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=871240): I predicted you'd be smooth in that answer, which you have been, but can I remind you that a few days ago you visited a Victorian town of Beaufort. Let me read from the local newspaper. It says "In a wide ranging speech, Mr Abbott talked about climate change, the Liberal political fortunes and Kevin Rudd. Quote - the argument on climate change is absolute crap," he said.â Is it absolute crap?*
*Tony Abbott: But then I went on to say - Laurie Oakes: Oh yes you went on to say and I'll quote the paper. You said, "However, the politics of this are tough for us. 80% of people believe climate change is a real and present danger." You think its crap but you're doing this to humour the voters?*
The most pessimistic estimate from 4AR (WGII 6.3.2) is 0.58 meters relative to the 1980-1999 level.
I thought in AR4 they explicitly excluded recent (at the time) discoveries of water/ice interactions leading to new factors influencing melting because the uncertainty at the time was too great - which led to lower estimates - but they were still concerned that there was a non-trivial chance that melting could be a lot faster than the models in AR3 as a result? If I recalled correctly someone will have a reference for this I'm sure...
el stupido writes, "The new freezing blast in the UK looks like making this winter the coldest in 30 years".
Sigh. So what? January was the second warmest since records began across the surface of the biosphere and central and northern Canada is having its warmest winter ever. Temperatures in the Yukon and northern Ontario and Quebec have even been above freezing for extended periods - this is quite remarkable.
Besides there is no "freezing blast" across most of the UK. Temperatures are expected to be 4-8 C across most of the country through next week. So much for a 'freezing blast'. Its typical Daily Mail crap.
Don't shoot the messenger, the Mail got it from the UK Met and they are notoriously wrong.
The stratospheric temperatures at the Pole become warmer when the circumpolar vortex weakens. The jet stream goes wobbly and Vancouver misses out on the snow.
A 2003 study by Sami Solanki (11,000 year sunspot reconstruction) found that there had been more sunspots since the 1940's than in the previous 1150 years.
This takes us back to the beginning of the MWP and the tail end of a 400 year Bond Event, known historically as the Dark Ages or Mass Migration Period.
The earth experiences a few hundred years of the MWP, we then slip into 400 years of the LIA and then there is global warming. They may have their theories, but is there a statistical correlation?
Your forlorn and plaintive hope that weather is suddenly going to be recognised as climate must be one of your dopiest and most pointless hobby horses yet.
I really shouldn't read The Register anymore, but I do. Its article is a blatant misrepresentation of the Stanford report. However, this seems to be symptomatic of the current culture of misreporting climate science.
Then there are those who won't wake up to climate change reality. This is the problem with cherry-picking, when you're biased, because you see 'unprecedented drought persisting across southern Australia'.
You promote every cold event you find, but if you were more thorough you'd find many more warming events. Warm events also happen to be consistent with the long term trend and the wider, global pattern of warming. And there return rates of many of these warming events are [a turn up](http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/02/03/is-there-a-link-between-adelaides…).
Record cold events are expected to still occur as the globe warms (especially if you focus in small enough resolution), even as we go past 2 and 3 degree global anomalies. They will however be fewer and fewer, yet still possible to find and promote to the gullible.
So picking out cold patches for periods is a silly game you can play while we load up the atmosphere for a whole new world.
God you're an idiot Gordo. You really are. Did you bother clicking on the link provided? If so, I want a deatiled summary of why BOM is wrong or a retraction from you. Either one will do.
Doesn't wash Tom, nor was there anything remotely funny. Nor does the age of your claims negate your accountability to them. Either retract your unsupportable mis-caricature it or own it as a mark against your credibility.
>*remember when we could be light hearted about this?*
You say you've read the AR4, I assume that means WG2 also. That's a real rib tickler isn't it Tom.
The disproportionate burden born by many millions of the most vulnerable, the least responsible and those with least resources for adaptation. Was this what you wanted to mis-caricature and have a light hearted joke about?
jakerman, no sense engaging with you. Yes, I read WG2. No, it did not make me laugh. A significant number of my articles address exactly that issue. No, I do not walk away from my previous comment--it was light-hearted in that it used literary conventions such as metaphor and hyperbole because I did not want to write a longer comment. As you don't understand that, have never read anything I've written, but choose to jump all over me, play unfairly yourself by choosing a two-year old comment on someone else's blog instead of what I wrote at any time this week, goodbye. I don't need to play with you.
Inferno is having a go at Akerman. Good sport all round.
http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/
*The Australian*'s page one climate change story today followed a depressingly familiar pattern.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/penny-wong-signals-doom-for-iconic…
Penny Wong makes a 3,000 - word speech on climate change, a wide-ranging one addressing many of the recent controversies, reasserting her confidence in the science etc etc etc
The Oz singled out two sentences and conflated them into one that misrepresented her. Its lead paragraph said: "Australia's most iconic beaches, including Bondi, Bells and those on the Sunshine Coast, could erode away or recede by hundreds of metres over the coming century, according to Climate Change Minister Penny Wong."
So, did Penny Wong actually say that Bondi and Bells could erode away or recede by hundreds of meters? No.
Here's the relevant reference from Wong's speech (cited further down in the same story: "Not only are our assets and environments at risk, many of our sandy beaches could erode away or recede up to hundreds of metres over the coming century. It is possible that with climate change, and without large and expensive nourishment programs, Bondi Beach, Sunshine Coast and Bells Beach may no longer be the beaches we know today."
So, she's not saying that Bondi and Bells specifically will disappear, just that beach nourishment programs will be needed.
Three sources are then interviewed for a response. Two are Bondi beachgoers aged in their 50s and 60s whose reaction boils down to this line of reasoning: I'm not worried, I've been coming here a long time and I haven't seen any change, so I see no reason to think it will change in the future.
Maybe they should have consulted a scientist? Ah, but they did! The third source is an old friend:
"Bob Carter, a geologist and environmental scientist with James Cook University in Queensland, said Senator Wong's comments appeared to be an attempt to panic the public. Pointing to historical rates of sea level rise of an average 1.6mm per year globally over the past 100 years, Mr Carter said it was reasonable to expect a total rise of 16cm in a century."
Same spurious logic.
"Dr Carter said: 'Have you noticed Bondi beach being destroyed in the past 100 years by that rise? He said that in some areas around the Australian coast, the sea level was actually getting lower. In some places, the geological substrata is sinking, which adds to sea-level rise, and in other places it's rising, which subtracts from sea-level rise,' Dr Carter said.'So you can't have a sea-level policy for the whole of the Australian coast -- that's just stupid, and that's what the states are doing.'
That's it. No balance, no depth, no common sense, no mainstream climatologist to point out the bleedin' obvious.
Oh, they did quote Wong on one other thing:
"She urged people not to listen to critics using isolated errors in the UN climate change panel's report to undermine action, claiming the report had been subject to 'breathless, scandalised claims' implying the world had been hoodwinked by scientists."
Pity The Oz is apparently listening only to them.
Steven Chu, Nobel Laureate and US Secretary for Energy, at least started something of a fightback against sloppy, anti-science journalism:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/18/scienceenergy-secretary-steven-ch…
42.
In the UK, there's an election likely in May. The Tories will probably get in, though it may be a hung parliament. [Johann Hari writes in the Independent](http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-ha…) today on the vast gulf between leader David Cameron's (rather recently adopted) stance on climate change and the rest of his party. For a small sample, note the [consistent picture on Tory blogs](http://www.nextleft.org/2009/10/help-can-anyone-find-tory-blogger-who.h…) (though I have some sympathy with the one blogger who is merely confused by all the different opinions they're hearing.)
Toby: Chu's line about sceptics reminds me of a [good line from Michael Tobis](http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2009/10/against-overstating-or-under…):
>The ethics of lying are easy; you're off the hook. You just make up whatever suits you and see what sticks.
Not that I think anti-AGWers are all lying; I don't think most people are generally capable of that level of deception consistently. But they *are* off the hook, in a way that climate scientists can never be. I wonder how to change that? Gosh - wouldn't it be nice if the Guardian started doing some proper investigation of the anti-AGW world, rather than giving us headlines about critics being 'censored...' Dream on.
@Dan Olner
An interesting article. Climate change denialism is rampant in the Tory Party. If you go to the blogs of some of their MPs you can find plenty of evidence of this. A few months ago Douglas Carswell was championing Ian Plimerâs Heaven and Earth, and supposedly super-intelligent John Redwood was claiming most CO2 emissions come from natural sources. It was a Tory activist who leaked the email to James Delingpole that led to [this](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/jan/27/james-d…).
I donât think Cameron is going to change their public position on climate change, but he will try to ensure the true feelings of the backbenchers and the grassroots are kept private (a bit like they did over apartheid in the 1980s). How he behaves when it comes to negotiating emissions cuts will be interesting.
The UK Met is predicting more snow over Wales and southern England. This winter will be the coldest in two decades, so I did a followup and found that the previous winter was the coldest in a decade.
Back in those days the Met was a lot more cocky, saying in their press release that it would have been colder except for global warming. Can we now expect next winter to be the coldest in 30 years in the UK?
@Dan Olner
The Liberal (read conservative) party in Australia is split right down the middle on climate science and recently changed its leader from pro-climate science to anti-climate science by a tiny majority. With the other Australian conservative party, the National (or farmers) party, who are rock solid anti-climate science, the conservative parties in Australia have a strong majority of anti-climate science members.
el gordo,
Check the winter stats for most of Canada and the Arctic. Since December, temperatures in northern Canada have been > 5 C above average - heck, in much of the Yukon it was above freezing last week, ditto northern Quenec. Unprecendented.
The only below-average parts of the northern hemisphere this winter have been a belt across central Europe and eastern Asia. Check GISTEMP global temperature data for January - it shreds your puny attempt to make a point.
gordo@7: Who can say? Given January 2010 was the warmest within the global satellite record, I'd the exact effect global warming will have on the UK's seasons is far from decided. Let's face it, if the press pendulum wasn't currently swinging in the denier direction, they'd be all over the 'gulf stream weakening' theory that did the rounds a few years ago.
tonight is my last night in Fukuoka after a 6 week stay - I'm heading off to the steamy seaside town of Beppu. It snowed here this morning, which is completely and in every way normal for this day in Japan - make of that what you will.
I aim to head off through what remains of the cold to "Disrespecting your parents Street" and sample every bar there. You're all welcome to join me...
Admittedly, sea ice is looking a little thin at the moment.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeser…
el red-herringo:
Gee, aren't they lucky getting a -0.6°C to -1.0°C anomaly in January. Not as lucky as central Siberia though, they got colder than -4.0°C anomaly. But who's complaining when the whole world averaged 0.71°C, the second warmest in 131 years.
el blustero:
That won't, of course, prevent you from walking from Denmark to Sweden.
@Chris O'Neill:
I'm afraid the tunnel and bridge between Copenhagen and Malmö are not open to pedestrians...
It certainly is Fatso, unless you are attemtping to imply that just because it has recently tracked back above the all-time minimum cover for this time of year, there is no longer a problem.
Sheesh. It's still more than 2 standard deviations below the 1979-200 mean.
What will you say when it dips back below the current minimum record?
The Kara and Berents Seas were 3 to 5 degrees above normal in January. In a new study these areas are taking longer to freeze in Autumn, but this anomaly has nothing to do with AGW.
The NSIDC recognise that there was an unusually low pressure over the Central Arctic and unusually high pressure over Western Europe and Asia. The negative AO/NAO will determine weather patterns in that part of the world for some time.
If it dips back below the current minimum the denialosphere will go quiet.
Am just watching [this film of Schumacher](http://www.archive.org/details/E.f.Schumacher-TheEdgeOfTheForest-1978) (of [Small is Beautiful](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Is_Beautiful) fame) in a Western Australian forest from 1978 (via a comment at [archdruid](http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2010/02/why-factories-arent-effi…)). Two questions:
How do things look in that spot of Australia now, where Schumacher was recording from?
Also: I've always thought, if I wanted to go rogue and make up a plausible-sounding anti-AGW theory, it would go a bit like this: we get oxygen from plant respiration. We've been removing forest and plant cover from the planet for much longer than we've been burning coal. So, the main driver of increased CO2 in the atmosphere is lack of plants and forests to recycle the existing co2. Putting effort into reducing human co2 output is pointless: we need to plant trees.
I actually don't know the answer to that, anyone got any suggestions? What role, overall, has the removal of plant matter and forest had on historical co2 levels in the atmosphere, given the [vital role vegetation plays](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_cycle-cute_diagram.svg) in the carbon cycle?
It's hard to see the AGW signal amongst the noise.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2010-056&icid=%27NewsFeat…
Just in case anyone thinks they have read the looniest piece of "science" writing ever I have to disappoint you. This piece recently posted on Greenfyres has got to take the biscuit for looniest ever. I doubt it will ever be challenged.
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/fox-news-praises-jon-stewart-…
el contradicto:
Also known as proof by contradictory citation.
Dan Olner @18:
Have only watched the first few minutes but my first thought was that the waterfall has probably dried up and the cleared land is probably now saline.
I'll watch the whole thing and try to get back to you with a more detailed response.
Ian, there's a giveaway right at the start with all the gratuitous capitalisation - that's usually the mark of a kook trying to sound extra important.
Turtles all the way down:
http://shewonk.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/manysourcces.jpg?w=240&h=300
Why didn't someone tell me about this nifty blog?
http://shewonk.wordpress.com/
Jimi Bostock, who claimed foreknowledge of the CRU crack, talked about a "Project Virtually Invisible" in a submission to the Australian government's Government 2.0 Taskforce.
The legislature of Utah cites the "science" of astrology as a confound for the reality of anthropogenic climate change.
http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2010/Bill.aspx?F ...
"2) That there are a variety of climatological, meteorological, astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics that can effect world weather phenomena and that the significance and interrelativity of these factors is largely speculative;..."
Correlation is not causation, except when it's a gravy train.
http://www.aad.gov.au/MediaLibrary/asset/MediaItems/ml_402173825925926_…
While el gullibo is correcting that link, I'll point out that lack of correlation is causation when you're asserting that the Sun is causing global warming.
Here's the ABC's story on the topic.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/08/2812825.htm
At least one journalist is getting it:
"Bullying, lies and the rise of right-wing climate denial"
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2826189.htm
Derecho64, Clive Hamilton isn't actually a journalist, but at least Our ABC published that.
The true estimate of sea level rise is still uncertain. Here's me thinking the science was settled.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-…
Clarified your stament for you el gordo. I know you would want to twist things:
>*The true estimate of* [**future**] *sea level rise is still uncertain.*
And from the article:
>*"Retraction is a regular part of the publication process," he said. "Science is a complicated game and there are set procedures in place that act as checks and balances."*
Derecho64: cheers for that link, that's a really good (and alarming) article. I'm not sure I agree with the word 'orchestrated' though. I doubt these email attacks on scientists are centrally led. I'm sure, as anyone here who's attempted having a sensible discussion on WUWT knows, there are plenty of people out there with enough non-specific fury to vent. All that's needed is for emails to be included in the right comments sections. These attacks are more like a particularly nasty flock of something.
Terrifying thought that it could have swayed the opposition's leadership election though; hopefully that's not true. (Impossible to show either way I guess.)
Janet
Under normal circumstances I would agree, but governments are making policy on the run, based on flawed knowledge.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/14/2742905.htm
>*Under normal circumstances I would agree, but governments are making policy on the run, based on flawed knowledge.*
What is your evidence that Wong's statement was wrong?
The government has a worse case scenario, yet there are many highly qualified scientists who disagree with this 6 ft sea level rise by the end of the century.
This from the Times Online (Jan 10, 2010)
Jonathan Gregory, a sea-level specialist at the Met Office, said: "We do not know enough about the physics of large ice sheets to predict how global temperature rise will affect them. My concern about these extreme predictions is that they could discredit the whole process because they are not backed up by solid science and that is vital in such a political area of research.â
el gordo writes:
>*The government has a worse case scenario, yet there are many highly qualified scientists who disagree with this 6 ft sea level rise by the end of the century.*
What evidence do you have el gordo that Wong was citing "a worse case scenario"?
el gordo's source was [Jonathan Leake](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6982299.ece?pr…).
el gordo, nothing in a Leake article can be accepted without corroboration. Get a credible source.
Didn't check the journalist, sorry to offend.
The new freezing blast in the UK looks like making this winter the coldest in 30 years.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1252585/More-snow-set-hit-Brita…
This may be weather to you, but its climate to me.
el gordo, would you like to make any clarification, correction , or retraction to your prior claims and allusions?
I.e. can you address [this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_42.php#comment-2293…), and [this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_42.php#comment-2293…)?
Keep [this in mind](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/akermangate_piers_akerman_caug…) el gordo:
>>*There is a major difference [between denial and truth seeking]. When IPCC et al are alerted to errors - they correct them.*
>Can you imagine the errata volumes required if dinialists were to correct the source of information they depend on (blogs!)?
>No need for denial errata though, becasue denialst by definition are only interested in factiods that appear to support the finding they want. Hence errata on their supporting material are superfluous to their goals.
Chinese whispers and dog whistles on the otherhand, they are core methodologies.
I know you are a step above many denialists el gordo, thus I expect your limited clarification was possibly just an oversight?
This is an [interesting piece at skepticalscience.com](http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=144): Gary Thompson at [American Thinker](http://comments.americanthinker.com/read/42323/540020/page-2.html) claiming (yet again) to have found a smoking gun in AGW theory. Skeptical science showing he's 180 degrees wrong, and that actually there's remarkable agreement between theory, model and observation.
What I find most curious about this: it appears Gary *must* have known his interpretation was completely incorrect. Surely? Have I got that wrong? Is it possible he went into the literature so intent on finding a smoking gun that, finding anything, he stopped there?
All the commenters lap it up, of course. Somewhere, there should be a site for this: person makes mistake, and here's a box we'll come back and change from red to green when they've acknowledged the mistake and corrected it. How would that look for people on different sides of this debate?
An old story from WattsUpWithThat, around the time of the Copenhagen conference, just sprang into my mind unbidden. It's been niggling at me, and I couldn't quite find a way of articulating why. For some reason, the bonkersness of it just struck me. (If you google 'Copenhagen carbon footprint', that'll do just as well - straight to a Fox News story making the same point: as WUWT puts it, 'a day that will live in hypocrisy'.)
Now, that's odd, isn't it? If I was reading this story from someone who actually cared about the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, fair enough. But what do we have here? A parallel: allied forces in World War Two arrive at Dachau, only to discover the camp guards have secretly been keeping the inmates in reasonable condition, lying to their superiors all the while. British and American governments are in uproar: how dare the Nazis be inconsistent in their application of the final solution?
Wouldn't happen, of course. Why not? Well, we don't tend to protest when people we disagree with do something we approve of. The telegraph article WUWT quotes says, "The temptation, then, is to dismiss the whole thing as a ridiculous circus." Again, I'm picturing the allies saying that to less-than-consistent Nazis: "call yourself fascists! You're a bunch of clowns. You can't even gas jews properly. Hypocrites."
Of course, as I say, there's nothing wrong in pointing out inconsistencies in someone else's position. And I've bought the Nazis into it. But it does seem that extreme: many of the sources I've quoted are happy to accuse us warmists of totalitarianism. I just thought they'd be happy to see organisations using plenty of CO2 and fossil fuels; isn't that what they want? I think it must be the odd tone of moral outrage that I can't understand. If the aim was to keep printing anything that painted us warmists as characters of moral turpitude, I could see the point.
jakerman
My tone deafness for sarcasm deprives me of the ability to appreciate the true intent of your questioning, but thanks for leaving out the ad homs.
1.8 meters? The most pessimistic estimate from 4AR (WGII 6.3.2) is 0.58 meters relative to the 1980-1999 level. They could definitely be wrong about this, but not necessarily the way you think.
el gordo, so what about [answering my questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_42.php#comment-2293…)?
Here's the kind of thing which is very unhelpful, to say the least, and is exactly the kind of thing that breathes new wind into denialist sails:
"Scientist Tim Flannery has been appointed to chair the next phase of this report and he says the graphic assessment needs to be treated seriously.
"If you get a six-metre sea level surge with a cyclone on a place like the Gold Coast you have got very serious trouble," he said.
"The thing about sea level rise is that its inexorable, it strikes at all coasts at the same time.
"Anyone who thinks we we may be able to adapt to this, I beg you to think again, because the scale at which you would have to build sea walls or coastal defence barriers is so massive."
"
Frankly, what a load of crap.
The average sea level doesn't have to go up by 0.58m, 0.7m, or even 1.1m for a 6m storm surge to present a serious problem.
The relevant thing is the modelling showing the additional damage over time caused by the increased average height of such storm surges. Or perhaps their increased frequency, which is entirely unrelated to sea level rise and shouldn't be confused with it.
From the same article:
'Senator Wong also used today's launch of the report to take a swipe at climate change sceptics in the Coalition, saying the science in the report shows that climate change is real.'
Climate change is real. Simply amazing.
el gordo, a reminder that you have not properly addressed [my questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_42.php#comment-2294…)?
I know you want to put your crediblity above the [lowest denialiti](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_42.php#comment-2293…), so perhaps you are about to rectify your oversight?
Yes, El Gordo, Climate change is indeed real - lest we forget Tony Abbott's mentally defective line: "Climate change is crap". [Note - I got this quote from somewhere on the internet where it was tidied up a bit, but I know it is an accurate representation of Abbott's demented views].
So we have a leader of the Liberal Party who believes in fairies at the bottom of the garden. Great. After Turnbull put so much effort into restoring his party to credibility, along comes the Abbott fruitcake to blow it all away.
Tony Abbott's 'absolute crap'.
[The Age](http://www.theage.com.au/national/turnbull-takes-on-rebel-libs-20091002…)
*The Government distributed a clipping from a local Victorian paper in which Mr Abbott was quoted from a speech on Wednesday saying ''The argument [on climate change] is absolute crap. However, the politics of this are tough for us. Eighty per cent of people believe climate change is a real and present danger.*
And leading up to damage limitation on Sunday:
*[Laurie Oakes](http://today.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=871240): I predicted you'd be smooth in that answer, which you have been, but can I remind you that a few days ago you visited a Victorian town of Beaufort. Let me read from the local newspaper. It says "In a wide ranging speech, Mr Abbott talked about climate change, the Liberal political fortunes and Kevin Rudd. Quote - the argument on climate change is absolute crap," he said.â Is it absolute crap?*
*Tony Abbott: But then I went on to say - Laurie Oakes: Oh yes you went on to say and I'll quote the paper. You said, "However, the politics of this are tough for us. 80% of people believe climate change is a real and present danger." You think its crap but you're doing this to humour the voters?*
Also get the [Tee shirt](http://www.redbubble.com/people/platypusboy/t-shirts/4234569-2-absolute…).
I will try and get back to you on those questions, Janet. Had a glimpse of the solar influence and realize that I have my back against the wall.
Of more immediate concern, Roger Harrabin is looking for sceptical physical scientists. He has contacted WUWT and Bishop Hill seeking assistance.
Harrabin's reporting is dominated by 'risk' issues, so we can expect something of substance.
I'm just as disappointed with Abbott as you VW, why he hasn't come out and said AGW is a crock, I don't know.
I thought in AR4 they explicitly excluded recent (at the time) discoveries of water/ice interactions leading to new factors influencing melting because the uncertainty at the time was too great - which led to lower estimates - but they were still concerned that there was a non-trivial chance that melting could be a lot faster than the models in AR3 as a result? If I recalled correctly someone will have a reference for this I'm sure...
Disappointed by a politician? How naive.
el stupido writes, "The new freezing blast in the UK looks like making this winter the coldest in 30 years".
Sigh. So what? January was the second warmest since records began across the surface of the biosphere and central and northern Canada is having its warmest winter ever. Temperatures in the Yukon and northern Ontario and Quebec have even been above freezing for extended periods - this is quite remarkable.
Besides there is no "freezing blast" across most of the UK. Temperatures are expected to be 4-8 C across most of the country through next week. So much for a 'freezing blast'. Its typical Daily Mail crap.
Don't shoot the messenger, the Mail got it from the UK Met and they are notoriously wrong.
The stratospheric temperatures at the Pole become warmer when the circumpolar vortex weakens. The jet stream goes wobbly and Vancouver misses out on the snow.
A 2003 study by Sami Solanki (11,000 year sunspot reconstruction) found that there had been more sunspots since the 1940's than in the previous 1150 years.
This takes us back to the beginning of the MWP and the tail end of a 400 year Bond Event, known historically as the Dark Ages or Mass Migration Period.
The earth experiences a few hundred years of the MWP, we then slip into 400 years of the LIA and then there is global warming. They may have their theories, but is there a statistical correlation?
el thicko:
...concluded that the sun was responsible for less than 30% of the warming since 1970. Most studies have concluded that its contribution over that period was negligible. Many of them are listed [here](http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming…).
There's plenty of theoretical and empirical evidence to support both camps, so let's move along, there's nothing for us here.
Andrew Bolt posts another outright AGW lie:
[Moscow buried in the snows that were meant to vanish](http://andrewboltliesdeceptionsonagw.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/moscow-bu…)
'Warming of the climate system is unequivocal' (AR4)
So why is the UK Met bothering to have a transparent scientific inquiry, a 'holistic assessment' of land surface air temperatures?
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/022410_metproposal.pdf
It's all very robust.
BG
Moscow hasn't seen a thaw this February and that is unusual.
El G,
Your forlorn and plaintive hope that weather is suddenly going to be recognised as climate must be one of your dopiest and most pointless hobby horses yet.
Faux News el gordo? Can I remind you [of this](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY)? You can do better surely.
How about presenting the evidence to back your [last claims](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_42.php#comment-2295…) or making a retraction?
el credulous:
el credulous must feel pretty sick all the time continually vomiting bullsh!t.
I just stumbled across The Register's take on a Stanford University report on the effects of temperature on food production.
http://davec.org/2010/02/climate-reporting-compare-and-contrast/
I really shouldn't read The Register anymore, but I do. Its article is a blatant misrepresentation of the Stanford report. However, this seems to be symptomatic of the current culture of misreporting climate science.
Superstorm misses London and hits New York.
http://www.accuweather.com/regional-news-story.asp?region=eastusnews
What a blessed relief, temperatures in the NH are falling fast.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icrutem3_hadsst2_0-360E_23.5-90N_n_1980:201…
Cherry picking weather is like a opium for those who don't want to face up to climate change.
There will always be a cold patch somewhere el gordo, so you can ride than drug into your grave, pity about what you'll leave behind though.
Then there are those who won't wake up to climate change reality. This is the problem with cherry-picking, when you're biased, because you see 'unprecedented drought persisting across southern Australia'.
http://www.desmogblog.com/
Did I miss something?
This year's "Winter" Olympics, apparently.
Did I miss something?
Yes [this](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:360/…) and [this](http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html) for starters.
You promote every cold event you find, but if you were more thorough you'd find many more warming events. Warm events also happen to be consistent with the long term trend and the wider, global pattern of warming. And there return rates of many of these warming events are [a turn up](http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/02/03/is-there-a-link-between-adelaides…).
Record cold events are expected to still occur as the globe warms (especially if you focus in small enough resolution), even as we go past 2 and 3 degree global anomalies. They will however be fewer and fewer, yet still possible to find and promote to the gullible.
So picking out cold patches for periods is a silly game you can play while we load up the atmosphere for a whole new world.
Your relative small number of cold spells don't contradict global warming. To do that you need to find so many of them that it turns [this chart around](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:360/…).
God you're an idiot Gordo. You really are. Did you bother clicking on the link provided? If so, I want a deatiled summary of why BOM is wrong or a retraction from you. Either one will do.
The drought in Australia is not officially over until there is feed available for stock, but looking forward to Autumn its good news.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/rain_ahead.shtml
Tom Fuller pulls the old ['light hearted' defense](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/lets_hope_this_reference_check…) when he challenged on his unsupportable claims.
Doesn't wash Tom, nor was there anything remotely funny. Nor does the age of your claims negate your accountability to them. Either retract your unsupportable mis-caricature it or own it as a mark against your credibility.
Tom Fuller:
>*remember when we could be light hearted about this?*
You say you've read the AR4, I assume that means WG2 also. That's a real rib tickler isn't it Tom.
The disproportionate burden born by many millions of the most vulnerable, the least responsible and those with least resources for adaptation. Was this what you wanted to mis-caricature and have a light hearted joke about?
jakerman, no sense engaging with you. Yes, I read WG2. No, it did not make me laugh. A significant number of my articles address exactly that issue. No, I do not walk away from my previous comment--it was light-hearted in that it used literary conventions such as metaphor and hyperbole because I did not want to write a longer comment. As you don't understand that, have never read anything I've written, but choose to jump all over me, play unfairly yourself by choosing a two-year old comment on someone else's blog instead of what I wrote at any time this week, goodbye. I don't need to play with you.