catallaxy files

catallaxy in technical exile

More on Climate

with 186 comments

The Bureau of Meterology claim that 2009 is the second hottest year on record. One part of the story did jump out at me (emphasis added).

Extreme heatwaves across southern Australia during late January/early February set a new Melbourne maximum temperature record of 46.4C, new State maximum temperature records for Victoria (48.8C at Hopetoun) and Tasmania (42.2C at Scamander), and contributing to the Black Saturday bushfires.


It is a bit premature to blame the Black Saturday fires on an ‘ extreme heatwave’ when a Royal Commission of Inquiry has yet to report. Furthermore while it was hot in February – its called summer – it wasn’t unusually hot. In fact my memory, apart from a few consecutive hot days, I thought last February was cool. The Bureau of Meterology confirms my suspicions.

As hot February’s go it was cool. That is confirmed when I look at the mean temperature for the month too.

The data for January (max, mean) don’t support the ‘extreme heatwave’ hypothesis either.

Update: Rog points us to this piece by David Karoly who talks about the climatic conditions. Ben O’Neill talks about some of the institutional conditions.
Update II: More government error.

Advertisements

Written by Sinclair Davidson

January 5, 2010 at 2:23 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

186 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. The records they’re referring to began in 1910 and most of them were crap until recently. Expect more “records” to be claimed every month or so. We’ve also seen record cold weather in India and much of the US in the last several weeks.

    The important point is that Kevin Rudd and Peter Garrett are lying when they claim that their ETS tax will reduce the temperature of the planet. In fact, if Australia sank into the depths tomorrow, it wouldn’t make much of a difference, temperature-wise. Nor is the argument from moral suasion a goer: the hilarious Copenhagen debacle proved that the world couldn’t give a rat’s arse about Kevin’s popgun carbon “pollution” abatement scheme.

    C.L.

    January 5, 2010 at 2:31 pm

  2. Does anyone really understand why temp charts are shown as anomalies rather than absolute temps?

    What’s the catch, as there has to be one.

    jc

    January 5, 2010 at 2:39 pm

  3. Doc. Pachauri publishes a comment keeping things civil in the “Gordian” (metro’s old haunt) and receives these replies.

    Dr Pachauri – if you want to end the “personal attacks”, why don’t you simply:
    1. Publish the accounts of TERI India and all its Indian subsidiaries, including TERI Biotech, TERI University, the TERI School of Management and all your other Indian enterprises – and indentify all the corporate and public sector sponsors, with the sums paid.
    2. Publish the full accounts of TERI North America, TERI Europe, and your offices in Japan, SE Asia and the Gulf Centre. Also identify corporate and public sector sponsors, with the sums paid.
    3. Publish details of your annual personal income, and all the sources including the IPCC, plus your expenses, for each if the years including 2003 since you have been chairman of the IPCC.
    4. Declare the total value of your assets, including the current value of your multi-million dollar home at 160 Golf Links Delhi, and your shareholdings, and identify all those you have acquired since becoming chairman of the IPCC.
    I understand that, in India, you are very keen on corporate transparency. As a public servant, perhaps you should appreciate that transparency should begin with yourself.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/jan/04/climate-change-delay-denial?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments

    jc

    January 5, 2010 at 2:56 pm

  4. the thing that interests me is that the Gordian actually allowed that comment to get through which of course being true is a direct attack on the railway doc.

    jc

    January 5, 2010 at 3:00 pm

  5. By all means reserve doubts about the AGW contribution, but I find it very hard to trust the judgement of someone who objects to the term “extreme heatwave” to describe what happened last February in Victoria, or who doubts that it had a direct and causal effect on the severity of the Black Saturday bushfires.

    It reads like you’re hallucinating Sinclair. Are you okay?

    FDB

    January 5, 2010 at 3:12 pm

  6. FDB – not even the BOM’s own data shows evidence of an ‘extreme heatwave’. We had extreme fires, due IMHO to years of government incompetence and lack of controlled burning, communication failures and so on. But an ‘extreme heatwave’? No evidence.

    Sinclair Davidson

    January 5, 2010 at 3:19 pm

  7. FDB:

    That comment is an excellent example of why I get angry with you. It seems you can’t comprehend things that are said, go off 1/2 cocked and then make a fool out of yourself as usual.

    I find it very hard to trust the judgement (sic) of someone who objects to the term “extreme heatwave” to describe what happened last February in Victoria

    The writer didn’t. This what he said:

    “It is a bit premature to blame the Black Saturday fires on an ‘ extreme heatwave’ when a Royal Commission of Inquiry has yet to report.”

    ...or who doubts that it had a direct and causal effect on the severity of the Black Saturday bushfires.

    He didn’t as this is what he said:

    “Furthermore while it was hot in February – its called summer – it wasn’t unusually hot. In fact my memory, apart from a few consecutive hot days, I thought last February was cool. The Bureau of Meterology confirms my suspicions.”

    He shows a chart from the bureau which in fact shows it wasn’t a terribly hot Feb.

    Can you please apologize for screwing it up and move on.

    [Thanks JC. I fixed the typo. Sinc]

    jc

    January 5, 2010 at 3:22 pm

  8. Just adding to that – I live in a bayside suburb and when it gets hot we take the kids to the beach and stand in the water – last summer I might have done that 2 or 3 times.

    Sinclair Davidson

    January 5, 2010 at 3:23 pm

  9. The guys at the BoM that produced that statement are pieces of work. Did you see the headline regarding rainfall:

    Another drier than average year in the southeast mainland

    and yet the graph that accompanies it shows a more or less continuous rise in annual and decadal mean rainfall since 1900 and the last decade was the second wettest decade since records began; yes, that is right, the ‘naughties’ were the second wettest decade since 1900.

    JC, the business with anomalies is curious. For some reason, they have referenced the period 1961-90 as normal and thus everything must be compared to that.

    dover_beach

    January 5, 2010 at 3:29 pm

  10. Sorry JC, everybody can see the scare quotes around ‘extreme heatwave’ above, and everyone knows what Sinclair meant by them.

    He’s also admitted explicitly that that’s exactly what he meant. Thus any apology should run the other way, but I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to give it.

    Sinclair:

    Perhaps you can outline what sort of temperatures over what sort of timeline, in your oh-so-expert view, would justify the use of the term.

    Perhaps you can also explain your very clear implication that this run of incredibly hot days had no causal relationship with the fires.

    Then again, perhaps not. Because anyone can see that you’re being silly.

    FDB

    January 5, 2010 at 3:33 pm

  11. “I live in a bayside suburb and when it gets hot we take the kids to the beach and stand in the water – last summer I might have done that 2 or 3 times.”

    Jaysus.

    One family anecdote – now THAT’S a firm basis to second guess weather and fire experts.

    I admire your chutzpah, sir.

    FDB

    January 5, 2010 at 3:35 pm

  12. Does anyone really understand why temp charts are shown as anomalies rather than absolute temps?

    What’s the catch, as there has to be one.

    I don’t think its a catch I think its just a way of getting a plot that doesn’t look like a straight line. Otherwise we would get a feb average that just bumps along at say 29-33 degrees.

    As for an extreme heatwave, monthly averages can be misleading when a bushfire disaster timescale is more like 3-7 days typically. You don’t need a hot month but a hot week.

    It was the hotest ever recorded temp in Melbourne last year and hotest ever in the state also.

    From Wiki:

    The early 2009 southeastern Australia heat wave was a heat wave that commenced in late January and led to record-breaking prolonged high temperatures in the region. The heat wave is considered one of, if not the most, extreme in the region’s history.[2] During the heat wave, 50 separate locations set various records for consecutive, highest daytime and overnight temperatures. The highest temperature recorded during the heat wave was 48.8 °C (119.8 °F) in Hopetoun, Victoria, a record for the state.[3] Many locations through the region recorded all-time high temperatures including capital cities Adelaide, which reached its third-highest temperature, 45.7 °C (114.3 °F), and Melbourne, which recorded its highest ever temperature on record, 46.4 °C (115.5 °F). Both cities broke records for the most consecutive days over 40 °C (104 °F), while Mildura, Victoria recorded an all time record 12 consecutive days over 40 °C (104 °F).

    Steve Edney

    January 5, 2010 at 3:37 pm

  13. The family anecdote informs my memory, the graphs are from the BOM. Their own data shows that January and February were not unusually warm.

    Sinclair Davidson

    January 5, 2010 at 3:38 pm

  14. Yes Sinclair, and I have been at some pains to restrict my criticism to certain other of your comments. The non-AGW related ones.

    Perhaps you re-read what I have written, and then cut your losses and admit that the foolishness I’ve pointed out was foolish?

    FDB

    January 5, 2010 at 3:41 pm

  15. The BOM ups the ante today and lies:

    Hottest decade on record: official.

    “We’re getting these increasingly warm temperatures, not just for Australia but globally. Climate change, global warming is clearly continuing,” said bureau climatologist David Jones.

    Peter Garrett weighs in, also lies:

    Environment Minister Peter Garrett used the report to attack opposition politicians for blocking the government’s key climate policy, a carbon emissions trading scheme (ETS) aimed at reducing greenhouses gases causing global warming.

    It is a scientific fact that the ETS will have zero effect on the temperature.

    C.L.

    January 5, 2010 at 3:42 pm

  16. The BoM on defining heatwaves.

    There is no universal definition of a heatwave although in a general sense it can be defined as a prolonged period of excessive heat. The difficulty in defining a heat wave in Australia has been in establishing an appropriate heat index with an acceptable event threshold and duration, and relating it to the climatology of the area under investigation.

    Sinclair Davidson

    January 5, 2010 at 3:45 pm

  17. FDB –

    Yes Sinclair, and I have been at some pains to restrict my criticism to certain other of your comments. The non-AGW related ones.

    Perhaps you re-read what I have written, and then cut your losses and admit that the foolishness I’ve pointed out was foolish?

    ?

    Sinclair Davidson

    January 5, 2010 at 3:47 pm

  18. So what?

    Geez, this fishing for credibility is unseemly.

    Just admit you were foolish and we can all move on. I’m not a vindictive person mate – I’m not going to keep drilling you on it like a demented Currantbun Lad.

    FDB

    January 5, 2010 at 3:48 pm

  19. This shit makes me want to crawl back into my hole again:

    http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/04/29/climate-myths-andrew-bolts-claims-scientifically-tested/

    Read Myth 4 then read Myth 3. [The gist of Myth 3 is that Bolt says that it was warmer before cars etc or before they were significant.]

    “It’s hot/cold, must be the climate, any claim you/your side make about temps is only about second order issues like *weather*”

    If only those who took sides would be consistent!

    Mark Hill

    January 5, 2010 at 3:50 pm

  20. What are you talking about?

    Sinclair Davidson

    January 5, 2010 at 3:50 pm

  21. Okay, so you’re being obtuse. Clappity clap.

    Anyhoo, care to explain to me the basis for your objection to the use of the term heatwave?

    Or the basis for your claim that the run of high temps was not a significant contributor to Black Saturday?

    *crickets*

    FDB

    January 5, 2010 at 3:51 pm

  22. Its a tell-tale sign of desperation on the part of the BoM and the like that they are left trumpeting the average of a decade compared to other decades rather than the trend this last decade.

    dover_beach

    January 5, 2010 at 3:51 pm

  23. CL – wonder if it is the same David Jones mentioned in the ClimateGate emails?

    Had an email from David Jones of BMRC, Melbourne. He said they are ignoring anybody who has dealings with CA, as there are threads on it about Australian sites.

    Sinclair Davidson

    January 5, 2010 at 3:52 pm

  24. For a heatwave to have contributed to the Black Saturday fires over and above any other factor I would imagine that the summer heat would have to be at high levels for a sustained period of time. If we look at the BoM data there weren’t fires of the same or similar magnitude in many (any?) of the years when the average temperatures were higher than they were last year.

    Steve suggests that the heat wave was for a period of about a week. If we accept for argument sake that he is correct, then the risks associated with extreme bushfires are somewhat higher than we might think. If that is true, then why didn’t the government do more to backburn and ensure that flamable debris was cleared away?

    The bottom line is this; the BoM are not in a position to claim that an ‘extreme heatwave’ contributed to the Black Saturday disaster without knowing the outcome of the Royal Commission into the disaster. We know bushfires occur in summer when it is hot, but that doesn’t mean that only the heat contributed to Black Saturday. On that basis I’m calling ‘bullshit’. I also put it to you that their statement is in contempt of the Commission.

    Sinclair Davidson

    January 5, 2010 at 4:01 pm

  25. Very likely, Sinc.

    dover_beach

    January 5, 2010 at 4:02 pm

  26. “Or the basis for your claim that the run of high temps was not a significant contributor to Black Saturday?

    *crickets*”

    I’ll bet you two tickets to a Stefan Dennis concert that the same fuel load, etc would have been nearly as bad with only average temperatures.

    Mark Hill

    January 5, 2010 at 4:03 pm

  27. Furthermore while it was hot in February – its called summer – it wasn’t unusually hot.

    Just admit this is wrong and stop the obfuscation over heatwave definitions.

    If a record maximum both in many locatons and in the state isn’t unusually hot, what is?

    The attitude that we can’t say yet whether record temperatures contributed (not caused, contributed) to the fires because the royal commision hasn’t reported is laughable.

    And seriously are you really questioning whether a day of record tmeperatures contributed to

    Steve Edney

    January 5, 2010 at 4:08 pm

  28. It appears that the BOM says there is no universal definition of a heat wave, but it can be used to describe any prolonged period of high temperatures:
    http://tinyurl.com/oewp6

    Most people would, I think agree, that 3 days of very high temperatures is enough to count as a heatwave, and here’s what a BOM release dated 30 Jan 09 said:

    “Melburnians have endured three successive days of temperatures above 43 degrees Celsius for the first time in recorded history. The mercury reached 45.1 degrees today, 44.3 yesterday, and 43.4 on Wednesday.”

    (And yes, I know, it then goes on to note longer heatwaves in the past: http://tinyurl.com/by8yzt )

    The press release goes on to note:

    “Melbourne’s rainless spell now stands at 27 days, the longest since 1965 with a spell of 28 days.”

    The rainless spell continued (with moderately high temperatures) for another week, until on 7 February, you get 46.4 degrees and wind gusts in Melbourne of 83kph. http://tinyurl.com/yjmrjv3

    The temperature for the rest of the month was cooler.

    I would have thought that the lesson from this is:

    1. it’s entirely reasonable to describe January and early February as undergoing an extreme heatwave, if you’re looking at sustained high temperatures for at least 3 days;

    2. it points to the danger of the “denialist” argument that a moderate average increase in temperature might not be that bad a thing and may be readily mitigated against. I mean, if global warming means only a repeat of 9 Feb 09 every year or two, that’s a dire enough consequence to both nature and human structures regardless of whether the average temperature for the month has only gone up a fraction.

    steve from brisbane

    January 5, 2010 at 4:11 pm

  29. If heat waves are supposed to count as evidence of global warming than what does the recent cold wave in the UK, Europe, Russia, China, South Korea, Canada and the US which is in some instances breaking 100-year records for lowest temp. and highest snowfall count as?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1240319/As-Britain-told-expect-snow-10-days-rest-world-coping-Arctic-weather.html

    dover_beach

    January 5, 2010 at 4:11 pm

  30. Sorry Can you please explain why:

    JC, the business with anomalies is curious. For some reason, they have referenced the period 1961-90 as normal and thus everything must be compared to that.

    Why is 61-90 the accepted reference period and why? I am just trying to understand the racket a little better, so sorry to put you out.

    jc

    January 5, 2010 at 4:12 pm

  31. Sorry, last sentence was meant to refer to 7 Feb, of course.

    steve from brisbane

    January 5, 2010 at 4:14 pm

  32. FDB’s comment in full from earlier.

    “I live in a bayside suburb and when it gets hot we take the kids to the beach and stand in the water – last summer I might have done that 2 or 3 times.”

    Jaysus.

    One family anecdote – now THAT’S a firm basis to second guess weather and fire experts.

    I admire your chutzpah, sir.

    So it’s okay to cite the BoM’s comments which also basically amount to anecdotes however other people can’t?

    The amusing thing about all this is that you wouldn’t even know what you’re saying FDB.

    jc

    January 5, 2010 at 4:14 pm

  33. It looks like you’ve touched a raw nerve, Sinc.

    dover_beach

    January 5, 2010 at 4:15 pm

  34. We know bushfires occur in summer when it is hot, but that doesn’t mean that only the heat contributed to Black Saturday.

    but where did they say only?

    Black saturday occured during record ever temperatures. That day that they broke the previous record (45.6) deg set on Black Friday (1939) (71 dead), Ash Wednesday (75 dead) occured during a 43 deg plus day.

    the three worst bushfires in Australian history all occurred during extreme heat. We don’t need a Royal commission to tell us that extreme heat is a contributing factor to bushfires which is the claim.

    Steve Edney

    January 5, 2010 at 4:16 pm

  35. Oh Thanks Steve E.

    jc

    January 5, 2010 at 4:19 pm

  36. “Why is 61-90 the accepted reference period and why? I am just trying to understand the racket a little better, so sorry to put you out.”

    I have no idea, JC. You can find some discussion of it here:

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=462&filename=1105019698.txt

    It appears to me there is no good reason for it.

    dover_beach

    January 5, 2010 at 4:20 pm

  37. From the Royal Commission interim report

    1.9 During the three months from October to December 2008, most of Victoria received near-average to above average rainfall. In contrast, the early part of 2009 was exceptionally dry, with below average to record low rainfall for January, particularly in central and western parts of Victoria. Melbourne had its second driest January on record. The dry weather continued during February 2009, with most of the western half of Victoria experiencing well below average rainfall. In fact, there was ‘dipole activity’, with wet monsoonal activity in northern Australia and very hot, dry conditions further south.
    1.10 After a relatively mild start to 2009, exceptional heatwave conditions developed across south-east Australia in late January. The last week of January witnessed one of the most severe, prolonged heatwaves in south-east Australia’s recorded history. Dr Williams noted that ‘very, very hot air and very, very high temperatures [were] experienced in Victoria during that period’. In southern South Australia, and much of central, southern and western Victoria, maximum temperatures widely reached their highest levels since at least 1939. Melbourne experienced three consecutive days over 43°C — a new record.
    1.11 The week leading up to 7 February was characterised by a series of high-pressure systems to the south of Victoria, which moved eastwards from the Great Australian Bight into the Tasman Sea. The air heated over land throughout this period, and this continued until 7 February. The set of charts in Figure 1.3, from 23:00 on 6 February to 05:00 on 8 February, demonstrate, in six-hourly intervals, the static high-pressure cell in the Tasman Sea on 7 February and the passage of the pressure trough across Victoria.

    This confirms what I say and also what Steve says above. There was a mild start to the year and then a hot period of one week. For people trying to blame Black Saturday on global warming, I’m caliing ‘bullshit’.

    Sinclair Davidson

    January 5, 2010 at 4:22 pm

  38. and thanks to DB

    jc

    January 5, 2010 at 4:22 pm

  39. “Sorry, last sentence was meant to refer to 7 Feb, of course.”

    That was your first comment this thread, Steve of B. Why are you appearing to complete Steve E’s sentences?

    dover_beach

    January 5, 2010 at 4:22 pm

  40. db: I mistakenly put 3 links in my first comment which I was correcting, so it is still stuck in moderation

    steve from brisbane

    January 5, 2010 at 4:24 pm

  41. Well, from sarcastically admiring your chutzpah I’m now reduced to genuinely pitying your inability to admit you’ve been foolish Sinclair.

    Are you sure you’re sure you’re okay?

    FDB

    January 5, 2010 at 4:25 pm

  42. Right, Dover. Applying the Garrett line means that the record cold weather of recent weeks around the world proves that global warming theory is wrong. Worth stating again also, the ominous sounding construction “since records were kept” refers to “records” dating back to only 1910 and most of those “records” in most places in Australia probably amounted to a thermometer in the telegraph office outhouse. Warmenists like to say of “record” events the other way (cold weather) that “weather isn’t climate.” When they get a blip the other way, they scream like deranged decapitated chickens about the debate being over, we won, let’s pass the (wholly useless) ETS, think of your children’s children etc.

    C.L.

    January 5, 2010 at 4:25 pm

  43. We don’t need a Royal commission to tell us that extreme heat is a contributing factor to bushfires which is the claim

    Steve – if just that was the claim, then there is no problem. We all agree bush fires occur on hot days in summer.

    Sinclair Davidson

    January 5, 2010 at 4:25 pm

  44. FDB – your concern for my mental wellbeing is very touching. Thank you.

    Sinclair Davidson

    January 5, 2010 at 4:26 pm

  45. For people trying to blame Black Saturday on global warming, I’m caliing ‘bullshit’.

    I agree, but that’s not what you appeared to be saying in your original post. You appeared to be claiming that the heatwave wasn’t contributing to the bushfires which it clearly is.

    Steve Edney

    January 5, 2010 at 4:29 pm

  46. “Steve – if just that was the claim, then there is no problem.”

    Where has anyone claimed that only temps were the cause?

    Nowhere, that’s where.

    FDB

    January 5, 2010 at 4:29 pm

  47. You’re too kind Steve. He did claim that, he didn’t just appear to.

    FDB

    January 5, 2010 at 4:30 pm

  48. And Sinkers, before you get back out on the lino for some headspins, you’ve got to ask yourself the all-important question:

    Are you being served?

    FDB

    January 5, 2010 at 4:32 pm

  49. Steve – the second link to the story at the Australian has Peter Garret talking about global warming and the need for parliament to pass the CPRS.

    Sinclair Davidson

    January 5, 2010 at 4:34 pm

  50. I’m now reduced to genuinely pitying your inability to admit you’ve been foolish Sinclair
    .
    FDB, repeating a falsehood doesn’t make it true. You’re not even engaging in debate here. Lift your game, man.

    daddy dave

    January 5, 2010 at 4:35 pm

  51. FDB ‘Are you being served?’ is an Australianism that I don’t understand. I think the appropriate term in response is ‘explain please’.

    Sinclair Davidson

    January 5, 2010 at 4:35 pm

  52. It may be true that no one can with any degree of certainty that “global warming caused Black Saturday”. But if it’s an indication of what can be expected to happen more frequently if CO2 induced climate change occurs as predicted, then it’s fair enough for AGW advocates to point to it as a reason for Australia and the world to take CO2 reduction seriously.

    steve from brisbane

    January 5, 2010 at 4:36 pm

  53. One of the biggest contributing factors to the Black Saturday fires was wind – cool wind.

    A cool change hit the state in the early evening, bringing with it gale-force south-westerly winds in excess of 120 kilometres per hour (75 mph). This change in wind direction caused the long eastern flanks of the fires to become massive fire fronts that burned with incredible speed and ferocity towards towns that had earlier escaped the fires.

    To blame the magnitude of the fire on “global warming” or even on the heatwave per se is a lie.

    C.L.

    January 5, 2010 at 4:39 pm

  54. A previous post on the Bushfire Royal Commission is here (you have to scroll down).

    Sinclair Davidson

    January 5, 2010 at 4:41 pm

  55. Its a bit difficult to blame the BOM statement for what Peter Garret says. I’m happy for you to call bullshit on him.

    Steve Edney

    January 5, 2010 at 4:45 pm

  56. Steve, perhaps, but I think what got many upset at the attempted connection between AGW and the bushfires is that it is the latest of many attempts to blame all kinds of bad things on warming.
    My favourite is still the urologists’ prediction of more kidney stones.
    And nowhere does anyone mention, if only for balance, some of the good consequences of warming.

    I think what bothers me most is that the discussion has gone way past science – it is just about entirely political and fairly grubbily political too.
    It is a pity to see bodies like CSIRO and BOM getting into the advocacy business.

    ken nielsen

    January 5, 2010 at 4:45 pm

  57. Steve, yes and no. The BoM should have stuck to the facts and left the opinions and scare mongering to others. At the same time the BoM are government employees.

    Sinclair Davidson

    January 5, 2010 at 4:47 pm

  58. The biggest contributing factor was high wind, record breaking heat and very low humidity

    Why you guys bother to argue the toss over it is beyond me.

    David Karoly has a post on the subject

    rog

    January 5, 2010 at 4:54 pm

  59. Ken, the sheer dishonesty that one can file under the heading ‘climate change’ is breathtaking. Look at this heading and by-line the follows this story in the Guardian:

    Peru’s mountain people face fight for survival in a bitter winter

    Climate change is bringing freezing temperatures to poor villages where families have long existed on the margins of survival. Now some must choose whether to save the animals that give them a living, or their children

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/03/peru-mountain-farmers-winter-cold

    Seriously, ‘climate change’ is bringing freezing temperatures. Just breathtaking.

    dover_beach

    January 5, 2010 at 4:55 pm

  60. errm dover you do know that overall global warming doesn’t mean that every part of the globe gets warmer right? the climate is a complex system. the explanation here is that the microclimate is being affected by the melting of the glaciers. what matters is whether the model predicts this without some ad hoc adjustment.

    now it may be that the purported link between global warming and colder weather in Peru in this case is wrong. but if you think that colder weather in one part of the world disproves AGW you really aren’t entitled to pontificate anymore on this issue.

    jtfsoon

    January 5, 2010 at 4:59 pm

  61. I should add not only isn’t extreme cold in some places not disprove AGW it may in fact support the theory if this is predicted without ad hoc adjustments to the model. Similar arguments are being made about the recent cold spell in China.

    jtfsoon

    January 5, 2010 at 5:03 pm

  62. Why you guys bother to argue the toss over it is beyond me.

    Because it is fun. Because it allows us to refine our thoughts and thinking. Because it helps pass the time. Because it allows us to share knowledge and information. And so on.

    Sinclair Davidson

    January 5, 2010 at 5:03 pm

  63. Interesting phraseology, though. I thought it was supposed to be “science.” Apparently, it’s a 50-50 toss.

    Hey, let’s spend trillions on a game of two-up.

    China and India at Copenhagen: um, no.

    C.L.

    January 5, 2010 at 5:08 pm

  64. Jason, of course you are correct that record cold days do not disprove (or even weaken) the AGW story.
    But nor do “record” hot days over a fairly short period of record-
    keeping do anything to support the story. Weather records are created somewhere in the world just about every day.

    I am an “acceptor” (I’ve decided that’s the word) of the scientific consensus because I don’t have the qualifications to do otherwise. But I do get irritated at some of the exaggerations and assorted dopey things said by scientists and politicians.

    Ken Nielsen

    January 5, 2010 at 5:10 pm

  65. Jason, that’s a very one-sided rule.
    Whenever there is a heat wave or some other “micro” event such as fires we hear how this is a sign of climate change. See Karoly’s article above for an example; plus all the talk of Australia’s recent droughts etc.
    .
    Yet whenever the opposite occurs, such as cold snaps, there is a deafening chorus that “climate is not weather.”

    daddy dave

    January 5, 2010 at 5:12 pm

  66. Adding to your list of reasons Sinc, is the fact that any sweeping consensus on anything (science, economics, biology or whatever) needs to be examined and challenged.
    I think it is as dangerous as hell that anyone challenging the consensus is called offensive names and that it would be an amazingly courageous young scientist who did anything to challenge any part of the received truth. A career destroying move, I am sure.

    Ken Nielsen

    January 5, 2010 at 5:15 pm

  67. “errm dover you do know that overall global warming doesn’t mean that every part of the globe gets warmer right? the climate is a complex system. the explanation here is that the microclimate is being affected by the melting of the glaciers. what matters is whether the model predicts this without some ad hoc adjustment.”

    Yes, I know that Jason, but if we’ve had four bitterly cold winters in a row why are the glaciers in this area retreating and not advancing? Have the springs, summers, and autumns, been unusually warm? Or are the glaciers their referring in other locales? Raising their ‘microclimate’ when you’re arguing about the effects of a well-mixed gas seems like handwaving to me.

    As an aside, if climate is a complex system that behaves chaotically why makes you think we can reduce the explanation of the effect of GHGs upon the climate to simple physics?

    “now it may be that the purported link between global warming and colder weather in Peru in this case is wrong. but if you think that colder weather in one part of the world disproves AGW you really aren’t entitled to pontificate anymore on this issue.”

    Where have I ever said this? You’ve conjured it out of nothing. If I’ve raised the spectre of bitterly cold weather in Euroasia and North America it is because heat waves are constantly promoted as evidence of global warming whereas cold waves are elided as nothing more than weather, not climate.

    dover_beach

    January 5, 2010 at 5:18 pm

  68. Ken, there is no “consensus.” Nor should there be, as the global coldening scare of the 70s demonstrates.

    We should really speak of consensus only vis-a-vis what I like to call climate scientology. Operating Thetans include the East Anglia fraud gang, Rajendra Pachauri – embezzler head of the IPCC – anti-jet campaigner and Virgin space flight PR flunkie, Tim Flannery, and court-proved climate liar, Al Gore.

    C.L.

    January 5, 2010 at 5:19 pm

  69. Oh FFS

    Dover makes an unbelievably silly or dishonest spin which I comment on and suddenly it’s one sided.

    All I commented on was that extreme cold in some parts of the world is consistent with AGW. AGW is a bit of a misnomer. The issue is how the heating of the atmosphere has after-effects in various parts of the world. Generally there will be an increase in heat events but not always depending on proximity to glaciers, etc. Are you now saying that general warming trends don’t prove AGW at all?

    jtfsoon

    January 5, 2010 at 5:20 pm

  70. “Jason, of course you are correct that record cold days do not disprove (or even weaken) the AGW story.”

    This is not entirely true. If record cold weather occurs more frequently than it tends to undermine the AGW story.

    dover_beach

    January 5, 2010 at 5:21 pm

  71. Intermission:

    Believe your ice.

    A simple YouTube clip that buries “global warming.”

    C.L.

    January 5, 2010 at 5:22 pm

  72. If cold weather occured more frequently it would indeed disprove AGW. But if some extreme cold events occured it wouldn’t. The complexity of the climate doen’t therefore negate general warming trends. You’ve answered your own question, dover. thanks.

    jtfsoon

    January 5, 2010 at 5:23 pm

  73. “Oh FFS

    Dover makes an unbelievably silly or dishonest spin which I comment on and suddenly it’s one sided.”

    What are you talking about? I simply thought the following by-line breathtaking: “Climate change is bringing freezing temperatures” and you accuse me of engaging in “unbelievably silly or dishonest spin.”

    Sorry, that is what the by-line is engaging in.

    dover_beach

    January 5, 2010 at 5:25 pm

  74. Don Surber recently reminded me of an interesting fact re glaciers:

    Glaciers melt, sea level drops.

    Actually it is the land that is rising. More on that later. But just as the Church of Global Warming overlooked the possible effects of a drop to zero in solar activity, it seems these Brainiacs overlooked the effects of ice melting.

    They have been saying the melting ice will cause the sea to rise. But when sea ice melts the sea level drops. Ask Archimedes about water displacement.

    When glaciers melt (ice on land) the sea gets more water.

    But the land rises, too.

    At least in Alaska it has been rising.

    “The geology is complex, but it boils down to this: Relieved of billions of tons of glacial weight, the land has risen much as a cushion regains its shape after someone gets up from a couch. The land is ascending so fast that the rising seas — a ubiquitous byproduct of global warming — cannot keep pace. As a result, the relative sea level is falling, at a rate ‘among the highest ever recorded, according to a 2007 report by a panel of experts convened by Mayor Bruce Botelho of Juneau,” the New York Times reported.

    Now we know that shorelines shift over time. It has nothing to do with mankind producing carbon dioxide.

    The predictions of the ice melting and swallowing up San Francisco as sort of a modern version of Sodom and Gomorrah is amusing. The adherents of the Church of Global Warming use parlor tricks and the general lack of knowledge among the general population to push this phrenological-style pseudo-science.

    C.L.

    January 5, 2010 at 5:26 pm

  75. where’s the inaccuracy in that? As I’ve explained the interpretation is that AGW in this case led to the colder microclimate in Peru. The only one spinning is you in implying that no one is entitled to draw that link

    jtfsoon

    January 5, 2010 at 5:30 pm

  76. Can I just add one thing here…

    It’s important to clear the decks of the climate debate from the riff raff crooks like Doc Pach Algore and their ilk from the real science of AGW.

    Just as the Victorian heat wave doesn’t prove AGW, cold weather doesn’t disprove it either.

    In fact according to one reasonable pro-age dude the snow/cold snap in the US could actually end up being an indication of AGW over a decade or so if there is increased precipitation in north America.

    Here’s what he had o say about the north american weather conditions this year and how they relate to AGW.

    Climate Change Theory 101: warming of the oceans leads to more evaporation which leads to increased precipitation i.e. wetter summers and snowier winters. So, within the bounds of AGW expectations? Yes. Driven by AGW? Unlikely. One cannot blame a single month of localized (on a worldwide scale, that is) heavy snowfall, anomalous as it may be, on a large scale, globally-driven event. The fact that a snowier-than-normal winter was forecast as early as last summer due to a well-defined set of weather patterns driven by factors unrelated to AGW (El Nino, Blocking Pattern, etc.) leads me to believe that this is simply a fortuitously snowy winter in America’s neck of the woods, much like 2003 and 1996 before it. While a single snowy winter cannot be blamed on AGW, a marked increase in the frequency of winters such as this one (assuming Jan and Feb continue this spat of blizzards) over the next 10 years could be evidence of such warming.

    To those that think AGW was the cause of the Victorian heat wave… here’s a question for (FDB can go first). is there any indication that if the temp was say 37 deg C instead of in teh 40’s that Feb, is there any indication that the fires would not have been as severe given the amout of fuel left out in the open.

    That’s the same fuel environmentalists forced local and state governments to leave on the ground of the forest.

    jc

    January 5, 2010 at 5:35 pm

  77. The extreme heatwave caused some warped bogans to light fires. So yes, some hot weather caused the Black Saturday bushfires

    Infidel Tiger

    January 5, 2010 at 5:37 pm

  78. oops

    To those that think AGW was the cause of the Victorian heat wave… here’s a question for you (FDB can go first).

    If the temp was say 37 deg C instead of in the 40’s that Feb…… is there any indication that the fires would not have been as severe given the amount of fuel left out in the open.

    That’s the same fuel environmentalists forced local and state governments to leave on the ground of the forest.

    jc

    January 5, 2010 at 5:37 pm

  79. “where’s the inaccuracy in that? As I’ve explained the interpretation is that AGW in this case led to the colder microclimate in Peru. The only one spinning is you in implying that no one is entitled to draw that link”

    Are you serious? You or that article have failed to show that GHGs have led to ‘glaciers’ receding, but let as imagine you or it have; you or it have nevertheless failed to explain how glacial recession has changed the microclimate in such a way that it increases the intensity of winters in that particular area. And you accuse me of spinning.

    You are entitled to draw a link but you are obliged to demonstrate it; failing that, the rest of us entitled to point out your failure.

    dover_beach

    January 5, 2010 at 5:42 pm

  80. yes that’s fair enough JC, the worse thing that happened to climate science is having that obese mountebanke Al Gore as its public representaive, followed by that money grubbing Swami

    jtfsoon

    January 5, 2010 at 5:42 pm

  81. The followers and sceptics of AGW both have a very frustrating tactic.

    They claim a localised event as proof of the correctness of their theories about climate, and then rebutt any criticism as confusion of weather and climate.

    I’m with JC and Jason.

    1. The fuel load was much more important. No fuel, no fire.

    2. Extremes should be more frequent in global warming. There is more energy in the system, not more “heat” per se.

    I’m not sure the theory models feedback or compensatory all too well.

    e.g The rising land example C.L., pointed out above, or say more cyclones for Australia. These increase our rainfall. What if rainfall increases to the point where permanent vegetation builds up to mitigate CO2 driven warming?

    Another look at Australian rainfall and drought is here:

    http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1848641.htm

    Economic modelling doesn’t model compensatory effects in great detail either.

    That said, is the CLOUD experiment ever going to go ahead?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLOUD

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 5, 2010 at 5:50 pm

  82. Not only is there an indication there is evidence – and it was used to develop the McArthur Forest Fire Danger Index

    rog

    January 5, 2010 at 5:51 pm

  83. Fuel loads are a factor but without a series of record breaking temperatures they would have not been so explosive

    rog

    January 5, 2010 at 5:54 pm

  84. Rog,

    That’s all well and good but have a good look at the index thingy. Mind you if you read that literally in the Sahara, the fire index would indicate extreme/catastrophic. Of course this is bizzare since there is virtually no fuel load. Back to the meter:

    1. GW increases humidity. It would be hard to swallow that GW caused overall more humidity but drier conditions before and during the fire.

    2. A localised weather event, a cool change increased wind speed.

    Seems to me like the obvious is confirmed (fires are worse in hotter conditions) and “GW caused the fires” is just not provable.

    The fuel load is. One of the very few left standing was the guy who cleared his home and suffered several thousands of dollars in fines and legal fees beforehand.

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 5, 2010 at 6:01 pm

  85. So is ice back on the drinks menu or not?

    tal

    January 5, 2010 at 6:13 pm

  86. that obese mountebanke Al Gore as its public representaive, followed by that money grubbing Swami
    .
    Which money grubbing swami? There’re so many to choose from.

    Adrien

    January 5, 2010 at 6:15 pm

  87. Tal – now that you’re back in civilisation, lots of ice and you don’t put red wine in the fridge or coca cola in the scotch.

    Sinclair Davidson

    January 5, 2010 at 6:16 pm

  88. Adrien pick a swami any swami

    tal

    January 5, 2010 at 6:17 pm

  89. BTW – To those arguing viz whether February was hot or not so hot last year, so what? Climate change is tracked, correct me if I’m wrong please, in decades not months – yes?

    Adrien

    January 5, 2010 at 6:18 pm

  90. I might just find a glacier and chip chunks off it Sinc

    tal

    January 5, 2010 at 6:19 pm

  91. Adrien – you live in Melbourne climate change is tracked over the morning and afternoon and into the evening. You know that. 🙂

    Sinclair Davidson

    January 5, 2010 at 6:21 pm

  92. Did that once, tal. Couldn’t notice any difference to the taste of the whisky.

    Ken Nielsen

    January 5, 2010 at 6:23 pm

  93. you live in Melbourne climate change is tracked over the morning and afternoon and into the evening.
    .
    Only if you watch TV or read the ‘news’papers.

    Adrien

    January 5, 2010 at 6:24 pm

  94. Fuel loads are a factor but without a series of record breaking temperatures they would have not been so explosive.

    Codswallop. The key explosive factor was winds extraneous to the microclimate:

    A cool change hit the state in the early evening, bringing with it gale-force south-westerly winds in excess of 120 kilometres per hour (75 mph). This change in wind direction caused the long eastern flanks of the fires to become massive fire fronts that burned with incredible speed and ferocity towards towns that had earlier escaped the fires.

    The point is valid: if the temperature was 37 degrees it probably wouldn’t have made much difference to the ultimate outcome.

    C.L.

    January 5, 2010 at 6:27 pm

  95. The key explosive factor was winds extraneous to the microclimate

    And the Greens-enforced clearing bans definitely sealed their fate.

    Michael Fisk

    January 5, 2010 at 6:44 pm

  96. To those arguing viz whether February was hot or not so hot last year, so what? Climate change is tracked, correct me if I’m wrong please, in decades not months – yes?
    .
    Exactly.
    “weather is not climate”, yet the government and assorted alarmists are all over this data about a hot single year (2009) in a single continent (Australia).

    daddy dave

    January 5, 2010 at 6:48 pm

  97. My guess so far as Black Saturday was concerned was the record spell of no rainfall through January, as the most important factor, followed by average to above average rainfall period preceding Jan which increased the vegetation available to burn, followed by the SW wind change; the dry NW winds earlier in the day, the low humidity, and the very high temperatures I’d rank equally.

    That there were so many independent and interdependent factors at play means that events such as this will always be rare.

    dover_beach

    January 5, 2010 at 6:50 pm

  98. Sinclair – I just got that. Please don’t be witty with me in the afternoon. That’s when I take my stupid pills.

    Adrien

    January 5, 2010 at 6:50 pm

  99. Michael F – And the Greens-enforced clearing bans definitely sealed their fate.
    .
    We’ve had a stoush previously where you failed to back up the assertion that the Greens have the power to enforce anything.

    Adrien

    January 5, 2010 at 6:51 pm

  100. Obviously CL you have never experienced a bushfire or even a hazard reduction, otherwise you wouldnt persist with such outrageous nonsense

    rog

    January 5, 2010 at 8:37 pm

  101. It isn’t my opinion, you clown, it’s what happened. In the same conditions, a temperature of normal summer range would still have had the same result.

    C.L.

    January 5, 2010 at 8:46 pm

  102. What do you mean, “it’s what happened.”

    What happened was that a series of record breaking temperatures had reduced moisture content past a critical point.

    This is full text of what you posted

    The majority of the fires ignited and spread on a day of some of the worst bushfire-weather conditions ever recorded. Temperatures in the mid to high 40s (Celsius, approx. 110-120 degrees Fahrenheit) and wind speeds in excess of 100 km/h, precipitated by an intense heat wave, fanned the fires over large distances and areas, creating several large firestorms and pyrocumulus systems, particularly north-east of Melbourne, where a single firestorm accounted for 120 of the 173 deaths. A cool change hit the state in the early evening, bringing with it gale-force south-westerly winds in excess of 120 kilometres per hour (75 mph). This change in wind direction caused the long eastern flanks of the fires to become massive fire fronts that burned with incredible speed and ferocity towards towns that had earlier escaped the fires.

    rog

    January 5, 2010 at 9:36 pm

  103. “What happened was that a series of record breaking temperatures had reduced moisture content past a critical point.”

    Nonsense. January temp were average for the first three weeks. The lack of any rainfall throughout January combined with a stationary high in the Tasman Sea which drew hot NW winds across Victoria was the cause of the exceptionally high temp in late January and early Feb. If there were more moisture in the ground from rains the effect of evaporation would have been to lower temperatures even with the NWer we had. As Stewart Franks wrote recently in the Australian:

    When soil contains high moisture content, much of the sun’s energy is used in evaporation. Consequently, there is limited heating of the surface. When soil moisture content is low (as occurs during drought) nearly all of that energy is converted into heating the surface, and air temperatures rise significantly. Consequently, higher temperatures are due to the lack of evaporation, not a cause of significantly higher evaporation.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/emissions-not-making-rivers-run-dry/story-e6frg73o-1111117458497

    dover_beach

    January 5, 2010 at 11:46 pm

  104. DB

    if the temps were say around 35 deg in that week istead of in the 40’s and the moisture was the same, would we have experienced the same fire potential. My guess is that we would have, no?

    jc

    January 5, 2010 at 11:53 pm

  105. JC, I doubt it would have made much difference so far as the fires were concerned.

    dover_beach

    January 6, 2010 at 12:04 am

  106. I tend to agree, DB. This is essentially the point that Sinc was making in that it wasn’t exceptionally hot other that week in which there was a heatwave.

    The real issue was the dry spell as it hadn’t rained in the preceding month and the cinder box at the bottom of the forest that was allowed to fester principally due to green policies that in some cases bordered on misanthropic..

    I don’t much see a huge difference at 40+ deg day or a 36 deg day if the surrounding forest was dry as hell.

    jc

    January 6, 2010 at 12:21 am

  107. It wouldn’t have made any difference – there have been catastrophic bushfires in modern Australian history quite regardless of whether alleged “record” temperatures were in play. Warmenist ghouls like Peter Garrett are only interested in these tragedies insofar as they “prove” that man is responsible, evil and that we have to “do something” – like impose a massive new tax that won’t do anything about the temperature anyway. Ironically, it was high cool winds extraneous to the microclimate itself that fanned the Black Saturday fires. Most large bushfires are characterised by ‘perfect storm’ convergences of meteorological phenomena and always have been.

    C.L.

    January 6, 2010 at 12:22 am

  108. Cl:

    I would also add that the polices soaking through all local and state governments these days giving voice to actions that really cause harm and death of humans.

    There’s no way the forested areas should have been left the way they were. Furthermore the fact they are now taking action in terms of clearing and firebreaks speaks volumes about what happened on those fateful days and what was behind the lack of previous action.

    There should be a few heads rolling as a result of this. People should be charged with negligent homicide, others fired and a complete review held nation wide with the overriding objective that places humans first.. not last.

    I think we’ve had about enough of this environmental lunacy that doesn’t just border on misanthropic … it is. Humans must always come first..always.

    jc

    January 6, 2010 at 12:30 am

  109. U.S. shivers as temps head lower.

    (CNN) — Much of the nation got off to a frigid start to the workweek on Monday and below-freezing temperatures will threaten to break records in parts of the South on Tuesday morning.

    Hard freeze warnings were scheduled to be in effect Tuesday morning for much of northern Florida and parts of other Gulf Coast states, according to the National Weather Service.

    Lows could reach the teens Tuesday morning in parts of Alabama and Mississippi and the mid-20s in parts of Louisiana and northern Florida, according to the weather service. Record lows could be tied or set in those areas as well as parts of southern Georgia and Texas, CNN meteorologist Chad Myers said.

    Temperatures could get even colder later in the week, Myers and CNN meteorologist Sean Morris said.

    Elsewhere:

    East Texans could see coldest temperatures in 20 years.

    So it’s settled: “global warming” is baloney.

    C.L.

    January 6, 2010 at 12:34 am

  110. That’s right, JC. And that death toll shrinks compared to the people killed by the engineered bio-fuel famine. So-called environmentalism is slaughtering people around the globe.

    C.L.

    January 6, 2010 at 12:38 am

  111. CL:

    look, it’s good to be sceptical about this stuff as the moment some two bit goose begins talking about the moral issue of our times you just know it’s a religious cult. However there are plenty of decent scientists that have serious concerns about the long term effects of plastering all this shit in the atmosphere.

    Very cold weather in Texas doesn’t suggest there isn’t AGW as North American climate especially in the wintter is very much influenced by what is happening to the slip stream and where it is. If artctic weather patterns push it out of the way, you’ll end up with colder temps very far south.

    As I keep saying the threat of AGW is longer term and fuckers like Garret making stupid comments doesn’t help at all.

    It’s not a “moral issue”. It’s a management issue that humans need to deal with and one way to do so is to introduce nuclear energy into the mix.

    The problem with AGW is that the innumerate hard-left and the anti-consumer Luddites like Hives Hamilton have got on to it and ruining what should be decent policy to counter-act it. We could actually have a wealthier world with the right polices. Removing subsidies, eliminating farm produce barriers, stopping nimbies removing other people’s property rights.

    Example:

    Europe’s bread basket should be Africa, yet EU farm policies prevent potentially far more efficient production of food supply from entering the region. Efficiency promoting policies and adding nuclear energy to the mix would make huge inroads into virtually eliminating high emission levels.

    Lastly I look at this issue as a signal of success in that so many more people are joining the richer world which is a wonderful thing.

    With the right policies we could have very high GDP growth potential and lower emissions at the same time. It would be a twofer.

    jc

    January 6, 2010 at 12:55 am

  112. That’s right, JC. And that death toll shrinks compared to the people killed by the engineered bio-fuel famine. So-called environmentalism is slaughtering people around the globe.

    True and the bastards advocating this crap ought to be thrown in front to the international criminal court for crimes against humanity.

    jc

    January 6, 2010 at 1:00 am

  113. Tim Blair reminds me of that ClimateGate revelation on Australian temperature “records”:

    I am seriously worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced by Delaunay triangulation – apparently linear as well. As far as I can see, this renders the station counts totally meaningless. It also means that we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived at from a statistical perspective – since we’re using an off-the-shelf product that isn’t documented sufficiently to say that. Why this wasn’t coded up in Fortran I don’t know – time pressures perhaps? Was too much effort expended on homogenisation, that there wasn’t enough time to write a gridding procedure? Of course, it’s too late for me to fix it too. Meh.

    I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that’s the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight… So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!

    Speaks for itself really. Garbage.

    C.L.

    January 6, 2010 at 1:37 am

  114. Global warming emergency in England:

    Met Office warns of 40cm of snow within hours in South East.

    Every county in Britain was made the subject of a Met Office severe weather warning today as hundreds of schools were forced to close, airports cancelled flights and forecasters predicted that heavy snowfalls today would blanket the country.

    Meteorologists predicted that the severe cold snap, dominated by icy winds blowing in from Scandinavia, would continue to blight Britain for the foreseeable future.

    C.L.

    January 6, 2010 at 2:19 am

  115. The record breaking temperatures turned a summer bushfire into a disaster. The IPCC have addressed this situation;

    an increase in fire danger in Australia is likely to be associated with a reduced interval between fires, increased fire intensity, a decrease in fire extinguishments and faster fire spread. In south-east Australia, the frequency of very high and extreme fire danger days is likely to rise 4-25% by 2020 and 15-70% by 2050.

    rog

    January 6, 2010 at 7:18 am

  116. You are probably unaware of this CL but everything that you post on snow storms etc validates climate change.

    rog

    January 6, 2010 at 7:33 am

  117. “The record breaking temperatures turned a summer bushfire into a disaster.”

    Nonsense, again. The SW wind change combined with the lack of moisture turned a summer bushfire into a disaster. And you continue to imagine that extremely high temp lead to a decline in soil moisture when in fact it is an extended period of no rainfall which leads to a decline in soil moisture which then leads to high temps due to the lack of evaporation.

    dover_beach

    January 6, 2010 at 8:32 am

  118. You guys are arguing about nothing at the moment.

    As a time series goes on, the central tendency gets stronger, but the range of the variance increases.

    Rog – ask a fire fighter if fuel load is irrelevant. You are just ignoring now for the purposes of an argument.

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 6, 2010 at 9:09 am

  119. “You are probably unaware of this CL but everything that you post on snow storms etc validates climate change.”

    Yes, I see that the Independent is holding a similar line on this:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/no-conflict-between-big-freeze-and-climate-change-1858530.html

    Curiously, the article paraphrasing Dr Dorling wrote:

    But he said it was wrong to focus on single events – whether they were cold snaps or heat waves – which were the product of natural variability.

    If this or that heat wave or cold wave is the “product of natural variability” how can either of them “validate” climate change?

    dover_beach

    January 6, 2010 at 9:12 am

  120. “As a time series goes on, the central tendency gets stronger, but the range of the variance increases.”

    SRL, that’s true of the models but shouldn’t necessarily be true of the actual data. BTW, you might find the following post interesting:

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/01/warming-trends-in-england-from-1659.html#more

    dover_beach

    January 6, 2010 at 9:21 am

  121. “Rog – ask a fire fighter if fuel load is irrelevant.”

    I am one.

    Fuel load is important but humidity and heat are critical – a moist bush is hard to burn.

    Normally as evening approaches temps drop and relative humidity increases and the fires die down.

    rog

    January 6, 2010 at 9:28 am

  122. How big can a bushfire get if there is clearing of the load?

    What is more important? Above average summer temperatures or an exceptionally large fuel load?

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 6, 2010 at 9:32 am

  123. Rog:

    And most likely the BoM wrote that nonsense in the IPCC, which after the Pachauri shenanigans is about as useful as a bowel of curry during a bout with diarrhea.

    jc

    January 6, 2010 at 9:32 am

  124. Moisture is the most important factor. If the bushland is moist, temps would be lower than they would otherwise be and the fuel load, because it is moist, would be harder to set fire and burn. Its pretty straightforward.

    dover_beach

    January 6, 2010 at 9:39 am

  125. DB,

    I think JC is right. Treat climate change as a management problem and people don’t get hysterical. My biggest wish would be for analysts just to analyse the raw data without mucking about with it. That’s where inaccuracies begin. Unless your data is compromised, don’t do it, and know the right procedure to use to correct or analyse it. In my work I’ve never had to correct for data. It is something to be done in very extreme circumstances. Not at all is my preference.

    re the comments on that blog – That Tamino character – I asked him about how he dealt with cointegration and then he lectured me about autocorrelation.

    How not to convince someone – piss in their pocket.

    …and no Rog I don’t mean to piss in your’s either.

    Liam Sheahan’s case simply points out the importance of fuel load…though later down a fire chief mentions how dry it was:

    “LIAM SHEAHAN: We believe we were doing the right thing, and, I think, it’s the fact that we’re the only house standing within two kilometres probably vindicates that position. Um, you know, we’re still, I wouldn’t say bitter and twisted, but we’re still not happy about what the council did to us and the effect it’s had on our lives.”

    http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2493038.htm

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 6, 2010 at 9:43 am

  126. “I think JC is right. Treat climate change as a management problem and people don’t get hysterical.”

    I more or less agree with this, SRL. I’m an adaptationist; but lets be clear, treating this as a management problem will not stop people getting hysterical. People actually enjoy prophesying catastrophe.

    dover_beach

    January 6, 2010 at 9:52 am

  127. You havent read the IPCC report JC so how would you know?

    rog

    January 6, 2010 at 10:00 am

  128. I forgot – ignorance begets prejudice

    rog

    January 6, 2010 at 10:01 am

  129. ““I think JC is right. Treat climate change as a management problem ..”

    So you are now saying that there is climate change?

    CL wont be happy

    rog

    January 6, 2010 at 10:02 am

  130. “So you are now saying that there is climate change?

    CL wont be happy”

    I have always accepted that the climate changes; apparently you weren’t listening. What I’ve questioned is the claim that GHGs dominate the climate and that the current warming is driven by GHGs. So far as CL is concerned, if memory serves, he himself accepts much the same thing. I hope this makes my position clearer for you, Rog.

    dover_beach

    January 6, 2010 at 10:08 am

  131. Now you admit to “current warming”

    CL thinks its all just a wank, So it’s settled: “global warming” is baloney.

    rog

    January 6, 2010 at 10:28 am

  132. DB agrees with the IPCC

    “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.”

    rog

    January 6, 2010 at 10:30 am

  133. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm

    Knorr, W. Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing? Geophysical Research Letters, 2009; 36 (21): L21710 DOI: 10.1029/2009GL040613

    No Rise of Airborne Fraction of Carbon Dioxide in Past 150 Years, New Research Finds

    ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009)

    “New research finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades, contrary to some recent studies.”

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 6, 2010 at 10:32 am

  134. rog, those two statements aren’t necessarily contradictory. “global warming” often means catastrophic, man-made global warming; while “warming of the climate system” refers to an observable, modest increase in temperature.
    .
    incidentally, please stop trying to educate us with links and references to realclimate, IPCC, and the like. None of that is news. It’s not like there’s some critical piece of evidence that skeptics don’t know about. Instead, the exercise seems to be intended to remind us that important, smart people are advocating the AGW position and we should be more respectful and listen to them.

    daddy dave

    January 6, 2010 at 11:01 am

  135. So what are you saying SRL, the IPCC were right?

    There is yet no statistically significant trend in the CO2 growth rate since 1958 …. This ‘airborne fraction’ has shown little variation over this period.”

    IPCC 2007

    You have to accept that there is a diff between ‘airborne fraction of CO2 emissions’ and ‘CO2 fraction in the air’

    rog

    January 6, 2010 at 11:05 am

  136. “Now you admit to “current warming”

    CL thinks its all just a wank, So it’s settled: “global warming” is baloney.”

    Rog, when will you stop fabricating strawmen? You’ve conflated the explanation of the current warming with the warming itself. CL thinks the explanation of the current warming is a ‘wank’, not the current warming; well, that is how I understand him. He can correct me if I’ve misinterpreted him.

    “DB agrees with the IPCC

    “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.”

    And yet, people such as myself, and I include Lindzen, McIntyre, Pielke Snr, and the like, are considered ‘sceptics’, nay, even ‘denialists’ and yet we more or less accept that temps have risen slightly since 1880. Why is that?

    dover_beach

    January 6, 2010 at 11:05 am

  137. Rog,

    When comes to the policy, the IPCC may be irrelevant.

    What such a study infers is that calculating the costs per unit of CO2 emitted may be complicated further.

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 6, 2010 at 11:08 am

  138. DD, you should check your definition of ‘global warming’, I think it is much the same as ‘warming of the climate’

    “Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of Earth’s near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation.”

    rog

    January 6, 2010 at 11:08 am

  139. SRL, you quote Knorr and then when it is demonstrated that Know and the IPCC are in agreement diss the IPCC.

    You are prejudiced against the IPCC

    rog

    January 6, 2010 at 11:10 am

  140. You havent read the IPCC report JC so how would you know?

    I actually read the front section that was the introduction of the report, Rog, as the rest was basically too complex for a layman. But of course a climate scietist builder such as yourself would have found it easy going and can recite every page, right?

    I have already explained to you that the aspect being discussed was most likely included as a result of workings by the BoM which this thread shows has a bias towards pushing the alarmist line when none is needed.

    jc

    January 6, 2010 at 11:16 am

  141. “So what are you saying SRL, the IPCC were right?

    There is yet no statistically significant trend in the CO2 growth rate since 1958 …. This ‘airborne fraction’ has shown little variation over this period.””

    The problem here is in the detail. The IPCC AR4 reports that the data indicates no increase in the airborne fraction since records were kept. This new report confirms this and it counters studies that have followed since 2007 that have reported an increase and/or the near saturation of carbon sinks. So far so good for the IPCC AR4. The problem for IPCC, however, concerns what it’s own models, or at least those it includes in it’s report, project and that is an increase in the airborne fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere. That, according to the data, not the models, reproduced in AR4 and now Knorr’s study, is not happening. Why?

    dover_beach

    January 6, 2010 at 11:18 am

  142. Does he give possible reasons why that isn’t happening, DB. Could it be that it’s sinking into the ocean?

    jc

    January 6, 2010 at 11:20 am

  143. “Does he give possible reasons why that isn’t happening, DB. Could it be that it’s sinking into the ocean?”

    JC, I don’t know if he does. I imagine that the available carbon sinks do what they always do in order to keep the airborne fraction of CO2 more or less the same.

    dover_beach

    January 6, 2010 at 11:26 am

  144. You are prejudiced against the IPCC

    Whereas you find Pachauri’s involvement and his later actions, Phil Jones involvement and his later a actions, Michael Mann’s involvement and his later actions, HadCRU involvement and later actions not a cause of concern in terms of totally relying on the IPCC.

    I would argue that although the IPCC hasn’t yet been discredited in the same way as Lancet there are serious issues with its reliability and everything in the report needs to be verified (audited) so that we are able to tell for certain. Nothing Pachauri (it’s chairman) or any of those others can be trusted about anything they say and therefore requires verification.

    This doesn’t of course man that AGW isn’t real to me. What it does mean is that climate science needs to be yanked out of the hands of the zealots and crooks.

    jc

    January 6, 2010 at 11:28 am

  145. I imagine that the available carbon sinks do what they always do in order to keep the airborne fraction of CO2 more or less the same.

    That’s pretty interesting. However there have been arguments/suggestions that a lot of it has been collected by the oceans which could be about right.

    jc

    January 6, 2010 at 11:30 am

  146. Ocean acidification is a problem. So is GW. So is overfishing.

    Iron seeding solved all three problems.

    It was banned under UN convention due to breaching the “precautionary principle”.

    Anything that is cheap and effective is deemed as dangerous.

    If I am biased against the IPCC, this is why rog: Their policy suggestions always aim for something that is costly and may not be that effective.

    Iron seeding was cheap and extremely effective.

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 6, 2010 at 11:35 am

  147. That’s pretty interesting. However there have been arguments/suggestions that a lot of it has been collected by the oceans which could be about right.

    Its well accepted that the ocean collects a lot, the estimate is that 45% of emissions fo into the atmosphere and the remainder gets absorbed in various ways. There is a not unreasonable belief that this fraction would increase as other collections become saturated, which apparently some people claim to have found, but he’s claiming that it doesn’t appear to be, most likely as these other mechanisms aren’t as saturated as was thought or have additional responses that we don’t understand.

    Steve Edney

    January 6, 2010 at 11:43 am

  148. C.L.

    January 6, 2010 at 11:45 am

  149. “If I am biased against the IPCC, this is why rog: Their policy suggestions always aim for something that is costly and may not be that effective.”

    The IPCC isn’t a policy-making institution. It is expressly forbidden to promote any sort of policy. If it is doing so, and Pachauri seems to be have been doing so lately, he should be asked to resign his position since he has gone beyond the charter of the institution he chairs. And from all accounts made a pretty penny while doing so.

    dover_beach

    January 6, 2010 at 11:48 am

  150. …everything that you post on snow storms etc validates climate change.

    Of course it does to you, Mrs Edelsten. One of the other ladies at a tea ‘n scone party told you that was the talking point she saw in New Idea magazine.

    I forgot – ignorance begets prejudice.

    Rog blamed Mary Mackillop in a warmening debate a few weeks ago.

    C.L.

    January 6, 2010 at 11:50 am

  151. That’s a great point, Semi L. They simply stopped important attempts such as iron seeding to find technical solutions to the problem.
    ———–

    Further point… going back to the thread.

    If the BoM/IPCC predicted the likely movement in our climate as they suggest they have, then why weren’t they warning about the combo of high fuel levels/ higher then normal temps and less moisture well before the fires ravaged the area.

    If anything the BoM report the thread cites is even more freaking damning of the authorities and the lack of action (that could even be deemed deliberate now after BoM cmments) steering me to be think there is a decent case of negligent homicide.

    In summary if people believe in AGW and the localized effects in the southern part of Australia the state government and the relevant authorities should have acted aggressively to clean out the undergrowth + fuel and create more fire breaks.

    It’s fucking appalling that given the information available no head is rolling after almost 200 people died.

    This report isn’t “good” for the state government, the environment minister at the time and anyone involved in dealing with these issues.

    It’s no fucking good saying AGW is responsible for this and then leaving all that fuel there and then not even thinking of ways to manage people in the case of such danger.

    jc

    January 6, 2010 at 11:50 am

  152. If it is doing so, and Pachauri seems to be have been doing so lately, he should be asked to resign his position since he has gone beyond the charter of the institution he chairs.

    Pachauri seems to be doing so as it may be causing his bank balance to rise materially. The conflicts of interest with this fucker are enormous. He’s now joined a major private equity firm specializing in areas such as renewable energy technologies which are receiving massive subsidies from the US government and many others.

    While lefties such as Tim Lambert etc were trying to determine if people like Dick lindzen had ever smoked in their youth, they remain silent of Doc Pachauri’s real conflicting interests and judging by his action we know which way the Pach will turn if he sees a buck on the table.

    jc

    January 6, 2010 at 11:57 am

  153. AGW is to an environment minister what ManBearPig would be to a Police Minister in the midst of a crime wave: a convenient excuse. Someone asked in another thread why Indian students were being targeted: because of ManBearPig; I’m cereal, I’m super cereal.

    dover_beach

    January 6, 2010 at 11:59 am

  154. the conservatives who oppose strong GHG reductions — who say humanity’s best strategy is just to try to adapt to climate change — are best labeled “big government conservatives.”

    rog

    January 6, 2010 at 12:22 pm

  155. This is an excellent post on how the IPCC Working Group II’s report systematically underestimates adaptive capacity in order, it seems, to overestimate the impact of global warming:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/05/socioeconomic-impacts-of-global-warming-are-systematically-overestimated/#more-14861

    It’s worth the read.

    dover_beach

    January 6, 2010 at 12:23 pm

  156. Rog – if we removed Big Government regulations and bias against nuclear 30 years ago, we’d be using nuclear and maybe have a nuclear powered economy.

    Hardly a “big Government conservative” agenda, simply abolishing red tape…

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 6, 2010 at 12:26 pm

  157. “the conservatives who oppose strong GHG reductions — who say humanity’s best strategy is just to try to adapt to climate change — are best labeled “big government conservatives.”

    Who are you quoting? And it is moreover, nonsense.

    dover_beach

    January 6, 2010 at 12:29 pm

  158. I think Rog has been attending one too many green party meetings.

    jc

    January 6, 2010 at 12:31 pm

  159. Dr. Joseph Romm

    rog

    January 6, 2010 at 12:31 pm

  160. Well if Romm says that then he’s and idiot. Clear and simple.

    What’s with the Dr. ahead of his name, Rog. Anyone who uses Dr. and isn’t a medical doc is trying to put on airs they don’t deserve.

    jc

    January 6, 2010 at 12:34 pm

  161. From wiki:

    “The New York Times also quoted Romm as stating: “A necessary, but not sufficient, condition for a crisis to be [seen as grave] is that it must be labeled as such by very serious people who are perceived as essentially nonpartisan opinion leaders…. We will need a WWII-style approach”. The article noted Romm’s belief that “credible people” and the press should publicly support the notion that government action is needed to help solve the global warming crisis. In particular, the press should explain how current stories, such as hurricanes, droughts and insect infestations are related to global warming.”

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 6, 2010 at 12:39 pm

  162. Joe Romm of Climate Progress. The guy that recently attacked and was in turn mauled by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, that Dr. Joseph Romm?

    http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/debate_with_joe_romm/

    Rog is now taking his talking points from a Democrat hack on the infelicities of conservatism and global warming.

    dover_beach

    January 6, 2010 at 12:39 pm

  163. Romm is a physicist not a climate scientist and doesn’t seem to have any proper training to be making these sorts of predictions.

    Romm’s 2006 book Hell and High Water claims that humans have a window of opportunity of only about a decade to head off the most catastrophic effects of global warming. It calls upon Americans to demand government action to encourage and require the use of current emission-cutting technologies

    Which doesn’t look good.

    Romm is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress[30] where he maintains their climate blog

    CAP is a left wing org. started by John Podesta who is a former high level Clinton official.

    Rog, we’re sick of political operators in the debate.

    jc

    January 6, 2010 at 12:44 pm

  164. And who is this Michael Shellenberger character?

    Michael Shellenberger (b. June 16, 1971) is an author and political strategist.

    Oh, good stuff DB

    rog

    January 6, 2010 at 12:45 pm

  165. ..the conservatives who oppose strong GHG reductions — who say humanity’s best strategy is just to try to adapt to climate change — are best labeled “big government conservatives.

    The quote – from this hilarious attempt at a switcheroo (combatting climate change will make government smaller!) – is from the ‘Climate Progress” website of the George Soros-funded “Center for American Progress.” Its most notable idea to date was to fine politically disobedient conservative media outlets and use the money to finance public broadcasting.

    This is where Rog is now – in hubbie Geoffrey’s helicopter dropping in for Kool Aid with George Soros.

    C.L.

    January 6, 2010 at 12:45 pm

  166. “Rog, we’re sick of political operators in the debate.”

    In 1996 Shellenberger co-founded Communication Works, a progressive public relations firm.[8] By 2001, now “California’s largest public interest communications firm”,[9] it merged with Fenton Communications, “the country’s largest progressive PR and advertising agency”.[9] Communication Works worked on a wide range of campaigns, from challenging Nike over its labor practices in Asia, to saving the Headwaters Redwood forest.[9]

    In 2002 Shellenberger co-founded the public relations firm Lumina Strategies.[10] Its clients included Global Exchange, Americans United for Affirmative Action, the Ford Foundation, and the Sierra Club.[11] In 2004 Lumina was contracted by the Venezuela Information Office to lobby for the Venezuelan government and improve Hugo Chavez’s image in the United States.[12][13]

    In 2005 Shellenberger and Nordhaus co-founded American Environics,[14] whose clients include AARP, Earthjustice, the Ford Foundation, and the Nathan Cummings Foundation.[citation needed] He and Nordhaus also co-founded the Breakthrough Institute,[15] a think tank that works on energy and climate change, health care, social inequality, and human rights.[4]
    [edit]

    Back to the ironing JC

    rog

    January 6, 2010 at 12:47 pm

  167. At last a use for Al Gore’s latest work:

    In freezing England…

    Pensioners burn books for warmth

    C.L.

    January 6, 2010 at 12:50 pm

  168. At last a use for Al Gore’s latest work:

    In freezing England…

    Pensioners burn books for warmth.

    C.L.

    January 6, 2010 at 12:51 pm

  169. Rog,

    Shellenberger is also an influential liberal democrat and thinks Romm’s command and control solution is nutty.

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 6, 2010 at 12:55 pm

  170. Rog:

    But never quoted Shellenberger, you fucking moron. Go take a look upthread. I never mentioned him.

    Unlike you I wouldn’t be quoting say Newt Gingrich political action group as a source of evidence that the left are straying from their political leanings, you fucking idiot.

    Romm isn’t a “disinterested scientist” in all this, he’s a political operator in the same way as any untrained person would be attached to a right wing group.

    I really don’t understand why you participate in these discussions as you even less cognitively equipped than your neighbor (homer).

    (it’s truly amazing that you are now quoting a Soros fund astro-turf operation giving right wingers advice in their propler behavior.

    Back to the ironing JC

    Fine, but only if you pay back your creditors.

    jc

    January 6, 2010 at 12:58 pm

  171. So what?

    Shellenberger is a hired gun

    rog

    January 6, 2010 at 1:01 pm

  172. This is where Rog is now – in hubbie Geoffrey’s helicopter dropping in for Kool Aid with George Soros.

    Is there a name change that goes with it……

    Mrs. Rogette Edelsten.

    jc

    January 6, 2010 at 1:01 pm

  173. Rogette says:

    So what?

    Shellenberger is a hired gun

    And Romm isn’t? Are you nuts?

    jc

    January 6, 2010 at 1:03 pm

  174. We might all be eaten by polar bears…

    Soros-funded loony, Joseph Romm:

    I used to worry about the polar bear. But then some naturalists told me that once human-caused global warming has completely eliminated their feeding habitat — the polar ice, probably by 2020, possibly sooner — polar bears will just go about the business of coming inland and attacking humans and eating our food and maybe even us. That seems only fair, no?

    I am a cat lover, but you can’t really worry about them. Cats are survivors. Remember the movie “Alien”? For better or worse, cats have hitched their future to humans, and while we seem poised to wipe out half the species on the planet, cats will do just fine.

    Apparently there are some plankton that thrive on an acidic environment, so it doesn’t look like we’re going to wipe out all life in the ocean, just most of it. Sure, losing Pacific salmon is going to be a bummer, but I eat Pacific salmon several times a week, so I don’t see how I’m in a position to march on the nation’s capital to protest their extinction. I won’t eat farm-raised salmon, though, since my doctor says I get enough antibiotics from the tap water.

    If thousands of inedible species can’t adapt to our monomaniacal quest to return every last bit of fossil carbon back into the atmosphere, why should we care? Other species will do just fine, like kudzu, cactus, cockroaches, rats, scorpions, the bark beetle, Anopheles mosquitoes and the malaria parasites they harbor. Who are we to pick favorites?

    As for glaciers, when they disappear, sea levels rise, perhaps as much as two inches a year by century’s end. If we warm even 3°C from pre-industrial levels, we will return the planet to a time when sea levels were ultimately 80 feet higher. The first five feet of sea level rise, which seems increasingly to occur this century on our current emissions path, would displace more than 100 million people. That would be the equivalent of 200 Katrinas. Since my brother lost his home in Katrina, I don’t consider this to be an abstract issue.

    This bloke requires medical intervention.

    C.L.

    January 6, 2010 at 1:08 pm

  175. Rog,

    So is Romm.

    Ignore the politics. Ignore the claims of who funds who.

    Romm wants a command and control, war economy from 2010-2020 to manage climate change, or he thinks we are doomed in 2021.

    Whereas the IPCC predict half a foot to two and a half feet of global sea level rises without mitigation.

    Romm et. al., would be more credible if they didn’t shut down ideas like iron seeding.

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 6, 2010 at 1:08 pm

  176. Dance around naked CL that’ll fix it

    tal

    January 6, 2010 at 1:11 pm

  177. Commenter at ABC Online on yesterday’s Garrett/BOM beatup:

    This is why the Government’s ETS must be passed, especially after Copenhagen fell over.

    The need is more pressing than ever, we need to stop droughts and severe storms right now.

    C.L.

    January 6, 2010 at 1:32 pm

  178. No kidding, but has everyone in the western world become a fully qualified climate scientist now? This is getting to be really freaking ridiculous.

    Everyone’s a freaking expert now.

    —————–

    I implore people to listen to this vid with Dick Lindzen speaking for a decent part of the time.

    As he said, we’re talking about analyzing tiny incremental shifts in global temps over a century and it’s particularly difficult to offer any linearity assumptions in a non-linear environment.

    http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/730

    It goes for about two hours so one can break it up to watch it, but it’s very worthwhile particularly question time at the end. One can scan for Lindzen’s talk and then listen to the Q&A from the MIT audience.

    jc

    January 6, 2010 at 1:42 pm

  179. Everyone in the western world has a Phd in climate science as their birth right. It’s amazing.

    jc

    January 6, 2010 at 1:44 pm

  180. “And who is this Michael Shellenberger character?

    Michael Shellenberger (b. June 16, 1971) is an author and political strategist.

    Oh, good stuff DB”

    You’ve become a rather grubby character haven’t you, Rog? I didn’t produce Schellenberger and Nordhaus as authorities beyond that of Romm; I linked to a series of posts in which by argument they evicerated Romm.

    dover_beach

    January 6, 2010 at 1:46 pm

  181. DB:

    Rog is unavailable at the moment on account of traveling with hubby Geofrey on their helicopter to a secluded romantic destination spot in the Victorian high country.

    jc

    January 6, 2010 at 1:48 pm

  182. C.L.

    January 7, 2010 at 2:25 am

  183. Peter Lang’s comments at Barry Brook’s website are worth reading about nuclear energy. Peter is hard at it pushing to introduce nuclear to Australia.

    http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/01/02/investment-we-arent-making/#comment-41878

    jc

    January 7, 2010 at 3:31 am

  184. Here is an excellent follow-up By Indur Goklany on socioenconomic impacts of AGW:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/06/socioeconomic-impacts-of-global-warming-are-systematically-overestimated-part-ii-how-large-might-be-the-overestimation/

    My choice cut:

    Figure 3: Net GDP per capita, 1990-2200, after accounting for losses due to global warming for four major IPCC emission and climate scenarios. For 2100 and 2200, the scenarios are arranged from the warmest (A1FI) on the left to the coolest (B1) on the right. The average global temperature increase from 1990 to 2085 for the scenarios are as follows: 4°C for AIFI, 3.3°C for A2, 2.4°C for B2, and 2.1°C for B1. For context, in 2006, GDP per capita for industrialized countries was $19,300; the United States, $30,100; and developing countries, $1,500 (all in 1990 US$). Source: Goklany (2009a).

    Figure 3 shows that under the warmest scenario (A1FI), the scenario that prompts much of the apocalyptic visions of global warming, net GDP per capita of inhabitants of developing countries in 2100 ($61,500) will be double that of the US in 2006 ($30,100). Therefore, by 2100, developing countries’ adaptive capacity should on average be far greater than the US’s today merely on the basis of higher GDP per capita!

    [By 2200, the net GDP per capita of today’s developing countries will be almost triple the US’ in 2006 ($86,200 versus $30,100).]

    Thus, the problems of poverty that warming would exacerbate (e.g., low agricultural productivity, hunger, malnutrition, malaria and other vector borne diseases) ought to be substantially reduced if not eliminated by 2100, even if one ignores any secular technological change that ought to occur in the interim. Tol and Dowlatabadi (2001), for example, show that malaria has been functionally eliminated in a society whose annual per capita income reaches $3,100. Therefore, even under the poorest scenario (A2), developing countries should be free of malaria well before 2100, even assuming no technological change in the interim. Similarly, if the average net GDP per capita in 2100 for developing countries is $10,000–$82,000, then their farmers would be able to afford technologies that are unaffordable today (e.g., precision agriculture) or new technologies that should come on line by then (e.g., drought resistant seeds). But, since impact assessments generally fail to fully factor in increases in economic development (and technological change), they substantially overestimate future net damages from global warming (see Part I).

    Note that Figure 3 shows that through 2200, notwithstanding global warming, net GDP per capita will be highest under the warmest scenario, and lowest under the poorest scenario (A2). This suggests that if humanity has a choice of development paths, it ought to strive to take the path with the highest economic growth. That is, a richer-but-warmer world is better than poorer-but-cooler worlds.

    The case for mitigation, to coin a phrase, “sleeps with the fishes”.

    dover_beach

    January 7, 2010 at 2:53 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: