Buy
Books
Click images for more details
Currently discussing
-
Nov 19 - Barbie Jacket
on
Need an economic adviser? Here are 5 ideas for finding the very best one -
Nov 11 - US Design Hub
on
Launched my very own online store.
Links
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
-
Science blogs
-
Political blogs
-
Other blogs
Subscribe
Bishop Hill
Copyright © 2006-2013, Bishop Hill All rights reserved.
Reader Comments (54)
First snow in Copenhagen, now this. You'd almost think the Gods were trying to tell us something...........
Tee Hee
Ah, yes, but that would be weather, not climate. And it might not just be a 'snap', this could go on for a long time. What do the Met Office say about it today?
"As we head into December and take a look at the Met Office outlook, there appears to be no abrupt end to this cold and snowy weather for some time, but as soon as our forecasters see a change we will let you know."
In other words, we've no idea, and aren't going to stick our necks out.
Whereas at least Piers Corbyn has stuck his neck out and he predicts (November 30):
"Winter Dec to Feb inclusive in Britain and Europe will be exceptionally cold and snowy – like hell frozen over at times - with much of England, Germany, Benelux and N France suffering one of the coldest winters for over 100 years. It is expected that two of the three months
Dec, Jan & Feb are likely to be in the three coldest for a 100 years (eg using Central England Temperatures)."
It is absolutely delicious!
For even more fun, read about what the guardian has to say regarding Cancun COP16
Fun and Games in Cancun
Bish, I hesitate, but isn't it 'Steven'?
[Thnx - fixed.]
Also note that it's going to be a bit parky in Scotland tonight and some trains have stopped working.
Much more of this and you might consider a temporary rebranding as Bishop Chill.
(Apologies if someone else has already suggested this).
It's all in the words. Why can't we have cold waves and hot snaps?
La Papa, according to the Met Office web page What can climate scientists tell us about the future? is their "Head of Climate Change Advice" .
I found this page interesting - I felt it was a page of pure baloney dressed up as established and confirmed fact.
It includes nonsense such as:
Climate scientists use evidence from observations of the past climate, and from computer models of the climate, to produce projections of the future. Projections are made using climate models derived from the laws of physics. A well-established set of equations result from the physical laws governing the climate and these are solved for a three-dimensional grid that spans the globe. The observations are then used to make an independent check on whether the models are good enough.
It's simply a fallacy that checking that a model of a physical system can reproduce the observations used to tune it validates its ability to make predict the future behaviour of the system.
The Met Office say they use essentially the same basic model for predicting weather as they use for predicting climate change. So their inability to predict a few weeks ahead really does say something significant about their forecasts of the climate decades ahead.
In "About Dr Vicky Pope" it states "In the 1980s and early 1990s worked on the ozone hole".
"evidence...from models".
This clipper is enough for the IPCC's claws.
Northern Europe is frozen, all right, but it is late autumn anyway. What about Patagonia, now close to summer? Well, it is definitely less warmth than usual. Tourists have died from exposure near a Southern Argentina glacier, and several others are stranded in the vicinity. Quite rare occurrences at this time of year. See report in Spanish at http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1330430. At the same time, the Buenos Aires spring has been unusually cool, with min temps about 6°C to 8°C as recently as one or two weeks ago, at a time of year when normally all air conditioners are on due to stifling heat.
Airport closures
Why can't they modify an old jet so that its thrust aims a bit more down, run it up and down a runway a few times and blow away/melt the snow?
I believe there is peer reviewed literature that proves it works on airport thermometers.
Alternatively, I think the UK has a few Harrier jump jets at the moment that are surplus to requirements...
It's been a tough day, and that's given me a *real* laugh.
Right now, on the Isle of Wight, which normally has a very temperate marine climate a degree or two warmer than the nearby mainland (the North Island), it is -7 deg.C and falling after a glorious sunny afternoon. According to the Met.Office, it should be -2, although a couple of days ago they were forecasting -5. I guess someone there looked at that and thought they'd better revise it...
Mild Winter ----> AGW, we told you so.
Extreme Winter -----> AGW, we told you so (though admittedly we may not have explained the mechanism fully before.)
Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.
"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.
"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.
Yet the weather back in new Zealand has parts experiencing beatuiful 30 degree days.
I'm stuck at gatwick and would rather the planet got hotter instead of colder!!!
Regards
Mailman
What, do we think, is the strongest rebuttal to the assertion that '2010 is provisionally tied with 1998 as the hottest year on record'? Lack of / accuracy of temperature measuring stations?
Isn't it a bit premature to announce the status of the year before it has finished? I have to say that I'm not too clear how 'global' temperatures are arrived at - I believe it uses a grid system, but I bet there's lots of weighting according to someone's perception of 'importance' of different areas, or maybe just the number of thermometers...
I've read this claim before about 2010 being one of the hottest years ever recorded. Does that claim stack up when considered globally - is there actually good evidence of this or more smoke and mirrors?
Prince Chuckles is carrying on with his subversive campaign to persuade everyone of the obvious benefits of abolishing the monarchy. Even the Team must wish he'd shut up.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/8179485/Prince-Charles-backs-Climategate-scientists.html
More strength to his elbow!
I don't think he would be a sensible candidate for sitting on the "throne" at my local pub.
Serge - have a look at
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/11/oct-2010-uah-global-temperature-update-0-42-deg-c/
James P and others
What is so premature about announcements to day, when they have comtrol over the raw data, and can adjust anyway they like..
They know next year won't be as hot as 2010, and it has nothing to do with rising CO2
2010 - the hottest year ever - according to the models.
So this woman, who is one of the main spouters of AGW BS, was prepared to fly all the way to Cancun, her plane spwewing out god knows how much CO2in the process, only to announce that 2010 was equal hottest year ever? (according to them, that is.) Does anyone else see the irony here?
Global Warming Karma for sure . . .
The unflyability of the Pope?
Serge - an even more recent update just put up
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/12/nov-2010-uah-global-temperature-update-0-38-deg-c/
@clivere
January was cooler than January in 2007, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002 and 1998.
February was cooler than February in 2007, 2004, 2002, and 1998.
March was exceptionally warm at a temperature anomaly of 0.971. However it was, given the errors, statistically comparable with March 2008 (0.907) and March 1990 (0.910).
April was cooler than April 2007, 2005, and 1998.
May was cooler than May 2003 and 1998.
June was exceptionally warm at 0.827 deg C though statistically identical to June 2005 (0.825) and 1998.
July, when things started to cool, was cooler than July 2006, 2005 and 1998.
August was cooler than August 2009, about the same as 2005, and cooler than 2001 and 1998.
September was cooler than September 2009, 2007, 2005, 2001 and 1998.
October the last month for which there are records was cooler than October 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003 and 1998.
see here:
http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/1973-2010-an-unexceptional-el-nino-year.html
I know that we are having cold weather here but some places have had it hot and that we are talking averages across the whole of the globe. I also understand that science can often be counter-intuitive and that the truth can sometimes seem paradoxical and perplexing. Having said all that, I wonder if all this snow is sowing any seeds of doubt in the minds of the faithful? Is there a chance that at least some climate scientists, freezing their butts off, waist deep in snow are going to have a Road to Damascas moment and suddenly scream 'who the hell are we trying to kid'?
I notice that the 'record' is being modified on a daily basis...
A few days ago 2010 was 'the second hottest on record'. Then it was 'one of the three hottest on record'...
Watch out for 'probably one of the top ten hottest on record'..
ANYWAY - since records only began in the mid-19th century - aren't we being just a bit arrogant about our miniscule period in the history of Earth..? Isn't it a bit like saying: 'We only started building houses last week'..?
Also - have you spotted the comment that: 'CO2 didn't go down as much as expected' (due to the recession). You don't think, do you, that it shows that there is only a very loose connection between CO2 output and man's activity..?
If you get the chance, listen to this weeks "The Now Show"
Just over half-way, Marcus Brigstock gets to rant about AGW.
He's a true-believer, of course, but I found his piece very funny.
Not for the reasons he meant but 180 degrees out of phase.
If your blood-pressure can stand it, give it a listen.
Seems to me that a better sceptical approach to, ahem, denying the 'hottest year on record' claim (which, it appears from the data of a sceptic, Dr. Roy Spencer, may well turn out to be true) is to emphasise the very limited time frame we're talking about and the miniscule statistical differences involved. This, in general, seems to be the approach Lindzen takes. Otherwise, we risk being ridiculed along the lines of the Daily Mash article discussed recently on here.
DoughieJ
If you mean me, I'm not denying anything. The figures are global average surface temps from CRUTEM3:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/crutem3gl.txt
Spencer is looking at tropospheric temperatures, and the El Nino shows up more strongly in the troposphere.
Other than that, I agree - the way Lindzen illustrates the very small degree of temperature change is instructive.
@BBD. I don't mean anyone in particular. I've just observed the approach from bien-pensant types recently to the cold weather. They clearly are trying to present anyone who refers to AGW in connection with the snow as unscientific, anti-science idiots. I'm just trying to find out what the best response is, and know what, precisely, is the key point at issue. Like I said previously, it seems that the Lindzen / Ridley (possibly even Lomborg) approach is the right one - emphasise the decidedly non-catastrophic nature of what is being discussed.
Where's that edit function when you need it ;-)
I meant 'unsophisticated, anti-science idiots'.
Agreed. And never mind the typo...
BBD - I have been following the debate since the inception of the realclimate and climateaudit websites and fairly early on was pursuaded of a sceptical view. However I have also learnt to be spectical of many of the sceptics arguments and often comment when I feel sceptics are getting out of order.
From the outset I have placed my trust in the satellite record as being a better indicator of what is going on than the surface record. Like many here I am uncomfortable with the level of undeclared adjustment going on with the surface record. The satellite record whilst limited in length is starting to provide a reasonable view of patterns/trends and I am not going to discount it now just because Stephen Goddard is running his very entertaining "its cold outside" campaign
clivere
We seem to share fairly similar views then. Although I have learned to my cost that sceptics don't like being told that they are 'getting out of order' ;-)
SG lost me long ago with his stuff on arctic melt. Too many problems there.
UAH/RSS is the record of choice for me too. Although as I mentioned above, the El Nino signal is more evident in the troposphere than in surface temps, but since ch4 is no more, you can't see that in the satellite data. Hence CRUTEM3.
I still think you were being too nice about that reviewer at J. .Climate though ;-)
Sorry: UAH/RSS *are* the records of choice...
Tired, ill and off to bed...
Because of the huge amount of money and changes in control involved, it's largely a political debate and therefore gets dirty. Scientifically the cases made are for far reaching conclusions about an extremely complex chaotic system based on very limited data sets, the integrity of which is often dubious. Politically, the notion that we are suffering catastrophic warming, as shown by several cool summers and cold winters, is unsellable. Alarmism has not been sold that way before, so it looks like a change of story.
The argument that laughing at CAGW because of the recent winters in Northern Europe is unscientific, hinges on what you consider to be scientific; if you take it to mean what some scientists are saying at some time or other, then yes. However, there's been a fair history of some scientists (or people purporting to represent them) making extraordinary claims (e.g. about increasing hurricane intensity) and then quietly forgetting them, often to take up another extraordinary claim of catastrophe. The nature of the catastrophe predicted is very mutable.
It's easier to believe we are seeing normal variation, the case for alarmism being unconvincing.
As for 2010 being the warmest year on record, just a conclusion drawn from one particular limited data set.
They are cleverer than us. They decided long ago to rebrand as climate "change".
In defence of 'denial':
Found this through the 'Volokh Conspiracy' link on the Bish's blogroll:
A brilliant insight.
BBD - re J Climate
I saw the follow on comments but have had my say and even though some people misconstrued have decided not to push that point further.
I never said the home team is nice just that they should still be allowed to play.
I think that away team member Steve has now created an issue for himself by making an unsubstantiated accusation that the home team were playing rough. Both team captain Ryan and fellow team member Jeff are now on record as saying the home team did some time wasting early on but otherwise played fair. Captain Ryan was also very complementary about the referee. I cant believe that Steve wants the game replayed and he isnt going to get the referee or home team banned or disciplined.
Clivere - think you are being a bit off base with your description of Ryan and Jeff ID's comments. Both said that "in the end" the process was fair. Ryan's language was very diplomatic - even But it took an unnecessary length of time, (viz 88 pages of comments for an 8 pg paper - unprecedented I would say!) and that the stall was only resolved when another reviewer was appointed. Steve was blunter, as is his style, but did not want "the game replayed and he isnt going to get the referee or home team banned or disciplined."
Please remember that Steve did not CREATE the issue for himself. I've read CA for almost five years and this guy has had the patience of Job in the face of smears, stonewalling, and dirty pool to the nth degree. For YEARS. In spite of this unrelenting nastiness, he has never returned like for like.
As a matter of fact I wonder if Ryan's language was a) the result of having a naturally diplomatic personality or b) he believed that if he really said what he thought he would start and not stop...and covered it with excessive politeness. Very English I thought.
I'm on a pre-mod at the mo (banned in other words....and I know Randleson reads this). Just submitted this to the good people at the G. Linky below.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/04/cancun-climate-talks-kyoto-latin-america
Go on G, you know it makes sense...
When the flat Earth became a sphere yesterdays wisdom became todays folly. This is certainly turning out to be the case with the entire AGW debate. Historically, however, such mindsets rarely turn on a penny and the painful realisation will certainly be dawning on the proponents (10:10 etc) that they are supporting the unsupportable. (I speak as a former illusioned 'warmist' myself. A reasonable one however with views based on the evidence known to me at the time and therein lies an entire debate on what we are being allowed to read/hear ....the 'dis'illusioned part of my belief system makes one angry)...The hipocritical, self-serving elites in all this are playing us for monkeys with their 100 foot yatchs and condos 2 feet above sea level (poor investment surely?) and a million-plus first class air miles although that also has been equated with child abuse if carried out by consumerist proles .Ok for Moonbat though..for the greater educational good of course.....hmmm, yah.... ...I bought his bloody book too, 'Heat'.....I'm gonna burn it one cold night but I live in the tropics so I may have a long wait.
For my part it was in the aftermath of the climategate affair that I discovered what a stalinist mindset my like-minded colleagues possessed when I came in for some quite extreme flak for even considering that there may have been a case to answer. As a scientifically educated person (to post-graduate level but no expertise whatsoever on climate science) the alternative evidence absolutely demanded a re-think. Expressing moderately and politely the new direction of my thinking got me banned from the G, twice (and yes, I WAS a former guardianista too.....the shame, the shame). Comment is free eh?. I have also had to learn to keep it buttoned when in company discussing AGW, never realised how tricky the subject was before because I had the truth on my side after all.
The re-branding to CCGW/CGCC/CACK/VC and bar or whatever simply intensifies the cynicism.....
Ah well, feeling the urge to descend into rant mode so I'll stop here and thank you for your time.
A fascinating facet of the mindsets I've stumbled across (and mindsets is something I do know something about) is that there is evident disappointment in the minds of AGW proponents when there are signs that might validly contradict what is a catastrophic hypothesis. One surely would have a streak of hope that catastrophe may not be just around the corner?. It's almost as if the motivations are not quite as advertised?.
I'm only hypothesising myself here.
"Airport closures
Why can't they modify an old jet so that its thrust aims a bit more down, run it up and down a runway a few times and blow away/melt the snow?"
Dec 3, 2010 at 4:26 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charley
Charlie, the RAF used to use them back in the 60s/70s. I was stationed at RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire when the Vulcans were still in service.
They had a couple of jets mounted on a trolley with an operating cab mounted between the two engines. The jets had diffusers (imagine a hairdryer) fitted. The trolley was pushed by a refuelling bowser.
It was a fine solution for keeping the Atom Bomb deterrent ready to go in 4 minutes but for somewhere like Heathrow....the local residents would be up in arms about the noise!
Poor Vicky huh! Life has a way of kicking up the ass from time to time! ;-)
A picture at http://i49.tinypic.com/n69ul3.jpg (Not the RAF one, I used to have a location for pictures but cannot find it right now.
GF, There is a discussion on the RAF units that were called MRD's over at http://www.airfieldinformationexchange.org/community/archive/index.php/t-1651.html
DOH !!!!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8178162/Are-we-freezing-because-of-global-warming.html
Words fail me, comments are the best bit.
So any climate prediction by the Climate Predictions Programme under La Papa's stewardship could be viewed as a Papal Bull!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAA!!!!!!
Don't mess with Mother Nature, biatches!
coniston - you should look at JeffIDs comment at 156 in this thread
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/doing-it-ourselves/#comments
For all I know Ryan and Jeff may be privately seething at how this paper was reviewed but it is clear they dont wish to get into a squabble about it. Steve appears to take an opposite view but why get into this squabble in the first place?
I have a view that Steve can be far too prickly on minor perceived sleights and frequently initiates battles that dont need to be fought which just take up his time on trivia.
As an illustation on a somewhat related item see
http://climateaudit.org/2009/06/01/the-gracious-communicator/
On the 3 June 2009 I had to point out to Steve what Eric Steig was actually complaining about but supported Steve in my comments. Note I am no fan of Eric Steig who was thoroughly ridiculous with his "take my Mattlab course" comment elsewhere but at least Eric is now engaging with Ryan and Jeff at the TAV.
c&c, note Ryan O's wry grin about the identity of the obstructive reviewers?
=============================