Wednesday
Jan052011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Big freeze in Guizhou
Jan 5, 2011 Climate: Surface The BBC report that that big freeze has spread to southern China:
Freezing temperatures in south-western China have forced the evacuation of 58,000 people from their homes, according to the Chinese authorities.
Ice and snow have closed roads, leaving thousands of motorists stranded.
This is all happening in Guizhou province, which I visited in the 1990s. Guizhou is subtropical - right down on the border with Vietnam - so this must be pretty unusual.
Reader Comments (62)
Now if only the MET computers were big enough, they would have predicted this.
Obviously though it is entirely inline with the CGW models that didn't predict it either, and is therefore proof that World Government is essential.
"the CGW models that didn't predict it"
Although, of course, it confirms the AGW hypothesis, as does every other type of weather.
BTW, if the roads are closed, how is the evacuation proceeding..?
The Chinese government is saying privately that it had predicted such cold weather but forgot to tell local people.
Met Office probability charts for South-West China for January-to-March issued in December show probability of 'well-below-normal' temperatures as <5%, and probability of above average temperature >80%.
Oh well, it is for a three-month period, so there is still time for the Met Office to clean the egg off its face.
Calm down, everyone. It's weather, not climate. In tests, 8 out of 10 climate scientists said their grants preferred it. George Monbiot is 94.
SFT
Another successful prediction by the Met Office - 5% chance of cold weather in China comes up trumps.
Mind if the Met Office had a brand new supercomputer they would be able to add two digits of precision to that prediction.
Remember, it is only cold in THAT corner of the world. All the rest is warming. For example, California, the American Mid-West, the east Coast of the US, Ireland, UK, Europe, Russia. All of these places are having above normal temperatures. I can prove it. All I need to do is wait until the snow melts so I can get to the weather recording instruments buried out there in the snow drifts.
You all realise - don't you - that Guizhou is a suburb of London, and just because it's cold in our tiny little part of the world, doesn't mean it isn't scorching hot everywhere else, because, like, Britain's weather has no connection to the weather in the rest of the globe. Or climate. Or something.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12111095
Yet another 'cold snap', this one killing people in Northern India. But of course, it's just another 'local' effect.
This would probably be more newsworthy if it was Florida, similar latitude.
I have no idea where to look for China's historical weather records, but to imagine this is "unusual" is a bit of a stretch. We could say the UK cold snap was "unusual" but it only depends how far back we look.
When was the last time the NAO and AO were negative during a massive La Nina and weak sun cycle? That's the time period I would be looking to compare to see if it is "unusual".
How does Co2 control ocean cycles from 20 to 1000yrs, I would especially like to see how Co2 controls ENSO events, I mean, the science is settled isn't it?
It must be close to record winter low temps for Guizhou. I have a friend in Vietnam at the moment - it will be interesting to see what things there felt like.
Only slightly O/T - it has been obvious for a while that the Chinese are not going to stop burning coal, which is good news for Canada and Australia in particular.
We have all heard the reports of a new coal fired power station every........ (add your own number of days), but this is where they are heading.
http://www.thegwpf.org/energy-news/2150-what-energy-crisis-china-has-enough-nuclear-fuel-for-the-next-3000-years.html
sorry that sounded snarky, wasn't meant. I'm always moaning at the warmists to look at longer time scales, hit reply a bit quick.
Meanwhile, Richard Black of all people, has been given the task of reporting the Met's confirmation that December 2010 was the UK's coldest, by a massive margin, in their entire 100 year record. And 2010 in the UK was the 12th coldest out of those 100:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12119329
And yet we now have confirmation from two datasets that globally, 2010 was the 2nd hottest year on record. Talk about selective reporting and bias confirmation, nowhere is that splashed accross this blog, which should be an absolutely massive topic.
Once again, one is forced to point out how Hilly Billies tend to ignore anything which doesn't support them, or actively refutes them, and instead focus only on the things that do, however trivial. In this case, a bit of weather in a bit of China in winter.
ZDB, since we've had a warming trend for 150 years, wouldn't it be very odd indeed if 2010 was not one of the hottest?
Surely the strange thing is that despite being an El Nino year, and despite 10 years of warming, 1998 still beat it.
The "record" of course being of a couple of hundred years duration in the 4.5 billion years of climate and weather. And "hottest"? I equate "hotness" in terms of tea, and bathwater, and not a fraction of a degree here or there of global temperature...
What exaggerated tripe.
On the subject of selective reporting
How do we know there’s a scientific consensus on climate change? Pundits and the press tell us so. And how do the pundits and the press know? Until recently, they typically pointed to the number 2,500 — that’s the number of scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Those 2,500, the pundits and the press believed, had endorsed the IPCC position.
To their embarrassment, most of the pundits and press discovered they were mistaken — those 2,500 scientists hadn’t endorsed the IPCC’s conclusions, they had merely reviewed some part or other of the IPCC’s mammoth studies. To add to their embarrassment, many of those reviewers from within the IPCC establishment actually disagreed with the IPCC’s conclusions, sometimes vehemently.
The upshot? The punditry looked for and found an alternative number to tout: “97% of the world’s climate scientists” accept the consensus, articles in the Washington Post, the U.K.’s Guardian, CNN and other news outlets now claim, along with some two million postings in the blogosphere.
This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2008 master’s thesis by student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at the University of Illinois, under the guidance of Peter Doran, an associate professor of Earth and environmental sciences. The two researchers obtained their results by conducting a survey of 10,257 Earth scientists. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers — in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/#ixzz1A5px63Ax
Hi Zed Talk about selective reporting your last post before the one above quoted 97% of climate scientists agree with man made warming. How about just 75 out of 10,257 now that's what I call selective.
Lawrence Solomon December 30, 2010 – 2:35 pm
How do we know there’s a scientific consensus on climate change? Pundits and the press tell us so. And how do the pundits and the press know? Until recently, they typically pointed to the number 2500 – that’s the number of scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Those 2500, the pundits and the press believed, had endorsed the IPCC position.
To their embarrassment, most of the pundits and press discovered that they were mistaken – those 2500 scientists hadn’t endorsed the IPCC’s conclusions, they had merely reviewed some part or other of the IPCC’s mammoth studies. To add to their embarrassment, many of those reviewers from within the IPCC establishment actually disagreed with the IPCC’s conclusions, sometimes vehemently.
The upshot? The punditry looked for and recently found an alternate number to tout — “97% of the world’s climate scientists” accept the consensus, articles in the Washington Post and elsewhere have begun to claim.
This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now
Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/12/30/lawrence-solomon-75-climate-scientists-think-humans-contribute-to-global-warming/#ixzz19mQBhb4V
ZDB "And yet we now have confirmation from two datasets that globally, 2010 was the 2nd hottest year on record. Talk about selective reporting and bias confirmation, nowhere is that splashed accross this blog, which should be an absolutely massive topic."
Oh, yeah. Absolutely massive topic. What, that the world is a few hundredths of a degree cooler and hotter than it was some years back? What a joker you are!
I tell you, if temperatures in the habitable world crash by several degrees, bringing ice and snow to new areas and destroying harvests etc, then that is news worth reporting. To know that a crass global average of all temperatures everywhere, including all the uninhabited areas, massaged and tortured with all sorts of questionable adjustments, are a few hundredths of a degree LESS than they were 12 years ago, with no statistical significance, is hardly worth knowing, far less reporting, because it is meaningless to anyone's everyday life, and, I would suggest, their future.
You, Sir, are a complete timewaster.
58,000 people evacuated, I guess they’ll be accommodated in the village hall then!
I hope you popped over to Guilin and a trip along the river Li on your visit Bish.
ScientistForTruth
Why waste your time? ZDB has made up her ( 97.8% consensus) mind and does not want to be bothered by the facts.
It's easy to get carried away gloating at the failure of doctrine-based forecasting, but let's remember that there are a lot of people suffering horribly. If anyone is tempted to see any good news in this they'd be mistaken.
The only good that might come out of this or our own recent misery is that some planners will realize that we still need to plan for extreme cold that demonstrably still occurs, and spend a lot less time and money proposing measures to deal with highly speculative, far future contingencies.
V-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y.
At a glacial pace, one might say.
I couldn't care a flying whatsit what the global average temperature is, beacause as we all know (except perhaps zbd), a global average temperature is a meaningless concept for an intensive property such as temperature. What matters to me is the local temperature and how much snow we got; those factors affect my fuel, and other bills and my way of life.
The only good that might come out of this or our own recent misery is that some planners will realize that we still need to plan for extreme cold that demonstrably still occurs, and spend a lot less time and money proposing measures to deal with highly speculative, far future contingencies.
Jan 5, 2011 at 4:15 PM | Roy
If only that were true, currently the planners can point to offical guidelines telling them to prepare for desert like conditions. Their career prospects require them to work within the guidelines, original thought is not required and infact frowned upon.
Whatever happened to the 'precautionary principle' in such instances of severe cold?
What should people do - stock up on sun cream or buy some thermal long-johns, just in case?
"I couldn't care a flying whatsit what the global average temperature is, beacause as we all know (except perhaps zbd), a global average temperature is a meaningless concept for an intensive property such as temperature. What matters to me is the local temperature and how much snow we got; those factors affect my fuel, and other bills and my way of life."
Jan 5, 2011 at 4:50 PM | Phillip Bratby
What an absolutely staggering comment. To paraphrase:
'Philip doesn't care what's happening elsewhere, or will happen to the world and to future generations when he's not around, all he cares about is his money now and not having to make any lifestyle sacrifices'.
It's hard not to respond to that comment in strong terms, needless to say none of the other Hilly Billies here have pulled you up on it, despite it being a morally suspect statement of intent. I shall just say that the extent to which you seem to put your own minor comforts, before potentially awful cirumstances happening to others, is an unusual one.
What other yardstick for global warming would you use than long-term yearly average global temperature trends, if you think they are meaningless?
Frosty
This would probably be more newsworthy if it was Florida, similar latitude.
Do you mean like THIS?
ZDB
What other yardstick for global warming would you use than long-term yearly average global temperature trends, if you think they are meaningless?
The amount of snow on the streets of Truro UK?
And 75 out of 77 selective reporting is ignored as it was on the last thread.
Another inconvenient truth ignored which is par for the course.
Well try ignoring this
This is a peer reviewed paper showing warming is much exaggerated and confirming since 2000 temps have stopped climbing.
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/global-warming-temperature-rise-may-be-lower-than-predicted.html
Breath of Fresh Air
And as I said on the last thread:
a) of course you have problems with it, it shows what a fringe view that of Hilly Billies is amongst real climate scientists and
b) feel free to use the Anderegg paper instead, although I'm sure you'll have lots of little quibbles which you somehow feel invalidates that as well and
c) is there a published paper showing that the consensus amongst climate scientists is considerably less than 97%? No, there isn't. So for the time being, anyone rational uses the evidence available, rather than discounting available evidence, and then choosing to decide the opposite; a position for which there is no evidence to support you, but two papers to say that you're wrong.
However, this argument is now completely circular, no matter how many people cut and paste whatever it is relating to this further up the thread and in other places.
When you can direct me to a sound paper on consensus amongst climate scientists that has a considerably different figure to the 97% one, then I'll pay attention. Until then, the discussions here about consensus have much in common with petty whinges and petulance.
Until then, the discussions here about consensus have much in common with petty whinges and petulance.
So why are you here then, and why are you ignoring the paper on overstated future Global temp rises.
Frosty
This would probably be more newsworthy if it was Florida, similar latitude.
Do you mean like THIS?
Jan 5, 2011 at 5:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra
I meant the 58k people, but you have a point - only the food manufacturers are reporting it - so even when it happens in Florida it's not newsworthy! How wrong could I be ;^)
Breath of Fresh Air
Lovely discursive manner you have there. I take the time to respond to one of two points you brought up in your previous comment, and whilst I'm looking at the paper you indicated for the other one, you question why I'm here and berate me for not answering it.
Guess what, as an extreme minority voice here, I get a great many questions put to me. I'm never going to answer all of them.
Did you feel you had some form of right to demand I answer every single point you personally put to me? You might be overestimating your own importance in the world.
zbd:
You tell me what global yardstick I should use given that average temperature is a meaningless concept.
Phillip Bratby.
That's called answering a question with a question.
Guess what, as an extreme minority voice here, I get a great many questions put to me. I'm never going to answer all of them.
LOL never seen you give a straight answer yet
You are a laugh !!!!
This isn't quite what he said, ZDB, but if he had he would have been quite right. What is the point of investing heavily in something as vague as "climate change" when we have only the wildest of ideas as to exactly what precautions will have an effect or what the cost might be.
Future generations will look after themselves as they always have. I doubt my great-grandchildren will thank me for wasting my money on a futile attempt to control the climate, Cnut-like. Better leave them to sort out the problem when it becomes clearer what the problem is.
For certain we don't know what will "happen to the world"; for absolute certain you don't know. But you are happy to tax us all to the hilt to the tune of trillions of pounds/euros/dollars over the next half-century on what is nothing but computer-modelled speculation. And when our great-grandchildren are the ones in charge what are they going to say? "Thankyou, Zed, for impoverishing us", perhaps? More likely, "why couldn't you have left us to sort out our problems. We know what our problems are. You didn't. Only now we can't afford to fix the problems because we've no money. Thanks, guys."
It's about time we stopped trying to second guess or descendants. Are you suggesting they're so stupid they won't be able to sort things out when they happen, not 10 years or maybe 40 or perhaps it's 75 or some other figure in advance.
We're guessing. Call it by any fancy name you like, we're still only guessing.
ZDB 00 .73% the real percentage of the scientists asked in the survey you quote who supported man made global warming not 97%. How do you like those apples? Please keep quoting that survey for the refutation will always come through loud and clear.
What's a Hilly Billy?
I always thought it was someone who lived somewhere in the Appalachians. Did that somehow change in to someone who thinks that unvalidated numerical models are not much use for predicting anything?
Phillip
You should be flattered with all this attention I think ZBD has the hots for you! I hope you haven't been dressing up in check shirts and dungarees.
"is there a published paper showing that the consensus amongst climate scientists is considerably less than 97%? No, there isn't."
ZDB, you can be SO dull! Can't you get your finely toned arse in a twist over something that doesn't show you as stupid? That's a survey of over 10,000 folks which had to be cherry-picked down to just 79 to get any sort of 'warmist' conclusion. And you wave that about as important? Pah!
"2nd hottest yeah EVAH!" ... well, maybe, but only on a stupidly short timescale and by point nought bugger all of a degree.
C'mon, PLEASE try to live up to your position of senior hag in this place by at least getting your brain into gear before you post. 2/10.
Zed
Somewhere up above you say that the 2010 high temperature record should be a 'massive topic' or words to that effect.
Well, I agree.
Here's why: 2010 was characterised by a strong El Nino which accounted for the elevated tropospheric temperatures and made it a 'hot' year globally.
Now, the 1997/98 'super' El Nino gave us a year as hot as this one. Twelve years ago.
According to the consensus, if the climate sensitivity has been guesstimated correctly, the average warming trend for the last decade (and the next) should be +0.2C.
But it isn’t. It’s lower. How much lower depends who’s metric you use, but that isn’t the point. What is the point is that this year should have been much hotter than 1998.
We see a trend of ~ 0.09C/decade for UAH, ~0.03 from RSS and ~0.03C/decade for HADCRUT3. GISTEMP is higher, but that’s GISTEMP’s Arctic interpolations over which many questions hover.
So the ‘missing’ energy ‘must’ be somewhere else in the climate system, and there’s only the oceans. Yet the best measure we have – ARGO – doesn’t show sufficient increase in ocean heat content in the upper 700m of the major ocean basins to account for the ‘missing’ energy.
It just isn’t there.
So while it seems ‘very likely’ that human activity is warming the climate system, it is not doing so in line with the projections.
Now that is indeed a major topic, and I think we should all be discussing it furiously. Alongside the extraordinarily cold NH winter.
Small correction: Guizhou doesn't border Vietnam - Guangxi and Yunnan lie between them. Only about 200 km in it, though.
The large amount of crop failures in the area should be of concern. China has enough problems feeding its population as it is.
If lots of people are affected by the cold weather in negative ways, in the year of the warmingest, that should say something about the value of the meaning of global average gridded temperature anomaly, well tones.
It is used as a propaganda weapon, nothing more.
We don't perceive averages. I am affected by the weather here and now, not by the global gridded mean.
Similarly, I don't care that "on average" wind provided x mW, if I was without power for hours or days on end.
I also don't care if I received "on average", good customer service from a company. It is the day when they really pissed me of that sticks in the mind.
From North:
"Widely reported, not least by Xinhuanet, freezing temperatures, sleet and snow in southern China have disrupted lives of over 3.83 million. The weather has forced 58,000 people from their homes and caused about $200 million in economic losses, with the collapse of the roofs of more than 1,200 homes across the southern regions of Jiangxi, Hunan, Chongqing, Sichuan and Guizhou.
Freezing weather has also damaged more than 300,000 acres of crops, including cabbage and rice. In Guizhou province, 22,800 people were forced out of their homes, and drivers abandoned thousands of cars after ice-covered roads were closed. People, especially those living in the mountains and the elderly, are still being evacuated from their homes."
The same event as seen by the ever-fragrant and deeply empathetic ZDB:
" ... trivial. In this case, a bit of weather in a bit of China in winter."
You're SUCH a people person Luv.