Tuesday
Mar272012
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Horizon on global weirding
Mar 27, 2012 BBC Climate: WG2 This is a thread for anyone whose stomach was strong enough to both sit through BBC's Horizon and talk about the experience afterwards.
Reader Comments (118)
Looking around for clues as to what the average environmentalist finds weird I came across this from Grist last April:
Governor Daniels turns out to have sensible things to say at a number of levels. Likewise I want to be thought weird by these folks - because, as I said before, I want to point them to two critical, paradoxical truths: spatiotemporal chaos and the astounding stability of climate enabling the evolution of all of life including man.
This is one system we are not in control of, folks. Whether Someone Else has been, in any sense, I wonder aloud one more time.
I cherry picked that one because I was intrigued by the records back to 1766. So I found out more and now I think - Yeah verbalising that records are broken is a great thing to do if that spins your propeller, but when you use graphical depictions (IMO you show information in a more informative and honest way) and then look at a graph of the England and Wales precipitation I think it isn't hard not to be surprised by any likely further records coming along in the future, and still not wet your pants at the prospect.
BTW, Eyeballing that precipitation graph there looks to be a step change around 1865 that has continued until today. Was there a climatic change in 1865 or an instrument change?
In 1883 news of the eruption of Krakatoa took days to reach European despite its massive scale. If it were to happen now there would be on the spot live and real time pictures. Meanwhile we can measure with satellites things we did not know even existed 50 years ago. The classic example is rogue waves , which can be massive enough to sink the largest ships out in the deep ocean , they long been sailors stories but first dismissed they regarded if very usual by science. Now thanks to technology we know there not that usual.
I did not see the programme, but these reports of it here make think it was more informative about the programme makers and the programme participants than about climate itself.
We are in a sorry state with such low standards in the mass media, and so much sloppy 'science' being bandied about and treated with deference. Commentators do spot it, e.g. today there is this apercu:
'The more we learn about climate science, the more we learn what a shabby, back-of-the-envelope business it is. Dr. Michael Mann, the climate science poster boy who simplified the global climate of the last millennium into a hockey stick, just came out with a book to remind us how anyone who disagrees with him is a shill for dark forces. He's a bully, and in the ClimateGate e-mails, he bullies even his colleagues.' (http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/m-the_science_of_half-baked_ideas.html ; hat-tip http://tomnelson.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/c3-unprecedented-antarctica-climate.html#links)
There are some signs that the unfortunate generation who have been exposed to such superficial 'programming' since infancy have not all been taken in by it. I think the lack of substance behind the scaremongering eventually shows through, and that is going to anger and motivate some to react, but perhaps most will merely be alienated by it and disengage. Straws in the wind, or straws to clutch at by anyone who might see this as a good thing? - some examples here: http://blog.heartland.org/2012/03/gen-y-rejects-the-green-life-lets-all-live-like-the-kardashians/ (hat-tip http://antigreen.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/2351-days-vs.html#links)
Actually that last EWP graph I linked to was for the winter months this one is for summer months (1766 to 2007) and it slopes down although still has an interesting low frequency oscillation around 1865. Neither graph looks as amazing as saying records were broken and billions lost though I admit. I wonder how many billions the hay wain fleet of 1766 was worth? ;)
I meant to supply a URL for that Grist article. Before I do here's Daniels riffing off Crichton:
I like that bit a lot, even if one could quibble about the phrase 'Einstein denied virtually everything' known in 1900s - it was the way he explained new experimental data that was totally unexpected. But this is what passes for weird to Lisa Hymas, senior editor at Grist. What's weird to me is that anyone could see Crichton claims here as anything but mainstream.
Paul Matthews
Either you've fallen for the hype or you are being disingenuous or ...
Katrina was nothing better than a Cat 3 when she made landfall whatever she may have reached before that.
She is the poster child for "global warming causes more big hurricanes" whereas what she ought to be a poster child for is the laziness, incompetence or downright parsimony of the city of New Orleans which couldn't be bothered to keep its levees in good order.
The fact that she hit the city head-on didn't help matters.
Every scientific measure of hurricane activity has the last five years at virtually an all-time low; deaths from extreme weather events have fallen consistently since the 1920s; the reason for the increased costs is more people living in more valuable property (and with more valuable possessions) in more vulnerable areas (think Florida!)
A load of crap from start to finish! No mention of Ryan Maue's work, some blather about Cat5 Hurricanes, some stats about more extreme weather being twice as likely now, but we can't tell if one example is due to natural variations, or our evil work. Because the atmosphere's 4% more humid, we're going to get more intense rain (4% more? How much more was never mentioned) and our weather models are so good that we can predict 5 days in advance better than we could the next day's weather 30 years ago. Since we use the same models for that as predictions 200 years ahead......! Hint dropped, but claim not actually made.
What a waste of time & money. I haven't felt like lobbing stuff at the tele so much, since Arthur Scargil was on!
what the fu...hold the phone...did I <B>not</B> hear about carbon dioxide ?
Leopard
The abstract of the Coumou/Rahmstorf paper from which Paul Matthews got his examples says this:
It's very annoying that the rest of the paper is behind a paywall, otherwise I could say, just read it and make up your own mind. However, it seems to be a fairly measured approach that steers clear of attributing everything to global warming. In particular (Mike Jackson take note) they say that evidence from storm activity is inconclusive.
Mike Jackson - what is your source for this:
Not directly related to the programme (my wife asked me "will you go off on one?" "Probably", I replied, so we turned over) but relevant to the BBC.
I have noticed over the past few months (and continuing) that the southern region weather forecasts KEEP referring in forecasts to it as being hotter in urban and colder in rural areas.
I thought UHI was a denialist myth that had been thoroughly debunked by the noble Hansen and his ilk.
Will they be expelled for going so far off-message?
Mike Jackson:
Thanks Mike. And is there any better measure for policy makers and the rest of us on whether extreme events are getting better or worse than resultant human fatalities?
Global warming (or cooling, come to that) can also obviously have an impact on food production and disease. But a big emphasis of trad CAGW has been extreme events. If less people have been dying from these since the 20s then why hasn't everyone, including every policy maker, been made aware of this fact? (Add in the vast improvements in health care and the green revolution in crops and one has a job showing climate-caused crisis in any of these areas indeed.)
As Indur Goklany was quick to point out, the IPCC special report on extreme events summary for policy makers published in November didn't even mention this most important and easy-to-understand fact (googling IPCC SREX will get you there in one). I continue to think that if there is one number out of the myriad available statsitics that shows the lack of ethics in the climate game this is it.
I have to say that, yet again, the point has been missed. The program isn't about science, it is a piece designed to leave the casual viewer with the idea that "something is wrong" (and can be fixed). Right from the outset that goal is achieved.
I'm reminded of those "Keystone Cop" moments where the bank robbers are headed down "main street" throwing banknotes out the back of the getaway vehicle. The public and the cops fight in the street over the notes as the robbers get away clean.
More Sun, less Sun, Jet streams moving or not, more hurricanes, less water, more water - bank notes for you to fight over while the robbers make away with the real proceeds of the crime.
Brilliant analogy 3x2. It's the totality of bank notes we need to grab - see my previous post - and in the process the robbers themselves.
I wasn't at all impressed by the two Met Office "scientists". They were very poor and unconvincing. I hope that Met Office has some real scientists who aren't just pushing the agenda of climate alarmism.
It should be noted that anyone commenting here will have viewed the programme with the benefit of some grounding in the issues involved. While we may all have picked up on the uncertainties in the science admitted by the programme and the explanations for apparent changes in weather , the average viewer will have only seen it as further proof of Cagw.
Bloke down the pub: I'm not at all convinced about the 'average viewer'. Google this phrase
and you'll find the situation as of February 2010. Then there's the insreasing switch-off factor with any TV climate scare-fest. So who would have been watching such a programme with an open mind yet without any scepticism about the C in CAGW? About the same as the number of Labour MPs who won seats in the recent Aussie election?
I wouldn't like to be in richard blacks shoes right now...he's going to get a right bollocking for letting that one through. 'Mad' Jim Henson and Mr Man will be right pi**ed off. No mention of CO2 jeez what's the world coming to? Black is the 'safe pair of hands' at the bisassed broadcasting corporation.
3x2 has a good point tho'..
confused: I wonder if the lack of mention of CO2 isn't a pointer to a further 'refinement' in how climate PR is evolving. The basic proposition now is that man causes global weirding. Don't bother us with the details like CO2 and global temperature, that's too complicated and the pesky deniers keep pointing out all kinds of problems. No, man is sinful and the gods are showing it through climate disaster. We need to put our trust at once in whatever the high priests say is necessary. Ours is not to reason why, indeed to ask an honest question about just one logical step in the argument is taboo, necessitating the culprit being sent at once to the Coventry of 'denialism'.
Ironically this process demonstrates more clearly than one could wish for the way that man's weakness - the flesh - combines with 'the world' in a traditional Christian view of evil. I strongly recommend CS Lewis's masterly modern treatment in The Inner Ring for details. The answer to current CAGW religiosity may not be stout atheism. But I think we can all agree that the short-circuiting of rational AGW arguments has by now become well ... kinda extreme.
Mike J , I was just quoting from the paper. Of course it's a load of picked cherries. We could easily choose any other decade and come up with a similar load of broken records. For example England had its warmest summer in 1976. Also in the 70s was the worst ever cyclone (Bangladesh 1970).
It reminded me of "In Search Of... The Coming Ice Age". If your teeth are not chattering after the opening scenes then you are made of sterner stuff than I. Exactly the same techniques but with Leonard Nimoy and so obviously more scientific :^)
In Search Of... The Coming Ice Age http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ndHwW8psR8
Paul
You talk about records being broken, please could you give me a recording of Henry V111 singing? No, and why not because recordings didn't exist then?
Horizon has been damaged beyond all recognition by the happy clappy culture that is now embedded in an organisation that has had its day.
Does a natural "disaster" exist if there are no humans to observe it?
Not in my opinion. Disaster is a human judgement applied to natural events that have occurred throughout history, and will continue to do so. With an increasing population, more humans are going to experience "disasters".
Richard Drake & Mike Jackson
I tracked down the Goklany paper about numbers of deaths ascribed to extreme weather events. The reason I was a bit confused by what Mike originally said was that I had been under the impression that millions had died in droughts over recent years, especially in Africa, and that, with the number of people in the world increasing since the 1920s, it seemed difficult to believe that the numbers had gone down during that period
It looks to me as if Goklany's figures are based on deaths directly attributable to the weather event. So deaths in the African droughts are ascribed to the disease that caused the death, and take no account of the extent to which the disease was exacerbated or made more likely by the climatic/weather conditions.
So with that caveat, the figures tell us that we have become much better protected against the direct effects of extreme weather. They don't tell us whether extreme events have become more frequent (in fact Goklany is explicit that they have) and of course they don't tell us to what extent we - and our property and infrastructure - are protected against further extremes
Best wishes
Paul
Paul Mathews: "Paul B / geronimo, here is part of a table from Coumou and Rahmstorf "A decade of weather extremes" just published in Nature Climate Change:"
It could also be labeled "A Decade of Cherry Picked Weather Extremes."
It doesn't illustrate how to analyze data properly, it illustrates how to spin it ... poorly.
While I agree the globe has warmed, the evidence that extreme weather has increased relative to say 1850 is very poor. It also hasn't warmed so much that for many sites the most extreme temperature is still well before 1970 (e.g., late 1800s or the 1930s).
You also can't select data series starting in the 1970s and show anything meaningful. You also can't look at economic damage and not factor in population growth, unless you just like looking really stupid to anybody who knows to look for that in the analysis.
Paul Butler:
Caveat noted - and well worth exploring - but agreed on the main point. I would very much like to delve into this in a lot more detail Paul, though time is limited for me the rest of the day. I think it's fair to say that since noticing Indur Goklany at Watts Up With That in November I've been the main cheerleader for discussion of the implications of his work on this forum. Here are some URLs that may help (sorry not to see your earlier request to Mike on that until now):
Original announcement of paper
An odd omission in SREX SPM
Richard Drake in the pub a few days later
Dr Goklany himself has been known to make an appearance here, for example on biofuels last month - so let's not rule anything out :) Out of interest, are you the Paul Butler of sclerochronology fame? If so - and just as much if not - welcome.
Richard Drake
Ah, the dangers of using one's real name! Yes, that is me and thanks for noticing. So, while I'm always interested in discussing stuff, I'm also a bit wary of getting too involved because I have so many other things to do. But I'm sure we'll be in touch again later. I'll follow up your links
Best wishes
Paul
I'm afraid I couldn't take the risks to my blood pressure and cardiac health. Like others here, I used to watch Horizon avidly (as a non-scientist) but gave up a fair while ago because it had become much the same as the Chariots of the Globs type programmes on the hilariously named 'History' Channel. As for Paul Butler and his weirding ways, I suggest he has a look at this piece from the aformentioned and excellent Real Science site:
http://www.real-science.com/1874-scottish-opium-and-tobacco-crops-ruined-by-climate-change
Yes, it's weirding, but in 1874. Pull the other one Paul!
*aforEmentioned
Paul Butler
I finished off my post in rather a hurry or I might have been more explicit and might have checked my source. I think Goklany was who I was referring to.
The point which is always finessed by the axe-grinders of CAGW is that while there may be a perception of increased damage and death in the former case they are not making true like-for-like comparisons. In the latter case we have indeed become better at adapting to the situation and mitigating the effects — flood barriers, flood warnings, better construction, better heating/air conditioning. Also (arguably) better general health which makes us better able to withstand the immediate physical privations.
Deaths from drought are another matter.
I'm afraid Katrina sticks in my craw because the axe-grinders I just referred to leapt on the poor girl as a perfect example of their argument in a manner which can only be described, in many cases, as downright dishonest. 1800+ died in a natural event compounded by a particular set of circumstances and all they can do is use it to push their "cause".
I agree that you could pick almost any decade and find weather extremes especially since the point has been made on here frequently that the reliable records for most "events" go back a century or at least not much more and that global coverage (not to mention 24-hour news channels) ensures that events that would have passed largely unnoticed outside the immediate vicinity (say 100 miles or the border of the country they happened in) a century ago can now be replayed ad nauseam and linked to whatever happens to be the broadcaster's current prejudice.
As we're on hurricanes etc.
http://www.real-science.com/1667-hurricane-wiped-maryland-virginia
Just caught the tail end of a radio play on BBC Radio 4 today 2pm to 3pm. Now that was interesting - a play re a pandemic caused deliberately by Climate change eco warriors because "life is so precious sometimes you have to kill it to save it"
Interesting because like the "natural or man made" rider in the Horizon prog - a year back I doubt the depiction of Climate Change Activists as nutters bent on global killing would have seen the light of day within the beeb.
It actually depicted Climate activists setting up a “denialist economist" with a false rape accusation – and accusation that backfires on them badly and seems to lead to them releasing the virus.
Pandemic is a three parter - part three was today - 1 and 2 this mon and tue just gone
.
Doug: very interesting, I'll try to catch that on iPlayer. I would see this as artists and writers following the lead of Michael Crichton and the play The Heretic. It's wrong to say that the BBC only follows the Guardian. The culture wars over climate are a lot more complex than that.
The Hurricane Guy was Kerry Emanuel, who became a celebrity after Hurricane Katrina and has been involved in the Re-insurance business for several years now, more here:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/eye_of_the_$torm.html
A good friend of Michael Mann.
Mike Jackson -
Thanks. I did find the Goklany paper and I described upthread what I thought and my caveat about how they ascribe only deaths that are directly caused by the weather to the extreme events, and not cases where disease has been exacerbated by the weather/climate.
With regards to hurricanes I don't think you'll find any scientists ascribing Hurricane Katrina specifically as an AGW forced event, although I suppose you can find a lot of political Greens making that connection. It was nevertheless interesting that Kerry Emanual (on the Horizon program) claims that in the future hurricanes may be less frequent but stronger.
Best wishes
Paul
The conversation here reminded me of something Katie said on Horizon last night - that dry areas are becoming drier. I wondered about that assertion given the greening of the Sahel. Can anyone throw any light on it?
I'm a bit puzzled. Why would a medal-winning scleroclimatologist choose to make his first ever Bishop Hill contribution as the opening comment on this particular thread? I didn't watch the Horizon programme: did Ming, the media-friendly Arctica islandica mollusc, make a guest appearance?
Hi Jane
The answer is boringly simple. Because I found myself (for a change) on a thread with no comments and you can always make a bigger bang with the first comment. So I suppose I took the opportunity to be a tiny bit provocative! Perhaps I over-egged the programme a bit ....
Cheers
Paul
Thank goodness for SOME data, however massaged, poked, and prodded to make it say whatever you wish; otherwise we would be at the mercy of the Wally and Beaver phenomenon; "Hey, Beaver, you notice how, every time he tells us about it, the snow Dad trudged through, to walk five miles to school every day, keeps getting deeper and deeper?" "Yeah, Wally, and it used to be four miles!"
The sharp decline in deaths due to extreme weather events over the past century will continue to be ignored by people trying to conjure apocalyptic visions of the future. Of course past trend lines may not help to forecast the coming decades, but it is "interesting" (to say the least) how often real data are ignored or misrepresented for political reasons.
Large figures of economic costs are thrown around more frequently, but of course without rigorous comparisons of changing humanbehaviors (e.g., analysis of the types and locations of houses and other infrastructure now located seaside which would not have been there decades ago) it is highly misleading for activists to try to simply cite costs as an indication of storm severity etc.
Re: Hurricane Katrina, most scientists may be more careful but there was an immense amount of activist and media propaganda aimed at making the public believe this was a result of "climate change" promising to bring us more and bigger Katrinas.
Nice interaction between Jane Coles and Paul Butler. Coincidence rather than conspiracy, with no need for Ming the mollusc. Well I believe Paul's story. That first post opportunity is so tempting.
The greening of the Sahel is a fascinating episode Bish. But once one takes into account every region on earth during the whole of human history it seems we are lost in a myriad of anecdotes. My core metric remains human fatalities from extreme climate events. But I'm going to look more deeply at the question Paul has about the Goklany treatment of drought.
Roger Pielke Jr on Extreme weather
" With this post I am creating a handy bullshit button on this subject (pictured above). Anytime that you read claims that invoke disasters loss trends as an indication of human-caused climate change, including the currently popular "billion dollar disasters" meme, you can simply call "bullshit" and point to the IPCC SREX report. "
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/handy-bullshit-button-on-disasters-and.html
Roger Pielke Jr http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/handy-bullshit-button-on-disasters-and.html
posts on the IPCC Special Report on Extremes, published today - http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/
Perfect timing - should we expect an apology from the BBC for their dishonesty? The IPCC have shot pretty much every hare the BBC have set running - what would it take to get these liars sacked?
Er. hi Josh!
Ah! Just read the Pielke Jr piece too. I liked this bit:
Oh, priceless - this is the Guardian's take on SREX:
Climate change panel warns of severe storms, heatwaves and floods
Prepare for unprecedented onslaught of deadly weather disasters, report says, claiming global warming causing crisis
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/28/climate-change-global-warming-storms-floods
Comical Ali is clearly alive and well.
The only way to measure such is via consistent satellite overpass. So, 30 years at most then. We do know that it was once a shallow Sea on account of the preponderance of dead Whales in the sand.
(unless said Whale corpses were dropped there by Koch funded climate deniers that is.)
Katharine Hayhoe has said a lot of things in the past about extreme weather which don't stand up under scrutiny.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/katharine-hayhoes-global-weirding/#comment-764
Today turns out to be a chain of little coincidences for me, in that the main IPCC SREX report is published, having mentioned the SPM to Paul earlier, and the London Node User Group meets again in Camden. I won't even try and explain. It's great to be equipped with Roger's bullshit button before even going near the Guardian and other unreliable outlets in this incredibly important area.