Bishop Hill Letter to the Times
Apr 10, 2013 Climate: MetOffice Climate: Surface Climate: WG2 I have a letter published in the Times. It's paywalled, so I can't see exactly what has appeared, but this is what I sent them.
Lord Hunt advises us that the recent cold snowy weather is “consistent with” our expectations of climate change, and that in the UK “the trend is likely to be towards colder winters” (article, 2 April 2013). This is a surprising claim. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in its last report that “The lowest winter temperatures are likely to increase…in Northern Europe” and that the “duration of the snow season is very likely to shorten in all of Europe, and snow depth is likely to decrease in at least most of Europe”. Sir John Houghton, Lord Hunt’s predecessor at the Met Office, has declared that “The idea that we will get less snow is absolutely in line with what we expect from global warming”. If we are to expect more cold and less cold and more snow and less snow, one is left wondering what kind of weather is “not consistent” with manmade climate change.
Bishop Hill
Here's what they published:
Sir, Lord Hunt of Chesterton says that the cold weather is consistent with our expectations of climate change, and that in the UK the trend is likely to be towards colder winters (Apr 2).
This is a surprising claim. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in its last report that the lowest winter temperatures are likely to increase in Northern Europe and that the duration of the snow season is very likely to shorten in all of Europe, and snow depth is likely to decrease, at least in most of Europe. Sir John Houghton, Lord Hunt’s predecessor at the Met Office, has declared that we will get less snow, “in line with what we expect from global warming”.
If we are to expect more cold and less cold and more snow and less snow, one is left wondering what kind of weather is “not consistent” with man-made climate change.
Reader Comments (66)
Needs to read his own briefing paper methinks.
There's a picture at https://twitter.com/LeoHickman/status/321899459988566016/photo/1
I believe that in formal logic a false proposition implies any proposition.
For example
1+1=3 implies that I am the Queen of France!
So there should be no surprise that global warming implies both warmer and colder winters, or for that matter perfectly average winters.
They say that global warming causes jet stream repositioning causing colder winters at some latitudes. Seems just about plausible to me.
"global warming causes jet stream repositioning"
And did they forecast that, or just observe it happening and then blame AGW?
Is there anything it isn't responsible for..?
When every outcome, no matter if self-contradictory as stated, is declared consistent or plausible, what remains of a falsifiable scientific theory?
Re: simon,
You mean there might be a negative feedback?
Longer colder winter = more snowcover for longer period = higher albedo = more heat reflected into space.
Excellent news. This should reduce climate sensitivity even further.
Well there was a time when there was absolutely no chance that the Times would publish something like this which flies in the face of the accepted dogma. So we are making progress. The Times they are indeed a changing.
Well done, Andrew!
Do you think this might provoke a few replies?
How to get your reply to BH's letter published and what address to send it to (decision to publish a reply will generally have been taken by mid-afternoon on the preceding day).
http://www.medact.org/content/about/getting%20your%20letter%20pub.pdf
Some idea of the tangles that need to be untied in climate modelling is that one can plausibly argue that, for example, colder winters 'at some latitudes' cause a repositioning of the jet stream. The troposphere is, after all, largely driven from below. Unless it is in a GCM, in which case the CO2 'forcing' is inserted at the 'top of the atmosphere', despite it having emerged at the bottom of it, and where clouds seem to be entirely an 'effect' (parameterised of course, like the CO2) rather than a 'cause'.
There remains great scope for the high priests, and their former administrators, of Temples of the Faith, such as the Met Office, to say anything they jolly well like.
Thanks for your effort.
>I believe that in formal logic a false proposition implies any proposition.
Er, no. A contradiction will entail any statement, but a false statement that isn't contradictory won't. Entailment in formal logic is not concerned with the truth or falsity of the premises anyway. Stick to what you know, fella.
It was promising that The Times published this letter, but it's a bit disappointing that they took out the quote marks, making it look as though what you said of IPCC report could just be your own flawed interpretation, when it was in fact the actual words of the report. Still, well done.
Someone, somewhere, some time in the past will have predicted (speculated on) just about anything happening at present and claimed it as a consequence of increased CO2 levels.
It's just a question of quietly dropping the last scare and hailing the new one as a vindication of Climate Change Theory to fit in with current conditions.
A newsworthy hurricane? Climate change. Lack of severe huricanes? Climate change.
Simon: your
They say that global warming causes jet stream repositioning causing colder winters at some latitudes. Seems just about plausible to me.
Sure it does. But its after the fact. All previous predictions were for reduced snow and cold. Then it got colder and snowier, so they had to revise the theory. In other words, even just a few years ago, the science was wrong, let alone settled.
Unfortunately, the new theory of warmth causing meridonal air circulation, is 180 degrees from the old theory that cooling causes meridonal flow, and warming causes more zonal flow.
Climate epicycles. They'll keep on finding adjustments to their theory to match what has happened, without showing they can predict the future.
Just recently the Met Office forecasts have been lamentable for our area. For several days they have been forecasting heavy cloud and rain and wind - yet we continue to have pleasant hazy sunshine and no wind.
I scream and shout at the Super Soaraway Times when they give space to Warmists, but then again they often give Matt Ridley room to argue against them. I suppose that's the point of the Comment section of a newspaper.
The Times's amendments to the Bish's text rendered it less pithy.
Not only the Guardian that takes the pith, then.
There are some who would accuse elements of the government of working to derail climate efforts in the UK.
But
http://www.rtcc.org/beddington-no-culture-of-climate-denial-in-uk-government/
@Apr 10, 2013 at 11:36 AM
In the light of the preceding comments, please assume the following amendments:
Replace "They say that" with "They now say that" and "seems just about plausible" with "seems barely plausible".
Thank you.
AGW believer's ability to predict things after they happen is much more in line with shallow religious thinking than with robust science.
This global warming that is allegedly causing the jet stream to reposition giving us colder winters, when did it start, and why were winters much milder in the early 21st century when global temperatures were no lower than they are now?
He really should get out more. Perhaps now he's retired ... Somehow I can't see him down at the Dog and Duck after the rugby/cricket is finished (can't see him as a football man, sorry) chinwagging with the locals.
A few snifters at Beddington Towers with a lot of chinless cronies who haven't the wit to disagree with the great man perhaps.
Fortunately with any luck no-one will give a rat's ass for what he thinks any more.
Hans von Storch interviewed 4 days ago by an online Austrian newspaper
'On the warm Arctic causing cold winters:
HvS: Here I’d be careful. With climate activity, countless factors interact with each other, and lots of explanations are possible. Using models it has been shown that this special mechanism could function that way. But that does not mean in any way that it is the deciding factor.
Can the cause of the cold winters be identified?
HvS:
One has to ask why are such explanations first found after the event appears. It indeed would have been much nicer if someone had said already in the year 2000: By the way, you have to expect harder winters in Europe because the Arctic ice is retreating in the summer. This claim today then would have been far more convincing. But it was the other way around: We noticed that something strange had happened, and then an explanation was constructed. Other explanations would also be possible.'
http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/10/more-harsh-words-from-hans-von-storch-climate-sciences-almost-medieval-poltical-understanding/
Simon
It was only yesterday we learned from Slingo's Met Office FOIA that the Met Office declared they had no idea what caused the jetstream to move south over Europe. I support your job application to have her replaced immediatly. You obviously know more than she does, or do you.
"I haven’t encountered people saying ‘come on Beddington this climate change stuff is rubbish’,” he added."
When Jehovah's Witnesses come knocking at the door, I don't get involved in long and ultimately pointless theological debates. I say politely that I'm rather busy and close the door. People metaphorically probably do the same to SJB.
Nice one. Likely to have more effect than any parliamentary question!
Indeed, just listen at what Priestess Pope said a few years ago: Harsh Realities - Met Office climate change expert Vicky Pope sets out the consequences of temperature rises. ("by 2014 we are predicting that it will be 0.3C warmer than 2004...")
Just how bad do the computer models have to be before decision makers realise that they have been duped by green groupthink and junk science?
Why, do people think, did the Times feel that they had to change the original script? As far as I'm concerned the changes they made to the original text differ somewhat in emphasis to the overall message. A small difference but a difference nonetheless.
Eck, Sometimes people get things wrong and corrections are appropriate. Seems to me that "Stick to what you know, fella" was an unnecessary and pompous addition.
They say that global warming causes jet stream repositioning causing colder winters at some latitudes. Seems just about plausible to me.
Apr 10, 2013 at 11:36 AM | simon abingdon
==================================================================================
If it had never happened before. It has. Many times.
Next?
Do they have any reliable historical record of the jet stream position to back up the claims that it has changed unusually?
Somewhat O/T but it is good to see another article in MSM regarding high energy costs and their adverse effect on industry. See; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9982885/Europe-falling-behind-US-and-blighted-by-energy-costs.html
it notes that shale gas is driving the US recovery with energy prices (spot gas) some 4 or 5 times cheaper than in Europe. There is no doubt in my mind that the best way to regenerate Europe is to exploit its shale gas reserves. This would be the best use of government funded infra-structure programnes. it would immediately create new jobs, and the long term benefits of cheap energy would be immense. Not only to industry, but it would also put more money in the pocket of consumers so that they would be in a position to spend more thereby regenerating the high street. A real win win win position.
If only Osbourne could see some sense, and use this as his Plan B. The left and the greens would not like to see a push towards shale gas, but labour could hardly complain given the stimulus and growth that this would give the economy. Ed Balls is always asking for a Plan B, so it would be difficult for his to criticise.
It is entirely consistent with Climate Change. "More snow" represents a change. "Less snow represents a change". Colder weather represents a change. Warmer weather represents a change. They have predicted "Climate Change", and this is the one redeeming success of the $80+ billion dollars that have now been spent on predicting climate.
100 years ago, Arrhenius predicted first 5C for a doubling of CO2, then 1.6C rising to 2.1C taking account of increased water vapour. Now climate scientists are starting to recognize the possibility of the lower end of climate sensitivity at ~2C, having first warned of up to 5C.
Richard V: my sentiments exactly.
Plus, looking beyond the direct benefits of cheaper gas and power, there are the second-tier effects of the rejuvenation of basic industry - chemicals, plastics, steel, fertiliser, etc.. There is even a project to dismantle a mothballed methanol plant somewhere abroad and relocate it to the US. Then, once those basic commodities become available locally at lower costs, growth in manufacturing looks set to follow.
On the economic front there is a big shift in the balance of payments and the tax take gets a boost.
As the shale guru Nick Grealy likes to say: What's not to like?
Apologies for going O/T.
Lord Hunt will grasp at any straw passing by to hang on to his belief in AGW. He nailed his colours to the mast long ago and will not go quietly.
The logic of all this is flawed anyway. The lack of sea ice in the Arctic was back in the Autumn and early Winter and sea ice was close to the thirty year average by January (as it is now). So the period for modification was a small window. The NH snow cover in January was the largest in the satellite record - all caused by AGW of course.
This is the 4th intensely cold NH winter in a row. Since the models completely failed to predict this - in fact forecast the exact opposite, you really would have to be totally gullible to believe that the cold was to be expected from AGW. The models predicted the wrong sign for NAO.
Perhaps cold winters are due to climate change? As Tonyb pointed out recently the CET trend has been going southwards for a decade now, and so has the NH land/ocean temperature, while we all know (even James Hansen) that the overall temp trend is flat.
I am reminded of that well known commenter on Order Order, one Tay King-dePisse.
I know this a bit OT, but this interview is simply unbelievable: http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/10/more-harsh-words-from-hans-von-storch-climate-sciences-almost-medieval-poltical-understanding/ (h/t Pharos)
Von Storch is basically saying "...the findings (climate science) today are very sure and for the most part undisputed." right after saying "We noticed that something strange had happened, and then an explanation was constructed. Other explanations would also be possible."
Actually, that is OT because it represents what BH is trying to get across. Except Von Storch seems to think this is normal thinking.
Actually, it might be worse than that. What is Von Storch saying here?
"In the past lots of sins were made in the communication surrounding climate change. The impression was aroused that there would no longer be cold winters, that snow was a thing of the past. If things had been clearly communicated right from the start, there would be less distrust today."
Is he saying they knew about the cold winters but just didn't get the message across clearaly? Is the 2007 IPCC report an "impression" that "was aroused"? Did he just call the 2007 IPCC report a communications sin?
Wow, just wow...
In the early 1980s I was taught by my manager that when giving demonstrations of prototypes, never to say what I expected them to do, but always to say "now look at that", with an air of all-knowing confidence, whatever they did.
'one is left wondering what kind of weather is “not consistent” with man-made climate change.'
none , that even a rain of frogs is off limits if its consider usable has 'proof' of AGW
The weather is not climate idea has been fully abandoned has the climate fails to match the models , every extreme event is being jumped on.
But shifting the jet stream is EXACTLY what is expected when the missing heat in the oceans magickally appears in the Arctic.
Well done!
Wish I was better at remembering a source but wasn't there a quote along the lines that "we have to stop debating the science and frame every climate event as a result of man made Co2", not sure if it came from the original CG dump.
Apr 10, 2013 at 4:13 PM | JaceF
Might be this?
“…we need to work in a more shrewd and contemporary way, using subtle techniques of engagement. To help address the chaotic nature of the climate change discourse in the UK today, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won, at least for popular communications. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken…Ultimately, positive climate behaviours need to be approached in the same way as marketeers approach acts of buying and consuming. This is the relevant context for climate change communications… (Executive Summary, page 8, IPPR report “Warm Words: How are we telling the climate story and can we tell it better?” August 2006)”
The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) is a UK think-tank with strong ties to the Labour party that claims to produce progressive ideas committed to upholding values of social justice, democratic reform and environmental sustainability. IPPR is based in London and also has a branch in Newcastle, IPPR North
What has one cold winter got to do with climate change? Can someone please explain?
Eck:
Please see among many others:-
Falsity implies anything
www.cut-the-knot.org/do_you_know/falsity.shtml
The argument, which ultimately rests on the fact that a false proposition implies
any proposition, is this: Suppose Act A is such that it's impossible to perform...
The Telegraph has gone Paywalled .So more comments on here then
@jamspid
The Telegraph's paywall works on cookies: delete the cookies for that site and it thinks you're a new person.
@turningtide
Bingo!
Thanks for the tip. I was just about to shell out my £1.99 per month.......
@latimer alder
Me too, but even though it is only £1.99 per month, I did feel resentful about suddenly having to pay for something that was formerly free - and without warning too.