Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2
Discussion
turbobloke said:
For info, there's no increasing trend / frequency in extreme weather events (e.g. hurricanes, storms, no human link to floods which do not exceed historical levels) and the global death toll is declining. See reports including lit surveys from Khandekar and Goklany in PH climate threads, and other studies, but I appreciate that such details may not be of interest.
In a very short period of time (the last decade) there is some evidence that extreme cold weather events are increasing, but more data is needed to see if the planet is indeed heading into another Dalton or Maunder event - either way, cooling is the new warming as they say.
Carbon dioxide induced warming is about signals in global temperature or energy. There's no causal link to humans.
Indeed they are of interest but there's also evidence to the contrary regarding weather events - e.g. papers/data referred to in the Met Office/CEH report on the winter storm events show increases in the intensity of north Atlantic cyclones and increases in rainfall intensity. In a very short period of time (the last decade) there is some evidence that extreme cold weather events are increasing, but more data is needed to see if the planet is indeed heading into another Dalton or Maunder event - either way, cooling is the new warming as they say.
Carbon dioxide induced warming is about signals in global temperature or energy. There's no causal link to humans.
Lotus 50 said:
Indeed they are of interest but there's also evidence to the contrary regarding weather events - e.g. papers/data referred to in the Met Office/CEH report on the winter storm events show increases in the intensity of north Atlantic cyclones and increases in rainfall intensity.
The UK isn't global. And it's a barely apparent trend if you actually study the data, and then only a result of the 1960’s and 70’s being exceptionally dry, and records for daily rainfall totals coincidentally only going back to 1961 (or thereabouts). If you go back to the beginning of the century and ignore those 2 dry decades, it's a flat-line trend in terms of rainfall. And inevitably as heavier downpours are associated with wetter years, 'intense' rainfall is certainly no more intense than earlier in the last century either.In short, the data just doesn't exist to make those claims. What does exist, shows the claims are dubious in the extreme.
Lotus 50 said:
turbobloke said:
For info, there's no increasing trend / frequency in extreme weather events (e.g. hurricanes, storms, no human link to floods which do not exceed historical levels) and the global death toll is declining. See reports including lit surveys from Khandekar and Goklany in PH climate threads, and other studies, but I appreciate that such details may not be of interest.
In a very short period of time (the last decade) there is some evidence that extreme cold weather events are increasing, but more data is needed to see if the planet is indeed heading into another Dalton or Maunder event - either way, cooling is the new warming as they say.
Carbon dioxide induced warming is about signals in global temperature or energy. There's no causal link to humans.
Indeed they are of interest but there's also evidence to the contrary regarding weather events - e.g. papers/data referred to in the Met Office/CEH report on the winter storm events show increases in the intensity of north Atlantic cyclones and increases in rainfall intensity. In a very short period of time (the last decade) there is some evidence that extreme cold weather events are increasing, but more data is needed to see if the planet is indeed heading into another Dalton or Maunder event - either way, cooling is the new warming as they say.
Carbon dioxide induced warming is about signals in global temperature or energy. There's no causal link to humans.
It's quite possible to move away from global effects, take a local geographical region, and then take a selected start and end point in time with your chosen variable to show what you want people to see.
Going back to the time around the start of satellite temperature monitoring, 1979, the population of major global hurricanes has not increased.
http://policlimate.com/tropical/
In terms of rainfall, does the particular claim referred to relate to an increase at global or local level? For the UK there's no rise taking 1910 as the starting point.
The Met Office has said that "early evidence suggests the UK is getting more rain in total over time, and in more intense bursts" but this is a microtrend being hyped. Use of the word 'early' is telling, try 'premature' and in all of this there is no causality to humans.
When the claimed origin of these events materialises and a visible causal human signal is found, the rest has a chance of being credible. Until then nothing checks out.
What you will find if you look at the references cited by UNIPCC and UKMO is that there is no attempt at a full literature survey, the papers selected are chosen to back the horse these groups have in the race. IPCC acknowledges this, their role is not to offer a balanced picture but to make a case. The process taking place is advocacy.
From the link, for clarity and completeness:
"Statement concerning Irene made on August 27, 2011: The mainstream media has wondered in many recent articles if 'global warming' is making hurricanes stronger or perhaps made Irene stronger. As Dr Kerry Emanuel pointed out - that question is irrelevant. It is the number of intense hurricanes that actually make landfall that is societally important. However, from a scientific point of view, it is a good idea to recognize that the population of 'major' global hurricanes has not increased since 1979. Thinking of the Figure as a stock market ticker, there are always ups and downs, recessions and depressions in activity. But, the overall trend is flat proving conclusively that there is NO 'overall' global increase in hurricanes, minor or major."
ETA and the last for now as this is already present in PH climate threads:
Abstract from Weinkle et al in Journal of Climate 2012.
In recent decades, economic damage from tropical cyclones (TCs) around the world has increased dramatically. Scientific literature published to date finds that the increase in losses can be explained entirely by societal changes (such as increasing wealth, structures, population, etc.) in locations prone to tropical cyclone landfalls, rather than by changes in annual storm frequency or intensity. However, no homogenized dataset of global tropical cyclone landfalls has been created that might serve as a consistency check for such economic normalization studies. Using currently available historical TC best-track records, a global database focused on hurricane-force strength landfalls was constructed. The analysis does not indicate significant long-period global or individual basin trends in the frequency or intensity of landfalling TCs of minor or major hurricane strength. The evidence in this study provides strong support for the conclusion that increasing damage around the world during the past several decades can be explained entirely by increasing wealth in locations prone to TC landfalls, which adds confidence to the fidelity of economic normalization analyses.
As per my earlier post, it's the Al Gore Effect. My emphasis above.
"Statement concerning Irene made on August 27, 2011: The mainstream media has wondered in many recent articles if 'global warming' is making hurricanes stronger or perhaps made Irene stronger. As Dr Kerry Emanuel pointed out - that question is irrelevant. It is the number of intense hurricanes that actually make landfall that is societally important. However, from a scientific point of view, it is a good idea to recognize that the population of 'major' global hurricanes has not increased since 1979. Thinking of the Figure as a stock market ticker, there are always ups and downs, recessions and depressions in activity. But, the overall trend is flat proving conclusively that there is NO 'overall' global increase in hurricanes, minor or major."
ETA and the last for now as this is already present in PH climate threads:
Abstract from Weinkle et al in Journal of Climate 2012.
In recent decades, economic damage from tropical cyclones (TCs) around the world has increased dramatically. Scientific literature published to date finds that the increase in losses can be explained entirely by societal changes (such as increasing wealth, structures, population, etc.) in locations prone to tropical cyclone landfalls, rather than by changes in annual storm frequency or intensity. However, no homogenized dataset of global tropical cyclone landfalls has been created that might serve as a consistency check for such economic normalization studies. Using currently available historical TC best-track records, a global database focused on hurricane-force strength landfalls was constructed. The analysis does not indicate significant long-period global or individual basin trends in the frequency or intensity of landfalling TCs of minor or major hurricane strength. The evidence in this study provides strong support for the conclusion that increasing damage around the world during the past several decades can be explained entirely by increasing wealth in locations prone to TC landfalls, which adds confidence to the fidelity of economic normalization analyses.
As per my earlier post, it's the Al Gore Effect. My emphasis above.
Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 28th September 22:00
Looking at the page Turbobloke linked to re Cyclone activity, there may well be no increase in the number of storms but what the data do show is that there has been an increase in the intensity of these storms - this is the same with the paper cited in the Met Office/CEH paper (I think it was the Wang et al ref) which looked at a time series of data going back over the last century not just to the '60s. They also present evidence from an analysis of rainfall records in the Netherlands that shows increases in intensity with temp. The equivalent analysis hasn't yet been done using the available UK data - something that probably should be done pretty quickly given the use of time series data on rainfall and river flows in infrastructure design, regardless of the causes of any change in weather patterns.
Lotus 50 said:
Looking at the page Turbobloke linked to re Cyclone activity, there may well be no increase in the number of storms but what the data do show is that there has been an increase in the intensity of these storms - this is the same with the paper cited in the Met Office/CEH paper (I think it was the Wang et al ref) which looked at a time series of data going back over the last century not just to the '60s. They also present evidence from an analysis of rainfall records in the Netherlands that shows increases in intensity with temp. The equivalent analysis hasn't yet been done using the available UK data - something that probably should be done pretty quickly given the use of time series data on rainfall and river flows in infrastructure design, regardless of the causes of any change in weather patterns.
That last bit isn't in dispute, unlike the rest 
Discussing parts of a longer dataset whether regional rather than global or limited in time won't get very far. The charts at the link don't go back very far; there's data prior to 1970 and the narrative takes care of that as quoted. What happens in the UK or another country is a very small part of the global picture and involuntary extrapolation will mislead. The fundamental issue here is, as always, causality.
It may be possible to identify a microtrend in part of some datasets but there's no established causality to humans anywhere - in rain, floods, ice, bears or anything else. If variable X rises or falls it's not of itself causal, it's just an observation. With no visible causal human signal in global climate temperature or heat data it's not possible to ascribe causality to humans with regard to phenomena supposedly arising from human induced warming that isn't taking place. Insurers looking at claims may or may not be interested in that aspect but the suspicion is that they will be when looking to keep on the good side of duped politicians.
Where extreme weather events have been ascribed to humans prematurely by over-zealous promoters of the manmade warming myth, including top bods at UKMO who are then contradicted by other senior staff days later, sound science has come along and called their bluff. Advocacy isn't the promotion of the scientific method. From Slingo we've had 'warmer therefore wetter' regarding floods, which isn't working out globally, so now we have cooling as the new warming and 'cold winters mean less water and more droughts' a nice win-win whatever the weather. With nasty humans causing everything under the sun it's no longer a testable hypothesis as all results indicate manmade global warming. Another example of junkscience at work.
The recent Somerset floods were a notable case in point.
Global Warming Did Not Cause The Storms Says Senior Met Office Expert
One of the Met Office’s most senior experts yesterday made a dramatic intervention in the climate change debate by insisting there is no link between the storms that have battered Britain and global warming. Mat Collins, a Professor in climate systems at Exeter University, said the storms have been driven by the jet stream – the high-speed current of air that girdles the globe – which has been ‘stuck’ further south than usual. Professor Collins told The Mail on Sunday: ‘There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this winter. If this is due to climate change, it is outside our knowledge.’
Compare and contrast with the public advocacy from Slingo.
In fact, the jet stream shift was in the opposite sense to that predicted by junkscience warming theory as set out on PH at the time. Compare and contrast:
2008
'The Earth’s jet streams, the high-altitude bands of fast winds that strongly influence the paths of storms and other weather systems, are shifting possibly in response to global warming. Scientists at the Carnegie Institution determined that over a 23-year span from 1979 to 2001 the jet streams in both hemispheres have risen in altitude and shifted toward the poles. The jet stream in the northern hemisphere has also weakened.'
2013
'A massive storm system is moving out of the United States today, which went through Canada yesterday carries with it the strongest jet stream now ever recorded that will cause two super storms in the United Kingdom region this week.'
Futher details in PH climate threads including this one possibly, and the Somerset flooding thread iirc.
So the Somerset event was caused by a stronger jet stream moving away from the pole, whereas warming mythology has a weaker jet stream shifting towards the poles and at higher altitude where the influence on depressions would be less. Another polar opposite dropped boolock for junkscience, pun intended.
The insurance industry would do well to ignore what manmadeup nonsense has to say and stick to science. Manmadeup warming won't get them far except up the Honours List perhaps. Good luck to them!
turbobloke said:
Lotus 50 said:
Looking at the page Turbobloke linked to re Cyclone activity, there may well be no increase in the number of storms but what the data do show is that there has been an increase in the intensity of these storms - this is the same with the paper cited in the Met Office/CEH paper (I think it was the Wang et al ref) which looked at a time series of data going back over the last century not just to the '60s. They also present evidence from an analysis of rainfall records in the Netherlands that shows increases in intensity with temp. The equivalent analysis hasn't yet been done using the available UK data - something that probably should be done pretty quickly given the use of time series data on rainfall and river flows in infrastructure design, regardless of the causes of any change in weather patterns.
That last bit isn't in dispute, unlike the rest Abstract
Tropical cyclone accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) has exhibited strikingly large global interannual variability during the past 40-years. In the pentad since 2006, Northern Hemisphere and global tropical cyclone ACE has decreased dramatically to the lowest levels since the late 1970s. Additionally, the frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low. Here evidence is presented demonstrating that considerable variability in tropical cyclone ACE is associated with the evolution of the character of observed large-scale climate mechanisms including the El Nino Southern Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. In contrast to record quiet North Pacific tropical cyclone activity in 2010, the North Atlantic basin remained very active by contributing almost one-third of the overall calendar year global ACE.
I'm no expert but if there's less total energy, then are the storms less intense? Or is it due to the fact there are just less storms?
chris watton said:
Relating to CC I guess - what the hell's going on with so many recycling plant fires recently? Is it an insurance scam?
Yes and no. Well not just insurance - they would have been paid upfront rather handsomely for "disposal" and ethical recycling. Cash the cheque then "oh nos my recycling plant is on fire" . Rinse and repeat.chris watton said:
Relating to CC I guess - what the hell's going on with so many recycling plant fires recently? Is it an insurance scam?
Makes you wonder although the one in the Black Country apparently caused by a Chinese Lantern seemed genuine enough ... unless someone was being very astute setting up an accident scenario.However what about lorry fires? There seem to be many of these reported in recent times (reported mostly because motorways are closed for extended periods when they occur).
Nearly all of the fires for which I have seen photos suggest they are artic tractor units and not all that old. Is this bad luck, poor design, poor quality components, poor maintenance or, maybe, the result of regulations intended to control some aspects of environmental "pollution"?
Back in the days of crude HGV tech it always seemed that fire problems started with brakes over heating, especially trailer brakes. Now the seat of the conflagration appears to be the tractor unit. Can that be blamed on Global Warming?
Lotus 50 said:
Looking at the page Turbobloke linked to re Cyclone activity, there may well be no increase in the number of storms but what the data do show is that there has been an increase in the intensity of these storms - this is the same with the paper cited in the Met Office/CEH paper (I think it was the Wang et al ref) which looked at a time series of data going back over the last century not just to the '60s. They also present evidence from an analysis of rainfall records in the Netherlands that shows increases in intensity with temp. The equivalent analysis hasn't yet been done using the available UK data - something that probably should be done pretty quickly given the use of time series data on rainfall and river flows in infrastructure design, regardless of the causes of any change in weather patterns.
It used to snow when I was a kid and now it doesn't. Is that climate change? If so is it man made or just natural variance?TX.
Climate Deal And Its Chances Worse Than Previously Thought
Every age has its peculiar folly; some scheme, project, or phantasy into which it plunges, spurred on either by the love of gain, the necessity of excitement, or the mere force of imitation. Failing in these, it has some madness, to which it is goaded by political or religious causes, or both combined.
Charles MacKay, Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, London 1852.
President Obama arrives [in Copenhagen] on Friday morning bent on applying a combination of muscle and personal charm to secure a climate change agreement involving nearly 200 countries. The world is looking to Mr. Obama to wrest some credible success from this process. The administration provided the talks with a palpable boost on Thursday when Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton declared that the United States would contribute its share of $100 billion a year in long-term financing to help poor nations adapt to climate change.
The New York Times, 17 December 2009
What once seemed a harmless token of good will from rich countries to poor ones could derail negotiations over a global climate deal next year. Developing nations want industrial countries to contribute the $100 billion they promised for a Green Climate Fund by 2020 to pay for clean energy and other projects meant to help them adapt to a changing climate. That $100 billion was never realistic. Rich nations that were expected to contribute when the U.N. started the fund in 2010 aren't feeling rich anymore. Unless developing nations drop their demands, negotiations over a binding climate pact next year in Paris might be over before they really begin.
Zack Colman, The Washington Examiner, 29 September 2014
Every age has its peculiar folly; some scheme, project, or phantasy into which it plunges, spurred on either by the love of gain, the necessity of excitement, or the mere force of imitation. Failing in these, it has some madness, to which it is goaded by political or religious causes, or both combined.
Charles MacKay, Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, London 1852.
President Obama arrives [in Copenhagen] on Friday morning bent on applying a combination of muscle and personal charm to secure a climate change agreement involving nearly 200 countries. The world is looking to Mr. Obama to wrest some credible success from this process. The administration provided the talks with a palpable boost on Thursday when Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton declared that the United States would contribute its share of $100 billion a year in long-term financing to help poor nations adapt to climate change.
The New York Times, 17 December 2009
What once seemed a harmless token of good will from rich countries to poor ones could derail negotiations over a global climate deal next year. Developing nations want industrial countries to contribute the $100 billion they promised for a Green Climate Fund by 2020 to pay for clean energy and other projects meant to help them adapt to a changing climate. That $100 billion was never realistic. Rich nations that were expected to contribute when the U.N. started the fund in 2010 aren't feeling rich anymore. Unless developing nations drop their demands, negotiations over a binding climate pact next year in Paris might be over before they really begin.
Zack Colman, The Washington Examiner, 29 September 2014
The recent beheadings in Syria were caused by climate change. I kid you not!
Apparently, a four year drought displaced thousands of farmers to the cities in Syria. These disaffected farmers started unrest, and ISIS was boen out of the unrest.
Here is a link to Anthony Watts take on it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/30/climate-chan...
Apparently, a four year drought displaced thousands of farmers to the cities in Syria. These disaffected farmers started unrest, and ISIS was boen out of the unrest.
Here is a link to Anthony Watts take on it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/30/climate-chan...
Terminator X said:
It used to snow when I was a kid and now it doesn't. Is that climate change? If so is it man made or just natural variance?
TX.
Hmmm.... Well in very simplistic and flippant terms my take on it is this.TX.
- Are you in the same location now as you were when you were a kid? If you've moved from Alaska to the Sahara then I'm not surprised you haven't seen any snow (yet) - this is definately down to climate change as Alaska has a different climate to the Sahara.
- Are you absolutely sure it never snows there now (It snowed here the winter before last (a lot) but didn't last winter, I guess we just got lucky with the weather)? If it hasn't snowed where you are for the last 10 years but if you go back 20-30 years it used to snow every year then I'd suspect a change of climate but more data would be useful. Are you sure it used to snow every year at your location when you were a kid and can you come back in 30 years and let us know if it still isn't snowing? If it did (snow) and it's still stopped in 30 years then I'd be pretty convinced you've had a change of climate. That's not to say that it couldn't change back though!
- Man-made/natural variance.... hmmm.... could be both as well. Or not. Depending on data, analysis, what you choose to believe etc. If you came back in 30 years the people doing the data collection/analysis might be able to tell you one way or the other for certain. Or not. They may well have heated discussions about it.
Does that help?:big laugh:
don4l said:
The recent beheadings in Syria were caused by climate change. I kid you not!
Apparently, a four year drought displaced thousands of farmers to the cities in Syria. These disaffected farmers started unrest, and ISIS was boen out of the unrest.
Here is a link to Anthony Watts take on it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/30/climate-chan...
That's Apparently, a four year drought displaced thousands of farmers to the cities in Syria. These disaffected farmers started unrest, and ISIS was boen out of the unrest.
Here is a link to Anthony Watts take on it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/30/climate-chan...
As per Watts, global warming stopped ten years before the drought in Syria making it difficult for there to be a causal connection.
turbobloke said:
don4l said:
The recent beheadings in Syria were caused by climate change. I kid you not!
Apparently, a four year drought displaced thousands of farmers to the cities in Syria. These disaffected farmers started unrest, and ISIS was boen out of the unrest.
Here is a link to Anthony Watts take on it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/30/climate-chan...
That's Apparently, a four year drought displaced thousands of farmers to the cities in Syria. These disaffected farmers started unrest, and ISIS was boen out of the unrest.
Here is a link to Anthony Watts take on it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/30/climate-chan...
As per Watts, global warming stopped ten years before the drought in Syria making it difficult for there to be a causal connection.
Rather similar to the difference between living in, say, certain parts of London and more remote parts of the UK. Except more extreme opinions similar to the fanatics who follow football with deep involvement. Or some of the more off-the-wall pseudo political parties.
LongQ said:
turbobloke said:
don4l said:
The recent beheadings in Syria were caused by climate change. I kid you not!
Apparently, a four year drought displaced thousands of farmers to the cities in Syria. These disaffected farmers started unrest, and ISIS was boen out of the unrest.
Here is a link to Anthony Watts take on it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/30/climate-chan...
That's Apparently, a four year drought displaced thousands of farmers to the cities in Syria. These disaffected farmers started unrest, and ISIS was boen out of the unrest.
Here is a link to Anthony Watts take on it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/30/climate-chan...
As per Watts, global warming stopped ten years before the drought in Syria making it difficult for there to be a causal connection.
Rather similar to the difference between living in, say, certain parts of London and more remote parts of the UK. Except more extreme opinions similar to the fanatics who follow football with deep involvement. Or some of the more off-the-wall pseudo political parties.
Happy Anniversary & Coming Of Age To The Pause, 01 October 2014 Marks 18 Years Without Global Warming
The Earth’s temperature has “plateaued” and there has been no global warming for at least the last 18 years, says Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at the University of Alabama/Huntsville. “That’s basically a fact. There’s not much to comment on,” Christy said when CNSNews.com asked him to remark on the lack of global warming for nearly two decades as of October 1st.
Barbara Hollingsworth, CBS News, 30 September 2014
It's already 19 years old going on 20 in the McKitrick analysis.
The Earth’s temperature has “plateaued” and there has been no global warming for at least the last 18 years, says Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at the University of Alabama/Huntsville. “That’s basically a fact. There’s not much to comment on,” Christy said when CNSNews.com asked him to remark on the lack of global warming for nearly two decades as of October 1st.
Barbara Hollingsworth, CBS News, 30 September 2014
It's already 19 years old going on 20 in the McKitrick analysis.
mybrainhurts said:
LongQ said:
turbobloke said:
don4l said:
The recent beheadings in Syria were caused by climate change. I kid you not!
Apparently, a four year drought displaced thousands of farmers to the cities in Syria. These disaffected farmers started unrest, and ISIS was boen out of the unrest.
Here is a link to Anthony Watts take on it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/30/climate-chan...
That's Apparently, a four year drought displaced thousands of farmers to the cities in Syria. These disaffected farmers started unrest, and ISIS was boen out of the unrest.
Here is a link to Anthony Watts take on it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/30/climate-chan...
As per Watts, global warming stopped ten years before the drought in Syria making it difficult for there to be a causal connection.
Rather similar to the difference between living in, say, certain parts of London and more remote parts of the UK. Except more extreme opinions similar to the fanatics who follow football with deep involvement. Or some of the more off-the-wall pseudo political parties.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff