BBC BLOGS - Richard Black's Earth Watch
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
« Previous | Main | Next »

Ice-cold reality of warming projections

Richard Black | 15:50 UK time, Monday, 10 January 2011

Climate protest at Cancun summit showing Statue of Liberty underwater

Glacier melt will contribute to sea level rise - but how much?

Given the importance of glaciers in regulating the water supply for a fair fraction of the Earth's population - given also the recent furore over the likely melting date for Himalayan glaciers - there's possibly no hotter topic in climate science than plotting the future of the world's ice bodies.

As with other aspects of climate change, we're dependent (in the absence of a time machine) on computer models to indicate the range of possible futures.

Unfortunately for policymakers and citizens who need good regional projections on which to base decisions, the range of possibilities can be pretty large.

The latest example of this is a paper on mountain glaciers, just published in Nature Geoscience, by Canadian-based researchers Valentina Radic and Regine Hock.

Overall, all the computer models they used in their study projected that glaciers will shrink in the years up to 2100; but even at the global level, there are big differences.

At the extremes, the Canadian CGCM3.1 model projects twice the ice loss of Nasa's GISS-ER model, for example.

People don't get their water supplies from global reservoirs, of course, but from their neighbourhood.

And when we get down to these levels, the differences are even more stark.

For many regions, there's a three- or even four-fold difference between the minimum and maximum projected loss.

And for the impacts of glacier melting on global sea level rise, projections for many of the regions run from essentially zero to several centimetres.

Graph of projected ice changes

Projections of future percentage ice loss (L) and contribution to sea level rise (R) vary markedly from model to model

For context, it's worth emphasising that this is state-of-the-art science.

It uses (generally) the most modern versions of models from leading research institutions.

It uses the most comprehensive dataset available - the World Glacier Inventory, which now contains details of more than 120,000 glaciers around the world.

So this is no tin-pot exercise. Nature itself calls the research:

"...the most comprehensive study of mountain glaciers and small ice caps to date."

Nevertheless, the researchers note:

"Many of these glacierized regions are still facing large uncertainties in the climate projections due to the choice of GCM (global circulation model)."

No-one acknowledges the limitations of computer climate models more readily than modellers themselves, who will frequently bemoan the roughness of the resolution at which they have to work given the tools available.

How fast models' capabilities will increase is anybody's guess - partly because funding for new big science projects is scarce in many nations, partly because there are still big gaps in understanding of how oceans and the atmosphere work, and partly because when it comes to projecting trends such as glacier loss, the path human society takes in terms of economic development is a key factor, and that's certainly a known unknown.

So what should policymakers do?

Invest in extensive water management facilities that can replace glaciers, in the full knowledge that they might not be needed?

Or put off investment until another day, when the likely extent of glacier disappearance becomes more readily predictable from observations, but by which time the solutions available might be more expensive and difficult to implement?

If you take the view that human society never will get to grips with carbon emissions because we are inextricably wedded to cheap energy and fossil fuels - the view that all the coal and gas and oil available will inevitably be burned - then the science suggests the disappearance of glaciers from many regions is a given - it simply becomes a question of "when?"

European glaciers are projected to lose 50-90% of their ice - an acceptable risk?

The point has been made in many fora down the years that climate change policy isn't a question of looking for exact forecasts of impacts and deciding what to do about it.

It's about risk.

Are you willing to accept the risk that the European Alps could lose 90% of their ice by 2100, or New Zealand's ranges 85%?

What about Antarctic islands, or the mountains of the Caucasus?

One of the most succesful tactics that groups opposed to climate action down the years have employed is to cast doubt on the science - often by pointing out the scale of uncertainties in published research.

Campaign groups have on occasion sought to counter this by playing down the uncertainties and claiming that certain climate impacts are certain - claims that can rebound if the science is shown not to be so certain.

However, some observers have maintained that it's the uncertainties that make things really scary - largely because policymaking then becomes a judgement call based on guesstimates and susceptible to influence from all sorts of political and economic forces, rather than a logical response to a quantified threat.

Fresh water is one of the few things none of us can do without.

The latest research confirms that the natural storage systems that supply fresh water to many millions of people are likely to undergo dramatic changes in the next century.

Precisely how dramatic, though, is a question that cannot be answered precisely; and policies will have to be made in the full knowledge of that fact.

 

 

Comments

or register to comment.

  • 1. At 4:17pm on 10 Jan 2011, LabMunkey wrote:

    Happy new year Richard and all on the blog.

    Richard, it is clear that you are taking great pains to be more thorough in this post. You've gone to obvious lengths to highlight the uncertainties, you've raised the issue that these are all model projections based on GCM's and are therefore not real data and you've even said that this is a basically about PERCIEVED risk. Nice one.

    Now the issues....

    The models are all basedc on GCM's which are suspect at best. They also all rely on the GCM predictions for temperature which, is a rather obvious blindspot.

    Finally, the papers opening statement:

    "The contribution to sea-level rise from mountain glaciers and ice caps has grown over the past decades" is a VERY poor statement which undermines the entire paper.

    They are either
    a) suggesting that they can qualify how much water the glaciers contribute to global sea level- which at present (to my understanding) is impossible, or

    b) suggesting that the sea level rate of rise has risen in recent decades, which it emphatically has not

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/08/putting-the-brakes-on-acceleration/

    or for those who hate wuwt the raw data is available at:

    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_ib_global.txt
    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

    Either way- it's bullhockey.

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 4:18pm on 10 Jan 2011, BobRocket wrote:

    Richard,

    do these models, starting from todays known position, predict historical positions with a reasonable degree of accuracy when run backwards ?

    If they do then I will accept that looking forwards they might have a reasonable degree of predictive accuracy.
    If as I suspect they don't then the predictions are worse than useless, they are a distraction from the serious pollution issues that dirty businesses seemingly have absolved themselves from in the name of Human Derived Climate Change.

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 4:50pm on 10 Jan 2011, Smiffie wrote:

    Interesting to see greater acknowledgement of the uncertainties in this and other of your recent articles Richard.

    The last two threads have both closed very early, I wonder if that is what WendyRainbow was alluding to when she said that existing rules will be applied differently, where does she gets her information?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/12/cancun_outcome_splits_opinion.html#P104475729

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 5:21pm on 10 Jan 2011, PAWB46 wrote:

    Climate models have no validity, IPCC states:

    “In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible”.

    GIGO, so the Canadian research, like so much climate research based on models, is worthless and has been a waste of money and effort.

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 6:16pm on 10 Jan 2011, Maurizio Morabito wrote:

    Richard's words clearly undermine the mitigation side of climate change...there is not enough detail to know what is the impact going to be, where it is going to hit and when. Worse, it might take a long time to go from Global to Regional level, and then even that might not be detailed enough, with more years still to go from Regional to "useful" level. All mitigation efforts might be just right, or too much, or too little, just in-time, or too soon, or too late, and we have no clue to tell what they really are.

    Risk management under these "blind walk" conditions has to start from adaptation instead, building up everybody's resilience against present and future climate (or better yet, weather) events. There are enough weather disasters already as things are, despite CO2 levels being far from the projected values, and global temperature anomaly still in the 0.7C region.

    What does one do in fact if you loses one's sight? Await in hospital the invention of an artificial eye? Pretend nothing has happened, and try to walk as before? Or does one protects oneself against accidents (=builds up adaptation) by using a white cane, a guide dog, and all available mobility aids?

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 7:03pm on 10 Jan 2011, Maurizio Morabito wrote:

    Apologies for the mistakes in #5..."you loses"="one loses", "what is the impact going to be"="what the impact is going to be"

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 7:10pm on 10 Jan 2011, andrew9999 wrote:

    @labmonkey

    Your links about sea level rise do show an increase in rate of rise of sea level in recent decades.
    From the same site you linked to http://sealevel.colorado.edu/tidegauges.php
    gives the historical estimates of sea level rise from tide gauges in the last century. They vary from 1.2-2.4 mm/year for the last century, your other link (and the WUWT article) give 3mm/year for the mid 90's to now, thats an increase if I'm not mistaken. Of course the wuwt article used a dubious polynomial fit to get a slight decrease in recent years (not decades).

    The heartening thing about the WUWT article you linked is that they acknowledge the oceans are warming, or is there some other mysterious reason the oceans are expanding.

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 7:33pm on 10 Jan 2011, Jack Hughes wrote:

    Let's check the facts.

    1) These experts freely admit they have no idea what will happen to glaciers by the year 2100.

    2) The year 2100 is 89 years in the future. Did people in 89 years ago in 1922 give a damn about today's glaciers ?

    Do we really need a UN Committe to Save the Glaciers ? Maybe some blue-helmets fanning the ice ?

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 7:37pm on 10 Jan 2011, Brunnen wrote:

    Ah, good old computer models.

    Useful for many things, except predicting the climate. in that regard they are WORSE than useless, they are actually a liability.

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 8:11pm on 10 Jan 2011, jf1010 wrote:

    A really interesting article Richard - thanks. But I was surprised by the pessimism of the comments so far. It is important that we identify aspects of the climate and earth system that are more uncertain and take steps to better understand and model these. This is how science and knowledge moves forward. Of course it would be wonderful if we could perfectly model the climate system and provide policy makers with certainties but in the meantime studies like this will help us make progress by identifying the problems within the models and so allowing us to focus research on solving them.

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 8:48pm on 10 Jan 2011, Maurizio Morabito wrote:

    jf1010 (#10) - the problem is that climate science as it is now asked to help manage the climate risk of the year 2100 is like XVIII century chemistry being asked to develop a nuclear bomb. We know it did, eventually, and science and knowledge moved forward. We also know it would have been absurd to base any policy on what XVIII century chemistry knew about nuclear bombs. And we know that, albeit fundamental to the building of nuclear bombs, XVIII century chemistry studies would have been of very little help in that regard.

    So it's not a matter of pessimism, but (using a similar analogy) of acknowledging that we can't go to the Moon yet if all we can build is hot-air balloons. So what are we supposed to do whilst the Moon-launching capability gets developed?

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 8:58pm on 10 Jan 2011, Jack Hughes wrote:

    #10. I am optimistic about the future. There is no problem with the climate. No problem with the world's glaciers.

    Why are some people attracted to all this weary pessimism and hand-wringing?

    And the competitive caring about bogus problems in the future ?

    It's almost as if some people want problems ...

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 9:41pm on 10 Jan 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    First, I too would like to congratulate Richard on starting the year with more careful writing, with more emphasis of the uncertainties.

    But this paper does not even deserve your careful coverage. Calling it "state-of-the-art science" says more about the junk state of AGW "science" and your lack of understanding of what was done here. It is just another selective garbage in, predetermined garbage out computer model, and models are not evidence of anything. The data they used is almost irrelevant because the MODEL's assumptions are what produced these results. So it is indeed a "tin-pot exercise."

    In the Canadian Rockies and adjacent Columbia Mountains (Selkirks, Purcells, Monashees) there is photgraphic evidence of glacial retreat going back to the late 1800s.

    That is what happens when a Little Ice Age ends.

    As for this constant mantra about glaciers providing water, there is a major flaw in this thinking. Even in areas where there are glaciers the vast majority of runoff water comes from melting snowpacks and other precipitation. Glaciers only start melting after the annual snow on top of them has melted off, and their main contribution is to incrementally extend the flow of rivers longer into the season.

    Glaciers can and do only produce this annual water when they are melting. Their annual shrinkage represents their total net water contribution. So the current river flows are only as high and extended as they are because of recent glacier melting - where glaciers play any role at all.

    A classic example of this spin were screaming headlines a while back about the disappearing glaciers in the Sierras of California which were supposedly going to cause water shortages. A glance at a map would show how utterly ridiculous that was. What glaciers? Its the annual snowpack that matters and this year they have tons of snow.

    Do we need better water management in the future? Yes we do, because there are so many more people who need it. But try explaining that to your green biodiversity friends who are 100% against creating more reservoirs, and flooding more habitats, no matter what.

    Or back to California, explain that to the EPA zealots who have taken legal steps to shut off the irrigation water to North America's garden in order to allegedly save an invented 'endangered species' called the Sacramento Smelt.

    With 1000 year climate model predictions like this, and the kind of junk science - called 'Conservation Biology' - behind the Sacramento Smelt, it is no wonder that more and more people are seeing the modern eco-crisis industrial complex as the Pinnochio that it is. They hijacked the environmental movement long ago, and it is just geeting worse.

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 10:27pm on 10 Jan 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    andrew9999 wrote:

    "The heartening thing about the WUWT article you linked is that they acknowledge the oceans are warming, or is there some other mysterious reason the oceans are expanding."

    If you would look further at WUWT you will also find this recently posted paper, published in the International Journal of Geosciences, which found that "Four out of five ARGO data studies now show Ocean Heat Content declining."

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/06/new-paper-on-argo-data-trenberths-ocean-heat-still-missing/

    I guess this explains why Hansen/GISS now ignores the ARGO data.




    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 11:02pm on 10 Jan 2011, GeoffWard wrote:

    Hey!
    Rockies is the only one who has 'got it' so far!
    It's not a posting about the ability of climate scientists to tell us the year that (eg) the Alps will run dry. The questions posed are how do we handle the OBVIOUS ablation of the world's glaciers in terms of regularising and husbanding a water regime across continents that will become progressively drier across many '000s of sq Kms of highly-populated landmasses. The model-uncertainty of timing is the red herring that simply sets the boundaries of the planning envelope.

    One point is evident from Copenhagen,however. The Copenhagen Accord resulted in the first agreement to set aside funds to help the *Developing* nations -- arguably the sole positive result from an event most observers saw as a failure. The accord identified the Green Climate Fund as the financial mechanism that would support "projects, programs, policies and other activities in developing countries related to mitigation, including REDD+, adaptation, capacity-building, technology development and transfer."
    I think the developed nations have missed this trick - trans-continental water re-engineering across *developed* nations like EU & USA/Canada will miss out on the Green Climate Fund big-time.

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 09:24am on 11 Jan 2011, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ andrew #7

    From your link: i'm not entirely sure you could class that data as a rise.....

    using a simple excel chart you get a negative trend line for the data in table 1.

    So unless you meant some other data my point still stands.

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 09:46am on 11 Jan 2011, bowmanthebard wrote:

    "it's worth emphasising that this is state-of-the-art science"

    Baloney. It's nothing of the sort. It's the methods of psychology and sociology harnessed to big computers. It's modeling instead of testing. No one who has any familiarity with real science or real computer modeling would touch this garbage with a barge pole. It's "science" as understood by pop stars and Hollywood actors and BBC political activists.

    From the perspective of logic and epistemology of science, it's pure trash.

    Projections are worthless unless the methods that yield them are tested. They are tested by looking at some of their shorter-term, modest, checkable predictions and then seeing if those predictions come true. Evidently, they don't.

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 10:31am on 11 Jan 2011, Wolfiewoods wrote:

    Well, 2010 has been one of the warmest years since records began, hardly surprising that the glaciers are retreating, it’s no good pointing to a bit of localised snow and pretending that it isn’t so, you can’t argue with science.

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 10:35am on 11 Jan 2011, John Russell wrote:

    "Models are rubbish" is the shout from those in denial, every time a scientist warns of impending climate events that will impact on our way of life.

    On what basis climate deniers arrive at their view I do not know -- it's certainly not science-based. Past predictions from climate models when compared against gathered data have been observed to be, if not perfect, then reasonably accurate. What's more, where inaccuracy has been revealed, if anything -- perhaps due to conservatism by scientists -- models seem to have understated the trend towards a warming, more extreme, climate.

    On the subject of glaciers; the vast majority of observations to date show that ice loss over the last sixty years is not only continuous but is accelerating.

    http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/

    Looking forward -- even if one rejects models -- simple extrapolation suggests a worrying trend. However, models predict that the loss could be even greater. Based on our past experience of models, perhaps we should assume that as the data is gathered in coming years the reality will turn out to be even worse than predicted?

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 11:18am on 11 Jan 2011, LabMunkey wrote:

    @wolfie.

    "warmest years since records began"

    which records perchance are you reffering to? Also, that doesn't provide proof that man is the cause.....

    @john russel

    "Past predictions from climate models when compared against gathered data have been observed to be, if not perfect, then reasonably accurate"

    lol. thanks for that- are you perhaps aware of the term 'fudge factor'? Are you also aware that the 'adjustments' required to make these models fit vary wildly from model to model? Also, are you aware that the same models you praise for 'back casting' reproducably fail when FORECASTING??

    I.e. they can get them to fit past events by 'nudging' the model repeatedly, yet they all fail when forecasting.

    THAT'S why 'skeptics' decry climate models- they're junk.

    Link evidence of one mainstream climate model that has managed to predict future events correctly past, say, 2 years.

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 1:13pm on 11 Jan 2011, Selti wrote:

    GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE (GMT) PATTERN

    Here is the plot for the 30-years trend for the GMT:

    http://bit.ly/bUZsBe

    It shows:

    1) 30-years of slight cooling from 1880 to 1910
    2) 30-years of warming by about 0.45 deg C from 1910 to 1940
    3) 30-years of slight cooling from 1940 to 1970
    4) 30-years of warming by about 0.45 deg C (nearly identical to that 60 years before) from 1970 to 2000

    Assuming this pattern that was valid for 120 years is valid for the next 20 years, we can reasonably predict:

    5) 30-years of slight cooling from 2000 to 2030

    How does the trend since 2000 looks like?

    Here it is:

    http://bit.ly/hE3vv1

    6) GMT trend flat at 0.4 deg C for 10 years!

    CONCLUSION
    Because of this GMT pattern, the cause of this pattern seems to be natural, and the effect of human emission of CO2 on the GMT appears to be negligible or non existent.

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 1:28pm on 11 Jan 2011, John Russell wrote:

    @'Labmonkey'

    The study of climate since the early years of the 20th century has been built on models. The fact that warming continues and more extreme weather events occur -- as predicted by the vast majority of constantly evolving climate models -- is proof of their value.

    Reading between the lines I suspect that the problem you have is that because computers can only input numbers and then express a result in the same way, you think it has failed if that result turns out subsequently not to match the real-world, observed data with 100% accuracy. However, it's not like they are trying to predict the winner of the 2:30 at Chepstow; identifying a trend is quite sufficient for the scientist, who understands what he is looking at (unlike the sceptic who doesn't).

    It appears from what you write, labmonkey, that your understanding of the history of climate-change modelling is rather limited, so can I suggest some reading? The link below is endorsed by the American Institute of Physics and hosted on their site, so possesses rather more credibility than most. The article describes the history of climate change modelling starting back in the 19th century when global warming was first proposed.

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm .

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 1:58pm on 11 Jan 2011, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @PAWB46 #4

    Always nice to source your quotes, in case they have lost any context. I think yours may have lost some context.

    "In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential."

    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/505.htm

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 2:14pm on 11 Jan 2011, Stefan wrote:

    NATURE DOES NOT NEED THE CONTRIBUTION OF HUMANKIND TO HIT US HARD.
    (See what's happening in Australia or what may have happened before.)

    Now if I am doing something that I suspect is going to get me into trouble, I may decide to stop doing it... or not. In the latter case, I guess I will assume the consequences of my actions, being at least partly aware of them. Else, I'm a child... or a fool!
    I don't need to smoke to end up dead. Still, ...

    LIFE IS POWERFUL AND COMPLEX BEYOND MEASURE.
    Who can say that trying to protect the environment and, by extension, our own children is not a matter of any importance and dedication?

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 2:21pm on 11 Jan 2011, bowmanthebard wrote:

    John Russell #19 wrote:


    "Models are rubbish" is the shout from those in denial

    OK then -- give us an example of a model that isn't rubbish.

    (You'll find that the only models that are not rubbish are routinely and literally tested against reality, NOT merely fine-tuned to agree with prior "data".)

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 2:23pm on 11 Jan 2011, blunderbunny wrote:

    @John Russell

    I suggest that if you're going to try and talk about the models then you should at least read up on them, I can currently recommend:

    http://judithcurry.com/category/climate-models/

    For some very good discussions/opinions, both pro and and con.....

    Given that much of the CAGW work with regard to both signal to noise ratio and CO2 sensitivity are model based, it's really a quite important subject.

    From the tone of your response to Labmunkey's post it's obvious that your opinion is somewhat blinkered. If I might humbly suggest, that's not really a helpful tone to adopt, especially when dealing with so much acknowledged uncertainty.

    If I might just point you at some of the information from your own linked site:

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm

    "For example, the most respected critic of global warming critics, Richard Lindzen, started a long debate by speculating that as the oceans warmed, tropical clouds would become more numerous. They would reflect more sunlight, he said, making for a self-stabilizing system.(103) Struggling with a swarm of such technical uncertainties, experts could not even say whether more tropical clouds would tend to hold back global warming, or hasten it by trapping radiation rising from below. Despite these uncertainties, climate experts (aside from Lindzen and a few followers) were now nearly certain that serious global warming was underway."

    And if I could just draw your attention to some of words on the bottom of this quote:

    "were now nearly certain"

    So, that's not certain then?

    Possibly, a small point, but it's an important one nonetheless....

    Regards,

    One of the Lobby

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 2:29pm on 11 Jan 2011, peevedoff wrote:

    All the signs are there to plainly see.The list of current unusual weather patterns on all continents,The huge increase in seismic activity,the sheer number of volcanoes active at the moment to mention a few.Am i the only one out there who can actually feel it,sense it and totally absorbed in an over riding feeling of impending doom.Its not down to man and his nasty habit of ruining things and destroying things its down to mother nature doing what she always does....change and evolve.Every sense in my body tells me that we are the generation who are going to experience this dramatic event in whatever form it comes but when it does come it only comes in two measures,very bad and catastrophic

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 2:45pm on 11 Jan 2011, Barry Woods wrote:

    Richard.

    Why the alarmist photograph?

    Talk to the Hadley Centre - I have.

    The Hadley Centre have provided the following information:

    "The publication is at: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/cop
    Please scroll to the bottom of the page where there are a number of PDFs. See 'Risks of dangerous climate change'. "


    When I chased down a recent press release, reviewingt he science that was widely reported that 2m sea level rises were VERY unlikeky, the worst case was 59cm, and MOST likely UP to 2 feet..

    ie in all probabilty, about a foot for the next century based on current rates, well within the realms of a total natural rate of sea level rise.

    That is not me saying that, it is the AVOID consortium.

    AVOID is made up of the Met Office - Hadley Centre, The Walker Institute, Tha Grantham Institute and tyndall Centre.

    They advice the DECC on seal lvel rises, this is the official UK position...

    Links all here if you care to look..

    6th December 2010:
    Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1335964/Alarmist-Doomsday-warning-rising-seas-wrong-says-Met-Office-study.html#ixzz17KZaXtHJ
    Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/06/climate-change-tropical-forest-greater
    Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8182278/Climate-change-Met-Office-halves-worst-case-sea-level-prediction.html

    2m sea levels VERY unlikey,
    atlantic conveyor belt not slowing down,
    Old forest was thought to be carbon neutral but, in fact, still absorbs CO2. It therefore has the benefit of helping to slow climate change,

    Part of the AVOID program.....a consortium funded by the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change:

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/policymakers/policy/avoid.html
    http://www.avoid.uk.net/what-is-avoid.php


    http://www.realclimategate.org/2010/12/official-alarmist-warnings-of-2m-sea-level-rises-are-wrong-met-office-study/

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 2:45pm on 11 Jan 2011, John Russell wrote:

    @selti1

    Don't you think your model is rather simplistic -- if not rather unscientific?

    You've taken just 130 years of data and found a way of breaking it up into four pieces in such a way that you think you can spot a pattern. But, 1) your 1880 start date is purely arbitrary and 2) the only reason to break up the data into those specific periods is your own desire to demonstrate something. It's all rather tenuous and proves nothing.

    If you could show more than two cycles, it might be statistically more valid. Who knows, there's always the possibility you could be right -- that's science!

    But it's good to know that you take the idea of models seriously.

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 2:46pm on 11 Jan 2011, Wolfiewoods wrote:

    The discussion is wandering down the wrong path again, I think that this thread will be closing soon.

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 2:48pm on 11 Jan 2011, Barry Woods wrote:

    28

    Have you looked up end of the world cults?

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 2:57pm on 11 Jan 2011, Barry Woods wrote:

    I'm talking to myself!!!
    No doubt some would say, again ;)

    That should read:

    27#
    Have you looked up end of the world cults?

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 3:08pm on 11 Jan 2011, Selti wrote:

    John Russell (#29)

    How about the following interpretation of the global mean temperature data?

    http://bit.ly/cO94in

    i.e: The Global mean temperature pattern is cyclic!

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 3:19pm on 11 Jan 2011, Kamboshigh wrote:

    Glaciers hey,

    Bit of another extreme alarmist piece I must say. Specially, the way it is presented as it implies GW or temp rise will melt the Ice. That is not correct as glaciers melt from underneath not top down. It is also going to be a bit hard to justify AGW when as we all know warming now causes cold, more frequent storms and more snow!

    Where does the idea that all glaciers are in retreat. Most of New Zealand's glaciers are advancing as are those on the west coast of America, even Mont Blanc is advancing. Plus Greenland, Argentina and the vast majority of Antartica.

    Total nonsense with vast varients in possiblities produced by nonsense computers, suggest asking a glacier expert next time.

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 3:22pm on 11 Jan 2011, bowmanthebard wrote:

    27. At 2:29pm on 11 Jan 2011, peevedoff wrote:

    Every sense in my body tells me that we are the generation who are going to experience this dramatic event in whatever form

    The trouble is, every generation thought that. Earlier generations were at least alerted to the fallibility of their own sense of doom because that expected doom explicitly took the form of a religious apocalypse, and every previous generation had been wrong about just that.

    Your generation is not alerted to the fallibility of its own sense of doom because the "new improved doom" masquerades as "science" rather than an explicitly religious apocalypse.

    Know thyself (by taking a good look at your own species, and its perennial forms of hysteria).

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 3:31pm on 11 Jan 2011, John Russell wrote:

    @Blunderbunny

    'Cherry-picking' an article or paper to find specific quotes or phrases to underline your point is disingenuous and the number one tactic of the denial lobby. I urge anyone who is tempted to read Blunderbunny's quotes to go back and read the article in full from the link I provided.

    I would urge the moderators to close down this thread before it descends into a pointless tit-for-tat. Richard Black must be most depressed by what seems to happen every time now.

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 3:31pm on 11 Jan 2011, LabMunkey wrote:

    @22 John russel

    Where to begin.

    "The fact that warming continues and more extreme weather events occur -- as predicted by the vast majority of constantly evolving climate models -- is proof of their value. "

    Ignoring your air of superiority for a moment, you have provided nothing here save for an opinion with nothing to back it up.

    I asked for an example of a climate model that has succesfully modeled the earths climate (via predictions not hindcasting) and you dodged the question admirably. I can provide numerous examples of climate models that diverge from reality almost immediatley once the 'hindcasting' stops.

    Can you provide ONE that doesn't?

    "you think it has failed if that result turns out subsequently not to match the real-world, observed data with 100% accuracy"

    no, i'm aware that it's a difficult thing to model- the IPCC have said so (they actually said it was impossible to make predictions on the climate, but we'll gloss over that one). I'd happily give a 5-10% error limit to any climate model you care to use as proof of your position.

    "identifying a trend is quite sufficient for the scientist, who understands what he is looking at (unlike the sceptic who doesn't)."
    Curious. You're using the trends shown in arbitrary models, that are not real-world tested as evidence that your position is right, despite the real-world observations directly contradicting them.

    "It appears from what you write, labmonkey, that your understanding of the history of climate-change modelling is rather limited"

    hehe. John, for context- i am a scientist with a long cGMP research background. Having encountered 'ACTUAL' modelling (i.e. engineering models) in my work, i am fully aware how a model should and does (in the real world) function.

    Climate models are woeful. Really. Most of the GCM's do not survive even basic scrutiny (i can list the common assuptive errors, missing parameters and confirmation bias should you wish).

    "The article describes the history of climate change modelling starting back in the 19th century when global warming was first proposed. "

    Work since the 19th century, yet they STILL do not validate the models via real-world testing as every other field that uses models do. If anything, this article and statement has lessened my opinion of climate scientists further. Something i thought until now, not possible.

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 3:44pm on 11 Jan 2011, andrew9999 wrote:

    @labmonkey

    The point I was making is the rate of sea level rise for the period 1993-2010 as a whole is greater than the average 20th century sea level rise.
    Although the rate of rise of the period 2001-2010 is less than the 1993-2003, they are both still larger than the average 20th century rate of sea level rise.

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 4:01pm on 11 Jan 2011, bowmanthebard wrote:

    John Russell #36 wrote:

    I would urge the moderators to close down this thread

    How utterly typical. That phrase sums up the "science" here.

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 4:01pm on 11 Jan 2011, John Russell wrote:

    Kamboshigh wrote:

    "...it implies GW or temp rise will melt the Ice. That is not correct as glaciers melt from underneath not top down. It is also going to be a bit hard to justify AGW when as we all know warming now causes cold, more frequent storms and more snow!

    Meltwater on the surface of glaciers works its way down through sink holes and lubricates the base of the glacier, speeding up flow and assisting gravity to do much of the work of 'melting' it. Melting is only part of the story of how glaciers disappear. There's an interesting article in this weeks New Scientist that explains this mechanism and how it's affecting Greenland's glaciers.

    As for the "...increased warming causes cold, more frequent storms and more snow!"; I'm sure you know as well as I do that more frequent extreme weather means increased heat, as well as increased cold. That's why some parts of the Arctic have been unusually warm over the last month or two while we were suffering an un-precedented cold spell. Nuuk, Greenland, (you know -- near where the glaciers are) even hit +15 degrees C at one point!

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 4:05pm on 11 Jan 2011, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ 38 andrew.

    That is not how the data looks to me and the data you've linked doesn't support that assertion. Link the correct data and we'll look again.

    @ paul #36

    instead of bemoaning his choice of texts- perhaps you should point out WHY you don't like it rather than throwing a wobbly.

    "I would urge the moderators to close down this thread before it descends into a pointless tit-for-tat."

    you are the only one doing such a thing- most others are actually trying to have a discussion using evidence to back up their positions- you might try it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 4:08pm on 11 Jan 2011, blunderbunny wrote:

    @John Russell

    So, I maliciously took the time to read the information on the link, which you provided and then quoted something back to you.

    Okay, it's a view, not a terribly sensible one, but it's a view....

    I'm sorry if my tone was a tad flippant, it's apparently how I type. But, the point that I was trying to make, is that there is much that it is uncertain and that the models (quite often) don't help.

    Even the IPCC acknowledge this, hence the very wide margins of error and wide ranging sensitivity predictions.

    I personally prefer to go with measured rather than modelled or inferred sensitivites and almost without exception, these all indicate that sensitivity is low. Indeed it's only in the models, that one finds the more "out there" predictions.

    So, as you were trumpeting modelling, I just thought you might benefit from some informed discussion on the subject(A Belated Hat Tip to Simon H for the Link). If you don't want to bother to spend any time examining the pros and cons, then that's up to you, but don't for one minute think that just because a model tells you something it's true. Even for a fairly low, given value of true.

    Regards,

    One of the Lobby ;-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 4:09pm on 11 Jan 2011, LabMunkey wrote:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2011/01/coal-takes-the-strainagain.shtml#comments

    richard, care to comment?

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 4:29pm on 11 Jan 2011, Kamboshigh wrote:

    #40

    Nice description of how advancing glaciers work then. Namely, glaciers that are growing not retreating.

    As I said you need to ask an expert not some computer programmer who probably has never set foot on one.

    While we are at it why are some european glaciers advancing whilst others are retreating, often with 100 miles of each other?

    Starter for 10 "Has nothing to do with CO2"

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 4:44pm on 11 Jan 2011, Kamboshigh wrote:

    Is it true that Auntie has an FOI request with regards to the supposed/alledged secret MET office briefing "it will be a harsh winter" given to the UK gov't which was ignored due to political agendas?

    Please tell me that Roger and Richard are beginning to see the light at last. Well maybe, we will all need glasses with these useless energy saving bulbs we are forced to use.

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 4:51pm on 11 Jan 2011, Kamboshigh wrote:

    #40

    John really you should confirm your points especially about +15C in Greenland, recently, such as "Accuweather" and not some fictional bias dreamed up by websites or NASA. You cannot accurately call a temperature on 1,200Km gridded square with only 1 weather station and ignore the thermometer.

    Oh the Glaciers and Ice gap on the area you describe are growing by the way.

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 5:19pm on 11 Jan 2011, quake wrote:

    Glaciers can speed up even as they retreat.

    Why are most glaciers worldwide in decline? Why has this decline accelerated in recent decades?

    Might have something to do with global warming. Maybe.

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 5:23pm on 11 Jan 2011, Barry Woods wrote:

    Interesting developments at Watts Up, John O sullivan apparently contacted Roger Harrabin.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/11/the-plot-thickens-bbc-hits-uk-govt-with-freedom-of-information-demand-in-cold-winter-forecast-fiasco/

    "The BBC serves Freedom of Information request (FOIA) on UK Government over weather forecast failures secrecy in worst winter for 100 years.

    In an almighty battle to salvage credibility three British government institutions are embroiled in a new global warming scandal with the BBC mounting a legal challenge to force ministers to admit the truth. Sceptics ask: Is the UK government’s climate propaganda machine finally falling apart?"


    I wrote this yesterday at Watts Up (a guest post)
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/09/the-met-office-secret-prediction-and-the-political-implications/

    "Bishop Hill and other blogs report that Freedom of Information request are being sent off for these ‘ so called ‘secret’ Met Office predictions made to the government.

    After all it must be true, the BBC’s Roger Harrabin reported it?

    I wonder if the BBC have thought to send any FOI requests in themselves, just to check the facts of this story. The BBC just renewed a 5 year contract with the Met Office to provide all the weather forecasting for the BBC. The BBC surely does not want to look as if it is being lax in its investigative journalism? If only to check that the service provided to the BBC by the Met Office is competent and can be trusted, as it is taxpayers money paying for this service.

    “The trouble is that we simply don’t know how much to trust the Met Office.” – BBC Roger Harrabin, from the Telegraph"

    --------------

    I assume the BBC read Bishop Hill and thought they had better send in a FOI or 2 as well.

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 5:34pm on 11 Jan 2011, Barry Woods wrote:

    47

    The issue remains of course a subtle distinction...between

    Man made global warming..

    and or global warming since the end of the LITTLE ICE AGE...
    (and in that long period, there have been periods of accelerated cooling and accerated warming for a few decades as well)

    let alone local factors where many glaciers are growing as well.

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 6:12pm on 11 Jan 2011, quake wrote:

    Richard made an important point about uncertainty:

    "One of the most succesful tactics that groups opposed to climate action down the years have employed is to cast doubt on the science - often by pointing out the scale of uncertainties in published research."

    Richard points out one reason why this isn't the case:

    "However, some observers have maintained that it's the uncertainties that make things really scary - largely because policymaking then becomes a judgement call based on guesstimates and susceptible to influence from all sorts of political and economic forces, rather than a logical response to a quantified threat."

    Exactly.

    Uncertainty is a problem. If we are uncertain what effect elevated CO2 will have on regional temperature, storms, precipitation patterns, drinking water, agriculture, ocean ecosystems, etc, etc, etc, by 2100 then that widens the possibilities to the extent that this becomes a real problem and an argument for CO2 emission reductions.

    The skeptics for too long have been exploiting uncertainty in one direction as if holding your hands over your eyes means danger can't be there. With total uncertainty and lack of knowledge, man-made global warming is a de-facto problem requiring a solution. If that problem is to melt away with no solution necessary then a large part of the burden for that is on scientists to demonstrate that elevated CO2 levels are safe. That is science must be able to demonstrate with some certainty that upper "worse case" levels of sea level rise, precipitation changes, storm changes, etc will have minimal or negliable impact.

    It did interest me to see that one skeptic on this thread attempting to do this - they cited model results to argue that sea level rise isn't alarming because the worse case scenario was a rise of 59cm by 2100. However this was rudely undermined by his fellow skeptics, who spent a number of posts bemoaning the uselessness of climate models, implying that they don't trust any such 59cm upper limit with the implication that sea level rise could be far higher. So the sea level problem remains then.

    That's how it should work.

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 6:19pm on 11 Jan 2011, quake wrote:

    Re 49. Barry Woods

    It is clear that the worldwide glacier decline is due to the globe warming, but some people are still asking if that's the case or pointing at a few growing glaciers with the implication, surely, that maybe the majority of glaciers aren't in decline worldwide?

    In such situations I find it necessary to just keep hammering on about the fact that worldwide glacers are indeed in decline.

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 6:25pm on 11 Jan 2011, Jack Hughes wrote:

    More on the Met-Gate story from the BBC's Roger Harrabin:

    "...Harrabin further revealed, “The Beeb now has an FoI [freedom of information request] to Cabinet Office requesting verbatim info from [the] Met Office.”

    It's an important issue if the Met Office was forecasting a mild winter to the public and giving a secret snow forecast to the government.

    @Richard - could you do some fact-finding please. Ta.

    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 6:32pm on 11 Jan 2011, david wrote:

    The problem as I see it - on this and related matters - is that the 'alarmists' tend to talk as though the earth is only as old as they are - and therefore invoke recent changes to glaciers, floods, extreme temperatures etc as 'proof' that the climate is out of control - and of course that its all our fault.
    No lesser person than Julia Slingo, head of the Met Office, has said publicly that climate is 'chaotic' - so how on earth (sorry - unintended pun) can computer models indicate - 'predict' even - what is going to happen in a hundred years' time..?

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 6:51pm on 11 Jan 2011, quake wrote:

    "It's an important issue if the Met Office was forecasting a mild winter to the public and giving a secret snow forecast to the government."

    It didn't forecast a mild winter to the public. The Met Office suspended giving seasonal forecasts to the public near the beginning of last year.

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 7:14pm on 11 Jan 2011, Barry Woods wrote:

    What was on the website then?

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 7:18pm on 11 Jan 2011, bowmanthebard wrote:

    quake #54 wrote:

    It didn't forecast a mild winter to the public.

    It unofficially predicted a mild winter to the newspapers and to the BBC, which duly passed the "wink wink say no more" hot insider tip to the great unwashed, unlike the UK Government, apparently.

    The Met Office were trying to avoid culpability by making nothing official, at the same time as avoiding falsifiability for their rubbish models by predicting it would be milder than usual, AND colder than usual.

    This sort of dishonesty behind closed doors must stop, and will stop. The voting public have had enough pseudoscientific garbage and politicking.

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 7:25pm on 11 Jan 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    Here's a great quote from Jo Nova describing an AGW enthusiast named Greg Craven:

    "The irony is he’ll devote hours to “understanding” the official establishment version of events, and three years working non-stop to promote that, but nothing to understanding why people are unconvinced. He’s living in the matrix — he thinks the punters are dumber than him, and they’re being exploited by a “ruthless denial machine” — meanwhile his religious zeal, and blind faith in authority is passively exploited by a ruthless power-seeking money-hungry machine...

    He faithfully ignores the missing stations, the smearing of measurements across 1200km, the thermometers in car-parks, the endless shifting excuses, the un-falsifiability of their predictions, the weather-balloon results, the polite questions from skeptics and the pattern of deceit in some of his hallowed hero scientists who somehow repeatedly hide and lose their records."

    http://joannenova.com.au/2011/01/a-willing-victim-of-false-faith-cravens-solution-scream-louder/

    You can read excerpts of Craven's rant at the above link, or you can visit his website.

    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 7:26pm on 11 Jan 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    The next time one of the usual suspects starts screaming about this supposed 97% consensus of scientists who agree on AGW you can simply ask... all 75 of them?

    Yes, 75 of 77 is 97%.

    Thought there were more scientists than that?

    Well, first you EXCLUDE "the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth - out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers."

    That left 10,257 deemed 'worthy' for this on-line survey.

    But only 3146 bothered to answer it, and only 83% of that selected (for their bias) group agreed on AGW. So they narrowed that down to a cherry picked sample of 77, and voila, 97% of them agreed. Most astonishing that it wasn't 100%.

    Here's a link to the original paper:

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/consensus_opiate.pdf

    Here's Solomon's article about it:

    http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/#ixzz1A5px63Ax

    And here it is again, complete with lots of interesting comments:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/04/lawrence-solomon-on-consensus-statistics/

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 7:30pm on 11 Jan 2011, Lamna nasus wrote:

    Happy New Year Richard and all those who read and contribute to this blog.

    It appears the Contrarian echo chamber has got slightly ahead of itself after the shock of snow falling in Winter.. while some parts of the UK experienced the driest December in 30 years.. one very cold winter in some parts of the world doesn't make an Ice Age.

    @53 david

    .. on the contrary, climate models take into account historical data and present the 'background' expectations without 6 billion people and modern globalised industry as well.. indeed it is the Contrarians who wish to present every winter as proof of the global conspiracy by the entire reputable, scientific community to prevent them owning a shiny, new Chelsea Tractor.

    Contrarian policy is to promote doubt.. and has been ever since the Tobacco industry demonstrated it was possible to delay industry regulation for decades simply by exploiting the fact reputable science is never 100% certain.. (interestingly several high profile Tobacco industry advisors now work for the Contrarian Climate lobby).. fact is, even scientists employed by the Petroleum industry recognised anthropogenic forcings have a significant effect on climate, years ago.

    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 7:33pm on 11 Jan 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    Here's an extensive analysis and discussion of climate models published in published by Annals of Applied Statistics, that includes this key point (and much, much more):

    "climate scientists have greatly underestimated the uncertainty of proxy-based reconstructions and hence have been overconfident in their models"

    http://climateaudit.org/2010/12/14/mcshane-and-wyner-discussion-2/

    Given the significance of this analysis to the famous mann-made hockey stick and all AGW predictions, this SHOULD have been covered by Richard but, of course, that will never happen.

    -------------------------------

    Here's another analysis of climate models.

    "A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data

    Anagnostopoulos, G. G. , Koutsoyiannis, D. , Christofides, A. , Efstratiadis, A. and Mamassis, N. ‘A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data’, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55:7, 1094 – 1110

    Abstract

    We compare the output of various climate models to temperature and precipitation observations at 55 points around the globe. We also spatially aggregate model output and observations over the contiguous USA using data from 70 stations, and we perform comparison at several temporal scales, including a climatic (30-year) scale. Besides confirming the findings of a previous assessment study that model projections at point scale are poor, results show that the spatially integrated projections are also poor."

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/05/new-peer-reviewed-paper-shows-just-how-bad-the-climate-models-are/

    --------

    In other words, climate models are, to put it kindly, not evidence of anything.

    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 7:42pm on 11 Jan 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    Here's a very entertaining video that sums things up. A must see for Richard:

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/global-warming-explained/

    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 7:49pm on 11 Jan 2011, Lamna nasus wrote:

    @57 Canadian Rockies

    .. you appear to have overlooked the link to Greg Craven's original material.. *fixed*

    http://www.gregcraven.org/



    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 7:51pm on 11 Jan 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    Here's a recently published peer reviewed paper which supports the simplest explanation for any warming trend we have seen since the 1800s.

    Glaciers do tend to recede when a Little Ice Age ends.

    "ABSTRACT

    A number of published papers and openly available data on sea level changes, glacier retreat, freezing/break-up dates of rivers, sea ice retreat, tree-ring observations, ice cores and changes of the cosmic-ray intensity, from the year 1000 to the present, are studied to examine how the Earth has recovered from the Little Ice Age (LIA). We learn that the recovery from the LIA has proceeded continuously, roughly in a linear manner, from 1800-1850 to the present. The rate of the recovery in terms of temperature is about 0.5°C/100 years and thus it has important implications for understanding the present global warming. It is suggested on the basis of a much longer period covering that the Earth is still in the process of recovery from the LIA; there is no sign to indicate the end of the recovery before 1900. Cosmic-ray intensity data show that solar activity was related to both the LIA and its recovery. The multi-decadal oscillation of a period of 50 to 60 years was superposed on the linear change; it peaked in 1940 and 2000, causing the halting of warming temporarily after 2000. These changes are natural changes, and in order to determine the contribution of the manmade greenhouse effect, there is an urgent need to identify them correctly and accurately and remove them."

    http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=3217&JournalID=69#abstract

    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 7:52pm on 11 Jan 2011, Daviid_Dublin wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 65. At 8:09pm on 11 Jan 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    More on the garbage in-garbage out credibility of climate models:

    "Climate Models Differ on CO2 Warming Effect by over 32°F

    "... As this study gingerly points out, these are "large differences" between climate models, resulting from differing "assumptions" of the "model physics," in other words, due to whatever fudge factors one chooses to plug in for the 'greenhouse effect' of CO2. All claims of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming rest upon the shaky scientific foundations and gross assumptions of these same climate models."

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/01/climate-models-differ-on-co2-warming.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 8:24pm on 11 Jan 2011, Lamna nasus wrote:

    @49 ...'let alone local factors where many glaciers are growing as well.' - Barry Woods


    .. interesting how that old Contrarian canard never comes with a link.. probably because it is not true.. as was graphically demonstrated when George Monbiot wiped the floor with Contrarian spokesperson David Bellamy on national television over that precise issue -
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjH3FOMskLs

    Complain about this comment

  • 67. At 8:24pm on 11 Jan 2011, Daviid_Dublin wrote:

    It's simple really.
    2010 is officially the second warmest on record.
    1998 is usually accepted as the warmest.
    Therefore if you draw a line between 1998 and 2010 you get a (slight) drop in global temps.
    So for the past 12 years there has been no warming!
    Q.E.D.

    Complain about this comment

  • 68. At 8:43pm on 11 Jan 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    $4 billion U.S. taxpayer dollars pumped into the climate crisis research-industrial complex, and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

    And all this funding needs this "crisis." No wonder they keep 'finding' signs of it.

    As always, just follow the money.

    http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/6250/Climate-Change-Skeptics-are-Stooges-for-Big-Oil

    Complain about this comment

  • 69. At 8:44pm on 11 Jan 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #62. Lamna_nasus

    Thanks for adding that direct link. The more people who see Craven the better.

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 8:53pm on 11 Jan 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #66. Lamna_nasus wrote:

    "@49 ...'let alone local factors where many glaciers are growing as well.' - Barry Woods

    .. interesting how that old Contrarian canard never comes with a link.. probably because it is not true.. "

    Just google 'growing glaciers.' Here's a link.

    http://www.iceagenow.com/growing_glaciers.htm

    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 8:54pm on 11 Jan 2011, quake wrote:

    Re 56. At 7:18pm on 11 Jan 2011, bowmanthebard wrote:

    "It unofficially predicted a mild winter to the newspapers and to the BBC, which duly passed the "wink wink say no more" hot insider tip to the great unwashed, unlike the UK Government, apparently."

    The newspapers took a chart from the Met Office website. A chart that they shouldn't have used. There's no evidence the Met Office pointed them at the chart, that's just pure speculation on your part but you present it as fact anyway. Interesting.

    The chart was headed in big letters that said it should not be used as a seasonal forecast for a specific area. The newspapers used it anyway.

    The Met Office on the same day (October 28th) the newspapers ran the story issued a statement reading:

    "Following public research, the Met Office no longer issues long-range forecasts for the general public; instead we provide a monthly outlook on our website.

    Despite this, you may have seen some reports in the media on Thursday, suggesting the Met Office has produced a forecast for the coming winter.

    These media reports have based their interpretation for the coming winter on probability maps on our website. However, they have been selective about the information they have used and you should not take these interpretations as a guide to the coming winter. Instead we would recommend using our monthly outlook and short range forecasts."

    How does that fit in with your conspiracy theory? All this evidence suggests that the Met Office didn't want the media to run with a story about that chart all along.

    "The Met Office were trying to avoid culpability by making nothing official, at the same time as avoiding falsifiability for their rubbish models by predicting it would be milder than usual, AND colder than usual."

    That just makes no sense either. If they wanted to avoid culpability and falsifiability why release a chart to the media which skeptics are now holding up as "the met office predicted this"

    And why would the Met Office disown the story the media ran with if they planned it all along? Your version of events not only makes no sense, it is in fact contradicted by the events and furthermore is a massive smear so is slightly evil too.

    "This sort of dishonesty behind closed doors must stop, and will stop. The voting public have had enough pseudoscientific garbage and politicking."

    What needs to stop is this dishonesty by skeptic blogs who are spinning this as part of yet another one of their smear campaigns. They sure managed to trick you didn't they? How else can I explain why you seem to have missing areas in your version of events?

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 9:02pm on 11 Jan 2011, quake wrote:

    Re 58 At 7:26pm on 11 Jan 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    "The next time one of the usual suspects starts screaming about this supposed 97% consensus of scientists who agree on AGW you can simply ask... all 75 of them?

    Yes, 75 of 77 is 97%."

    Bolt and the SPPI are truely barking up the wrong tree. The 97% is for the sample of climate scientists actively publishing in the field.

    If you want to take the whole survey of 3146 Earth scientists, the proportion who accept AGW is 82%.
    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/andrew_bolt_vs_percentages.php

    Complain about this comment

  • 73. At 9:12pm on 11 Jan 2011, quake wrote:

    Meteorologist Jeff Masters on how global warming has contributed to the recent (and ongoing) Australian floods:
    http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1724

    Complain about this comment

  • 74. At 9:13pm on 11 Jan 2011, Lamna nasus wrote:

    @68 ..'just follow the money' - Canadian Rockies

    .. oh the irony.. so Art Horn didn't manage to shoulder his way to the front of the queue? -

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/01/exxon-mobil-climate-change-sceptics-funding



    @61 Canadian Rockies

    ..please clarify, who is Steven Goddard and what are his scientific qualifications for explaining climate.. apart from guest opinion pieces on Contrarian blogs?.. and an article that had to be corrected on The Register of course...

    Complain about this comment

  • 75. At 9:27pm on 11 Jan 2011, Jack Hughes wrote:

    Here's a forecast from 1989 - from the UN...

    "A senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.

    "Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of 'eco-refugees,' threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect... "

    Complain about this comment

  • 76. At 9:30pm on 11 Jan 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    What's this?

    "The plot thickens: BBC Hits UK Govt with Freedom of Information Demand in Cold Winter Forecast Fiasco"

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/11/the-plot-thickens-bbc-hits-uk-govt-with-freedom-of-information-demand-in-cold-winter-forecast-fiasco/

    Complain about this comment

  • 77. At 10:07pm on 11 Jan 2011, Lamna nasus wrote:

    @ 67
    It's simple really.
    2010 is officially the second warmest on record.
    1998 is usually accepted as the warmest.
    Therefore if you draw a line between 1998 and 2010 you get a (slight) drop in global temps.
    So for the past 12 years there has been no warming!
    Q.E.D.' - Daviid_Dublin


    Yep, that is how Contrarian 'scientific' propaganda works.. its all in the smoke and mirrors presentation...


    Fortunately the reputable scientific facts show the real picture -

    'Arctic sea ice extent averaged over December 2010 was 12.00 million square kilometers (4.63 million square miles). This is the lowest December ice extent recorded in satellite observations from 1979 to 2010.. '
    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    Complain about this comment

  • 78. At 10:08pm on 11 Jan 2011, Maurizio Morabito wrote:

    quake - your conclusion in #50 make little sense. "With total uncertainty and lack of knowledge, man-made global warming is a de-facto problem requiring a solution". Yes. And the solution is to focus first on adaptation, not mitigation, because whatever is coming, is going to hit us hard. And how do we know that? Because the climate of today is hitting us hard already.

    If you're driving a car and the accelerator gets stuck what do you do, abandon the wheel to try to fix the problem?

    Complain about this comment

  • 79. At 10:13pm on 11 Jan 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    74. Lamna_nasus wrote:

    "@68 ..'just follow the money' - Canadian Rockies

    .. oh the irony.. so Art Horn didn't manage to shoulder his way to the front of the queue? -

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/01/exxon-mobil-climate-change-sceptics-funding"

    Yes follow the money. Compare the crumbs from exxon to the billions spent supporting the AGW research-industrial complex and the trillions the Wall Streeters dream of in carbon trading.

    -----------

    @61 Canadian Rockies

    "..please clarify, who is Steven Goddard and what are his scientific qualifications for explaining climate.."

    You need to do your own homework. What are Richard black's qualifications?

    Complain about this comment

  • 80. At 10:19pm on 11 Jan 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #72. quake wrote:

    "If you want to take the whole survey of 3146 Earth scientists, the proportion who accept AGW is 82%."

    Yes, and my post also explained that.

    So 75 selected scientists agree that AGW is the culprit. And all of them depend on the existence of this crisis for all or most of their funding.

    Duh.

    And Jeff Masters on Australia. LOL. I'm sure Al Gore believes him. But...

    “Queensland Flood History” [1841 - 2010]

    http://www.bom.gov.au/hydro/flood/qld/fld_history/index.shtml

    “Drought in Australia a natural phenomenon”

    http://home.iprimus.com.au/foo7/droughthistory.html

    The 1990s saw formal Government acknowledgement that drought is part of the natural variability of the Australian climate, with drought relief for farmers and agricultural communities being restricted to times of so-called “exceptional circumstances”.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/lam/climate/levelthree/c20thc/drought.htm




    Complain about this comment

  • 81. At 10:33pm on 11 Jan 2011, RobWansbeck wrote:

    #77, Lamna_nasus, wins the prize for climate-weather double vision.

    Lowest December Arctic sea-ice extent in 30 years = Climate.

    Lowest December CET in 120 years = Weather.

    Complain about this comment

  • 82. At 10:45pm on 11 Jan 2011, quake wrote:

    Re 78: The accelerator isn't stuck in this case. Some people just don't want to ease off the gas.

    Re. The bottom line is about two and a half thousand publishing earth scientists accept AGW (82% of surveyed). And they are hardly likely to have regarded their answer to that survey as being crucial for funding. They probably...I don't know...answered with what they thought was scientifically correct. A mad idea I know.

    But at least stop trying to have it both ways. Either pretend a lot of scientists don't accept AGW or pretend that a lot of scientists support AGW for funding. Accept one of those fantasies but not both together, because they contradict.

    Complain about this comment

  • 83. At 10:59pm on 11 Jan 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #82 quake

    To repeat...

    Well, first you EXCLUDE "the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth - out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers."

    That left 10,257 deemed 'worthy' for this on-line survey.

    But only 3146 bothered to answer it, and only 83% of that selected (for their bias) group agreed on AGW. So they narrowed that down to a cherry picked sample of 77, and voila, 97% of them agreed. Most astonishing that it wasn't 100%.

    Yet the media reports, which too many people actually believe, siad that '97% of scientists' agree. That is deliberately misleading, to put it mildly. But such deception is standard procedure for the AGW gang and their parrots.

    Complain about this comment

  • 84. At 10:59pm on 11 Jan 2011, Maurizio Morabito wrote:

    quake - #82. You still haven't explained why driving the car wouldn't take precedence over unblocking the accelerator. And the accelerator IS stuck, as CO2 emissions are bound to increase under all plausible scenarios for the near future (and beyond).

    Complain about this comment

  • 85. At 11:05pm on 11 Jan 2011, GeoffWard wrote:

    quake wrote @ 51: Re 49. Barry Woods
    "It is clear that the worldwide glacier decline is due to the globe warming, but some people are still asking if that's the case or pointing at a few growing glaciers with the implication, surely, that maybe the majority of glaciers aren't in decline worldwide?
    In such situations I find it necessary to just keep hammering on about the fact that worldwide glacers are indeed in decline."
    .......................................
    Measuring glaciers, computing their volume, determining ablation/extension - all these things are 'relatively' easy. Measuring the loss of glacial ice as liquid run-off is also 'relatively' easy.
    Ascribing cause is also 'relatively' easy - warmer ambient temperatures over 0oC in the geographical area for sufficient duration, irrespective of the contribution or otherwise of Human Factors.
    When a glacier is fully melted and gone, its thermal capacity goes with it - replacing it becomes difficult, to say the least. Cool mountain glaciers become warmer mountain valleys where snow may settle less and give less spring run-off. No glacial melt-water means regionally, minimised summer river-flow, hydro-electric minima, reduced irrigation, reduced water supply for industry & home, and reduced pollution dilution capacity.
    Less high altitude natural water-storage means we will have to do it for nature.
    I forsee much need for *heroic* civil engineering and water-management if 21st century populations are to exist much as now.

    Complain about this comment

  • 86. At 11:07pm on 11 Jan 2011, Lamna nasus wrote:

    @79 RobWanbeck

    ..Get back to me when you have more than 4 weeks weather in Central England.. then we can discuss prize winners for the definitions of 'Climate'.. 'Weather'.. and 'Double Vision'...

    Complain about this comment

  • 87. At 11:09pm on 11 Jan 2011, LarryKealey wrote:


    First, as has already been pointed out - people don't depend upon glaciers for drinking water. You can't turn on the 'spicket' on a glacier and get water - the expand and receed - naturally. Now, many of us do store water from the melting of the winter snowpack. You know - spring floods every year and all that...

    It just baffles the mind that so many people keep beating the same dead drum...

    Anyways, Happy New Year Richard - keep beating that drum

    Complain about this comment

  • 88. At 11:13pm on 11 Jan 2011, andrew9999 wrote:

    @labmunkey
    #1,#41 you said "That is not how the data looks to me and the data you've linked doesn't support that assertion. Link the correct data and we'll look again."
    I'm a bit mystified by this, so here goes again
    from here http://sealevel.colorado.edu/tidegauges.php
    Table 1: Estimates of Global Sea Level Rise from Tide Gauge Records Sea Level
    Rise (mm/yr) Error
    (mm/yr) Data Used
    (years) # of Tide Gauge Stations References
    1.43 ±0.14 1881-1980 152 Barnett, 1984
    2.27 ±0.23 1930-1980 152 Barnett, 1984
    1.2 ±0.3 1880-1982 130 Gornitz & Lebedeff, 1987
    2.4 ±0.9 1920-1970 40 Peltier & Tushingham, 1989
    1.75 ±0.13 1900-1979 84 Trupin & Wahr, 1990
    1.7 ±0.5 N/A N/A Nakiboglu & Lambeck, 1991
    1.8 ±0.1 1880-1980 21 Douglas, 1991
    1.62 ±0.38 1807-1988 213 Unal & Ghil, 1995

    From the wuwt post and the table (from the same university of colorado site as the above) you linked to, the rate of sea level rise from 1993-2010 was 3mm/year, this is higher than any of the estimates above.

    Can you explain why you think given the above table that the rate of sea level rise has been decreasing?

    Complain about this comment

  • 89. At 11:17pm on 11 Jan 2011, blunderbunny wrote:

    @quake #82

    Not wanting to be even more picky, but the three thousand odd earth scientics, had already had most scientists i.e. those that aren't earth scientists excluded from them. Plus, the original survey sample size was
    10,257 Earth scientists.

    Of those only 30.7% actually bothered to respond and only 82% of them supported the idea of AGW - that's about 1 in 4 of the original sample size..... That's hardly a consensus - I'd quit digging if I were you.

    Regards,

    One of the Lobby

    Complain about this comment

  • 90. At 11:18pm on 11 Jan 2011, LarryKealey wrote:



    Regarding the 'models'...

    I would like to point those of you who have an open mind to a 'New Kind of Science' - a book by Dr. Stephen Wolfram which I have found quite enlightening. His position is that the models need not be 'more complex' - but models in nature are actually very simple - yet still very difficult to understand.

    As many of you know, my background is in Chaotic Dynamic Systems - this book exemplifies a new way of thinking about modeling nature and trying to understand it.

    Check this out: "A New Kind of Science" - very interesting reading...

    http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/toc.html

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 91. At 11:18pm on 11 Jan 2011, Lamna nasus wrote:

    @70 'just google 'growing glaciers...' Canadian Glaciers

    ..Thats the same as googling 'The Truth 9/11' .. spamming Contrarian blogs is not a scientific argument CR.. the reputable scientific organisations that those Contrarian blogs cherry pick from (in a transparently, shameless attempt to lend authority to their argument) all agree that anthropogenic forcings have a significant effect on Climate..


    ..example.. your linked blogger states -

    'Some glaciers in South America, including the Pio XI and Moreno Glaciers, are growing. 
    Chile's Pio XI Glacier is the largest glacier in the southern hemisphere. 
    The Moreno Glacier is the largest glacier in Argentina. I find it curious that news reports do not mention these two huge glaciers.'

    The reality -

    The Pio XI (or Bruggen) and Moreno Glaciers are both in the Patagonian Ice Fields

    The Pio XI (Bruggen) glacier is advancing and the Moreno glacier is currently in equilibrium..

    'This glacier has advanced since 1947, and has been essentially stable since 1992. Perito Moreno Glacier is one of three glaciers in Patagonia known to have advanced, compared to several hundred others in retreat.
    'Skvarca, P. and R. Naruse (1997). "Dynamic behavior of glaciar Perito Moreno, Southern Patagonia". Annals of Glaciology 24: 268–271.

    So the answer to CR's favoured blogger's curiosity, is that the reason no-one except the Contrarian echo chamber regards those two glaciers as key indicators of Climate, is because they are vastly outnumbered by the glaciers in the same Ice Field that are retreating.. indeed the problem with most Contrariansm is that it demands 'balanced' reporting of irrelevant, cherry picked, minority detail..

    I could go through the rest of the similar dissembling on that 'New Ice Age' alarmism blog but the results would be the same.. Icefields 'advancing'.. in a different direction...

    Complain about this comment

  • 92. At 11:25pm on 11 Jan 2011, GeoffWard wrote:

    Maurizio Morabito wrote @ 78: "the solution is to focus first on adaptation, not mitigation, because whatever is coming, is going to hit us hard. And how do we know that? Because the climate of today is hitting us hard already.
    If you're driving a car and the accelerator gets stuck what do you do, abandon the wheel to try to fix the problem?
    ..............................
    MM,
    the analogy is good as far as it goes, but how much better is it to maintain the vehicle so that the accelerator doesn't stick?
    I think that the manufacturers would list the maintenance regime under the chapter "Precautionary Principle". [see posting 85 for Use & Maintenance 'Schedule 1' (Mitigation & Adaptation)]
    Geoff ,-}

    Complain about this comment

  • 93. At 11:46pm on 11 Jan 2011, blunderbunny wrote:

    @andrew9999

    Not that I'm a big fan of GRACE, but some warmists seem to like it. So, according GRACE the average annual sea level rise since 2002 is a reasonable 1 mm ;-)

    http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-satellites-reveal-differences-sea.html

    "According to the new results, the annual world average sea level rise is about 1 millimeter, or about 0.04 of an inch. In some areas, such as the Pacific Ocean near the equator and the waters offshore from India and north of the Amazon River, the rise is larger. In some areas, such as the east coast of the United States, the sea level has actually dropped a bit over the past decade."

    Regards,

    One of the Lobby

    Complain about this comment

  • 94. At 11:46pm on 11 Jan 2011, andrew9999 wrote:

    @larry kealey
    #90

    Interesting link, thanks

    Complain about this comment

  • 95. At 00:03am on 12 Jan 2011, blunderbunny wrote:

    @LarryKealey #90

    It's not often that I agree with Andrew9999, but thanks for that link.

    Regards,

    One of the Lobby

    Complain about this comment

  • 96. At 00:04am on 12 Jan 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    91. Lamna_nasus wrote:

    @70 'just google 'growing glaciers...'

    Yes. That was in response to this:

    #66. Lamna_nasus wrote:

    "@49 ...'let alone local factors where many glaciers are growing as well.' - Barry Woods

    .. interesting how that old Contrarian canard never comes with a link.. probably because it is not true.. "

    -------

    So I provided a link and it confirms that "many glaciers are growing as well."

    But you obviously did not want to see that. So you did some cherry picking and tried a diversion, which still failed to dispute that point. I suppose that these inconvenient glaciers (and Antarctica) do disturb the simplistic AGW story about 'all glaciers are disappearing!!!' but things are more complicated than that in the real world.

    Complain about this comment

  • 97. At 00:19am on 12 Jan 2011, andrew9999 wrote:

    @blunderbunny
    #93
    I would agree with you that you personally shouldn't be keen on GRACE,

    The post you link to has slightly misunderstund this paper here
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL044770.shtml
    that it links to. Also look at the image on the site you link to, it is relative sea level change from ice melt, not absolute change in sea level

    Here is the important information from the abstract "We estimate that the total ice and water mass loss from the continents is causing global mean sea-level to rise by 1.0 ± 0.4 mm/yr"

    Not as you think that they are saying sea levels are rising by 1mm/year, its the contribution from the melting ice is raising sea levels by 1mm/year.

    There are two ways sea levels rise, one is gaining water from melting glaciers and icecaps, the other is from thermal expansion of sea water as the temperature of the oceans increases.
    So as you have read on wuwt and the university of colorado sea levels are rising by 3mm/year, that means 2mm/year is from thermal expansion of the oceans, so you have just provided proof the oceans are still warming, well done.

    Canadian rockies have you seen this new info blunder bunny has provided, its an answer to you #14.

    Complain about this comment

  • 98. At 00:44am on 12 Jan 2011, LarryKealey wrote:

    Regarding 'sea level rise' - has it occurred to anyone that it seem unlikely for the 'sea level' to rise in one area and lower in another...

    Perhaps, there are places where the land is rising and other areas where it erodes and is sinking - leading to the illusion of a 'sea level rise'...

    We do know that the land is rising in some areas (plate tectonics, etc) and certainly, there are islands in the pacific which are sinking - 20 million years ago, Midway, now an atoll, was the 'Big Island' of the Hawaiian chain...

    Just a little food for thought.

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 99. At 00:47am on 12 Jan 2011, LarryKealey wrote:



    @Andrew9999, @Blunderbunny

    I do hope you take the time to read the book - I think it will open your eyes quite a bit.

    The first examples of cellular automaton are quite simple models, yet with extremely complex results. Further you find much regarding very simple models which produce extremely complex results. It is a whole new way of thinking - really a "new kind of science"

    Kindest.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 100. At 01:04am on 12 Jan 2011, Lamna nasus wrote:

    @96 'So I provided a link and it confirms that "many glaciers are growing as well." - CanadianRockies

    No you didn't, you provided a link to a 'New Ice Age' Hysteria Blog that wanted to know why the media wasn't focused on two glaciers in Patagonia that suited the Contrarian propaganda.. rather than the hundreds in the same Ice Field proving Contrarians wrong..

    The rest of the blog was a similar standard.. the irony of you complaining about 'cherry picking' having linked to a site where many of the 'quotes' where less than a sentence in length is priceless.

    But you obviously did not want to see that and disturb the simplistic Contrarian story about 'Global Conspiracies!!!'

    Complain about this comment

  • 101. At 01:17am on 12 Jan 2011, Brunnen wrote:

    #73 quake wrote:

    Meteorologist Jeff Masters on how global warming has contributed to the recent (and ongoing) Australian floods:

    --------------------------------------------------

    Tsk tsk quake. Whatever happened to the warmist mantra 'weather is not climate'?

    Sceptics don't get to point to weather events like the coldest December in centuries as proof AGW is invalid, so warmists don't get to point to a floods in Australia (as an aside, if you build towns on flood plains, don't be surprised when they, you know, flood.) as proof AGW is valid.

    Shame on you for trying such an obvious trick.

    Complain about this comment

  • 102. At 02:25am on 12 Jan 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #97. andrew9999 wrote:

    "Canadian rockies have you seen this new info blunder bunny has provided, its an answer to you #14."

    No it doesn't.

    Recent energy balance of Earth
    R. S. Knox and D. H. Douglass
    Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, [Personal details removed by Moderator]

    "Abstract

    A recently published estimate of Earth’s global warming trend is 0.63 ± 0.28 W/m2, as calculated from ocean heat content anomaly data spanning 1993–2008. This value is not representative of the recent (2003–2008) warming/cooling rate because of a “flattening” that occurred around 2001–2002. Using only 2003–2008 data from Argo floats, we find by four different algorithms that the recent trend ranges from –0.010 to –0.160 W/m2 with a typical error bar of ±0.2 W/m2. These results fail to support the existence of a frequently-cited large positive computed radiative imbalance."

    http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/KD_InPress_final.pdf




    Complain about this comment

  • 103. At 02:28am on 12 Jan 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #100. Lamna_nasus wrote:

    "@96 'So I provided a link and it confirms that "many glaciers are growing as well." - CanadianRockies

    No you didn't..."

    Why am I thinking of a dead parrot?

    Complain about this comment

  • 104. At 03:28am on 12 Jan 2011, Lamna nasus wrote:

    @103 CanadianRockies

    'This glacier has advanced since 1947, and has been essentially stable since 1992. Perito Moreno Glacier is one of three glaciers in Patagonia known to have advanced, compared to several hundred others in retreat.'
    Skvarca, P. and R. Naruse (1997). "Dynamic behavior of glaciar Perito Moreno, Southern Patagonia". Annals of Glaciology 24: 268–271.'


    Hundreds of glaciers on the Patagonian Icefield are receding but three are not.. two of which are specifically mentioned as examples on your linked 'New Ice Age' Hysteria Blog does not confirm 'many glaciers are growing as well'.

    Not exactly definitive Contrarian proof.. more like many glaciers are melting proof.. in a lots of receding Glaciers kind of a way....


    .. that's the 'Argument' sketch, not the 'Dead Parrot' sketch.

    Complain about this comment

  • 105. At 03:35am on 12 Jan 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    Lamna_nasus

    "Hubbard Glacier, the largest calving glacier
    on the North American Continent (25 percent
    larger than Rhode Island), advanced across the
    entrance to 35-mile-long Russell Fiord (fi g.1)
    during June 2002, temporarily turning it into
    a lake. Hubbard Glacier has been advancing
    for more than 100 years and has twice closed
    the entrance to Russell Fiord during the last
    16 years"

    http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-001-03/fs-001.03.pdf

    I assume that you know what usgs is?

    Lots more examples if you look. So, "many glaciers are growing as well."

    Things are always more complicated than the simple stories that the AGW gang tell.

    Complain about this comment

  • 106. At 03:54am on 12 Jan 2011, LarryKealey wrote:



    Why is it that one can make these 'projections' based upon 50 or 150 years worth of data - which is not even 'clean' data and then make all these predictions. Glaciers advance and recede in cycles, the earth's climate changes - it always has and always will. Call me 'contrarian' or 'denier' if you will - but the more I learn, the more I realize what I don't know and just how much more there is to learn. I see a lot of very 'made up' and 'closed' minds. It really is a shame.

    Right now, I really don't feel that great, but I am two hours north of my home and my best friend's (brother from another mother, we like to say) lake house on Lake Livingston, Tx - I had to come up here today because we are going to have a 'hard freeze' - 12 hours with temps in the -8-10C range - which is not 'normal' for here for the last 30 years or more. It happened in the 70's, it happened last year and I had to fix a lot of broken pipes... the old timers say it happened about 30 years or so before that...but I had to come up and turn off the water so that the pipes won't freeze...and you are going to tell me that we are all going to fry...please give me a break - you haven't got a clue. This is especially for you @Lamna_nasus.

    Make all the predictions you want - I'll wager you as much as you want that you won't have it right 50 years hence...anyone who thinks they do, has a lot of learning they should be doing right now, rather than running their mouths...

    In My Humble Opinion, man has had an effect on earth's climate - significantly in some areas - but mainly due to land (and water) *mis* use - not because we drive cars and heat our homes with fossil fuels - which, like every other fuel source, will be obsolete in 50 to 100 years time...

    OMG, glaciers are retreating - well, gee - about 20,000 years ago, all of Canada was under an ice sheet...and in about another 20,000 years, it probably will be again...along with most of Europe. Take that one to the bank.

    Oh, and lets not forget that 1000 years ago, there were forests in Greenland, the Vikings grew crops where there are Glaciers now and the we had a little 'Ice Age' and the Vikings could no longer grow food there, nor could they navigate the waters because of the ice - so their colonies were abandoned.

    Does anybody know how the 'Great Lakes' were formed???

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 107. At 04:01am on 12 Jan 2011, LarryKealey wrote:



    @Jack has it right - it is not about AGW, it is about politics and money - everyone wants what America has - and since they can't have it at this moment, they want to take it away from us...well, live in a cave and burn wood if you want to, but I don't think burning wood will be better for the environment than burning fossil fuels at this time.

    I am all for 'cleaner', 'better' energy - but lets do this right and not go off half-cocked. If windmills were the way to go, we would have been using them for electricity all along...but they are not.

    Show me an answer that works - do something real. Don't just sit there and be a 'snipe'...we will move on to a 'better' fuel source, when the time is right...and it will take time. That is the way things work. If you think we will destroy the world, you are sadly mistaken. The world will do just fine - with or without us. We could commit nuclear suicide and the world would heal faster than it did when the meteor hit 65 million years ago...

    Shame on those who view 'humans' as being so 'important' to the earth or the universe - or that we have so much power. We could not destroy the world if we wanted to.

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 108. At 04:18am on 12 Jan 2011, Lamna nasus wrote:

    @105 CanadianRockies

    North American glaciers eh?..

    The Cascade Range of western North America extends from Canada to California.

    'However, by 1987 all the North Cascade glaciers were retreating, and the pace of the glacier retreat has increased each decade since the mid-1970s. Between 1984 and 2005, the North Cascade glaciers lost an average of more than 12.5 m in thickness and between 20% and 40% of their volume'
    Mauri S. Pelto (Nichols College). "The Disequilibrium of North Cascade, Washington Glaciers 1984–2004". In "Hydrologic Processes".


    Indeed Glaciologists researching the North Cascades have found four - Spider Glacier, Lewis Glacier, Milk Lake Glacie, and David Glacier have disappeared completely since 1985.
    Mauri S. Pelto; Cliff Hedlund (2001). "Terminus behavior and response time of North Cascade glaciers, Washington, U.S.A.". Journal of Glaciology 47 (158): 497–506.


    ..but of course Hubbard Glacier is on the Alaskan/Canadian border so lets look at Alaska -

    "A 2005 aerial survey of Alaskan coastal glaciers identified more than a dozen glaciers, many former tidewater and calving glaciers, including Grand Plateau, Alsek, Bear, and Excelsior Glaciers that are rapidly retreating. Of 2,000 glaciers observed, 99% are retreating."
    Bruce F. Molnia. "Repeated Rapid Retreats of Bering Glacier by Disarticulation—The Cyclic Dynamic Response of an Alaskan Glacier System"



    ..so Hubbard is an exception.. once again not exactly definitive Contrarian proof, is it CR?.. still more like many Glaciers are melting proof.. in a lots of receding Glaciers kind of a way...

    Things are certainly complicated by the myths that the Contrarian gang like to repeat...

    Complain about this comment

  • 109. At 05:42am on 12 Jan 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #108. Lamna_nasus wrote:

    "once again not exactly definitive Contrarian proof, is it CR?"

    Proof? This began with your response to Barry Woods (#49) about his comment "let alone local factors where many glaciers are growing as well."

    You wrote: "interesting how that old Contrarian canard never comes with a link."

    That specific point was what I addressed, with two links which describe examples of growing glaciers.

    The only thing that proves is that there are links to those kind of examples.

    Everybody knows that there are plenty of receding glaciers, but that is beside the point. These exceptions show that things are always more complicated than the simple AGW narratives. Like the factors which barry noted, which explain why some glaciers are indeed growing.

    And when you set it all in the context of the ending of the Little Ice Age, it gets even more complicated for the AGW story.

    Complain about this comment

  • 110. At 06:00am on 12 Jan 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    Larry Kealey,

    Your posts make a great deal of sense to me.

    Complain about this comment

  • 111. At 07:21am on 12 Jan 2011, Lamna nasus wrote:

    @ 109
    '.. which explain why some glaciers are indeed growing.' CanadianRockies


    Progress at last.. you have moved from 'many' to 'some' when referring to advancing glaciers.. I am glad we had this opportunity to expand on the issue of how many glaciers are receding.. and how few are advancing..


    'You wrote: "interesting how that old Contrarian canard never comes with a link."
    That specific point was what I addressed..' - CanadianRockies


    I see, so you were providing the old Contrarian canard, WITH a link.. well a point certainly worth making, eh?



    'Everybody knows that there are plenty of receding glaciers, but that is beside the point...'

    .. it wasn't beside the point that BW was trying to make, without a link.. which was why I contested the matter.. and it is a very inconvenient point for Contrarian narratives about cooling.

    Frankly for AGW it is not complicated at all.. plenty of the worlds glaciers are receding.

    Complain about this comment

  • 112. At 07:35am on 12 Jan 2011, simon-swede wrote:

    I found the article interesting. Thanks Richard.

    Complain about this comment

  • 113. At 07:40am on 12 Jan 2011, MangoChutney wrote:

    @Richard Black

    Richard,

    One of the most succesful tactics that groups opposed to climate action down the years have employed is to cast doubt on the science - often by pointing out the scale of uncertainties in published research.


    I'm surprised you didn't mention even the IPCC believe the scenarios to be without foundation:

    Due to nonlinearities in the processes governing climate, the climate system response to perturbations depends to some extent on its basic state (Spelman and Manabe, 1984). Consequently, for models to predict future climatic conditions reliably, they must simulate the current climatic state with some as yet unknown degree of fidelity. Poor model skill in simulating present climate could indicate that certain physical or dynamical processes have been misrepresented. The better a model simulates the complex spatial patterns and seasonal and diurnal cycles of present climate, the more confidence there is that all the important processes have been adequately represented. Thus, when new models are constructed, considerable effort is devoted to evaluating their ability to simulate today’s climate (e.g., Collins et al., 2006; Delworth et al., 2006).

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-3.html

    Notice they even say when better models are constructed, considerable effort should be devoted to evaluation?

    Response?

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 114. At 08:13am on 12 Jan 2011, Lamna nasus wrote:

    @113
    'Notice they even say when better models are constructed, considerable effort should be devoted to evaluation?' - MangoChutneyUKOK


    No they don't.. they actually say -

    'when new models are constructed, considerable effort is devoted to evaluating their ability to simulate today’s climate (e.g., Collins et al., 2006; Delworth et al., 2006).'


    .. so that reads 'is devoted to evaluation'..not 'should be devoted' except in the Mango version.. they even cite two examples from 2006 for you.

    Which means your quote undermines your own argument, despite the cherry picking.

    Complain about this comment

  • 115. At 08:25am on 12 Jan 2011, MangoChutney wrote:

    Lamna_nasus #114

    You know something, you're absolutely right, I did mis-read the statment and for that I apologise, my bad. The IPCC's statement:

    Consequently, for models to predict future climatic conditions reliably, they must simulate the current climatic state with some as yet unknown degree of fidelity. Poor model skill in simulating present climate could indicate that certain physical or dynamical processes have been misrepresented.

    is, however, still valid

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 116. At 08:31am on 12 Jan 2011, bowmanthebard wrote:

    quake #71: The newspapers took a chart from the Met Office website. A chart that they shouldn't have used.

    What was it doing on the Met website then? Isn't a website a place where things are put for public consumption, in effect a sort of publication?

    quake #71: There's no evidence the Met Office pointed them at the chart, that's just pure speculation on your part but you present it as fact anyway. Interesting.

    It works like a "pre-nuptial" agreement. The writer of the "pre-nup" doesn't point the blushing bride at the contents of his lawyers's safe either. An official statement is made in public, while another quite different thing is written somewhere else and a careful record kept, because it could be useful if things go wrong. The Met Office "let it be known" in public that they thought it was going to be a mild winter. When things went wrong, out came the "pre-nuptial agreement" made in secret with the UK Government.

    Like everything to do with AGW, this is intellectual dishonesty. No one with half a brain would touch it. It stinks.

    quake #71: The chart was headed in big letters that said it should not be used as a seasonal forecast for a specific area. The newspapers used it anyway.

    That's a bit of Met Office jiggery-pokery with subtle differences in the words 'forecast' and 'prediction'. "Find the lady"! Their opinion, expressed in public, was that it would be a mild winter in the UK. "But don't blame us if it isn't!"

    quake #71: These media reports have based their interpretation for the coming winter on probability maps on our website. However, they have been selective about the information they have used and you should not take these interpretations as a guide to the coming winter. Instead we would recommend using our monthly outlook and short range forecasts."

    How does that fit in with your conspiracy theory? All this evidence suggests that the Met Office didn't want the media to run with a story about that chart all along.


    I don't have a "conspiracy theory" but a view that the Met Office consists of intellectually dishonest, scientifically illiterate politicos.

    quake #71: If they wanted to avoid culpability and falsifiability why release a chart to the media which skeptics are now holding up as "the met office predicted this"

    The point is that they said both things, to add a bit of "lubrication", to make what they said harder to pin down, harder to be shown to be wrong, and all of other the honest stuff that honest people leave themselves exposed to as part of their intellectual honesty.

    quake #71: And why would the Met Office disown the story the media ran with if they planned it all along?

    The problem is they said both things. They probably didn't "plan it all along", as Vicki Pope et al seem a bit dim to me, but having lots of get-out clauses makes it easier to "go for plan B" when "plan A" goes wrong. That's fine when planning action, but contemptible and intellectually dishonest when used to present a factual claim. That's what skeptics have been complaining about all along.

    By the way, do you understand why "falsifiability" is so important in science? You seem to be missing something here.

    quake #71: Your version of events not only makes no sense, it is in fact contradicted by the events and furthermore is a massive smear so is slightly evil too.

    Intellectual dishonesty should be exposed. Intellectual dishonesty is the crux of the matter between AGW and sceptics.

    Complain about this comment

  • 117. At 09:07am on 12 Jan 2011, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ Andrew # 88

    Apologies if i wasn't clear. I'll try again!

    The WUWT article show's that the rate of rise has fallen since 2001. From 34 mm/year to 25mm/year.This is a decrease and contrary to what the article was saying.

    There are also inherant difficulties measuring sea levels via satelite which are outlined here
    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/calibration.php
    note- these graphs ALSO show a reduction in sea-level rise (rate).

    The difference between the tidal and satellite data levels (as a stepwise change can be seen on the 'change' between the two) can be attributed to the differences in measurement.

    this page should also be of interest to you
    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/steric.php

    Complain about this comment

  • 118. At 09:40am on 12 Jan 2011, blunderbunny wrote:

    @andrew9999 #97

    Sorry mate, but I Think you'll find that all I've done is link to some incorrectly reported GRACE findings. Though in my defence they are incorrectly reported in a number of places ;-)

    Regards,

    One of the Lobby

    Complain about this comment

  • 119. At 09:49am on 12 Jan 2011, Maurizio Morabito wrote:

    GeoffWard (#92): "how much better is it to maintain the vehicle so that the accelerator doesn't stick? I think that the manufacturers would list the maintenance regime under the chapter "Precautionary Principle""

    If you have a time machine at hand, by all means we can start a solar panel import business to the XIX century, yes!

    My point is that all of non-adaptation efforts are an idealistic waste of time, as long as we don't start adapting to the world as it is, and the world as it might be.

    Complain about this comment

  • 120. At 10:06am on 12 Jan 2011, blunderbunny wrote:

    @Lamna_nasus #114

    "Thus, when new models are constructed, considerable effort is devoted to evaluating their ability to simulate today’s climate (e.g., Collins et al., 2006; Delworth et al., 2006)."

    Before get carried away, thinking that we're making some sort of a killer point. It only say's considerable effort is devoted. It doesn't contain the word successfully or any similar equivalent..... It's just very carefully chosen language.

    I could devote considerable effort trying to walk to the moon, but talented though I am, I'm unlikely to succeed.....

    As has been pointed out before on this blog.... It's a bit of language that gives the impression of imparting some positive information about models, whilst actually imparting no information at all..... Well apart from the fact that somebody somewhere is very busy, they're probably underpaid too, but it really doesn't tell you anything about how well the models work......

    It merely gives the impression that it does. A spins doctor's craft at its best and almost defintely not written by a scientist of any description ;-)

    Regards,

    One of the Lobby

    Complain about this comment

  • 121. At 11:19am on 12 Jan 2011, bowmanthebard wrote:

    Are comments "referred for further consideration" by other contributors to the blog, or by a moderator who has had second thoughts?

    I'm interested, because the urge to censor awkward questions or unwlecome comments seems much, much stronger on the part of non-sceptics than sceptics.

    For the record, has a non-sceptical comment ever been "referred for further consideration" by a disgruntled or offended sceptic?

    Complain about this comment

  • 122. At 12:12pm on 12 Jan 2011, Peter317 wrote:

    At the height of the last glaciation, much of the northern hemisphere was covered in ice to a depth of miles.
    For thousands of years, since the end of the Ice Age, the remnants of that ice have been disappearing at a varying rate.
    What now remains are the last tiny scraps of that great ice sheet.
    So to suggest that 90% of glaciers are going to disappear by 2100 is rather missing the point - 99.9999% of the ice had already disappeared long before the first coal-fired power plant appeared.

    Complain about this comment

  • 123. At 1:02pm on 12 Jan 2011, Brunnen wrote:

    #121. At 11:19am on 12 Jan 2011, bowmanthebard wrote:

    Are comments "referred for further consideration" by other contributors to the blog, or by a moderator who has had second thoughts?

    I'm interested, because the urge to censor awkward questions or unwlecome comments seems much, much stronger on the part of non-sceptics than sceptics.

    For the record, has a non-sceptical comment ever been "referred for further consideration" by a disgruntled or offended sceptic?

    ---------------------------------------------------

    I believe I've some of their comments referred, even removed in the past, but usually only when they are offensive.

    It's unsurprising that sceptic posts get referred more often than those of warmists. We WANT to debate, to actively engage people and face the uncomfortable questions.

    Warmists, not so much. "The debate is over", all that remains is to cripple Western society, return to the middle ages and watch as billions starve.

    Complain about this comment

  • 124. At 1:26pm on 12 Jan 2011, quake wrote:

    Re 116. At 08:31am on 12 Jan 2011, bowmanthebard wrote:

    "What was it doing on the Met website then? Isn't a website a place where things are put for public consumption, in effect a sort of publication?"

    No. Unless they state "this is a seasonal forecast" and start pointing people to it, it isn't a publication. Otherwise I could wrongly interpret their chart however I pleased and claim that they had published such an idea.

    The label of the chart said it was for use by meteorological centres. More importantly it also said not to use the chart as a seasonal forecast for a specific location. So it was even guarded against the wrong audience misinterpreting it.

    The media used it anyway, and even though some of the newspapers asked the Met Office about it (the articles contain quotes from met office people), which should have led to the story being killed (as the met office people said not to use the chart), the newspapers clearly decided they'd rather have a story anyway so ran with it. In fact one newspaper even quoted the met office people saying not to use the chart near the end of the article!

    And the Met Office issued their official response not to use the chart so quickly that some newspaper articles late to the game even referenced the Met Office's response saying not to use the chart.

    One Met Office spokesman in a Telegraph article dated October 28th even said, along with pointing out the chart shouldn't be interpreted as a seasonal forecast, that a colder winter was more likely than a warmer one.

    But all these quaint facts are absent from climate skeptic discussions of the subject. Because they are inconvenient facts that don't support the narrative the skeptic blogs want, which is a smear narriative. So they ignore the actual events and instead just simply state, wrongly, that the Met Office had released a prediction of a mild winter. As if that fairly reflects what actually happened.

    "The Met Office "let it be known" in public that they thought it was going to be a mild winter."

    Yet they didn't. What they let known was that they hadn't predicted a mild winter.

    "That's a bit of Met Office jiggery-pokery with subtle differences in the words 'forecast' and 'prediction'. "Find the lady"! Their opinion, expressed in public, was that it would be a mild winter in the UK."

    Call it what you want - forecast, prediction - whatever. They didn't express an opinion at all in public that we would have a mild winter in the UK.

    If you are refering to the chart again then you are wrong. See all of the above. The chart does not constitute an "expressed opinion". The Met Office actually expressed the opinion that the chart was not a seasonal prediction (on October 28th). So are you referring to something else? Like an actual statement? Good luck, there isn't one. The only thing remotely approaching a met office winter forecast is that lone spokesman in october saying that a colder winter was more likely than a mild one. But that's hardly an official statement.

    "Intellectual dishonesty should be exposed. Intellectual dishonesty is the crux of the matter between AGW and sceptics."

    Yes and so over the last week or so I have been going around the internet exposing the intellectual dishonesty of various skeptic blogs by pointing out the information they omit in their version of events. They don't point out that the Met Office told everyone not to use that chart. They don't highlight the label on the chart itself saying not to use it as a seasonal forecast. The skeptic blogs simply claim that the Met Office "predicted a mild winter".

    You know I am still trying to track down the source of the story - ie who stumbled on the Met Office chart and used it as a seasonal forecast in the first place. Would be rather ironic if it turns out that person was a skeptic blogger and the newspapers simply picked up on a story of the skeptics own making.

    Complain about this comment

  • 125. At 2:05pm on 12 Jan 2011, Maria Ashot wrote:

    PAWB46, in an earlier discussion you stated global warming would result in more food -- that it was global cooling we must fear.

    You are seriously wrong in this belief. The global warming we are facing is not the kind that will turn the Yukon into a version of the South of France, or the Central Valley of California.

    The global warming we are facing is already causing crippling droughts (and floods) not only in Africa or Australia, but even in historically water-logged Eurasia. Russia lost a third of its considerable harvest in just one month of firestorms that were facilitated by just one season's lack of precipitation. And that was half a year go, in the summer of 2010.

    Almost a billion people in Africa will be facing outright famine if the warming trends are not reversed within this new decade.

    Precious water will need to be applied in much greater volume in key agricultural areas of North America.

    Established industries, such as winemaking, that have depended on a stable climate and have for centuries enjoyed largely predictable cycles of weather in regions such as the Rhine or Bordeaux, cannot simply be relocated. They will wither away, and replacements will be extremely costly... Somehow I doubt wine produced in Siberia will ever match the finest French vintages.

    And that is just one example. Wheat is a much bigger staple than wine; so is rice. The investment needed to transfer wheat or rice production to entirely new terrain is simply never going to be within reach of a world that is as financially stressed as ours is at the present time -- with a growing population, and an increasing number of older citizens who require greater social support.

    Even if it were possible to cultivate new farmland in Greenland, the Canadian North, Yakutia, Antarctica: these are sparsely populated areas. Who exactly will move there to grow the food you imagine will come forth from those lands once warmed? And who shall pay the expense?

    You would seriously accept the concept of a £17 loaf of bread made from Antarctic wheat, in exchange for the right to make zero adaptations to your lifestyle today, that might yet spare us that prospect?

    Complain about this comment

  • 126. At 2:27pm on 12 Jan 2011, bowmanthebard wrote:

    quake #124 wrote:

    Unless they state "this is a seasonal forecast" and start pointing people to it, it isn't a publication.

    I suggest you look up the word 'publish'!

    Complain about this comment

  • 127. At 2:27pm on 12 Jan 2011, Selti wrote:

    SIMPLE PREDICTIONS OF GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE

    From the historical global mean temperature data shown below

    http://bit.ly/bUZsBe

    the following patterns can be established:

    a) 30-years of global cooling by 0.2 deg C
    b) Followed by 30-years of global warming by 0.5 deg C.

    VERIFICATION

    Let us start from the global mean temperature anomaly (GMTA) for the 1880s of -0.3 deg C, which was at the end of a warming phase. As the warming phase is followed by cooling one, we have:

    1) For 1910s, a GMTA of -0.3 - 0.2 = - 0.5 deg C
    2) For 1940s, a GMTA of -0.5 + 0.5 = 0 deg C
    3) For 1970s, a GMTA of 0 - 0.2 = - 0.2 deg C
    4) For 2000s, a GMTA of -0.2 + 0.5 = + 0.3 deg C

    These results closely agree with the data given by the URL above!

    PREDICTION

    5) For 2030s, a GMTA of 0.3 - 0.2 = + 0.1 deg C

    CONCLUSION

    Global cooling until 2030!

    Complain about this comment

  • 128. At 2:30pm on 12 Jan 2011, bowmanthebard wrote:

    Maria Ashot #125 wrote:

    The global warming we are facing is already causing crippling droughts (and floods) not only in Africa or Australia, but even in historically water-logged Eurasia.

    1. The human population of the Earth rose as more food became available. This occurred at the same time as global warming.

    2. Deaths from droughts and famines have actually been falling at the same time as global temperatures have been rising.

    Complain about this comment

  • 129. At 2:49pm on 12 Jan 2011, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ Maria...

    Did you just make all that up?? You are aware that yeilds of staple items such as rice etc are UP??

    Perhaps if we stopped spending TRILLIONS chasing CO2 we could afford to feed those starving people- or do you think it's more cost effective and humane to try in vain to lower global temps (which are probably going down anyway) in the view that they MAy be able to grow more food in the future, at some point... rather than just GIVE THEM the food now?

    This is one of the main hypocracies of the cAGW argument. Give us lot's of money so we can stop people suffering in the future!!! Well i'm sorry, i'd rather spend ALL the cAGW money of feeding the starving now- if the cAGW thing turns out to have been the massive waste of time and resource i fear it will be, there's going to have been a lot of people who have starved to death needlessly.

    Complain about this comment

  • 130. At 2:59pm on 12 Jan 2011, bowmanthebard wrote:

    You know I am still trying to track down the source of the story - ie who stumbled on the Met Office chart and used it as a seasonal forecast in the first place.

    If the chart was on the Met Office website, then it was publicly available, and was made publicly available by the Met Office. That is what a website is for.

    Is the chart itself still on the Met Office website? If not, why not? If some sort of explanation is needed to rebut the claims of newspapers who latched on to the story and misrepresented the chart, why do they not make the chart available again, accompanied this time by some sort of explanation and rebuttal?

    Complain about this comment

  • 131. At 3:36pm on 12 Jan 2011, Kamboshigh wrote:

    Whoever is looking for "the Met office" who did what etc. I think it all started with the Quarmby Report issued in October which took advice from the Met with regards to winter preperations for transport etc.

    http://www.thegwpf.org/uk-news/2162-did-uk-government-keep-cold-winter-warning-secret-in-run-up-to-un-climate-conference.html

    autonomous minds blog has mountains on the subject plus a very intersting piece about Roger

    http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/

    Complain about this comment

  • 132. At 3:46pm on 12 Jan 2011, Shadorne wrote:

    I take exception to the word "reality" used in the title of this article. There is nothing "real" about computer models and their climate projections.

    As for "Are you willing to accept the risk that the European Alps could lose 90% of their ice by 2100, or New Zealand's ranges 85%?", well what else can we do but accept mother nature for what it is and adapt when necessary?

    Isn't that what all animals on this planet have ever done?

    What's the big deal?

    Not long ago, much of the land in the Northern parts of the Northern Hemisphere were under ONE MILE of ice - almost all of Canada in fact. ONE MILE of ice! And today, all that ice is gone, melted - but there were no SUV's back then!

    Climate change is normal and perfectly natural, who knows exactly what the future will bring. So get over it! Nothing is certain. The best we can do is adapt because we have no hope in heaven of controlling it!

    Complain about this comment

  • 133. At 3:53pm on 12 Jan 2011, Kamboshigh wrote:

    125,

    Maria none of the weather related floods and droughts can be attributed to global warming and have been official stated.

    Perhaps rather than turn foodstuffs into ethenal or change land usage to serve a green dream, then we would have plenty of wheat and rice for people to eat. Demonstrations and food riots are a result of green hypocrisy.

    Moving to produce food and having a better life is what we have always done, like climate man as always changed.

    As to the wine well as we are now in a cooling phase for the earth it will have to move south which will certainly cheer up the French. The big question and yet to be asked will it be another 30 year cycle or will it be the 100,000 year cycle. Thankfully,I will not be around to find out.

    Complain about this comment

  • 134. At 3:57pm on 12 Jan 2011, bowmanthebard wrote:

    OK, in the light of Kamboshigh's links in #131, did the Met Office "change its original advice" in October as the quoted letter claims, or did it in fact never give that advice in the first place, as claimed by quake?

    As usual, there is a complete lack of transparency from almost everyone involved.

    Complain about this comment

  • 135. At 4:29pm on 12 Jan 2011, Kamboshigh wrote:

    And back to glaciers,

    The main issue is we haven't a clue and as various warmists have made the mistake of saying "well that one is advancing but hundreds of others near by are retreating" it cannot be put down in any shape or form to CO2 or supposed man made GW.

    Glaciers seem to have individual characters and yes man does effect them in the short term through the tourist industry etc. However, the amount is tiny.

    There are some 150,000+ glaciers most from the last Ice Age but some even older such as the tropical glaciers. The question again is why are some advancing and some retreating? Often being only the difference of only a valley away.

    Simply, we have not studied them in any detail or in anything like quantity. Glaciers seem to have their own rhythm, they will advance quickly and then retreat twice as fast and then advance again. During LIA in Europe glaciers actually retreated rather than advance. WHY?

    Anyway I hate them as they are not all wonderfully white and fluffy and I was carried by 4 people 2 miles with a pair of broken legs, for a 120 mile journey by car to a hospital, off one.

    Basically to link Richards story to AGW is nonsense as they have been through 10,000s of years of existance including the MWP and the Roman Warming period. They will still be here when we are gone and they will not contribute a single mm to sea rise

    Complain about this comment

  • 136. At 4:56pm on 12 Jan 2011, Brunnen wrote:

    "Intellectual dishonesty should be exposed. Intellectual dishonesty is the crux of the matter between AGW and sceptics."

    I couldn't agree more. Trying to pass off weather events as proof (or the lack therof) of climate change is a despicable act of intellectual dishonesty.

    Good job no one is trying to use a localised weather event in Australia to advance their AGW argument, isn't it? And if someone did, say for example a meteorologist called Jeff, I'm sure the warmists here would immediately decry his statements and not post a link to them with nary a word of disagreement...

    Wasn't there mention on one of Richard's blogs where he expressed his mirth over an amusing sketch he had seen lampooning people who can't tell the difference between weather and climate?

    Complain about this comment

  • 137. At 5:03pm on 12 Jan 2011, John Russell wrote:

    Just thought it might be interesting to post a link to today's report on population from the IMechE:

    http://www.imeche.org/news/archives/11-01-12/Population_Explosion_Can_the_Planet_Cope.aspx

    Here's what they say about climate change -- my highlights.

    "This report is focused on the engineering response to population growth. However this is a change that is not happening in isolation. It is important to place this specific issue within the wider context of global change towards the second half of this century.

    The most obvious additional factor is that of climate change. While the science is currently undergoing some increased scrutiny, there is still a consensus that significant changes to the planet’s climate as a result of human-induced global warming are highly likely. Indeed, many in the world’s climate science community have indicated that the global climate is changing faster than originally thought and that there is the possibility of a 3°C to 6°C warming by the end of the 21st century. These projections can only be strengthened when viewed against the backdrop of recent slow progress towards international agreements that would limit the emissions of greenhouse gases, particularly the failure of the UNFCCC’s COP15 and COP16 talks to secure a legally binding global treaty.

    It is difficult to predict exactly what climate changes will occur in any particular region during the course of the 21st century. There may be some areas where the effects of climate change serve to increase a region’s ability to cope with population growth, such as increased agricultural yields or a greater ability to harness energy. However, the effects of increased temperatures and more volatile rainfall in other regions will make coping with higher numbers of people more difficult.

    One aspect of climate change that is not yet fully understood is the scale of environmental migration that will occur. Estimates have suggested that up to one billion people could be displaced by climate change over the next 40 years through the intensification of natural disasters, drought, rising sea levels and conflict over increasingly scarce natural resources[1]".


    As you will see there is some doubt about exactly how climate change will impact on the world. There is virtually no doubt though that it will be rather significant.

    Best wishes,

    John Russell

    Complain about this comment

  • 138. At 6:03pm on 12 Jan 2011, quake wrote:

    The difference Brunnen is that Jeff Masters reported that global warming has contributed to the Australian floods, not that it has caused them or is proof of global warming (proof of global warming is actually that the globe has warmed).

    The high sea surface temperatures around Australia contributed to the flooding, and those sea surface temperatures tend to run just a little higher than they used to due to global warming.

    Complain about this comment

  • 139. At 6:04pm on 12 Jan 2011, Maria Ashot wrote:

    "Extensive water management" most often refers to desalination plants, water reclamation projects and other industrial solutions. Actually, desalination (for one) exacerbates the problem. Even though popular in the ME, desalination is inefficient for water we need nutritionally. Too much of value is lost along with NaCl, that must then be added back.

    I would rather call attention to the importance of fighting excessive tree depletion, not just in the tropical rain forest.

    A vital breakthrough was just recently announced by the Chinese, who have developed a method of recycling nuclear waste. We are in the process of allowing all American nuclear waste to dumped in Siberia, which has some of the most precious, under-utilised water resources anywhere.

    It would be in everyone's best interest to protect existing water supplies to the maximum before we are driven to resort to a secondary line of defence.

    Although the window for mitigation may be about to shut completely, it is not perhaps utterly too late yet... If we make a good beginning and change our approach to the resources we need, to population growth, and to global policy.

    Complain about this comment

  • 140. At 6:06pm on 12 Jan 2011, quake wrote:

    Re 126. bowmanthebard wrote:

    "I suggest you look up the word 'publish'!"

    I have it now - they published a chart, they didn't publish a seasonal forecast.

    Complain about this comment

  • 141. At 6:40pm on 12 Jan 2011, Brunnen wrote:

    @quake's #138

    Prove it quake, prove it.

    Brisbane has seen far more floods in the 19th Century than it did in the 20th and they were more severe too.

    Why was climate change making fewer, less severe floods in the 20th Century? If your #138 is to be believed, we should have seen more frequent, more severe flooding in the 20th than we did in the 19th.

    You simply can't say global warming contributed to the current flood without proof to back up such an outrageous claim. You have no proof, just assumptions.

    Complain about this comment

  • 142. At 6:58pm on 12 Jan 2011, BluesBerry wrote:

    The ice sheets that stretch out across Greenland & the Antarctic are the obvious suspects when it comes to the connection between melting ice and rising sea levels. However, most people are not realists; they have enough problems and can easily turn a blind eye to reality.
    Smaller glaciers and ice caps around the planet — from the Alps to the Caucasus — account for about 40% of the entire sea level rise that scientists are projecting.
    These smaller mountain glaciers and ice caps may contribute more than 4.5 inches (12 centimeters) to world sea levels by the beginning of the next century, even though they contain less than 1% of all water on Earth bound in ice.
    Those projections don't include melting water from the dwindling Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, or the expansion of ocean water as it heats up — both significant factors.
    The largest contributors to projected global sea level increases are glaciers in Arctic Canada, Alaska and landmass-bound glaciers in the Antarctic. Overall, the outlook is bleak for small glaciers everywhere. By 2100, most are projected to be half the size they are today.
    So what should policymakers do?
    Policy-makers are responsible for setting in place contingency plans for the people they represent; in other words, assessing what the rise in sea level or lack of fresh water will mean for the population. They are responsible for not being caught with their pants down in several feet of water. This plan should be modified yearly in accordance with new data because as you say, it is really only a question of "when?"

    Complain about this comment

  • 143. At 7:05pm on 12 Jan 2011, quake wrote:

    "You simply can't say global warming contributed to the current flood without proof to back up such an outrageous claim. You have no proof, just assumptions."

    The proof is simple. Sea surface temperatures contribute to rainfall. Rainfall contributes to floods. It's not really that surprising. How much has it contributed would be a more interesting question though. It might have contributed little, or a lot.

    The Australian Bureau of Meteorology notes the sea surface temperature - rainfall link for 2010:

    "Sea surface temperatures in the Australian region during 2010 were the warmest value on record for the Australian region. Individual high monthly sea surface temperature records were also set during 2010 in March, April, June, September, October, November and December. Along with favourable hemispheric circulation associated with the 2010 La Niña, very warm sea surface temperatures contributed to the record rainfall and very high humidity across eastern Australia during winter and spring"
    http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20110105.shtml

    Complain about this comment

  • 144. At 7:16pm on 12 Jan 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #139. Maria Ashot wrote:

    "A vital breakthrough was just recently announced by the Chinese, who have developed a method of recycling nuclear waste."

    The Chinese claim many things, particularly when they are negotiating deals. Not wise to accept these statements as 'facts.'

    http://www.miningweekly.com/article/analysts-say-chinese-uranium-announcment-is-overblown-2011-01-05

    "We are in the process of allowing all American nuclear waste to dumped in Siberia, which has some of the most precious, under-utilised water resources anywhere."

    What??? Where do you get your 'information'? Please provide some credible evidence of this Siberian story.

    Moreover, do you know how big Siberia is? Your comment about water is not only irrelevant to your point but also meaningless.

    In your state of California the biggest water issue is due to the so-called environmental movement pushing the EPA to cut off supplies of irrigation water to save some fake 'species' called the Sacramento Smelt.

    We could certainly do with less of that kind of idiocy.

    On the bright side, the huge snowpacks in the west this year should restore the drawn down reservoirs that were supposedly never going to fill again because of The Warming.

    Complain about this comment

  • 145. At 7:19pm on 12 Jan 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    Here's something from Barry Woods:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/11/new-scientist-those-cursed-climate-emails/

    Complain about this comment

  • 146. At 9:40pm on 12 Jan 2011, Peter317 wrote:

    @quake #143:

    "The proof is simple. Sea surface temperatures contribute to rainfall. Rainfall contributes to floods."

    What contributes to droughts then?

    Complain about this comment

  • 147. At 9:45pm on 12 Jan 2011, LarryKealey wrote:


    @Quake writes:

    The proof is simple. Sea surface temperatures contribute to rainfall. Rainfall contributes to floods. It's not really that surprising. How much has it contributed would be a more interesting question though. It might have contributed little, or a lot.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sorry @Quake

    Not so simple - sea surface temperatures have differing effects upon rainfall in different areas and during different seasons.

    It is not a well understood phenomenon

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensocycle/elninosfc.shtml

    None of this is simple - and only a simple-minded fool would believe 'they know it all'...


    Cheers.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 148. At 9:46pm on 12 Jan 2011, GeoffWard wrote:

    Larry,
    with your background in Chaotic Dynamic Systems I feel sure you really do know the answer for the 'sea level' to rise in one area and lower in another.

    Further, you say you find “much regarding very simple models which produce extremely complex results. It is a whole new way of thinking - really a "new kind of science". Perhaps we should use these very simple models to predict the total and anthropogenic shifts in world climate warming patterns ……. Or have I extended the New Kind Of Science beyond its remit?

    Re: Greenland, only in a very few protected and sun-facing fjord-heads did dwarf willow, dwarf birch and juniper survive spasmodically during the 300 year Medieval Warm Period. Eric the Red’s team fuel-burned & goat-grazed-off the scrub, survived the Warm Period but succumbed to the Little Ice Age (1420-). Had Eric arrived in any of the briefly warmer spells during the last 12000 years he could well have found dwarf trees at the edge of their ecological range.

    Yes, we truly have a chaotically dynamic system.

    And, secretly, I think you also really know how the Great Lakes were formed ;-)

    Geoff.

    Complain about this comment

  • 149. At 9:51pm on 12 Jan 2011, GeoffWard wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 150. At 10:02pm on 12 Jan 2011, GeoffWard wrote:

    "The global warming we are facing is already causing crippling droughts (and floods) not only in Africa or Australia, but even in historically water-logged Eurasia." (Maria Ashot 125)
    1. The human population of the Earth rose as more food became available. This occurred at the same time as global warming.
    2. Deaths from droughts and famines have actually been falling at the same time as global temperatures have been rising. (bowmanthebard 128)
    ..............................
    My God, Bowman - you seem to be implying causality!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 151. At 10:05pm on 12 Jan 2011, GeoffWard wrote:

    LabMunkey wrote @117: The WUWT article show's that the rate of rise has fallen since 2001. From 34 mm/year to 25mm/year.This is a decrease and contrary to what the article was saying.
    ..........................
    Hmmmmm, still sounds like a rise to me.
    G.

    Complain about this comment

  • 152. At 10:20pm on 12 Jan 2011, LarryKealey wrote:

    Geoff,

    Actually, I do believe this NKS will yield a vast improvement in modeling of the chaotic dynamic system we call the 'Earth's Climate System" - but it also requires a 'new way of thinking', and this will require time and effort to understand. Did you check out the book? This is still in its infancy, but shows much more promise in its ability to model natural systems than the current approaches will ever have. The current approaches will never work, plain and simple. You can't just keep 'tweeking' these super complex models and then think you have them right. It just does not work that way.

    The first real example in the book is around cellular automaton - and it shows incredibly complex (and very unexpected behavior) from very very simple models and rules. You can now download it for your iPad or whatever - or register and read it online. Have a look, I think even you might be amazed.

    Regarding Greenland, they also grew crops - in places which only recently became 'uncovered' from the ice. This would leave one to believe that those areas were 'uncovered' from ice during that period - as it is pretty hard to grow crops under the ice... The other, larger issue was that as it cooled, and the glaciers advanced, the sea ice blocked passage into the 2 main areas of colonization.

    Of course I know how the Great Lakes were formed - they were carved from the weight of more than a mile of ice pressing into the land...and they will probably be newer, bigger Great Lakes in the next interglacial in 100,000 years or so...

    Cheers Mate.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 153. At 10:20pm on 12 Jan 2011, quake wrote:

    147. At 9:45pm on 12 Jan 2011, LarryKealey wrote:

    "Not so simple - sea surface temperatures have differing effects upon rainfall in different areas and during different seasons."

    Yes but in this area and during this season, high sea surface temperature have contributed to the rainfall.

    As the world warms the atmosphere can hold more moisture. More evaporation and more unloading. That can lead to both more intense drought and more intense floods in different areas and at different times.

    Complain about this comment

  • 154. At 10:28pm on 12 Jan 2011, LarryKealey wrote:

    @Geoff,

    Regarding your response to #151, what he is stating is that the 'rate of rise' is decreasing, not increasing as was predicted/projected. I believe this was brought up several times.

    Regarding the rise - yes, the sea level will rise and fall in certain areas, because it can never reach an equilibrium - water flows in, water evaporates, gets moved by the wind and the gravitational forces of the sun, moon and other celestial bodies...however, I stand by the point that those little atolls in the pacific are sinking because of erosion, while others are growing because of tectonic forces.


    Take a look at New Orleans - which was built on a peat bog originally, at about 4-5 ft above sea level, drainage of the bog, coupled with subsidence due to all of the construction there has caused parts to sink to as much as 12-15 ft BELOW sea level. We see the same think on many major river deltas around the globe, in particular, the Ganges and the Nile. It is not sea level rise that endangers Bangladesh - its the dumb idea of all those people building and living on the delta...

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 155. At 10:39pm on 12 Jan 2011, rossglory wrote:

    I found the article interesting. Thanks Richard.

    Complain about this comment

  • 156. At 10:42pm on 12 Jan 2011, Peter317 wrote:

    @LabMunkey #117:

    "From 34 mm/year to 25mm/year."

    er, shouldn't that be, "From 34 mm/decade to 25mm/decade."?

    Complain about this comment

  • 157. At 10:45pm on 12 Jan 2011, LarryKealey wrote:

    153. At 10:20pm on 12 Jan 2011, quake wrote:
    147. At 9:45pm on 12 Jan 2011, LarryKealey wrote:

    "Not so simple - sea surface temperatures have differing effects upon rainfall in different areas and during different seasons."

    Yes but in this area and during this season, high sea surface temperature have contributed to the rainfall.

    As the world warms the atmosphere can hold more moisture. More evaporation and more unloading. That can lead to both more intense drought and more intense floods in different areas and at different times.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------

    Again, far too simplistic. For starters, Australia is known for 'extremes' - both drought and flood.

    Secondly, La Nina conditions usually exhibit greater rainfall confined to the equatorial pacific North of Australia - Indonesia.

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensocycle/laninarain.shtml

    Yes, we have made some observations and connections between El Nino, La Nina and rainfall and temperature patterns - that does not mean that we can make 'real' predictions from it. The ENSO cycle is still very poorly understood.

    Also, if the atmosphere 'can' hold so much more moisture when it is warmer, one would expect a drop in sea level and more water is 'out of the ocean' and in the atmosphere.

    Whether the atmosphere actually does hold much more moisture when it is warmer is still a question with significant debate. Why are we not seeing the Sahara vanish and return to conditions present during the holicine climactic optimum? Same true of western australia. What about central Asia - which is now pretty barren, but was once a great 'food basket' - the changes there over the last few thousand years led to the great mass migrations into Eastern and the Western Europe from 2000 BC through Roman times. The Huns had a saying - Eyes to the East - because they knew, just like themselves, many more would be coming westward.

    My believe is that is was our misuse of the land which ruined the great central asian bread basket and let to those migrations, probably more than any other factors. (North of the Himalayas, where the land was more sensitive to *mis* use).

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 158. At 11:37pm on 12 Jan 2011, Selti wrote:

    FLOODS AND GLOBAL WARMING

    Some wants us to believe that the current flood in Australia is caused by global warming.

    We now here that the current Brisbane river flood level of 4.45m is lower than the 1974’s flood of 5.45m.

    http://on.wsj.com/enEg7m

    What caused the 1974 flood? Global warming?

    What a joke!

    Complain about this comment

  • 159. At 06:04am on 13 Jan 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    Re #158, here's more historical background:

    “Queensland Flood History” [1841 - 2010]

    http://www.bom.gov.au/hydro/flood/qld/fld_history/index.shtml

    Complain about this comment

  • 160. At 06:14am on 13 Jan 2011, CanadianRockies wrote:

    Geoff Ward, Larry Kealey

    Can't seem to find where your sea level rise discussion began but had this handy and hope it is not redundant.

    On sea level rise:

    "Over the last five years, satellite altimetry shows average sea level rising at 1.96 mm/year."

    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_global.txt

    Found, complete with an interesting map and comments and a lively discussion at:

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/17/satellite-altimetry-shows-sea-level-rising-at-less-than-two-mm-per-year/

    Here's an article that provides a long term perspective, looking at a study from the National Oceanography Centre at the University of Southampton, complete with a link to the original paper, a very interesting graph, and plenty of comments discussing it:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/01/sea-level-rise-jumpy-after-last-ice-age/

    Complain about this comment

  • 161. At 07:23am on 13 Jan 2011, MangoChutney wrote:

    sea level rise

    anybody know what effect the moon moving away from the earth (38mm per annum) has on sea level? I realise the effect is probably minimal, but this will effect tidal bulges and sea level

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 162. At 08:29am on 13 Jan 2011, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ Geoff # 151

    Larry covered this in his #154 but to be clear- the sea levels are rising, which is hardly suprising given that we're exiting from an ice age, what we are discussing is the RATE of that rise. The recent RATE has fallen, indicating that the sea level rise is slowing. That was the point being discussed.

    @ peter #156. YES!!! complete typo on my behalf. You are 100% right, apologies.

    Complain about this comment

  • 163. At 10:21am on 13 Jan 2011, Selti wrote:

    Climate change to make icy UK winters rarer
    Jan 12, 2010

    (Reuters) - Severe winter freezes, like the one gripping parts of Europe over the last few weeks, will become increasingly rare because of the warming effect of climate change, the UK's official forecaster said on Tuesday.

    http://reut.rs/eL387C

    How good is this forecasting?

    Complain about this comment

  • 164. At 10:31am on 13 Jan 2011, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ 163...

    erm.. didn't they say that a few years ago too... :-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 165. At 11:36am on 13 Jan 2011, quake wrote:

    "Some wants us to believe that the current flood in Australia is caused by global warming."

    No, the global warming contributed.

    "We now here that the current Brisbane river flood level of 4.45m is lower than the 1974’s flood of 5.45m."

    Contribution means that instead of 4.45m it would have been less, for example. That's a positive contribution from warmin, but a negative contribution also exists in all those dams the Australians have built over the years.

    Complain about this comment

  • 166. At 11:51am on 13 Jan 2011, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @MangoChutneyUKOK #161

    Love your example. No stone unturned.

    OK, trying to do this without either equations or diagrams.

    The Moon is about 384 thousand kilometres from the Earth. That's about 384 million millimetres. This distance varies because the Moon's orbit is not perfectly circular.

    The Earth is about 6,371 km in radius. That's about 6.4 million millimetres. This distance varies because the Earth is not perfectly spherical.

    That 6.4 million millimetres means that the Moon's gravity on the part of the Earth closest to the Moon is significantly stronger than the Moon's gravity on the centre of the Earth. And this in turn is significantly stronger than the Moon's gravity on the part of the Earth furthest from the Moon.

    This difference in gravitational force causes the two tidal bulges. But note the big distances involved in providing the differences in gravitational force. 6.4 million millimetres.

    Now if I compare your 3.8 mm to the 6.4 million millimetres associated with actual tidal bulges, or the 384 million millimetres approximating the distance to the Moon, I hope you see that the 3.8 mm per year won't be having a significant effect in the near future, even in regions such as the Bay of Fundy in Canada, with its 16 m tides.

    However it will have had an effect over geological time. The Moon was much closer to Earth in the Earth's early history.

    Complain about this comment

  • 167. At 11:52am on 13 Jan 2011, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ 165 quake.

    Two slight issues-

    1- you have to prove that the severity is due to the warming globe. Taking the 1974 as a baseline- and even taking into accout the effect of the flood mitigation strategies you'd be hard pressed to suggest these floods were significantly worse than the 1974 ones.

    2-even if you manage to attribute a warming globe as a contributor to point 1 above, you still have to attribute a human cause to said warming (which i assume is your intent)- something that to date, is still not possible.

    Long-short- you're agruing over a symptom of climate (rather than a proof of cause) with no idea if it is worse than the 1974 flood, making ANY conclusions impossible.

    Complain about this comment

  • 168. At 11:56am on 13 Jan 2011, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @MangoChutneyUKOK #161
    (@myself #166)

    B*****. Dyslexic moment. That should be 38mm per year. Rest of argument still applies.

    Complain about this comment

  • 169. At 1:03pm on 13 Jan 2011, Brunnen wrote:

    #153quake wrote:

    "Not so simple - sea surface temperatures have differing effects upon rainfall in different areas and during different seasons."

    Yes but in this area and during this season, high sea surface temperature have contributed to the rainfall.
    --------------------------------------------------------

    So why was there substantially less flooding in this area in the 20th Century than there was in the 19th?

    You keep trying to claim it's simple. Warmer seas mean more rainfall and more floods for this part of the world. Obviously it isn't so simple or there would have been more floods in the 20th century than there were in the 19th. As it happens the 60 years of recorded data for the 19th century saw almost double the flooding of the 20th century.

    But don't let observed real world data get in the way of theory.

    Complain about this comment

  • 170. At 1:19pm on 13 Jan 2011, Peter317 wrote:

    @164: No, this one's effective as of today ;-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 171. At 1:23pm on 13 Jan 2011, Peter317 wrote:

    @165: Of course global warming contributed. The Australians were told to expect droughts, and so they stopped investing what they should have done in flood defences. And now the chickens come home...

    Complain about this comment

  • 172. At 1:29pm on 13 Jan 2011, LarryKealey wrote:



    @JaneBasingStoke, #161,#168 - Tides

    (@Mango)

    Hi Jane, your physics are a bit off. There are (this is from memory, so bear with me) five major forces affecting tides: The gravitational field of the sun, the gravitation field of the moon, the earth's rotation, the open ocean tidal movements and the shape and structure (3D) of the coastlines. [in addition, wind and air pressure can have a significant amplication or negation affect].

    In most places there are four tides per day, sometimes two, depending upon the relative positions of the Earth and Sun.


    When there is a tidal bulge on one side of the earth - on the other side - there is also another tidal bulge (so when we have high tide in Florida, it is also high tide in India.

    This is because the density of the earth is about 7 times that of water - so the moon (and sun's) gravity 'pulls' harder on the surface of the earth than on the water which sits upon it. At the same time, the two angles of the earth approximately 90 degrees out of phase with this alignment experience low tides at that same time.

    In other words, when the tides bulge on the side of the earth facing the moon, they are also bulging on the side opposite.

    Now, this is actually a very simplified explanation because the moon's orbit does not lie exactly in the plane of the orbit of the earth around the sun, which complicates things further.

    You conclusion that the change in the moon's orbit having a negligable affect is however correct. While the moon is 'getting closer' at the moment - there is no guarantees that will last, it will only take a few 'near misses' of comets or asteroids or other affects to change that - like a 'bulging' of the sun....

    Hope this helps.

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 173. At 1:38pm on 13 Jan 2011, quake wrote:

    "ou keep trying to claim it's simple. Warmer seas mean more rainfall and more floods for this part of the world."

    I didn't say more floods, I said the warming had contributed to this flood. Whether the warming increases the frequency of floods is another matter. The sea surface temperatures around Australia were some of the warmest on record. The floods were driven by the La Nina conditions and the warm sea surface temperature contributed to the amount of rainfall.

    "So why was there substantially less flooding in this area in the 20th Century than there was in the 19th?"

    Dams

    Complain about this comment

  • 174. At 1:44pm on 13 Jan 2011, MangoChutney wrote:

    @JaneBasingstoke

    Jane,

    It was an entirely innocent question, so your tone is unwarranted, and, as i stated earlier, I know the effect would not be significant. I also know some of the sea level rise is due to thermal expansion and some due melting ice since the end of the LIA

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 175. At 2:03pm on 13 Jan 2011, Stefan wrote:

    Reading some of the very interesting comments above, I could not help but think the following:

    WHAT DO THOSE WHO ARE ADAMANT ON NOT EVEN TRYING TO ACCEPT THE POSSIBILITY THAT HUMANS MAY HAVE BEEN DAMAGING THE ENVIRONMENT AND ON A GREATER SCALE, THE EARTH REALLY WANT TO DO?

    MOST PROBABLY, IN THEIR OPINION, WE JUST SHOULD KEEP ON POLLUTING, KILLING AND DESTROYING EVERYTHING THAT GETS IN THE WAY?...

    Complain about this comment

  • 176. At 2:06pm on 13 Jan 2011, LarryKealey wrote:

    173. At 1:38pm on 13 Jan 2011, quake wrote:
    "ou keep trying to claim it's simple. Warmer seas mean more rainfall and more floods for this part of the world."

    I didn't say more floods, I said the warming had contributed to this flood. Whether the warming increases the frequency of floods is another matter. The sea surface temperatures around Australia were some of the warmest on record. The floods were driven by the La Nina conditions and the warm sea surface temperature contributed to the amount of rainfall.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ah, think you are a bit confused there @quake, the La Nina variation in the ENSO means lower than normal sea surface tempertures - not higher than normal.

    Did you bother to check out the two links I posted for you regarding El Nino and La Nina? Or have you already got it figured out completely in your mind?

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 177. At 2:46pm on 13 Jan 2011, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ 175

    Then you can't help thinking wrong then!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 178. At 3:02pm on 13 Jan 2011, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @MangoChutneyUKOK #174

    Hi Mango.

    You know the problem with tone in these text only posts. My "no stone unturned" was not meant as some form of aggressive dig, it was supposed to be humorous. I had thought the context would make an emoticon unnecessary. Unfortunately the tendency of these debates to get unpleasant means that any tonal ambiguities, unfortunately including those associated with humour, can get misinterpreted.

    Complain about this comment

  • 179. At 3:21pm on 13 Jan 2011, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ jane and mango-

    Personally i just assume all comments are innocent or in jest at all times unless they are openly hostile/attacking. tone is very hard to judge on blogs, gods know i've got it wrong a few times myself- so better to give the benefit of the doubt i feel.

    Complain about this comment

  • 180. At 3:42pm on 13 Jan 2011, Brunnen wrote:

    @173 quake wrote:

    I didn't say more floods, I said the warming had contributed to this flood.

    ------------------------------------------

    I see, thanks for clearing that up. That being the case, your failure is absolute. They tried that trick with Hurricane Katrina and it didn't wash then, just as the same trick won't wash now. One simply CANNOT point to one weather event and say global warming did it (or made it worse, as they tried with Katrina and you are trying now). It's intellectually dishonest. Show me a pattern of worsening hurricanes hitting the Gulf of Mexico. Show me a pattern of worsening floods hitting Queensland.

    WEATHER ISN'T CLIMATE.

    Complain about this comment

  • 181. At 3:46pm on 13 Jan 2011, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @LarryKealey #172
    (@MangoChutneyUKOK)

    Hi Larry.

    I thought that I covered the two main bulges (same side as the Moon, far side from the Moon), in my original text. I even used the phrase "two tidal bulges".

    (I used to live closer to the sea than Basingstoke, and at one point worked in London (the Thames is noticeably tidal in central London). So perhaps I need reminding that not everyone is familiar with two main tides a day, and could have been clearer in my discussion of the two main bulges.)

    My #166/#168 was not supposed to be a full discussion of the tides. It was supposed to just be looking at the massive difference in scale between actual lunar tidal forces and changes to lunar tidal forces due to the slow change in the Moon's orbit, with a nod to the mechanisms involved. So the Sun's contribution, and the other contributions you mention, seemed rather less relevant. And even a full discussion of the tides would have held off introducing these other factors before looking at the basic Earth-Moon interaction first.

    (I did indirectly cover to the effect of the coastline structure with my Bay of Fundy example.)

    I also felt that the importance of changes to the Moon's orbit on very long geological timescales was of interest, i.e., that on significantly long timescales Mango's effect would be noticeable. This long term effect is much more conventionally predictable than the chaotic long term possibilities that you mention, and the related chaotic long term possibilities of incremental gravitational interactions with other planets, particularly Jupiter.

    Complain about this comment

  • 182. At 3:54pm on 13 Jan 2011, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @LabMunkey #179

    Thanks for that.

    :-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 183. At 4:10pm on 13 Jan 2011, LarryKealey wrote:

    180. At 3:42pm on 13 Jan 2011, Brunnen wrote:
    @173 quake wrote:

    I didn't say more floods, I said the warming had contributed to this flood.

    ------------------------------------------

    I see, thanks for clearing that up. That being the case, your failure is absolute. They tried that trick with Hurricane Katrina and it didn't wash then, just as the same trick won't wash now. One simply CANNOT point to one weather event and say global warming did it (or made it worse, as they tried with Katrina and you are trying now). It's intellectually dishonest. Show me a pattern of worsening hurricanes hitting the Gulf of Mexico. Show me a pattern of worsening floods hitting Queensland.

    WEATHER ISN'T CLIMATE.

    -----------------------------------------------------------

    You got that right...I live on the Gulf Coast of Texas and recall very vividly, after Katrina and Rita (which hit very close by) - all the AGW Experts were saying - it is just going to get worse - but the Hurricane experts said, 'hold on' - no it is not...well, we have had very mild Atlantic Hurricane seasons in every year since. We did not even have a single significant storm hit the US this year...

    No, weather is not climate - and even a couple of years of bad weather (like we are having with winter down here in Texas for the last three years) is not climate - it's the weather...;)

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 184. At 4:16pm on 13 Jan 2011, LarryKealey wrote:


    @JaneBasingstoke (#181)

    Sorry, I must have mis-read - but I would suggest that the difference in the pull of the moon's gravitation field is not 'significantly' different from one side of the earth to the other - but the point I was trying to make is that it is significantly different on the water as opposed to the earth itself (about 7 times) - so the water on the far side from the moon is 'pulled less' than the earth on the far side from the moon...does that make sense?

    Hope you are well.

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 185. At 4:34pm on 13 Jan 2011, quake wrote:

    La Nina contributes to extreme floods in Australia and so do higher sea surface temperatures off Australia. If I recall correctly the sea surface temperatures are actually elevated off Australia during a La Nina.

    As part of climate change the sea surface temperatures off Australia have increased over the past 100 years.

    So causation here is pretty clear.

    Complain about this comment

  • 186. At 4:58pm on 13 Jan 2011, Brunnen wrote:

    You're pushing a busted flush here quake.

    One weather event is evidence of NOTHING. You have to show a pattern of worsening, more frequent floods in Queensland if we are to believe that global warming contributed the current flood.

    Can you do that? No, you cant. You have nothing but assumptions to base your caim on.

    Complain about this comment

  • 187. At 5:11pm on 13 Jan 2011, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @MangoChutneyUKOK #161
    (@myself #166)

    Oops. Even bigger rather more embarrassing dyslexic moment. 6 thousand kilometres is 6 billion millimetres. 384 thousand kilometres is 384 billion millimetres. Rest of argument still applies.

    Complain about this comment

  • 188. At 5:32pm on 13 Jan 2011, quake wrote:

    "One weather event is evidence of NOTHING. You have to show a pattern of worsening, more frequent floods in Queensland if we are to believe that global warming contributed the current flood."

    I didn't say one weather event is evidence of something nor that global warming caused the floods.

    My point was and is that climate change has contributed to the floods. We can break it down into two parts: a) that recent elevated sea surface temperatures off Australia have contributed to increased rainfall and b) sea surface temperatures off Australia have risen over the past 100 years.

    Complain about this comment

  • 189. At 5:39pm on 13 Jan 2011, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @LarryKealey #184

    Taking the orbit of the Moon around the Earth as being about 384 thousand kilometres, and the radius of the Earth as being about 6 thousand kilometres, this gives distances of opposite sides of the Earth from the Moon as being about 378 thousand kilometres (nearest) and 390 thousand kilometres (furthest) respectively.

    So yes, I would expect a significant difference in gravitational pull from the Moon according to which part of the Earth I was looking at.

    I am confused by your factor of 7. Acceleration due to gravity is acceleration due to gravity, masses tend to cancel out, think a feather and a canon ball in a vacuum. The reason why the oceans bulge more than the underlying rock, in response to lunar (and solar) gravity, is because they are rather more flexible.

    Complain about this comment

  • 190. At 7:17pm on 13 Jan 2011, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    After tracking one year's worth of graphs and data about the earth magnetism, near earth objects and a range of other info, there doesn't appear to be that much difference in the data from the beginning of the observations to the end of the observations. On a map of the world, jet stream seems a bit wonky. There were some deep zig zags on one graph during parts of April, May and August and then it all looked less erratic after that. December had an odd looking slope on the black line of the graph which sort of looked a bit like the out-of-place red
    slope in June and August. It is lovely to not really understand graphs 'cause you can't scare yourself too much.

    I got a bit excited about birds dropping out of the sky dead and fish popping up dead until I researched and found out that this sort of thing occurs quite frequently. Birds and fish don't eat of clean plates and some of the food they eat is a bit dodgy, plus the fact that they don't get health care and vaccines like we do (except if you are unlucky enough to live in Haiti)

    If the North Pole is moving somewhere else, doesn't that mean change whether we like it or not? Won;t extreme weather events occur more frequently as everything settles into new patterns?

    Complain about this comment

  • 191. At 7:40pm on 13 Jan 2011, Brunnen wrote:

    @188. At 5:32pm on 13 Jan 2011, quake wrote:

    I didn't say one weather event is evidence of something nor that global warming caused the floods.

    My point was and is that climate change has contributed to the floods.

    ------------------------------------------------------

    And you have no proof to support that ASSUMPTION. None whatsoever.

    ------------------------------------------------------

    We can break it down into two parts: a) that recent elevated sea surface temperatures off Australia have contributed to increased rainfall and b) sea surface temperatures off Australia have risen over the past 100 years.

    -------------------------------------------------------

    You can break it down into a thousand parts, it won't change the fact that you're trying your very best (and failing miserably) to to prove climate change had an influence on one weather event. That's NOT how climate works. You can't draw any conclusions from a pattern of one. You can't prove any influences from one weather event. You need to establish a pattern.

    You're trying to pull a Katrina, it's not going to work.

    Complain about this comment

  • 192. At 7:46pm on 13 Jan 2011, Brunnen wrote:

    190. At 7:17pm on 13 Jan 2011, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    If the North Pole is moving somewhere else, doesn't that mean change whether we like it or not? Won;t extreme weather events occur more frequently as everything settles into new patterns?

    -----------------------------------------------------------

    Intereesting point.

    The answer is both yes and no. Yes, polar shift will mean the climate will change, but no, it won't be observable as the process takes thousands of years.

    Right now the North Pole is losing its magnetism and the South Pole is gaining magnetism. Eventually compasses will point south instead of north. This will take millenia and has happened many times in our planet's past, so it's nothing to be concerned about.

    Was that helpful to you?

    Complain about this comment

  • 193. At 8:40pm on 13 Jan 2011, LarryKealey wrote:



    @JaneBasingStoke,

    The factor of 7 comes from the average density of the Earth vs. the average density of water. The 'average mass' of a cubic meter of 'earth' is about 7 times the mass a cubic meter of water - so, at the same distance, the the force exerted on the water is 7 times stronger than that on the 'earth'.

    Newton's Law of Gravity:(relativity will lead you to a similar answer, but will take a lot longer to arrive at).

    F=mMG/r^2

    So, if you plug in your numbers for radius, leave everything else constant, one gets the gravity on the 'near side' to the moon being 3.1% stronger than on the side of the earth farthest from the moon.


    Now, if you look at the force on 1 cubic meter of water on the [near or] far side, the mass of a cubic meter of 'earth' is about 7 times the force on a cubic meter of water (lets not worry about near side or far side here) - so the difference of the force of gravity from the moon on a cubic meter of 'earth' from the moon is about 700% the force of the moon's gravity on the water.

    If the water was 7 times as heavy as 'earth' (rather than the other way around) than the bulge on the far side of the earth from the moon would not exist, it would get 'flattened out'...but if the water was heavier like that, it would all sink to the core...

    So, for distance, we are looking at a 3.1% difference in force, for mass, we are looking at a 700% difference in force - on each cubic meter...three orders of magnitude difference.

    Does this help? I am sure you can find this on the internet somewhere -

    Actually, it is - look up tides on wikipedia...

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 194. At 8:40pm on 13 Jan 2011, quake wrote:

    Which of these do you disagree with then?

    1) that recent elevated sea surface temperatures off Australia have contributed to increased rainfall

    2) that sea surface temperatures off Australia have risen over the past 100 years.

    Complain about this comment

  • 195. At 9:16pm on 13 Jan 2011, LarryKealey wrote:


    @Quake #194

    Both. If your suppositions and conclusion were true, Australia would have been having more and more severe floods increasingly over the last 100 years...it would be consistant and measurable.

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 196. At 9:46pm on 13 Jan 2011, quake wrote:

    Not necessarily. Australia has built dams over the last 100 years precisely to reduce flooding. Comparing a flood today with a flood 100 years ago would have to also include an adjustment for difference in flood defenses.

    Complain about this comment

  • 197. At 11:39pm on 13 Jan 2011, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @LarryKealey #193

    Yes, I'm still having problems seeing why the density thing is relevant. If an astronaut is spacewalking on the Moon and drops a feather it falls at the same rate as anything else he might care to drop at the same time. Oh look, NASA have tried it.
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6926891572259784994#

    If you had a planet that was basically the same structure as the Earth, but had oceans of the much denser mercury, there might be minor tweaks due to currents and viscosity and weather and surface tension and different time lags. But the tidal effect of the Moon and Sun on such oceans would be the same as they are on our seawater oceans.

    You may be underestimating the effect of the 3.1%. Incidentally I make it about 3.1% (or about 3.2%) between the surface furthest from the Moon and the centre of the Earth (or the centre of the Earth and the surface closest to the Moon). With respect to the gravity of the Moon and Sun, the Earth as a whole is in freefall, effectively moving as if all its mass is concentrated at its centre, so 3.1% of the Moon's gravity is significant.

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.