Hot Topic hiatus, or paws for thought?

by Gareth on February 6, 2014

Over the next week, my posting frequency trend line is going to take a sharp dip — mainly because if we choose tomorrow and a week hence as our end points — which, as we all know, is far too short to be blogologically significant — there will be a marked absence of posts. Having got the vineyard ready for netting (which will start happening at 8-30am tomorrow), I will be heading north to Nelson, there to board a boat for six days tootling around the Abel Tasman and D’Urville Island. I will check in from time to time when communication technologies allow, but if anybody thinks I’m going to disturb a few days fishing, swimming, walking and eating (and drinking good wine) by posting on climate matters then they are going to be royally disappointed. If you’d like to know a little more about where we’re heading – try here.

Feel free to treat this as another open thread. (Image nicked from John “viral kitten” Cook at The Conversation)

{ 184 comments… read them below or add one }

Andrew W February 7, 2014 at 2:21 pm

O/T

Heh, I see even Tisdale and Watts have had enough of Easterbrook’s graph nonsense.

“On Don Easterbrook’s Updated Projection” at WUWT.

Gareth February 7, 2014 at 9:19 pm

That is an amazing post and comment thread. Easterbrook under a bus, then Scafetta gets short shrift from Watts and Mosher. The lunatics are getting worried about the asylum’s admissions policy…

Kiwiiano February 7, 2014 at 4:49 pm

Clearly we’re going to have to get Big Pharma on a crash program to develop an anti-histamine for kittens.

nigelj February 8, 2014 at 9:28 am

Talking about big phama, its so wet in Britain that the penguins in the zoo are suffering from depression, and are being given anti depressants! Thats what was on the radio, and a google search has it in the guardian.

Thomas February 9, 2014 at 3:31 pm

Kitten Sneezes are cute…. but meanwhile…

From California to the Middle East, huge areas of the world are drying up and a billion people have no access to safe drinking water. US intelligence is warning of the dangers of shrinking resources and experts say the world is ‘standing on a precipice’

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/09/global-water-shortages-threat-terror-war

Thomas February 10, 2014 at 7:42 pm

New paper rebuts global warming hiatus idea further:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/09/global-warming-pause-trade-winds-pacific-ocean-study
It becomes more and more obvious where the fluctuations in atmospheric warming come from: strong trade winds.

The research shows that sharply accelerating trade winds in central and eastern areas of the Pacific have driven warm surface water to the ocean’s depths, reducing the amount of heat that flows into the atmosphere.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2106.html

Fern February 11, 2014 at 11:46 am

An interesting article today from the chair of physical geography at Nottingham University:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/10/britain-floods-chief-scientist-sewage-coastal-defences
“A causal link to climate change cannot be proved for any of the recent events, but they are precisely the type of floods that the Foresight team feared and forecast in 2004 – they’ve just arrived a couple of decades earlier than expected.”

bill February 11, 2014 at 2:56 pm

One of my favourite parts of the world has now been pretty-well annihilated by a fire that has been burning for more than 3 weeks.

The southern Flinders Ranges was the last large refuge of native forest (as opposed to woodland) in South Australia – the Range Native Forest Reserve (managed by Forestry SA purely for conservation) was one of the state’s little-known treaures, and has now been close to 100% burned-out.

Because the vegetation was confined to a narrow band of steep and rugged range country confined between the wheat-belt to the east and mixed-agricultural country near Port Pirie to the west, little in the way of wildlife refuges remain (watch the video!)

One can only hope that the pre-existing ecological community is able to recover – but with increased temps and lowered rainfalls…

Current Forecast for Port Pirie – 42C, 43C, 40C, with a cool change (35C!) and some much-needed (and sadly overdue) rain due Friday, with luck.

bill February 11, 2014 at 11:33 pm

Adelaide breaks 117 year old record for summer days above 40C (now 12), with another forecast for tomorrow and more than half of February still to run!

And turns out the fire in the southern Flinders has actually been burning for 29 days…

bill February 12, 2014 at 12:42 am

wanna see the future? it looks like this

nigelj February 12, 2014 at 8:15 am

Bill yes it makes you wonder. Sadly just as forest fires may increase in frequency, there is ironically less water to fight them. California is having a major drought.

However you should also check out the past. There is an interesting book called After the Ice, on human communities after the last ice age started to end, and it demonstrates from archaeology short periods of rapid sea level rise as ice sheets destabilised. What bothers me in the debate is future unknowns like this. We just dont know what could happen.

Macro February 12, 2014 at 10:12 pm

bill I’ve been thinking about you all in SA over the past few weeks as I visited Perth – another dry and hot part of the country. We have been watching the bush fires as they are constantly being reported and know that it is not just a freak occurrence. The future for Australia in the south and west is not good. We look at the building of suburb after suburb and the constant use of water and wonder where it all comes from. The reservoirs are are almost dry and the constant draw down on aquifers cannot be sustained.
We grieve at the loss of the southern Flinders – with all its wildlife – that is a tragedy.

Thomas February 12, 2014 at 10:58 pm

The Aviator meets reality….

bill February 12, 2014 at 11:19 pm

Thanks folks!

For me this really brings home the importance of maintaining properly-protected conservation areas of sufficient size and diversity – ‘comprehensive and representative’ is the local jargon – to increase the odds that plants and animals will cope with the threats the future will bring, both known and unknown. Even if only by having somewhere for the survivors to run to. The trouble with little island refuges, no matter how charming, is that you only have to knock them out once…

Much of the Telowie Gorge Conservation Park has also burned – this is the southern-most refuge of the threatened-but-recovering Yellow-footed Rock Wallaby; though on the last fire map I saw the rocky gorge proper had survived the blaze to date – would that it stays that way!

nigelj’s point reminds me of my eternally unanswered question (by deniers) – what is the conservative position on conducting a radical experiment with the one atmosphere we possess?

I despised Donald Rumsfeld, but he was absolutely right about the importance of acknowledging the unknown unknowns. There’s bound to be nasty little surprises in the pipeline…

bill February 12, 2014 at 11:25 pm

Incidentally, about a decade ago I devoted a significant amount of time to opposing, along with many locals, a proposed strip magnesite mining operation in the area that’s now burning. We won, though I’d argue the market did most of the work for us!

But it’s a reminder – we can fight a pointed and imminent threat, but the very scale, both temporal and physical, of AGW blunts the reactions of far too many…

Tony February 13, 2014 at 11:30 pm

Speaking of maintaining properly-protected conservation areas, what can I say except,

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/agribusiness/9715246/Firms-forest-felling-upsets-conservationists

Australia, you’re welcome!

bill February 14, 2014 at 12:13 pm
Bob Bingham February 14, 2014 at 2:53 pm

I have the feeling that the deniers are having a hard time. With droughts in California, ice from Atlanta to Texas and floods in the UK and it all being blamed on the jet stream they are finding it an uphill struggle.
http://www.climateoutcome.kiwi.nz/ice-melt.html

Rob Taylor February 14, 2014 at 4:45 pm

Nice site, Bob, thanks for the link.

Bob Bingham February 14, 2014 at 7:41 pm

Thanks for that.

Jimmy.t February 14, 2014 at 9:17 pm

The last 12 months have provided us with some very strange weather indeed.

Fern February 15, 2014 at 9:56 am

UK climate crank loses argument, resorts to insults.
The latest Guardian reports, “Lord Lawson favours his own opinion over assessments of experts. When he was questioned this week about a possible connection between the floods and climate change, he replied: ‘You’ll see the Met Office’s own report denies it. It is just this Julia Slingo woman, who made this absurd statement, but their own official statement makes it clear there is no proven link whatever.’
“In fact, ‘this Julia Slingo woman’ is Dame Professor Julia Slingo, the highly respected climatologist and chief scientist at the Met Office. Prof Slingo told journalists at a briefing about the report that all of the evidence points to a link between climate change and the recent floods.”

Bob Bingham February 15, 2014 at 11:01 am

Lawson is a failed Chancellor who has prostituted his reputation for fossil fuel cash. The only saving grace is that everyone knows what he is and ignores him.

Jimmy.t February 15, 2014 at 5:24 pm

I guess one of the issues with the UK floods is the met office predicted a dry winter. Then I read they are blaming factors in the Pacific for the floods. Given that I’m sure the met office was well aware of these factors, why didn’t they just predict a wet winter in the first place? The met office has no credibility on this issue anymore.

There has been some crazy weather around, but where is the evidence any of it is abnormal? This current drought is not unprecedented for California. And just referring to Bobs comments again. Ice in Texas sounds a lot more like global cooling that warming. Global warming is the continued rise in temperatures remember, ice events should become fewer.

Gareth February 15, 2014 at 7:26 pm

Jimmy: I’ve allowed this comment through because it is one of your first. Please note our comment policy, and beware of simply repeating tired old pseudosceptic talking points. I suspect you have got a lot of reading to do if you want to take part in a discussion here…

Jimmy.t February 15, 2014 at 10:35 pm

I’m not sure what rule I broke but apologies if I did.

It just appears the met office is pretending to have all the answers about these floods when they predicted a dry winter. That doesn’t seem right to me.

Kiwiiano February 16, 2014 at 6:54 am

You’re confusing global warming with climate change, Jimmy. The British Met were caught off-guard by the sheer magnitude of the changes that are occurring in the northern hemisphere as the melting Arctic ice changes the whole dynamics of the winds that normally circle the pole. Those changes are involved in the prolonged rains in Britain and the freezing storms and droughts in the US. It’s very complicated, if you want to find out more about the whys and wherefores you can learn a lot over at http://www.skepticalscience.com

noelfuller February 16, 2014 at 8:02 am

On Transport try this:
MicroEV made in Auckland? The proposal is that the City council leases them to commuters. I think the prices would have to be lower but tie this in with Kandi_Crush EV car vending in Hangzhou. Just put in your card and out pops a car with one way hire too. Compare with Zipcar in USA (non-EV) and Car2Go in Austin USA for current rental models. I think the two US links above are better than the ones in the Kandi Crush Forbes story.

Naturally I must go to the extreme and visualise the Auckland council dividing its car park spaces in two so wiping out much of the fossil fueled commuting in one stroke :) :)

Jimmy.t February 16, 2014 at 8:31 am

Are climate change and global warming different things now?

The met office has been caught off gaurd by the failure of warming to materialise. It has been well reported that they predicted more warming that actually occurred in 13 of the last 14 years. The met office includes GHG forcing in their models, yet this has resulted in inaccurate predictions. Honest commentators on this subject would be asking serious questions of the met office faulty models rather than regurgitating their press releases

There has been some extreme weather recently, let’s discuss why you feel it is the result of global warming, not natural variability. I’m open to being corrected.

noelfuller February 16, 2014 at 10:34 am

Jimmy.t
If you were “open to being corrected” one would expect that you might have consulted the extensive scientific literature, reports and learned commentaries on the same but obviously you have not. We are very familiar with the type of post you have made and have never noticed the posters taking in what is put before them. Of course there might just be a first time.

First define your terms. What did you mean by Global warming? It cannot be the same as mine. Just to help you along some basic stuff: a certain amount of energy is received from the sun. Because of GHG’s not all of it is re-radiated to space. Hence heat is retained and is building. Where does that retained heat go? Only between 2 and 3% is evident in the surface air temperature so what about the rest? It doesn’t just vanish! And why does the air temperature fluctuate so much over decadal time scales such that we have to look at about 30 years or more to isolate the actual climate trends.

Second, it seems to be a denialist sport to claim the UK met office said this or that – sometimes what they did say is taken out of context and misrepresented. Sometimes stuff is just made up and attributed to the met office and thereafter repeated adnauseum so references please? Sometimes they have been wrong but give their reasoning or “skill” so called so you and they can build on it. Lets find out what they actually said and acknowledge and the context within which they said it.

Third: would you like to attempt definitions of weather and climate and then weather forecasting and climate forecasting? You will clarify the issues for yourself a great deal by doing this.

To help you, you might refer to a current open thread on ‘Realclimate”.Begin with a comment from one of your colleagues though a bit more specific, #167 then read on.

Bob Bingham February 16, 2014 at 3:45 pm

Climate change is the result of global warming. The World has increased the temperature .8C and this has caused the climate to change. Not always warmer. This is an explanation of the current bout of exceptional weather http://www.climateoutcome.kiwi.nz/ice-melt.html
but Jennifer Francis did a presentation over a year ago to explain it and it is very clear. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jennifer+francis+jet+stream&sm=1
If you really want to understand what is happening you have to spend a bit of time to get the mesage.

SimonP February 16, 2014 at 10:37 am

This is a good summary of current thinking on the weather being experienced in the Northern Hemisphere.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26023166
The so-called ‘pause’ is from cherry-picking the 1998 El Nino as a start-point, is not statistically significant, and likely due to stronger trade winds pushing warmth deeper into the oceans.

noelfuller February 16, 2014 at 11:37 am

Good story
I was showing this jet stream pattern to a group last Tuesday but look at the weird change now. There is a very narrow shaft of polar air extending vertically down through UK to the Canary islands just off Morocco.

nigelj February 16, 2014 at 10:53 am

Jimmy t

You ask where is the evidence any recent extreme weather is abnormal? There are increasing rates of extreme weather over the last 30 years, read Hansens research or the last IPCC report. Therefore its very probable recent weather is unusual and is influenced or made worse by global warming.

The cause of more extremes of weather is put down to a warming atmosphere from carbon dioxide influencing the weather. The warming trend has altered the jet stream which governs weather events.

You say the climate is cooling because of more ice storms. Incorrect. Stronger ice and snow storms are a result of increased atmospheric moisture from warming oceans.

You say say nobody has predicted the recent temperature slow down. Incorrect the first IPCC report predicted slower periods. Look at the trend over the last 100 years. Its upwards but clearly irregular, due to the influence of natural cycles.

You ask why recent extreme weather isnt due to natural variability. Most of the recent warming is put down to carbon dioxide. This is what the IPCC reviews keep finding each time when they review the 12,000 published papers relating to climate change.

Read up at skepticalscience.com. You are raising old points that I wont debate furthur. They are all covered on that website.

Jimmy.t February 16, 2014 at 2:22 pm

Noel, there is of course one other explaination for the ‘lost heat’. Maybe warming from GHGs has been exaggerated? the notion that heat is being trapped in to oceans is a new idea and not mentioned in any previous IPCC reports. There is no scientific evidence to suggest our deep oceans are getting warmer, colder or otherwise. The oceans are just a scapegoat for the lack of surface tempreture warming (which was the measure used as evidence of global warming when it was playing ball and increasing)

As for the met office http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/m/8/A3_plots-precip-DJF-2.pdf
Being wrong 13 of 14 times with a warm bias is not getting it wrong ‘sometimes’, it’s nearly all the time! Would you listen to a doctor with that track record?

Nigel, I never stated the climate is cooling, I’m just suggesting snow storms would typically support that theory. Remember how all the climate scientists used to claim that snow will be a thing of the past because of warming? Now they claim snow events are BECAUSE of global warming.

If warming will cause more water vapor in the air, as seems logical, then this would lead to less droughts yes? We both know that if Califorinia has record rainfall next year it will be blamed on global warming. It’s unrealistic to claim every type of weather is evidence of global warming. Take a position and stick with it. Will warming make the UK wetter or drier? Colder or warmer? It you are proved correct with actual data then that supports your theory, if not then the opposing theory might be correct. Claiming everything proves global warming just confuses everyone and that’s why we are in this scientific stalemate.

Ian Forrester February 16, 2014 at 4:02 pm

Oh Dear, Dunning Kruger is rampant in this one:

There is no scientific evidence to suggest our deep oceans are getting warmer, colder or otherwise.

Ocean heat content had been measured for a long time, originally using XBTs and more recently using the ARGO system.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/

As for the nonsense:

there is of course one other explaination (sic) for the ‘lost heat’. Maybe warming from GHGs has been exaggerated?

The energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere is actually being measured via satellite so we know how much energy is accumulating by the earth. No need to invoke the greenhouse gas effect in doing this calculation. Incidentally of course, the amount of energy being retained is pretty much equal to what we expect from greenhouse gas theory. Therefore, you are completely wrong in your statement that the greenhouse gas effect is exaggerated.

nigelj February 17, 2014 at 9:29 am

Jimmy.t

The deep oceans are warming. Look up the published research on skepticalscience.com

Most science in the 1940s – 1970s predicted global warming. You are quoting a couple of eccentric scientists that took a different view.

Snowstorms are made worse and more frequent, by a warming climate. Increased atmospheric moisture goes into snowstorms. This is established, mainstream meteorology known for a long time.

Increased water vapour doesn’t lead to less droughts. This is a regional issue different countries are affected in different ways.

My position on Britain has always been the same. There will be a warming climate, and weather extremes of snow storms and dry periods will become more intense and may increase in frequency. Thats pretty much what appears to be happening.

noelfuller February 16, 2014 at 4:31 pm

Jimmy.t
Your alternative explanations are nonsense, not the result of knowledge!. There is room for some physics and we humans are measuring and able to determine where the heat is going – it is just you that thinks it is all a mirage.

You take half an argument but I nvite you to try seeing the rest e.g. warming results in more evaporation resulting in more water vapour in the air. However water evaporates from land (= drought) and sea. Also more water vapour meeting cold air flowing from the arctic means more precipitation in the form of snow yet cold air is flowing from the arctic because it is getting warmer, as ice melts. Also stronger tradewinds have been burying heat in the depths producing tropical atmospheric cooling so again the gradient from tropics to arctic is reduced giving even more room for jetstream wobbles which result in a variety of slow moving conditions. You have already been given enough links for you to pick up on these phenomena – if you would think them through.

Nor are we at a scientific stalemate but is that what you are trying to promote?

Jimmy.t February 16, 2014 at 4:55 pm

The ARGO system has only been in operation since 2003, before that reliability of data was seriously lacking. Are you suggesting the very slight upward trend in ocean tempretures as measured by ARGO explains away all the missing heat?

Why is this AGRO trend since 2003 valid when the pause in global surface tempreture since 1998 is too short to be significant? Like cherrys by any chance?

Kiwiiano February 16, 2014 at 5:55 pm

“Are you suggesting the very slight upward trend in ocean tempretures as measured by ARGO explains away all the missing heat?”
Given the enormous difference in specific heat capacity between air and water, even a tiny change in ocean temperatures represents a helluva lot of additional energy input.
As Ian F pointed out, the satellites are seeing the discrepancy between the incoming and outgoing energy, that alone is cause for concern.

“promoters of the warming theory claim every form of weather is caused by climate change,”
If you put an extra blanket on your bed, the bed will be a little warmer whether it’s a hot norwester out there or a miserable southerly. Likewise if you add thermal trapping gases to the atmosphere ALL aspects of the weather will be affected, sometimes a lot, sometimes only a little and sometimes in unexpected ways. For eg, the extremely cold or wet weather in the northern hemisphere is not unknown, there have been similar outbreaks of frigid air or dumps of rain over the last century or so the records have been kept, what is unexpected is the frequency of these events. Once a century happening twice in a decade. It’s the regularity with which multiple records are being broken, with the vast majority being heavier, hotter, wetter, longer, etc.

Ian Forrester February 16, 2014 at 6:27 pm

There has been no pause in global temperature rise. There isn’t even a pause in surface temperatures. You are nothing but an ignorant and nasty troll.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/gistemp/from:1998/plot/gistemp/from:1998/trend

nigelj February 17, 2014 at 9:51 am

Jimmy .t

A small increase in ocean temperature means a truly massive increases in heat energy in the oceans. The ocean is huge. That heat energy can escape in an el nino event, and because this is concentrated it effects land temperatures significantly.

There is no reason to doubt the argo buoys, just as theres no reason to doubt that temperatures have increased more slowly since about 2002.

The significance issue is another thing, the period since 2002 is too short to suggest much other than the temporary effects of sunspots and ocean cycles. The climate models all predict flat periods like this, but they cant predict exactly when they occur, as the cycles involved are only roughly regular.

Look at the temperature data. The last 100 years are an increasing trend, but like a staircase, due to the influence of ocean cycles / sunspot cycles etc on the greenhouse effect.

Jimmy.t February 16, 2014 at 5:09 pm

Some of your explaination sounds logical Noel. I can be over simplified by saying warming = dry etc. The frustration is promoters of the warming theory claim every form of weather is caused by climate change, this makes it impossible to convince the public climate change is real. How can you measure success when everything = success is my point.

Indeed if hurricanes or tornados were the measure, evidence would suggest climate change has halted.

And no, a stalemate is the worst possible scenario, if it’s real gets get on and adapt, if it’s not let’s drop this exorbitantly expensive boondoggle.

noelfuller February 16, 2014 at 5:49 pm

Jimmy.t
Climate change affects every kind of weather in directions that can be perceived. You misrepresent the situation by claiming scientists say every kind of weather is caused by climate change – a straw man argument. Scientists don’t do that. But a global climate change however slight affects all weather to some degree. Attribution is a rapidly developing aspect of climate science. Do you read what they actually say?

nigelj February 17, 2014 at 10:04 am

Jimmy.t

It’s a simple fact that warming is predicted to affects certain types of extreme weather. We are seeing evidence of that. Hansen has researched weather extremes over the last 40 years and found a global increase. Recent extreme weather is unusual in scale. The IPCC has noted increases in floods and droughts etc over recent decades.

The IPCC has stated hurricane frequency / intensity may be increasing but the evidence isn’t conclusive enough yet. The point is there is clear evidence some types of extreme weather are increasing and becoming more severe. You are in denial of the research, but have no proof to the contrary.

Thomas February 16, 2014 at 5:44 pm

Jimmy: There is NO CURE for willful denial and you have not come here for educational purposes.

Human caused climate change is no longer in question and the changes we are causing are beginning to byte harder with every year that is passing. Adapt we must, but the cost of doing so will vary very widely depending on how we deal with the root causes. Preventing catastrophic climate change is an imperative, if we want to inherit this planet in a reasonable shape to our children.

noelfuller February 16, 2014 at 5:50 pm

Anyone fancy a micro EV?

Jimmy.t February 16, 2014 at 6:30 pm

But Noel to be fair any time a weather event occurs someone cries climate change. All the science pointed to warmer winters and less snow in the UK, but when winters got colder and snowier it was claimed this is a classic sign of climate change. No, a warm snow free winter was ment to be what climate change looked like. It seems the science follows the actual data rather than predicting it.

As an example, I assume you are versed in NZ climate change predictions? What will the North Island future climate trends look like? Warmer winter, colder winter, same temp but more extreme events? Will there be a trend in your view?

nigelj February 17, 2014 at 10:14 am

Jimmy t

“No, a warm snow free winter was meant to be what climate change looked like.”

Incorrect. Nobody ever predicted this for places like Britain, instead the prediction has always been a warmer climate overall including winter, but storms could be more intense.

You would need a 10 degree rise in temperature to have a snow free winter, to totally change the seasons of places like Britain. If temperatures increase that much the planet would be essentially a waste land. Even a 2 degree increase has major negative repercussions globally.

Jimmy.t February 16, 2014 at 7:14 pm

Ian, i don’t think that type of personal attack has any place on this blog, try reading the comments policy. Even the pro warming met office has confirmed the pause
http://real-agenda.com/2012/10/15/met-office-report-confirms-global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago/

Take it up with them if you disagree.

Kiwiiano February 16, 2014 at 9:41 pm

That real-agenda article is dated Oct 2012, putting it’s data even earlier. Wildly out of date now that we have become aware of the effects of a succession of La Nina’s plus the stronger easterlies in the tropics pushing the warmer water down and of course the cooler water up. The pause is an illusion. Or possibly a delusion.
I’d also be cautious about anything with Judith Curry’s by-line, she’s one of “the usual suspects” regularly weighed in the balance and found wanting. Conspicuous in the article that her status is puffed up by noting that she works ‘at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university’. I don’t think that is a center of excellence in climate research. Note too that “the full article” derives from that pinnacle of journalistic excellence The Daily Mail. Yeah, right….

Meanwhile the steady drumbeat of fossil carbon release carries on as politicians dither and money grubbers distract.

Ian Forrester February 17, 2014 at 4:38 am

Truth hurts, doesn’t it?

Ian Forrester February 17, 2014 at 5:06 am

Here is what people who understand statistics have to say of David Rose’s piece of drivel he posted on the Daily Mail.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/temperature-analysis-by-david-rose-doesnt-smell-so-sweet/

This proves you are a denier and not a so called sceptic, you lap up anything which supports your ideologically driven position and ignore or lie about anything which shows how wrong you are.

Tony February 16, 2014 at 7:52 pm

Hey Jimmy,

Just what do you think the met office is saying here:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming

But before you read it, take off your surface temperature filter glasses.

Jimmy.t February 16, 2014 at 8:33 pm

That link confirms the met office is well aware of the pause, they mentioned it on about six occasions, not the mention the title of the link.

Can we all agree now the pause is real?

Thomas February 16, 2014 at 9:56 pm
Ian Forrester February 17, 2014 at 4:47 am
Jimmy.t February 16, 2014 at 10:33 pm

Come on Thomas, Tony’s link and your links state the surface temperature has paused. The met office have acknowledged the pause. As far as the surface temperature goes the pause is real, yes.

Now I agree this does not exclude the possibility that global warming could be persisting due to heat being trapped in the deep ocean. At this stage this is only a theory and a lot more evidence will need to be collected before that argument is settled.

Ian Forrester February 17, 2014 at 4:50 am

Wrong again, it’s not a theory (in your ignorant use of the word) the increase has been measured. Stop your lying, it only makes you look worse than when you started with your nonsense.

Gary Young February 17, 2014 at 10:15 am

Jimmy.t please note: when people use the word ‘only’ in the phrase ‘only a theory’ it becomes absolutely clear that they have no understanding of what a theory actually is.

Please consult a glossary of common scientific terminology.

Jimmy.t February 16, 2014 at 11:02 pm

The issue with this theory that the oceans are cooling the surface is that they can equally be responsible for warming it, ie when currents are reversed. The oceans could prove to be a driver of the warming period of the 70s to 90s. This could really muddy the waters.

Rob Painting February 16, 2014 at 11:27 pm

Jimmy, you can’t learn oceanography by reading and then parroting denier blogs. The oceans are warming and this, combined with meltwater from land-based ice, is why global sea levels are rising.

See Skeptical Science post: Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance.

No doubt your postings here are going to consist of other parroted myths – this is a tedious pattern that Gareth and other posters here are very familiar with. But at some point, just like all those people in the UK, you’re going to have to accept that physics doesn’t care what climate myths you believe.

Tony February 16, 2014 at 11:08 pm

Jimmy,

Did you skip the bit that says:

“The final paper shows that the recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century. Nor does it invalidate the fundamental physics of global warming, the scientific basis of climate models and their estimates of climate sensitivity.”

You saw the words “pause” and “surface temperatures” and that was enough for you was it? That’s all that matters….

Beaker February 17, 2014 at 5:12 am

What a coincidence. A ‘new’ contributor appears on a thread noting that the host is on holiday – less able to slap down the denial nonsense. Nothing particularly new about the new contributor’s claims however.

Kiwiiano February 17, 2014 at 6:08 am

A vaguely similar thought passed through my mind (along with dead leaves and the odd bird). Has Gareth set up a sock puppet to keep the home fires burning while he has some time off?

Except that I know Gareth’s standards are too high plus, with no ads on Hot Topic, there’s no incentive to scrabble for hits. The site stands on its reputation for excellence.

Beaker February 17, 2014 at 1:06 pm

No not a sock puppet of Gareth, but the sock puppet of a previous repeat offender hoping to avoid moderation and/or unmasking while Gareth is on vacation. I see below that Gareth is busy spoiling his time off by pointing out the obvious to this latest (curiously familiar) claptrap spammer.

Jimmy.t February 17, 2014 at 7:45 am

Is this one of those sites that only allows one type of view is it? That’s a bit sad.

If any one of you were honest on this subject you would admit the met office’s shocking record and lack of credibility on climate change. 13 of 14 wrong! No complaints?

As for the heat being trapped in the ocean, if this was established fact why did the IPCC not include it in their reports? We know so little about the deep oceans, it will take years to prove scientifically no? Please correct me if I’m wrong but even ARGO is not showing major warming at the moment. And even if it did, would you be happy with records only dating back to 2003 to prove this. Such a short period could be natural variability as was suggested with the 15 year pause in surface temperatures.

Gareth February 17, 2014 at 9:21 am

Re: “One type of view”

This site encourages all sorts of views, based on the principle that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. That’s why the comment policy specifically excludes trolling and misrepresentation of facts. You are getting perilously close to this line by appearing to ignore the many references you have been provided, and by referencing disinformation.

If you want to engage on the science of climate, which is fascinating and complex, please do so – but you should note that everything we needed to know to decide to take action to restrain carbon emissions was in place 20 years ago. Nothing in any current discussion of the science changes that basic fact.

Ian Forrester February 17, 2014 at 8:47 am

Denier troll Jimmy.t asks:

Is this one of those sites that only allows one type of view is it?

Yes, only honest statements are encouraged. Your dishonest “opinions” are worthless, wrong and show you are a denier troll. Try reading actual science rather than denier blogs.

Gary Young February 17, 2014 at 9:25 am

“Is this one of those sites that only allows one type of view is it? ”

If you had been paying attention, if you had read and actually understood other postings from other commenters on this site you might by now have realised that the level of discourse on Hot Topic is above average for a science based bulletin board.

It is a common misconception that scientists demand proof. They do not. Scientists demand evidence. It is an important distinction.

On that basis the evidence thus far available from your postings demonstrates a poor grasp of scientific methodology and little skill in the interpretation of empirical data. Furthermore the fact that you persist in promulgating long debunked assertions from the long discredited denialist literature suggests that you lack the necessary scientific understanding to contribute meaningfully here.

The situation facing humanity is dire and we are long past the time when we need tolerate or indulge the wilfully ignorant, so whining that the big boys are being mean to you simply doesn’t cut it any more and speaking personally, I am no longer prepared to suffer fools gladly.

Come back when you have grasped the concept of scientific rigour.

Bob Bingham February 17, 2014 at 10:36 am

The World has only warmed .8C and we are already getting extreme weather. People are looking at the floods and peoples houses but nobody is looking at the real disaster which is in farming and food production. Fields have been underwater for weeks and crops will be rotting in the ground.
The forecast is for 2/3c temperature rise and if we are already suffering now we may be a lot closer to seeing what climate change is really like.. Three years ago I did not think I would live long enough to see the full affects but it seems to me that it is coming on really fast. The next ten years should be very interesting. Lets hope ‘not too interesting’

Jimmy.t February 17, 2014 at 11:37 am

Just because someone has a different view, does not make them a denier troll. Why the meanness and immaturity?

http://www.nature.com/news/tropical-ocean-key-to-global-warming-hiatus-1.13620

Nature backs your point, yet not once claims this theory is now fact. I would like to know who is claiming this theory to be fact given how little we know about the oceans? Please link references.

And still not a peep on the met office. Is everyone here happy to quote an organisation that gets is wrong 92% of the time? Your bias is extraordinary. Criticising the met office does not make your other views wrong. Just be balanced!

Thomas February 17, 2014 at 5:24 pm

Jimmy, have a look at this:

http://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=67

Can you tell me in all honesty what you make of the temperature series when you separate the trends for El Nino and La Nina years?
Do you still believe that you can see a change in trends over the last decade or so?

On what evidence do you think people should put their hope on Global Warming somehow having stopped?

Can you give us a reference to a published and peer reviewed science paper (not opinions by lay people who desperately WANT to believe that GW is not happening) that constructs an argument in favor of GW somehow having stopped?

Gary Young February 17, 2014 at 12:10 pm

“Just because someone has a different view, does not make them a denier troll”

No indeed. However, if their views are unsupported by the data, their assertions are scientifically illiterate and they repeat those assertions no matter how often they are shown to be wrong then the available evidence strongly suggests that someone is, in fact, a denier troll.

As for immaturity I would point you to my previous remarks and invite you to consider the correlation between immaturity and whining.

Kiwiiano February 17, 2014 at 12:10 pm

Interesting times indeed, Bob. The list of favorite things threatened by climate change grows: coffee, chocolate, hops, chilli, wool, fish, wine, apples, apricots, peanuts, maple syrup are starting to struggle as seasons shift, summer or winter temps are too high, rains fail or arrive at the wrong time. For eg the Brazilian coffee crop is down 50% due to prolonged drought…… Gasp!!!!

Thomas February 17, 2014 at 5:52 pm

One for the angry Cats Paws section:

The Murdoch empire of his News (reporting, twisting, generating, censoring, manipulating, spinning in favor of right wing agendas) Corp received AU$882m from the Australian government as a tax rebate!!!! This constituted the biggest single factor in the recent Australian governmental budget blow out!

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/feb/17/rupert-murdoch-receives-882m-tax-rebate

How can those within the 0.005% of humanity who are responsible for the rapidly growing inequality and the carefully constructed agenda to keep those ‘little Jimmies’ believing in Santa Claus sleep at night?

The mind boggles.

Jimmy.t February 17, 2014 at 5:53 pm

Is Bob a denier troll for making unsupported claims about global food production? Any evidence to suggest it is falling on a global scale Bob? Regions will always have fluctuations.

Your silence on the met office suggests a lack of confidence there, yet I’m not sure why you can’t just admit what we all know.

Gary, can you please tell me which of my views are unsupported by data? The pause is now widely accepted, the debate is purely around If there is excess heat being trapped in the oceans, this will take more than a couple of recent papers to become the accepted scientific position.

Ian Forrester February 17, 2014 at 6:39 pm

Jimmy.t asks:

can you please tell me which of my views are unsupported by data?

A far easier question to answer is “which of J.t’s views are supported by data?”

The simple answer is – none of them.

Jimmy.t February 17, 2014 at 7:07 pm

Name one.

Thomas February 17, 2014 at 7:24 pm

Simple Jimmy: Cite one peer reviewed and published paper that supports the claim that the increase in the Earth’s heat balance has stopped or paused.

BTW you seem to avoid commenting on this:

http://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=67

Can you tell me in all honesty what you make of the temperature series when you separate the trends for El Nino and La Nina years?
Do you still believe that you can see a change in trends over the last decade or so?

On what evidence do you think people should put their hope on Global Warming somehow having stopped?

Jimmy.t February 17, 2014 at 7:26 pm

Did climate models actually predict less jet stream dipping over the US?

“These [modeling] studies suggest that a warming Arctic will draw the jet stream’s average track north. Blocking patterns will decrease. Moreover, the models indicate no “robust” decrease in the jet stream’s speed, notes Elizabeth Barnes, a climate scientist at Colorado State University.

It will be interesting to check IPCC reports on this topic.

Kiwiiano February 17, 2014 at 7:52 pm

“On what evidence do you think people should put their hope on Global Warming somehow having stopped?”

or something more constructive than Hoping for the Best and Planning for Nothing?

Thomas February 17, 2014 at 8:47 pm

Yea, all these “little Jimmies” are so childish. They remind me of the fiddlers on the listing decks of the Titanic. The ‘show must go on’ no matter what. They spend all their energy defending the indefensible and thinking that they can somehow outwit the laws of Physics with nefarious rhetoric.
Risible really as all they could possibly gain is more delay of the work that needs to be done to avoid the very worst.

Jimmy.t February 17, 2014 at 9:18 pm

Let’s be clear here Thomas, we may be talking about different things. I have not once used the term ‘earths heat balance’.

The pause is getting a lot of press given it doesn’t exist. I thought I was meant to be the denier?

http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

And

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming

Maybe nature needs to get their info from sceptical science.

Thomas February 18, 2014 at 6:22 am

Jimmy, people like yourself who willfully deny and distort the entire discussion are unlikely to benefit from any discussion.
The Nature article is indeed a review of the science that explains rather well why atmospheric temperatures are beholden to the thermal interaction with the ocean system. Did you not understand any of it?
Do you comprehend that only a few percent of the Earth’s heat imbalance is actually contained in variations of Earth’s atmospheric temperatures? If you would then you would agree that your silly focus on small variations of the same around the general rising trend are normal and not at all a sign of an end to the mechanisms of GW.

The MetOffice provides papers for people like yourself. Did you read the last one?
It in a nutshell tells you that:

The final paper shows that the recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century. Nor does it invalidate the fundamental physics of global warming, the scientific basis of climate models and their estimates of climate sensitivity.

jh February 17, 2014 at 9:36 pm

[Moved to open thread, because it was way OT under Rodney]

“It would also be racist to try to dictate family size, given that the various ethnic groups in our society have different birth rates.
..
“Like many people, the Green Party is concerned with the growing global population, and the pressure that puts on the Earth’s resources. The Greens have looked at the Ministry of Environment’s research into the carrying capacity of the New Zealand ecosystem.

“Their document ‘Ecological Footprint of New Zealand and its Regions’ enumerates the carrying capacity of New Zealand, but the Green Party ‘recognises that a sustainable population level for New Zealand would not be “final and fixed” but flexible.’

“However, it would be quite wrong to take from this that we are asking parents to have less kids,” Mr Locke says.
“It is anathema to myself – as it is to the Green Party – that any person should interest themselves in the right of any one to choose how many children they have,” said Mr Locke.

https://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/greens%E2%80%99-population-policy-misinterpreted
what ever happend to Erlich?

SimonP February 17, 2014 at 10:25 pm

Jimmy’s anglocentric references to the “Met Office” is a common trait of whinging pom sock puppets.

Jimmy.t February 17, 2014 at 10:39 pm

Simon, do you think its acceptable for a scientific organisation to be wrong 92% of the time with regard to season weather predictions?

Gareth February 17, 2014 at 11:23 pm

Please supply a reference for that claim. Note: a link to a Daily Mail article does not count as evidence, nor anything claimed by Nigel Lawson’s GWPF.

Kiwiiano February 18, 2014 at 9:09 am

Jimmy, you sure have your toga in a tangle over the UK Met office.
But it is just one of a multitude of sources of information warning of climate change. The BBC blog you cited below notes that their “errors” are still within the margin of error, just slight overestimates, however considering the difficulty of making predictions year by year when climate is decadal at best, PLUS the actual weather we’re getting is decidedly erratic, they’re doing well to be within the margin.

Perhaps you could back off nit-picking and see if you can find a valid overall explanation for how vast quantities of thermal trapping gases can be released into the atmosphere without ill effects. There’s at least a Nobel prize in it for you if you succeed.

nigelj February 18, 2014 at 12:59 pm

Jimmy t

I dont know about the uk met, but our people in NZ get weather predictions correct about 85% of the time.However using your logic we cant predict earthquakes, at all, so I suppose we should just fire all the geologists.

noelfuller February 18, 2014 at 2:18 am

Jimmy,t
You challenged us to name one statement of yours that was incorrect. That is rather easy but once you grasped the notion that global warming and ocean heat content were related you had this to say:

“the notion that heat is being trapped in to oceans is a new idea and not mentioned in any previous IPCC reports. There is no scientific evidence to suggest our deep oceans are getting warmer, colder or otherwise.”

A 2011 article posted in RealClimate had this to say:

“The connection between global warming and the changes in ocean heat content has long been a subject of discussion in climate science. This was explicitly discussed in Hansen et al, 1997 where they predicted that over the last few decades of the 20th Century, there should have been a significant increase in ocean heat content (OHC)”

Read more here
Your next sentence reads:
“The oceans are just a scapegoat for the lack of surface tempreture warming (which was the measure used as evidence of global warming when it was playing ball and increasing)”

What have you been reading? The article linked above says:

“The Meehl et al study looked at the changes in ocean heat content during these occasional decades (low or even negative trend – N) and compared that to the changes seen in other decades with positive surface trends. What they found was that decades with cooling surface temperatures consistently had higher-than-average increases in ocean heat content. This makes perfect sense if there is internal decadal variability in the fluxes that connect the deeper ocean to the surface ocean (which of course there is). An anomalous downward heat flux reduces the ocean surface temperature (and hence global surface temperature), which generates an anomalous heat flux into the ocean from the atmosphere (because the flux into the ocean is related to the difference between atmospheric and ocean temperature). And this of course increases total OHC”

Sea level rise an indicator of top of the atmosphere energy imbalance and a measure of ocean heat content has been employed by climate science at least since Hansen used it in 1997 – not such a new idea is it?

Jimmy.t February 18, 2014 at 7:30 am

Where I was coming from Noel is the IPCC never included this now claimed heat transfer to the deep ocean in their models. This would suggest that the ‘scientific consensus’ was not aware of this process. If they had their models would have been correct and they would have saved themselves some embassasment.

It’s ok the reference the BBC here right?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/Met-Office-global-forecasts-too-warm-in-13-of-last-14-years

nigelj February 18, 2014 at 1:10 pm

Jimmy t

“Where I was coming from Noel is the IPCC never included this now claimed heat transfer to the deep ocean in their models.”

So what? Science and previous modelling doesn’t have a perfect understanding of climate and doesn’t claim to. Science doesnt have a perfect understanding of anything! Even the theoretical framework behind nuclear power isnt fully understood, but it works! We are at least 95% sure of the theory.

We know a greenhouse signature when we see it and theres enough information to be 95% sure we are altering the climate, and that global warming is continuing in terms of heat energy build up. The challenge is to figure out these ocean processes better.

You might also consider recent research by Cowtan (2013) that suggests the pause is only a slight decrease on prior rates of temperature increase. Since you quote science you need to look at the full range of evidence.

Kiwiiano February 18, 2014 at 8:53 am

“It’s ok the reference the BBC here right?”
Provided you actually read the blog cited. To quote:

It is not possible to explain the recent lack of surface warming solely by reductions in the total energy received by the planet, i.e. the balance between the total solar energy entering the system and the thermal energy leaving it.

In other words, they know the energy outgoings are less than the incomings, the uncertainly has been ‘where is the missing heat hiding?’
That has since been identified as the stronger than expected easterly trade winds increasing the ocean vertical circulation, pulling the heat into deeper waters. Don’t forget, a helluva lot of energy can disappear into water with very little effect. But that energy hasn’t gone away and the longer it accumulates, the more ‘interesting’ it will be when it reappears. In fact, there may be a component of it in the relentless, record rainfalls they’ve been having in Britain. That’s the sort of thing to be expected.

Gary Young February 18, 2014 at 9:36 am

“the IPCC never included this now claimed heat transfer to the deep ocean in their models”

When you speak of IPCC models you demonstrate that you have a profound misunderstanding of the purpose and methods of the IPCC.

Quoting from the Wkipedia page on the IPCC:
“The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself”

Furthermore:
“The IPCC bases its assessment on the published literature, which includes peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources”

This is information that you could easily discover for yourself if you made the effort. Given that you are making statements about the IPCC that are not based on the facts it is clear that your conclusions are essentially meaningless.

Bob Bingham February 18, 2014 at 10:31 am

It seems to me that the big difference now is the unexpected speed at which changes are happening. The date for an ice free Arctic was 2035 and I think people would now estimate it before 2020. The jet stream changes were not on the scientific horizon even five years ago and now its not a forecast, its here now. What else is going to happen that we do not know about? Here is some detail on some big threats http://www.climateoutcome.kiwi.nz/climate-threats.html but there could be more. What about the next El Nino? It’s overdue and we know that the Pacific is soaking up heat. Big worry.

Jimmy.t February 18, 2014 at 10:34 am

Kiwi, why are met office forecasts wrong so oftern if they fully understand the climate system? We are talking about 3 month weather forecasts here. The met office clearly has a warm bias when predicting weather. How can a sane person argue with that?

The IPCC is ment to be the gold standard of climate science. Why would they not include this hidden heat in their models. I realise the IPCC is not carrying out the research, but why omit such an important process from their reports?

noelfuller February 18, 2014 at 11:45 am

Jimmy.t

You really are trying to make issues out of nothing.
“now claimed heat transfer” is actually now evidenced heat transfer.

Hansen mentioned in1997 the need to do these measurements and we all heard of Trenberths’s frustration that the heat was not being adequately tracked. As of AR4 only the noisy 0-700 metres of ocean had been measured sufficient to produce a graph of heat gain. Since then the work has been done on deeper waters but even so the IPCC cut off date prevented a good deal of it from being reported so the IPCC is not the “Gold standard” for the state of the science. It has to put the evidence so strongly that even Saudi Arabia will sign off on it..

Incidentally, I trust that in science at secondary school in your first year, you heated some water in a test tube and observed it’s expansion. I did.

nigelj February 18, 2014 at 1:17 pm

Jimmy t

“Kiwi, why are met office forecasts wrong so oftern if they fully understand the climate system? ”

Weather and climate are different things. Its hard to predict weather because it involves certain chaotic processes at short time scales that are unpredictable. The formation and timing of cyclones and anti cyclones.

Climate is longer term atmospheric trends, driven principally by more predictable forces.

Bob Bingham February 18, 2014 at 10:39 am

My previous comment about Arctic sea ice promoted me to take a look and found this excellent article. http://climatestate.com/2014/02/17/arctic-sea-ice-hits-record-low/

noelfuller February 18, 2014 at 11:53 am

Thanks for the link Bob. Of course that 500 year drought in California is meant to be 5 year. :)

Gary Young February 18, 2014 at 12:33 pm

“The IPCC is ment to be the gold standard of climate science”

No.

The IPCC is not doing the climate research and therefore does not set or represent the standards.

Jimmy.t February 18, 2014 at 5:37 pm

The weather is very hard to predict when you use climate models to help make those predictions.

That’s fine, if you guys are happy to take advice from the met office on climate issues that’s your choice. We all have our own standards I guess.

noelfuller February 19, 2014 at 1:44 am

Jimmy.t

When I first posted a response to you I suggested you distinguish between weather and climate and also between weather forecasting and climate forecasting but obviously you just don’t get the difference. People have tried to explain some of it but no luck. It is also my observation after explaining the same points over and over again for more than 10 years that maintaining this confusion is a hallmark strategy of denialism but one last try:

Weather occurs in a chaotic system. It is not possible to forecast weather with any pretence at accuracy for more than a few days – climate scientists as well as meteorologists keep telling us this. Have you studied chaos theory at all? There are or were some very good books on the topic and a pile of chaos engines and software to keep you fascinated for weeks. Mysteries that have piled up all your life may become illumined. The biggest surprise is to discover that there is an underlying order in chaos afterall. Calculations can be made that work in all manner of rough situations.

Climate has been described as the average weather – something that can indeed be measured. I dislike that definition but it is functional. Climate forecasting is concerned with prediction of average conditions. A climate prediction for the area in which I live is that it will get drier which indeed it is doing. I have been able to drive my car (when I had one) on the lawn all year round for years except in the last la niña. “Poms” came to our city just because it could be guarantied to be wet and miserable or so I thought. Now they should go to the Manawatu region where the forecast is for more rain, and indeed that is also happening though drought can hit there too.

Now climate scientists are trying to increase their skill at climate forecasting and on a large scale they have a much better record than denialists will aknowledge. Forecasting recent global conditions 50 years ago for instance. A big goal is to increase the resolution of climate modeling to say 10 km square blocks which just may get useful to farmers planning long term strategies( which could be called sustainable farming). Part of that is getting an exo computer – yet to be achieved – other parts, improving models, increasing skill.

Do you know what is meant by skill? In order to develop skill, methods, physics, hypotheses must be recorded and built on. A close watch is kept on this learning process. Nevertheless climate is changing, drastically in places and what may happen to the weather as GHGs continue to build up could be rather surprising.

Even so deciding to live on a flood plain or on top of an eroding cliff, or under a potential mudslide or rockfall or out in a fire prone forest or near or below sealevel is only for the migratory who can up anchor or fold their tents and move on. Climate prediction is something for which we have to gain skill, but perhaps you are one of those UK citizens who did not take note and have been flooded out for months. If so check out the Makoko slum at Lagos and the visions of Nigerian architect Kunle Adeyemi.

Now a personal note: every morning I enter the weather forecast, half the evenings I amend the entry to what actually happened.. After seeing your post I went out and bought a lux meter and a weather station, which I have been intending to do for years. You are not to blame afterall.

Jimmy.t February 19, 2014 at 7:47 am

Maybe the met office should stop trying to predict the weather then, they are not very good at it.

The public will be the judge of if these global warming influenced weather predictions are accurate. 1 of 13!

Tony February 19, 2014 at 8:07 am
Bob Bingham February 19, 2014 at 8:29 am

That’s terrible. And its Australian owned. What does that do to my prejudices.

noelfuller February 19, 2014 at 9:39 am

I’m not sure I’ve ever read anything more dreadful for the future of the biosphere and humanity. The idea is certainly elegant and it’s attaction to the short sighted and irresponsible has to be very great – wonderful incentive for those who wish to confuse humanity on subjects of climate change as we currently witness.

Rationalisations are in place naturally but I was struck by the acknowledgement that the burning fractures the impermeable seams above:

“This is a break with the orthodox narrative of UCG entrepreneurs. Most insist, in public at least, that strata surrounding the coal seams are impermeable, and that any pollutants released by burning will stay within the seam. Not so, says Bradbury. “The rocks above, in particular, will be disturbed. They will be fractured. Even if they were impermeable before, they won’t be afterwards. It is inevitable. We estimate the disturbance will extend up to 60 times higher than the width of the seam.”"

and subsequently bemused by the following:

“Burning coal in situ leaves huge voids that are ideal places for burying captured CO2.”

Year right! :(

SimonP February 19, 2014 at 3:12 pm

The Australian scientist who helped pioneered this is a ‘Cliff Mallett’ :-)

Thomas February 19, 2014 at 5:44 pm

This is terrible indeed. Perhaps the specter of a long lasting dirty Carbon fuel supply will shift the discussion about AGW finally into the real discussion about consequences. So far too many might argue that peak oil etc. will self limit AGW in some way. But no so if these technologies are becoming mainstream, it should be clear that we must engage on a sincere path to limit CO2 emissions. What might be down there on this scale will certainly kill the biosphere as we know it.

Kiwiiano February 19, 2014 at 8:14 pm

When I read that article, Tony, I rested my head on the table and thought “Oh fuckin’ hell, we’re screwed!”
Dreadful as it may seem, I’m hoping for a cracking good El Nino that does so much damage and scares the bejeezers out of enough folk to realise that Hansen’s call for 75% of known resources to stay in the ground to avoid climate calamity isn’t deluded, an attempt to destroy capitalism or a hoax. Whatever it costs, it will be well spent if it avoids vastly more disastrous costs.

Of course, with the option to retrieve even ‘impossible’ reserves, the 75% number will go out the window.

Macro February 19, 2014 at 9:13 pm

Yep! The dreadful flooding in UK is having the effect of waking people up – except of course the neo-liberals..see the recently tweeted article
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25061-will-record-floods-finally-shift-uk-climate-debate.html#.UwRmSXlCPwJ
I don’t know how it is in Australia following an horrific bushfire season – the papers over here are still in love with the abbott – but maybe bill can enlighten us to whether there is a change of perception. I guess the msm having done all they can to get the man elected have to continue to ignore the obvious.

Thomas February 19, 2014 at 9:11 pm

While I do not share Lovelocks pessimism about technologies such as Wind end others, his pessimism about humanities chances to steer clear of the coming cliff is probably hard to dismiss:
http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2008/mar/01/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange

We have too many little Jimmies amongst us still to currently hold hope that we will in time collectively elect the leaders that can manage change commensurate to the challenge we cooked ourselves up – literally in some respects.

In that respect I too would think that an early shot over the bow from the next El Nino is perhaps the best sour medicine that humanity needs to wake up. Another decade of wasted time will be hard to bear as the gun is loaded all the while with more powder – at the tune of 4 nuclear bombs or 7,409 trillion cats sneezes per second….

Jimmy.t February 19, 2014 at 10:27 pm

Hey Marco, no one credible is linking the floods to climate change. Even the warmist met office has played down the link. Keep it real guys eh.

CTG February 19, 2014 at 10:41 pm

Fail. The Met Office says:

There is an increasing body of evidence that extreme daily rainfall rates are becoming more intense, and that the rate of increase is consistent with what is expected from fundamental physics. There is no evidence to counter the basic premise that a warmer world will lead to more intense daily and hourly heavy rain events.

It wouldn’t hurt you to actually read some of this stuff, you know, instead of just making up crap.

Jimmy.t February 19, 2014 at 11:12 pm

Ummmm????

Last week the Met Office and the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology issued an admirable joint report on the floods and their possible connection to climate change, concluding that it is not possible to make such a link. ‘As yet’, it said, ‘there is no definitive answer on the possible contribution of climate change to the recent storminess, rainfall amounts and the consequent flooding’

Kiwiiano February 19, 2014 at 11:42 pm

You really, REALLY don’t get it do you, Jimmy? You can’t link ANY weather event specifically to climate change any more than you can specifically link Joe Blow’s lung cancer to the 20 fags a day he’s smoked for the last 40 years. All you can say and all the scientists are prepared to say is that “there is no definitive link BUT that’s what you would expect.”

Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get!

Why are you trying to read something into the Met office’s announcement?

noelfuller February 20, 2014 at 12:24 am

Nah he does not get it. The MET statement (i.e. an office with credibility at last, according to Jimmy.t – oh the irony!) is a form statement that has been used by similar bodies and by climate scientists for years you recall. It means that a great deal of examination of evidence has to be made to determine by what percentage climate change has influenced the likelihood of such an extraordinary series of storms given the obvious that climate is the background to all weather events.

I remember similar statements made in Oz after the Black Saturday (Feb. 7, 2009) Fires and very recently after the October fires. Here is David Karoly , Professor of Meteorology at the University of Melbourne, one week after Black Saturday:

“There has been very high global media coverage of this natural disaster and, of course, speculation on the possible role of climate change in these fires. So, did climate change cause these fires? The simple answer is “No!” Climate change did not start the fires. Unfortunately, it appears that one or more of the fires may have been lit by arsonists, others may have started by accident and some may have been started by fallen power lines, lightning or other natural causes.

“Maybe there is a different way to phrase that question: In what way, if any, is climate change likely to have affected these bush fires?

“To answer that question, we need to look at the history of fires and fire weather over the last hundred years or so. Bushfires are a regular occurrence in south-east Australia, with previous disastrous fires on Ash Wednesday, 16 February 1983, and Black Friday, 13 January 1939, both of which led to significant loss of life and property. Fortunately, a recent report “Bushfire Weather in Southeast Australia: Recent Trends and Projected Climate Change Impacts”(ref. 1) in 2007 provides a comprehensive assessment on this topic. In addition, a Special Climate Statement(ref 2) from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology describes the extraordinary heat wave and drought conditions at the time of the fires.”

Attribution is scientifically about “getting real”.

CTG February 20, 2014 at 6:45 am

As I thought, you didn’t read the Met Office report, that I linked to, you read denialist interpretations of it, the ones that only pointed out the phrase “no definitive answer”.

What the report actually says (since you won’t bother reading it yourself), is that there are several lines of evidence that are consistent with a warming world due to greenhouse gas emissions, and no credible evidence to the contrary. However, none of the links are strong enough to get to the status of a definitive answer. Dame Julia Slingo, the head of the Met Office, has gone on record to say that “All the evidence suggests there is a link to climate change”.

You and your denialist nut job friends twist “no definitive answer” into “definitively no connection”, which is bollocks. Pure, made up bollocks.

The only person you are deceiving is yourself, Jimbo.

Jimmy.t February 20, 2014 at 7:13 am

Something Julia has been roundly criticised for and that goes against the met office and IPCC position that there is no evidence to link extreme weather to climate change. If you guys have the evidence maybe you can get it in AR6?

Even with the met office warm bias they knew they couldn’t make stupid claims. And better read the small print CGT because Julia was only referring to models providing the evidence, and we all know how accurate they are.

PS, isn’t Julia slingo the one predicting dryer winters in 2012? Oh the irony all right!

PPS there is a well established link between lung cancer and smoking. Strange example.

Kiwiiano February 20, 2014 at 7:51 am

PS, isn’t Julia slingo the one predicting dryer winters in 2012? Oh the irony all right!

That was before the Arctic Ocean sent them the jetstream curveball.

PPS there is a well established link between lung cancer and smoking. Strange example.

Indeed, but it was denied vigorously for years, interestingly by the very same spin merchants using the same FUD techniques as are denying climate change now.

Tony February 20, 2014 at 7:54 am

“there is a well established link between lung cancer and smoking”

I know several people who have smoked all their lives and never got cancer.. Surely that blows your theory out of the water.

Rob Taylor February 20, 2014 at 9:22 am

Yeah, to really PROVE that smoking causes cancer, everyone who lit up a fag would have to drop dead of cancer on the spot, right?

Those poor tobacco companies have been so unjustly villified over the years, it makes my lungs bleed…

Jimmy.t February 20, 2014 at 10:17 am

Anyone can predict something after is happens. Look, global cooling will lead to wetter winters in the UK. I was right so that’s evidence of global cooling….stupid eh.

If attacking me on smoking is where this debate is at I will take that as a complainant to my well made argument. If you don’t think there is a link between smoking and cancer, take it up with the medical journals.

Tony February 20, 2014 at 11:29 am

“If attacking me on smoking is where this debate is at I will take that as a complainant to my well made argument. If you don’t think there is a link between smoking and cancer, take it up with the medical journals.”

You need to apply your same standards to the smoking debate as you do to the climate debate, its called being consistent. Now if we do that, I think that you will find that scientists cannot predict with any accuracy which smokers will or will not get cancer, so clearly the link between cancer and smoking can’t be real or is at best unproven.

John ONeill February 20, 2014 at 2:09 pm

I think with a full sequence of your genome now, scientists’ chances of predicting whether or not your smoking will kill you are ‘ better than average ‘ ( to quote Crocodile Dundee )

Jimmy.t February 20, 2014 at 11:35 am

We pulling at straws now. Statistically there is a link between cancer and smoking. The IPCC and met office are not prepared to say that about extreme weather and climate change.

nigelj February 20, 2014 at 12:31 pm

Jimmy t

You claim the IPCC are not prepared to make a link between extreme weather and climate change. Actually they do as follows.

“It is not possible to attribute individual weather events to climate change but a recent review by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of scientific research on extreme weather concluded that there is already strong evidence that the number of extreme cold days around the world is decreasing, while hot days are on the rise, and patterns of rainfall in many regions are being altered as well. Global sea level is also rising by more than 3mm per year, which means surges that are generated by storms over large bodies of water are also becoming higher. Surges are created ahead of storms by the impact of winds on the surface of the water.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/23/climate-change-carbon-emissions-ipcc-extreme-weather

Kiwiiano February 20, 2014 at 12:46 pm

Alas, I fear poor Jim lad has fallen victim of Poe’s Law.

Without a blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of extremism or fundamentalism that someone won’t mistake for the real thing.

He missed the point about smoking….but then he misses the point about just about everything, eh?

Tony February 20, 2014 at 2:01 pm

Hey Jimmy,

I’m curious to know just how much do they pay you to pepper this site with misinformation from denialist blog sites, whilst showing zero evidence of having read or learnt anything provided to you in good faith by loyal contributors.

Do they pay you an hourly rate, and if so what hours are you expected to work? I can’t imagine how anyone could be so dedicated to what you do without some form of remuneration.

Prove me wrong by contributing nothing to this site for at least 2 months, and I mean nothing, blogging under a different alias doesn’t count.

Jimmy.t February 20, 2014 at 4:06 pm

and patterns of rainfall in many regions are being altered as well.

Is this the IPCC linking the floods to climate change? It says nothing about floods. We all know the IPCC has clearly stated they have low confidence in such a link. You guys can believe what ever you want though, it’s a free world.

And no Tony, you get me for free.

nigelj February 20, 2014 at 4:46 pm

Jimmy t try reading the whole IPCC report related to extreme weather events. The IPCC did not say they have low confidence in those connections on droughts, floods or rainfall. They stated they have low confidence in links to hurricane patterns as there isnt enough evidence yet. You are wrong on about 100 different things.

Thomas February 20, 2014 at 5:55 pm

“The IPCC says nothing about floods….” Jimmy said.

Reality:
Climate Change 2007: IPCC Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Contents33.43.4.3, 3.4.3 Floods and droughts

A warmer climate, with its increased climate variability, will increase the risk of both floods and droughts (Wetherald and Manabe, 2002; Table SPM2 in IPCC, 2007).

and …

A robust result, consistent across climate model projections, is that higher precipitation extremes in warmer climates are very likely to occur (see Section 3.3.1). Precipitation intensity increases almost everywhere, but particularly at mid- and high latitudes where mean precipitation also increases (Meehl et al., 2005, WGI AR4, Chapter 10, Section 10.3.6.1). This directly affects the risk of flash flooding and urban flooding. Storm drainage systems have to be adapted to accommodate increasing rainfall intensity resulting from climate change (Waters et al., 2003).

Now that was already said by the IPCC in 2007. Does this somehow connect you to what we see 7 years later today in the UK perhaps?

Jimmy, when will you learn that it is kind of important to first work out whether the stuff you either make up from thin air or copy from denier blogs is actually in any way or shape related to the truth?

Once more Jimmy you are standing with your knickers at your ankles and a spotlight on ‘that’ spot. Now move off the stage, you look ridiculous don’t you think?

CTG February 20, 2014 at 6:06 pm

In Jimmy’s world, floods are not caused by rainfall. Oh no. Pixies or something, but definitely not rainfall.

And Jimmy, you really should not misrepresent what the IPCC says. The low confidence statement in the SREX report was that there was a lack of data to show whether or not there had been an increase in flooding – they were not saying that the link does not exist.

Rob Taylor February 20, 2014 at 5:20 pm

Jimmy, you appear to have stumbled upon the wrong website, one where scientific literacy and honesty are required.

Should you be looking for your own kind, you will find them here:

http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/

Jimmy.t February 20, 2014 at 8:12 pm

The science has moved on from 2005 Thomas.

On heavy rain events:

In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.

If you have some actual evidence this is not the IPCCs current position, let’s hear it. Otherwise you might want to address your wilful bias and maybe stop picturing me with my pants down, it’s getting concerning.

Macro February 20, 2014 at 8:33 pm

I see your an expert on misrepresentation as well jimmy!

I’ll reiterate what CTG just said above, since it obviously needs repeating:

The low confidence statement in the SREX report was that there was a lack of data to show whether or not there had been an increase in flooding – they were not saying that the link does not exist.

Jimmy.t February 20, 2014 at 8:49 pm

Don’t you need data to prove a link?

Oh god, this blog is where science comes to die. To argue against the data because your faulty models say what you want to hear is ridiculous.

What evidence do you have that floods are linked to climate change that the IPCC does not have? You could be famous :-)

Macro February 20, 2014 at 9:32 pm

very funny…

Here’s what we said…

“The low confidence statement in the SREX report was that there was a lack of data to show whether or not there had been an increase in flooding – they were not saying that the link does not exist.

Good to see you agree

You said:
“Don’t you need data to prove a link…

That’s what we said!

But there is more to science than the collection of data.

However, as I can’t be bothered with people such as yourself anymore – being but a waste of time and effort – I will leave the discussion at that.

Jimmy.t February 20, 2014 at 9:42 pm

No supporting data is the problem.

Anyway, what are you doing making the link with no data! Somebody save the science!!!

CTG February 20, 2014 at 10:12 pm

Seriously, Jimmy, are you arguing that massive rainfall does not cause flooding? Hilarious.

Kiwiiano February 20, 2014 at 9:47 pm

We have no data as to what actually causes gravity, but I’m willing to hazard an educated guess, based on fundamental physics and observations from a wide variety of peer-reviewed sources that if you step off the top of a high building you may regret it. Care to prove me wrong?

Jimmy.t February 20, 2014 at 10:46 pm

No CGT, you know my argument and you know no credible organisation supports your view.

I get it now. You guys have been preaching about climate change for so long you can’t back down now, your in to deep. It is clear to all there is no link between this blog and scientific process.

To be honest I think you guys are just arguing for the laugh, no one can be this bias.

Thomas February 20, 2014 at 11:29 pm

IPCC, 5th report, Summary for policy makers, SREX_SPM_FINAL:

It is likely that the frequency of heavy precipitation or the proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls will increase in the 21st century over many areas of the globe. This is particularly the case in the high latitudes and tropical regions, and in winter in the northern mid-latitudes

Emphasis mine.

Some further reading for you Jimmyboy: (that is if you actually would read anything outside the comfort zone of your denier blogs and their selective citations that you copy and paste here)

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/climate-change-heavy-rain-flooding-0540.html

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/heavy-precip.html

And a Google Scholar based reading list of the science for you:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=link+between+global+warming+and+heavy+rainfall&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

This will give you a nice list to go through. Find me one paper that denies the link between a warmer world and an increase in moisture and therefore precipitation.

Rob Taylor February 21, 2014 at 2:19 am

What is clear to all, “Jimmy”, is that you are a prattling fool – a denialist troll who cannot even spell, let alone string two thoughts together.

You are wasting your time here.

CTG February 21, 2014 at 7:07 am

Jimmy, you don’t have an argument. Simply saying “I’m right and you’re wrong” is not argument, it’s what three-year-olds do.

On the connection between global warming and the floods in the UK, we can do a little thing scientists call inductive reasoning. We start off with some known facts:

1. Adding greenhouse gases, including CO2, to the atmosphere causes warming. This has been well established for over a century, every climate scientist in the world agrees on this.

2. CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing in the atmosphere over the last 150 years, from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm. Observed data.

3. The increase in CO2 is almost entirely due to human activity, confirmed by the fossil origin of the carbon.

Therefore it can be concluded that human activity has warmed the atmosphere. There’s still disagreement over how much warming is from human activity and how much more we can expect, but there is no serious scientist anywhere who says that human influence on the warming is zero.

Given a warming world, there are several predictions that can be made about the effects – for example, more water vapour content in the atmosphere, which in turn would lead to changes in precipitation, which in turn would lead to more flooding. Now, some more observations:

1. Water vapour content of the atmosphere has increased by about 5% since the 1970s. This is observed data.

2. The recent rainfall in southern England was certainly anomalous. There has been a significant increase in the occurrence of these extreme events in the UK (and in many other parts of the world). What would have been a 1-in-125 event 50 years ago is now a 1-in-85 event. This is consistent with the observed increase in water vapour, and so we can be confident that the changes in rainfall are a consequence of global warming.

Now, here’s the inductive reasoning bit, Jmimy. See if you can follow.

We don’t have sufficient long-term data on occurrence of floods to determine if flooding frequency and/or intensity have increased, and therefore can’t conclusively demonstrate a link between warming and flooding.

However, because river floods are caused by extreme rainfall, an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme rainfall events can be expected to cause an increase in the frequency and intensity of flooding events. Therefore we can conclude that the link between flooding and global warming is likely to exist, even though we can’t yet demonstrate it with data.

Given that the floods in the UK were caused by an exceptional rainfall event, which quite clearly can be linked to climate change, it is quite reasonable to say that the floods are also linked to climate change.

noelfuller February 21, 2014 at 10:01 am

Very nicely presented CTG. However the last paragraph could be reworded although you might read this story, ‘Drowning in Money’ from Monbiot to see it most clearly.

Simply put a proportion of the volume of rain may be attributed to climate change but much of the flooding of land above sea-level can be attributed to those occupying the land in that they have removed forest cover from the hills and tried to wall the water in its channels via stop banks and dredging, attempting to speed up flow instead of providing ponding areas and slowing flow as nature did before engineers thought they could do better, Monbiot does not mention that the tendancy of developers in towns to narrow streams as far as they dare to get more land for building also contributes in a large way to flooding.* On top of all that wrongness there is an idiot subsidy. You’ll be fascinated by this one.

* I see this narrowing (and piping) of creeks and streams in many parts of Auckland and one can olnly suppose the financial benefits of environmental protection have not stood a chance against the financial importunities of developers.and the lure to councils of potential rate increases.

Google the uppermost reaches of the Whau river, New Lynn south from Olympic park past the Intermediate school – there is a walking trail beside the route of the former Whau portage (Note Portage road alongside). If you walk the trail you will come to a point near the south end where the banks are still as nature prescribed. Occasionally a very heavy rain gives residents and businesses along the narrowed part a great fright. There are worse places in Auckland but more difficult to view.

Jimmy.t February 21, 2014 at 7:15 am

Predictive text Rob, go easy on me eh.

How much confidence do the IPCC have in that statement Thomas?

Warmer world would equal more rain, who’s arguing with that? That doesn’t prove more floods will happen. There is no evidence to suggest flooding has increased! Faulty models are not evidence!!! Wake up.

Jimmy.t February 21, 2014 at 7:30 am

CGT- well considered reply

Most of what you say I agree with entirely. I am just concerned that you guys are linking some dots the IPCC do not have the confidence to link.

And I understood the UK floods have been blamed on the jet stream, and the discussion around that is if it’s linked to climate change, it’s news to them. (Julia slingo debate)

Either way, the lack of warming in the last 15 years would exclude blame for any increase in flooding in that time anyway.

Kiwiiano February 21, 2014 at 7:35 am

Either way, the lack of warming in the last 15 years would exclude blame for any increase in flooding in that time anyway.

Oh bloody hell, Gareth, time to pull the big red lever!!

Tony February 21, 2014 at 8:07 am

“And I understood the UK floods have been blamed on the jet stream”.

Well done Jimmy you have inadvertantly slipped a bit of truth amongst all the lies. Now be a good boy and tell us exactly what is causing the destruction of the jet stream. I expect you are going to have to wade through alot of denialist web sites to find some spin to explain that one, but that’s OK we’ve got all day. Try and at least to make it sound plausible. You could of course save time and read the truth at skepticalscience.

Rob Taylor February 21, 2014 at 9:47 am

Tony, why should Jimmy have all the fun?

The jet stream has obviously been stuffed up by Al Gore’s private jet, which takes him from one climate change conference to another, while he leaves all the lights on at his mansion(s) at home.

This is exacerbated by the hordes of mindless greenie drones who follow Gore’s every utterance and are ruthlessly exploited by greedy climate scientists chasing exorbitant research funding for non-existent problems.

Hey, it’s turtles all the way down, folks!

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=turtles%20all%20the%20way%20down

Jimmy.t February 21, 2014 at 12:22 pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26242253

The most balanced acticle on climate science I have read in a long time. I suggest a good read.

You will always pick the papers that support your argument, I can do the same. We can even read the IPCC reports in different ways. Bottom line is nothing has been concluded yet, so let’s not confuse estimates and predictions with facts. There is no debate around facts, we are not there on floods yet.

We should reach atleast reach agreement on that.

Rob Taylor February 21, 2014 at 12:27 pm

Yeah, right, you read the IPCC reports…

Ian Forrester February 21, 2014 at 4:40 pm

Jimmy.t why are you denying climate change, particularly man made cliamte change? Is it because you are too lazy to read actual reports outlining what is happening or is it because you are so dishonest? I would like an answer since these appear to be the only two choices you have.

Just to show how out of touch with reality you are here is a graphic representation of how climate disasters have dramatically increased over the past 30 years.

http://www.preventionweb.net/files/20120613_ClimateDisaster1980-2011.pdf

Can you explain why these disasters have increased if not due to global warming?

Tony February 21, 2014 at 12:58 pm

Jimmy,

Just in case you missed it, I asked a question:

“Tell us exactly what is causing the destruction of the jet stream”

If you don’t even attempt to answer the question, we will assume it is because you may not like the answer you are given. That would speak volumes, it tells us you are not remotely interested in the science, you are just worried that someone might interfere with your love affair with fossil fuels, in which case you are in the wrong forum.

I also can’t believe you are doing all this for free, given the amount of time you spend studiously imbibing from denialist web sites, and regurgitating here. Being caught with lie after lie and being humiliated for it every time, surely that has got to be worth something, have you tried applying for some Heartland funding?

Kiwiiano February 21, 2014 at 2:03 pm

At the risk of being accused of feeding the troll…..

Just in case you missed it, I asked a question:
“Tell us exactly what is causing the destruction of the jet stream”

The warmer waters of the Arctic Ocean* have raised the temperature of the air above them, increasing the barometric pressure and reducing the intensity of the normal depression that lingers over the North Pole. The pressure differences between that depression and the anticyclones to the south usually create strong circumpolar jet streams that tend to keep the frigid polar air stuck over the pole.
However, with the reduction in the pressure difference the winds have slowed and tended to form lazy loops that extend far to the south. Normally the loops would also precess, drift eastward so any weather associated with them rarely affects any area for more than a few days.
With their new sluggish state they are allowing frigid air to spill out as far south as Texas & the Caribbean and their slowing precession has caused weather events to hang about for weeks. They also block the normal movement of anticyclones eastward so some areas are suffering prolonged hot dry spells. Hence the droughts, freezing temperatures heavy snowfalls and repeated record rains affecting various areas in the Northern hemisphere.

*where the average temperature has risen 2°C compared to the global average of 0.8°C. Another reason climate scientists are concerned.

Jimmy.t February 21, 2014 at 2:38 pm

I didn’t know the jet stream was being destroyed?

I can tell you a thousand times the IPCC has low confidence in what you claim, but that won’t change your bias. Only you can do that.

Macro February 21, 2014 at 4:44 pm

” didn’t know the jet stream was being destroyed?

And you have the temerity to come on here and pontificate about how the commentators on here are biased and lack understanding of the scientific process! You self righteous prick!
And what kiwiiano says – but then that is your modus operandi isn’t it! To mis-represent and distort.
For what it’s worth (but of course I don’t expect it you to read it – after all it’s written by some body who understands the science).
http://www.wunderground.com/news/polar-vortex-plunge-science-behind-arctic-cold-outbreaks-20140106

Kiwiiano February 21, 2014 at 4:38 pm

I don’t know where you dredged up the idea that the jet stream was being destroyed. Another bizarre distortion/misinterpretation, no doubt.

The circumpolar jet streams are NOT BEING DESTROYED!! They are being changed in both speed and direction but they still circle the polar regions, just slower and wobblier.

Note that at the time the data used by the most recent IPCC reports was being gathered and evaluated, the possible effects of melting Arctic ice was raw new ideas. Don’t judge them with 20/20 hind-sight, without taking into account the published findings since. This is all very dynamic science, Jim lad, new findings appear every week, old information is refined, sometimes even refuted, that’s what science is all about.

Jimmy.t February 21, 2014 at 10:43 pm

Apparently Tony and Macro don’t know that. It was news to me too, let’s hope it was a typo.

I think I have been quite reasonable.

[Snipped: No - you've been behaving like a classic internet troll. Deliberately misunderstanding, misrepresenting and misleading, while showing no genuine intent to grapple with the facts. You are on moderation from here on. GR]

Macro February 21, 2014 at 11:06 pm

You are simply playing the concern troll – but underlying it we see that you are not really what you claim to be “15 years of no warming” is simply rubbish. It has been shown to you time, and time again, that that is not the case, but still that is your mantra.
Why are we angry? Because you misrepresent and obfuscate at a time when urgent action across the board is needed, if it is not already too late. Such an attitude that you take you might think is perfectly reasonable – when it isn’t. You misquote and take out of context from IPPC papers and do everything in your power to muddy the waters when the appropriate course of action is to urge for a future free of fossil fuels as quickly as possible. Future generations will judge you harshly because your quisling attitude is just that.
Now I expect you to come back and say that that is not the case – but sadly you have been shown to behave here in just the way I have been describing time and time again. You’re not the first, and you won’t be the last, but it is pretty tiresome, and soon it has to stop – the Earth can’t wait much longer.

Thomas February 22, 2014 at 1:30 pm

Hi Marco, you might be interested that I have just come back from a forum to discuss the proposed TCDC 10 year district plan in Coromandel Town. The proposed plan avoids the issue of Sea Level Rise pretty much entirely. While in fact, as we saw with the last king tides this month, already and in absence (we were so lucky!) of a low pressure system or storm surge coinciding on these days, the ocean is lapping on top of Buffalo Road in Whitianga, with much of the town to the land side of it between 1 and 1.5 m below this!
Yet the TCDC planer attending our meeting today responded with the memorable phrase that “Sea Level Rise is quite a controversial thing…” (Lee Rovke, TCDC, 22/2/14).
Apparently the TCDC has draw a line on some GIS overlay calling it “coastal erosion zone” as a response to the requirement of central government for planing purposes to assume at least 0.8m sea level rise this century and the Christchurch City Council employing a report by Tonkin Taylor, demanding that they at least take 1m into account.
Well, with a lot of our infrastructure on the Peninsula affected by a 1m rise, Thames included, why is the TCDC not basing their plan on these parameters.
Submissions close on March 14. Have a go.

Macro February 22, 2014 at 2:47 pm

Thanks for the heads up Thomas. I will I’ve already submitted on previous occasions so I guess they will be getting to know me :)
I’ve already observed this council in action before – and it’s not impressive is it! Doesn’t give one much confidence in the ability of the elected group to come up with the right solutions.
As you say Thames is particularly vulnerable to SLR especially Moanatairi – which with its high arsenic loading in the soil is a real head ache – and it was council who completed the reclamation and subdivision after the developer went bust! So what will be the result there in the years to come I shudder to think.

Thomas February 22, 2014 at 6:19 pm

Yea.

I put up a graph that explains perhaps where the lack of public awareness originates from:

http://www.te-software.co.nz/agw_graphs/slr_combo.jpg

Underlay from Tonkin Taylor report, see below, the dashed line is mine and shows why so many people have little appreciation of what is going to hit us soon.
We have simply been very lucky over the past decades that we did not have the same significant excursions above the global mean that we had in the 40ties and 60ties. If we had a cyclone during king tides today… the debate would be rather different.

Have a look at what the Christchurch City Council is doing in that regard:

http://www.ccc.govt.nz/thecouncil/newsmedia/mediareleases/2014/201401081.aspx

On the bottom of the page is the link to an extensive report by Tonkin Taylor, worth while.

BTW Gareth: Is there a way that posters can insert graphs into comments? You are welcome to grab the slr_combo.jpg and use as you see fit. The underlying future rise scenarios are in my humble opinion rather conservative as the spread of the scientific opinion is between 1 and 2 meters, which is rather more than the 80cm the underlay suggests.

nigelj February 22, 2014 at 11:36 am

Jimmy t I have read some of your posts, and with respect I note your tendency to dodge issues and missquote sources. For example you are dodging the evidence that we are altering the jet stream and this is affecting the weather.

Its been pointed out several times the IPCC has good confidence that hot days, heavy rainfall events, and dry periods have already increased. You dodge the issue and change the subject.

The IPCC remain unsure whether actual floods have increased, but they predict they will increase. Im not sure how you think you can quote the IPCC as a rock solid source on some matters but ignore this.

The IPCC say they are 95% sure we are altering the climate. You deny this while feeling you can quote the IPCC when it suits you.

Its been pointed out that recent research like Cowtan and others suggests the “pause” is likely quite small. There is thus no overall agreement that there has been a significant pause. You dodge the issue and selectively quote the comments of a couple of scientists. You are not being open minded.

Tony February 22, 2014 at 3:39 pm

I was disappointed that Jimmy didn’t attempt a rational response to the jetstream issue. As I understand it, the destruction of the Arctic is causing a signficant weakening of the jetstream as explained by Kiwiiano. We are already seeing some of the hazardous effects of a weakened jetstream.

That said would anyone (Nigelj or Kiwiiano) like to take a stab at when the jetstream weakening will likely end and pick up momentum again. I assume the denialists would have us believe without any evidence, that it is all just temporary and things will come right because all climate things are cyclical and it is simply arrogant to think that humans can somehow influence climate.

Also a suggestion, for the next Jimmy equivalent that comes along, perhaps we could save time by asking him/her to explain the jetstream, and if they dodge and weave Gareth can quickly pull the plug. Just a thought.

noelfuller February 23, 2014 at 10:56 am

Tony

The tendancy of jet streams to meander is a product of the decrease in thermal gradient of the atmosphere between the tropics and the poles which in turn is an inevitable product of global warming. What butterfly triggers a flurry of wobbles I cannot say as the system must become decreasingly constrained in this respect. I recall there have been up to 7 big jet stream loops spaced round the northern hemisphere at one time recently. When I looked yesterday there was just one rather small loop over the northern pacific. Today is much more complex.

For a long time it has been forecast that hurricanes will tend to decrease although the proportion of extremes will increase. I suppose this is also predicated on general reduction of thermal gradient.

Conversely global warming increases the thermal gradient from top to bottom of the oceans, hence reducing the transfer of nutrients that make polar waters currently so fertile.

Any way we look at it, on average the jet stream tendancy to meander is not going to decrease until global temperatures decrease – not for a long long time.

Thomas February 23, 2014 at 6:48 pm

I just watched the ice melt video from the twitter feed:
http://www.gwfotd.com/read.php?id=139304269919
Wow!
It shows how by 2013 basically all the old thick ice from the north pole sea ice is gone. We are heading for an ice free polar sea in the future, and soon!

Jimmy.t February 23, 2014 at 10:11 pm

Well looks like some good news might be on the way. [Snipped: please provide evidence - links to primary sources or specialist media (i.e. not the Daily Mail, WUWT or other propaganda outlets) - to support assertions. Otherwise you are merely trolling. GR]

nigelj February 24, 2014 at 8:21 am

Yay sanity prevails. Quote actual science. It would be nice if the trolls could also address points raised, and show people some respect.

Bob Bingham February 24, 2014 at 10:25 am

Gareth I am pleased you snipped Jimmy T and the Daily Mail. The Mail knows more about the colour of the Kardashians knickers that it will ever know about climate change.
On a more serious note. If you follow the Arctic ice melt and believe the Jennifer Francis theory, and she makes a very convincing case, and then you look at the Piomas charts https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/piomas
Firstly I would think that the ice will be almost gone by 2020 and secondly the weather problems in the North are only a light shower compared to what is likely to develop.
Of all the changes we might experience due to a warming World the loss of Arctic ice is likely to be the fastest. The media focus on flooded houses but the real tragedy is in farming and food production. The UK became a net importer of grain due to drought two years ago and now they are suffering floods. This is the real face of climate change.

Jimmy.t February 24, 2014 at 7:36 pm

…the link between recent Arctic warming and increased Northern Hemisphere blocking is currently not supported by observations,” Barnes’ study concludes.”

“It’s an interesting idea, but alternative observational analyses and simulations with climate models have not confirmed the hypothesis, and we do not view the theoretical arguments underlying it as compelling,” write five preeminent climate scientists (John Wallace, Isaac Held, David Thompson, Kevin Trenberth, and John Walsh) in a recent letter published in Science Magazine.

We should all hope these views turn out to be correct as this will lessen the impacts of any future climate change.

I think it is important to discuss all views and findings, no matter where they are published. This is the only way to advance the debate.

Tony February 24, 2014 at 10:49 pm

Your perception of debate is not what Wallace et al., are discussing, they are not challenging the threat of a warming planet.

“Even in a warming climate, we could experience an extraordinary run of cold winters, but harsher winters are not among the most likely nor the most serious consequences of global warming.”

If you are going to quote real scientists you need to provide the full context of what they are talking about. I suspect you left that part out because you retrieved your information from WUWT where it was omitted.

Thomas February 24, 2014 at 11:13 pm

You bet me to it. I was going to point Jimmy to the same. I do not think that Jimmy even read the Science Magazine article. He only copy and pasted the cherry picked citation that is being flogged to death in the denier press. Boring.
If Jimmy would have read the article he might have cited for us that the authors say:

“As climate scientists we share the prevailing view in our community that human-induced global warming is happening and that, without mitigating measures, the Earth will continue to warm of the next century with with serious consequences. But we consider it unlikely that these consequences will include more frigid winters.”

One can understand that this passage, in the introduction to the authors letter, was NOT reported in the denier press! Only the other statement that Jimmy clipped from the denier land publications was cited without the context in which it was written. Typical!

And indeed, what colder winters is concerned and as per the other discussion with Jimmy, we know that despite some winter weather extremes, the winters in the USA have gotten decisively warmer on average since 1970.
However it is also obvious to all, that the extensive melting of the arctic in summer is providing a phase-shift type climate switch to the northern hemisphere, the consequences of which will include all sorts of events and are in line with what we are now witnessing.
Certainly, a significantly warmer Arctic means a lot more moisture will be air borne in the northern regions, which translates to increased rainfall and also snowfall. What goes up, must come down somewhere…

Kiwiiano February 25, 2014 at 6:49 am

“Even in a warming climate, we could experience an extraordinary run of cold winters, but harsher winters are not among the most likely nor the most serious consequences of global warming.”

The problem with predicting the future is that most of it hasn’t happened yet. Even accurate predictions can be skewed by unexpected consequences, but that doesn’t denigrate the expected ones.

noelfuller February 25, 2014 at 9:23 am

“The problem with predicting the future is that most of it hasn’t happened yet. ” :) Sounds Churchillian – added to file of statements to be uttered should a suitable occasion arise.

nigelj February 25, 2014 at 9:24 am

Come on jimmy t just for once respond to the specific comments made by Kiwiano and Thomas, and dont change the subject.

SimonP February 25, 2014 at 4:24 pm

Andy Jimmy,
This is a balanced look at what might be going on in the Northern hemisphere: http://e360.yale.edu/feature/is_weird_winter_weather_related_to_climate_change/2742/
Remember too that IPCC AR5 went through a very long-winded review process so does not incorporate the very latest research or thinking.

Jimmy.t February 26, 2014 at 7:49 am

So your readers will criticise me and demand straight answers but you will not allow me to respond. This blog is a joke and obviously afraid of the traction sceptics are starting to get. Not answering sceptic concerns head on and instead preferring to shoot the messenger just strengthens their cause.

[Playing the victim won't work here. You were warned that your comments would only be passed for publication if they met the comment policy and added to the conversation. If you don't like that, tough. Play by the rules or don't play at all. GR]

bill February 27, 2014 at 1:27 am

Ah, ‘jimmy’, you poor, victimy little lamby thing, you! …and yes dear, you’re winning, really you are. In fact, you’ve won! So you can toddle back to Mum’s basement in triumph, eh? There’s a good boy…

(Has there been a deniotroll cliché he’s missed, do you reckon?)

Anyway, the latest ‘tweet from God’ – in the list above – is a classic! Far more entertaining…

Macro February 27, 2014 at 6:14 pm

Meanwhile – saw this today bill

Perth is now closing out one of its hottest and driest summers on record.

The western capital is no stranger to hot and dry summers, with an average rainfall of 35mm and an average maximum of 30 degrees. But this summer has been exceptional. The last time there was any significant rain was on December 1st, with 1.8mm recorded. Since then there has only been 0.2mm, making it the second longest dry spell in 132 years of records. The longest dry spell, with 0.2mm or less, was the 122 days from 21st November 2009 to 22nd March 2010.

Temperatures have consistently soared beyond 30 degrees in Perth this summer, leading to an average maximum of 32 degrees. This is likely to be the fifth hottest summer on record. In terms of combined minimum and maximum temperatures Perth will come out with the 9th hottest summer on record, with slightly above average minima.

Looking ahead and there is no rain in plain sight. The dominant dry easterly flow over most of Western Australia is set to linger this week with just the occasional weak trough setting up near the coast and causing inland thunderstorms. There is only a moderate chance of getting any measurable rain next week.

Back here it’s getting pretty dry too – not quite the drought of last year yet – but give it time…

Thomas February 27, 2014 at 6:03 am

Hey Jimmy, you know, the coal barons have solved the whole global warming thing anyway for us:
http://world.time.com/2014/02/26/beijing-air-pollution-nuclear-winter/
Isn’t it a great system: burn zillions of tons of coal and the soot will balance out the AGW its causing to the degree that the “nuclear winter” that is ensuing in your country is threatening crop failures and perhaps starvation of your people. That would regulate down the power demand…. all things shall eventually be in a perfect balance, isnt it!
So how about to trumpet the message over the blogs: Stop worrying about AGW, just burn coal like the Chinese and all your worries are gone!

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: