In The News

[Interitus]

"So the exact frequency and power of ALL tropical storms is only known for 30 years or so - too short a period, say Met Office scientists, to form a proper judgment."

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-20181266

Yes, that is true, but that quote begins -

"For a start, the view is that the most accurate record of hurricanes - essential for any comparison - only stretches back to the start of the satellite era in the late 1970s.

Before then, there is no way of knowing whether storms which developed at sea then stayed out at sea and grew or died unseen and unrecorded."

Of course the fullest picture we have of this (or any weather/climate feature) only goes back a limited period, but as it reached land we have enough information to state with some certainty that this storm was an unusual occurrence, regardless of natural variation or AGW.

[BornFromTheVoid]

No. Absolutely not.

You talk of impacts as a convenient point of evidence to support your view; that convenience is at the expense of people's lives. The point you are missing is that more people are living next to regions that are normally affected by severe weather events; your measure is that of the lives of human beings. Since more people live in these regions ergo more people will die even if all things are held equal.

If I picked up all the people in Kent and dropped them in Antarctica in shorts and tee-shirts, then a week later discovered that the incidence rate of people dying from hypothermia had dramatically increased therefore indicating a cooling climate you would think me mad.

As I understand it, the current view from science is that we just don't know how to attribute weather events to climate regardless of whether one chooses to attribute severe weather events on mankind's pollution or otherwise.

Nobody is making out that deaths are convenient for any view point, that's little more than an attack on his character. It is a simple fact that when extreme weather occurs in someone's back yard, they question why.

As with most science, in this case the attribution of extreme weather to climate change, everything comes down to probabilities. Such as the probability that Sandy would have occurred without anthropogenic forcing. There have been numerous extreme events which have been demonstrated to have been extremely unlikely without AGW having an effect, just as there have been events shown to have not had an AGW fingerprint to them.

The combination of record high SSTs that helped sustain Sand and the unprecedented track imo, indicate an AGW slant. But I'll wait until the peer reviewed studies are released before I consider it definite. I'm sure even then, there are plenty on here will dismiss the studies if the result isn't to their liking.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Not in my opinion, it doesn't...Are you really suggesting that, should East Anglia receive a heavy snow shower, any time this winter, it's partly down to AGW?

It's not quite as simple as that. It's more a case that with everything in our climate/weather system, you cannot affect one aspect of the weather without affecting others.

It's a case that our additional CO2 (as much as the CO2 already present that has stopped us from freezing over), would have had a tiny influence on everything, as it is now a part of the weather/climate systems, and it's this weather/climate system that creates all our weather.

The tricky thing is deciding whether or not something would have happened without our CO2 input.

[VillagePlank]

Nobody is making out that deaths are convenient for any view point, that's little more than an attack on his character. It is a simple fact that when extreme weather occurs in someone's back yard, they question why.

As with most science, in this case the attribution of extreme weather to climate change, everything comes down to probabilities. Such as the probability that Sandy would have occurred without anthropogenic forcing. There have been numerous extreme events which have been demonstrated to have been extremely unlikely without AGW having an effect, just as there have been events shown to have not had an AGW fingerprint to them.

The combination of record high SSTs that helped sustain Sand and the unprecedented track imo, indicate an AGW slant. But I'll wait until the peer reviewed studies are released before I consider it definite. I'm sure even then, there are plenty on here will dismiss the studies if the result isn't to their liking.

Yes, but by it's very nature, extreme weather events are to be expected; it's whether the frequency of them has increased is the question, not that they occur (Gaussian distribution etc) Do you know of any online (and free) data that lists the number of extreme weather events with some quantitative measure of how extreme? If you can point me to some data we can construct, say, the distribution for forty years ago, with the distribution today (2011?) and determine if there is any skew to the right ....

[laserguy]

To answer you questions in order: I think it's like saying what chages do you get if you change a cake recipe.

Cakes and climate change. Brilliant. Is this what it's come to? How about what changes do you get to soft-headed folk who absorb this junk like a stale sponge cake absorbs brandy?

[Polar Maritime]

[BornFromTheVoid]

Yes, but by it's very nature, extreme weather events are to be expected; it's whether the frequency of them has increased is the question, not that they occur (Gaussian distribution etc) Do you know of any online (and free) data that lists the number of extreme weather events with some quantitative measure of how extreme? If you can point me to some data we can construct, say, the distribution for forty years ago, with the distribution today (2011?) and determine if there is any skew to the right ....

Sorry for the delayed reply, pretty busy these days.

This post may help though https://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/unnatural-catastrophes/

[VillagePlank]

Sorry for the delayed reply, pretty busy these days.

This post may help though https://tamino.wordp...l-catastrophes/

Thanks for this, interesting stuff.

Not sure about a corporate or financial source for the data, but hey ho, I'm sure I can find some data from ConocoPhilips. Oh wait ....

My problem is that the normalisation technique that Tamino uses is that of geophysical events which, it seems to me, are not necessarily an independent data series (glacier melts, changing underlying geophysics, more movement, greater chance of measured earthquakes).

Also, how were the events counted? Here, Munich Re are not so cagey about what the data means: "Our database clearly indicates a sharp rise in the number of weather related catastrophe's per year in terms of overall and insured losses"

ie it has nothing to do with how the IPCC classifies extreme weather events which defines such an event as being in the upper or lower 10% quartile; it is totally related to how much money Munich Re have had to cough up.

With just these two points we could say that the trend is due to more people living on Earthquake faults, next to the sea in hurricane paths etc etc etc etc. Of course we could say that, but the honest answer is that we just don't know. It's the classic problem of observation against attribution: just because something is observed that fits ones hypothesis, it doesn't make it indicative that the hypothesis is true.

Actually, the way to do this is to get hold of all the weather station data, and look for data that is well outside a 'normal' range, and then count the frequency over time. Of course, you need a baseline, but if we use the climate record, for instance, we have the problem that HadCru interpolates entries +/- 5sd from the physical record as part of it's quality control procedures.

It's easy to see why and how the MetO confidently say - we just can't do this yet.

Nevertheless, the observation is interesting.

Edited November 10, 2012 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[BornFromTheVoid]

I wasn't trying to say anything definite, just giving you some info to look at, anywho, here's some more http://pubs.giss.nas...nsen_etal_1.pdf

I'm sure there's plenty more about, I just don't have the time to go scouring the net for ya!

Edited November 10, 2012 by BornFromTheVoid

[VillagePlank]

I wasn't trying to say anything definite, just giving you some data info to look at, anywho, here's some more http://pubs.giss.nas...nsen_etal_1.pdf

I'm sure there's plenty more about, I just don't have the time to go scouring the net for ya!

Without checking the details graph D shows the right-ward movement of temperature very nicely. However, it isn't skewed (I'd expect it skewed to the right rather than shifting to the right) Leave it with me ...

[knocker]

Melting in the Andes: Goodbye glaciers

Researchers are racing to determine how shrinking glaciers in the Andes will affect the water supply of millions of people.

http://www.nature.com/news/melting-in-the-andes-goodbye-glaciers-1.11759

[knocker]

Super storm tracked by ESA water mission

9 November 2012

When millions of people are bracing themselves for the onslaught of extreme weather, as much information as possible is needed to predict the strength of the impending storm. ESA’s SMOS mission again showed its versatility by capturing unique measurements of Hurricane Sandy.

As its name suggests, the Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity (SMOS) satellite was designed to measure how much moisture is held in soil and how much salt is held in the surface waters of the oceans.

This information is helping to improve our understanding of the water cycle – an essential component of the Earth system.

However, this state-of-the-art Earth Explorer mission has demonstrated that its instrumentation and measuring techniques can be used to offer much more.

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/smos/SEM9BM62Q8H_1.html#subhead3

[knocker]

Gas leaks off coast.

The terms “gas†and “sea†for many will invoke associations of reserves, business, and a lot of money. Whatever the association, most of the efforts in Israel’s energy field are being directed at gas buried deep under the Mediterranean seabed. Now a new geophysical study, the first of its kind in Israel, has uncovered a system of active gas springs in the Haifa Bay seabed, at relatively shallow depths, only a few dozen meters below the surface.

The study, published in the journal Continental Shelf Research, describes the entire system, from its sources under the sea floor through the natural springs emerging from the seabed.

“This is a natural laboratory for researching gas emissions from the sea floor – natural springs and less natural ones. We are only beginning to understand their contribution to climate and ecological change,†said Dr. Uri Schattner of the Leon H. Charney School of Marine Sciences at the University of Haifa, who led the research.

http://newmedia-eng.haifa.ac.il/?p=6125

[jethro]

In the Green corner we have team GB building windmills over beautiful moorland http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2232594/12m-wind-farm-blight-Bronte-country-despite-pleas-ruin-landscape.html. I wonder, could they be tweeked so they whisper Heathcliff as the blades rotate?

And in the Black corner we have team USA going hell for leather to extract every last drop of fuel from beneath the Earth http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2232448/The-International-Energy-Agency-U-S-set-biggest-oil-producer-world.html

Despite the risk that Emily Bronte may be turning in her grave, regardless of my brother's fury that they'll be in his back garden, personally I'd rather have the windmills than the shale oil - has anyone seen the devastation wrought on the landscape by this process?

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=tar+sands+usa&num=10&hl=en&biw=1152&bih=647&tbm=isch&tbnid=bVYIBCyb5jmu8M:&imgrefurl=http://ran.org/node/10042&docid=rrp9dgHBjnNdfM&imgurl=http://ran.org/sites/default/files/energy_tarsands_480x295.jpg&w=480&h=295&ei=_W6jULTGLerU0QXO5IHwBQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=123&vpy=129&dur=1555&hovh=176&hovw=288&tx=116&ty=65&sig=116756314030200072203&page=3&tbnh=141&tbnw=212&start=36&ndsp=19&ved=1t:429,r:26,s:20,i:211

[Gowon]

28 Gates Later…the BBC's nightmare gets worse and worse!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100189491/28-gates-later-the-bbcs-nightmare-gets-worse-and-worse/

SECRET 28 'scientific experts' who Greened the BBC - Revealed!

Beeb spent a mint to suppress list on Wayback Machine (includes Greenpeacers)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/13/climate28_named_wtf/

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/11/12/bbc-climate-28-revealed.html

BBC secret exposed: Greenpeace, activists, BP decide what “science†brits see — Hello TwentyEightGate

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/11/bbc-secret-exposed-greenpeace-activists-bp-decide-what-sciencebrits-see-hello-twentyeightgate/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/12/breaking-the-secret-list-of-the-bbc-28-is-now-public/

and this is how they dealt with anyone that questioned their theory-

Did anyone hear Stott vs. Houghton on Today, radio 4 this morning? Woeful

stuff really. This is one reason why Tyndall is sponsoring the Cambridge

Media/Environment Programme to starve this type of reporting at source.

[Gray-Wolf]

I have always found the Beeb very biased when it comes to discussing climate change. When ever I hear a debate they always give equal time to a counter point from some extreme naysayer instead of reflecting the consensus and giving over 98% of the time to the adherents?

If this was a party political broadcast naysayers would not even have a vioce under the current Beeb system so why struggle to find someone to counterpoint when science show a majority consensus that AGW is real and occuring now?

[BornFromTheVoid]

Is that story a joke?

For a climate change panel, they included many scientific experts, oil company representative, greenpeace members, religious figures, economics experts and more. Seems like they did pretty well to gather a balanced and representative panel. Where is the problem?

Or is it a case of WUWT, The Register and 3 denier bloggers complaining because the BBC have been following (to a degree) the scientific consensus on a scientific subject?

[4wd]

When ever I hear a debate they always give equal time to a counter point from some extreme naysayer instead of reflecting the consensus and giving over 98% of the time to the adherents?

No they don't, that's what the story is about - a decision that the 'science is settled' as far as BBC was concerned and there is no need to cover alternative views and evidence - just keep rattling out stories the half-baked 'consequences' of all the warming [we have not had] - still ongoing in the 'news' thread.

[Gowon]

Is that story a joke?

For a climate change panel, they included many scientific experts, oil company representative, greenpeace members, religious figures, economics experts and more. Seems like they did pretty well to gather a balanced and representative panel. Where is the problem?

Or is it a case of WUWT, The Register and 3 denier bloggers complaining because the BBC have been following (to a degree) the scientific consensus on a scientific subject?

Not a joke mate.

Don't you understand, without those sites we wouldn't be hearing about this?... How the green party want to eliminate all objectivity? Here, incase you didn't get it the first time-

Did anyone hear Stott vs. Houghton on Today, radio 4 this morning? Woeful

stuff really. This is one reason why Tyndall is sponsoring the Cambridge

Media/Environment Programme to starve this type of reporting at source.

Is that seriously how you want it to be?

And why did the BBC spend so much taxpayers money to keep this list a secret?

Edited November 14, 2012 by Seselwa

[Methuselah]

Is that story a joke?

For a climate change panel, they included many scientific experts, oil company representative, greenpeace members, religious figures, economics experts and more. Seems like they did pretty well to gather a balanced and representative panel. Where is the problem?

Or is it a case of WUWT, The Register and 3 denier bloggers complaining because the BBC have been following (to a degree) the scientific consensus on a scientific subject?

Whatever you do, BFTV, you must never allow for the existence of consensus...All other views, however fringe-worthy, must be respected, coddled and, above all, given an equal amount of airtime??

[knocker]

- just keep rattling out stories the half-baked 'consequences' of all the warming [we have not had] - still ongoing in the 'news' thread.

Warming we have not had. Funny how this cooling is melting the Arctic sea ice, glaciers in the Andes and most of the rest of the world's glaciers.

https://sites.google...rclimategraphs/

Edited November 14, 2012 by knocker

[knocker]

And as I mentioned previously another effect of this non-warming.

Melting Glaciers Raise Sea Level

Anthropogenic climate change leads to melting glaciers and rising sea level. Between 1902 and 2009, melting glaciers contributed 11 cm to sea level rise. They were therefore the most important cause of sea level rise. This is the result of a new assessment by scientists of the University of Innsbruck. They numerically modeled the changes of each of the world’s 300 000 glaciers. Until 2100, glaciers could lead to an additional 22 cm of sea level rise.

Since 1900 the global sea level has risen by approximately 20 cm. Melting glaciers are one of the causes – along with warming and thereby expanding sea water, melting Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and changing terrestrial water storage in dammed lakes and groundwater reservoirs. A team of scientists at the University of Innsbruck has now assessed the contribution of melting glaciers to sea level rise during the 20^th century. They numerically modeled each of the world’s roughly 300 000 glaciers and used thousands of on-site measurements to validate the model results. “These calculations show that between 1902 and 2009, glaciers contributed about 11 cm to sea level riseâ€, says Dr. Ben Marzeion from the Institute for Meteorology and Geophysics. “This means they were the most important cause of sea level change.†Surprisingly, melt rates were more or less constant over time: While temperatures during the first decades of the 20^th century were considerably lower, glaciers were larger and extended into lower and thus warmer areas. Additionally, brief but strong warm episodes in the Arctic led to strong glacier retreat in the Arctic in the 1930s and 1950s.

http://www.uibk.ac.a...rchiv/2012/333/

The full paper.

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/6/1295/2012/tc-6-1295-2012.pdf

Edited November 14, 2012 by knocker

[Devonian]

Not a joke mate.

Don't you understand, without those sites we wouldn't be hearing about this?... How the green party want to eliminate all objectivity?

It's all a Green part plot? True there was, apparently, a Green Party person at the meeting as there was Richard North (who makes four seem like an extreme warmista !) and people from BP, Parliament and others. But, a Green Party plot? What all ONE MP of them???

Here, incase you didn't get it the first time-

Did anyone hear Stott vs. Houghton on Today, radio 4 this morning? Woeful

stuff really. This is one reason why Tyndall is sponsoring the Cambridge

Media/Environment Programme to starve this type of reporting at source.

Is that seriously how you want it to be?

And why did the BBC spend so much taxpayers money to keep this list a secret?

Because it wasn't covered by FOI and as such wasn't the business of a vexacious, obsessive blogger with a record of extreme detestation of the BBC and of seeing greenie conspiracy at every turn. It was HE who caused the spending of public money! Why would anyone believe him??? Do YOU want people like that in charge of the media

Edited November 14, 2012 by Devonian

[4wd]

Predicted temperature rises versus reality.

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm sorry 4 but just like your 'Arctic recovery', prior to the 2010/11/12 collapse, global temps are also showing their propensity for steep increases. Just look at this years global plot once Nina let go? Remember this is deep within a PDO-ve which is supposed to give us 1960-esqu global temps?

Seeing as we are now on the far side of the PDO-ve (it has tried it's best) we will shortly have global temps with the assist of PDO+ve (plus we can see the reductions in China's particulate pollution starting to drop off over the past 5 years so we'll also lose whatever extra 'dimming' has been at play).

Whilst most are looking for Arctic ice to disappear over summer over the next 4 years I'll be focused on global temps and the southern hemisphere circumpolar wind/current to see if I am correct in my obsevations/projections?

Edited November 14, 2012 by Gray-Wolf