Last week a severe storm froze Dallas under a sheet of ice, just in time to disrupt the plans of the tens of thousands of (American) football fans descending on the city for the Super Bowl. On the other side of the globe, Cyclone Yasi slammed northeastern Australia, destroying homes and crops and displacing hundreds of thousands of people.This debunking will not likely deter the alarmists; the only question is what their next claim will be. And to my knowledge, the erratically placed weather station issue has never been addressed; the location of those stations in paved parking lots and in the hot air discharge path of air conditioners has not changed that I am aware of. Still and all, it is possible that next summer will be blistering hot, and the Gore Democrats will scream for funding Gore's green corporations and transferring funds from the red states to the blue states, just like always.
Some climate alarmists would have us believe that these storms are yet another baleful consequence of man-made CO2 emissions. In addition to the latest weather events, they also point to recent cyclones in Burma, last winter's fatal chills in Nepal and Bangladesh, December's blizzards in Britain, and every other drought, typhoon and unseasonable heat wave around the world.
But is it true? To answer that question, you need to understand whether recent weather trends are extreme by historical standards. The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project is the latest attempt to find out, using super-computers to generate a dataset of global atmospheric circulation from 1871 to the present.
As it happens, the project's initial findings, published last month, show no evidence of an intensifying weather trend. "In the climate models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into a doubled CO2 world in 100 years," atmospheric scientist Gilbert Compo, one of the researchers on the project, tells me from his office at the University of Colorado, Boulder. "So we were surprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871."
ADDENDUM
An interesting piece from the Daily Caller:
"Unfortunately for Gore and others who have claimed that the snow this winter is a global warming byproduct, their own authorities have said climate change will result in less snow.
Both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have predicted warmer, less snowy winters.
A sampling:
•“Snow season length and snow depth are very likely to decrease in most of North America … except in the northernmost part of Canada where maximum snow depth is likely to increase (Christensen et al., 2007).” (EPA)
•“Decreases in snowcover and increases in winter rain on bare soil will likely lengthen the erosion season and enhance erosion intensity.” (EPA)
•“Rising temperatures have generally resulted in rain rather than snow in locations and seasons where climatological average temperatures for 1961 to 1990 were close to freezing (0 °C).” (EPA)
•“As temperatures rise, the likelihood of precipitation falling as rain rather than snow increases, especially in autumn and spring at the beginning and end of the snow season, and in areas where temperatures are near freezing. Such changes are observed in many places, especially over land in middle and high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, leading to increased rains but reduced snowpacks.” (IPCC)
Some, such as University of East Anglia senior climate researcher, Dr. David Viner, have said that in a few years snow will be scarce, and “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
So which global warming alarmists are we to believe?"
6 comments:
Using the term "alarmists" is a method of labeling a group so that they can be dismissed, just like you noted with the term "birther."
IPCC models predict a 10 to 15% increase in precipitation in the winter across the entire northern half of the US: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-11-12.html
Which means, of course, more snow.
Also, 2010 just about tied with 1998 for warmest year, according to satellites: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/01/dec-2010-uah-global-temperature-update-0-18-deg-c/
So regardless of whether it's snowing or not in the US, global mean temperatures continue the upward push.
Much of the AGW crowd has been alarmist concerning glacier melts, sea level rise, run-away problems in the Amazon, etc. Much of this has played out to be either false or shoddy science. Or politically motivated.
The IPCC projection for the North American winter seems not to project whether the precip is frozen.
And "just about tied" for warmest year - doesn't seem like much of an upward push from my perspective. Especially since satellite data can't have been taken for much over 1/2 century.
I live in a state that is divided East - West by the geological remains of the glaciers that once pushed down as far as Kansas City, where their southward movement stopped. The result of the glacier melt is that the land North of the Missouri River (which flows along the East - West boundary) is marked by flat land with rich top soil going down dozens of feet, having been dragged along by the glaciers. The land south of the boundary is hilly and rocky and mostly unsuitable for crop land other than livestock grazing.
The glaciers have melted back a very, very long way and mankind is better off for it. The remaining tiny glaciers in the world might melt, but I suspect that mankind can adjust for that, and I therefore think that the calls of alarm are misplaced, especially those that propose to punish certain populations in favor of other populations in the name of AGW horror stories.
There's sufficient evidence of hysterical "sky's falling" from members of the AGW community to refer to that subset at least, as alarmist. And the remainder of the community does nothing to rein them in to more measured terms, which seems to be support through silence.
However it seems fair not to call them "alarmist" despite the correllation between their actions and the definition of the term, since that seems to inflame the rhetoric further. And if I can remember I will refer to them in a more genteel, "AGW proponent community" or some such.
Perhaps along with the F*word, the N*word, we now have the A*word as a cultural obscenity.
Much of the AGW crowd has been alarmist concerning glacier melts, sea level rise, run-away problems in the Amazon
Almost all cases of "alarmism," almost without exception, are examples of the sensationalist media overhyping climate predictions, not actual scientific claims. The media is very very bad at reporting science, and in almost every case of climate "alarmism", if you follow the link to the actual study, you'll invariably find something like "x glacier will decrease at y rate, given p and q assumptions, which are unknown." That's how the IPCC reports read. The media, meanwhile, does this: "OMG OMG OMG! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!"
This is a universal problem with the media, and is not restricted to climate science.
The IPCC projection for the North American winter seems not to project whether the precip is frozen.
The IPCC model is a projection for winter precipitation (DJF). Which would mean snow, not rain. The temperatures in the US are not predicted to go up so high that it will be as hot as summer in the winter.
And "just about tied" for warmest year - doesn't seem like much of an upward push from my perspective.
There is a lot of noise. Looking at individual years, or even decades, will tell you nothing. But the 30 year trend, which is how the World Meterological Organization defines "climate" is ever upwards: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Dec_102.gif
BTW, I too am from Missouri. St Louis, to be exact. Although I now live in Southern Cal. I do love the Ozarks, though. :)
The remaining tiny glaciers in the world might melt, but I suspect that mankind can adjust for that
Much of the problem of global warming is about logistics. For example, many regions can support millions of people now because of the way the rain falls, or the way certain rivers run. With relatively rapid (100 years) rise in temperature causing, say, droughts in certain areas, these regions will no longer be able to support their large populations. Thus, the potential for massive refugee situations is going to arise. Who is going to take in all these people? Who will pay for them? Which country's GDP is going to have to suffer as a result? Much of the potential problem is economic.
calls of alarm are misplaced, especially those that propose to punish certain populations in favor of other populations in the name of AGW horror stories.
Since no one is advocating punishing certain populations, then this isn't really a problem. The solutions the IPCC recommends is to spur competition in creating more efficient energy technology. In fact, the word "alarmism" can easily be turned around and applied to the other side, who seems to think that if the entire planet doesn't stay on carbon now and forever, then we are all doomed. Or better yet, that encouraging the development of more efficient technology is really a plot to institute worldwide communism.
The claims I referenced were IPCC claims, at least one of which, glacier melt, was politically motivated as they admitted when caught. And when a principle "scientist" from NASA is out picketing and screaming doom, that is not media hysteria; it is a berzerkoid in a position of power and visibility.
Cap and Trade is designed as a redistribution tactic which punishes central states (where I live) in order to benefit California and the NE blue states.
Consequently our rates will skyrocket, while our incomes stagnate. This in order to provide benefits to the blue states.
As for efficient technology, that has been available for decades in the form of nuclear energy, and has been fought to the death by the Left. Now even Obama has turned in favor of modular nuclear sites. Nuclear sites could have been on line decades ago.
No one says that "encouraging the development of more efficient technology is really a plot to institute worldwide communism.
However, pumping money into Al Gore is an obscenity by almost any standard.
Using the term "alarmists" is a method of labeling a group so that they can be dismissed, just like you noted with the term "birther."
So? They have earned that label many times over.
As long as they continue to act, talk and attack us in the manner of alarmists, I *will* continue to call them alarmists.
As for dismissing them outright, that's unfortunately not going to happen in the immediate future. They are on a crusade driven by ideology and pseudo-science, trying to bully dissenters into submission; Lysenkoism by every definition of the word. They need to be *confronted*.
One day, the world will look back upon their antics with derision and scorn. Until that day, however, let's call a spade a spade.
It's also worth noting there are some very effective and embarrassingly cheap ways of reducing carbon in the atmosphere by technological means. Adding iron in the oceans is one, though I think it has its problems. There are others, quite a few in fact. There was an excellent article in The Economist about it a few months ago. Wish I'd kept it.
Of course, not many in the scientific community or elsewhere are discussing these because they're afraid people will use them as an excuse to go on polluting (living, in other words) and, well, I suppose a certain level of alarm is necessary to maintain public interest (and funding).
There is something fundamentally "anti-human" about the psychology surrounding AGW and its proponents that fits too well the malaise, self-loathing and self-doubt that seems to afflict so many in the industrialised West to make me convinced of AGW despite the many reputable scientists giving it their support.
My personal view is that it is the gradual atheism which has taken hold and grown in these societes which is at the root of this. The decline of an empire starts first in the hearts of its men.
Post a Comment