Climate Craziness of the Week: Mike Smith on “This Week’s Stupidest Global Warming Story”

By Mike Smith of Meteorological Musings

This story from London’s Daily Mail is so bad, the reporter won’t even put his or her name on it.

In the story, we learn the Joplin tornado was caused by global warming.  We learn that Katrina was caused by global warming. We learn that droughts are caused by global warming. Floods are caused by global warming. Apparently, every storm or unusual weather phenomena is caused by global warming.

So, lets play ‘climate scientist’ (why not, apparently you don’t have to have any credentials to be one) and take a look at the arguments made in the article.
We’ll start with Hurricane Katrina. Remember how, in the wake of Katrina, we were told that hurricanes were going to be more frequent and more intense? Take, for example, this claim:

The work of hurricane expert Dr. Kerry Emanuel indicates that Global Warming provided the extra margin of energy that gave Hurricane Katrina enough power to break the levees in New Orleans. This is the conclusion of scientists, Global Warming observers along the Gulf Coast and others.

Hurricanes get their strength directly from the heat in the oceans they travel over, so it has long been expected that Global Warming would have an effect on the frequency and/or the intensity of tropical cyclones, which are called hurricanes in the United States. Observations have confirmed a sharp increase in intensity. The result is that the number of dangerous Category 3, 4, and 5 storms has increased. Dr. Emanuel’s innovation, the “power dissipation index,” helps track this intensification over time.

So, what actually happened from 2006 to 2010? The opposite of what was predicted! The five years since Katrina have seen record low hurricane activity — both intensity and numbers! The proof is right here (scroll down from top). The pro-GW crowd got it exactly wrong, again. One would think they would learn some humility, but that never seems to occur.

Second, here is their list of weather events tied to global warming (click to enlarge):

Considering the list encompasses the entire world for 11 years, there isn’t very much here.  Nearly half of the years (2001, 2002, 2004, 2007, 2008) don’t have a single occurrence.  Considering the warmest year was 1998 (see below) and that temperatures have cooled some since then the list proves nothing. As I have stated before, if tornadoes were tied to global temperatures there would have been record tornadoes in 1998. They did not occur.

World temperatures from the UK’s Hadley Center.

Here is a graph of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations (parts per million) since 1997. It continues to rise.

CO2 levels from the Mauna Loa Observatory

But, temperatures do not rise with it. If, as the IPCC contends, CO2 is the dominant force driving atmospheric temperatures, then temperatures would have (more or less) risen along with CO2. That simply hasn’t occurred either in the atmosphere or in ocean heat content (the more important metric).

Blaming the Joplin tornado on global warming smacks of desperation. They are losing the scientific argument so they call people names and make ridiculous claims like blaming an individual tornado on global warming. They get away with it because most of the media prints this nonsense generally without question.

=============================================================

From Anthony:

I’m taking most of the weekend off to recover from my trip to ICCC6 and be with family on this holiday weekend, posting will be light until Tuesday, but I wanted to take a moment to give Mike Smith’s Meteorological Musings website and book a well deserved plug.

Mike is a weather and climate realist.  In his world of practical forecasting, which I see much like like that of an engineer, you base your work on reality and hard facts, because if you don’t, there are tangible losses, and people may die from botched forecasts. He doesn’t have the luxury of making a forecast without responsibility or consequences if he is wrong like some climate scientists tend to do.

So bookmark his website, and may I recommend his book Warnings: The true story of how science tamed the weather.

I’ve read it, and I’ve lived and experienced much of what he’s written about in the quest to make forecasting, especially severe weather forecasting, more accurate, timely, and specific. For those of us that prefer practical approaches over the rampant speculation on mere wisps of connections to climate (such as the Daily Mail piece), this book is for you.

Thanks to the idiots in the California legislature and Gov. (Moonbeam) Brown, that have pissed off Amazon.com so bad that they’ve canceled all affiliates account holders in California, I won’t get that few cents if somebody buys the book via the link anymore.

But, I don’t care, the book is well written, factual, and engaging, and I’m happy to recommend it on that basis but also for the fact that if you buy it through Amazon now, you’ll spite those morons in Sacramento by depriving them of tax revenue that California affiliates.

Hell, I may buy another copy myself.

About these ads

102 thoughts on “Climate Craziness of the Week: Mike Smith on “This Week’s Stupidest Global Warming Story”

  1. “Greens” scuttled everyman’s Atomic Age
    This we NO!
    ‘Twas ’cause CO2 be color gree’
    Nukes ain’t fed us
    PLANTS
    Right decision, left
    We are solar cells!
    US PLANTS
    Chickenshit Little nothing new
    Tailored clothes
    Of The Emperor
    Fat piggy bank Gore
    Evermore
    There is more in us
    .

    Proof against fire
    floods
    tornado,
    earthquakes,
    electrical storms

  2. Why is it that the law of unintended consequences is so often related to the entirely predictable? Could it possibly be that if the average IQ is 100, then half of all legislators (on the average, of course) have an IQ somewhat lower than that?

  3. I don’t think that kind of tosh will get any traction with the Mail readership. It’s one of the few newspapers to regularly feature criticism of AGW alarmism, investigations into the ‘renewable energy’ subsidy scams etc.

  4. I know we have to try and make folk aware of the scam style of reporting – and the ridiculous alarmist claims. But, quite frankly, it is becoming tiresome……I’m ready to throw in the towel with these anal retentives who promote such rhetoric… no, really I am! It’s ok that most here have ‘seen the light’ and realised that the AGW meme is just a scam – but if other ordinary folk are really so stupid as to believe everything they read, why should we bother? I am fast getting to the conclusion that I need to get myself a smallholding somewhere, become a hermit and leave the apathetic majority to their own BS! I am not angry about AGW anymore (like I was when i realised I’d been taken in by the scam a few years ago) – and I have tried to help people ‘see the light’ – but now, I’m just resigned to the fact that there are simply folk who refuse to use their brains and are always gonna be sheep! Let them go to be slaughtered is fast becoming my attitude…..it’s wrong to abandon my fellow man, I know that – but with this style of reporting, my level of exsasperation goes through the upper troposhere! Surely, there comes a time when one has to quit?

  5. Interesting,
    As according to Mr Watts comment “Mike” bases his work on “reality and hard facts”
    I say interesting because “Mike” makes this statement not far into his comment.
    “So, what actually happened from 2006 to 2010? The opposite of what was predicted! The five years since Katrina have seen record low hurricane activity — both intensity and numbers!”

    “Mike” seems to have missed this in that striving for facts and reality.

    http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20081126_hurricaneseason.html

    Now I don’t claim to be a meteorologist or a mathematician but even I think 2008 might fall right in the middle of the “record low” Mike is talking about.
    Now I’m sure I’ll get the usual hostile responses but will there be any that actually use “facts”

  6. Hi
    For those who are not familiar with it, the UK’s Daily Mail is a comic for the unwashed masses of a right wing persuasion.
    If you can read it without becoming nauseous, have a look through their “on line” edition.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html
    It is full of stories, (not reports), designed to titillate and stir various factions up. The stories do not appear to be checked for veracity and quite often seem to have a modicum of artistic license.
    I would image an equivalent US paper would be the National Enquirer

    regards

    Patrick

  7. It is not (often, here in the UK) referred to as “The Daily Fail” without good reason.

  8. There is no relevant evidence of statistical significance linking present warming with increased extreme weather events. Perhaps this is not surprising since at most there has been a warming of only about 0.7degC and if the homoginisation/adjustmenats to the global temp record are illegitimately biased, it may be more in the regaion of 0.4 to 0.5degC. Does anyone really think that such a trivial rise in global temperature (mainly at the poles and during night-time temperatures) can really lead to and explain an increase in exreeme weather events over areas that have not seen drastic increases in temperature.

    The weather is predominantly driven by the oceans and unless and until there is a significant increase in ocean heat content and changes in the circulation patterns of ocean currents, it is extremely unlikely that there will be a significant change in extreme weather events.

    Extreme events are more a facet of better news reporting and mans stupidity in living in flood plains or reclaimed delta areas etc. The so called increase in extreme weather events is more a matter of perception than based in reality. The perception is also given partly because we are examining too short a time period and therefore do not really know what are typical conditions which would put events in their true and proper perspective. For example, who knows the number of tornados during the MWP?

    As far as the UK is concerned, it is now being suggested that AGW/CC has lead to a reduction in the strength of prevailing winds. Ironically, this means that windfarms will in future be even less efficient!!! See for example:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2010156/Where-wind-Six-cent-drop-power-UK-wind-farms-lowest-wind-speeds-CENTURY.html

    Whilst on the subject of windfarms, Christopher Booker has recently published a further interesting article pointing out that the increase in construction of/dependency on windfarms will lead to the need to build further gas powered generators (it is suggested that an extra 17 will be needed) to act as backup for when the wind does not blow. See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8612716/Proof-that-the-
    Government-is-tilting-at-windmills.html

    I wonder whether this takes into account the 6% drop in the strength of wind and if it does not I guess it will mean that the UK will need to build an extra 18 gas powered generators to back up these windfarms. One thing that rarely gets reported in the press (and of course never on the BBC) is that not one single conventional generator has been decommissioned not withstanding all these new wind farms. Of course, they cannot be since they are still required as back up.
    The net eccet of this is that all these windfarms probably have not reduced CO2 emissions one iota. All they have done is led to enviromental harm (look at china for the polution lakes and think of all the CO2 used in the construction/erection of these farms not to mention the blight on the landscape and bird mincing).

    What folly. What stupidity. But what can you expect from politicians. After all experience shows that politicians rarely if ever solve a real problem and in most instances simply make matters worse.

  9. I think the link in the first paragraph should point to here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2010268/Global-warning-Scientists-claim-extreme-weather-climate-change-linked.html

    It’s quite clear this is desperation. From the article:

    The move is likely to be controversial as, in the past, scientists have avoided linking single exceptional weather events with climate change, not least because the science of ‘climate attribution’ is likely to be pounced upon by sceptics who question the link between industrial carbon dioxide emissions and a rise in global temperatures.

    However, they now believe it is no longer plausible to say extreme weather is merely ‘consistent’ with climate change.

    More like they have come to realise that it is no longer plausible to link global warming with any – erm – warming, and so are clutching at straws in an attempt to keep people fooled for just a little while longer.

  10. Please excuse my ignorance but storms are caused by temperature gradients are they not? The more abrupt the gradient the more severe the storm. A lessening of storm intensity and frequency would indicate that the temperature gradient is less than it used to be. Warm ocean, warm atmosphere or cool atmosphere and cool ocean could both satisfy the requirement. It seems the temperature records and ARGO lean toward the latter.

  11. Every single day there is a 1% chance that some weather event will occur that exceeds all other such events in the past 100 years. This is true in all places at all times. With 365 days in a year one should expect 3.65 of these events will happen in any single location. There’s been a dearth of strong tornadoes at my end of tornado alley for the past 10-12 years. The last F5 I’m aware of in my neck of the woods was Jarrell in 1997. Shouldn’t the “increased energy” in the atmosphere since then have produced more not fewer Jarrell events?

    The correct answer is no. These events do not happen due to total energy in the atmosphere but rather by energy gradients in the atmosphere. A tornado is a machine that is doing work where I use the physics definition of ‘work’. Work is performed across energy gradients. Uniform heating will not increase the potential for work to be accomplished. Differential heating is needed for that. Once again if one understands how and why heat engines (which applies equally to hurricanes, tornadoes, automobile engines, and air conditioners) work the way they do the conditions that make for severe weather events become much clearer and easier to understand. The problem with climate boffins is they have not studied engineering. Heat engines are a very basic, essential area of knowledge for engineers.

  12. The essential bottom line vis a vis the global heat engine is that “global” warming is not equally distributed. The higher latitudes get more than the lower latitudes. Even though total energy in the system increases the differential energy, which is what drives severe weather, decreases. Less temperature difference between tropics and poles means we should expect less severe weather and more uniformity. Cold air masses from the higher latitudes clashing with warm air masses from the tropics have less difference in temperature and hence less potential for producing work in the form of winds and convection. In principle we should a decline in severe weather in the lower latitudes and a smaller increase in these events at higher latitudes. “Tornado alley” will move progressively northward and diminish in cumulative power as it moves north. This appears to be the case with fewer F5s at the southern end of the alley and more at the northern end. No surprise there. At least there shouldn’t be any surprise to any competent engineer.

  13. What sounds worse, the CO2 in atmosphere rose by ±8% since 1997 or by just 0,000025%? Both figures are correct if put in the right context.

    But somehow 0,000025% does not sound very menacing does it?

  14. Anthony’s “love” for the California legislature is even more “entertaining” in person. Actually, “painful” is the better word – I hadn’t realized how much their actions have cost him, and it’s more than just pennies per book.

    If it gets any worse, we’ll have to start a fund to help Anthony move out of the state.

    Note to Californians – just because New Hampshire doesn’t have a sales tax[1] or an income tax[2] doesn’t mean all of you can fit into little New Hampshire. You’re better off going to Texas or taking over Wyoming. On the other hand, I currently live on a house on a 1/3 acre parcel. If you want for the cheap[3] price of only $1,000,000, I’ll be glad to start my retirement early and head for Mt Cardigan.

    [1] We do tax tourists, e.g. 9% rooms and meals tax.
    [2] There is this payroll tax employers (but not gov’t) pays. It’s a lot smaller than a real income tax, but it can be increased without much fanfare of calls to talk radio.
    [3] Cheap by California standards.

  15. Patrick Keane says:
    “For those who are not familiar with it, the UK’s Daily Mail is a comic for the unwashed masses of a right wing persuasion.
    If you can read it without becoming nauseous, have a look through their “on line” edition.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

    It is full of stories, (not reports), designed to titillate and stir various factions up. The stories do not appear to be checked for veracity and quite often seem to have a modicum of artistic license.
    I would image an equivalent US paper would be the National Enquirer.”

    Pete in Cumbria UK says:
    “It is not (often, here in the UK) referred to as “The Daily Fail” without good reason.”

    For an alternative view:-

    The Daily Mail is the best selling tabloid in the UK, with sales far in excess of rivals such as the Daily Mirror and the Sun. It is unashamedly right wing and Eurosceptic. It, and its sister paper The Mail on Sunday, regularly provide left of centre journalists such as Lauren Booth (Tony Blair’s sisiter-in-law) with platrofrms for their articles. But it also employs right of centre journalists such as Littlejohn, Peter Hitchens and Christopher Booker (if he is right of centre). Its journalists regularly win awards such as the best correspondent of the year. Quentin Letts is acknowledged as the best parlaimentary diarist still writing.

    Unfortunately, in order to boost circulation it invariably contains numerous pages of gossip about “celebrities”, including minor members of the Royal family. It also regularly publishes stories from victims of red tape and political correctness as well as from victims of crimes. These pages make it an easy target for ridicule by the trendy Islington set and their followers, particularly as the gossip is not always well-sourced.

    But the real reason that it is despised by the left is because it is always among the first to expose their fads and, years ago it committed the biggest and most unforgivable sin in their eyes of actually supporting the hated Margaret Thatcher.

  16. Dan July 3, 2011 at 3:59 am
    ….”“Mike” seems to have missed this in that striving for facts and reality.

    http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20081126_hurricaneseason.html

    Now I don’t claim to be a meteorologist or a mathematician but even I think 2008 might fall right in the middle of the “record low” Mike is talking about.”

    Mike has the global numbers in his plots. The NOAA link is speaking only of the North Atlantic

  17. Worst flooding in 50 years…
    Worst drought in 50 years…
    Glad I wasn’t around 50 years ago. The climate must have been terrible.

  18. You would think at least one AGW scientist would be warning us against all the CO2 bubbling out of beer steins this holiday and to keep the lid closed between gulps.

  19. I strongly disagree with Mike. This is the stupidest climate story of the week.

    http://eyeonthearctic.rcinet.ca/en/news/canada/44-environment/938-rapid-melting-of-arctic-sea-ice-possibly-explained

    Our friends from Caitlin, after complaining about the cold all spring, now say they have found COLDER water, deeper, than they saw before. To them, its obviously global warming. They seem to think that first year ice is saltier than the water below, and that when it melts, its COLDER than the water below. (which begs the question of why the warmer water has not melted the ice already. But lets not let logic interrupt these science morons).

    They are ignorant of the fact that as sea water cools, it becomes denser, and sinks, leaving some relatively fresher water above. This freezes at a higher temperature. The ice also becomes less salty through salt exclusion, becoming nearly pure water in a few years. But, after even one winter, some salt is lost, and the ice’s melt point goes still higher.

    But to these science challenged polar hikers, melting ice sinks into the heavier, colder brine below, and reduces the temperature of the brine.

    And they hope to publish a paper on this phenomena.

  20. Daily Fail contributors seem to be paid by the word – ‘never mind the quality, feel the width’ comes to mind… Best not to encourage them – I don’t even read it online any more!

    But the strange thing is, it still seems to be the paper most left-of-centre politicians ‘fear’ the most…

  21. The reason they are turning to weather events as opposed to basing their claims on climate is twofold. One, global mean temps have stalled. Two, almost all their poster children have turned corners (exept the Arctic / Greenland which have remained undecided over the past few years).

    Poster children / predictions
    Barrier reef
    Snowfalls a thing of the past / Scottish ski industry doomed
    Snowpack
    Lake Powell
    Australia perpetual drought
    Hurricanes and tornadoes
    Polar bear numbers
    and so on…………………..

  22. The Daily Mail is read by at least 7 million people, so don’t fall for any sillly charactures of it…

    They have also been swinging both ways, for quite a while (In the last few months very many windfarms are useless stories, etc) As this is quoting, a Professor of Atmospheric Physics, at Reading University (usually very prpo AGW) it should get some attention… It is perhaps being framed in a way that it is a local to Britaina phenonma, and of course whilst Britain and Europe freeze, global warming will still be occuring, doubt that the public will buy that though….

    TODAYS – Daily Mail story makes interesting reading….

    Daily Mail; Is Britain about to be plunged into a Little Ice Age?
    By Daily Mail Reporter

    Scientists think Britain and Europe could be in for a chilly few years predicting a ‘Little Ice Age’ could be on its way in just a few decades time.
    Average temperatures in Britain could fall by two degrees centigrade, according to the study led by Mike Lockwood, professor of space environment physics at Reading University, because of a drop in the amount of sunspot activity.

    His findings, published by the Institute of Physics, (IoP) showed that in the next 50 years there is a one in 10 chance of the sun returning to conditions seen between 1645 and 1715 when the River Thames in London regularly froze over, as did the Baltic Sea.

    Known as the Maunder Minimum during these years astronomers could not see any sunspots and Europe endured unusually harsh winters which came to be known as the Little Ice Age.
    A scene from the 2004 film The Day After Tomorrow where temperatures dropped freezing New York

    Professor Lockwood’s findings could mean the average winter temperature could drop below 2.5C, compared to the average British winter now of 5C, the newspaper reported.
    In June, three different studies all concluded that sunspot activity looks set to decline over the next 10 years.
    Experts said the next upswing in sunspot activity, which follows an 11-year cycle, will not be as strong as normal – or might not even happen at all.
    The findings were presented at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society’s solar physics division.
    They said a decrease in global warming might result in the years after 2020, the approximate time when sunspots are expected to disappear for years, maybe even decades.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2010757/Shivering-Britain-Little-Ice-Age-way.html#ixzz1R372R4gH

  23. If the claims of 1 degree of extra temperature adds energy to the atmosphere, which in turn is causing many more storms, etc. One should keep in mind that the total amount of energy is calculated from the starting temperature of 0 Kelvin, so at a world average increase from around 291K to an increased temp of 1 K, that is only around 0.3% increase in energy. If increased moisture caused by 1 extra degree is causing increasing numbers of floods, then why is it so dry where I live near Vancouver in the summer, and so wet in the Winter, when there is 20 to 30 degrees difference in temps between the seasons, and the opposite occurs?
    Of course I know the reason, its alarmism, whatever would be the worst thing to happen is selected as what will happen and communicated to the general public.
    When a recent CBC National news item began a report using the words ‘Wacky Weather’ I actually started feeling ill, seeing the setup for the junk science report to follow.
    Thank you CBC, you have motivated me to spend the 10 to 11 pm time slot to do something more worthwhile, like read the classic Quantum Mechanics book by Albert Messiah. The Ether wind story in the first chapter reminds me of something, hmmm.

  24. Professor Michael Lockwood of Reading University said: “We reached a high point of solar activity in 1985. Since then, it has been declining. We are now halfway back to the levels seen during the Maunder Minimum. The probability is that decline will continue for the next 40 years.”

    Fellow Reading University academic Dr David Brayshaw warned: “If wind speed lowers, we can expect to generate less electricity from turbines – that’s a no-brainer.”

    About 75 per cent of Scotland’s green power comes from turbines.

    First Minister Alex Salmond has vowed to create “the green energy powerhouse of the continent”, while the Scottish Government has pledged to aim to secure all of Scotland’s energy needs from renewable sources by 2020, when, it says, it will produce three gigawatts of energy, enough to power three million households

  25. Kev-in-Uk says:
    July 3, 2011 at 3:34 am

    I know we have to try and make folk aware of the scam style of reporting – and the ridiculous alarmist claims. But, quite frankly, it is becoming tiresome……I’m ready to throw in the towel with these anal retentives who promote such rhetoric… no, really I am! It’s ok that most here have ‘seen the light’ and realised that the AGW meme is just a scam – but if other ordinary folk are really so stupid as to believe everything they read, why should we bother? I am fast getting to the conclusion that I need to get myself a smallholding somewhere, become a hermit and leave the apathetic majority to their own BS! I am not angry about AGW anymore (like I was when i realised I’d been taken in by the scam a few years ago) – and I have tried to help people ‘see the light’ – but now, I’m just resigned to the fact that there are simply folk who refuse to use their brains and are always gonna be sheep! Let them go to be slaughtered is fast becoming my attitude…..it’s wrong to abandon my fellow man, I know that – but with this style of reporting, my level of exsasperation goes through the upper troposhere! Surely, there comes a time when one has to quit?

    Sad to say, but I have to agree. I am getting to the point where I just cannot see how we could break through the web that has been woven for oh so many years. I get depressed about it, but then take a ‘F-it!’ POV, and hope it does not hurt me too much in the end.

    Now I just laugh when people go on about AGW. If they really insist on knowing why, I’ll ask a question I know they can’t answer, and then say “Oh, I thought you were at least slightly informed. Take the time to find out a bit more about it.”

    Most of these people have absolutely no input on the matter aside from the MSM. The same people believe that Japan is highly radioactive and people will be dying from it for decades. So nuclear power is very dangerous, of course. Far more dangerous than sitting 10km in the air hoping that a flow of fast air over a few mm of aluminum will keep me from plunging to your death (many, many more people are killed by flying than nuclear power). Go figure.

  26. Geoff Shorten says:
    July 3, 2011 at 6:21 am

    Well, that was a stupid article but perhaps not as stupid as this one from Friday’s Business Day here in Johannesburg:

    Climate change may kill Joburg golfers
    Researcher says as temperatures and humidity increase there is a point where they combine to the extent that no human could maintain a healthy temperature

    http://www.businessday.co.za/Articles/Content.aspx?id=147333

    Hah! That was hilarious!

    I suffered a full 18 holes in a Mackay summer (about 500k into the tropics). I am still here to tell the tale. I must admit the last 6 holes were rough, but the thought of the 19th kept me going.

    Locals were shrugging off the heat like it was no problem. I guess humans may be able to adapt, eh?

  27. Oh, I forgot, entire careers have been based on this false alarm. Weather is all they have left.

  28. Tornados are the result of the temperature difference between the Arctic and the Gulf of Mexico which is at its greatest in spring. Tornado alley is the result of there being no physical barrier (i.e. mountains) to stop the airflow and the conveyer of storms spawning tornados has free play. There’s only one other place with similar conditions, in Argentinia. There are hardly any tornados in Asia because any budging conveyor between equatorial and polar regions are stopped in the bud by the Himalas, Hindu Kush, Caucasus etc.

    So, if the current season was particularly active the cause should be in a larger than usual temperature difference between GoM and Artic regions of Canada. And guess what: spring up North was rather late. The observations thus indicate that more than usual tonado activity is due to Arctic cooling.

    But hey, we know that a cooling Arctic is one of the manifestations of global warming, don’t we?

  29. Dan,
    The news report you link to does not include 2009 or 2010. It stops in 2008.

    The peer reviewed link is in relation to the world as opposed to the USA.

  30. I was looking at the graph from the Mauna Loa observatory and noticed that the slope of the line is amazingly constant over fifteen years. Has anyone considered whether humans put out CO2 at a similarly increasing rate? I’d have thought there’d be more of a variation in the rise, as Europe switched to lower-CO2-generation natural gas for electricity, or China brought another five coal-powered plants on line in a given month. But that line rises at the same rate (with its 5 ppm seasonal bump just as constant) seemingly regardless of what volcanoes erupt or humans throw into the air.

    Has anyone given any official scientific thought about what that graph should look like given our output vs. what it actually does look like, or is it just used as another stick to beat us all over the head with?

  31. If you replace the word “scientist” with “the usual suspects”, the article in the Daily Mail makes sense. The DM is, by the way, the most entertaining UK newspaper, and should be compared to the New York Post. Articles about the UK health system are often and rightfully used by James Taranto. The real paper of nonsense is the Gruaniad.

  32. Just a quick question regarding the ‘Joburg golfers’, is there some physical phenomena that is preventing the golfers from consuming cold beverages?

  33. los cientificos no se ponen deacuerdo
    algunos dicen que el calentamiento global provocara menos huracanes
    ahora sale otro diciendo q el calentamiento global provocara huracanes mas frecuentes

  34. “Global Warming observers along the Gulf Coast ”

    Are these the same folks that are ‘observing’ climate pollution?

    How exactly do you go about ‘observing’ Global Warming along the Gulf Coast (or anywhere else for that matter)? are there Global Warming Observers everywhere or just along the Gulf? How does one get to be a ‘Global Warming Observer’?

  35. Dan, your facts cover only the (northern) Atlantic Ocean. Unless you want to argue that “global warming” affects only the North Atlantic Ocean, then you should expand your facts to global statistics (which the post is addresses).

  36. The second deadliest tornado in Canada recorded took place July 31, 1987 in Edmonton in which 27 people died. The deadliest in 1912, with 28 killed. There are an average of 80 tornados each year in Canada, so Tornado Alley isn’t the only place tornados happen. The peak season in Canada is in the summer months when clashing air masses move north.

  37. This is the same Prof Lockwood who said there was nothing unusual about the current solar cycle when every other blog was saying it was unusual. I suppose they are bound to right once in a while. He is also a supporter of AGW I believe.

  38. Next to the BBC, the Guardian, the Globe and Mail (Canada), or the New York Times the Daily Mail is a GIANT. I’ve read many Daily Mail stories making fun of AGW and their ilk. More than in any other newspaper on the planet. I’ve read more about the sun entering possible global cooling in the Daily Mail than in any other newspaper on the planet. Moreover, I’ve read in the Daily Mail more stories of the idiotic Brit Green strategy, their failing windmills, the very high cost of energy due to stealth taxes to fund the Brit Green Plan, Brit families suffering from energy companies that constantly jack up their energy prices leaving too many Brit families struggling. All for the Brit green pie in the sky that didn’t work during this past harsh Brit winter – the Daily Mail ridiculed the green schemes. Just as the Daily Mail ridiculed Brussels and the Eurocrats taxing Brits against the will of 80% of Brit citizens. Telling the Brits the keep foreign criminals in Britain and refusing to allow the Brits to deport them.

    Tell me, what other newspapers on this planet does that?

  39. Apparently we never had weather until we had AGW. And we didn’t have AGW until we had Warmists. So….

  40. I guess this is GLOBAL WARMING at its worst!
    “After Late Snow Hits West, Skiers Hit Slopes in Shorts, Bikinis
    Published July 03, 2011
    Ski resorts from California to Colorado opened for the weekend to take advantage of an unusual combination of dense lingering snow from late-season storms in the Sierra Nevada and the Rockies and a high-pressure system ushering in warm air from the east.
    California’s Alpine Meadows, which has offered Independence Day skiing just one other time in its 50-year history
    At Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort in Utah, 783 inches of snow this season smashed the old record of 688 inches set in the winter of 1983-84. By the time the resort closes for the season after Monday’s holiday, it will have been open a record 202 days.
    Many people from the (Central) Valley have been stopping at the ranger station with the expectation they can go backpacking to their favorite destinations … They are under snow,”…..’
    And This:
    “snowfall quantities | Squaw Valley USA – Lake Tahoe Ski Resort
    Thank you Mother Nature! Squaw Valley broke the 800″ mark for the first time on record. We hope you enjoyed the snow this season!”
    Where is Al Gore when you really need him?

  41. My takeaway from this is that the people you cannot trust to provide the truth about climate, past and future, are climate scientists, government agencies, government funded agencies, and the press.

    Tattoo them all.

  42. It seems that no matter how much evidence of AGW not being the cause of most everything, from bleaching coral to melting Kilimanjaro, the press goes on and on with the never ending parade of “….caused by global warming” headlines and announcements.

    Did they take their lead from Baghdad Bob? No matter how the army is getting pounded, you keep denying, and keep telling the public that everything is just fine.

    In this case, it is clear who the deniers really are!

    Keep telling the public your story long enough, and it will be true? And with their science crumbling on an almost daily basis, now the focus isn’t on the science, but the delivery of the message.

  43. Ref. Dan says:
    July 3, 2011 at 3:59 am

    Interesting,
    As according to Mr Watts comment “Mike” bases his work on “reality and hard facts”
    I say interesting because “Mike” makes this statement not far into his comment.
    “So, what actually happened from 2006 to 2010? The opposite of what was predicted! The five years since Katrina have seen record low hurricane activity — both intensity and numbers!”

    “Mike” seems to have missed this in that striving for facts and reality.

    http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20081126_hurricaneseason.html

    Now I don’t claim to be a meteorologist or a mathematician but even I think 2008 might fall right in the middle of the “record low” Mike is talking about.
    Now I’m sure I’ll get the usual hostile responses but will there be any that actually use “facts”
    ________________
    Dan: Look at the graphs at NCDC, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/hurricane-climatology.html, and you will see no significant trend in major hurricanes. One year does not a trend make. And that is a fact. I recommend a less condescending, dismissive and derogatory tone if you really want to get into a serious discussion, esp. when discussing a topic outside your area of expertise.

  44. I’ve been too lazy to look into it even superficially, but I wonder what we’d find if we took the opposite approach. What years had the fewest tornados? What were their “average global temperatures”? Fewest hurricanes (Atlantic or global)? Fewest floods? Fewest droughts? Any overlap? Any pattern? Can we find the “ideal climate”? I doubt it, but I haven’t looked.

    Best,
    Frank

  45. The Daily Mail is a right wing tabloid but only a fool or a Guardian reader (the two categories are not mutually exclusive) would compare it to the National Enquirer. For all its faults the Daily Mail often reflects the views of the ordinary people of Britain. That is why it is looked down on by smug, self-important types who think that only the views that count are those of people like themselves.

    Roy

  46. The warm dark side becomes desperate and hyperactive.
    Same day, when Monbiot said that all sceptic scientists must be paid by Big Oil & Koch, the same phrase showed up in a German newspaper blog (zeit.de). Even worse, sceptics are responsible for famine everywhere and are therefore enemies of the state.
    (sceptics have probably been the inventors of biofuel)
    It wasn’t some crazy guy, but one who carefully copied a lot of “research”, linked to realclimatecom and other “popular” blogs … no not WUWT, but he knew at least that this is not a trustworthy source.

  47. Many years ago, when I was assisting in saving the world from Communism, I was a faithful reader of the Daily Mail. One day a week there was a gentleman who wrote a column in the Mail that bore a close resemblance to some of the briefings I got on base. I always wondered where he got his info.
    The Mail was at that time the most readable conservative newspaper down the news agents. It stood me in good stead during three tours of the wilds of Suffolk and Cambridgeshire. Not so much fun anymore.

  48. “that Mrs Spelman twice discussed the issue of ‘tree health’ with him [Prince Charles] while he held a one-to-one meeting with Climate Change Minister Greg Barker about global warming”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/8613943/Prince-Charles-held-nine-private-meetings-with-cabinet-ministers.html

    I have no idea about the specifics of this conversation but I am confident, given these particular “Global Warming observers,” that it would rank among the stupidest.

  49. Jimbo says:
    July 3, 2011 at 6:42 am

    “The reason they are turning to weather events… almost all their poster children have turned corners… Polar bear numbers”

    In this case, nothing turned. This whole doomsday story was a Big Lie based on junk models from day one. It has a special place for me because I first started looking closer at the whole AGW story because they started telling this lie. You know, if the science is so settled, why do they need to lie to sell the story?

  50. Frank: your

    I’ve been too lazy to look into it even superficially, but I wonder what we’d find if we took the opposite approach. What years had the fewest tornados? What were their “average global temperatures”? Fewest hurricanes (Atlantic or global)? Fewest floods? Fewest droughts? Any overlap? Any pattern? Can we find the “ideal climate”? I doubt it, but I haven’t looked.

    There are some patterns, but not obvious ones.

    For tornadoes, according to the NOAA, outbreaks from the 30s to 70s did not occur in la Nina. Since then, all outbreaks have occurred in la Nina or la Nada. But, severe tornadoes are decreasing.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf

    http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severeweather/tornadoes.html#history

    Cyclones, globally, are at near 30 year lows in the satellite record. Pre-satellite is not thought to be a reliable record. (see Ryan Maue’s excellent site for this data)

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008GL035946.shtml

    Generally, in the Atlantic, there are fewer hurricanes in el Nino, as there is more upper wind shear, which prevents hurricanes from forming. Some studies link sun spots with hurricanes. Using Landeas’s data, shows a small increase per century. Using the NOAA data shows a small decrease in US land falling storms.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417182843.htm

    http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090811_tropical.html

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/05/new-paper-tropical-cyclone-response-to-solar-uv/

    http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html

    http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/ushurrlist18512009.txt

    Floods and droughts show no trends currently, but much evidence points to cooling periods causing more drought and more floods, depending on the locale. Severe storms in Europe, based on sediment study, apparently favor colder periods. Most severe events were in the past, especially droughts. Again, some studies show a link to solar activity. In the US, flood damage as a function of GDP is going DOWN. Even the Australian floods this year were not exceptional in the 150 year record, and may have been due to management afraid of DROUGHT. But, for the most part, there is no global trend in floods.

    http://www.co2science.org/journal/2003/v6n41c2.htm

    http://www.co2science.org/subject/d/summaries/droughtnortham.htm

    http://www.co2science.org/subject/d/summaries/droughtnortham.htm

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081202081449.htm

    http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/us-flood-damage-1929-2003-4446

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

    http://itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/1128/

    To answer part of your question: The most optimal climate of the last Millenia or more, may have been the 20th century, and that might be over.

    Afraid?

  51. From Huffpo, an endless source of stupid stories, comes this ‘head-in-the-sand-denial’ coverage about the ‘diminishing’ skeptical community.

    “President of the Pacific Institute Peter Gleick, a scientist who supports the findings behind man-induced climate change, said he wouldn’t consider attending.

    “I go to many meetings as it is, and the interesting science is being done elsewhere,” he said on a “pre-buttal” conference call hosted by the Center For American Progress. “This is not a science conference, it’s a political conference. It’s a way for a small community — and I would argue a diminishing community — to get together in a self-support kind of way. There is no science that’s going to be discussed there that’s new or that’s interesting … it’s just not worth a real scientist’s time.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/01/climate-change-skeptics-unite-heartland-conference_n_889008.html

  52. The article about the coming “Little Ice Age” in todays DM is written in similar style (“Prof. So and So says this and that”). But if you want to know about the newspaper itself, read the comments. This is a paper that is gaining a lot of followers in the US. I buy it whenever I am somewhere it is aviable, be it the UK or Spain. Otherwise I do not read any newspaper on paper.

  53. I am amazed, there are people who love the Mail and it’s leader writers AND read WUWT

    According to the Daily Mail readers, (an oxymoron surely?), in other comments posted above, who are praising the Mail and casting me as a left wing. Guardian reading, global warming fanatic. This point of view is interesting as it is typical of the way Daily Mail readers make assumptions and comments about they read.in the paper, i.e. with no facts.

    May I reassure you, I am a retired avionics / computer engineer. I have always voted to the right, I do not believe in AGW, despite my age I can still think for myself.

    The British main stream media over the last twenty years have changed radically. They no longer employ investigative reporters who write articles that are thoughtful, accurate and incisive.
    Instead they are mainly “cut and paste” merchants, faithfully regurgitating the press releases that pour from the PR people in the various factions and government offices

    The only places that gives one an accurate source of information nowadays are Internet blogs such as this one. but there are many others who also shine amongst the dross.
    You must have noticed that the circulation figures for the MSM print editions have fallen sharply. There are several Fleet st names in troubled waters at the moment. As their circulation drops the fatuous content increases in inverse proportion as they desperately try to sell more ink.

    The other day WUWT posted an article about accuracy and sig diigts and someone commented that he had the ability to guestimate the size of the result of a calculation to know whether or not the calculation was about right or wildly out. I believe the same applies to the printed word. When you read an article you should be able to think about what was written and employ your BS detector. If you don’t do that when reading the MSM then you are in a very deep hole!

    cheers Patrick

    ps Sorry about any misspellings and typos, I had a trabeculectomy operation on my left eye this week and my vision is somewhat blurred at this time of day.

  54. Wil says:
    July 3, 2011 at 10:14 am
    Next to the BBC, the Guardian, the Globe and Mail (Canada), or the New York Times the Daily Mail is a GIANT

    I’m right there with you Wil. I do the Mail every day. It usually gets the weather forecast completely wrong so when it says ‘blizzards to sweep UK’ ‘ expect a couple of snow flurries. But its heart’s in the right place…
    plus it does way the best cute animal pictures!

  55. From Patrick Keane on July 3, 2011 at 4:17 am:

    For those who are not familiar with it, the UK’s Daily Mail is a comic for the unwashed masses of a right wing persuasion.
    (…)
    I would image an equivalent US paper would be the National Enquirer

    The National Enquirer is a weekly celebrity gossip rag, found prominently displayed at supermarket checkouts with other potential impulse buys like candy bars and breath mints, apparently targeted at bored possibly-unemployed women (not that long ago I would have just said “housewives”).

    Using American understandings of the terms, the National Enquirer is definitely not a right-wing conservative newspaper. Heck, such a comparison is a slur against right-wing conservative newspapers. If you could miraculously find one hiding somewhere in the United States, you’ll find it’s likely offended!

  56. @ Patrick Keane says:

    “According to the Daily Mail readers, (an oxymoron surely?), in other comments posted above, who are praising the Mail and casting me as a left wing. Guardian reading, global warming fanatic. This point of view is interesting as it is typical of the way Daily Mail readers make assumptions and comments about they read.in the paper, i.e. with no facts.”

    You are the one making ridiculous generalisations as well as insulting comments about “the great unwashed.” To take one example it was the Daily Mail, not the Guardian, that led the campaign for justice for the murdered black teenager, Stephen Lawrence. Do you think the Mail’s articles on that subject had no facts?

    On many subjects such as “health and safety” bureaucracy, lax immigration controls, unpopular EU directives, the Daily Mail has a better record than the Guardian and the BBC which both like to pretend that a fact is not a fact unless they acknowledge it.

    The Guardian, and the BBC, are usually far better than the Daily Mail in their coverage of science and technology, but when it comes to the subject of climate change the Daily Mail does not have a strong editorial line and tends to publish articles written from a sceptical viewpoint as well as those reflecting alarmist views.

    Roy

  57. Les Johnson says:
    July 3, 2011 at 12:42 pm

    “Afraid?”

    Absolutely! I’m afraid I’ll never figure it out! Thanks for the links, Les – I’ll take a look.

    Best,
    Frank

  58. Kev-in-Uk @ July 3, 2011 at 3:34 am

    Some hold that ignorance is bliss, I don’t.
    Some who are ignorant are proud of it, which is stupid.
    For those of us who wish to learn, ignorance is cured by education.
    But how to cure stupidity? That’s the real question.

  59. This may come as a shock to Dr. Emanuel: It isn’t strong hurricanes that destroy levees, its high water levels! The energy of a hurricane and the ability of a levee to resit it are mutually exclusive. Katrina wasn’t a wind event; it was a flood event.

    BTW: Would Dr. Emanual explain why the world accumulated cyclonic energy is it a 40 year low, even while CO2 keeps increasing?

  60. Worst this, worst that in 50 years…. hmm so things are almost as bad as that of 50 yrs ago, huh? And they came to these conclusions after 20 years of reluctance to attribute it to climate change. To me this means climate is changing back to that of 50 years ago – which is what sceptics have been trying to get across the past decade or so. This is even crazier than I thought. Even journalists used to have higher standards in reporting (and in logic).

  61. So, what actually happened from 2006 to 2010? The opposite of what was predicted! The five years since Katrina have seen record low hurricane activity — both intensity and numbers!

    ….the inconvenient truth!! Keep it up, Anthony, & Happy Independence Day!!

  62. Actually, the Daily Mail reported this story pretty accurately. It offered no opinion, and simply said, “scientists claim,” etc. If there is to be a gripe, in that you disagree with the notion that the human fingerprint of climate change is starting to be found in extreme weather events, you should take it up with Trenberth, et. al., but your swipe at the Daily Mail is misplaced. Maybe you should have joined the thousands of scientists (including Trenberth) meeting in Australia this week to discuss this very issue.

  63. That’s pretty safe postion from which to cause alarm. “Scientists claim” from an unamed reporter. The Daily Mail readers comments are telling, by and large they don’t buy it. People can now see through the propaganda and even the average Joe can pick holes in such claims.

    Games up! Just waiting for the next one – which looks like it will be based on imaginary food shortages supposedly caused by ecosystem disrutpion.

  64. Dan,
    You’ve already received the information you needed concerning the Atlantic hurricanes vs global. I’d like to caution you about the report you linked and the need to read these reports more carefully. The headline says
    Atlantic Hurricane Season Sets Records
    “…a season that produced a record number of consecutive storms to strike the United States and ranks as one of the more active seasons in the 64 years since comprehensive records began.”

    You might ask exactly what they meant by “…one of the more active seasons…{of 64 years}”. Was 2008 # 25 in terms of named storms or was it #6? Each would be more active that #32 or #33 if activity is defined as named storms. Also, I’m not sure of the significance of “consecutive storms to strike the United States” versus total storms. To me, this is trivia. I would find 12 non-consecutive storms hitting US land more significant than 6 consecutive hits. But, it is a “record”, I suppose.

    Speaking of activity, I have some doubts about defining it by named storms. We detect far more storms and estimate their wind speeds than we did even 30 years ago. It makes more sense to me to rate the season by ACE (Accumulated Cyclone Energy). This is calculated by the power and duration of a storm. To get a sense of the measurement, there was a hurricane in 1899 that had an ACE of over 70. The storm lasted 28 days! Imagine that! I made a list of the ACE for the last 11 seasons:
    2000-115.6………..2006-78.5
    2001-105.6………..2007-71.7
    2002-65.15………..2008-144.4
    2003-167.0………..2009-52.6
    2004-225.0………..2010-165.0
    2005-248.1
    The “normal” range calculated for 1973-2002 is 32-136 and 1993-2002 as 47-181. They might define the range more clearly. Anyway, I think it’s a far better method of rating activity than named storms, deaths, landfall or property damage since factors other than the actual storms are included. Even the named storm quantities mean less if there are 5 major hurricanes and 2 tropical storms as compared to 12 tropical storms, 2 catagory 1 hurricanes and 1 catagory 2. Do we want to count the 15 storms as more activity than the 7 storm year? What do you think?

    I hope nothing in my comment made you feel attacked in any way. Many of us are learning and the policies driven by projected climate change will effect everyone. We can’t learn too much or provide too much input, in my opinion.

  65. Emanuel is a warmist, but the article’s claim that he attributed Katrina to AGW is a serious misrepresentation of his research and opinion. While he does believe that hurricanes will get stronger with AGW, he unequivocally rejects the idea that one can blame Katrina on AGW. I can’t find the reference for this at the moment still looking…

  66. Thanks Anthony and Mike for a great response to a tabloid trash piece of journalism.

    As someone with family in that area of the US where the deadly tornadoes touched down recently, I simply pose the incompetant journalist at the Daily Mail this:

    The area and surrounding states where the most recent tornadoes were have a nickname.
    ” Tornado Alley,” because that area suffers the most tornadoes in the US, starting up North, then working their way down, hence the ” alley” reference.

    Ever thought of that, Daily Mail? Of course you didnt.

  67. J. Felton,
    You just don’t understand! It hasn’t been this bad since the last time it was this bad!

  68. John Q,
    What idiots. They swiped the news from TWC so they thought it was Weather experts reporting. Of course it was geologists at Scripps. It may interest you to know that Scripps has 210 active awards from NSF for many millions to research some pretty goofy stuff. A bunch were just awarded 7/1/2011. Take a look at the list at http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/ All you need to enter is Scripps on the organization field. No other fields need information so you don’t need to know the PI or award number. Check out the study on wave bubbles. Obvious why we need to cut Social Security. Very important research going on here.

  69. First Minister Alex Salmond has vowed to create “the green energy powerhouse of the continent”, while the Scottish Government has pledged to aim to secure all of Scotland’s energy needs from renewable sources by 2020, when, it says, it will produce three gigawatts of energy, enough to power three million households

    That would equate to 1kw per household. Which is rather low. Especially considering that plug in appliances rated at 3kw are easily available and “hardwired” appliances such as electric showers can go up to 9kw.

    Maybe someone needs to check the Scottish Government’s sums…

  70. In the UK April was pretty warm, but it certainly wasn’t a heatwave. June was quite chilly and I was routinely wearing a sweater and even had the heating on. We’ve also had a lot of rain in recent weeks. Ironically the rains started on the day an official drought was announced.
    The trend in the UK over the last 5 to 10 years has been to cooler summers and much harsher winters with increasing amounts of snow.

    I don’t like cold weather and in a way I wish the global warmers were right! But they’re not. I’m afraid our children face the prospect of living much of their lives in a world that is significantly colder. My generation are incredibly fortunate to have lived during a period of global warming.

    The list also includes rainfall and flooding in England and Wales in 2000. This was covered in WUWT quite recently. An incredibly complex procedure using – you guessed it – multiple climate models was claimed to establish a link between the heavy rainfall and global warming. But, as pointed out by Willis, if you simply looked at the rainfall graph it becomes perfectly obvious that there is no trend. It was simply Nature doing what Nature has been doing for millions of years. The graph also showed a slightly larger rainfall event that occurred around 1930.

    I believe the Independent also ran this rubbish last week on the front page.
    Unfortunately, rather like zombies, this nonsense just keeps on coming….
    Chris

  71. Mark says:
    July 3, 2011 at 11:55 pm
    That would equate to 1kw per household. Which is rather low. Especially considering that plug in appliances rated at 3kw are easily available and “hardwired” appliances such as electric showers can go up to 9kw.

    No, no, you miss the point. 1kw is what Scottish households will be LIMITED to. (sarc????)

Comments are closed.