Devastating non-trends in US Climate

From Warren Meyer, who was discussing the recent announcement from the White House Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force.

If one wonders why the climate alarmist movement is suffering from a credibility problem, one only needs to read some of the claims:

Climate change is already having “pervasive, wide-ranging” effects on “nearly every aspect of our society,” a task force representing more than 20 federal agencies reported Tuesday.

Here are some of the devastating non-trends in US Climate:

Advertisements

155 thoughts on “Devastating non-trends in US Climate

  1. This is interesting material and while I appreciate it responds to a US related quote. Can you provide similar trends (or rather lack of them) on a global scale?

  2. So droughts were predicted to be up and stay that way in the Southwest US and it has been wet instead. Snow was ending in the northeast and we set records,
    Thanks for news stories showing reality is the opposite of the warmists claims.

  3. Gee…why can’t nature just do what the AGW’s want and make it easy for them?
    I have been thinking about generating a website called “The Great Global
    Warming Scandal Revealed in Pictures” [or perhaps something more ingenious…I’m thinking on the fly here] in which it becomes obvious through some simple pictures (like those above) in which the theory of anthropogenic global warming is debunked. I believe it can be a quite compelling argument against AGW theory just looking at a few simplified graphs (with short, straightforward commentary)
    Since no one would ever visit MY website, perhaps you have given some thought to the same thing? I have posted outside my office the temperature record that actually shows the MWP and how it overshadows the global warming experienced in current times…and how it obviously demonstrates the cyclical nature of global warming (caused by nature! can you believe it?). From the looks of the Sea Ice trend for 2010, that will be a nice picture in and of itself!

  4. Can anyone name one negative impact they have personally suffered that can be attributed solely to climate change (natural or man made)?
    I didn’t think so.
    How about some positive impacts?
    Well, there is the obvious increase in global crop yields due to enhanced CO2 and slightly longer growing seasons. That’s a pretty good thing.
    Now, can anyone name any negative impacts of climate change legislation?
    How about ugly windmills. More expensive cars. Higher taxes (just beginning in the US). And the potential for much more cost and regulation. All pain for the potential reduction of gain. But at least we can feel proud that we are saving the children…from affluence.

  5. When asking your colleagues who are for the punishment of all that is evil in society, ask them what effects we are seeing that are caused by global warming.
    It’s amazing the list of things which come out with no evidence, correlation or causation. It’s the global warming equivalent of the Kevin Bacon Game.

  6. Timothy Tellene-Lawton’s quote about corn liking cool weather is way off. According to my brother-in-law who farms over 2000 acres, about 1/2 in corn, says he wants warm to hot weather for corn growth. This year Indiana had an average of 180+ bushels of corn per acre. My brother-in-law had over 200 bushels of corn per acres. Over thirty years ago they were glad to get 100 bushels per acre.

  7. I knew we were in trouble when I got to this quote:
    “The White House task force tells us the truth.”

  8. Federal agencies are directed by our CarbonCalamacist-in-Chief so what else would you expect from his lackeys and fellow-travelers? But why do they ignore the main benefit of more CO2 — a nicely rising trend in corn production that thrives on carbon, as also do oxygen-producing trees and most species of flora.

  9. Who says nothing is happening!!! Climate change has had a HUGE pervasive and significant upward trending affect on internet blogs. Well, one, anyway.

  10. Somebody in the Administration will one day get up and say, “we’ve had enough climate kookism to last from here to Eternity, nobody needs to discuss climate change “impacts” on a darned thing, let’s move on and never revisit this nightmare.”
    This actually happened, in a daydream of mine.

  11. But there IS a trend!
    Look at the rise in wet weather between 1940 and 1945 and you’ll see that the US will be underwater by 1960. So there. Be afraid, be very afraid.

  12. The tornado graphs are interesting. Looks like an observer effect, where small, short-lived tornadoes are more commonly spotted now, but not larger, longer-lived tornadoes since those were more easily observed.

  13. “”The Task Force has found that climate change is affecting, and will continue to affect, nearly every aspect of our society and the environment,” the report states. “Some of the impacts are increased severity of floods, droughts, and heat waves, increased wildfires and sea level rise.
    “Climate change impacts are pervasive, wide-ranging and affect the core systems of our society: transportation, ecosystems, agriculture, business, infrastructure, water, and energy, among others,” the report continues. “Climate change already is affecting the ability of Federal agencies to fulfill their missions.”
    Strong stuff.”
    Yeah, you’re not kidding; the stench from it is overpowering, as any fresh bovine excrement would be.
    Too bad the government-issued stuff couldn’t be put to good use, the way the real stuff can be. Instead, it sits in its own putrid stench, fouling the minds of the young, naive, and those already in a CAGW/CC-induced zombie state.

  14. Oh no!! The climate is staying the same! We’re all gonna die of boredom!! And it’s all mankind’s fault for making too much CO2.
    Ahhhhh!

  15. And the non-trends continue globally:
    Global Sea Ice Area is average:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
    Antarctic Sea Ice Area is slightly above average:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png
    Arctic Sea Ice Area is slightly below average:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png
    So I’ve built a highly robust linear model of sea ice behavior and through the analysis of historical trends I am now able to report that Global Sea Ice Area will be average forever…

  16. The White House Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force is nothing more but a political tool in line with the UN IPCC to enable the introduction of Cap & Trade, the establishment of aCorporatist (read fascist) Global Power grab, all at the costs of our civilization, and the individual civil rights, freedom, prosperity and future of the people in favor of a small group of elites.
    The alarmist arguments however can not hold up to real world observations and the only question I ask is this: Where are the protests, where are the riots?
    This sneak attack on all of our lives is worst than 9/11!

  17. I know it’s Friday afternoon. I know I am just an engineer. BUT, can I see a slope rate pretty much consistent all the way through on those peaks & troughs. I have only eye-balled the slopes with a scale rule against the screen to get a best fit curve/equal area line, but I would say the rate of increases & decreases look fairly consistent to me (we structural engineers don’t worry too much about minor differences, it’s close enough!). This I would suggest indicates some form of pattern? Perhaps it’s me!

  18. Read the comments. Found none supporting.
    Is the American public waking up from its daze?
    Sure hope so, too much taxpayers money has already gone down the drain.

  19. J.I.McK: I second the desire for corresponding global data. Notice, however, that the Hurricane data IS global. It might not be easy to come by global equivalents for all of the above, considering the tendency of those so well-funded to study climate are not highly disposed to compiling or publishing data at odds with the picture they’re trying to paint. There’s a certain level of honesty one expects from U.S. institutions, even alarmist ones, that is unlikely to be matched by international groups like Pauchari’s IPCC that seem to believe they answer only to themselves.

  20. Given that 90% of all tornadoes in the world occur in North America, I’m not sure what additional data you will get from looking at tornado activity worldwide…

  21. Henry chance (06:13:07) :

    So droughts were predicted to be up and stay that way in the Southwest US and it has been wet instead. Snow was ending in the northeast and we set records,
    Thanks for news stories showing reality is the opposite of the warmists claims.

    Sorry mate, you’ve not been following the plot.
    Everything is consistent with the claims! 😉
    DaveE.

  22. Edited Statement (As Required By ‘Truth In Government Act of 1776, First Continental Congress):
    “The Task Force has found that climate change (has affected,) is affecting, and will continue to affect, nearly every aspect of our society (, the weather,) and the environment,” the report states. “Some of the impacts are increased (and decreased) severity of floods, droughts, and heat waves, (and cold waves) increased (and decreased) wildfires and sea level rise (and sea level fall).
    “Climate change impacts are pervasive (and not), wide-ranging (and not) and affect the core systems of our society (sometimes): transportation, ecosystems, agriculture, business, infrastructure, water, and energy, among others,” the report continues. “Climate change already is affecting the ability of Federal agencies to fulfill their missions (as it always has).”

  23. Oh I wish I didn’t just read this in my coffee breaks and had the time to get you guys organised to get this out to the press in a ready digestible form. It is prime beef rotting on the shelf cause no one has thought to cook it!

  24. David S (07:22:49) :
    Oh no!! The climate is staying the same! We’re all gonna die of boredom!!

    Don’t worry!, beginning in december 2004 (sumatra earthquake and tsunami) earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes began cooperating to amuse you…not counting the healthy and chilling cold, as any real and serious Solar Minimum should behave. 🙂

  25. Pamela Gray (06:51:15) :
    “Who says nothing is happening!!! Climate change has had a HUGE pervasive and significant upward trending affect on internet blogs. Well, one, anyway.”
    It is also having a devastating impact in my productivity at work … oh oh … coworker … back to coding … for( i =

  26. Just one word added,( missed by the stenographer when taking notes):
    Political climate change is already having “pervasive, wide-ranging” effects on “nearly every aspect of our society,” a task force representing more than 20 federal agencies reported Tuesday.
    “These impacts will influence how and where we live and work as well as our cultures, health and environment,” the report states. “It is therefore imperative to take action now to adapt to a changing political climate.”

  27. “Climate change already is affecting the ability of Federal agencies to fulfill their missions.”

    A mailman got hit by a snowball?

  28. Henry chance (06:13:07) :
    So droughts were predicted to be up and stay that way in the Southwest US and it has been wet instead. Snow was ending in the northeast and we set records,
    You know-I keep reading about this snowy and cold winter we had on this site, But here in nothern VT, heating degree days are below normal for the season, winter started late by a month, and March, normally a winter month here, has had no snow (current high temp about 25F above normal). So with all the negative PDO talk, negative AO, volcanic activity, solar minumum, and oncoming ice age alarmism, where the hell is the cold weather? Where are the 20 and 30 F degree below nights in January that we had with regularity (over my previous 60 years) What happens when all those factors go the other way? Dont get me wrong, I’m all in favor of global cooling (being a skier) just aint seeing any. Just more of the same anemic winters that we have had for 15 years or so.

  29. Jim Clarke (06:21:26) — Can anyone name one negative impact they have personally suffered that can be attributed solely to climate change (natural or man made)?
    I’d like the vast number of hours of my life back I had to spend studying this rubbish so as to be able to help influence votes against the feds taking 90% of our pay in an effort to combat evil corporations and soccer moms in SUV’s.

  30. The OtherDan, check out the position of the jet stream and the AO. They work in tandem to provide the broad strokes of seasonal weather for larger areas. Add pressure gradients and cold/warm fronts coming from the Gulf and Atlantic to your geographical climate zone parameters, and you get local weather variations.

  31. Presumably the lack of a trend is yet another consequence of Climate Change. As predicted. In fact, if this keeps up, by the year 2035 we might well not have any weather at all !?!

  32. I measured the sea level yesterday, at 10:00am. I measured it today at exactly 10:00am and it was 6 inches higher. At this rate, we’ll be under 100 feet of water by the end of the year!

  33. The stat that 80% of the US population now lives in cities is possibly one of the reasons for alarmism to get such a foothold. People who stay in touch with the land are a tad harder to convince that the weather is doing other than what it has always done – swung about a resonably steady mean for temp, rainfall, snowfall and wind.
    Apropos UHI, I live in an ’80s housing development near Heathrow in London, UK. The development was the site of a Victorian brewery, complete with large stables for the large Shire horses, a dray yard and a feild for the horses to browse. In what was a semi-rural industrial site is now a large number of two-storied terraced houses, all centrally heated with gas-powered hot water supply, with asphalt roadways, footpaths, etc. Each household has only a small enclosed rear garden, which is the only grass/planted area in the development. Each household has at least one car, many have two, which are parked in front of the houses at night and in the weekends. Considering these changes, which are not uncommon around the Western world, how can Prof Jones maintain his assertion that UHI will not have increased over the past 100 years?

  34. The chickens are coming home to roost:
    Robust predictions of climate “disasters” and “catastrophe” increasing in number & intensity per climate models based on increased CO2 HAS NOT HAPPENED!
    This is primary falsification of the computer models.
    Falsification is a fatal blow — if the Scientific Method is respected.
    How does CO2 behave differently than O2 or N2, which make up roughly 99% of the atmosphere.
    In fact CO2 has a lower specific heat than O2 or N2.
    — Biggest hoax in history —

  35. R Shearer (09:11:02) :
    The OtherDan, just wait! Or, you could have moved to Florida.
    Been waiting-Thats what I’m saying-that ‘s the mantra here-just wait till next year. Nothing happens. Just warm winters in Vt
    I’ll pass on Florida. Opressively warm-even when “cold”.

  36. Recent summers in the corn belt have been cool, with the past summer being the coolest on record.

  37. We have proof now that AGW causes Environmentalists to issue extreme statements that are full of crap and come from the “we just make sh*t up” category of their fellow travelers in the journalistic and scientific professions.
    The co-relation is almost perfect.

  38. Joe Romm’s greatest fear. As the oceans rise, the freeboard on oil tankers will be gone and they will be swamped with water polluting the planet.
    More seriously, we do have hundreds of “Climate scientists” now ducking reality and offering conspiracy theory accusations and other wild projections.
    How did the “conspiracy theory” defense work for Enton leaders?

  39. We are just lucky the current trend is flat or nearly. Any trend positive or negative will be seized upon by the liberal bureaucrats.
    Their whole purpose is to MAKE the world a better place. They don’t want to Allow the world to be a better place, they use their own social filter and try to FORCE the world into their own world view.
    Conservatives are much less likely to force a minority view on society or toss blood/paint/oil/etc on their opponents.
    It’s about control and they aren’t making compromises.

  40. It looks like:
    1) Drought and Wet weather have a bit of an inverse relationship (makes sense). Those two graphs are not independent of each other.
    2) There seems to be a oscillatory relationship to those two curves as well (El Nino/La Nina related? If so, that makes sense as well).
    3) It would be nice if there was good hurricane/tropical storm data going back to at least 1950, so as to include the entire cool period of the 1960’s/1970’s. Instead the graph starts in 1979 (is that when good satellite monitoring started?). It looks like there might have been peaks in the 1990’s (1993 and 1998) that would have coincided with warming.

  41. James F. Evans (09:19:49) BTW computer models didn’t work in the recent Chilean quake and tsunami…still waiting in Hawaii for the tsunami and the telltale of the Nazca plate “subduction” under SA ended in the contrary, a “streching out” of more than 10 feet:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100308132043.htm
    BTW that’s bad news for Al Gore, an island near the epicenter “grew up” 7 feet above sea level.

  42. You know, the six page interim report, which everyone should read, is available here:
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/adaptation
    They’ve ALSO instituted a 60 day comment period and are inviting comments from the public and providing a link to do so. I think we should take them up on that… but politely, people, politely. You are not required to like the current occupant of the White House, but you ARE required to respect the office he holds.

  43. Scott Covert (09:31:51) :
    While liberals seem to have been the ones taken in this go-around, I don’t believe that a liberal-conservative view is appropriate. This AGW scam has progressed through Democratic and Republican administrations and been endorsed by both Big Business and Big Environment. We are witnessing a convergence of the interests of elitists and statists.

  44. “Corn likes it cool … Hotter fields mean lower yields for corn ” Timothy Telleen-Lawton.
    Where’s this guy from? New York City?
    You get those really toasty days in Iowa, you can hear the corn growing.

  45. @pat (09:05:35) :
    “The non trends prove AGW. Al Gore.”
    Pat: check your spelling.
    The man who used to be the next POTUS is spelled “AlGaW” .

  46. Actually, we have 3 distinct drought events in the US in the past.
    First one was 1840’s Columbia River Basin. Columbia River went to near dry and Forks of the Trinity went dry.
    Second one was 1870’s Sierra Nevada. Rainfall at Bowman Res. went 9″, 6″ and 3″ sucessively and 2 rivers went dry, whole thing lasted 11 years.
    Last one was Dust Bowl which went near nationwide.
    But for every drought, there is a flood.
    When you get no water in the West, you get too much in the East.
    When it’s broiling in the West, it’s freezing in the East.
    Those are the zero-sums that don’t show in global average.
    Dr. Phil Jones had data in his hands for the 1870’s US, from which I see a heat event taking place in California. It couples with the severe lack of precip in the Sierras of the same period. He may have thought it was an anomaly, because it put the hockey stick on the wrong end.
    None of this had anything to do with C02 or global warming.
    Nature can and has really dished it out.
    So, does anyone (Dr. Phil Jones included) have any idea where a source of the US Weather Bureau data from the 1870’s lies?

  47. Roger Knights (08:29:57) :
    “Climate change already is affecting the ability of Federal agencies to fulfill their missions.”
    A mailman got hit by a snowball?

    Nup — it’s because all the honchos are attending mandatory briefings on “How To Avoid Nausea During Presidential Press Briefings” and all the worker bees are surfing to WUWT…

  48. Jim Clarke (06:21:26) :
    “Can anyone name one negative impact they have personally suffered that can be attributed solely to climate change (natural or man made)?”
    Loss of about 200 lives in bushfires last year after record heat waves (including family relations and friends), record temperatures following years of consistently higher temps each decade, and the longest recorded period of below average rainfall.
    Major bushfires threatening my town in three of the past seven years – again unprecedented.
    Multi-year water restrictions and locals having no water supply left for domestic use. Followed by unparalleled torrential rain and hail. Record floods covering huge areas of land.
    That’s for starters – is it negative enough and personal enough? Or did you mean just those living in the USA?

  49. Gee…why can’t nature just do what the AGW’s want and make it easy for them?
    I have been thinking about generating a website called “The Great Global
    Warming Scandal Revealed in Pictures”

    I can post pix of my grapes in NW Ontario. Five years ago nice blue large ones, then smalled and greener, and last fall just little pellets the size of BB’s before extremely early October winter froze them again. No global warmalist can fool vegetation.
    Saipan

  50. Pamela Gray (08:47:35) :
    “The OtherDan, check out the position of the jet stream and the AO. They work in tandem to provide the broad strokes of seasonal weather for larger areas. Add pressure gradients and cold/warm fronts coming from the Gulf and Atlantic to your geographical climate zone parameters, and you get local weather variations.’
    And this happens every winter?

  51. The Task Farce is not speaking to the ordinary citizen. It is, rather, reapplying bags of propaganda to the fertile masses who have already fallen for the scam, with the intent of arousing their emotions.
    Something wicked this way comes.

  52. “Corn likes it cool…” — GW Advocate Timothy Telleen-Lawton.
    Wrong. Corn requires warm weather. But what else would you expect from these jokers? Tell a lie and quickly move on.

  53. We should ask Dr.Piers Corbyn his version, antagonistic of course, of Met Office’s map of global disaster…perhaps an extrapolation of the Maunder Minimum would work.

  54. Enneagram (09:46:43) :
    Thank you for the heads up.
    Computer models are no better than the assumptions & data inputted into the model. In Science empirical observations & measurements are filtered through the theoretical models used in analysis & interpretation.
    Conclusions are model-dependant filtering of observational data. That is to say, more often than not, conclusions are inferred based on the particular model applied to the observations & measurements.
    Isn’t that exactly what we have from AGW proponents?
    Enneagram (09:46:43) wrote: “BTW computer models didn’t work in the recent Chilean quake and tsunami…still waiting in Hawaii for the tsunami and the telltale of the Nazca plate ‘subduction’ under SA ended in the contrary, a ‘streching out’ of more than 10 feet:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100308132043.htm
    BTW that’s bad news for Al Gore, an island near the epicenter ‘grew up’ 7 feet above sea level.”
    The evidence you provided suggest a couple things: So-called “subduction” is a myth. Per the “subduction” hypothesis, the Pacific tectonic plate is pushing underneath the South American tectonic plate. Problem: This theoretically should push the South American plate EAST, if any direction, not West as was measured by as much as ten feet:
    “ScienceDaily (Mar. 8, 2010) — The massive magnitude 8.8 earthquake that struck the west coast of Chile last month moved the entire city of Concepcion at least 10 feet to the west, and shifted other parts of South America as far apart as the Falkland Islands and Fortaleza, Brazil.”
    And, Enneagram, pointed out that, “an island near the epicenter ‘grew up’ 7 feet above sea level.”
    Filter the two observations & measurements through a different model and it is strong evidence that the Earth is growing.
    Yes, I’m a heretic: The fundamental force of Electromagnetism is more powerful & decisive than gravity in many instances, the Earth is growing, and oil is abiotic.
    But after careful research & analysis I subscribe to these theories because that’s where the observations & measurements lead me.

  55. The problem with not being ‘politically correct’ – I do not know if this term is a UK concept only – is that you are almost always right.
    One means of being politically correct is to believe in AGW. Others might include the concepts of:
    i) believing that all politicians are decent honorable people, and
    ii) increasing taxation solely to fund the bureaucracies and welfare dependency systems in which the likes of Obama and Brown are passionate believers – this is at the very heart of the AGW controversy, a need to provide the rationale for increasing taxation.
    So here is a very serious politically incorrect statement: the greatest threat to the global environment is land clearances by peasants. From Amazonia to the Sahel and SE Asia, the result is the same – destruction of the natural environment in order to grow crops.
    In comparison, AGW is an irrelevance and the impact of a slight increase in global temperatures and a modest rise in carbon dioxide levels appear to be almost entirely beneficial to the environment.
    So it’s all about generating baseless scare stories designed to tax all those who make our economies prosper and thrive, as this post so clearly demonstrates. The sole beneficiaries, as Karl Marx might have said, are the Lumpen Proletariat.

  56. J.I.McKemey (06:07:11)

    This is interesting material and while I appreciate it responds to a US related quote. Can you provide similar trends (or rather lack of them) on a global scale?

    See my WUWT post here.
    w.

  57. A minor nit: part of the uptrend for corn is due to economic concerns – don’t forget our subsidies for ethanol production in the US!
    That said, nice summary presentation… (/sarcon) but what about those AGW indiced earthquakes? /sarcoff
    Come to think of it, is there any disaster scenario claimed by the CAGW crowd that is also not claimed by the fire and brimstone, Book of Revelations crowd?
    Maybe snakes? Snakes on a plane say what?
    😛

  58. Mike McMillan (09:57:34) :
    “Corn likes it cool … Hotter fields mean lower yields for corn ” Timothy Telleen-Lawton.
    Where’s this guy from? New York City?
    You get those really toasty days in Iowa, you can hear the corn growing.
    Actually, he’s from San Francisco. Sorta’ figures don’t it.

  59. Peter Miller (12:26:47)
    The sole beneficiaries, as Karl Marx might have said, are the Lumpen Proletariat
    Is it this way the bankers’ elite now call themselves? 🙂

  60. Sean Peake (12:49:25) :Just don’t discuss any more. The Incas from Peru obtained more than a thousand varieties for evry weather you choose. You only know the variety used for feeding chicken. BTW one of these varieties is PURPLE in color and it is used for preparing a purple beverage and a purple dessert.
    http://macapunch.com/maizmorado.htm

  61. Sou (10:49:20) :
    Jim Clarke (06:21:26) :
    “Can anyone name one negative impact they have personally suffered that can be attributed solely to climate change (natural or man made)?”
    Loss of about 200 lives in bushfires last year…
    Humans start the vast majority of those fires, as I’m sure you know, so nice try.
    Multi-year water restrictions and locals having no water supply left for domestic use. Followed by unparalleled torrential rain and hail. Record floods covering huge areas of land.
    Drought, floods, and to some extent fires are cyclically-occurring events there in Oz-land, are they not? Yes, humans can and do exacerbate them through overstocking, vegetation loss, dams, groundwater and irrigation schemes, as well as the arsonists. But you can’t very well blame that on “climate change”, can you?

  62. “Indeed, climate change has begun to affect the ability of government agencies to fulfill their missions, reports the White House Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force.”
    Yeah, sure. The inability of government agencies to fulfill their missions has been caused by Climate Change, not by bureaucratic incompetence and unproductive goals.
    True, the recent record snowstorms in D.C. did cause the government to shut down for a few days. I suspect the “taskforce” wouldn’t have accomplished anything of actual value though, even if it had been “working” for its pay:
    http://www.mpnblog.com/2010/03/hartzler-comment-on-federal-government.html

  63. James F. Evans (09:19:49) :
    “Falsification is a fatal blow — if the Scientific Method is respected.”
    Dead right, but try pinning the slippery AGW brigade down on falsifiability criteria and it’s hard work. On a purely layman-to-layman basis, I asked the assembled brethren on a hard-line AGW site: “What future temperature record would you to consider refuting AGW hypothesis?” I got three answers: (i) (paraphrased) “Ahhhh, no! Yer not getting us un THAT one!” (ii) “It might take 20 or 30 years to answer that, but even then other forcings may drive the thermometer down, masking the global warming trend.” and (iii) “If the annual average GISS anomaly dips twice below 0.35C in the next 20 years, it’s a dead duck.”
    For my part, if that same annual GISS anomaly twice exceeds 0.75C then I’ll become a warmist. And start building an ark.

  64. Well when you look at that drought graph, it almost makes you think that warmer temperatures (say in the late 1970s/80s/90s (early)) lead to more evaporation.precipitation, which would certainly mean less droughts somewhere.
    Unfortunately, since Trenberth’s energy budget cartoon shows an isothermal planet, there are no Temperature differences to cause air or water to move from one place to another; so who knows where droughts, or undroughts are going to occur.
    Gaia knows where the temperature differences are; since she has a thermometer built into every single molecule/atom, so she really does good sampling.
    Yes those climate models really have this problem whipped; well they are extremely good on predictions especially about the past.

  65. “”” “ScienceDaily (Mar. 8, 2010) — The massive magnitude 8.8 earthquake that struck the west coast of Chile last month moved the entire city of Concepcion at least 10 feet to the west, and shifted other parts of South America as far apart as the Falkland Islands and Fortaleza, Brazil.” “””
    I don’t think the Falkland Islands are actually part of South America. Like the South Orkneys, and South Georgia, they are part of the UK I think. Well not geologically, but culturally.

  66. There’s been a significant upward trend in hot air. Our government has even established a Deparment of Hot Air, headed by Penny Wrong … Wong, to sinophiles.

  67. George E. Smith (13:52:06) :
    I don’t think the Falkland Islands are actually part of South America.

    They are geologically…and if climate change policies keep on destroying the UK, they will be politically too.

  68. Enneagram and James F Evans:
    Subduction isn’t necessarily a myth.
    The Pacific plate cannot push the whole of S America east so, over time it compresses the western margin of S America until suddenly they slip past each other (ie the Pacific plate goes under S America) and S America springs back to its uncompressed position – 10 feet to the west (or whatever it was).

  69. I find it astonishing that many ‘intelligent’ people in US politics go along with this AGW nonsense when the facts on the ground often contradict the dire predictions and even if they didn’t the graphs would show nothing unusual on a 100 year timescale.
    Here are some more failed predictions and forecasts.
    http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/

  70. Corn gets many people confused – in Europe, corn generally means wheat or barley, but strictly is simply a cereal grain crop. Maize was the “corn” of early US European settlement and in the meaning of a cereal grain crop is still correct. The word corn has a similar etymology to grain. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/corn
    However, maize is a hot climate crop, while wheat and barley are temperate climate crops.
    Without defining which corn is being considered, the statement is pretty meaningless.

  71. “”” HereticFringe (07:41:44) :
    Given that 90% of all tornadoes in the world occur in North America, I’m not sure what additional data you will get from looking at tornado activity worldwide… “””
    Well actually, we are trying to improve our score; that’s why. We don’t think anyone else should be aloud to have Tornadoes.
    Most other people make do with water spouts; so why do they need tornadoes ?

  72. I’m late to the party today.
    Last month, when the warmers were trying feverishly to convince the world that the east coast blizzards proved global warming, I blogged about another non-trend that doesn’t look good for the AGW’ers – precipitation. When the world gets warmer, it is supposed to cause more rain. Warmer = Wetter. Well, here is what the data shows according to the EPA.

    Precipitation has generally increased over land north of 30°N from 1900-2005, but has mostly declined over the tropics since the 1970s. Globally there has been no statistically significant overall trend in precipitation over the past century, although trends have varied widely by region and over time.

    Oops. That is a rather inconvenient truth.

  73. The link between global warming and droughts is actually quite weak. In fact there is reason to believe that global warming may cause the exact opposite with increased rainfall across many drought prone areas.
    Have you ever wondered why the cradles of civilisation in North Africa and the Middle East are all bone dry deserts today? Clearly these areas were a lot wetter back when people chose to live there and build those civilisations.
    Put this together with the recently rediscovered Roman warm period and there is very good reason to believe that significant global warming might lead to a lot more rainfall across northern Africa and the middle east, and even a retreat of the sahara desert.

  74. @Bruce Cobb (13:22:29) :
    I don’t know what country you live in, so will forgive your insensitivity and the repugnant tone of your comment. Australia (not Oz) has always had fires, drought and flood – but nothing like we’ve been seeing lately. Weather and natural disaster records keep being broken every year.
    And most fires get put out, including those started by humans. The devastating fires throughout the State on Black Saturday last year were started from various causes (probably most not from arson), and were uncontrollable killers precisely because of the unprecedented conditions. I cannot even describe the conditions but if you can imagine several years of below average rainfall (AKA drought) making the vegetation tinder dry, a fortnight where it reached temperatures (up to 117F) never before reached in the region (AKA a most serious and long-lasting heat wave after a long and very hot summer during a decade-long drought), and after that fortnight fierce hot dry winds roaring across the state. 200 people may not mean much to you, but almost everyone in Victoria knew some who died, and many of us lost family members and friends.
    We know the weather is changing. Records are still being broken. Even this year, in what feels like a mild summer (compared with last year) with almost ‘normal’ rainfall, for the first time in the 155 years of weather records, Melbourne has had more than 100 consecutive days of temps above 20C. The closest to this was in 2000-01 when it had 78 consecutive days above 20C. It also recently had record-breaking torrential rain and hail. All consistent with predicted climate change.
    If your weather isn’t changing, you’re lucky. But don’t dismiss the fact that there is a big world out there and that climate change is already well and truly with some of us.
    Have a look at the State of the Climate down here in Australia. Or keep your head in the sand – whatever suits you. Nature doesn’t care much whether people believe what she’s doing or not. But she’s prepared to change if we are.
    I was asked a question and answered. Some people just don’t like the answers so they belittle them. Some people will live in places where the climate won’t change so much. Others like those who live in my part of the world, see it happening in our lifetime.

  75. Humans are extremely egocentric. Throughout all ages Man has thought that He was living at an amazing period of time which, of course, is pure BS. As depressing as it sounds, in the great scheme of things, we are really Nothing living in a Nothing time.
    But, hey, life is great anyway. Let’s make the most of it.

  76. Who believes we can trust Warren Meyer to tell the unvarnished truth and always exercise due scientific diligence?
    Not me.
    Here is a post where his ‘Coyote’ blog reveals that ‘Nearly all the reported warming in the USHCN data base, which is used for nearly all global warming studies and models, is from human-added fudge factors, guesstimates, and corrections.’
    http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/an-interesting-.html
    One small problem. The adjustments are in degrees Farenheit, the increase is in Celsius. Shall I repeat that? Ok. Warren Meyer has a web page up where he compares measurements in two incompatible units as if they were the same. The error has been pointed out in comments, yet the page remains up, misleading readers. Imagine for a moment the fuss if (say) Professor Phil Jones made such a schoolboy howler, and failed to retract it ….
    Meyer is demonstrably not a reliable source. Warren remains on Anthony’s ‘blogroll’. Need we say more?

  77. Sou (17:43:06),
    You’re new here. The AU fire has been thoroughly discussed in real time, in several articles. Here’s one of them: click

  78. Sou (17:43:06),
    You’re new here. The AU fire has been thoroughly discussed in real time, in several articles. Here’s one of them: click
    ——
    REPLY: Sou, we are terribly sorry for your personal losses, and the losses of all our Aussie friends. I’m familiar with these fires, they were devastating to the koala population and local ecosystems. Bad stuff, eucalyptus burns like gasoline when dry.
    However, to blame any world drought conditions on global warming in general is misleading, as proof of absolute temperature increases is lacking.
    Contributors to this blog spend many hours analyzing the data, presenting alternative hypothesis and discussing results, and we do not believe that this science is settled. Many of us are scientists who are at least as qualified as the climatologists who control the peer review process in the journals.
    That being said, we praise our friends down under for their resilience and hope such fires never occur again, for whatever reasons.

  79. @Warrick
    Heat units and corn for the interested. Yes corn likes it warm
    http://www.farmwest.com/index.cfm?method=library.showPage&librarypageid=131
    It’s and American report — you can get the full report where it says [here] at the bottom of the extract.
    http://www.environmentamerica.org/news-releases/global-warming-solutions/global-warming-solutions/new-report-global-warming-will-cost-american-corn-growers-billions
    It’s simpler just to provide the facts.
    But I will say that Tim should get his facts straight or explain why his report flies in the face of current knowledge.
    I have grown lots of corn (American / Canadian definition) — Corn Like it Hot!

  80. Sou (17:43:06) :
    I don’t know what country you live in but i live in Oz and this year it has been rather a mild summer for us on the east coast.

  81. An item from
    http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=globalwarming&thread=1128&page=4#43726
    ” … a really good view of what this passing winter meant to the continental US go to the following link.
    http://www.gasalberta.com/pricing-supply.htm
    Scroll down to US Storage. They blew through record natural gas storage. Most analysts believed it would take two very cold winters to do that with the collapsed industrial demand and the prolific nature of the new shale gas discoveries when they first go into production.
    It’s a differently structured site. You might want to just go to the following and go to ‘Pricing’, then ‘Gas Pricing’, and then ‘Supply and Demand’ in the menu on top and click around and look at stuff.
    http://www.gasalberta.com/
    There does exist a measurement called “degree days”
    which inversely relates temperature to gas usage …
    Probably at least as good as tree rings.

  82. Sou (17:43:06) :
    You need to get two things: a grip and a clue. If you supported or approved of the regulations preventing property owners from cutting back the brush on their properties, then I have zero sympathy. The drought is not new, the temperatures are not unprecedented and my friends in Victoria refer to the place as OZ. Do as many others here have done, investigate the records for yourself and don’t rely on the self-serving, pre-chewed press-release stuff from CSIRO. You’ve been lied to and manipulated. Direct your outrage to where it belongs.

  83. @ Smokey (18:07:39)
    I know that some people believe everything they read but just as with much in the media, that story is not at all as some would have you believe. In the heat of the moment no journalist bothered to check the facts, as told here:
    http://uydec.org.au/dp/node/298
    But Smokey’s linking to the above non-story is a rather ordinary example of an attempt to move discussion away from the issue, which was the question about who has been adversely affected by climate change. In this case it just threw the spotlight on more people who’ve been affected adversely by our changing climate. And it’s not just more frequent and larger and fiercer fires.
    The thing is, a few people who live in cold climates think global warming would be great. Thankfully, most sensible people know that by taking no action and thereby warming their own cool climate, they are also making some hot places unbearably hot, which will have unintended consequences.
    BTW, Smokey, good to see you’re still a fan 😀

  84. Sou (19:06:31),
    I have plenty of sympathy for the poor guy in the article that was linked. Natural disasters like that are extremely hard on everyone concerned.
    That link was commented on by quite a few Aussies who were there, or had friends and relatives affected. You might read their comments under the article. Similar stories and comments about the fire were posted on WUWT around the same time.
    But as far as climate change goes, the climate always changes. CO2 has very little to do with it, if anything. Only people like Michael Mann want us to believe the climate was unchanging throughout the past thousand years, even during the MWP and LIA, as his Hokey Stick chart claims.
    Much damage and loss of life in that fire would have been averted with sensible regulations, such as allowing homeowners to clear the trees and brush from around their dwellings.
    There have always been terrible fires. We had one in my area, in Berkeley, California in 1991. Dozens of people were killed, hundreds injured, and over three thousand homes were burned to the ground. As in Australia, climate change had little or nothing to do with the Berkeley fire. The major cause was bad planning.

  85. “Smokey (18:07:39) :
    Sou (17:43:06),
    You’re new here. The AU fire has been thoroughly discussed in real time, in several articles. Here’s one of them: click”
    yup, environmental policies lead to an increase in fuel load. Worse bushfires are then (laughably) blamed on climate change when in fact they are largely the direct result of ‘green’ politics.

  86. Sou
    I cannot even describe the conditions but if you can imagine several years of below average rainfall (AKA drought) making the vegetation tinder dry, a fortnight where it reached temperatures (up to 117F) never before reached in the region (AKA a most serious and long-lasting heat wave after a long and very hot summer during a decade-long drought), and after that fortnight fierce hot dry winds roaring across the state.
    End
    Knowing all that why were residents advised to stay or go?
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/victoria-bushfires-inquiry-recommends-overhaul-of-stay-or-go-policy/story-e6frg6n6-1225762875329
    http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/dse/nrenfoe.nsf/childdocs/-D79E4FB0C437E1B6CA256DA60008B9EF?open

  87. Speaking of droughts:
    These data sets are from Phil Jones 91 and 99 CRU (raw and slightly modified)
    Sacramento:
    http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/SacCRU.GIF
    flat as a pancake
    Red Bluff:
    http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/RedBluffAveCRU.GIF
    Showing the 1870’s 10-11 year drought and one very hot 1875
    (no…that’s not an errant report…check out more below)
    Redding:
    http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/ReddingCRU99.GIF
    Still showing the 1875 hot year even though Phil edited it
    Livermore:
    http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/LiverMCRU99.GIF
    Cooking as well in the 1870’s.
    Santa Cruz:
    http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/SantaCruzCRU.GIF
    What were you expecting? Santa Cruz is on the ocean. It’s just warm in the early part before starting another long cycle.
    The only station that was involved directly in the drought but doesn’t show it is Sacramento…Delta Breezes. I’m guessing that’s what got cut off in the drought and make those awful hot years, the likes of which we haven’t seen since.
    Just wanted to pre-empt those pesky warmist who jump up & down every time there’s a dry year. When the brown stuff hits the fan next time, don’t claim it never happened before, because it surely did.
    And, according to AMS, Spring was very late and Winter very early for everything East of the Rockies in 1875. A devastating nationwide non-trend if there ever was one we got the records on.
    The drought of the 1870’s info. comes from the book:
    Treatise on Hydraulic Mining by Augustus J. Bowie.
    The library system can’t get it for me because the Univ. system has it impounded for academic reasons given. This is what our librarian in town told me.
    Fine by me, I read the book in the 1970’s, and you don’t forget data like that.
    The rest of you might want to pull some weight and get it.
    Key vintage volume / highly damaging to AGW theory.
    Precipitation data is not available anywhere else that I know of back that far.

  88. NickB. (12:39:30)

    A minor nit: part of the uptrend for corn is due to economic concerns – don’t forget our subsidies for ethanol production in the US!

    You missed the fine print. The graph is for yield (production per acre), not total production. If anything, increased demand should drive yield down, not up, because land less suitable for corn will be pressed into production.

  89. Never mind the facts – it is the theory and computer models you need to take notice of.
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n3/abs/ngeo779.html
    “Therefore, it remains uncertain whether past changes in tropical cyclone activity have exceeded the variability expected from natural causes. However, future projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms……”

  90. Jim Clarke (06:21:26) :
    Loss of about 200 lives in bushfires last year…
    err, no
    I will provide a local Australian perspective:
    There have been bigger and more devastating bushfires in Victorian history. 1939 was bigger.
    The devastation of the Black Saturday bushfires last year in Victoria, Australia, was caused by higher population densities in bushfire prone area, and a failure to control burn forest undergrowth.
    This failure to control burn scrub and undergrowth was due to the deep green policies of green state and local politicians. You voted for this, you got it.
    Multi-year water restrictions and locals having no water supply left for domestic use. Followed by unparalleled torrential rain and hail. Record floods covering huge areas of land.
    Floods and droughts are part of the Australian landscape. Always has been, always will be. What we have seen over the last 10 years in not unprecedented. BoM data will confirm this.
    Water restrictions are again due to anti development green politicians who refuse to build dams to supply water to a growing population.

  91. Sorry guys, I didn’t mean to distract you from the topic of the thread. I realise many of you don’t understand what’s happening because you’re not living it, and because blogs like this tend to attract people who may not be very aware of the actual situation and unintentionally post or link to misleading reports. (Some people even seem to favour razing all the national parks, not allowing any trees except exotic deciduous varieties and maybe even just paving the whole state with concrete and asphalt.)
    Anyway, just for the record:
    Precautionary off-season burning has been happening as much as if not more than ever, so the increasing frequency and ferocity of fires can’t be blamed on lack of burning off by government agencies. Some people favour living on bush blocks and deliberately choose to cultivate such environments, accepting they are more risky when it comes to fire. Unfortunately, with warming, the safe windows for burning off are getting narrower so in future we can’t expect to be able to burn off the same areas. Also, after a ‘good year’, there will be more vegetation and more fuel for fires in drier hotter years. That’s just the result of the shift to a hotter and drier climate in this part of the world.
    The go or stay policy has always applied in Victoria. We’re a democracy and reasonable laid back, and have managed to avoid implementing draconian martial law so far. What the policy means is if you decide to go, then go early. Only stay if you are physically fit, prepared to fight, have ample equipment, shelter and protection (ie a fully implemented bushfire plan.) Too many people waited till it was too late – or decided to stay even when there was no easy route out. Fallen trees blocked narrow roads so many people got trapped and couldn’t escape. Some people had nowhere to escape to – the fire turned on its side and a super-wide fire front tore across the state.
    The go or stay policy works for people who live in rural areas and who are more attuned to the weather and more prepared for fires. Those living in peri-urban areas, where there was the greatest loss of life, often spend most of their lives in the city and are less aware of bushfire behaviour, and didn’t take sufficient heed of the multiple dire warnings broadcast all over the radio and television in advance of Black Saturday.
    Maybe for these peri-urban and suburban areas there does need to be a re-think of the approach and some sort of mandatory evacuation procedure legislated. I’m not convinced it would work. Some people will always choose to stay even when it’s most risky. Some people still have no understanding of how fire can behave.
    BTW I also realise that lots of people don’t want to believe the facts, preferring to blame the ‘greenies’, or the ‘conservationists’ or the ‘government’ or anyone at all that they fear or loathe. Some of you have basically accused me of lying or being deluded. But for me and my neighbours and other Victorian’s this ‘delusion’ is our reality, because we actually live here. And it’s not just our ‘memories’ or recollections. The weather records of the past several decades show exactly what is happening.
    The thing is, of course, that this is just the start. There is more to come with CO2 still rising. Some people apparently think that if the best or even the worst projections for 2100 haven’t happened by 2010 then they won’t happen at all. There are 90 more years of trends yet to come.
    That’s enough from me on this topic. Obviously some people have an open mind and some people have already made up their mind. I know if anyone is reading this and wants to investigate further, they will do so. Others will continue to make comments that reinforce their personal view of the world, regardless of any evidence.

  92. Sou (22:41:16) :
    ‘The weather records of the past several decades show exactly what is happening.’
    I happen to live in a very mis-managed forest. Every other year we choke as the ‘let it burn’ policy allows fires to run out of control, and no salvage allowed due to greenie lawsuits, so it burns again and again.
    Where exactly is YOUR raw data layout?
    I have given mine at:
    http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/WhatGlobalWarming.htm
    It ain’t happening here.

  93. The author of the original Reuters AlertNet article is Frances Beinecke, with no affiliation or other identification is given.
    Google turns up the fact that Ms Beinecke is no Reuters reporter and far from a disinterested party. Actually she is president of the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), the notorious activist group. She has evidently worked for NRDC her entire working life.
    http://www.nrdc.org/about/frances_beinecke.asp
    According to Activist Cash website, while at NRDC Francis was also responsible for the infamous, and later completed discredited, Alar (apple) scare.
    http://activistcash.com/biography.cfm/b/1391-frances-beinecke
    I believe the CIA term for the placement of this type of article with no identifying information for the author is called a “false flag” operation.
    Both the article and the “White House Report” are essentially 100% propaganda, not science.

  94. Sou (22:41:16) :

    … Unfortunately, with warming, the safe windows for burning off are getting narrower so in future we can’t expect to be able to burn off the same areas. Also, after a ‘good year’, there will be more vegetation and more fuel for fires in drier hotter years. That’s just the result of the shift to a hotter and drier climate in this part of the world.
    …Obviously some people have an open mind and some people have already made up their mind.

    Well, since I hadn’t made up my mind, I thought I’d look at the data. The Victoria fires were roughly bounded by the area Latitude Range -37.5 to -35, Longitude Range -145 to -142.5.
    The temperature trend 1995-2009 in that area, per the MSU dataset, is -0.1°C per year.
    So I know you live there and all, but you really should check the data before claiming that there is a “shift to a hotter … climate in this part of the world.” Because the “weather records of the past several decades” don’t bear you out.
    Even looking at the trend of the entire satellite record, we see a warming of just under half a degree in thirty years … be still my beating heart. The human body can’t even detect that small of a warming. You’ll have to pick something else to blame the fires on, because whatever the reason is, it’s not a half a degree of average warming in a third of a century …
    Regarding the drought, yes, 2009 was a dry year, and so were the previous three years. But overall? Here’s the closest station with a long-term rainfall record:

    So the recent drought in the area is not anomalous. It was drier in the forties, heck, 2009 wasn’t even among the top ten driest years … and the overall trend of the entire dataset is wetter, not dryer, and is basically flat.
    Conclusion? You are not in any kind of a shift to a “drier climate” as you claim. You are in one of the many dry periods in Australia, the dryest continent on the planet.
    PS – Don’t trust the Australian BOM temperature database, it is chock full of UHI and curious adjustments.
    We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming …

  95. Robert E. Phelan (09:48:33)

    You know, the six page interim report, which everyone should read, is available here:
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/adaptation
    They’ve ALSO instituted a 60 day comment period and are inviting comments from the public and providing a link to do so. I think we should take them up on that… but politely, people, politely. You are not required to like the current occupant of the White House, but you ARE required to respect the office he holds.

    I submitted my comment to the fools that wrote the report, you should too. The site for comments is here.
    Yeah, I wasn’t as polite as I should be. I respect both the President and the office he holds as Robert suggests … but respect the bureaucrats that are staffing the Climate Change Adaptation Task Force just because it says “White House” in the title?? Respecting the President and his office is one thing, I’m proud to do that, but respecting his house is another thing entirely. Sorry, I wouldn’t be Willis the Merciless™ if I did that, but as always, YMMV …
    w.
    Here’s my comment:

    Your report is a joke. You claim that in the US “climate change is affecting, and will continue to affect, nearly every aspect of our society and the environment. Some of the impacts are increased severity of floods, droughts, and heat waves, increased wildfires, and sea level rise.”
    However, not one of these is true. See
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/19/devastating-non-trends-in-us-climate/
    and
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/13/congenital-climate-abnormalities/
    if you actually want to find out what is happening.
    Your claims might be credible if they were backed up by a single solitary citation … but since you have not provided even one citation, it’s just anecdote.
    I thought you guys were scientists, or at least interested in the science.
    w.

  96. Willis Eschenbach (01:18:52) :
    You’re right, of course. I’m still working on my comment…. as should everyone else here. The interim report is vacuous, the 2009 report is simply a falsehood. It was written to mislead Congress.

  97. “Climate change is already having “pervasive, wide-ranging” effects on “nearly every aspect of our society,”
    This statement is obviously nonsense. But if you change “climate change” to “the climate change delusion”, then it makes perfect sense.
    It’s one thing to forecast all kinds of doom some time in the future. People have been doing this for centuries. The fact that I’m sitting at my keyboard and typing this post strongly suggests that the doom-mongers are always wrong.
    But it’s another thing to claim that the mild 20th century warming is already having terrible effects, and maybe already killing millions. That’s a lie, pure and simple. And these graphs show that it’s a lie.
    If the warming really has had a bad effect then there should be lots of hockey stick graphs from around the world, showing an increase in droughts, floods, storms, species extinctions etc etc. But as far as I’m aware these kinds of hockey sticks are as illusory as the Mann variety.
    The collection of graphs shown here is very useful, but it’s just a start. I’ve spent some time searching for such data, but with limited success. I found some Palmer Drought Index for regions of the US, which of course showed no trend.
    I found the rainfall data for Australia (they have an excellent site with all the data from around 1900). Of course, there has a been a serious drought problem in some Australian regions. Surprisingly, the data shows that in fact the overall rainfall for the continent has been steadily increasing over recent decades. For the regions that have experienced drought, there was some decline, but rainfall levels were merely returning to their early 20th century levels.
    It would be great if all data of this kind from around the world could be collected and made available at one place, maybe at WUWT. Of course, there should be no cherry-picking of the data. If there really are drought or storm hockey sticks, they should be included if available.
    My expectation is that this collection of data would demonstrate clearly that the world is actually in pretty good shape, for example with global food production growing faster than the population.
    The real problem isn’t caused by climate change, unless the world continues to get colder. The real problems are caused by some of the people that live on it. No names, but you can probably guess who!
    Chris

  98. Juraj V. (07:19:52) :
    “This is also very good read – GLOBAL drought myths debunked.”
    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/02/24/update-on-global-drought-patterns-ipcc-take-note/
    Many thanks, that’s very useful. I was particularly interested in the graph for Africa, which shows no trend.
    Several years ago I heard David Miliband on the BBC Today program. He was at the sight of an African drought where people were probably dying. He said something like (with reference to climate change):
    “The debate is over. The evidence is all around me….”
    Well, I have news for Miliband. There were droughts long before carbon dioxide was invented. Did he have scientific evidence that drought in that region had increased with global warming? I doubt it. There’s no trend for Africa overall. To be honest, I found his attempt to use the suffering of people to push his deranged beliefs in CAGW pretty sickening….
    Chris

  99. @ Willis, lol – you choose not to believe the experts at our Bureau of Meteorology so I won’t point you there. And you obviously don’t care for the accounts of people who have had to live through the recent drought, fires, floods and record temperatures, except for the rabid anti-environmentalists who spout a lot of unsubstantiated rubbish.
    But for others who might have a more sceptical bent than many people on these boards, have a geek at this chart of south eastern australia temperature trends.
    Warning – it helps if you can read charts, look at the mean temp since about 1950 where it’s risen more than 1.5C already. Or the max temp which has gone up nearly 2C over the same period. It’s the extremes that get you. Or look at the rainfall to 2009, with nine years of below average rain, the longest consecutive period since 1900. Or if you want to look at the history of the main reservoirs, check out the Melbourne Water website or the Goulburn Murray website – and compare the water levels this decade to last year with the early 1990s.
    Or have a gander at this Statement of the Climate.
    Sure, maybe I’ve become suddenly sensitive to a bit of heat, but then everyone I know has suffered the same malady. And my own thermometers might have gone awry, but if they did, so did the thermometers of everyone else who has one. And my eyes might have deceived me when I saw near empty reservoirs and rivers, but then so did everyone elses. And the fires I’ve experienced might have been my imagination and the fact that there have been more fierce ones this decade than in my entire 60 years here could be a faulty memory – but then everyone else I know must also have false memories.

  100. Sou (22:41:16) :
    Obviously some people have an open mind and some people have already made up their mind. I know if anyone is reading this and wants to investigate further, they will do so. Others will continue to make comments that reinforce their personal view of the world, regardless of any evidence.
    Yes, we can certainly agree on that. Unfortunately, the people who have made up their minds, who allow their own personal views of the world and for whom neither facts nor actual science will convince them that they are wrong perfectly describes you and your ilk. Obviously, you feel an emotional need to blame the bush fires, and the resulting deaths on something other than the actual facts. It is easier to just blame the boogeyman of manmade climate change instead of facing reality: that you happen to live in a part of the world with a harsher climate than others, and that often times the effects of that harsher climate can be made even more severe by the wrongheaded governmental policies.
    But, go ahead, continue to blame C02, as you undoubtedly will.

  101. Sou (06:13:16) :
    Or look at the rainfall to 2009, with nine years of below average rain, the longest consecutive period since 1900 – so what happened in 1900, CO2.
    Or if you want to look at the history of the main reservoirs, check out the Melbourne Water website or the Goulburn Murray website – and compare the water levels this decade to last year with the early 1990s. Of course it wouldn’t have anything to do with Water mismanagement or the increases in Population.
    No blame CO2.

  102. @ Bruce, I blame last year’s fires on the catastrophic weather conditions. Record high temperatures reaching an unheard of 47C in Melbourne, and higher in other parts of the state. The temp where I live reached 45.6C, about 3.2C more than the previous high. We’d had more than a week of these record temperatures without the wind. Add wind and a spark to the mix and whoosh! The tinder dry vegetation and the hot, strong winds, with a predicted shift from northerlies to southerlies, which would shift the fire front and make it burn on the long front. The conditions were unprecedented in the region and the warnings were long loud and clear. The fire danger rating was off the charts. Any aware person would have known that a spark from any source would set off a conflagration that day. That was the reality and I assure you I was most definitely prepared.
    However it is very likely that the record high temperatures, in line with the increasing mean, min and max temps each successive decade, plus the nine years of below average rainfall have been the result of a climate shift in our region, which is highly likely to be the result of the rising CO2, and is well in line with predictions made for our region some decades ago. It’s commonly called the greenhouse effect. You might like to look it up. It’s not that hard to grasp the basics, and all the evidence points to it having a real effect as most people know (unless they live in the USA perhaps where some polls suggest only about half the people know this?)
    Time will tell if there is indeed a permanent shift to drier and hotter conditions in south eastern Australia. We’ve had a spell this summer, even though the temps are still above average we haven’t had too many days above 38C to 40C, thankfully. And we’ve had a lot of rain, even though much of it has fallen as torrents rather than more steady, soaking rain. It would be nice if we get at least a couple more years of decent rain so that the reservoirs and rivers can start to fill up again.
    Nothing is black and white and the future is unknown. Much as it would be comforting to have certainty, we don’t. But I’m preparing for the change in any case, which seems the wise course to take, as it is most likely going to be the reality for the future. If our local climate changes back again, no harm no foul and I’ll still be better off.
    I agree with you that wrongheaded government policies can make a harsh climate even more severe. We aren’t yet used to harsh climates like we have now in our temperate zone (or what used to be a temperate zone). (Other parts of the country are used to the sort of weather we’ve started to get.) Let’s hope that governments can put some decent policies in place so the future is less bleak.

  103. Cyclical spikes in both dry and wet weather roughly approximating the el nino/la nina cycle, I can’t imagine that. The nino/nina cycle has been known for near a century yet it is news to lots of climate people out there, willful ignorance is great. Even poor dirt farmers in south east asia with no tv or internet know that about every 4-5 years there will be an el nino event which will cause problems with their crops, but it is a huge agw mystery why there are dry spells in the US southwest and then wet spells. Maybe the agw people need to get their weather information from people who make a living forecasting for traders and therefore need to be right rather than people who forecast weather and climate for grant money and need to suck up to politicians with a cause rather than show what is really out there. mpw

  104. Willis Eschenbach (01:18:52) :
    Here’s my comment:
    Gentlemen:
    I’ve read your Progress Report several times now and have found it neither accurate nor informative. It is a vacuous piece of propaganda intended to achieve partisan political goals at the expense of the tax-paying public. “… it is imperative to take action now to adapt to a changing climate…” Gentlemen, the climate is always changing and the changes we are witnessing are not new, unprecedented or a crisis. What is unprecedented is the sheer effrontery of public servants attempting to convince a free people to accept authoritarian government.
    This document and the earlier report it references (Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States) is false and misleading and directly aimed at influencing members of Congress. It is my hope that Congress and the American people realize the extent of this deception and the corruption of science and take firm, appropriate action.

  105. Sou (07:26:08) :
    However it is very likely that the record high temperatures, in line with the increasing mean, min and max temps each successive decade

    Put forth your station data.
    What stations are you basing your claim of AGW on?

  106. Sou (07:26:08) : edit

    @ Bruce, I blame last year’s fires on the catastrophic weather conditions. Record high temperatures reaching an unheard of 47C in Melbourne, and higher in other parts of the state. The temp where I live reached 45.6C, about 3.2C more than the previous high. We’d had more than a week of these record temperatures without the wind. Add wind and a spark to the mix and whoosh! The tinder dry vegetation and the hot, strong winds, with a predicted shift from northerlies to southerlies, which would shift the fire front and make it burn on the long front. The conditions were unprecedented in the region and the warnings were long loud and clear. The fire danger rating was off the charts. Any aware person would have known that a spark from any source would set off a conflagration that day. That was the reality and I assure you I was most definitely prepared.
    However it is very likely that the record high temperatures, in line with the increasing mean, min and max temps each successive decade, plus the nine years of below average rainfall have been the result of a climate shift in our region, which is highly likely to be the result of the rising CO2, and is well in line with predictions made for our region some decades ago. It’s commonly called the greenhouse effect. You might like to look it up. It’s not that hard to grasp the basics, and all the evidence points to it having a real effect as most people know (unless they live in the USA perhaps where some polls suggest only about half the people know this?)

    Sou, you seem to think I disagree with you about the conditions leading to the fire. Yes, the temperatures were high, and the state was dry, and when that happens, you get catastrophic fires. We agree on that 100%.
    But when you take the huge jump from that to it being “very likely” that this is from rising CO2, you’ve gone from facts to fantasy.
    To establish cause and effect, you need to have this thing we call “evidence”, I’m sure even Australians have heard of it. You have not provided any … nor has anyone. Yes, we have plenty of climate models written by people who support the CO2 hypothesis, and surprise of surprises, the climate model results support the CO2 hypothesis, but where is the evidence?
    Yes, CO2 is rising, and so is the price of stamps. Does that mean CO2 is responsible for rising stamp prices?
    And yes, temperatures have risen in Australia over the last century. This should not be a surprise to anyone, as temperatures have been slowly rising since the Little Ice Age. See Akasufo here, or the Armagh and CET records here.
    But if you think the rising temperatures are due to CO2, you’ll have to explain why “global warming” started in 1650 or so.
    I await your explanation of the post-1650 warming, and how it relates to CO2 …

  107. Sou (07:26:08) :
    it is very likely that the record high temperatures, in line with the increasing mean, min and max temps each successive decade, plus the nine years of below average rainfall have been the result of a climate shift in our region, which is highly likely to be the result of the rising CO2, and is well in line with predictions made for our region some decades ago. It’s commonly called the greenhouse effect. You might like to look it up. It’s not that hard to grasp the basics, and all the evidence points to it having a real effect as most people know (unless they live in the USA perhaps where some polls suggest only about half the people know this?)
    Sorry, bub, but the greenhouse effect has been vastly overrated, which you would know if you bothered to read beyond the narrow sphere of the CAGW/CC bilge you obviously imbibe. The evidence certainly might “suggest” C02 as the culprit, to either the hopelessly naive, the willfully ignorant, or the disingenuous.
    Some of us prefer to actually delve into things a bit deeper, though, you know, for something closer to the truth, rather than the pablum the truth-challenged folks of the IPCC, and your heroes, Hansen, Mann, and Gore dish out. But, different strokes, I guess.

  108. The corn yields are not indicating anything about climate- the increase you see is the genetic yield improvement of varieties and the use of fertilizer- what is generally described as technology factors. Deviations from the trend line is a result of weather/climate variability. As far as corn liking warm weather- it does provided it does not go above 90F and it has sufficient precip.

  109. Hmmm, it looks as if a few people posting here are not very familiar with the known and established properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gases and would like me to explain it to them. They are asking me to give a basic science lesson on why rising concentrations of CO2 lead to an increase in global temperature, and why the reverse happens. This is not new science. I’d erroneously thought that, given the amount of space this site devotes to climate change, most people here would know about the properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gases and how they keep the earth warm and supporting life as we know it.
    There is ample information elsewhere on the internet, from popular articles for the non-scientist to detailed scientific books and publications and excellent series of videos.
    Do a search on greenhouse effect, or CO2 and climate or similar. A knowledge of high school physics will help, but isn’t essential if you’re prepared to put your mind to it. A lot of general science textbooks for schools will have a description. Be aware that there are a lot of popular sites on the internet that don’t explain things properly. Some are even set up to deliberately misinform. You will learn which sites are reliable if you read sufficient of the literature or seek out sites of proper scientific organisations rather than amateur blogs or political and policy websites.

  110. Sou (16:19:35) :

    Hmmm, it looks as if a few people posting here are not very familiar with the known and established properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gases and would like me to explain it to them. They are asking me to give a basic science lesson on why rising concentrations of CO2 lead to an increase in global temperature, and why the reverse happens.

    I read through the rest of your post, hoping to be enlightened by your explanation and basic science lesson. Sadly, no explanation was there. I’m disappointed.
    I was hoping for your explanation, because I suspect I would have had a few questions for you.

  111. Sou first says “And most fires get put out, including those started by humans.”
    Later Sou says “Precautionary off-season burning has been happening as much as if not more than ever, so the increasing frequency and ferocity of fires can’t be blamed on lack of burning off by government agencies.”
    Sou seems to think government control is the answer to all problems. But the “burning off by government agencies” or lack thereof is not the answer when the humans are interfering with “most fires”. That doesn’t include the local policies not allowing clearing and other insanities.
    Then Sou says “BTW I also realise that lots of people don’t want to believe the facts, preferring to blame the ‘greenies’, or the ‘conservationists’ or the ‘government’ or anyone at all that they fear or loathe. Some of you have basically accused me of lying or being deluded.”
    Red herrings. The facts don’t point to unprecedented drought. The 117 year low in river input (Murray-Darling Basin) is from cotton irrigation and other wasteful forms of agriculture. Otherwise you have some drought, but not unprecedented (something like sixth or seventh worst).

  112. Sou says “Hmmm, it looks as if a few people posting here are not very familiar with the known and established properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gases and would like me to explain it to them.”
    True. CO2 causes warming by reflecting back IR that leaves the earth’s surface. Unlike some have implied above, N2 and O2 do not have this effect. The real scientific debate is the sensitivity of climate to the extra warming from extra CO2. The alarmists believe that the effects of water vapor increases will double or triple the warming from CO2. Other legitimate science points to a reduction in the warming from CO2 from weather changes that temper the warming.

  113. Sou (16:19:35) : edit

    Hmmm, it looks as if a few people posting here are not very familiar with the known and established properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gases and would like me to explain it to them. They are asking me to give a basic science lesson on why rising concentrations of CO2 lead to an increase in global temperature, and why the reverse happens. This is not new science. I’d erroneously thought that, given the amount of space this site devotes to climate change, most people here would know about the properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gases and how they keep the earth warm and supporting life as we know it.
    There is ample information elsewhere on the internet, from popular articles for the non-scientist to detailed scientific books and publications and excellent series of videos.
    Do a search on greenhouse effect, or CO2 and climate or similar. A knowledge of high school physics will help, but isn’t essential if you’re prepared to put your mind to it. A lot of general science textbooks for schools will have a description. Be aware that there are a lot of popular sites on the internet that don’t explain things properly. Some are even set up to deliberately misinform. You will learn which sites are reliable if you read sufficient of the literature or seek out sites of proper scientific organisations rather than amateur blogs or political and policy websites.

    Oh, great, the “it’s just basic science” argument again. Don’t you think we’ve discussed this question?
    Sou, you seem like an intelligent guy. Please see my post here regarding why basic science is usually not relevant to complex systems.
    Next, we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas … but that doesn’t mean it will warm the earth. If I go from a cool shaded house into the open sun, the forcing on my body increases by 500W/m2 or so. But my body doesn’t warm up correspondingly. Why not? Because my body has a thermostat. I think that the globe does as well, as I discuss here.
    Let me know your comments on those before we move forwards … if you don’t come back to tell me where I’m wrong, I’ll assume that you agree with my hypotheses.

  114. @Willis. You don’t need me to tell you where you are wrong. Even your statement ‘we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas…but that doesn’t mean it will warm the earth’ – is a contradiction and shows you don’t understand what is meant by a greenhouse gas. Also, you said previously that you don’t believe official records of national and global temperatures. So it’s quite pointless to try to engage in any discussion.
    Same with Eric Skeptic who for some reason thinks the longest, hottest drought ever recorded in south eastern Australia was in fact only the sixth or seventh worst drought for south eastern Australia. He thinks that the longest recorded period of below average rainfall (nine years) during the hottest period ever recorded, is not as bad a drought as a shorter period, when there was six years of below average rainfall in a much cooler period, or three years of below average rainfall in a cooler period or two years of below average rainfall in a cooler period etc etc. Weird.
    I’ll leave to you to it. Nature doesn’t care at all what you think (and neither do I). It might be interesting to to those who study human motivation and psyche, but I’m a more practical type.

  115. Sou (22:46:15)

    @Willis. You don’t need me to tell you where you are wrong. Even your statement ‘we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas…but that doesn’t mean it will warm the earth’ – is a contradiction and shows you don’t understand what is meant by a greenhouse gas. Also, you said previously that you don’t believe official records of national and global temperatures. So it’s quite pointless to try to engage in any discussion.

    In other words, you haven’t taken the time to read what I wrote … I’m shocked, I tell you, shocked. I can sympathize, your mind is made up, you don’t want to disturb it with facts …
    If you believe the “official records” (whatever you think that means), well, I have a bridge you might be interested in buying. You did read about Climategate, where it was revealed that the “official” records had been lost, and all that was left was the “official adjusted data”? Do you believe those official records as well?
    The “official record” of Darwin has been adjusted until it is unrecognizable. A totally imaginary trend has been added, a trend of an amazing 6°C per century … but hey, Sou, you’re welcome to believe it, after all, it’s the “official record” …

    He thinks that the longest recorded period of below average rainfall (nine years) during the hottest period ever recorded, is not as bad a drought as a shorter period, when there was six years of below average rainfall in a much cooler period, or three years of below average rainfall in a cooler period or two years of below average rainfall in a cooler period etc etc.

    You would be more believable if you provided citations for your claims. I showed the Australian BOM record of the Yan Yean rainfall above. It shows only five consecutive years of below average rain, compared to ten years below average rain around 1900 … so as you might imagine, people might withhold judgement on your unsubstantiated claims until you let us in on your secret sources. Until then, the Yan Yean record says your claims are wrong, and that’s the record that’s generally used for Victoria.
    Do I think that you have had one of the hottest and dryest periods in a long time? Yes. But that doesn’t mean that CO2 is to blame.
    Here’s a more nuanced look at the Yan Yean rainfall data, this time monthly rainfall:

    This shows the monthly rainfall anomaly, which is how much the monthly rainfall is above or below the long term monthly average. What is interesting is the dark blue line. This shows the cumulative anomaly. When it is dropping, it means that overall long-term rainfall is below average. When it is level, rainfall is average, and when it is rising, rainfall is above average.
    So we can see four periods in the record. From 1850 to 1900, rainfall was generally below the long term average. From 1900 to 1950, it was about average. From 1950 to 2000, it was above average. And from 2000 to 2010, it has once again been below average.
    Note that Victoria has been living through a historically wet period for fifty of the last sixty years, with only two short periods when the rainfall was below average. So to everyone living, the last decade seems like a period that is way drier than anything in living memory. And it is.
    But that is because living memory is so short. In terms of the historical record, this is not the case. Yes, it has been dry, but it was below average for fifty years from 1850 to 1900 …
    So you may be in for another long dry spell, like 1850-1900. But that does not mean that there is a human hand in the current dry spell. You’ve seen them before, long before CO2 started rising.
    Again I suggest that you read the papers I cited above, here and here. Hey, they won’t poison your mind, and if they are wrong, come back and quote my wrong statements and tell us why they are wrong … you know, scientific discussion. You should give it a try, we both might learn something.

  116. I understand it’s not unprecedented for some people to pick a single station and extrapolate it to a region or even the world, although it’s not normally done.
    Sorry to repeat myself, but for those who have come late or missed the earlier references, I was referring to south eastern Australia as shown in the link below. Many parts of Australia have extremes of weather. For Australia overall the temperatures are rising. For south eastern Australia there was a drought of unprecedented duration during an unprecedented period of high temperatures – as far as the records trace back in the past 100+ years. Click on the various temperature and rainfall anomalies:
    South eastern australia temperature trends with thirteen consecutive years of above average mean temperature, including two years of the highest mean annual temp on record, and the hottest decade on record.
    Nine years below average rainfall, following one year of just above average, following three years of below average. This was a drought during a decade having the highest temperatures on record.
    Here is what happened to Melbourne’s water supply:
    Melbourne water storage as it dropped from 1997 to 2009. Melburnians managed to restrict their water usage or the storage would have dropped even lower. If the the length of the drought could have been anticipated, the severe water restrictions would have been introduced even earlier.
    And here again is the Statement of the Climate report, which was released recently.
    As for the rest, I appreciate the invitation, but no thank you.

  117. Sou (04:20:42) :
    As for the rest, I appreciate the invitation, but no thank you.
    Translation: Don’t confuse me with the facts. My mind is made up!

  118. “Here is what happened to Melbourne’s water supply:”
    Like Sydney the population outgrew the dam capacity but Melbourne unlike Sydney which has no more damable rivers the greenies have prevent extending the capacity by building new dams.

  119. Sou, I was sorry (but unsurprised) when you refused my invitation to read about and discuss the issues, saying:

    As for the rest, I appreciate the invitation, but no thank you.

    Unfortunately, I find this closed mindset all too common among AGW supporters, viz …

    … and it is folks on your side of the issue that call us “deniers”. Ironic, huh?
    For those who, unlike you, are actually interested in learning something about Melbourne and the climate history of Victoria, there’s an excellent and well-cited three-part series that starts here.
    In one of the sources cited in that three-part report, I find this curious assertion:

    Over the last century, the approach to managing drought was to build new reservoirs to meet increasing demand for water. Today, the Government and Melbourne Water recognise this approach is no longer sustainable.

    (Note that the drought shown graphically on that page is not the current drought, but a drought a quarter century ago … sneaky water managers, no cookies.)
    When I follow up to find out why dams are “no longer sustainable”, the answer is it takes too long to build them. Think I’m joking? Here’s the quote …

    Time is also a factor. It took well over a decade for the Thomson Dam to be designed, approved and built. This means a new dam anywhere in the State would come far too late to help with the sudden drops in inflows, like the one we saw in 2006.

    Oh, and also it’s not worth building dams because there’s less rain …

    Our reservoir storages need a steady rain over days and weeks, to wet the ground and then generate runoff.
    Unfortunately, we cannot rely on this kind of rainfall like we used to. Any new dam we build in the Melbourne catchment will face the same problem.

    Well, ya poor babies. Dams take so long to build, and there’s less rain, so we can’t build new dams, so Melbourne is running out of water, boohoo. Man, it’s a good thing those folks weren’t the pioneers in Australia, Sou, or you wouldn’t have any roads or railroads or dams at all …
    At least we can see that you come by your reluctance honestly.

  120. Sou, you say:

    And here again is the Statement of the Climate report, which was released recently.

    Riiight … that’s the report that simply makes a host of assertions, and doesn’t contain one single solitary citation. That’s a real impressive piece of work, Sou, right up there with your uncited assertions. I was particularly impressed when they said:

    CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology use scientific modelling based on the laws of physics and thoroughly tested against recorded observations.

    Hey, that convinces me, say no more, say no more …

  121. Sou, you say:
    “CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology use scientific modelling…”
    IPCC 2001;
    “In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system. and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible”.

  122. Sou (22:46:15)

    @Willis. …. Also, you said previously that you don’t believe official records of national and global temperatures. So it’s quite pointless to try to engage in any discussion.

    By chance, Anthony has just posted a great example of just how poor the stations used to create the Australian “official record” of temperatures really are.
    Please note that the station in the photo is not just any old station. It is part of the CRN, the Australian “Climate Reference Network”, which is the supposedly pristine stations that they use to adjust the rest of the stations.
    Caveat emptor …

  123. sou,
    it’s not a simplistic situation concerning co2 – at least outside of oversimplified and incomplete general circulation models. Off hand, I doubt you have the understanding to deal with the level that some of the discussions here entail, including the nature of co2 and other so-called ghgs in the atmosphere.

  124. Guys:
    You may have noted the increase in trolls here after Climategate, or the petitions, or statements or editorials… “sou” is not a truth-seeker. Trying to educate him/them is a waste of time. North and Booker have revealed the stakes in and the extent of AGW. “sou” is just a willing, but mindless, tool.

  125. Robert E. Phelan (20:32:50) : edit

    Guys:
    You may have noted the increase in trolls here after Climategate, or the petitions, or statements or editorials… “sou” is not a truth-seeker. Trying to educate him/them is a waste of time. North and Booker have revealed the stakes in and the extent of AGW. “sou” is just a willing, but mindless, tool.

    I disagree. sou lives in Australia, and obviously believes what he is saying. Writing him off as a troll gets us nowhere.
    Remember, there’s lots of lurkers here. Perhaps sou will get the message, perhaps not … but others will. And maybe he will too, we don’t know. I won’t put him in a box and constrain him with my assumptions. To use a Christian example (I’m not a Christian, but the stories are valuable), even Saul had the scales fall from his eyes …

Comments are closed.