Josh of cartoons by Josh writes to go along with his newest cartoons:
Paragraph Updated: This week we had stories about how climate indicators show that the globe is warming.
(7 or 11 depending on how confused you get by the story – H/t Matt at WUWT for helping me out here)
Not very controversial, you might say – but the slightly nutty tone attracted my attention – “See the climate is getting hotter therefore we are doomed” kind of thing. Not sure where the idea of breakfast cereal and Kool Aid Kats came from.
Talking of nutty flakiness, here is another story at Roger Pielke Jr on ‘Silly Science’ about the vast hordes of Mexicans that are set to invade the US as soon as it get too hot in Mexico. Why the penguin? Well, all the Colombians will be moving to Mexico and all the Ecuadorians to Columbia and all the Peruvians, etc etc…leaving Chile free to become home to all the Antarctic penguins – at least I think that’s the logic.
Michael Oppenheimer even wrote a response which was inspiring.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The upper cartoon reminds me of the new cereal, California Granola—made up of a variety of nuts but mostly flakes 🙂 (h/t: Frank Zappa)
Hilarious but the facts are that the seven out of ten are going to have to justify themselves in short order. The penguines may well be migrating north in the near future.
What’s even worse, its been over the past 30 year warming phase of the AMO. 30 years from now we will have the headlines “Canadians climb border fence to escape oncoming ice age.”
I really don’t understand this article. What factors are going to have a significant impact on ag output in Mexico? Let’s think up a few: Available capital, land costs, gains in efficiency, labor patterns, land use changes, fluctuating demand for different crops, government regulation, transportation, world food prices, political stability, economic fluctuations…on and on. So these guys are going to swirl this all around with a stick and pull out climate change? My brother has worked in Mexico for 20 years and at one time would say that it was safer there than here in the states. Not any more. Last month he cancelled his contract and has abandoned his work in (central) Mexico due to safety concerns. Some of his Mexican colleagues are fearing for their lives and fortunes and making plans to leave. The point is that no one thought it would be this bad even ten years ago. The future is very difficult to predict and the ones who try mostly end up just looking foolish. I wish some of these scientist would give up sooth-saying and start working on practical solutions for problems that could really make a difference for our and future generations.
Aren’t the penguins dying in droves this year because of the massive chill that has descended on South America.
Massive chill . . further proof of global warming I guess.
Except it is actually 7 of 11 indicators are increasing showing evidence of global warming,
and the other 4 of that 11 are decreasing showing evidence of global warming.
11 of 11 dentists surveyed chew gum.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009-time-series/?ts=land
with links to the data even.
7 out of 10 dentists agree, Crest keeps your teeth white.
Scientific discourse is now on the same level as television commercials.
Folks – there’s an election coming soon and alarmist are all well tuned into this schedule. So, we can expect these sort of reports to peak by September.
ShrNfr says:
That’s exactly what I (as a Canadian) was thinking, but I don’t know if I’ll be in any shape to climb fences in 30 years, hopefully there will be a ramp where I can toboggan across.
So as far as I can tell from the media report, the research is saying, that in spite of natural variability that would predict warming measures, it’s CO2 whut done it?
Was the AMO in a warm phase? Research says: Yes, but… Was the PDO in a warm phase? Research says: Yes, but… Did we have a number of El Nino’s indicating that ENSO was in a warm phase? Research says: Yes, but… Did we have a very active Sun impinging on the upper atmospheric layers? Research says: Yes, but…
I think research needs to stop saying yes to its butt.
Apparently Josh didnt read the linked article very closely. 7 out of the 11 parameters rose over the last few decades, indicating ‘clear warming trends.’ The other 4, were things like arctic ice extent, glacier mass, and snow cover. These declined over the last few decades, which is also indicative of warming.
His phase should read ’11 out of 11 climate indicators show that the globe is warming.’
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2010/pr20100728.html
Indicator 7 of their “Unmistakable signs of a warming world” seems to be the tropical tropospheric hot spot, which in recent weeks the climate scientists were telling us was so far undetectable because it was hidden by inaccuracy and noise in the measurements.
Desperate times call for desperate headlines.
Oh man… The comments section of the oppenheimer reply post are well worth a read …. Hilarious…. It’s a blood bath!!
Those up for a vote need to understand that currently, if the only job available was in actually MAKING CO2 on PURPOSE, the application line would circle the globe.
I love the penguin. He is heading north to the USA to escape cold similar to the cold that killed off so many chicks in South Africa no doubt.
@Manitoba Ken I was kidding. I personally owe Canada a great big thank you. My father’s mother and father went there from England in the 1880s or so and then from there to the US. Without Canada, I might currently be a citizen of the land of the AGW cretins England complete with Pwince (Up)Chuck.
Yes I love the UK Met Office for pointing out 10 of the indicators on their website:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2010/pr20100728.html
What makes it fun to look at is that right off you can see that the indicators are, err slightly out of date already.
Take for example the claim that SST’s are rising when in fact they have been falling for months now:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/07/june-2010-sst-anomaly-update.html
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/06/global-average-sea-surface-temperatures-continue-their-plunge/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/global-sea-surface-temperature-update-the-cooling-continues/
or how about lower troposphere temperatures, they have been falling as well:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/june-2010-uah-global-temperature-update-0-44-deg-c/
or how about the claim that Arctic Sea Ice is declining when it has actually been increasing the last 2 years and the declines of the 2 years prior to that were due to wind not temperature.
or how about the NH Spring Snow Cover is proof that the decline in it shows that the entire world is warming while not mentioning the Southern Hemisphere at all. I guess Big Oil hired Anthony to hide the SH results so that the UK Met Office couldn’t report on it. I also guess that Anthony also hid the NH results for the other 9 months out of the year since that wasn’t listed either by the Met.
ShrNfr says:
July 30, 2010 at 8:23 am
What’s even worse, its been over the past 30 year warming phase of the AMO. 30 years from now we will have the headlines “Canadians climb border fence to escape oncoming ice age.”
Well, Canada’s not referred to as the ‘Great White North’ for nothing!!
🙂
“It’s not that the IPCC didn’t look at this data, of course they did, but they didn’t put it all together in one place,” he [Peter Stott, the head of climate modelling at the UK Met Office] added.
Mister Stott is a bit behind in his reading, methinks…
Yeah, if it doesn’t fit the meme, leave it out….
One key data set omitted was sea ice in the Antarctic, because it was increasing in some areas and decreasing in others, due to reduced ozone causing changes in wind patterns and sea-surface circulation.
Inversesquare says:
July 30, 2010 at 9:37 am
Oh man… The comments section of the oppenheimer reply post are well worth a read …. Hilarious…. It’s a blood bath!!
==========================================================
Who would have thought the Mexicans were so sensitive to a 1 degree temperature change. How in this world do they cope with the change of seasons?
Matt says:
July 30, 2010 at 9:29 am
“Apparently Josh didnt read the linked article very closely. 7 out of the 11 parameters rose over the last few decades, indicating ‘clear warming trends.’ The other 4, were things like arctic ice extent, glacier mass, and snow cover. These declined over the last few decades, which is also indicative of warming.
His phase should read ’11 out of 11 climate indicators show that the globe is warming.”
Uhm, you should look up the state of the 11 indicators today. Some of the “indicators” have change and would no longer be “indicators” of warming. Please try to stay current. Thanks.
Manitoba Ken says:
July 30, 2010 at 9:16 am
That’s exactly what I (as a Canadian) was thinking, but I don’t know if I’ll be in any shape to climb fences in 30 years, hopefully there will be a ramp where I can toboggan across.
Actually, the official plan to build a big snow-ramp and use the snow-mobiles. With luck (and a tail-wind), I’m hoping to clear Detroit completely! Oh, damn, I think I just gave away state secrets…
Hey Josh,
I think there’s something in the following that may inspire a cartoon.
See “Oh Soot”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/29/oh-soot/
From the IPCC website:
Soot
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/annex1sglossary-p-z.html
Particles formed during the quenching of gases at the outer edge of flames of organic vapours, consisting predominantly of carbon, with lesser amounts of oxygen and hydrogen present as carboxyl and phenolic groups and exhibiting an imperfect graphitic structure. See Black carbon; Charcoal (Charlson and Heintzenberg, 1995, p. 406).
Black carbon (BC) Operationally defined aerosol species based on measurement of light absorption and chemical reactivity and/or thermal stability; consists of soot, charcoal and/or possible light-absorbing refractory organic matter (Charlson and Heintzenberg, 1995, p. 401).
Charcoal Material resulting from charring of biomass, usually retaining some of the microscopic texture typical of plant tissues; chemically it consists mainly of carbon with a disturbed graphitic structure, with lesser amounts of oxygen and hydrogen (Charlson and Heintzenberg, 1995, p. 402). See Black carbon; Soot.
Ok, so how does this relate to Climate Change?
Climate change Climate change refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use. Note that the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, defines climate change as: ‘a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods’. The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and climate variability attributable to natural causes. See also Climate variability; Detection and Attribution.
Ok, given that “Soot” does not “persist for an extended period, typically decades or longer” and it is not solely caused by human activities. What percentage of “Soot” should we monitor so we can properly TAX individuals who burn Cow and Camel droppings and BBQ on the weekends?
Who is going to do the monitoring? It isn’t going to be the EPA — they have trouble reading English these days so it would be a huge waste of taxpayer funding.