Monckton skewers Steketee

Click for PDF version

2010 WAS THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD

by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

 

Michael Steketee, writing in The Australian in January 2011, echoed the BBC (whose journalists’ pension fund is heavily weighted towards “green” “investments”) and other climate-extremist vested interests in claiming that 2010 was the warmest year on record worldwide. Mr. Steketee’s short article makes two dozen questionable assertions, which either require heavy qualification or are downright false. His assertions will be printed in bold face: the truth will appear in Roman face.

1. BASED ON PRELIMINARY DATA TO NOVEMBER 30, SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURES AROUND AUSTRALIA WERE THE WARMEST ON RECORD LAST YEAR, AS WERE THOSE FOR THE PAST DECADE.

The record only began ten decades ago. As for sea temperatures, they are less significant for analyzing “global warming” than estimated total ocean heat content. A recent paper by Professors David Douglass and Robert Knox of Rochester University, New York, has established that – contrary to various climate-extremist assertions – there has been no net accumulation of “missing energy” in the form of heat in the oceans worldwide in the six years since ocean heat content was first reliably measured by the 3000 automated ARGO bathythermographs in 2003. This finding implies that the amount of warming we can expect from even quite a large increase in CO2 concentration is far less than the IPCC and other climate-extremist groups maintain.

2. THE WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ORGANISATION SAYS THE YEAR TO THE END OF OCTOBER WAS THE WARMEST SINCE INSTRUMENTAL CLIMATE RECORDS STARTED IN 1850 – 0.55 C° ABOVE THE 1961-90 AVERAGE OF 14 C°.

It is easy to cherry-pick periods of less than a calendar year and say they establish a new record. The cherry-picking of the first nine months of 2010 is particularly unacceptable, since that period was dominated by a substantial El Niño Southern Oscillation, a sudden alteration in the pattern of ocean currents worldwide that leads to warmer weather for several months all round the world. The last few months of the year, carefully excluded from Mr. Steketee’s statement, showed the beginnings of a La Niña event, which tends largely to reverse the effect of its preceding El Niño and make the world cooler. Indeed, the calendar year from January to December 2010, according to the reliable RSS and UAH satellite records, was not the warmest on record. Besides, what is important is how fast the world is warming. In fact, the rate of warming from 1975-2001, at 0.16 C° per decade, was the fastest rate to be sustained for more than a decade in the 160-year record, but exactly the same rate occurred from 1860-1880 and again from 1910-1940, when we could not possibly have had anything to do with it. Since late 2001 there has been virtually no “global warming” at all.

3. THE LAST DECADE ALSO WAS THE WARMEST ON RECORD.

After 300 years of global warming, during nearly all of which we could not on any view have influenced the climate to a measurable degree, it is scarcely surprising that recent decades will be warmer than earlier decades. That is what one would expect. If one has been climbing up a steep hill for a long time, one should not be surprised to find oneself higher up at the end of the climb than at the beginning.

4. THE WORLD IS NOT COOLER COMPARED TO 1998.

Actually, it is cooler. There was a remarkable spike in global temperatures in 1998, caused not by manmade “global warming” but by a Great El Niño event – an alteration in the pattern of ocean currents that begins in the equatorial eastern Pacific and spreads around the globe, lasting a few months. In the first nine months of 2010 there was another substantial El Niño, but even at its peak it did not match the Great El Niño of 1998.

5. THE TRENDS HAPPEN TO FOLLOW CLOSELY THE PREDICTIONS OVER THE PAST 40 YEARS OF TEMPERATURE RISES RESULTING FROM INCREASED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

In the 40 years since 1970, global temperatures have risen at a linear rate equivalent to around 1.3 C°/century. CO2 concentration is rising in a straight line at just 2 ppmv/year at present and, even if it were to accelerate to an exponential rate of increase, the corresponding temperature increase would be expected to rise merely in a straight line. On any view, 1.3 C° of further “global warming” this century would be harmless. The IPCC is predicting 3.4 C°, but since the turn of the millennium on 1 January 2001 global temperature has risen (taking the average of the two satellite datasets) at a rate equivalent to just 0.6 C°/century, rather less than the warming rate of the entire 20th century. In these numbers, there is nothing whatever to worry about – except the tendency of some journalists to conceal them.

6. MOST SCIENTISTS AGREE THAT DOUBLING THE CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE ATMOSPHERE IS LIKELY TO LEAD TO WARMING OF 2-3 C°.

It is doubtful whether Mr. Steketee had consulted “most scientists”. Most scientists, not being climate scientists, rightly take no view on the climate debate. Most climate scientists have not studied the question of how much warming a given increase in CO2 concentration will cause: therefore, whatever opinion they may have is not much more valuable than that of a layman. Most of the few dozen scientists worldwide whom Prof. Richard Lindzen of MIT estimates have actually studied climate sensitivity to the point of publication in a learned journal have reached their results not by measurement and observation but by mere modeling. The models predict warming in the range mentioned by Mr. Steketee, but at numerous crucial points the models are known to reflect the climate inaccurately. In particular, the models predict that if and only if Man is the cause of warming, the tropical upper air, six miles above the ground, should warm up to thrice as fast as the surface, but this tropical upper-troposphere “hot-spot” has not been observed in 50 years of measurement by balloon-mounted radiosondes, sondes dropped from high-flying aircraft,

or satellites. Also, the models predict that every Celsius degree of warming should increase evaporation from the Earth’s surface by 1-3%, but the observed increase is more like 6%. From this it is simple to calculate that the IPCC has overestimated fourfold the amount of warming we can expect from adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Take away that prodigious exaggeration, demonstrated repeatedly in scientific papers but never reported by the likes of Mr. Steketee, and the climate “crisis” vanishes.

7. WARMING OF 2-3 C° RISKS SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC DAMAGE.

Actually, the IPCC’s current thinking is that up to 2° of warming compared with the present would be harmless and even beneficial. Since far greater temperatures than this have been the rule on Earth for most of the past 600 million years, there is no sound scientific basis for the assumption that “significant environmental and economic damage” would result from so small an additional warming. However, significant economic damage is already resulting from the costly but pointlessly Canute-like attempts governments to try to make “global warming” go away.

8. GREENHOUSE GAS CONCENTRATIONS ROSE BY 27.5% FROM 1990-2009.

Since anthropogenic effects on the climate are net-zero except for CO2, we need only consider CO2 concentration, which was 353 parts per million by volume in 1990 and is 390 ppmv now, an increase not of 27.5% but of just 10.5%.

9. ARCTIC SEA ICE SHRANK TO ITS THIRD-LOWEST AREA IN THE SATELLITE RECORDS, OFFSET ONLY SLIGHTLY BY GROWTH IN ANTARCTIC SEA ICE.

In fact, the global sea-ice record shows virtually no change throughout the past 30 years, because the quite rapid loss of Arctic sea ice since the satellites were watching has been matched by a near-equally rapid gain of Antarctic sea ice. Indeed, when the summer extent of Arctic sea ice reached its lowest point in the 30-year record in mid-September 2007, just three weeks later the Antarctic sea extent reached a 30-year record high. The record low was widely reported; the corresponding record high was almost entirely unreported.

10. GLOBAL SNOW COVER IS FALLING, INFERENTIALLY BECAUSE OF MAN’S INFLUENCE.

In fact, a new record high for snow cover was set in the winter of 2008/2009, and there is some chance that a further record high will be set this year.

11. GLOBAL SEA LEVELS ARE RISING, INFERENTIALLY BECAUSE OF MAN’S INFLUENCE.

In fact, the rate of increase in sea level has not changed since satellites first began measuring it reliably in 1993. It is a dizzying 1 ft/century – not vastly greater than the 8 inches/century that had previously been inferred from tide-gauges. A recent paper has confirmed what marine biologists had long suspected: coral atolls simply grow to meet the light as the sea rises, and some of them have even gained land mass recently according to a

just-published scientific paper. Professor Niklas Mörner, who has been studying sea level for a third of a century, says it is physically impossible for sea level to rise at much above its present rate, and he expects 4-8 inches of sea level rise this century, if anything rather below the rate of increase in the last century. In the 11,400 years since the end of the last Ice Age, sea level has risen at an average of 4 feet/century, though it is now rising much more slowly because very nearly all of the land-based ice that is at low enough latitudes and altitudes to melt has long since gone.

12. MUNICH RE SAYS 2010 SAW THE SECOND-HIGHEST NUMBER OF NATURAL CATASTROPHES SINCE 1980, 90% OF THEM WEATHER-RELATED.

There are really only three categories of insurable natural catastrophe – meteorological, epidemiological, and seismic (volcanism, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc.). Except during years when major seismic disasters occur (such as the tsunami caused by an earthquake in 2000), or when major pandemics kill large numbers at an unexpected rate (and that did not happen in 2010), weather-related natural disasters always account for getting on for 90% of all such disasters. Because the climate is a mathematically-chaotic object, the incidence of weather-related disasters is highly variable from year to year, and there is no good reason to attribute the major events of 2010 to manmade “global warming”.

13. THE TEMPERATURE OF 46.4 C° IN MELBOURNE ONE SATURDAY IN 2010 WAS MORE THAN 3 C° ABOVE THE PREVIOUS HIGHEST FOR FEBRUARY.

February is the height of summer in Melbourne. Since the planet has been warming for 300 years, it is not surprising to find high-temperature records being broken from time to time. However, some very spectacular cold-weather records were also broken both in early 2010, when all 49 contiguous United States were covered in snow for the first time since satellite monitoring began 30 years ago, and in December, which was the coldest final month of the year in central England since records began 352 years ago. However, neither the hot-weather nor the cold-weather extremes of 2010 have much to do with manmade “global warming”; like the heatwave of 2003 in Europe that is said to have killed 35,000 people, they are known to have been caused by an unusual pattern of what meteorologists call “blocking highs” – comparatively rare areas of stable high pressure that dislodge the jet-streams from their usual path and lock weather systems in place for days or sometimes even months at a time. No link has been established between the frequency, intensity, or duration of blocking highs and manmade “global warming”.

14. IN MOSCOW, JULY 2010 WAS MORE THAN 2 C° ABOVE THE PREVIOUS TEMPERATURE RECORD, AND TEMPERATURE ON 29 JULY WAS 38.2 C°.

And the lowest-ever temperatures have been measured in several British and US locations in the past 12 months. Cherry-picking individual extreme-weather events that point in one direction only, when there are thousands of such events that also point in another direction, is neither sound science nor sound journalism.

15. THE HEATWAVE AND FOREST FIRES IN CENTRAL RUSSIA KILLED AT LEAST 56,000, MAKING IT THE WORST NATURAL DISASTER IN RUSSIA’S HISTORY.

More cherry-picking, and the notion that the forest fires were the worst natural disaster in Russia’s history is questionable. Intense cold – such as when General January and General February defeated Corporal Hitler at the gates of Stalingrad in 1941 – has many times killed hundreds of thousands in Russia.

16. IN PAKISTAN, 1769 WERE KILLED IN THE COUNTRY’S WORST-EVER FLOODS.

In fact, the floods were not the worst ever: merely the worst since 1980. The region has long been prone to flooding, and has flooded catastrophically at infrequent intervals when a blocking high combined with unusually strong runoff of snow from the Himalayas swells the numerous rivers of the region (Punjab, or panj-aub, means “five rivers”). The flooding was not caused by manmade “global warming” but by a blocking high.

17. THE HURRICANE SEASON IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC WAS ONE OF THE MOST SEVERE IN THE LAST CENTURY.

In fact, Dr. Ryan Maue of Florida State University, who maintains the Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index, a 24-month running sum of the frequency, intensity and duration of all tropical cyclones, typhoons and hurricanes round the world, says that the index is at its least value in the past 30 years, and close to its least value in 50 years. For 150 years the number of landfalling Atlantic hurricanes has shown no trend at all: this is a long and reliable record, because one does not require complex instrumentation to know that one has been struck by a hurricane.

18. EVEN CAUTIOUS SCIENTISTS TEND TO SAY WE CAN BLAME MANMADE CLIMATE CHANGE.

Cautious scientists say no such thing. Even the excitable and exaggeration-prone IPCC has repeatedly stated that individual extreme-weather events cannot be attributed to manmade “global warming”, and it would be particularly incautious of any scientist to blame the blocking highs that caused nearly all of the weather-related damage in 2010 on us when these are long-established, naturally-occurring phenomena.

19. CLIMATE CHANGE HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE 20% DECLINE IN RAINFALL IN PARTS OF SOUTHERN AUSTRALIA OVER THE PAST 40 YEARS.

Climate change began 4,567 million years ago, on that Thursday when the Earth first formed (as Prof. Plimer puts it). The question is whether manmade climate change has contributed to the drought. Interestingly, there has been very heavy rainfall in previously drought-ridden parts of southern Australia in each of the last two years. Australia has a desert climate: it is no surprise, therefore, that periods of drought – sometimes prolonged – will occur. One of the longest records of drought and flood we have is the Nilometer, dating back 5000 years. Periods of drought far more savage than anything seen in modern times were frequent occurrences, and entire regions of Egypt became uninhabitable as a result. A 20% decline in rainfall in a single region, therefore, cannot be safely attributed to anything other than the natural variability of the climate.

20. THERE IS STRONG EVIDENCE THAT “GLOBAL WARMING” MADE THE BUSH-FIRES AROUND MELBOURNE WORSE.

There is no such evidence. As the IPCC has repeatedly said, ascribing individual, local extreme-weather events to “global warming” is impermissible.

21. THERE HAS BEEN A SUCCESSION OF EXTRAORDINARY HEATWAVES, WITH BIG JUMPS IN RECORD TEMPERATURES, STARTING IN EUROPE IN 2003 AND CONTINUING ALL AROUND THE WORLD, CULMINATING IN RUSSIA LAST YEAR. MORE THAN 17 COUNTRIES BROKE THEIR MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE RECORDS IN 2010, AND “YOU REALLY HAVE TO STRAIN CREDIBILITY TO SAY IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CLIMATE CHANGE.”

The heatwave in Europe in 2003 is known to have been caused by a blocking high similar to those which gave Russia its record high temperatures in 2010 and kept the monsoon fixed over Pakistan for long enough to cause catastrophic flooding. You really have to stretch credibility to say it has anything to do with manmade “global warming”. Though that heatwave may have killed 35,000 right across Europe, a three-day cold snap in Britain the previous year had killed 21,000 just in one country. The net effect of warmer worldwide weather, therefore, is to reduce deaths, not to increase them. That is why periods such as the Holocene Climate Optimum, when temperatures were 3 C° warmer than the present for most of the time between 6000 and 8000 years ago, are called “optima”: warmer weather is better for most Earth species – including Man – than colder weather.

22. FOR 20 YEARS MORE HOT-WEATHER THAN COLD-WEATHER TEMPERATURE RECORDS HAVE BEEN SET.

This is merely another way of saying that temperatures today are generally higher than they were 20 years ago. Since there has been some warming, more hot-weather than cold-weather records have been set. Not exactly surprising, and not exactly alarming either: for the mere fact of warming tells us nothing about the cause of the warming, particularly when the rate of warming in recent decades has been no greater than what has been seen in two previous quarter-century periods over the past 160 years.

23. EVEN IF GREENHOUSE-GAS EMISSIONS WERE TO STABILIZE AT LITTLE MORE THAN TODAY’S LEVELS, 2 C° OF FURTHER WARMING WILL OCCUR – FOUR TIMES THE INCREASE OVER THE PAST 30 YEARS.

This value of 2 C° – like too many others in this regrettably fictitious article – appears to have been plucked out of thin air. Let us do the math. We can ignore all Man’s influences on the climate except CO2 because, up to now, they have been self-canceling, as the table of “radiative forcings” in the IPCC’s most recent quinquennial Assessment Report shows. In 1750, before the Industrial Revolution, the concentration of CO2 was 278 ppmv. Now it is 390 ppmv. Taking the multi-model mean central estimate from Box 10.2 on p.798 of the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, plus or minus one standard deviation, we can derive the following simple equation for the total amount of warming to be expected in 1000 years’

time, when the climate has fully settled to equilibrium after the perturbation that our carbon emissions to date are thought to have caused:

ΔTequ = (4.7 ± 1) ln(390/278) F°

Let us generously go one standard deviation above the central estimate: thus, a high-end estimate of the total equilibrium warming the IPCC would expect as a result of our CO2 emissions since 1750 is 5.7 times the natural logarithm of the proportionate increase in CO2 concentration in the 260-year period: i.e. 1.9 C°. Even this total since 1750 to the present is below the 2 C° Mr. Setekee says is lurking in the pipeline.

Now, to pretend that manmade “global warming” is a problem as big as the IPCC says it is, and that there will be more warming in the pipeline even if we freeze our emissions at today’s levels, we have to pretend that all of the observed warming since 1750 – i.e. about 1.2 C° – was our fault. So we deduct that 1.2 C° from the 1.9 C° equilibrium warming. Just 0.7 C° of warmer weather is still to come, at equilibrium.

However, various climate extremists have published papers saying that equilibrium warming will not occur for 1000 years (or even, in a particularly fatuous recent paper, 3000 years). The IPCC itself only expects about 57% of equilibrium warming to occur by 2100: the rest will take so long to arrive that even our children’s children will not be around to notice, and the residual warming will happen so gradually that everyone and everything will have plenty of time to adjust.

Bottom line, then: by 2100 we can expect not 2 C° of further “global warming” as a result of our emissions so far, but 0.4 C° at most. The truth, as ever in the climate debate, is a great deal less thrilling than the lie.

24. ADAPTATION TO THE CONSEQUENCES OF “GLOBAL WARMING” WILL GET MORE DIFFICULT THE LONGER WE DELAY.

This assertion, too, has no scientific basis whatsoever. The costs of adaptation are chiefly an economic rather than a climatological question. Every serious economic analysis (I exclude the discredited propaganda exercise of Stern, with its absurd near-zero discount rate and its rate of “global warming” well in excess of the IPCC’s most extreme projections) has demonstrated that the costs of waiting and adapting to any adverse consequences that may arise from “global warming”, even if per impossibile that warming were to occur at the rapid rate imagined by the IPCC but not yet seen in the instrumental temperature record, would be orders of magnitude cheaper and more cost-effective than any Canute-like attempt to prevent any further “global warming” by taxing and regulating CO2 emissions. It follows that adaptation to the consequences of “global warming” will get easier and cheaper the longer we wait: for then we will only have to adapt to the probably few and minor consequences that will eventually occur, and not until they occur, and only where and to the extent that they occur.

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

A PDF version of this document is available here

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
el gordo

The Lord has done well, he’s a hero in my books. Stekette should be held up to ridicule by the ABC’s Media Watch. Silly me, that will never happen.

John

Geez… can’t we just burn his book?
(and release some of the CO2 in it 😉

RACookPE1978

A good summary of the arguments against this scheme to transfer money to corrupt third world dictators via the Western governments (who take their fraction first!) and the UN’s nest of bureaucrats (who will take their fraction second, third, and always.)

Carl Chapman

Regarding the bushfires around Melbourne. There is a link to Global Warming. Ratbag left wing governments, under the influence of Global Warming fanatics, made it nearly impossible to burn off fallen branches in winter. Eventually the fuel build up made disaster inevitable. That same fanaticism kept in power a left wing government that appointed a chief commissioner of police who decided that she wasn’t needed to be in charge of evacuations and fire fighting, and that she should get her hair done while the fires raged.

James Fosser

John says:
January 9, 2011 at 12:24 am
Geez… can’t we just burn his book?
(and release some of the CO2 in it 😉 Perhaps his beard rather than his book. Once we start burning books we then have no hard record of stupidity for posterity.

Robert Ellison

Flood and drought dominated regimes have been well documented in Australian hydrology since the mid 1980’s. These are 20 to 40 years periods of floods or droughts as the name implies. Average rainfall has actually trended mildly upward over the 20th Century and the official BOM graph showing this is here – http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/rain.shtml
What the CSIRO did in their 2007 report was to implicitly assume that changes in regional rainfalls between the flood dominated regime (FDR) of 1945 to 1975 and the drought dominated regime of 1976 to 1998 was all caused by global warming. They then proceeded to linearly extend to apparent trend into the future.
This is such astonishing nonsense. As I say – FDR and DDR are so well known in Australian hydrology that I suspect that some poor bastard in the CSIRO was told to produce a report that had the answer that was wanted and no-one else had a bloody clue. The poor bastard had no option but to fudge it.
In the longer term (over a hundred years) – there might be a couple of areas in southern Australia that have recent records that are outside of the historic limits.
Much of Australian rainfall is of course driven by ENSO – both directly and through interactions with the Indian and Southern Oceans. One of the things I found especially galling in the Sketekee article is the attribution of the current La Nina to global warming. This is after a decade and more of attributing the “Great Pacific Climate Shift’ (from La Nina to El Nino dominant conditions) in 1976/1977 to global warming.
Nothing of course could be further from the truth. ENSO is of course a chaotic system – one that bifurcates every couple of decades. ENSO is not really an ‘oscillation’ – but it is a system that is non stationary and non Gaussian over decades to millenia. Recent speculation by Lockwood and Curry inter alia suggest a top down influence from UV warming of oxone in the upper atmosphere.

Baa Humbug

It was like watching Muhammed Ali fight a 50 pound weakling,

Roger Knights

Copy edits:
Item 1, Monckton should have echoed Stekete’s original “sea surface temperatures,” instead of omitting it in his “As for sea temperatures,” which weakens and blurs the point he’s making. (Temperatures of the surface vs. temperatures of the volume.)
Item 13: “in early 2010, when all 49 contiguous United States were covered in snow …”. Change “contiguous” to “continental.”
Item 17 doesn’t rebut Stekete’s point, which should have been conceded, followed by the phrase “OTOH,” followed by the current text.
Item 18: Don’t hyphenate adverbial compound modifiers like “naturally-occurring phenomena.”
Item 24: Italicize “per impossibile”
Nice brisk job otherwise, as usual.

“THE TRENDS HAPPEN TO FOLLOW CLOSELY THE PREDICTIONS”
O rly?
http://i55.tinypic.com/14mf04i.jpg

Charles Sainte Claire P.E.

Actually, there are only 48 contiguous states.

DWH

Readers, please realise that Mike Steketee is a journalist who writes about politics with a left-wing slant. His knowledge of politics and like social trivia- unfortunately- is no doubt considerable; his knowledge of science, minuscule, as so evident in his opinion piece on AGW in The Australian. So don’t waste your time – there are better things to do than being critical of left wing journos who populate the MSM – they won’t change their mind or appreciate that there is high uncertainty in the complex science of our dynamic climate – the science is too remote from and infinitely more complex than the shallow world of political commentary.

Charles Sainte Claire P.E.

I haven’t checked but you might be able to say all 50 states. It does snow in Hawaii in winter, on the summits of Mauna Loa, Mauna Kea and Haleakala

Mike Steketee’s article contains one glaring error of fact which needs pointing out and which Monckton doesn’t do:
Steketee claims “So far the increase since the mid-18th century of all greenhouse gases has been 38 per cent, including a 27.5 per cent rise from 1990 to 2009.”
This may be true if you ignore WATER VAPOR, by far the most prevalent greenhouse gas at roughly 20 times the concentration of all other greenhouse gases. If you include water vapour the increase is a much less alarming 1-2% or so.
“The Australian” is by far Australia’s best newspaper. It, however, is pretty appalling in absolute terms and with only a few exceptions its journalists are pretty poor examples of their craft. Surely Rupert Murdoch can do better.

Martin Brumby

I always enjoy seeing Monckton spanking an ecotard.
Just wait for all the troll comments trying desperately to rubbish Monckton. I predict there will be a bumper crop! And all spouting the usual specious nonsense.

John A

Monckton:

One of the longest records of drought and flood we have is the Nilometer, dating back 5000 years

Can I ask where this 5000 year record is located? I have the Nilometer data for ~900 years (from 622-1469 CE) so where is this longer record?

labmunkey

Nice job that man. Have a g’n’t on me.

zzz

That Stekete didn’t wait to the end of the year to write all this suggests he was worried that the data for the entire year wouldn’t show it was the warmest on record.

Sean McHugh

Thank you Christopher Monckton. It was frustrating being unable to post comment to Steketee’s evangelism. Even though replies were invited and I submitted one, none was published. This is not unusual, the Australian has a habit of wasting people’s time. With this article especially, I would have been very surprised if it had been otherwise. The article was titled: “Global weather disasters a sign the heat is on”.
http://tinyurl.com/2ucc4hz
Well heat was not permitted to be applied to that assertion and those that followed.

tony s

Steketee knows he is misleading by trying to argue “trends follow closely the predictions”. The IPCC predictions for this decade have failed. As have Hansens. So he digs for a 40 year old prediction valid to the year 2000. That trend has failed to continue this decade.
Also, notice how the Australian is still inviting comments to this article, but has refused to publish any.
Not unlike the ABC webite the Drum, which shut down comments after only 12, for this ABC Science show justification for supporting the Earth Gaia Hypothesis.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/07/3108365.htm?site=thedrum

son of mulder

Excellent and he didn’t even mention Urban heat island effect giving an upward temperature bias and higher extreme weather impact because of increased wealth/infrastructure and building on flood plains and a growing population to be damaged by it.

John Wright

One more mini copy-edit: Nils-Axel Mörner, not Niklas, unless that’s his long-lost brother.

kwik

The problem is that all those Warmista-claims is read by everyone in the MSM.
Only a few reads this.
So they keep on hammering the message, and a lot of people fall for it.
Goebbels would be proud.

By a very happy coincidence, the annual mean average temperature of 1659, the very first year of the oldest temperature dataset in the world -Central England Temperatures-is exactly the same as for 2010 at 8.83C.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat
Makes you think doesn’t it?
tonyb

Lew Skannen

Great work by Lord Monckton. I read the paper this weekend and found it rather annoying because even I could pick a hafl dozen glaring errors in the article. I am glad that someone of Moncktonc calibre has done the job properly.
Very important information from Carl Chapman above as well. Let’s make sure that that is not forgotten.

UK Sceptic

Chris Monckton scores: he wins!

Great job, as usual.

smacca

4. THE WORLD IS NOT COOLER COMPARED TO 1998.
Actually, it is cooler.
22. FOR 20 YEARS MORE HOT-WEATHER THAN COLD-WEATHER TEMPERATURE RECORDS HAVE BEEN SET.
This is merely another way of saying that temperatures today are generally higher than they were 20 years ago. Since there has been some warming, …….
Poor Chris sounds a bit confused here. Cooler one minute, warmer the next……………
Also, regarding point 2, La Nina dominated the last nine months of 2010. BOM data shows El Nino died in March 2010. Read about it here :
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/enlist/index.shtml

simon langton

I saw the Steketee article in the Weekend Australian and quickly saw the tack that he was taking. I stopped reading it immediately because I have no respect for most Australian journalists who are just dumb sheep. I am delighted but also amazed that Lord Monckton took the time to demolish the Steketee garbage.
It is a sad reflection on this nation that there are only about four journalists that are capable of telling things as they are – the rest (many dozens) are group think, left wing morons who parrot each other endlessly. I hope for a day when broadbased investigative journalism comes to this country. In the meantime I hang desperately to the coat tails of the pathfinders Andrew Bolt, Piers Akerman and few others.
Cheers for them and Lord Monckton

Darren Parker

I begv of someone to please please please setup an account at forums.treehugger.com and post this in the their global warming proganda forum. i would but I’m permanently banned for calling into question their religion. It would make my day if someone could do that.

Kev-in-UK

smacca says:
January 9, 2011 at 3:21 am
I respectfully suggest you read and digest both points more carefully.
you may note that 1998-2011 is less than 20yrs, so the two points do not cross as you suggest, but that would require careful reading (and understanding) of Moncktons words.

el gordo

Tonyb said temperatures in 1659 were exactly the same as for 2010 at 8.83C, so I had a look at the agricultural records and found 1658 may have been colder.
‘The winter, in the early part of the year, is reported to have been the severest within living memory in England. The summer was cold with continuous northerly winds.’
Sounds like NAO negative.

amicus curiae

Thank you again Lord Monkton!
and Anthony:-)
No Aussies are surprised the Australian or ABC wont print comments that prove how erroneous they are..simply isn’t allowed!
Murdochs on the CCgravytrain too, and I bet the ABC also has some pensions tied into a carbon scam somewhere..
anyone who needs an adrenaline rage rush could listen to the podcast of this Saturdays 8th Jan
science???show, where R williams gave an hour to inane and factually wrong reportage by some american bimbo..re climate scares, pathetic and annoying.

Les Johnson

Anthony: I have a very limited connection, and I don’t know if this getting across (here or on Tips and Notes). I was involved in a discussion at SFGate, with a Peter Gleick. One of your moderators had challenged him to post here, which Gleick not so pleasantly declined.
In order to encourage him, I offered money to a charity of his choice, to post an article here, with your blessing, of course.
This is a transcript from the page:

macuser
4:37 PM on January 2, 2011
As a moderator on the internet’s “Best Science” site, I invite Mr Gleick to submit an article, which will be published.
Of course, Gleick probably doesn’t have the stones to stand and deliver an article. But the invitation is there:
http://wattsupwiththat.com
petergleick
1:01 PM on January 7, 2011
Don’t see Watt’s biased website on any list of “best science” on the web. And Watt was a runner up on the BS Award nominees because of the misinformation he consistently promotes.
LesJohnson
12:37 AM on January 9, 2011
Peter: Not much for research, are you? WUWT won 2008 Science Blog of the year, and is one of the top 4 science blogs of 2011.
http://www.wikio.com/blogs/top/Sciences
But, this begs the question: wouldn’t you want to try to reach out to a new audience, rather than preach to the choir?
Or do you feel out of your comfort zone, if skeptical, inquiring minds are present?
Tell you what, Peter. If you post an article to WUWT (with Watt’s approval, of course), I will donate $1000 to any charity you specify. All you have to do is answer any reasonable, science based questions posed by readers, for 3 days.
Am I good for the money? Joe Romm didn’t think so, and wouldn’t take my bet. But I did split Tom Fuller’s bet with Romm. I also tried to convince Romm to debate Roger Peilke jr, for $10,000, but Joe turned that down. However, Roger P. can confirm that I did donate the promised money (which was 2500 if Joe would not accept) to Roger’s charity, MSF.
So, what do you say, Peter?

REPLY: Works for me. You have my blessings. Still waiting for Tamino to accept his offer too. – Anthony

Dave (UK)

Monckton: Formerly of the Tory Party, now deputy leader of UKIP. Next election, I’m voting UKIP!

@simon langton January 9, 2011 at 3:21 am
“The MSM crossed the line from any pretence at journalistic integrity into eco-activism. Any claim, no matter how ludicrous, was published without scrutiny or question. Any dissenting voice was openly called a “denier”. The reporting, what little there was of it, of any dissenting papers or studies was buried deep and usually marginalised by a pro AGW commentator.”
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2010/12/21/the-msm-and-climate-alarmism/
Pointman

richard verney

Roger Knights says:
January 9, 2011 at 1:21 am
“….Item 17 doesn’t rebut Stekete’s point, which should have been conceded, followed by the phrase “OTOH,” followed by the current text,,,”.
It all depends upon how one classes “severe” and/or measures ‘severity’. As I understand and recall matters (without checking the data for which I apologise), the number of named storms was high but the total energy contents of the storms for the season was not particularly high. On such basis, it would be fair to say that the 2010 season was not severe.
From an economic and human terms perspective, the crucial factor is the number of storms making landfall. The 2010 season was low in this regard and therefore fair to say that the 2010 season was not severe.
It is always difficult to make century long comparisons particularly when measurement standards have altered. Pre the satellite era, there may have been many storms which simply went un noticed. Now we can spot storms well out to sea in the middle of nowhere (in the sens of being far from man’s habitat). Because of better methods of observing and tracking, one would inevitable expect to see an increase in the number of storms and an increase in those which are observed to develop into named storms. However, this may be no more than a reflection of improved methods of detection/observation/measurement and one should be slow to read too much into this and to ascribe a trend from this.
More generally, since I have not read the book, I would not wish to make comment or pass judgment. I find generally that Lord Monkton speaks much sense and is usually able to explain the significance of things at a level that the general public (not needing to be scientists) can understand and appreciate.

Pops

John A says:
January 9, 2011 at 1:51 am
Monckton:
One of the longest records of drought and flood we have is the Nilometer, dating back 5000 years
Can I ask where this 5000 year record is located? I have the Nilometer data for ~900 years (from 622-1469 CE) so where is this longer record?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I’m not writing for Christopher Monckton, but try this link:
http://www.waterhistory.org/histories/cairo/
They quote the 5000 years (in the first paragraph) but after only a brief look I can’t see any detail as to where that number originated.

El Sabio

Darren Parker says:
January 9, 2011 at 3:32 am
I beg of someone to please please please set up an account at forums.treehugger.com and post this in the their global warming propaganda forum. I would but I’m permanently banned for calling into question their religion. It would make my day if someone could do that.
+++++++++++++++++++
Your command is my wish – please follow the link:
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=14018&p=122607#p122607

Graham Dick

Re “13. ….46.4 C° IN MELBOURNE.”
Odds on too that our frantically alarmist Bureau of Meteorology failed to make adequate or appropriate allowance for the urban heat island effect there.

Good stuff, but seriously, why bother? Steketee is a left-wing GW catastrophist rant-meister who knows nothing about the subject. Anyone with half a brain who reads The Australian knows to skip over Steketee’s column like they know to skip Phillip Adams’ – both of them should go and work for The Age instead. A sledgehammer to crack a nut, I’m afraid, or a nut-case, perhaps. Direct your efforts at a more worthy target next time.

David L

During biblical times, there were many records of floods, droughts, hail, locusts, etc. Early Man’s attempts to explain these phenomena involved placing blame on himself and invoking god or gods who were punishing or sending a message. Now thousands of years later we observe the same phenomena, we also blame ourselves, but now we invoke ourselves as the cause. Nothing has changed except our egos have grown to the status of gods of yore and have even displaced the omnipotent and omniscient gods themselves. Are we gods? I think not.
I hope the next phase of human evolution is the acceptance of the laws of the universe and a humbleness of our knowledge and abilities.

Alexander K

It seems barely credible that alarmist ‘journalists’ get away with writing such error-laden nonsense – how do such individuals get published, or do these types sit at their computers and interview each other?
Science teaching in high schools in the English-speaking world has a lot to answer for when most of the populations who completed their high school education in that world in the last half-century don’t understand really basic stuff such as how to plot daily max and min temperatures, how the carbon cycle operates, or the differing physical mechanisms which propagate the fauna of forests that are native to the various and extremely different antipodean climates.
Lord Monckton has done a precision job debunking this ignoramus, but it saddens me that it is neccessary.

Viv Evans

Nice – a typical ‘Monckton-Rebuttal’!
Just one minor quibble:
“Intense cold – such as when General January and General February defeated Corporal Hitler at the gates of Stalingrad in 1941 – has many times killed hundreds of thousands in Russia.”
Sorry, the defeat at the ‘gates of Stalingrad’ took place in 1943.
1941 saw the defeat at the gates of Moscow.
Don’t like nit-picking, but it is best to be precise and not leave loopholes for you-know-who to exploit.

MostlyHarmless

Following Monckton’s Missives we now have Monckton’s Missile, a Weapon of Mass Debunking if ever I saw one.

Sean McHugh

smacca said:

Poor Chris sounds a bit confused here. Cooler one minute, warmer the next……………

I doubt anyone else got confused with Monckton’s citing then commenting. That resolution is not so with your poor rendering, which doesn’t distinguish between your own comments and quotes. Your remark, about his supposed confusion, was confusing itself – and a bit weird.

Also, regarding point 2, La Nina dominated the last nine months of 2010. BOM data shows El Nino died in March 2010. Read about it here :
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/enlist/index.shtml

Except that that page doesn’t say when the 2010 La Nina cycle started, does it?. This one does:
http://tinyurl.com/37gaab6
It says it started to develop in late May and gained strength in recent months. In other words, it’s only in the last few months that it really took hold.
Your other mistake is one that many warmists make, assuming to talk down from struggling mediocrity.

Huth

How does one pronounce that name with all the e’s and a k in it?

Vince Causey

Martin Brumby says:
January 9, 2011 at 1:46 am
“I always enjoy seeing Monckton spanking an ecotard.
Just wait for all the troll comments trying desperately to rubbish Monckton. I predict there will be a bumper crop! And all spouting the usual specious nonsense.”
I predict there will be a bunch of trolls bringing up the usual ‘membership of House of Lords’ argument as a strawman to try and discredit the article.

Jack

The Australian is quite open in its position about supporting AGW. However, they do not like references or being held to account.
The fact remains as Lord Monckton points out, that it is the skeptics who believe in climate change and the catastrophists who believe this is the ideal climate which should not be changed. They believe huge taxes and people dying from cold are desirable methods of stopping the climate from changing.

JohnH

20. THERE IS STRONG EVIDENCE THAT “GLOBAL WARMING” MADE THE BUSH-FIRES AROUND MELBOURNE WORSE.
They were made worse by environmetal laws stopping householders from clearing scrub/trees from the close proximity of their houses, this helped the spread not Global Warming.

Roger Knights

richard verney says:
January 9, 2011 at 4:00 am

Roger Knights says:
January 9, 2011 at 1:21 am
“….Item 17 doesn’t rebut Stekete’s point, which should have been conceded, followed by the phrase “OTOH,” followed by the current text,,,”.

It all depends upon how one classes “severe” and/or measures ‘severity’. As I understand and recall matters (without checking the data for which I apologise), the number of named storms was high but the total energy contents of the storms for the season was not particularly high. On such basis, it would be fair to say that the 2010 season was not severe.

Wrong. Here’s how Accuweather sums up the 2010 season–as in the top quintile in terms of ACE since 1950:

As November draws to a close, AccuWeather.com takes a look back at the intense and unusual 2010 Atlantic hurricane season.
In what was one of the top five most active seasons on record, the United States was unusually spared most of the activity and severe conditions.
………………
One way to classify the intensity of a hurricane season is to use a measurement known as accumulated cyclone energy (ACE). This calculation, developed by NOAA, takes the number, strength and duration of storms into account, rather than the impact on land.
The 2010 season has an ACE index of 160, ranking 12th overall since 1950. The ACE indices of 1995 and 1933 were 228 and 213, respectively.
………………
http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/news/story/41710/2010-atlantic-hurricane-season-1.asp
=================
richard verney says:
From an economic and human terms perspective, the crucial factor is the number of storms making landfall. The 2010 season was low in this regard and therefore fair to say that the 2010 season was not severe.

Wrong. The Atlantic Hurricane season’s impacts are not limited to the US. Including the Caribbean, the impact was not low. Here’s Accuweather again:

While the United States was spared most of the tropical activity this year, the same cannot be said for much of the Caribbean, where heavy flooding, intense winds and widespread destruction in some places led to disastrous conditions.

And landfalls are a mere matter of chance, says Accuweather below. If we’re talking about whether the climate is getting worse–and that’s what Steketee WAS talking about–the ACE is the relevant aspect, not whether we dodged a bullet. Some other aspect may have importance, but it’s a diversion to bring it in as though doing so was being “responsive.”

Another aspect of this particularly intense season was the landfalls. Since 1900, there has been no season with 10 or more hurricanes when none have made a direct landfall on the United States coastline.
…………….
“If Alex made landfall 75 miles to the north and Earl tracked 75 miles to the west, there would have been two landfalls on the U.S. coast,” Bastardi said. “It’s like a foul ball. Contact was made, but it didn’t go exactly where it was supposed to.”