Why Nobody Ever Calls The Weather Normal
By Dr. Matt Ridley
WHEN the history of the global warming scare comes to be written, a chapter should be devoted to the way the message had to be altered to keep the show on the road. Global warming became climate change so as to be able to take the blame for cold spells and wet seasons as well as hot days. Then, to keep its options open, the movement began to talk about “extreme weather”.
Part of the problem was that some time towards the end of the first decade of the 21st century it became clear that the Earth’s average temperature just was not consistently rising any more, however many “adjustments” were made to the thermometer records, let alone rising anything like as rapidly as all the models demanded.
So those who made their living from alarm, and by then there were lots, switched tactics and began to jump on any unusual weather event, whether it was a storm, a drought, a blizzard or a flood, and blame it on man-made carbon dioxide emissions. This proved a rewarding tactic, because people – egged on by journalists – have an inexhaustible appetite for believing in the vindictiveness of the weather gods. The fossil fuel industry was inserted in the place of Zeus as the scapegoat of choice. (Scientists are the priests.)
The fact that people have short memories about weather events is what enables this game to be played. The long Australian drought of 2001-7, the Brisbane floods of 2009-10 and the angry summer of 2012-13 stand out in people’s minds. People are reluctant to put them down to chance. Even here in mild England, people are always saying “I have never known it so cold/hot/mild/windy/wet/dry/changeable as it is this year”. One Christmas I noticed the seasons had been pretty average all year, neither too dry nor too wet nor too cold nor too warm. “I have never known it so average,” I said to somebody. I got a baffled look. Nobody ever calls the weather normal.
So it is deeply refreshing to read the new book called Taxing Air: Facts and Fallacies About Climate Change by the internationally respected geologist Bob Carter and illustrated by the cartoonist John Spooner, which puts climate change exactly where it should be – in perspective. After demolishing many other arguments for carbon taxes and climate alarm, Carter runs through recent weather events, showing that there is nothing exceptional, let alone unprecedented, about recent droughts, floods, heat waves, cyclones or changes to the Great Barrier Reef.
How come then that last week the World Meteorological Organisation produced a breathless report claiming that “the decadal rate of increase (of world temperature) between 1991-2000 and 2001-2010 was unprecedented”? It took professor Ed Hawkins of Reading University a short time to point out that this was no longer true if you compared 1993-2002 and 2003-2012 – ie, if you took the most up-to-date records. In that case, the latest decade showed a smaller increase over the preceding decade than either of the preceding decades did. In other words, the temperature standstill of the past 16 years has begun to show up in the decade-by-decade data.
And this is even before you take into account the exaggeration that seemed to contaminate the surface temperature records in the latter part of the 20th century – because of urbanisation, selective closure of weather stations and unexplained “adjustments”. Two Greek scientists recently calculated that for 67 per cent of 181 globally distributed weather stations they examined, adjustments had raised the temperature trend, so they almost halved their estimate of the actual warming that happened in the later 20th century.
Anyway, by “unprecedented”, the WMO meant since 1850, which is a micro-second of history to a paleo-climatologist like Carter. He takes a long-term perspective, pointing out that the world has been warming since 17,000 years ago, cooling since 8000 years ago, cooling since 2000 years ago, warming since 1850 and is little changed since 1997. Consequently, “the answer to the question ‘is global warming occurring’ depends fundamentally on the length of the piece of climate string that you wish to consider”. He goes on: “Is today’s temperature unusually warm? No – and no ifs or buts.”
Carter is a courageous man, because within academia those who do not accept that climate change is dangerous are often bullied.
Indeed, Carter, who retired from James Cook University before he got interested in the global warming debate but remains an emeritus fellow, recently found himself deprived of even an email address by colleagues resentful of his failure to toe the line. As the old joke goes: what’s the opposite of diversity? University.
http://www.thegwpf.org/matt-ridley-calls-weather-normal/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Dr. Bob Carter’s fate is nothing but an expression of cowardice and hypocrisy and mean-spiritedness on the part of his detractors and enemies at James Cook University.
It is also a compelling statement of the need for a thorough [cleansing] process to get leftists out of government and education. Global warming alarmism is only the tip of the iceberg, in terms of the harm these people will do – and intend to do.
Well, CO2 can either warm the atmosphere OR make our weather weird. Surely we can’t expect it to do both at the same time. Sheesh!
@- dbstealey
“izen says:-“Can you think of any other example where scientific research has resulted in fraudulent alarmism…”
ALAR in apples, killer bees, Y2K… the list is long.”
None of which have over a century of scientific discovery and research behind them, were validated by all the major scientific institutions in the developed world and is supported by 97% of a large published research literature.
In fact all the examples you mention were media hype, not real scientific concerns.
Perhaps you are unable to tell the difference.
One clue is that media hype scare stories do not have over a century of scientific discovery and research behind them, are validated by all the major scientific institutions in the developed world and is supported by 97% of a large published research literature.
You would have to invent some sort of conspiracy to think that the science was still a fraudulent scare with that level of consilience with history and scientific development.
izen says:
“In fact all the examples you mention were media hype, not real scientific concerns.”
Really? Y2K was not a concern? A lot of computer scientists would disagree with you. And the government did, in fact, pour money into that scare, believing that it was a real scientific concern.
Also, you keep repeating your “97%” nonsense, like it is your only hope of convincing people you’re right.
Sorry, pal, you’re wrong. That 97% number has been so thoroughly debunked here so many times that only an ignoramus would use it in an argument. Go argue on the Guardian if you want to use that bogus number.
And your “all the major scientific institutions in the developed world ” is just an appeal to authority that takes the place of facts. Assertions by a small clique of Board members is reminiscent of the 100 scientists who wrote to Albert Einstein, telling him he was wrong. Einstein replied that it didn’t require 100 scientists — only one fact.
You are in the same boat. You have not provided one verifiable, testable fact supporting the runaway global warming scare. You only parrot what you read on propaganda blogs like SkS. But that is not good enough here. We need facts — and so far, you have not posted any.
That’s funny, I used the phrase “this average weather we’re having in 2013 is unprecedented.” The only thing this year that I see as unusual is this current retrograde low pressure system. I’m merely an amateur meteorologist so would someone with more knowledge on this subject educate me on just how unusual this westward moving system is.
Moderator –
I am sorry if the term I used to describe “cleansing” of government and the educational system was found offensive. I used it because it describes what was done in Germany after WWII to get Nazis out of the government and educational systems there, and I believe that the left is of a mindset very similar to that of the Nazis: their agenda is founded on lies, is inhumane and could well result in as many deaths as the Nazi Holocaust. We need to be rid of these people just as much as Germany needed to be rid of the Nazis, and unlike Germany we have an opportunity to be rid of them before they wreak their destruction on the world. Therefore, I stand by the term de-Nazification.
Lesson in logic:
Increased CO2 = Increased temperature and Bad things will happen.
Therefore:
Increased CO2 = NO increased temperature and Bad things will happen.
Bad news and bad weather sell newspapers, and helps them cling on to circulation and advertising sales.
So it’s the bad news and bad weather that the press always wishes to write up and emphasize …
None of which have over a century of scientific discovery and research behind them, were validated by all the major scientific institutions in the developed world and is supported by 97% of a large published research literature.
======================================================
So THM’s and disinfection byproducts are fine with you since science didn’t know they existed 100 years ago?
In fact all the examples you mention were media hype, not real scientific concerns
===========================================================
“Media hype”. Hmmm….Ever watched The Weather Channel lately? Do you remember how the Media covered “An Inconvenient Truth” and Al Gore’s Academy Award and Nobel Prize?
=========================================================================
WOW! The old media hyped 97% used twice in one comment!
OOPS!
“In fact all the examples you mention were media hype, not real scientific concerns”
Izen said that. I missed block-quoting it.
Dang! I missed more than one “blockquote”.
“None of which have over a century of scientific discovery and research behind them, were validated by all the major scientific institutions in the developed world and is supported by 97% of a large published research literature.’
Was also Izen.
(Maybe in another 100 years I’ll get right……..)
RT
it is very very unusual, I don’t know but maybe somebody here (hey isn’t watts a meteorologist???) can say whether we have a documented history of a retrogade low in the middle of the midwest actually pulling the bermuda high from the atlantic onto the eastern seaboard and the norther lakes?
that is what this weather vapor indicates is happening. It looks like the entire jet stream has reversed at mid latitudes.
http://www.eldoradocountyweather.com/current/satellite/goeseast-wv.php
Worldwide $308 billion ($400 billion in 2013 US dollars) was spent on the Y2K ‘problem’ for computer scientists and technicians to ‘solve’ the ‘problem’.
You made my point. Vast amounts of money spent by governments on a non-problem. Thanks.
References
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/586938.stm
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/community_education/teacher/calc/hist1800.cfm
Does anyone remember the Duke University cancer research scandal? Data falsified and experiments conducted so as to confirm a foregone conclusion, in exactly the same way the AGW crowd has done with climate.
Congratulations Germany you have destroyed the rural ecosystem (not to mention the Baltic bat population) of East Germany with thousands of turbines and a mono crop of rape seed (bio fuel) . The corridor from Peenemunde to Berlin is especially Apocalyptic in its environmental destruction, how anyone can think this is green is a complete dumbkopf…..
To the Fraudulent Alarmism List add radon, lead in paint, and (most) asbestos. Give me a minute and I will think of some others.
And I really wish people on this blog would get a feel for time! One lifetime, or the time since 1850, or the Met Office records, none of these cover enough time to make any kind of meaningful statement about climate trends. Get a grip, folks – human lifetimes are too brief to be significant. Let us deal in multiple millennia, at least. Better millions of years at a time.
Izen
You sound like new blogger on WUWT. Welcome . Suggest that you scan through various past tracks and posts here where countless extreme events and so called records have been exposed to be false and/or inaccurate. Most obvious is the entire global warming imminent threat where the temperatures were supposed to rise in an unprecedented way and never did, or the AGW science that was supposed to be settled and is now shown to be flawed or the unprecedented sea level rise that never happened or the decline in polar bears. The list is large and you seem very unaware and so you must be eager to learn.
The English disease, talking about the weather. Yes in the 1940s – 50s the weather was dreadful, rain, rain, snow, etc., and just across the channel, the French were seething and gloating because of their nice climate with lots of people retiring there. My Mum put down the bad weather as the results of the atom bomb tests and explosions. To have a tan of any sort was a sign you were able to holiday overseas. Such snobbery, eh?
George, you are right, but I bear in mind, that our planet is an ice planet by nature, and the last 10,000 years we have enjoyed a warm period allowing agriculture to be developed. Rain patterns do change and droughts do occur, but in an ice age environment in Africa the desert regions were once teeming with wild life and humans. (Evidence of rock paintings etc) And of course Homo Sapien Sapiens, they eventually moved into Europe and the Middle East, and Asia (China) displacing Neanderthals as they evolved in a cold climate, like the Inuits or Eskimos before Western diets started to kill them off.
Incidentally, during the very strong El Nino of 1998, the summer on Eastern Australia at least was abnormally calm and mild. Warm yes, but the overall weather was benign. I suspect this was caused by a reduction in temperature differentials during warmer periods. The Pacific itself was called the ‘Pacific’ because it was peaceful compared to the Atlantic, perhaps because, being greater the temperatures are more uniform, and the temperature differentials are reduced. So perhaps a warmer world has LESS extremes than a colder one, since the polar areas tend to warm faster and reduce the temperature differential between the equator and the poles. The opposite of what the alarmists say will happen.
The extreme weather scare was actually alive and well in the 1990s. This included a great controversy over impact on hurricanes. The evidence was fully against it and the IPCC said as much in SAR. But not only hurricanes. Other storms also, including cold ones. There was a newspaper article in the mid 1990s (NYT?) that was on messaging, showing a frozen New York street screaming ‘climate change’ (I dont have the reference here). Floods were always included along with droughts and conflagrations. Extreme weather was a way to bring the scare about impacts forward into the present when other impacts either had a positive edge (eg more farm production) or were pushing out beyond 2 or 3 generations. What I suspect has happened is that as the warming pause continues, extreme weather is all they have left in their kit bag.
I thought that “extreme” weather; by definition, is “abnormal”.
Normally, weather is just ‘normal’ ; it’s not extreme.
@blackadderthe4th and others:
The point is not to know if the world average temperature anomaly is positive, and therefore conclude that the Earth has warmed; indeed it did.
But predictive models and scenarii that were repeatedly presented by IPCC and others have proven unreliable. Ths means that:
a) the monocausal CO2 explanation is not good enough. It’s also not wrong in itself (law of physics) but in the magnitude that it is attributed to it. And the stabilizing feedback mechanisms are still not well understood (in particular clouds and rain);
b) weather is not climate. Weather extremes are no climate change.
“Seven years of famine preceded by seven years of abundance”. Who knew this already?
steve says:
July 15, 2013 at 1:40 pm
Congratulations Germany you have destroyed the rural ecosystem (not to mention the Baltic bat population) of East Germany with thousands of turbines and a mono crop of rape seed (bio fuel) . The corridor from Peenemunde to Berlin is especially Apocalyptic in its environmental destruction, how anyone can think this is green is a complete dumbkopf…..
Don’t worry, this will have other ecological consequences which the fanatics will blame on CO2.
The dying bees is another scare (bienensterben).
Of course this is further dramatise to the point: another food crisis will come etc.
Of course “we humans” are always the first being accused, when later the explanation comes, it goes down slowly without much noise, especially in those cases when of course not humans are the cause.
The point is that the alarmist organisations do make a living out of this, this is why they make all the noise and cashing the money and still keeping a clean face: “fighting for a good cause”.
herkimer says:
July 15, 2013 at 5:21 pm
“The list is large and you seem very unaware and so you must be eager to learn.”
nice try herkimer 🙂