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.
Bushbunny, you are still thinking too short-term. The Earth during the Pleistocene was an ice planet for short periods, interspersed with periods warmer than today. Over the long-term, the past billion years, it has normally been a hothouse planet, with only a handful of brief ice ages.
Read the book “1491” about what the Americas were like before the Europeans arrived, and what happened to the indigenous population. It wasn’t a Western diet that did them in, it was (mostly) smallpox.
blackadderthe4th says:
July 15, 2013 at 9:48 am
@Jeff Alberts says:
July 15, 2013 at 7:47 am
‘What should have been clear to R. Alley is that “Earth’s average temperature” is meaningless.’ why?
It has to do with the nature of an “average.” The short of it is, until you really know what you are averaging, that number is pretty well meaningless. No human lifespan is long enough to experience “average” weather on a planetary scale. As Dr. Carter pointed out, trends in temperature are entirely at the mercy of arbitrarily chosen beginning points and ending points. To obtain a “real” average would entail a great deal more than most of the so-called paleoclimatologists involved in the AGW side of the debate are willing offer, such as a sound methodological justification for calling some given number an “average” temperature. Then too, there is the simple problem of measurement locations, which are – or until the satellite era – were strictly biased to locations with human populations of various scales. It is not unreasonable to suspect that the vast majority of all temperature data is contaminated – biased – by human actions altering the local or regional landscape. You hear a good deal about urban heat islands, but not so much about the effects of agriculture and animal husbandry. We have data from urban areas, data from rural (farming) areas and a very trivial amount from wild lands. Comparisons of historical and modern photographs from various locations (e.g. Israel, Yosemite, etc.) reveal tremendous changes in landscapes that are not accounted for by any model or adjustment. The changes can be directly linked to changes in landuse and landuse administration. In Israel, after 1949 strict controls were set in place that limited grazing of sheep and goats, resulting in increasing forest lands and chaparral-communities. In California the suppression of aboriginal burning practices also lead to increased forest density and immense shifts in botantical structures in grasslands.
thingodonta says:
July 15, 2013 at 7:02 pm
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.
==========================================================================
Are you sure about that?
This may jog your memory.
http://www.australianweathernews.com/news/1998/news9801.html
http://www.australianweathernews.com/news/1998/news9802.html
Seems to me it was as far from benign as you can get.
berniel says: July 15, 2013 at 7:21 pm
And I’m inclined to suspect that your suspicions are not ill-founded, Bernie!
Even the WMO (who really should know better, IMHO) for some strange reason in March of this year felt it necessary to get into the extreme event act (albeit for “public information only; not an official document”). As part of this “unofficial” 8-page pdf which (surprise, surprise) begins::
and continues to recite the all too familiar chapters and verses, “hockey-stickish” graphs included, of course … then introduces:
Never let it be said that a UN affiliated body (particularly a proud parent of the IPCC!) will miss an opportunity to mislead the public, eh?!
Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get. It’s OK, extremes do occur like the great storm of the 80s that flattened 1,000,000 trees in UK. But a typhoon type storm is not unknown in UK one was noticed in the Bronze age. Floods are not unknown either. Droughts too. In Lincolnshire, where I lived in the 1960s, we had water restrictions. Mainly no sprinklers, or washing cars with a hose. Came to Sydney and they had water restrictions here too. Friend of mine sending me a birthday wish yesterday, said, 30 C in London. (86 F) well to me that is not that hot, we get that temp on the Northern Tablelands infrequently, but it cools right down at night.
Yet they had one of the coldest winters again, and I don’t believe this extra hot summer, I don’t know where they took their temps. The thing is in Oz, the hotter it is during the day, with high humidity then rain follows, and we welcome rain.
Climate is always changing! But how much out of the ‘ordinary’ does local weather have to be to suggest it is not natural variability?
Japan heatwave kills 12: reports
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Japan_heatwave_kills_12_reports_999.html
I recently took a weekend road trip with some friends in Oregon. We drove out the coast, 2 hours from home, and camped in the backyard of another friend’s cabin. Beyond the yard, as far as the eye could see were luxuriously green fir trees. A short walk across the road was a sandy beach and the massive swell of the Pacific Ocean. It was beautiful, peaceful, enjoyable and inspiring.
In the morning, after sleeping on the ground, we went into the cabin and cut up bananas, strawberries, blueberries and avocados, cooked a big breakfast of bacon and eggs, and poured ourselves mimosas. As we enjoyed our feast at the outdoor picnic table, the talk turned political.
Five women, all in our 30’s pitched in with views and opinions. And then one of the women started talking climate change and that led to her concern about the future and then her concern about the present and eventually her statement “…if it isn’t already too late and the environment isn’t already destroyed.”
Now, I can understand that there will be future repercussions to our current actions, however, when you put someone in a pristine situation and they can see with their own eyes the beauty surrounding them, it seems musing that nature has been destroyed is a theory based conclusion at best. First person experience would lead you to believe that all is well. If you believe in climate change you may believe that nature is in danger. But to say it may already be destroyed while you can see with your eyes that it is not is at the heart of the brainwashing stance of climate propaganda.
And I haven’t even begun to discuss the fact that we drove a gas fueled car, ate meat, drank alcohol and had fruit grown outside of the region. That’s the hypocrisy of the climate alarmists. I always want to ask someone who is so very climate sensitive why they continue to fly about the world on airplanes, but in Portland, Oregon that is just not a PC question. I’ve learned to speak quietly about my beliefs because you will not find a job here if you do not believe in the “truth”.
Storm moving East to West is weird. No?