A Saharan low and trough headed for the prime generation spot (Cape Verde) for Atlantic hurricanes off the West Coast of Africa is something worth watching over the next week. (h/t to Ed)
Source: http://www.opc.ncep.noaa.gov/UA/Atl_Tropics.gif
=================================================================
Another blow to the “heat waves and extreme weather are on the increase” alarm meme:
Scientists assert there is less weather variability, globally, than most people believe
Henry Gass, E&E reporter
Climate change is a broad and complicated topic, often too complicated for the average person. Instead, most of us get our grasp of climate change by looking out the window or stepping out the front door.
It explains why many people in North America and Europe — recent victims of sweltering heat waves, droughts, floods and other extreme weather events — believe climate change is causing ever more drastic weather extremes (ClimateWire, July 24).
That may not be the case around the world, however, according to a recent study by a team of British scientists published in the journal Nature. While regions like North America and Europe have been experiencing greater temperature variability, wild shifts from extreme heat to extreme cold, some parts of the world have been seeing more consistent temperatures.
When taken as a whole, global temperature variability has been nearly constant over the last 50 years, according to Chris Huntingford, lead author of the study and a climate modeler at the U.K. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, part of Britain’s government-funded Natural Environment Research Council.
More: http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059985592
===================================================================
International climate talks could fail without more national actions — report
Lisa Friedman, E&E reporter
There will be no new climate change treaty in 2015 unless more nations develop domestic legislation to address rising greenhouse gas levels, a new study concludes.
…
“I don’t see a deal in 2015 unless more countries move down the national legislative path, and those who are keen to see an agreement that is high in ambition are of the same view,” said Adam C.T. Matthews, secretary-general of GLOBE and author of the report.
More: http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059985701
==================================================================
Second Largest Arctic Ice Gain On Record
Arctic ice area has increased by almost 20,000 Manhattans from this date last year, making it the second largest increase on record. The only year which gained more ice was 1996.
In a few days, it is likely that 2013 will move into the #1 spot.
arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.anom.1979-2008
===================================================================
Dr. Judith Curry: Conflicts between climate and energy priorities
Which imperative is more ‘moral’ – to insist on reduced fossil fuel emissions over concern about what might happen > 50 years hence, in a future world that we can hardly imagine, or to support energy equity in the developing world and concretely improve lives in the here and now? How would cost/benefit analysis of this tradeoff even be conducted? What is the ‘morality’ here?
To those scientists that are advocating for a global emissions reduction policy, have you thought this one through (Jim Hansen seems to have)? This is one of the issues that makes the climate change problem so wicked.
Conflicts between climate and energy priorities
====================================================================
Zoologist Susan Crockford on the “the polar bear who died of climate change”
I suggest this is what really happened: the polar bear biologists working in Svalbard earlier this year knew this bear was going to die back in April when they captured him – they simply waited, with a photographer on hand, until he died. It was an orchestrated photo-op…How is it possible that this bear was healthy in April but dead by starvation less than 3 months later? Why was he even on land in April? Why was global warming photographer Ashley Cooper in Svalbard for 12 days in July, fortuitously available to take the bear’s picture?
The fact that the bear was onshore in April, available for capture by polar bear biologists, is a red flag. He should not have left the ice this early. He should have been out on the ice hunting seals. The ice may have pulled away from the shore but there was no compelling reason for him to go onshore if he was healthy and still successfully hunting – he just had to stay on the ice. He must have [been] sick or dying of old age.
This bear was doomed back in April by the simple act of leaving the ice so early and the biologists working the region (putting radio collars on bear) had to have known it: leaving the ice in April was not normal behavior. I suggest they alerted their colleagues and then kept track of him until he died, so they could get a useful picture of his dead carcass.
Ian Stirling’s latest howler: “the polar bear who died of climate change”
====================================================================
U.K. Grants Offshore Wind Triple Market Electricity Price
The U.K. will pay offshore wind developers triple the market price for electricity they generate under a subsidy program to boost renewable energy that by 2020 will cost consumers 7.6 billion pounds ($11.6 billion) a year. (h/t to WUWT reader John)
======================================================================
Larry Ledwick writes:
Interesting study coming out that ties personal choices of conservative media to lack of trust in scientists.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_us/meet_us/max_boykoff/readings/hmielowski_2013.pdf
They totally ignore the possibility that people can have a very high trust in scientists (ie Richard P. Feynman) but simply do not find that researchers in global warming adhere to basic tenants of scientific research and are thus “not scientists” but propagandists.
They are drawing a causal relationship from a casual association. The inverse of their hypothesis is equally likely, ie people who are educated enough in the principles of science to identify shoddy science when it is offered up by global warming adherents are more likely to be conservatives. It also supports the assertion that liberals are more inclined to be followers of causes and not critical thinkers but prefer to defer to authority rather than critically judge issues after examining them in detail, or actively researching the available information.
Maybe the polar bear “carcass” was made out of whole cloth. Piltdown Bear.
I wouldn’t be too concerned about that Saharan low developing into a monster hurricane. Look at how much stable, dry air is in its path at present:
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/east/tatl/flash-wv.html
Please: ‘tenets’ not ‘tenants’…
I’ve asked a couple of times now – why has WUWT apparently given up talking about Prof Murry Salby? No longer hot enough for the hot sheet?
Maybe, just maybe, …..
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/08/uk_shale_gas_swampy_effect/
‘Brits give thumbs-up to shale gas slurping in university-run poll
The more you scare us, the more we ignore you’
‘After asking thousands of Brits whether they backed shale gas in Blighty as a cheap source of energy, yes or no, and subtracting the negative percentage from the positive, the overall score was 11.4 per cent in favour in March 2012. Having asked 2,126 peeps in July this year, the score is up to 33.4 per cent identifying shale gas as a cheap source of energy.’
‘This is possibly an environmental journalist’s worst nightmare. For 40 years they’ve lobbed scare stories at the public and watched them explode. Now the public appears increasingly inclined to throw them right back.’
Sea ice is up in the Arctic. But from a very low base.
One year does not a trend make. Nor, of course, thirty in geological time.
My point, let’s not get too excited about regional wiggles unless they categorically prove the models right or wrong.
M Courtney: No, one year doesn’t make a trend; but one year can break a trend, thus at least setting up a question about the reliability or continuity of the trend. As for the models: They are guesses, not evidence. Speaking of them collectively concedes that no one of them has proven trustworthy in any absolute sense as yet; if one had, it would be used exclusively and the others abandoned to go the way of the phlogiston theory. Certain models, as I understand it, can be helpful in devising the 7-day or 8-day forecasts we see from the TV weather-guessers; but even those short forecasts are revised every day and still usually come up short in predictive ability. Whatever models those folks use testify to the chaotic nature of weather and show how impossible it is to predict climate years ahead–to say nothing of centuries. Models are a tool, imperfect even in the short range.
“The inverse of their hypothesis is equally likely…”
Yep. Gullibility is everywhere.
There is certainly, what appears to be an orchestrated attempt within the social sciences to affirm the already held belief that if you are on the right, politically, then you are also more likely to be irrational.
The article linking political persuasion and trust in science is so fundamentally flawed. Firstly it misunderstands what science is. They seem to assume that the science is settled because scientific societies say-so (akin to a council of cardinals). Secondly, they use a highly contentious issue which carries favour with liberals to make the assertion. They could have as easily looked at GM crops. Here, in Europe anyway, you’ll find greater opposition among liberals than conservatives. Does this mean that liberals mistrust scientist more than conservatives. Finally, and more importantly, reason demands skepticism and therefore questioning of statements of authority.
My faith in social science was never that strong but I’m slowly coming to the conclusion that it serves very little purpose whatsoever.
“There will be no new climate change treaty in 2015 unless more nations develop domestic legislation to address rising greenhouse gas levels, a new study concludes.”
IMHO it would be more appropriate to have an international treaty on regulating phantom energy, effectively preventing a Cosmic Doomsday, a.k.a. Big Rip. Even if it is not exactly urgent, it makes about as much sense as having a treaty on “climate change” while fighting fate even more valiantly.
In the meantime just imagine how sweet it would be to have a Phantom Energy Tax on cosmic scale!
2 Comments. First:
What “extremes”? This debate has bastardized the language. We have had some swings, and I would even go so far as to use the word “wild”. But extremes? Ponds have not frozen over in the south. Alaska is still a lot cooler than Florida, even in the summer! We are losing the definition of words to a propaganda machine that wants to create a new language. Newspeak.
Second, the Colorado U study. What scientific study on the planet would use a source of the HuffPo to make a point? Why not use the original source. That way it is unfiltered and accurate. That is not science! That is propaganda! And not even good propaganda, but very poor work.
That college needs to clean house or they are going to be seen as a laughing stock by any competent scientist.
M Courtney: The sea ice increase is specified in absolute, not relative terms, making
“low base” issues irrelevant.
arthur4563 says at August 8, 2013 at 5:13 am
Ouch.
You are quite right. I am wrong.
But I still think that looking at any local region and saying that is a meaningful sign for our long-lived planet is unfounded.
“U.K. Grants Offshore Wind Triple Market Electricity Price”
Gor blimey, what is stopping a revolution in the UK? Surely this is not widely popular. Has anyone noticed a large purchase of burdizzos over the past decades by the national health ministry?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Castrator-Burdizzo-9-For-Lamb-Goat-Emasculator-/350275134957
Tho it does have some meteorological interest, it’s pathetic when the “weather” channel starts scraping the barrel into mid-continental Africa frantically snooping for potential hurricanes ’cause nothing else is happening. Can’t they wait at least until it gets offshore? Jeesh.
Thank you Anthony! I really appreciate the tireless effort of all at WUWT.
john
I read recently, maybe here, that biologists can’t collar male polar bears because their necks are too thick. If that male bear that died three months later could have been collared, that suggests he was underweight and unhealthy–and that those who collared him recognized it.
I agree with your basic sentiment. But models can never be proved right. They can only be proved wrong. And for scientific intents and purposes, I think they already have been.
I opine further that the owners/operators of such models are not and never have been interested in scientific falsification, and are not scientists at all because of that flaw. Rather, they are activists, having plunged headfirst into the cesspool of leftist eco-advocacy for the sake of their careers and the continued flow of grant money. Research universities whose scientific credibility is at stake, and who have an long-term institutional reasons for being more circumspect, sadly have also joined in the activism, since about 50% of the grant money generally flows to their operating budgets. When climate “scientists” trots out the canard that “deniers are paid to misinform by big oil”, they are ignoring a very large mote in their own eyes.
Anthony! Get with it! This is not and never was about reality, it is about political power and completely controlling people through energy poverty and control of food supplies. Climate alarms are just the means to a political end. Note that in Oz in the past 24-hours the following was reported:
1.The analysis and adjustments are completed and Melbourne had its ‘hottest’ July day ever (24th July) at 24C, breaking the old record by 0.1C. I fainted.
2. A senior BoM pseudo-scientist received his 5-minutes of fame by reporting that yesterday’s exceptionally cold, windy and wet day was undoubtedly caused by AGW and that we should get used to it as this sort of wild weather was the ‘new norm’. I have been hiding under my desk ever since.
3. The national broadcaster (the execrable ABC that taxpayers fund to the tune of $1Bn+ for propaganda) breathlessly told us three times that Shanghai had its hottest day since records began 140 years ago.
4. I caught a few seconds of a children’s science show on the ABC that said the Arctic Ice was melting faster than predicted
All this in 24-hours, Dr, Goebbels .. Not bad
Nyq Only says:
August 8, 2013 at 1:50 am
I’ve asked a couple of times now – why has WUWT apparently given up talking about Prof Murry Salby?…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
If you can find new ‘News’ about him then add it to the tips and news page or do a story or save it up for an open thread weekend. Nothing is stopping you.
The fact that the bear was onshore in April, available for capture by polar bear biologists, is a red flag.
============
What this demonstrates is only that capturing bears for study may increase the odds of bears dying.
Frogs that were infected by disease passed accidentally by researchers were mistakenly claimed to be dying of climate change.
How do we know that the researchers that captured the bear did not accidentally pass along some disease to the bear?
rogerknights says:
August 8, 2013 at 6:10 am
I read recently, maybe here, that biologists can’t collar male polar bears because their necks are too thick.
=============
confirmed:
Cherry and colleagues fitted 109 female polar bears with tracking collars (males can’t wear collars because their necks are wider than their heads).
http://www.livescience.com/28038-sea-ice-affects-polar-bear-migration.html
So, what this means is that the researchers did something they should not have done – put a collar on a male bear – and three months later the bear died.
The most likely explanation is that the collar killed this bear. Which means indirectly the bear was killed by the study of global warming, not by any actual warming.
Nyq Only says:
August 8, 2013 at 1:50 am
—————–
Do you know of any new information or news on this? I presume it’s not talked about because there isn’t anything new to say, but I’m certainly still interested in it.
M Courtney says:
August 8, 2013 at 2:04 am
Sea ice is up in the Arctic. But from a very low base.
One year does not a trend make….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But you can add that to other information that DOES show a trend.
Norther Hemisphere snow cover for last winter:
October
November
December
January
February
March
Interesting how that never makes the news.
View from the Solent says:
August 8, 2013 at 1:55 am
Maybe, just maybe, …..
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/08/uk_shale_gas_swampy_effect/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That article is a keeper. It warms the heart unlike green energy.
i see in the comments to Judith Curry’s piece that David Appell is displaying massive levels of cognitive dissonance. Despite being repeatedly pulled up on it by Steven Mosher and others, he just can’t see that a carbon tax paid by the rich does less than nothing to help the poor in the world today.
In his mind, and minds that ‘work’ in a similar way, all that matters is the grand gesture and to hell with the details that determine the effect of the gesture.
Gary Pearse says:
August 8, 2013 at 5:50 am
….noticed a large purchase of burdizzos over the past decades by the national health ministry?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We just use a razor blade and 7% iodine. http://yhvh.name/?w=774
Gail Combs says:
August 8, 2013 at 6:19 am
Nyq Only says:
August 8, 2013 at 1:50 am
I’ve asked a couple of times now – why has WUWT apparently given up talking about Prof Murry Salby?…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
If you can find new ‘News’ about him then add it to the tips and news page or do a story or save it up for an open thread weekend. Nothing is stopping you.
I am waiting to see if he gets his 3 papers published, or even one. He had some very interesting things to say and if true, others will jump on it. There will be some that want to test his ideas. The next few years we may see something.
I am a bit disturbed that he may have had some malfeasance while at Colorado. That may be one reason he is not discussed as much – uncertainty about his story. His claim now is that they confiscated all his data and computers so it will be hard to write up his results. If true, this is outrageous. On the other hand, we only have his word that this is what stops him from writing it up. Salby is still a big question mark for me right now.
Gary Pearse says:
August 8, 2013 at 5:50 am
” “U.K. Grants Offshore Wind Triple Market Electricity Price”
Gor blimey, what is stopping a revolution in the UK?”
No 2nd Amendment.
I can understand why there is more ice in the Arctic. One of the reasons is that the winter temperature departure from 1961-1990 averages dropped from 5.6 C in 2010 winter to only 1.1 C in 2013 winter for the Arctic Tundra region of Canada . That is a drop of 4.5 degrees. Canadian national winter temperature departures dropped from 4.1C to 1.6 C in the same period.
“While regions like North America and Europe have been experiencing greater temperature variability, wild shifts from extreme heat to extreme cold, some parts of the world have been seeing more consistent temperatures.”
According to the Milankovitch Cycles, the earth is moving towards a more moderate climate overall, and as the earth continues to do so, the probability of slipping into another glaciation period increases – within one to two thousand years from now perhaps; or, maybe sooner.
Reading the last item; http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_us/meet_us/max_boykoff/readings/hmielowski_2013.pdf reveals that the authors intentions were to identify methods to improve non-conservative media coverage in support of the global warming dogma, not to get to the truth.
ferdberple says:
“How do we know that the researchers that captured the bear did not accidentally pass along some disease to the bear?”
If they did we know why they want to blame climate change. Their staging of the photo just lends credence to the claim that they’re responsible.
Speaking of Polar Bears…
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/lawyer-who-survived-polar-bear-attack-recovering-in-montreal-hospital-1.1389375
“International climate talks could fail…”
And just what are all the nations supposed to do about climate change? Which nation gets to control the thermostat? Which nation controls the sprinkler system? Which nation gets to set the fan at low, medium, or high? Tough issues, to be sure.
Oh wait! The talks are about who pays money, who receives money, and who gets to try to run their country without fossil fuels. Nevermind…
To Various: Aside from a cartoon by Josh the last official WUWT post (as opposed to comments) was on July 10 when the Uni made its first response to the allegations. Is it that nothing has occurred since in this story? That doesn’t seem to be the case.
1. There was another longer and more detailed response from the Uni. No post from WUWT. http://www.announcements.mq.edu.au/vc/professor_murry_salby_and_his_dismissal_from_macquarie_university
2. There was a kind of ‘expose’ in DeSmog Blog – this was pointed to me by a commentator at WUWT but there was no actual post on the it from WUWT – perhaps one countering the allegations or given Prof Salby’s side of things. http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/07/12/murry-salby-sacked-australian-university–banned-national-science-foundation
3. Climate Depot DID respond to those allegations http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/07/12/hmm-climate-sceptic-murry-salby-was-the-subject-of-a-long-investigation-by-the-us-national-science-foundation-re-conflicts-of-interest-etc-which-alarmists-have-been-the-subject-of-similar-inve/
4. There was a major news story in The Australian newspaper that the Uni’s behaviour could face investigation by The International Council for Science http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/academics-dismissal-could-face-scrutiny/story-e6frgcjx-1226683987876
5. And a counter claim from DeSmogBlog again that the International Council for Science had withdrawn that threat http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/07/29/top-physicist-withdraws-support-climate-sceptic-professor-sacked-australian-university
Our host is on record as saying about this issue: “it illustrates the disturbing lengths a university will go to suppress ideas they don’t agree with. So much for academic freedom at Macquarie University.” Is that still his opinion? If so isn’t some vocal support in order?
Just asking.
Scots ‘face world’s biggest energy bills’ from wind power
http://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/scots-face-world-s-biggest-energy-bills-from-wind-power-1-3029517
[excerpt]
THE unreliability of wind power could mean an independent Scotland would have to import energy from England – leaving it with the highest household bills in the world, it was claimed yesterday.
In an interview with Scotland on Sunday, Sir Donald Miller, former chairman of both the South of Scotland Electricity Board and of ScottishPower, has described the SNP’s current energy policy on producing 100 per cent of Scotland’s needs from renewables as “disastrous”.
First Minister Alex Salmond has claimed that an independent Scotland would be the “Saudi Arabia of renewables”. But Sir Donald warned that Scots could face the highest bills in the world once a single UK energy market ceased to exist and they had to pay for imported power.
Sir Donald said an independent Scotland could find itself in the same position as Denmark, which produces much of its energy from wind and has the highest household bills in the world – about 70 per cent more than the UK – because it has to import at premium prices from Norway when the wind is not blowing.
—————-
And the UK will pay triple market price to offshore wind?
In order to actually know what is wrong with an animal requires the process of observation and deduction.
The questions; What was clinically wrong with the animal three months ago? and; What was the actual cause of death derived from further clinical examination and post mortem? must be asked and answered.
The scientists had the opportunity to at least do a post mortem, even in a frozen specimen.
Obvious gross pathology such as poor dentition,neoplastic change and liver and kidney changes may have been observed.Emaciation is hardly unusual in a dying mammal.
If the average age of death is 20 years you may surmise that there would be 5 in 100 bears dead in any one year, so the death of a single bear must be put into the context of a five percent death rate.
There is no evidence that Polar Bears are dying out. In fact the population is growing.
Proper studies of the health and wellbeing of bears and a realistic understanding of the normal would advance science in this area.
Union of Concerned Scientists on solar…
http://news.yahoo.com/got-science-green-tea-party-may-brewing-op-213453934.html
The Cape Verde potential is fascinating. This season is very quiet so far.
Updates on Prof. Salby’s persecution would be much appreciated.
The possibility of the AGW hypesters staging, or even arranging, for convenient polar bear deaths and other evidence is completely reasonable. Consider how their man Peter Gleick was dealt with.