TierneyLab mentions a Lancet study according to which “obesity promotes global warming”.
Oops!! I should have done that diet last year!!!
Hopefully though, the paunch police won’t throw me in jail any time soon (you know, we Large People are usually easy to catch…)
A series of exchanges at Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub is a good occasion to re-iterate a simple point: the IPCC has to this day failed to prove that climate change is a worldwide effect.
In other words, there still is no solid evidence of the “global” character of “global warming”.
Let’s look at the IPCC AR4-WG2, Chapter 1.
I presume a “climate non-skeptic” would treat that document as an authoritative source. Better than vague reports on insurance companies or moving plants.
And so: the IPCC AR4-WG2 Chapter 1, dedicated to report ALL changes in a warming planet, lists:
(a) 26,285 significant changes compatible with warming
(b) 3,174 significant changes not compatible with warming (around 11% of the total of 29,459 significant changes)
Plenty to pick-and-choose from, I am sure. But then there are also other quite important numbers from the same report:
(c) 28,234 significant changes are from Europe alone
(d) 1,225 significant changes are from the rest of the world (4.15% of the total)
(e) 25,135 significant changes compatible with warming are from Europe alone
(f) Only 1,150 significant changes compatible with warming are from the rest of the world (4.4% of the total of 26,285 significant changes compatible with warming)
Note that (b) is almost two times bigger than (f). And I haven’t even mentioned the fact that the vast majority of non-European significant changes, come just from North America.
And so, in a sense, it is the IPCC itself that says that the “global” in “global warming” is something that definitely still needs to be demonstrated.
…with a few chums, on a private island of course.
Having reached the agreement that (”the world is on fire” and) there must be an agreement but nobody knows what kind of agreement, they relaxed by sailing off in a dozen catamarans for a little beach party. With Blair’s security people behind in a motorboat, of course.
Global warming has been defeated! Glory be to Rich People That Care About the Planet!
Next: a zero-emission, perpetual-motion device. A couple of island retreats should suffice…
UPDATE: from a letter published in today’s IHT:
Regarding the article “A getaway for a bit of ‘green’ talk, via jet-pool” (March 21): You’d think this group of wealthy, powerful fellows who were so involved in developing new uses for the Internet would have heard about teleconferencing. They could view one another on big screens and meet, in real time, without such a profligate use of the petroleum they want the rest of us to do without.
It’s so transparent: They just want to make more money. There is nothing wrong with making money, but they shouldn’t pretend they are trying to save the world.
Betty Perkowski North Stonington, Connecticut
On World Water Day, the United Nations have come out with yet another dire prediction: “By 2025, fully a third of the planet’s growing population could find itself scavenging for safe drinking water“.
And just in case anybody would miss it: “even as scientists and governments look for ways to satisfy a thirsty world, another threat looms on the horizon: global warming“.
In truth, rising seas and more frequent droughts don’t seem such a particularly bad idea. Think of a cooling world: would that be a drier world too, as more and more water is locked up in glaciers and ice sheets?
Of course a warmer world is a wetter place. The equation warm=dry is mostly if not only in the minds of scientists and journalists living in Europe and North America (i.e., the Northern temperate regions: where in fact it rains less in the Summer).
Anybody worried about water availability should definitely hope for further warming…
Something absolutely unheard-of before: an entire New York Times article talking about Global Warming but… with no hint of impending doom or catastrophes:
In a Warmer Yellowstone Park, a Shifting Environmental Balance by Jim Robbins - published: March 18, 2008
From Spiked-Online: “Intellectual blasphemy - Alexander Cockburn tells spiked that when he dared to question the climate change consensus he was met by a tsunami of self-righteous fury“
[...] The left has bought into environmental catastrophism because it thinks that if it can persuade the world that there is indeed a catastrophe, then somehow the emergency response will lead to positive developments in terms of social and environmental justice. This is a fantasy. In truth, environmental catastrophism will, in fact it already has, play into the hands of sinister-as-always corporate interests. [...]
The marriage of environmental catastrophism and corporate interests is best captured in the figure of Al Gore. As a politician, he came to public light as a shill for two immense power schemes [...] His arguments, many of which are based on grotesque science and shrill predictions, seem to me to be part of a political and corporate outlook. [...]
Through the process of peer review, of certain papers being nodded through by experts and other papers being given a red cross, the controllers of the major scientific journals can include what they like and exclude what they don’t like. [...]
Since I started writing essays challenging the global warming consensus, and seeking to put forward critical alternative arguments, I have felt almost witch-hunted. There has been an hysterical reaction. One individual, who was once on the board of the Sierra Club, has suggested I should be criminally prosecuted [...]
This experience has given me an understanding of what it must have been like in darker periods to be accused of being a blasphemer; of the summary and unpleasant consequences that can bring. There is a witch-hunting element in climate catastrophism [...]
From Roger Pielke, Sr. “Climate Science” “Reality Check On This Year’s Cold and Snowy Weather - Implications For Global Warming“: we can state that global warming has not occurred in the last 4 years
With respect to the change in upper ocean heat content, as reported on a Climate Science weblog on February 15 2008, the paper
Willis, J. K., D. P. Chambers and R. Steven Nerem, 2008: Assessing the Globally Averaged Sea Level Budget on Seasonal and Interannual Time Scales. Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans (in press),
reports on no upper (700m) ocean warming since 2004.
Thus while we cannot state that the recent widely distributed cold waves or overall cooling of the troposphere are evidence of the end of global warming over decadal and longer time scales, we can state that global warming has not occurred in the last 4 years. This is a major issue for both climate science and for policymakers, as only those who blindly (or deliberately) ignore the scientific evidence can still accept the 2007 IPCC conclusions as settled science.
This is part of the original quote from Chambers and Nerem:
“Despite the short period of the present analysis, these results have important implications for climate. First, from 2004 to the present, steric contributions to sea level rise appear to have been negligible. This is consistent with observations of ocean surface temperature, which show relatively little change in the global average between 2003 and 2006 [Smith and Reynolds, 2005, see NCDC global surface temperature anomalies]. It is in sharp contrast, however, to historical analyses of thermal expansion over the past decade [Willis et al., 2004] and the past half-century [Antonov et al., 2005; Lombard et al., 2005; Ishii et al., 2006]. Although the historical record suggests that multiyear periods of little warming (or even cooling) are not unusual, the present analysis confirms this result with unprecedented accuracy.”
“Glaciers suffer record shrinkage” say the BBC on its front page, International version tonight. Cue mentions of millions of people in danger of being left almost without water; talks about canaries and coal mines; and appeals for an immediate “green” change of people, economies and the whole society.
Google News report an alleged 122 news articles about the same story:
“The rate at which some of the world’s glaciers are melting has more than doubled, data from the United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP] has shown“
So much for the news though. Let’s investigate the original source. And lo and behold, things are quite different from what has been reported.
==============
A quick search brings one to the website for the World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS), the Zurich-based group that is actually collecting the data for the UNEP. Top news on their home page, “The preliminary mass balance data for the year 2006 is now available!“.
Why it is out now, it’s explained in the other news: “Workshop on mass balance measurements and modelling (26-28 March 2008, Skeikampen, Norway)!“
WGMS say more or less what the news is reporting:
“Preliminary mass balance values for the year 2006 are now available from more than 80 glaciers worldwide. The continuous mass balance statistics below are calculated based on the 30 glaciers in 9 mountain ranges*** [...]
The average mass balance of the glaciers with available long-term mass balance series around the world continues to decrease, with tentative figures indicating a further thickness reduction of 1.4 m w.e. (*) during the hydrological year 2006. This continues the trend in accelerated ice loss during the past two and a half decades and brings the total loss since 1980 at more than 10.5 m w.e.“
An analysis of the published data reveals something else.
First of all one minor error (positive balances occur in 5 glaciers, not 4). Then something a tad more significative: the actual reported mean thickness reduction is 1.301m, not 1.4m. The difference is around 10cm, that is 100 times the claimed resolution of 1mm.
But the biggest revelation is actually a confirmation: of the extraordinary extent of measurement bias in all things about so-called GLOBAL warming.
(1) What is the distribution for the “30 glaciers in 9 mountain ranges” included in the WGMS analysis? 20 in Europe; 4 in North America; 6 in the rest of the world. That is: 66.7% in Europe, 13.3% in North America, 20% in the rest of the world.
(2) How many glaciers are included in the full WGMS list? 111. Of those: 60.4% in Europe, 24.3% in North America, 15.3% in the rest of the world.
(3) For how many glaciers is there data for 2005/2006? 97. Of those: 66.0% in Europe, 22.7% in North America, 11.3% in the rest of the world.
(4) How are thickness reductions distributed? Of the largest 19, 18 relate to European glaciers, and only one to a North American glacier. The first glacier from the rest of the world ranks 35 out of 97.
(5) How many glaciers show a thickness reduction larger than 10cm? 88. Of those: 69.3% in Europe, 20.5% in North America, 10.2% in the rest of the world.
(6) What is the average thickness reduction in all the glaciers for which data is available? 1.142m. In particular: 1.337m for Europe, 0.865m for North America, 0.565m for the rest of the world. Surely it must be by pure chance that the official WGMS statistics use a particular set of glaciers whose average thickness reduction is larger than the whole dataset’s.
==============
The pro-European (and pro-North American) bias is so blatant it doesn’t need any further qualification.
I have already shown how the IPCC itself may have unwittingly indicated that “Global Warming may be just European“. And now it may as well be the turn of the WGMS: for all we know, glaciers have been shrinking especially in the Northern Hemisphere temperate regions.
Is this sign of a “global” phenomenon? Who knows?
In truth, there is no meaning in speaking of “global warming” or of “global climate change” until the data are sufficiently “global“.
Let’s hope it will happen, one day…
==============
(*) “w.e.” means “water equivalent“.
“Mass balance is reported in meters of water equivalent. This represents the average thickness gained (positive balance) or lost (negative balance) from the glacier during that particular year.”
(these are my responses to a blog first published on LiveScience by Robert Roy Britt about a year ago, and that I have “rediscovered” today. RRB clumsily tried to put all global warming skeptics together with the Apollo-is-a-hoax people: sort of the lowest of the low in scientific circles. I have put out a series of challenges at the time, all of them still unmet.)
How about this for logical fallacy: the Apollo mission are historical events, global warming is a forecast (i.e.: it is about the future).
Shame to the scientific mind that is not skeptical of the future!
I am also aghast at your sudden penchant to follow “governments”. From a scientific point of view, who cares what governments have to say about astronomy or particle physics or biology or chemistry or or or?
One wonders what you had to say about Kansas politics deciding the scientific merits of Evolution and intelligent design
So unless you are going to rename this website “LivePolitics”, please do try again at making an intelligent point on climate change
I am satistied to see that nobody has picked up the challenge of explaining why, if the evidence of climate change is so unquestionable, we had to get 113 governments approve the first IPCC report after 4 days behind closed doors.
Too bad we have to wait now several months to get to see such “evidence”. One of the few things we have for certain is that, whilst a large number of hurricane experts signed a statement saying there is no definite link between climate change and hurricanes, the IPCC did not think that worthwhile of consideration
Also, nobody has explicitly defended the absurd comparison of climate change skeptics to Moon hoaxers.
What would IPCC supporters say about the lack of difference between Intelligent Design (”there is a God as there are things we cannot explain in biology”) with Anthropogenic Climate Change (”there is human-induced climate change as we cannot explain our data with known mechanisms”)?
Here’s a more serious challenge: find a weather pattern that has changed IN_THE_RECENT_PAST anywhere in the world due to climate change. Rain bands, prevailing winds, weather fronts’ paths, anything would do really.
Now, that would finally give climate change some historical evidence…
Happy hunting!
Just to report that when the evidence did come out (IPCC Fourth Assessment Report - Working Group 2 (AR4-WG2), Chapter 1), we’ve learnt that 96% of the reported changes concern just the continent of Europe.
Actually, there are twice as many European changes incompatible with warming, than worldwide changes compatible with it.
Europe, by the way, occupies just 2% of the Earth’s surface.
The “whole picture” on global warming is unbelievably far from complete. Why don’t the IPCC and climate and environmental scientists push for a truly planet-wide assessment?
ps no, the results of a model cannot be used as “evidence”.
I have already exposed in the recent past the obvious bias in global warming reporting by publicly-funded BBC.
Around very similar notes, but with a much much wider outlook, the Skeptics Society has now published a very interesting essay by investigative and feature journalist Steve Salerno, titled
It exposes broadcast journalism as reporter-of-nothing, when not creating panic out of that same nothingness. And it is especially critical of “campaign journalism”.
A couple of quotes:
“In truth, today’s system of news delivery is an enterprise whose procedures, protocols, and underlying assumptions all but guarantee that it cannot succeed at its self described mission. Broadcast journalism in particular is flawed in such a fundamental way that its utility as a tool for illuminating life, let alone interpreting it, is almost nil. “
“You’re in Pulitzer territory for writing about something that — essentially — never happens.“
In upcoming blogs I will return to parts of this essay that may be used to explain pretty much all the Climate Change scares that have ever (not) happened.
For now I strongly recommend reading it in full.
(here and here and here some more thoughts on the all-too-apparent bias at the BBC towards global warming and doom-and-gloom news in general)
There is almost no need to comment the following at all…
(1) Almost six years ago
BBC News - Wednesday, 17 July, 2002, 07:53 GMT 08:53 UK
“Seven die in Chinese heat wave“
[...] The heat has intensified in recent years as a result of the increase in vehicles on the roads, which raise street temperatures.
(2) One year ago
BBC News - Tuesday, 6 February 2007, 12:34 GMT
“Climate change ‘affecting’ China - Unseasonably warm weather in north China has been linked to climate change“
(page is chock-full of climate change links)
At least 300,000 people in north-west China are short of drinking water because of unseasonably warm weather, which officials link to climate change. Parts of Shaanxi province face drought after January saw as little as 10% of average rainfall, state media say. Frozen lakes are melting and trees are blossoming in the capital Beijing as it experiences its warmest winter for 30 years, the China Daily reported.
[...] The country’s top meteorologist, Qin Dahe, said the recent dry and warm weather in northern China was related to global warming. [...]
(3) January 2008
BBC News - Thursday, 31 January 2008, 13:53 GMT
“Food warnings amid China freeze - Millions of people have been affected by the severe snow“
(not one climate change link in sight)
China is struggling to cope with its worst snowfall in decades, with officials warning of future food shortages as winter crops are wrecked.[...]
Dozens are thought to have died as much of the country endures one of its harshest winters for half a century.
How many people died in the 2007 heatwave? Perhaps…zero.
(4) How about Shaanxi? Sadly, no space for it this year on the BBC (at least, so far). Here’s what is happening though:
rediff - January 30, 2008
“Snowstorms paralyse China“
[...] In northwestern Shaanxi province alone, 1,200 people were reportedly ill or injured in snow-related incidents [...]
UPDATE: This particular post has become quite popular having been linked from “Biased BBC”
How many times have we been told that “weather” is not “climate”, that a heatwave or a cold front or heavy winds or hurricanes or the lack thereof, can say absolutely nothing about the state of the global climate?
Lo and behold, here comes the BBC’s John Hammond in the current “Monthly Outlook” for the UK:
The predominance of south or southwesterly winds kept temperatures at or above average in many parts in the early days of 2007. This theme looks set to continue for a greater part of the next month.
This comes on the back of recently released figures for 2007, which showed that on a global level 2007 was the seventh warmest on record since 1850.
Should it really be necessary to tell a meteorologist that if local above-average temperatures are due to “south/southwesterly winds” THEN the only way to connect the temperatures to global warming would be by demonstrating a link between those winds, and that warming?
Furthermore: the Hadley Centre has not published yet the final figures for 2007. Data so far show sea-surface temperatures for 2007 to be the 9th on record, globally (the southern oceans have actually recorded in December the coolest value in 13 years).
UPDATE JAN 26: HadCRUT data now available up to December 2007
