Archive
Climate Change Inspires Verbal Gymnastics at UNICEF
When something is fashionable it is so much better if you can dress up whatever you care about with the right clothes. Step forward UNICEF, then, launching itself into a remarkable case of verbal gymnastics to link the very much serious-but-evidently-unfashionable problems of poor children around the world, with…climate change.
“Warming ‘affecting poor children‘“, reports the BBC, notably with those single quotes, but with no link to the UNICEF report itself “Our Climate Our Children“. From UNICEF’s presentation of the report, by Lord Nicholas Stern:
Here in the UK, flooding is becoming a more common occurrence. Birds are nesting earlier, animals are moving territories, the duration and range of seasons is changing.
The usual collection of baseless remarks then? Not encouraging. Let’s move further:
[Children] are already seeing the impacts of climate change through malnutrition, disease, poverty, inequality and increasing risk of conflict – and ultimately an increase in child mortality rates.
Unfortunately, malnutrition, disease, etc were with us long before anybody had said “climate change”. Has UNICEF and/or Lord Stern found a way to identify the climate-change signal in current child mortality rates? Let’s find out. Here’s a quote from the Press Release:
the world’s poorest and most vulnerable children are being hit the hardest by the impact of climate change…the implications of climate change for the world’s children’ draws attention to the fact that climate change is impacting very seriously on children and their rights
So the BBC is right…it does look like UNICEF is claiming climate-change stuff is affecting children RIGHT NOW. But is that so? Here’s the list from the same press release:
…Climate change could cause an additional 40,000 to 160,000 child deaths per year…
…an additional 30 – 200 million people will be placed at risk of hunger…
…may make it more likely that parents remove their children from school…
…Malaria…is now being seen in areas which were previously outside the range of malarial mosquitoes, such as the highlands of Kenya and Jamaica. Diarrhoea: Climate change will increase the burden of diarrhoeal disease…
Out of FIVE claims, only ONE is for the present (malaria in Kenya and Jamaica highlands). Everything else is for the FUTURE. So much for “already seeing the impact“…
How can this be reported as happening in the present? By creatively using the vocabulary: as written by the BBC: “Climate change is already affecting the prospects for children in the world’s poorer countries, according to Unicef“.
What is claimed to be affected right now is the ESTIMATED FUTURE RISK for children. A strange definition of “PRESENT” indeed…
ps it’s sadly ironic that the one PRESENT consequence of UNICEF’s work about climate change, is that kids are getting anxious. One wonders if the UNICEF’s founders ever planned for their organisation to be on the forefront of the business of…scaring young children.
pps At page 8 of the UNICEF report there is a separate section “Examples of hazardous weather in 2007”. But as we well know, weather is not climate, so what is that list about, one is not sure. Also, note that more or less any kind of “hazardous weather” would do, cold, warm, dry, wet, whatever.
Climate Change Detection/Attribution? Some Hope!
Curious situation on the website of the PCMDI – the “Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison”, at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, with a stated mission:
to develop improved methods and tools for the diagnosis and intercomparison of general circulation models (GCMs) that simulate the global climate
Here’s what the PCMDI has to say about “devising robust statistical methods for climate-change detection/attribution“:
That’s it.
Wow.
Sure.
Well, it looks like we will just have to be patient. We will be told how to detect and attribute climate change…one day, perhaps after some considerable amount of time will have ben spent in the frankly rather wasteful efforts of mostly comparing climate models to each other, rather than to the actual world.
p.s.: Applause to the PCMDI for their frankness:
The need for innovative analysis of GCM climate simulations is apparent, as increasingly more complex models are developed, while the disagreements among these simulations and relative to climate observations remain significant and poorly understood. The nature and causes of these disagreements must be accounted for in a systematic fashion in order to confidently use GCMs for simulation of putative global climate change.
More on RealClimate’s Unfalsifiable Models
This being the age of the Internet, not everybody reads after the second or third paragraph. So here’s a quick summary explaining why I write that “RealClimate Raises the Bar AGAINST Climate Models“:
(1) In the “RealClimate World”, models cannot be falsified by a single observation (i.e. atmospheric phenomenon). That phenomenon is called ”weather”, and “weather” for RealClimate is “noise”)
(2) In the “RealClimate World”, models cannot be falsified by a set of short-term observations. That set is just part of a “specific trajectory” towards the expected climate change / global warming. And RealClimate is “not too concerned” about a “specific trajectory“.
Example for point (1): If models indicate the world will get warmer by the year 2100, but world temperatures dip in January and February 2008, RealClimate can still “honestly” claim the models are right, and whatever happened is just a momentary event, during which the “signal” of anthropogenic global warming has been “obscured” by this or that natural (or man-made) cause.
Example for point (2): If models indicate the world will get warmer by the action of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, but world temperatures don’t climb after 1998, RealClimate can still “honestly” claim the models are right, and whatever happened is just the way things are going at the moment, with a random pause in temperature increases that is just one of the hundreds of possible “trajectories” that will take us to a warmer world.
The only way to verify if the climate models are right is by waiting a sufficient number of years in order to statistically check the world has actually got warmer. How many years? More than 10, evidently (see 1998), perhaps more than 30, following the classical definition of “weather”. And by how much, the temperature increase? Pretty much any positive amount would suffice to state, once again, that the “models are right”.
==============
This looks like some kind of “suffocating love”, with the modellers so worried about their models, they have shielded them from almost all possibilities of falsification (in the process, pretty much abandoning “science” as usually understood).
And this is not the only contradiction: if the only way to see the models at work is by waiting a number of years, how could anybody advocate to “act now to save the Planet” because “the science is settled”?
==============
The issue of model falsifiability has already been a topic on the NYT’s “Tierney Lab”, daring to ask this past January questions such as “Are there any indicators in the next 1, 5 or 10 years that would be inconsistent with the consensus view on climate change?” and “Are there any sorts of weather trends or events that would be inconsistent [with global warming}?“.
And what did Gavin Schmidt reply on RealClimate? No, and no:
this subject appears to have been raised from the expectation that some short term weather event over the next few years will definitively prove that either anthropogenic global warming is a problem or it isn’t. As the above discussion should have made clear this is not the right question to ask. Instead, the question should be, are there analyses that will be made over the next few years that will improve the evaluation of climate models?
No “short-term weather event over the next few years” could ever disprove that “anthropogenic global warming“. And observations (events) and their analyses, in the RealClimate world, are only interesting to “improve the models“.
It’s hard to fail to spot in Schmidt’s reply that they did go back to “Hansen’s 1988” and other old projections, but whilst the bits that agree with the models are signs that those projections are “good“, those that disagree are so “for reasons that are as yet unclear“.
Instead of scientists trying to interpret the world, in RealClimate we have people subordinating the world to their models.
RealClimate Raises the Bar AGAINST Climate Models
With the death of Ed Lorenz and a world apparently taking a hiatus on the way to unstoppable anthropogenic global warming, It has taken a group effort at RealClimate to try to deal with the issue of chaotic weather vs. climate modelling: “Butterflies, tornadoes and climate modelling“.
Rather unfortunately for the authors, the conclusions contain a remarkable amount of unintended irony.
[…] But how can climate be predictable if weather is chaotic? The trick lies in the statistics. In those same models that demonstrate the extreme sensitivity to initial conditions, it turns out that the long term means and other moments are stable. […] Climate change then is equivalent seeing how the structure changes, while not being too concerned about the specific trajectory you are on
In other words, “climate change” is an entity that can only become observable in the long, long term. And since there is little concern for the “specific trajectory”, there literally exists NO possible short-term sets of observations that can falsify the climate models.
Another way of saying it is that for the climate problem, the weather (or the individual trajectory) is the noise. If you are trying to find the common signal that is a signature of a particular forcing then averaging over a number of simulations with different weather works rather well […]
In other words, since each and every atmospheric event can be obviously described as “weather”, there is no single observation that can falsify the climate models.
Their work doesn’t have to deal with any single observation, no short-term sets of observations…do they realize what they are saying???
Real climate is in their own words almost perfectly insulated from the real world. Nothing that can ever happen will be able to disprove the work of the climate modellers, apart from multi-decadal averages that are so poorly defined, they can easily be used to demonstrate anything.
Is this “science”? Looks more like long-term guaranteed employment to me… No wonder Anthropogenic Climate Change has important detractors in the metereological community.
In further irony, the above pairs up perfectly well with RC’s “comments policy” that can be summarized more or less into “we will censor everything we do not like“.
RealClimate: the insulated web site, where insulated researchers post insulated content. Now I understand why poor Gavin Schmidt had such a hard time dealing with an open debate…
Spare a Thought for the BBC Journalists’ Pension Plans
(thanks to SBC for pointing this one out)
In a sentence: the BBC Pension Trust has been investing left, right and centre in climate-change-related products. If the AGW bubble bursts, so many a journalist’s pension funds will evaporate.
It is surely a coincidence that the BBC Climate Change Propaganda Committee has been remarkably active in pumping up the case for Anthropogenic Global Warming for quite some time now.
Investors fall short on climate risk assessment – IIGCC
London, 17 April: Investors are more aware of climate change than previously, but are failing to fully assess the risks it poses when the financial implications are not clear, according to the European investor body Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC).In its first report of members’ activities, the IIGCC found that investors are struggling to assess the risk posed by uncertainties over future climate change regulations and the physical impacts of global warming. But an increasing number of asset managers are focusing on the issue and are expanding their ability to analyse the effects of climate change.
“The IIGCC’s report highlights that the investment community has come a long way in understanding and analysing the investment implications from climate change, but also that there is room for further progress from investors, companies and government,” said Peter Dunscombe, chairman of the IIGCC and also the head of investments for the BBC Pension Trust.
The report also found that asset managers increasingly are looking to invest in low-carbon or clean energy funds, are working with companies to improve their disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions and are using environmental rankings or analysing climate change impacts on their whole portfolio. And around 80% of pension funds and asset owners are asking their managers to exercise their voting rights on climate change issues.
But only 30% of respondents are integrating climate change considerations when appointing fund managers or seek advice on the matter from their advisors, reports the IIGCC. Investors are also failing to engage with companies on unavoidable climate change risks and climate-friendly products.
Corrected Text for Friends of the Earth’s Goebbelite Campaign Against Houghton Mifflin
Troubled about Friends of the Earth’s goebbelite campaign in the USA against Houghton Mifflin‘s decision to dare suggest to high school pupils that there can be a thing called “debate” about global warming?
“Goebbelite” in the sense of being yet another attempt at using all means and powers to repress dissent, so that people will eventually come to believe in anthropogenic global warming.
Well, trouble yourself no further: just go to Friends of the Earth’s US website and enter the following text in place of the existing “message”:
Subject (instead of “Teach the truth about the Environment”):
Keep up the good work about the Environment
Message under “Dear Sir, Madam” (instead of a long, incoherent tirade that first asks for censorship by appealing to authority and then claims to uphold the need for people to be provided all information):
I am writing to support Houghton Mifflin against the debate-stifling, coarse, ethically unsound attempts by Friends of the Earth to force Houghton Mifflin to immediately issue a corrective packet to all the school districts currently using the textbook: American Government, 11th edition, by Professors James Q. Wilson and John J. DiIulio, Jr.
I also ask that Houghton Mifflin keep up in the future too, its consensus-challenging, fact-based outlook that can only enhance the capabilities for critical thinking in high school pupils.
The reason? Chapter 21 on Environmental Policy is a godsend, not a “disgrace” as claimed by Friends of the Earth.
We trust the textbook authors to be fair and speak the truth. To address global warming as “enmeshed in scientific uncertainty” is to describe things as they are. Far from dismissing the work of the nation’s and the world’s top climate scientists, such text underlines the huge challenges facing them and us in understanding the relationship between humanity and the rest of the planet.
We need the nation’s youth to be given all the information we have available, not just the so-called “consensus”, so that they are able to make their own well-informed decisions. For years, Houghton Mifflin has provided that information–and I am encouraged to see that a company with such a highly respected reputation is continuing to publish along the same tradition.
I am copying my governor with this message to ensure that my state knows that there is absolutely no problem whatsoever with this textbook!
Sincerely,
(alas, I do not have a US address as yet, so I took the liberty of putting Hayden Planetarium‘s, a place I do consider like home).
Of course, my message is unlikely to reach Houghton Mifflin or Governor Paterson of New York via Friends of the Earth, but who knows? And by the way: here’s a form to send your support to Houghton Mifflin directly.
Many thanks to JunkScience for pointing in this direction. More here about Friends of the Earth’s “contempt for democracy”.
The BBC Stumbles on “Cosmic Climate Link”
Letter sent to the BBC via their website:
The title of Richard Black’s article “More doubt on cosmic climate link” is wrong, as Mr Black proceeds in the second part of the article to illustrate a relationship between cosmic rays and “local” polar temperatures. A better choice would be “New findings in cosmic climate links“. How on Earth can an effect on both poles be considered as “local”, I cannot understand. The maps published in the article seem to show cosmic rays changing temperatures over large parts of the globe.
Some hope! Since I am not a pro-AGW rabid activist threatening the reputation and livelihood of Richard Black or any other journalist, chances are my comments won’t be taken into consideration.
BBC’s Unbound Climate Zeal: Again!
After a few days of rest, aimed perhaps at calming down the furore around the Harrabin-Abbess story, the BBC Climate Change Propaganda Committee is running at full steam once again. Now is the turn of Richard Black to be on-message with a new scary piece about sea levels in fabled year 2100.
There are several interesting points to consider.
(1) Mr Black mentions how the new “scientific analysis” by Svetlana Jevrejeva and others “from the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory (POL), near Liverpool, UK”, provides results of the same order of magnitude as other efforts in the past, for example by “German researcher Stefan Rahmstorf”.
Unfortunately there is no mention of the fact that the pages of Science magazine are hosting a peer-to-peer debate among Rahmstorf, the POL group and others, about the very significance of Rahmstorf’s linear-modelling methods.
(2) For some reason (more about this later), Mr Black leaves unchallenged the notion that “for the past 2,000 years, the [global average] sea level was very stable, it only varied by about 20cm” adding that according to POL’s Simon Holgate “There is some limited archaeological evidence [based on] the sill heights of fish enclosures that the Romans used, that’s probably the strongest evidence that there hasn’t been any significant change in sea level over the last 2,000 years”. Some major news would that indeed be: compare it to the POL’s much nuanced FAQ (e.g. “Changes in ocean level due to climate change can be greater in some places than others because the ocean circulation will adapt to accommodate the new climate regime”).
And go look for Roman sills and sea levels in the POL website, if you can.
(3) Mr Black doesn’t involve himself that much in numbers. Too bad. Here some results. If the current rise rate of 3-mm per year is true, by the year 2100 the sea level will have risen by 28 centimeters. For that level to reach “between 0.8m and 1.5m”, the yearly rate must go up to 9-16 millimeters per year (3 to 5 times more than today), or more. One would hope that measurement systems able to “see” 3 millimeters with any significance, will be able to measure a three- to five-fold increase. By when that is going to happen, we are not told.
(4) Funnily enough, it’s at the end of the article that we are told that “Dr Jevrejeva’s projections have been submitted for publication in the scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences”. So the whole the piece was about a poster presentation at the EGU conference? So much for a major breakthrough deserving front-page space in the BBC News website.
If anybody asks me, that’s the strongest evidence for climate-change zeal…
There is more…looking around Google News, it becomes evident that the news story originated with a Reuters reported at the EGU conference in Vienna. Apart from the BBC, most if not all news media are now reporting the Reuters piece verbatim. On the BBC site, Mr Black does not mention Reuters, and is reported as actually physically being in Vienna himself.
The whole BBC article looks like original research: perhaps it is. Suspiciously, though, the same people are mentioned by Mr Black and by Reuters…
Troubled BBC
The Harrabin-Abbess story has not died yet (here’s Bishop Hill on “Jo Abbess’s fifteen minutes of fame“; a video of Noel Sheppard on CNN’s Glenn Beck Show; and Melanie Phillips on The Spectator hardly containing her glee on the “emerging truth” of the BBC showing its pro-AGW bias for all to see).
In the meanwhile, Freeborn John demonstrates that another BBC journalist, Richard Black, is not immune from that same reporting bias, in matters of climate change (Mr Black knows very well my thoughts on the BBC warming bias); in the process, Freeborn John exposes a curious stealth-editing BBC policy.
======
Folks at “the Beeb” better play it safe on global warming for a few weeks now…because if something else just as fishy pops up, then I can already imagine huge anti-BBC blogging and journalistic armies will be unleashed.
Last (Beer) Orders (Climate Change’s Consequence #492)
Numberwatch looks like already updated today with the latest scare: beer shortages due to climate change. Notably (or maybe not) there has been a quick jump from the original observation of problems growing barley during a drought in Australia, to the “news” of beer going to disappear world-wide due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions (no, there is as yet no long-term climate model providing meaningful predictions at a regional level, Australia included).
Yawn. No more beer at the end of the century? Let’s drink to that!
IPCC Data Show “Global” Warming Still Unproved
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.
Is NASA Too Big for Antarctica?
(thanks to PM for pointing me in this direction)
What is happening about Antarctica, with giant icebergs floating away while the sea-ice cover around the southernmost continent is well above long-term averages?
If you want to understand the situation…do not ask NASA. Because they’ll report everything and its opposite.
- According to “Earth Observatory”, between 1981 and 2007 one can see noticeable warming and cooling trends of up to +/- 0.1C/decade
- In an earlier version, “Earth Observatory” showed a substantially different picture, with warming and cooling trends for 1982-2004 of up to +/- 0.2C/decade. One wonders what were the error bars on this one, and what are the error bars on the recent data.
- “Earth Observatory” “had” to intervene then, in the Wilkins giant iceberg brouhaha
- Then all of a sudden, without any fanfare at all, there comes a March 25, 2008 report from Marco Tedesco at NASA, “uncovered” by Roger Pielke Sr., according to which: (a) “Surface snowmelt in Antarctica in 2008 […] was 40% below the average of the period 1987–2007.” and (b) “the extent of the area subject to melting in 2008 set a new minimum with 297,500 square kilometers, against an average value of approximately 861,812 square kilometers. “
Too bad “Earth Observatory” has not had the time as yet to talk about Mr Tedesco’s work. Here’s some interesting image they may want to consider…
Note how the number of melting days in the area of the Wilkins ice shelf has decreased by -0.5 days per decade between 1987 and 2008.
So What has the BBC’s Roger Harrabin Actually Done?
There is considerable buzz about reports that “the BBC has changed the news to accommodate an activist“.
The BBC journalist involved is environmental correspondent Roger Harrabin, with whom I must say I have privately exchanged views in the past (wrong…it was Richard Black).
And the BBC article is “Global temperatures ‘to decrease‘”, Friday April 4, 2008.
The “accusation” regards the contents (and title) of the article having been changed to please an environmental activist, allegedly called “Jo Abbess”.
This being the internet, with Fool’s Day not that much in the past, there is not much one can be sure of. So I have compared the three available version of Mr Harrabin’s article. Versions (1) and (2) as per Jennifer Marohasy’s blog. Version (3) as currently on the BBC web site (I am sorry but I have to take (1) and (2) at face value, hoping they are not the product of fakery).
My conclusions are: Mr Harrabin’s article is clearly biased in favour of AGW but not more than other articles in the past by Harrabin and others (see here for more about BBC’s biased reporting); and the whole evolution of the article’s text is compatible with the story of “Jo Abbess” being true. Despite of that, there is still hope.
=================================
a. Differences between (1) and (2)
Version (1) starts with:
Global temperatures this year will be lower than in 2007 due to the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said. […] But experts have also forecast a record high temperature within five years.
Version (2) instead:
Global temperatures will drop slightly this year as a result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said. […] But experts say we are still clearly in a long-term warming trend – and they forecast a new record high temperature within five years. The WMO points out that the decade from 1998 to 2007 was the warmest on record. Since the beginning of the 20th Century, the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C. While Nasa, the US space agency, cites 2005 as the warmest year, the UK’s Hadley Centre lists it as second to 1998. Researchers say the uncertainty in the observed value for any particular year is larger than these small temperature differences. What matters, they say, is the long-term upward trend.
There is a slight “style” change from “lower” to “drop slightly”. Not sure one can make much of a fuss about that. More important, there is a whole new section reiterating that there is a “long-term warming trend”.
This doesn’t appear much of a “scandal” to yell about, even if it clearly shows the BBC party-line of driving home the “world is warming” message no matter what, perhaps even no matter where.
b. Differences between (2) and (3)
Version (2) starts with:
Global temperatures will drop slightly this year as a result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said. […] This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory. But experts say we are still clearly in a long-term warming trend – and they forecast a new record high temperature within five years.
Version (3) starts with:
Global temperatures for 2008 will be slightly cooler than last year as a result of the cold La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said. […] But this year’s temperatures would still be way above the average – and we would soon exceed the record year of 1998 because of global warming induced by greenhouse gases.
So we are back to “slightly cooler” instead of “drop slightly”, some sort of “middle way” as AGWers won’t like the use of “cooler” and skeptics will object to “slightly”.
Another change is that there is no more mention, at least at the beginning of the article, of those “questioning climate change theory”. AGWer Ms or Mr “Jo Abbess” will be surely happier.
Furthermore, in the latest version Mr Harrabin has added yet another mention of “greenhouse gases”, in what looks like a clarification: a clarification, that is, that Mr Harrabin’s article really does follow the aforementioned BBC “party-line”.
Conclusions
The BBC article is clearly biased in favour of AGW but no more than previous pieces (see here for more about BBC’s biased reporting). The whole evolution of the text is actually compatible with the story of “Jo Abbess” being true.
There is hope though: Mr Harrabin’s “initial forgetfulness” allegedly corrected after exchanging e-mails with “Jo Abbess” might be a sign that, when free to think, even BBC journalists are not fixated with accusing mankind of burning up the planet.
Former BBC science correspondent David Whitehouse, in fact…
UPDATE: The Register’s Andrew Orlowski has something to say about “blog bully” Jo Abbess
The Blackboard: On the Magnitude of Warming
(thanks to Douglas Hoyt for pointing to these interesting blogs)
From The Blackboard:
Note: author Lucia says “I believe AGW to be true, but since I am willing to pro-actively test projections against data during what appears to be a “stall” in warming, much of my audience consists of skeptics“.
Let me state that’s the worst indictment I have ever read of the mindset of most AGW believers…
Among the results of the first blog: “what this data indicates is that if and when warming resumes, it will likely occur at a rate that is lower than projected by the IPCC. So, while the trends will turn up they are unlikely to reach the 2C/century of warming“.
And two of the conclusions of the second: “Did the IPCC recent AR4 prediction/projections correctly estimate the magnitude of warming? (no). Did the IPCC correctly communicate the uncertainty in their estimate of the central tendency based on their hierarchy of models? (no).”
In a better world, these results would be celebrated…not sure how many in the AGW world and lobbies will be happy, though…
Books on Climate Change (NOT for AGWers…) – Updated Apr 7, 2008
Not the usual list, from the ClimateSceptics Yahoo group:
(my contribution: links to Amazon.com where there are any)
- Singer and Avery, “Unstoppable Global Warming every 1,500 years“, 2007 ($13,57)
- Essex and McKitrick, “Taken by Storm“, revised edition 2008 ($13.57)
- Roy Spencer, “CLIMATE CONFUSION: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies That Hurt the Poor“, 2008 ($14.93)
- Marcel Leroux, “GLOBAL WARMING: Myth or Reality?“, 2005 ($103.20; “Search Inside” available)
- Klyashtorin and Lyubushin, “Climate Changes and Fish Productivity”, 2005 ($59)
- Via Mail: Russia, Moscow, 117997, Profsoyuznay a st. 90, “Science-Export”.
- Via Fax: 7(495) 334-7140; 7(495)-334-7479
- Via Email: .runaukaexport@naukaran
This book was published in Russian in 2005. It has been translated and edited in English for western readers. It considers relationships between climate changes and fish productivity of ocean ecosystems.
Analyses of climate index fluctuations and populations of major commercial fish species for the last 1500 years allowed us to characterize the 50-70 year climate fluctuations and fish production dynamics. Our simple stochastic model suggests that it is possible to predict the likely trends of basic climatic indices and thus some commercial fish populations for several decades ahead. The results we obtained allowed us to revisit and illuminate the old question: which factors are more influential for the long-term fluctuations of major commercial stocks, climate or commercial fisheries?
Publishing Houses “Science” and “Science Export Co” offer you the book (VNIRO Publishing. 230 pages , 160 figures, 2 color insets) for US$59 (hard cover) including mailing. You Can Order It:
Upon receipt of the order from you an invoice will be forwarded to you. The book will be mailed to you after receipt of payment. Mailing usually takes 3-6 days.
- Nigel Lawson, “An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming“, 2008 ($13.59)
- Lawrence Solomon, “The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so“, 2008 ($27.95; “Search Inside” available)
Carbon: Time To Clean Up…the Soot
Given that:
- Black carbon (a component of soot) is widely believed to be an “agent of global warming” also in mainstream AGW circles
- It is very easy to show the effect of ash on snow. And it is very intuitive.
- Such an effect is very likely to be acting right now on the Himalayas, and in the Arctic
- CO2 “greenhouse effect” is forecasted to hit us hard but only many, many years in the future. And the science of CO2 warming is not very intuitive, really.
wouldn’t it be infinitely wiser to cut the emissions of anthropogenic soot, rather than of CO2?
Unseasonable Weather: Another Name
(first post in the series: “Unseasonable Weather, A Common Occurrence“)
The Witches of November: sometime borderline-hurricane-force winds that blow across the Great Lakes in November
The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE 