All the News That's fit to Scare

[Keepitsimple]

Here's an excerpt from an article by Lorne Gunter of the National Post that describes my pet peeve on "Climate Change" - we just never here the OTHER side of the story.

Meanwhile, it is barely reported outside Alaska that America's northernmost state is having a record cool summer.

If it reaches 19C in Anchorage today, it will be just the eighth time that's happened this summer. Indeed, this could be the first summer ever that Anchorage never hits 24C.

Auyuittuq is at 66 degrees north; Anchorage is at 61.

The Baffin story may be more significant than the Alaska one. But why are we hearing all about one and nothing about the other? You can bet that if Anchorage were suffering a record hot summer, it would be all over the news and presented--as the Baffin temperatures are -- as yet further proof of the dangerous impacts of global warming in the north.

And what of the study, released in July by Switzerland's Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, that shows European temperatures, at least, have risen in large part because of efforts over the past 30 years to clean the continent's skies?

Christian Ruckstuhl and 12 coauthors found that of the 1C rise in temperature in Europe over the last three decades, "at least half of the warming" is attributable to a reduction of aerosols, such as sulphur dioxide and black soot particles. As Europeans have cleaned up their smokestacks and tailpipes, and as dirty old Soviet-era East European plants have been modernized to Western standards, more sunlight has penetrated the continent's atmosphere and warmed things up a bit.

In other words, environmentalism is causing global warming. As ecoadvocates have won tighter clean-air regulations, their efforts have been rewarded with brighter days (a good thing), but also warmer temperatures.

But you may not have heard about this little piece of climate-change news.

Nor may you have heard about conclusions by University of Guelph environmental biologist Jonathan Newman and his graduate student Anna Mika. Last week, Prof. Newman and Ms. Mika warned other researchers to use results from the UN's 31 climate computers with great caution.

Article: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/column...8a-4dcc4b75a392

[jdobbin]

Here's an excerpt from an article by Lorne Gunter of the National Post that describes my pet peeve on "Climate Change" - we just never here the OTHER side of the story.

The media was covering the story last week about how La Nina was making Alaska suffer like haven't suffered since 1970.

http://www.adn.com/anchorage/story/473786.html

Still, according to a series of charts cobbled together Tuesday evening by a night-shift meteorologist in the weather service's Anchorage office, the current summer clearly has broken company with the record-setting warmth of recent years. Consider:

• 70-degree days. So far this summer there have been two. Usually there are 15. Last year there were 21. In 2004 there were 49.

• 75-degree days. So far this summer there've been zero. Usually there are four. It may be hard to remember, but last year there were 21. In 2004 there were 23.

At the beginning of the year, it was predicted that Alaska might have a cooler summer due to La Nina.

[eyeball]

The media was covering the story last week about how La Nina was making Alaska suffer like haven't suffered since 1970.

http://www.adn.com/anchorage/story/473786.html

At the beginning of the year, it was predicted that Alaska might have a cooler summer due to La Nina.

Yep, cooler temperatures were predicted all along the BC coast months ago.

Further proof that climatologists actually do know what they're talking about. Now there's a scary thought.

[Bryan]

We've had cooler temperatures all over the world for going on two years now, and no warming for almost ten. Doesn't stop the mainstream media from constantly reporting continued warming anyway. "Everything is fine" doesn't sell, "disaster, panic" does.

[jdobbin]

We've had cooler temperatures all over the world for going on two years now, and no warming for almost ten. Doesn't stop the mainstream media from constantly reporting continued warming anyway. "Everything is fine" doesn't sell, "disaster, panic" does.

And still the trend is upwards according to the Hadley Centre. And those are actual numbers.

[Riverwind]

And still the trend is upwards according to the Hadley Centre. And those are actual numbers.

Here are the Hadley Centre numbers that are backed up by robust statistical analysis.

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ninet...ertainty-bands/

The trend is down. The IPCC projections are way off. The only question is if they are off because of a weather blip or because the climate modellers have got something seriously wrong.

Edited August 7, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

The trend is down. The IPCC projections are way off. The only question is if they are off because because of a weather blip or because the climate modellers have got something seriously wrong.

Here is the graph from Hadely updated to June.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm

They still say the trend is up on their website.

[Riverwind]

They still say the trend is up on their website.

ROFTL - look at your own graph! The trend since 2000 is flat and the trend since 2001 is clearly down.

[Visionseeker]

Here's an excerpt from an article by Lorne Gunter of the National Post that describes my pet peeve on "Climate Change" - we just never here the OTHER side of the story.

Article: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/column...8a-4dcc4b75a392

I just love the anecdotal arguments used to reject so called “global warming”; particularly those that emphasize a certain region experiencing cooler than usual temperatures. It’s like Caesar citing the lack of smoke in the Agora as proof that Rome isn’t burning.

The environmental phenomena at issue is more aptly described as climate change due to global warming. The theory does not pretend that all parts of the globe will simultaneously experience constant rising temperature trends, but rather that in the aggregate, global temperatures are rising. These aggregate increases are adversely affecting more sensitive ecosystems and promise to elevate and accelerate rain cycles in some regions while contributing to prolonged droughts in others.

Saying it’s cooler than normal in Anchorage is by no means a repudiation of climate change. In fact, the unusually cool Alaskan summer might serve as further evidence that this region is beginning to directly experience some amplification effects noted in climate change theory.

But what I find particularly amusing about this piece is the oblique recognition that human behaviour directly affects our climate: while we are invited to raise our sceptical eye towards the notion of human inspired climate change (i.e. it’s colder than usual in Alaska); we are also told to note that pro-environmental changes in human behaviour in Europe (reducing emissions) may be responsible for “half” of the rise in temperatures on the continent.

So what this piece tells me is that the author has a poor understanding of climate change theory, but accepts the notion that reducing emissions affects the environment – albeit in a manner inversely anticipated by climate change theorists.

Regardless, the piece you offer is ironically supportive of climate change theory.

[jdobbin]

ROFTL - look at your own graph! The trend since 2000 is flat and the trend since 2001 is clearly down.

And here is what the Hadley site said. So are they lying?

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pres...pr20080103.html

These cyclical influences can mask underlying warming trends with Prof. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, saying: "The fact that 2008 is forecast to be cooler than any of the last seven years (and that 2007 did not break the record warmth set on 1998) does not mean that global warming has gone away. What matters is the underlying rate of warming - the period 2001-2007 with an average of 0.44 °C above the 1961-90 average was 0.21 °C warmer than corresponding values for the period 1991-2000."

[peter_puck]

We've had cooler temperatures all over the world for going on two years now, and no warming for almost ten. Doesn't stop the mainstream media from constantly reporting continued warming anyway. "Everything is fine" doesn't sell, "disaster, panic" does.

First of all, you don't understand what AGW is about. It is EXPECTED that temperature will very from year to year, instead of progressing in an exact linear fashion. There are a huge number of variables that effect climate - most notably the weather.

If you look at the temperature trends over the long term, they are rising just like the AGW models said they should.

This "global warming has stopped" argument is meant for people without critical thinking skills.

If you look at the graph people have provided here, global warming has "Stopped" all over the place.

[Riverwind]

If you look at the temperature trends over the long term, they are rising just like the AGW models said they should.

First you need to get some facts straight:

1) The warming until 1940 is generally assumed to be natural

2) There was no warming from 1940 to 1980.

3) We had warming from 1980-2001

4) We have had no warming since 2001

The "long term" trend that is used as evidence for AGW is no more than 20 years - much less than the 30 years that alarmists insist is necessary to measure a climate trend. We now have 8 years of no warming during a period where the levels of CO2 have increased rapidly. I don't see how one can ignore 8 years of data when the data that supports the hypotheses is only 20 years.

I think part of the problem is alarmists insist that the case for CO2 induced AGW is so compelling that it must be assumed to be true until proven wrong beyond any reasonable doubt. This is not a reasonable position for a hypotheses that cannot be demonstrated in repeatable verifiable experiments.

Edited August 7, 2008 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

This is a good commentary the really captures how I went from accepting AGW to being a sceptic:

I retired four years ago, and at the time of my retirement I was well convinced, as were most technically trained people, that the IPCC's case for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is very tight. However, upon taking the time to get into the details of the science, I was appalled at how flimsy the case really is. I was also appalled at the behavior of many of those who helped produce the IPCC reports and by many of those who promote it. In particular I am referring to the arrogance; the activities aimed at shutting down debate; the outright fabrications; the mindless defense of bogus science, and the politicization of the IPCC process and the science process itself.

http://www.webcommentary.com/rwcohen.htm

[Visionseeker]

This is a good commentary the really captures how I went from accepting AGW to being a sceptic:

http://www.webcommentary.com/rwcohen.htm

Yep. As I suspected. Opinion passed on as fact.

Your link can be summarized as follows:

The AGW crowd has it wrong. Here are 5 areas I identify as wrong. Full stop.

No evidence, no inquiry. Just a Riverwind type announcement we are all to hold as truth.

You really need to work harder on this.

[Riverwind]

Yep. As I suspected. Opinion passed on as fact.

Gee that describes pretty much everything that is written on the topic. Even the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers is one big opinion piece.

In any case, I posted it as a summary of the issues - not as the definitive expose on the topic. All of the claims he makes are true and can be supported with evidence (a point he made in the essay).

Edited August 7, 2008 by Riverwind

[Visionseeker]

All of the claims he makes are true and can be supported with evidence (a point he made in the essay).

Good. Would you care to make/repeat them here?

[Riverwind]

Good. Would you care to make/repeat them here?

I already have:

Here is an anlysis that demonstrates that the latest IPCC prediction of 2 degC/century is too high:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ninet...ertainty-bands/

Here is another analysis that demonstrates that a model from 1988 predicted that by 2008 we would be 0.1-0.2 degC warmer than we actually are.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3354

Edited August 7, 2008 by Riverwind

[White Doors]

There are a huge number of variables that effect climate - most notably the weather.

profound statement of the year award!