Battle of the Blogs: Do Observations Falsify IPCC Projections?

In the blue corner we have Roger Pielke Jr (Prometheus) and Lucia Liljegren (The Blackboard). In the red corner we have James Annan (James’ Empty Blog) and Gavin Schmidt (RealClimate).

Interestingly, all four of the contenders accept the the IPCC consensus view on climate change, but Pielke Jr/Liljegren show that IPCC projections are currently falsified by observations, whereas Annan/Schmidt have the opposite view. Read the various blog posts and make up your own minds.

Lucia Concludes:

The IPCC projections remain falsified. Comparison to data suggest they are biased. The statistical tests accounts for the actual weather noise in data on earth.

The argument that this falsification is somehow inapplicable because the earth data falls inside the full range of possibilities for models is flawed. We know why the full range of climate models is huge: It contains a large amount of “climate model noise” due to models that are individually biased relative to the system of interest: the earth.

It will continue to admit what I have always admitted: When applying hypothesis tests to a confidence limit of 5%, one does expect to be wrong 5% of the time. It is entirely possible that the current falsification fall in the category of 5% incorrect falsifications. If this is so, the “falsified” diagnosis will reverse, and not we won’t see another one anytime soon.

However, for now, the IPCC projections remain falsified, and will do so until the temperatures pick up. Given the current statistical state ( a period when large “type 2″ error is expected) it is quite likely we will soon see “fail to falsify” even if the current falsification is a true one. But if the falsification is a “true” falsification, as is most likely, we will see “falsifications” resume. In that case, the falsification will ultimately stick.

For now, all we can do is watch the temperature trends of the real earth.

113 Responses to Battle of the Blogs: Do Observations Falsify IPCC Projections?

  1. Louis Hissink May 16, 2008 at 7:44 pm #

    AGW, in essence, is an unfalsifiable concept. It is not science.

  2. Gary Gulrud May 16, 2008 at 10:13 pm #

    The MSU data are the low-latitude tropopause is not warming, the AquaSat data that the stratosphere is not cooling, the Argos data that the oceans are not warming to 3000m.
    The 2007 super El Nino was not super and ended in the rather more impressive La Nina ongoing.
    The forecast warming in 2008 has been abandoned.
    AGW is being and has been falsified at nearly every turn in the road; that Elvis is still with us is every bit as likely.

  3. bill-tb May 16, 2008 at 10:17 pm #

    When did science become a pretzel? Answer, depends on where you get your grant money.

  4. Lazlo May 16, 2008 at 11:25 pm #

    The jury is out on that..

  5. DHMO May 16, 2008 at 11:28 pm #

    Hmmm… are the models wrong or not? Let us suppose we form a team and construct the most powerful computer ever built, lets call it Deep Thought. Then we get the most brilliant climatologists and software engineers together to produce the most brilliant quantitive climate model in human history. To test this model we then find the point where the longest records for climate exist. Against that the parameters are adjusted so the match is perfect. The result is we can use the model to indicate at any time in recorded history what the climate was. If such is possible then does it really tell us what the climate is tomorrow or any time in the future?

    I am concerned though looking at Lucia’s argument that there will be an environmental movement to restrict the height of Swedish men!

  6. Lazlo May 16, 2008 at 11:34 pm #

    So, for us pluralists who are affronted by this attack on scientific rationalism, the emergency problem is how to defend? There seems to be so much submission to green fascism..

  7. Lazlo May 16, 2008 at 11:38 pm #

    Look, I don’t know the polite way to say this, but GCMs are nerdy computer type crap.. There isn’t a decent scientist among them.

  8. Lazlo May 16, 2008 at 11:46 pm #

    This is a bit quiet – anyone here, Jennifer? So, for discussion, how do we stop Kevin and Ross wrecking our economy? Discuss..

  9. Lazlo May 16, 2008 at 11:49 pm #

    If you are reading this then I have already died and gone to auto-blog heaven

  10. CoRev May 17, 2008 at 6:08 am #

    Lazlo hope heaven is better than you wished!

    Been watching this discussion at RP Jr’s and James Annan’s house. Been interesting. One thing strikes me. The believers are getting more and more desperate to maintain the faith. Arguing amongst themselves, so to speak.

    They want us to believe that 21 or 22 or even more models used as an ensemble can predict the future by averaging their outputs. Uh Huh! I’ll take a dozen more.

    RP Jr contends that so many outputs with their extreme variability/range can not be proven wrong/falsified. Then along comes Lucia saying hold on there a second. If we just use short term data they are falsified. And then we get into the inevitable climate/weather argument. Sheesh!

    Ten more years will tell us. We just need to wait or let another few million brown folks die. No, I got it! Let’s raise the price of food, fuel, and everything else we need to live our current life style, and don’t forget to raise taxes to even more burdensome heights. That’ll show’em. Yup! that’s the ticket.

    The rule of unanticipated consequences will end up killing the “Greens” argument, until they switch to another argument. But can we afford the costs? Dunno! Worth another Sheesh!

    Sorry for the rant!

    CoRev, editor
    http://globalwarmingclearinghouse.blogspot.com

  11. Gary Gulrud May 17, 2008 at 7:10 am #

    “Ten more years will tell us. ”

    Now tell them that 10 years will accrue one middling El Nino or perhaps a neutral uptick or two among significant La Ninas and watch the tears well.

    I earnestly hope we ruthelessly purge the politicians who have pandered to the AGW facists.

  12. REX May 17, 2008 at 7:51 am #

    artic ice aint melting as they predicted months ago
    Antartic ice is still way above anomaly
    ALL temps are still heading down
    RSS, UAH, GISS (yes even he is forced to now) HADCRUT.
    Record Cold Europe, USA, South America Africa
    SST way below normal (sea temps), Sun is dead
    Programmers be prepared to lose your jobs this FAD is dying beware of the mob

  13. Alarmist Creep par excellence. May 17, 2008 at 8:46 am #

    We just need to wait or let another few million brown folks die – what utter bullshit. Or maybe you were talking about Iraq?

    Programmers be prepared to lose your jobs – why will programmers be losing their jobs – for giving us MySpace? What programmers?

    This is fascinating – you guys have been telling us for years that climate isn’t predictable – now you’re making predictions yourselves.

    And loved Gulrud’s predictions on future Los Ninos and Las Ninas – now better than anyone else on the planet. Decade out. Wow.

    Wipe the froth from your mouths and up the rabies meds guys.

    Meanwhile Australian drought continues … tick tick tick …

  14. DHMO May 17, 2008 at 8:59 am #

    Hi CoRev I thought you might enjoy this http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-05-07/ BTW Scott Adams books are worth a read He is quite the Skeptic.

    With GCMs if the temperature kept rising as they predict it does not mean they are of any worth. It is a coincidence like the way Indian Fakirs cure snake bite. As Scott Adams says they are “a complete waste of time”.

  15. Hans Erren May 17, 2008 at 9:58 am #

    It’s geophysics:

    “What do you want the answer to be?”

  16. CoRev May 17, 2008 at 10:12 am #

    Thanks for the laugh DHMO!

    CoRev, editor
    Globalwarmingclearinghouse.blogspot.com

  17. braddles May 17, 2008 at 11:04 am #

    I tend to agree that seven, or ten, years is too short an interval to be judging the models. However, it is clear that the models and reality are beginning to diverge, and if the models are to be of any use, reality must ‘catch up’ at some point. We will need some exceptional warming over the next 10 years to get back to the mainstream of model predictions.

    This is not helped by the models’ poor performance on tropical troposphere temperature profiles, or regional variations in temperature trends.

    If I was a modeller, I would be getting worried that I had missed something.

  18. Ian Mott May 17, 2008 at 11:29 am #

    Just remember that the models are based on the unadjusted temperature record that ignores the El Chichon and Mt Pinatubo eruptions. When the record is adjusted for these random events the duration of the divergence between reality and the models is 16 years since 1992.

    See marks graphs http://www.geocities.com/mcmgk/TempAdjust2.html?1199762345031

    Note that the duration of the divergence is already longer than the length of the anomalous rise from 1979 to 1992 which was only 13 years. So the models are only calibrated on 45% (13/29) of the past 29 years data.

    Divergence is also exhibited by the period from 1940 to 1978 (38 years) so we have models that only reconcile to 13 (19.4%) of the past 67 years.

    Right, and they want to bet the planetary mortgage on THAT?

  19. Keiran May 17, 2008 at 12:59 pm #

    If there is no observational evidence for carbon emissions causing alarmist global warming, how can we then have models? Seems a ridiculously simple question to ask but just how will it change the fact and prove AGW?

  20. cohenite May 17, 2008 at 1:05 pm #

    I really don’t see how anyone can have any faith in ipcc modelling at this time; Koutsoyiannis’s study establishes that the models are useless;

    http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/850
    click on the presentation condensed version.

    Over at Deltoid, Tilo Reber is leaving model road-kill in his path with a little help from Harold.

  21. Alarmist Creep par excellence. May 17, 2008 at 1:45 pm #

    Well reality is that denialists have NO explanation for the strong warming to 1998. And we have haven’t descended to 1970 levels or anything interesting. Temperature has flatlined. That’s all.

    Whatever is happening is interesting but you guys are definitely not onto it !

    Denialists have no science.

    And isn’t it interesting that the biology has responded globally regardless of all this debate?

  22. Alarmist Creep par excellence. May 17, 2008 at 1:53 pm #

    Jeez what language at Deltoid’s – would never happen here. A blog of calm, peace, understanding and decorum.

  23. MB May 17, 2008 at 2:18 pm #

    The Creep should remember that religions were always invented to explain things that were not understood at the time. The most likely explanation for the recent few decades’ warming is that we don’t know. It’s no basis for a new religious cult though.

  24. KuhnKat May 17, 2008 at 3:19 pm #

    Alarmist Creep stated in part:

    “…Meanwhile Australian drought continues … tick tick tick …”

    I thought you warmers tell us that this is just “weather?”

    Please read the literature. Negative PDO includes drought in several areas including my area in Northern California. Just weather, remember??

    “…And we have haven’t descended to 1970 levels or anything interesting. ”

    Uhh, if you take the satellite data I do believe we are sitting rather close to 0 anomaly. I’m willing to wait another 10 years to find out whose GUESS is better. Why aren’t you?? You really think 10 years of NATURE adding over twice as much CO2 to the atmosphere as humans do is going to make a difference to the IPCC’s range of 1-4.5C in 100 years??

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Have they announced the AMO switch yet??

    Alarmist Creep, tell me something, I still haven’t figured out this CO2 doubling thingy. Do we get the temp when we double from 1ppm to 2 ppm?? Do we get it from 100 to 200 PPM. In other words, WHY do we get the particular range predicted by the IPCC from 280-560 PPM in particular?? I just can’t seem to find anyone who can show me the physics and math on this one. (not that I could double check it anyway, but, it would be nice to be able to point to what is going to cost the world millions of lives and trillions of dollars!!!!)

    Oh, and BTW, if we got the doubling from 100 to 200, doesn’t that mean the NEXT doubling, 200-400 is that much less….????

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  25. KuhnKat May 17, 2008 at 3:19 pm #

    Alarmist Creep stated in part:

    “…Meanwhile Australian drought continues … tick tick tick …”

    I thought you warmers tell us that this is just “weather?”

    Please read the literature. Negative PDO includes drought in several areas including my area in Northern California. Just weather, remember??

    “…And we have haven’t descended to 1970 levels or anything interesting. ”

    Uhh, if you take the satellite data I do believe we are sitting rather close to 0 anomaly. I’m willing to wait another 10 years to find out whose GUESS is better. Why aren’t you?? You really think 10 years of NATURE adding over twice as much CO2 to the atmosphere as humans do is going to make a difference to the IPCC’s range of 1-4.5C in 100 years??

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Have they announced the AMO switch yet??

    Alarmist Creep, tell me something, I still haven’t figured out this CO2 doubling thingy. Do we get the temp when we double from 1ppm to 2 ppm?? Do we get it from 100 to 200 PPM. In other words, WHY do we get the particular range predicted by the IPCC from 280-560 PPM in particular?? I just can’t seem to find anyone who can show me the physics and math on this one. (not that I could double check it anyway, but, it would be nice to be able to point to what is going to cost the world millions of lives and trillions of dollars!!!!)

    Oh, and BTW, if we got the doubling from 100 to 200, doesn’t that mean the NEXT doubling, 200-400 is that much less….????

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  26. Ianl May 17, 2008 at 3:26 pm #

    “Well reality is that denialists have NO explanation for the strong warming to 1998.”

    They’re not required to – you are, as the proposer of an hypothesis. This hypothesis has not been supported by the last decade of measurements, so you, as proposer, have to explain that.

    That’s how science works. Asking someone else to put up an alternative is simply a sophist “prove a negative” evasion. People who doubt that the impact of CO2 levels is as significant as the AGW hypothesis asserts do not have to prove it wrong – AGW has to prove it correct. Or abandon it.

  27. KuhnKat May 17, 2008 at 3:27 pm #

    I apologise for the stutter. Anyway of deleting one??

    Hey Alarmist Creep. I thought all o’ you warmers believe in evolution and survival of the fittest. If you are right, won’t this be an excellent way of “FORCING” the biosphere to toughen up??

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

    Oh yeah, some of us might not survive the winnowing!! Say La Vee!!

    Again, Alarmist Creep blathered:

    “Well reality is that denialists have NO explanation for the strong warming to 1998.”

    Weather Noise??

    Of course, on the anomaly chart I read, from GISS, monthly mean, about 1C. This is something to get excited about?? Especially with the number of ADJUSTMENTS to the data it took to get to 1c??

    You gotta be joking Alarmist Creep!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  28. Alarmist Creep par excellence. May 17, 2008 at 4:36 pm #

    Golly someone forgot to take their rabies meds.

    We’re trending at 1970s temps are we. Do wank on. Talk about faith in spikes.

    Aussie drought has been around and around since the early 1990s.

    In any case PDO or perhaps IPO may moderate El Nino and La Nina events but it doesn’t call the shots. In fact the POs may not even exist. Could just be a red noise stats artifact. It’s hardly predictable is it?

    As I said denialists have no science. Whatever is happening you tossers aren’t on it.

    And yes you do need some explanation as your “global cooling predictions”, warming denial, and explanations for the wankiferous science and lies that are now blog legend.

  29. Alarmist Creep par excellence. May 17, 2008 at 4:46 pm #

    And perhaps the subsurface guys might be onto something. Imagine if we are trending back to El Nino.

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/another-big-dry-forecast-for-irrigators/2008/05/09/1210131264208.html

    Could wipe a few smiles away.

    In any case temperatures aren’t everything – ongoing trends towards drought conditions in many parts of the globe are obviously signs of anthropogenic climate change.

  30. cohenite May 17, 2008 at 5:21 pm #

    creep; you sound as though you are glad that the rain hasn’t been as widespread with this La Nina. I seem to detect a movement away from temp, as the canary of AGW, to rainfall amongst the AGWers; I wander why? Rainfall is obviously a factor of many interacting, long and short-term climate factors; IPO’s, PDO’s, ENSO, El Nino and La Nina; the fact that the rain from this La Nina has missed some places and absolutely soaked others (I’m in Newcastle, and let me tell you, watching cars float down streets in the Pasha storm means there was plenty of rain here and the valley) adds diddely squat to AGW. If I may make a suggestion; it may be worth while getting the expect on floods and rainfall, via the IPO/PDO/ENSO/El Nino/La Nina, Stewart Franks, to clear away the rubbish about AGW and rainfall; if rubbish it be. Any thoughts on that Jennifer?

  31. Denialist Scum May 17, 2008 at 5:26 pm #

    “ongoing trends towards drought conditions in many parts of the globe are obviously signs of anthropogenic climate change”

    Oh — obviously!

    But help me out with this one:
    http://news.sbs.com.au/worldnewsaustralia/photo_gallery_queensland_floods_538596
    (“Parts of Queensland have suffered some of the worst flooding in 20 years..”)

    Same people … same country. Those in the north are ‘causing’ floods, those in the south are ‘causing’ droughts. Maybe we should just get everyone to change places – problem solved.

  32. REX May 17, 2008 at 6:00 pm #

    alarmist creep
    programmers = modelers

  33. J.Hansford. May 17, 2008 at 6:01 pm #

    This unwavering AGW belief has got nothing to do with understanding climate, or weather for that matter, and everything to do with social engineering.

    It’s about time the real Scientists stood up and start calling these pseudo scientists out for who they really are… Political activists who want to create their own world instead of engaging with the real one.

  34. Alarmist Creep par excellence. May 17, 2008 at 6:13 pm #

    No cohenite I’ve been banging on about rainfall forever. Newcarstle is a mere flyspeck – a coastal anomaly.

    Well it’s been a scatty non-performing La Nina for southern Aussie in general hasn’t it? Obviously AGW affected. SAM who? Now over and El Nino coming perhaps?

    But yes temperature is really the least worrisome aspect of AGW.

    Oh I though programmers worked on MySpace type stuff. Wouldn’t all climate scientists be modellers one way or the other – how else could you escape the shallow knowledge pool of empiricism.

    And still plenty of work for climate scientists keeping you guys excited about various oscillations – that is if they exist at all.

    What will you all do if it ends anyway – you’ll have to spend your years debating black holes with Louis.

  35. Louis Hissink May 17, 2008 at 6:36 pm #

    I have restarted Louis Hissink’s Crazy World at http://geoplasma.spaces.live.com/

    Enjoy.

    J. Hansford, real scientists are doiung that but not those in government pay. I can, however, and do have substantial geoscientific support.

  36. Louis Hissink May 17, 2008 at 6:38 pm #

    AC

    Thanks for the commendation – a specious politeness is your game?

  37. Louis Hissink May 17, 2008 at 6:44 pm #

    “”Well reality is that denialists have NO explanation for the strong warming to 1998.”

    They’re not required to – you are, as the proposer of an hypothesis. This hypothesis has not been supported by the last decade of measurements, so you, as proposer, have to explain that.

    That’s how science works. Asking someone else to put up an alternative is simply a sophist “prove a negative” evasion. People who doubt that the impact of CO2 levels is as significant as the AGW hypothesis asserts do not have to prove it wrong – AGW has to prove it correct. Or abandon it.

    Posted by: Ianl at May 17, 2008 03:26 PM”

    This post reminds me of views expressed by my late father who would frequently assert something, deem it true by authority and demand me to disprove it.

  38. Louis Hissink May 17, 2008 at 6:45 pm #

    He was, above all, a socialist.

  39. chrisgo May 17, 2008 at 7:13 pm #

    “Meanwhile Australian drought continues … tick tick tick …” Alarmist Creep par excellence. at May 17, 2008 08:46 AM
    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/rain_maps.cgi?map=contours&variable=drought&area=aus&period=cmonth&region=aus&time=latest

  40. Pierre Gosselin May 17, 2008 at 7:14 pm #

    I must say the IPCC was quite clever. They somehow managed to produce a report that everyone can agree on, yet differ like night and day.

  41. chrisgo May 17, 2008 at 7:27 pm #

    “Meanwhile Australian drought continues … tick tick tick …” Alarmist Creep par excellence. at May 17, 2008 08:46 AM

    Wishful thinking?

  42. spangled drongo May 17, 2008 at 7:34 pm #

    Luke always relates drought to AGW and I always doubt the connection.
    Here I go again Luke, but from the ’40s to the’70s the channel country in far SWQ was parched and a mate of mine who had about 10 million acres virtually gave these three properties away things were so bad.
    The new owner took over just as the El Nino or whatever moved all the cyclones from the Coral Sea to the Arafura Sea and quick became very wealthy and these conditions still generally remain.
    The ever astute Kerry Packer did likewise at the same time.
    That was a big climate shift and it really hasn’t changed.

  43. Louis Hissink May 17, 2008 at 7:36 pm #

    AC

    http://space.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7623

  44. Alarmist Creep par excellence. May 17, 2008 at 8:02 pm #

    Spangled -

    And astute or just lucky.

    personal anecdotes are not necessarily climate analysis – this is:

    http://www.mdbc.gov.au/__data/page/29/SEACImedia-release-May08.pdf

    and this is also a worry

    Weakening of the Walker Circulation and apparent dominance of El
    Nino both reach record levels, but has ENSO really changed?
    Scott B. Power 1 and Ian N. Smith 2
    Received 21 May 2007; revised 30 July 2007; accepted 10 August 2007; published 20 September 2007.
    [1] Changes in El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and
    the Walker Circulation can be routinely monitored using the
    Southern Oscillation Index (SOI). Here we show that the
    lowest 30-year average value of the June–December SOI
    just occurred (i.e. in 1977–2006), and that this coincided
    with the highest recorded value in mean sea-level pressure
    at Darwin, the weakest equatorial surface wind-stresses and
    the highest tropical sea-surface temperatures on record. We
    also document what appears to be a concurrent period of
    unprecedented El Nino dominance. However, our results,
    together with results from climate models forced with
    increasing greenhouse gas levels, suggest that the recent
    apparent dominance might instead reflect a shift to a lower
    mean SOI value. It seems that global warming now needs to
    be taken into account in both the formulation of ENSO
    indices and in the evaluation and exploitation of statistical
    links between ENSO and climate variability over the globe.
    This could very well lead to the development of more accurate
    seasonal-to-interannual climate forecasts. Citation: Power,
    S. B., and I. N. Smith (2007), Weakening of the Walker Circulation
    and apparent dominance of El Nino both reach record levels, but
    has ENSO really changed?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L18702,
    doi:10.1029/2007GL030854.

    Chrisgo – tell the Murray water managers it’s all fine …

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/09/2240324.htm

    http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/drought-may-never-end/2008/05/09/1210131244721.html

  45. Alarmist Creep par excellence. May 17, 2008 at 8:25 pm #

    http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-pdf&doi=10.1175%2FJHM-386.1 – map here !

    Drought’s Growing Reach:
    NCAR Study Points to Global Warming as Key Factor

    January 10, 2005

    BOULDER- The percentage of Earth’s land area stricken by serious drought more than doubled from the 1970s to the early 2000s, according to a new analysis by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). Widespread drying occurred over much of Europe and Asia, Canada, western and southern Africa, and eastern Australia. Rising global temperatures appear to be a major factor, says NCAR’s Aiguo Dai, lead author of the study.

    Dai will present the new findings on January 12 at the American Meteorological Society’s annual meeting in San Diego. The work also appears in the December issue of the Journal of Hydrometeorology in a paper also authored by NCAR’s Kevin Trenberth and Taotao Qian. The study was supported by the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s primary sponsor.

    Dai and colleagues found that the fraction of global land experiencing very dry conditions (defined as -3 or less on the Palmer Drought Severity Index) rose from about 10-15% in the early 1970s to about 30% by 2002. Almost half of that change is due to rising temperatures rather than decreases in rainfall or snowfall, according to Dai.

    “Global climate models predict increased drying over most land areas during their warm season, as carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases increase,” says Dai. “Our analyses suggest that this drying may have already begun.”

    Even as drought has expanded across Earth’s land areas, the amount of water vapor in the air has increased over the past few decades. The average global precipitation has also risen slightly. However, as Dai notes, “surface air temperatures over global land areas have increased sharply since the 1970s.” The large warming increases the tendency for moisture to evaporate from land areas. Together, the overall area experiencing either very dry or very wet conditions could occupy a greater fraction of Earth’s land areas in a warmer world, Dai says.

    Though most of the Northern Hemisphere has shown a drying in recent decades, the United States has bucked that trend, becoming wetter overall during the last 50 years, says Dai. The moistening is especially notable between the Rocky Mountains and Mississippi River. Other parts of the world showing a moistening trend include Argentina and parts of western Australia. These trends are related more to increased precipitation than to temperature, says Dai
    Tsunami
    This depiction of linear trends in the Palmer Drought Severity Index from 1948 to 2002 shows drying (reds and pinks) across much of Canada, Europe, Asia, and Africa and moistening (green) across parts of the United States, Argentina, Scandinavia, and western Australia. (Illustration courtesy Aiguo Dai and the American Meteorological Society.)

    “Droughts and floods are extreme climate events that are likely to change more rapidly than the average climate,” says Dai. “Because they are among the world’s costliest natural disasters and affect a very large number of people each year, it is important to monitor them and perhaps predict their variability.”

    To see how soil moisture has evolved over the last few decades, Dai and colleagues produced a unique global-scale analysis using the Palmer index, which for decades has been the most widely used yardstick of U.S. drought. The index is a measure of near-surface moisture conditions and is correlated with soil moisture content.

    Since the Palmer index is not routinely calculated in most of the world, Dai and colleagues used long-term records of temperature and precipitation from a variety of sources to derive the index for the period 1870-2002. The results were consistent with those from a historical simulation of global land surface conditions, produced by a comprehensive computer model developed by scientists at NCAR, NASA, Georgia University of Technology, the University of Texas at Austin, and the University of Arizona.

    By factoring out rainfall and snowfall, Dai and colleagues estimated how much of the global trend in soil moisture was due solely to rising temperatures through the extra evaporation they produce.

    “The warming-induced drying has occurred over most land areas since the 1970s,” says Dai, “with the largest effects in northern mid and high latitudes.” In contrast, rainfall deficits alone were the main factor behind expansion of dry soils in Africa’s Sahel and East Asia. These are regions where El Niño, a more frequent visitor since the 1970s, tends to inhibit precipitation.

    Science 25 May 2007:
    Vol. 316. no. 5828, pp. 1181 – 1184

    Model Projections of an Imminent Transition to a More Arid Climate in Southwestern North America
    Richard Seager,1* Mingfang Ting,1 Isaac Held,2,3 Yochanan Kushnir,1 Jian Lu,4 Gabriel Vecchi,2 Huei-Ping Huang,1 Nili Harnik,5 Ants Leetmaa,2 Ngar-Cheung Lau,2,3 Cuihua Li,1 Jennifer Velez,1 Naomi Naik1

    How anthropogenic climate change will affect hydroclimate in the arid regions of southwestern North America has implications for the allocation of water resources and the course of regional development. Here we show that there is a broad consensus among climate models that this region will dry in the 21st century and that the transition to a more arid climate should already be under way. If these models are correct, the levels of aridity of the recent multiyear drought or the Dust Bowl and the 1950s droughts will become the new climatology of the American Southwest within a time frame of years to decades.

    1 Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO), Columbia University, Palisades, NY 10964, USA.
    2 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA.
    3 Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, Department of Geosciences, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA.
    4 National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO 80307, USA.
    5 Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.

    Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2008) 363, 1773–1778

    Hydro-climatic and ecological behaviour of the
    drought of Amazonia in 2005
    J. A. Marengo1,*, C. A. Nobre1, J. Tomasella1, M. F. Cardoso1
    and M. D. Oyama2
    1CPTEC/INPE, Rodovia Presidente Dutra, 12630-000 Cachoeira Paulista, Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil
    2Divisa˜o deCieˆnciasAtmosfe´ricas,CentroTe´cnicoAeroespacial (CTA), Instituto de Aerona´utica e Espac¸o (IEA),
    Prac¸a Marechal Eduardo Gomes, 50, 12228-904 Sa˜o Jose dos Campos, Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil
    In 2005, southwestern Amazonia experienced the effects of an intense drought that affected life and
    biodiversity. Several major tributaries as well as parts of the main river itself contained only a fraction of
    their normal volumes ofwater, and lakes were drying up.The consequences for local people, animals and
    the forest itself are impossible to estimate now, but they are likely to be serious.The analyses indicate that
    the drought was manifested as weak peak river season during autumn to winter as a consequence of a
    weak summertime season in southwesternAmazonia; the winter seasonwas also accompanied by rainfall
    that sometimes reached 25%of the climatic value, being anomalously warm and dry and helping in the
    propagation of fires. Analyses of climatic and hydrological records in Amazonia suggest a broad
    consensus that the 2005 drought was linked not to El Nin˜o as with most previous droughts in the
    Amazon, but to warming sea surface temperatures in the tropical North Atlantic Ocean.

  46. gavin May 17, 2008 at 8:48 pm #

    It’s raining!

  47. gavin May 17, 2008 at 8:56 pm #

    For those folks wondering, the first rains promised with the latest cold spell, disappeared as soon as it hit the ground. All is not well yet with our MDB.

  48. Alarmist Creep par excellence. May 17, 2008 at 9:04 pm #

    Sorry – full paper with maps here.
    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/~tqian/papers/Dai_etal_pdsi.pdf amd

    http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/drought_research.shtml

  49. Louis Hissink May 17, 2008 at 9:16 pm #

    AC

    Read closely your long post above seems a non sequitur.

  50. Gary Gulrud May 17, 2008 at 9:44 pm #

    “Denialists have no science.”

    That appears to depend on the application of ‘Denial’. Creep denies whatever eludes.

    “Could just be a red noise stats artifact. It’s hardly predictable.”

    Right, the phenomena are throwing out toss-away data; it takes an artist to interpret it stupid engineers! Red noise, white noise, grey noise, who knoies?

    “Imagine if we are trending back to El Nino.”

    Rock collectors are such visionaries, aren’t they? With PDO negative, neutral events and El Ninos comprise a 40% share. Are Portman and Johansson there with you too?

    “If these models are correct, the levels of aridity of the recent multiyear drought or the Dust Bowl and the 1950s droughts will become the new climatology of the American Southwest within a time frame of years to decades.”

    You need a model for this? Google PDO & AMO, its faster and cheaper and brighter.

  51. spangled drongo May 17, 2008 at 9:45 pm #

    Luke, the big climate shift of the ’70s suddenly arrived and is still with us which seems to indicate a cycle of some sort rather than progressive AGW.
    In 1828, Charles Sturt couldn’t water his horses in the Darling because it was salty.
    Bad drought is what Australia does.

  52. CoRev May 17, 2008 at 10:00 pm #

    Hey Creep, IPCC defines climate as averaged weather. Alarmists want us to control climate change. OK, let’s present to the general public the plan to control weather, and see how much support we get. it is the simple concepts where some hypotheses break down.

    Trillions to control the weather while millions die and many economies stagnate? These are your goals?? For what? A minor 1C ?potential? change that actually may be more beneficial than harmful?

    Sheesh!

    CoRev, editor
    http://globalwarmingclearinghouse.blogspot.com

  53. cohenite May 17, 2008 at 10:40 pm #

    creep; this is all rhetoric and prolix at that; how about some facts from BoM:

    http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20070103_rain_graph.gif

    And how about some facts contradicting BoM’s forecasts;

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/drought/

    As to Newcastle being a mere flyspeck and coastal anomaly; it is the largest coal export port in the world, and that rain did extend 400 kilometres inland.

  54. Alarmist Creep par excellence. May 17, 2008 at 10:42 pm #

    Didn’t read the details eh Gary – thought not – ranting is easier isn’t it. Typical northern hemispheric centric view of the world.

    Big climate shift – A convenient construction. A cycle? hmmmm …. Drongo – more drought is what Australia has been doing.

    CoRev – listen to yourself – “while millions die” – oh really. And economies stagnate. Wow !

    Or prosper. Humanity is not going to absolutely control the variability. But of course you can have much more of it. What you guys love is hyper-exaggerating one end of the issue and dismissing the obvious issue that humans already have with climate. We don’t cope well. The poorer you are – the less well you cope.

    “Millions will die ” – oh ROTFL ! yes from more drought !

    And as one of our ex-conservative Prime Minister’s used to say “Life doesn’t have to be easy”.

    It’s not my problem that climate is a difficult problem.

    But really what are you worried about – cars are buzzing, planes are flying, trains are running – what’s changed? Nothing in any serious mitigation effort. So what’s your issue.

    Some interesting discussion on tabled changes in the Southern Oscillation and SAM may have been forthcoming from thoughtful observers but unlikely here on this forum.

    So back to your ranting guys.

    BTW – The existence of decadal teleconnection patterns in low pass filtered records does not imply decadal predictability

    The existence of decadal signals in low pass filtered records does not imply decadal predictability.

    http://iprc.soest.hawaii.edu/~axel/AMO/Power.ppt

  55. Alarmist Creep par excellence. May 17, 2008 at 10:58 pm #

    Cohenite – I really really really cannot believe you have tabled that figure.

    That would have to be the biggest drongo representation of the issue of all time.

    Try – http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/trendmaps.cgi?variable=rain&region=aus&season=0112&period=1950

    or

    Try figure 2 here http://www.mdbc.gov.au/__data/page/20/MDBCdought_update-march05.pdf

    and link with http://www.mdbc.gov.au/__data/page/29/SEACImedia-release-May08.pdf

    And you might start to get a little curious.

  56. Alarmist Creep par excellence. May 17, 2008 at 11:03 pm #

    Actually it was “Life wasn’t meant to be easy.”

  57. cohenite May 18, 2008 at 12:00 am #

    creep; yes, I am curious; how much land holdings do you have in the Murray Darling? As for me, Shark Bay looks terrific with better than average rainfall; with all this moisture in the NthWest, I’m going to have reappraise my Fortesque stock though.

  58. CoRev May 18, 2008 at 6:30 am #

    Creep, noticed you didn’t mention the “W” word. Weather is what you are trying to control. I doubt if you actually realize it yet, but it is true. Can’t effect climate without first effecting weather.

    If you know of a way, I’d be really interested to hear it.

    Folks like you are scary because you seldom realize the seriousness of your proposals. For instance the growing food crisis. Caused by drought? Don’t think so. Caused by burning food in our vehicles. Your group’s idea?

  59. Alarmist Creep par excellence. May 18, 2008 at 8:15 am #

    CoRev – don’t try to spin a sophistic argument. The only weather modification technology (which may or may not even work) is cloud seeding.

    But I’m not suggesting weather control at all.

    There is no precision in any of this – no dial on the wall and no push-button set of options. This is coarse ham-fisted macro size stuff. No “weather” control technology.

    This is about seasonal climate mechanisms, circulation patterns, oscillations. And how big changes in greenhouse forcing and land use change add up over long periods of time moving these around.

    Science suggests impacts of changing CO2 is not just about temperature but moving circulation systems around.

    This seems to be occurring. (Or is it a “natural” variation – which is the essence of the science debate).

    For farmers in southern Australia – this now appears to not only involve El Nino but Antarctic circulations (SAM), Indian Ocean sea temperatures (IOD), the Asian aerosol pollution cloud, and Tasman Sea temperatures. And a further complex story in Antarctica as greenhouse interacts with stratospheric ozone depletion.

    Overlaid with changes in the Southern Oscillation – Walker circulation (references above) and a preponderance of Los Ninos over Las Ninas.

    Here’s how it works for some Australian farmers. Rule of thumb – say rainfall and wheat production. Break even 4 years in 10, make a loss (drought!) 3 years in 10, make a profit (wet!) 3 years in 10. Start drifting this to break even 3 years, drought 4-5, and good seasons 2 – and I think you can work it out.

    And if people think the PDO is the BIG answer – it ain’t. Might modify El Nino – but they are still there.

    So it seems in a world of 6 billion heading towards 9 billion – we’re happy to let the tropics and sub-tropics to drift towards a drier mean state. And you’re worried about the millions of the 3rd world are you?

    And you’re not even curious about the chances of this? NOT EVEN CURIOUS ! This is more my point. So utterly desperate to beat the perceived “threat” from the “warmers” ruining western civilisation as we know it, that you’re now blind and asleep at the wheel.

    Don’t blame me for greedy decisions by quick buck merchants who want to cream a quick fortune in biofuels. Actually it’s YOUR group that did this ! No shortage of growers and industry stepping up to the plate. YOUR mates are they? More yanks with farm subsidies herniating world agriculture. What else would we expect?

  60. Alarmist Creep par excellence. May 18, 2008 at 8:23 am #

    And just trying to do a quickie and blame green groups for biofuels for the sole reason for the emerging global food crisis is far too simplistic. This is multi-factor stuff.

    Wikipravda actually has a review on the interacting issues. Biofuels being “an” issue.

    But also

    “Several distinct weather- and climate-related incidents have caused disruptions in crop production. Perhaps the most influential is the extended drought in Australia, in particular the fertile Murray-Darling Basin, which produces large amounts of wheat and rice. The drought has caused the annual rice harvest to fall by as much as 98% from pre-drought levels.[38] Australia is historically the second-largest exporter of wheat after the United States, producing up to 25 million tons in a good year, the vast majority for export. However, the 2006 harvest was 9.8 million.[39] Other events that have negatively affected the price of food include the 2006 heat wave in California’s San Joaquin Valley, which killed large numbers of farm animals, and unseasonable 2008 rains in Kerala, India, which destroyed swathes of grain. Scientists have stated that several of these incidents are consistent with the predicted effects of climate change.[40][41]”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007-2008_world_food_price_crisis#Factors

  61. Walter Starck May 18, 2008 at 9:45 am #

    CoRev said,
    “They want us to believe that 21 or 22 or even more models used as an ensemble can predict the future by averaging their outputs.”

    Actually this approach could be quite fruitful in solving all sorts of problems. You could average religions to find the one true faith or accounts of Atlantis to resolve that legend. The possibilities are endless and eminently democratic as well.

    Only an unrepentant skeptic could fail to see its value.

  62. Alarmist Creep par excellence. May 18, 2008 at 11:10 am #

    Well we could also average all the various denialist theories too but you couldn’t even compute the answer – undefined?

  63. CoRev May 18, 2008 at 12:35 pm #

    Creep, if the IPCC definition of Climate says: Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the “average weather”, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). These quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind. So if climate is weather averaged, how was it you were not planning on controlling weather?

    Moreover when you describe climate as: This is about seasonal climate mechanisms, circulation patterns, oscillations. Just how are you going to change these natural events? When you say seasonal climate mechanisms are you talking about changing the seasons? Nahh! No creepy alarmist is that foolish. You must be talking about changing the planets tilt and wobble. Nope, you can;’t be that foolish either. That must mean you are going to lower the heat output from the Sun? Right?

    Nope, you said Science suggests impacts of changing CO2 is not just about temperature but moving circulation systems around. But, 97+ percent of CO2 is natural. So that means you are going to stop volcanoes, and plant and animal respiration (Oops, I think I hit on the master plan.) Stop all respiration so that the dangerous 3% of man made CO2 can really be eliminated.

    I assumed you didn’t realize that in discussing “climate” we were actually describing statistical, long range looks at weather. If as you said: This is coarse ham-fisted macro size stuff. No “weather” control technology. how would a BB-Gun solution, reducing man made CO2, actually qualify as ham-fisted and macro. Moreover, certainly not quick either. You didn’t even mention GHGs. Just CO2. Most of the current believers are expanding the concept to GHGs as the impacts of CO2 is being more successfully questioned.

    Regrettably, you are shoeing your passion, but are missing the forest for the single shrub. You are even ignoring the trees (the natural forcings and feedbacks.)

    Arrogance, thy name is man.

  64. Alarmist Creep par excellence. May 18, 2008 at 3:26 pm #

    CoRev – are you intransigent ! Coz you obviously haven’t read anything above have you.

    We’re not going to be controlling the weather. Nor suggesting it.

    It’s about cumulative impact over time on global patterns of climate. Changing the energy balance. Moving systems round.

    Seasonal climate in the sense I’m using it is 3-12 months. We could talk about inter-annual 1-2 years. Decadal or even inter-decadal 10-20. Or Milankovitch even.

    Mostly broadly descriptive definitions. That’s all.

    Seasonal to inter-annual oscillations have major effects on our climate. Let me simplify it – you have x amount of current variability. Can’t really do anything about it except work around it. But there is a reasonable science case suggesting human activities in energy production and agriculture can nudge it towards the negative. More extremes? READ the references above. You would like this?

    It’s not about averages – if it was we’d have most eastern Australia under wheat – out to Boulia and past Bourke – wall to wall agriculture. At some point though the inter-year variation kills off the viability of a long term enterprise. Most of the southern hemisphere farmed areas are about on/off environments. Success is defined as “winning” more than you lose. Or “winning” enough years in your favour.

    So I take you’re happy that by humanity’s cumulative actions we increase the variability of our food production. Is that your wish? You’d like the current food crisis to seem piddly. You’d like to keep the plant breeders and agronomists in high employment by asking them to squeeze blood from stones or wheat from dust.

    Is that your game!

    And yep there’s more than CO2, – also methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and chlorofluorocarbons and even carbon monoxide somewhat indirectly. Then there’s land use change, aerosols of various types, and sources and sinks of carbon in the biosphere.

    Who would want to do anything but understand the entire system !

    And you guys love to think climate science doesn’t know this – very sophistic position CoRev.

    AGW asserts that the anthropogenic greenhouses expressed as “CO2 equivalents” is the prime agent of change. So CO2 broadly means CO2 equivalents. So don’t worry about getting all exclusive and it being “just about CO2″.

    And I can see you’re going to run the big ruse about volcanoes – diddly squat in the big scheme of things. And big flux numbers of biosphere carbon emissions – massive even – but don’t bother being silly eh? There are sources and sinks. CO2 is obviously a critical part of life on Earth so why run a goofball line about reducing respiration of plants and animals – how utterly silly.

    NETT increase is the issue – not amount.

    We’re unambiguously moving the CO2 equiv concentration upwards. It’s us – not the green fairies. Side effects of our energy generation and food production. Like most antiquated technologies we should fix it and move on. We don’t live in Dickensian London coal haze suburbs anymore do we. I’m sure you would have told me the world would end if you lived in that era (and were asked to change) as well – or perhaps your belief system is that old mentally?

    So fix and move on. That’s “onwards” not backwards.

  65. KuhnKat May 18, 2008 at 5:06 pm #

    Gavin and Alarmist Creep,

    care to expound on how well the models you are depending on do with rainfall??

    Anything in there about Australian DROUGHT??

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Remember, it is just internal variability NOT CLIMATE!!

  66. KuhnKat May 18, 2008 at 5:17 pm #

    Alarmist Creep,

    isn’t that CO2 moving upwards supposed to be warming the lower trop slower than the upper trop??

    isn’t the ocean supposed to be the big heat sink that holds all the excess heat when that darned INTERNAL VARIABILITY messes with the TROP TEMPS??

    what happened to the ocean warming??

    Yup, that old CO2 just keeps increasing and is now going faster than ever. Of course, tying temp rise to CO2 was a correlation error. I wonder how many of THOSE have been made in the History of Junk Science??

    So, when is this fabled tipping point gonna hit. AGW God Hansen seems to be pointing at 450PPM of CO2. What’s your guess, err, PROJECTION??

    By the way, you state:

    “We’re not going to be controlling the weather”

    Exactly how are you going to stop increasing CO2 then?? If you haven’t noticed, the amount of CO2 NATURE puts into the atmosphere still exceeds the anthropogenic level. Even if we STOP ALL EMISSIONS, nature is going to keep cranking it up according to your THEORY!!

    Is this what old Al Gore considers an INCONVENIENT TRUTH???

  67. Denialist Scum May 18, 2008 at 5:25 pm #

    “It’s us – not the green fairies.”

    Pages and pages of ranting – only to keep coming back to the core of this faulty logic.

    “Side effects of our energy generation and food production.”
    Equally likely to be the side effect of ocean warming over the last couple of decades due to natural causes. Warmer ocean=less CO2 dissolved.

    “Like most antiquated technologies we should fix it and move on.”
    Fix what, exactly?
    What would “fixed” look like?

    “We don’t live in Dickensian London coal haze suburbs anymore do we.”
    So why persist with Dickens-era faulty logic?
    Wasn’t aware the the big problem with London coal haze was CO2 – always thought it was other by-products of incomplete combustion of coal.

    “I’m sure you would have told me the world would end if you lived in that era..”
    Probably not — they could at least point to a cause and effect that was actually valid.

    “So fix and move on. That’s “onwards” not backwards.”
    Violently agree — let’s fix real problems, not imaginary ones.

  68. cohenite May 18, 2008 at 5:50 pm #

    creep; “net increase” is not the issue; the issue is, the source of that CO2, sorry “CO2 equivalents”, and more importantly, its effect. Your panegyric about the virtuous intentions of the AGWers is continually contradicted by their bullying and obfuscating tactics; these tactics are probably essential because, as Spencer has shown, the % of anthropogenic imput into that increase into atmospheric CO2 is not established; the effects of CO2 are problematic as the Deloid debate illustrates, as does the Koutsoyiannis study, not to mention Miskolczi, the log limitation, the declining amounts of atmospheric methane, declining fluros etc.

    But your main point is that the regional climate patterns are being killed by “interyear variations”, whatever they are; you talk as though Australia has not experienced extremes of ‘climate’, both good and bad, before; I was bemused by your response to the Hughes link which looks at this very point to the opposite of your conclusion; I have also referred people to BoM’s particular data stations; mine, which you have already disparaged, is Nobbys at Newcastle; its records go back 145 years and demolish any idea that the weather we are experiencing today is drastically different from what it was 100 years ago; do a sample of your local Bom station.

    I have also re-glanced at Lomborg’s sampling of the climate ‘wellness’ indicators that you, and every other alarmist, insist are getting worse; they aren’t; check Lomborg’s sources.

    I am also bemused by your reference to Dickensian coal hazes; as though AGM sponsored science offers a brave new world through solar panels, windmills and hot rocks; they don’t, as the greenie with the propeller on his cap symbolises; until the AGWer’s get to grips with nuclear, particularly thorium, they will have no credibility on this new, clean technology garbage.

  69. chrisgo May 18, 2008 at 6:20 pm #

    Australia is large.
    Inevitable climate change, what ever the cause, will result in winners and losers.
    According to the Australian Farm Institute, “Australian agricultural output will double over the next 40 years, with climate change predicted to increase, rather than hinder, the level of production”.
    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23681267-11949,00.html

    Apologies if this has previously been raised.

  70. Alarmist Creep par excellence. May 18, 2008 at 7:31 pm #

    The Dickensian coal haze – or seat belts – or car safety – or car pollution controls – all the vested interest players at the time said this would be the end of the world. Economies would collapse. Somehow we’re adapted and survived though eh?

    AGW technology could also be a massive economic opportunity with lots of quality jobs in energy efficiency and new technology. Why not imagine an entirely positive future on renewing our energy plant? Why see it as the end of the world.

    With apologies to Ender I don’t have a problem with nuclear in the energy mix myself.

    The Farm Institute said what they said as a very partisan statement coz they’s shit scared of greenhouse taxes and making any changes. Maybe fair enough as a sector. I read it as a political statement. Perhaps in northern Australia there may be some very good opportunities.

    If you really think that the oceans are outgassing CO2 and there is no anthropogenic additions which have fossil fuel signature written all over them in both the atmosphere and oceans – well I’m gobsmacked. Very good studies of the fossil fuel CO2 sunk into the oceans.

    What is happening here though is most interesting – we’re all self selecting to what papers and issues we’re concerned about. Interestingly I track down most of the information poses here by others. I doubt many read what I suggest. It’s easier to stay stubborn.

    BTW if Lomborg thinks drought in Australia is no problem can we pls have the $100Ms of drought aid dollars back pls.

    As for your selected met stations you need to get out more. Many people have noticed major changes. Many people have notice long term trends in frosts for example (I know expect someone to tell me that they’ve just had big overnight frost – don’t bother ). Why don’t you at least read the material I’ve provided? I think the reearchers have now got a very good handle on SE Australian drought.

    And you see – all this is just beginning. It’s all far from over as far as atmospheric CO2 growth goes (sorry CO2 equivs now for picky persons!!). What do you think looking a for a signal emerging from a fog of climate variation would look like. A bolt from the blue – or hard to see initially.

  71. Alarmist Creep par excellence. May 18, 2008 at 7:34 pm #

    What is utterly new and fascinating is that Steve McIntyre actually deferred to the IPCC in his recent radio interview. Not sure what it means. Something about policy and process.

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3087

  72. Denialist Scum May 18, 2008 at 8:48 pm #

    “AGW technology could also be a massive economic opportunity with lots of quality jobs in energy efficiency and new technology. Why not imagine an entirely positive future on renewing our energy plant? Why see it as the end of the world.”

    It’s a case of perspective, I guess.

    First of all – calling it “AGW Technology” sends the wrong message. Call it “Renewable Energy Technology”, and you would probably get the buy in – and then, yes, perhaps there could be opportunities in developing and deploying interesting new technologies.

    However – I fail to see what is new, interesting, or exciting about putting another tax on everyone just so that we can waste billions of dollars chasing rainbows like carbon sequestration, or a solar panel on every roof or similar noddy ideas.

    If renewable energy technologies actually have a future, then the market will sort that out – one way or another – even if it takes another doubling of oil prices to do so.

    However, labelling any emerging renewable energy technologies as “AGW Technologies” will only ensure that they are dead on arrival. Since anyone with a brain can see that AGW is complete and utter bullshit, how can you ever expect them to support “AGW Technologies”?

  73. CoRev May 18, 2008 at 9:27 pm #

    Creep, noticed you still failed to address my argument, but changed yours to one of the goodness of change. How much better off ?MANKIND? would b e if we pursued the changes proposed by the AGWers. And then you equated the non-believers to the ones predicting doom and gloom?

    What gives? Can’t debate/discuss in a straight line? 180 degree shifts are supposed to put off your opponents? Pshaw!

    You still miss the point about climate. Climate is the perception of weather over extended areas and time. It is most often expressed using statistical methods. Then you make comments as “massive” and ham-fisted” all the while calling my arguments fallacious?

    Other than seeming to enjoy the argumentation, your arguments appear specious and not well thought out.

    BTW, the term is Green House Gases (GHGs) not “CO2 equivs”. It does make a difference when supporting a position to use oft-used terms versus making up your own. BTW, what is your position?

    CoRev, editor
    http://globalwarmingclearinghouse.blogspot.com

  74. Alarmist Creep par excellence. May 18, 2008 at 10:26 pm #

    Well CoRev – if you had thought for 10 seconds you might realise that all GHGs are not equal in effect.

    i.e methane and nitrous oxide have more effect than CO2.

    But perhaps you weigh apples, watermelons , and a banana on the same scales at once when shopping.

    Anyway CoRev – what specifically is your argument anyway?.

    Your comments seem utterly bereft of any intelligence whatsoever. I suspect you really haven’t thought about this issue in the slightest. You have no idea of risk management or farming in a variable environment.

    Simple proposition – do you think more climate variation would be a good thing, more extremes, more droughts. Would you enjoy a semi-permanent El Nino.

    There are many economic studies of billion dollar global costs of El Nino – you’d like to add some more on the heap would you?

    Yes or no !

  75. CoRev May 18, 2008 at 11:12 pm #

    Duck and weave, but no answers. Tsk, tsk tsk, Creepy. Your pedantic arguments are getting weaker.

    I will answer your question. Yes, I do think more climate variation would be a good thing. Why? Because your approach is to stop the unstoppable. How do you stop change? Some change will benefit some will not. Your approach seems to stop all.

    Ranting about change seems a little silly doesn’t it?

    In that light how silly is this statement?
    “You have no idea of risk management or farming in a variable environment.” Care to show me a static environment?

  76. Alarmist Creep par excellence. May 19, 2008 at 4:38 am #

    I had to see it to believe it. Amazing.

    That will be fine thanks.

    “Yes, I do think more climate variation would be a good thing.”

    “Some change will benefit some will not.”

    “Your approach seems to stop all. ”

    Which shows why democracy is a flawed concept.

    “Dear Deity – thank you for the periodic oscillations which now bring misery to millions across the globe. I would like some more please. Please marginalise their enterprises and allow to them to starve or if they’re really lucky just go broke. The global dislocation will be fun to watch “.

    Signed “I’m all right Jack” aka CoRev.

  77. CoRev May 19, 2008 at 5:16 am #

    Creepy, you’ve gone off the deep end, now. G’day!

  78. James Mayeau May 19, 2008 at 6:57 am #

    Governor Schwarzeneggar declared an agricultural disaster in the San Joaquin only one time in recent history. That was due to record cold in January 2007. http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070114/news_1n14cold.html

    Hot weather in the valley is unremarkable and ordinary.

    In responce to “Other events that have negatively affected the price of food include the 2006 heat wave in California’s San Joaquin Valley, which killed large numbers of farm animals”.

    Strange that the price of beef didn’t rise in the wake of this supposedly world altering heatwave.
    http://www.thebeefsite.com/articles/1210/food-outlook-global-market-analysis

    The price of citrus however jumped through the roof, due to a cold January 07.
    http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CitrFrui//2000s/2007/CitrFrui-09-20-2007.txt

  79. Paul Borg May 19, 2008 at 7:57 am #

    Luke wrote: “Well reality is that denialists have NO explanation for the strong warming to 1998.”

    Luke honestly this is the same argument that christians use for atheists not being able to explain matter or the existance of life. ala – there must be a god.

    Lets pretend for a moment that it has indeed be ‘strong’ warming – the fact is that human science has not yet reached a stage where it can explain everything.

    Surely you could understand that those of us who are skeptical of the AGW theory actually base our mindset on the lack of proof of this theory?

  80. cohenite May 19, 2008 at 8:22 am #

    creep; your comment about Steve McIntyre’s deferral is disingenuous; McIntyre is polite and not interested in policy; his position is that a central advisory body is in principle a good idea for politicians (non-experts) to be advised by; but his comments about how ipcc fails in their duty were, for him, scathing; see his comments at 21 and 30.

  81. Alarmist Creep par excellence. May 19, 2008 at 8:38 am #

    No Paul – it’s not a “that’s the only explanation left” type explanation. There is good positive evidence and theory to the pro-AGW position. As I’ve said before – whatever is going on from 2000 to 2008 – the sceptics are not onto it.

    McIntyre polite – have you read his blog much?
    Scorn and derision is part of being polite? He’s a lot milder verbally than he is in print.
    Not interested in policy – ROTL !

    What I said was not precise. Listen to the interview:

    I said “What is utterly new and fascinating is that Steve McIntyre actually deferred to the IPCC in his recent radio interview. Not sure what it means. Something about policy and process.”

    Read what I had also written prior to this here on another thread – I said “not uncritically”. Of course he has been critical.

    What he said – I was genuinely surprised. And no you won’t have to concede anything or lose any ground. Don’t fret.

    I can see CoRev has given up – CoRev it’s a problem when people won’t answer your straightjacket question. You want an answer to an impossible proposition. You want determinism for something that isn’t.

  82. wjp May 19, 2008 at 11:03 am #

    Al Creep: “Which shows why democracy is a flawed concept.”

    So, the gospel according to Luke favours the Burmese Model? The Mugabe Model? The Stalinist Model? The Maoist Model? The Visogoth Model? Fidel’s Model? Franco? Papa Doc? Al Quedea? Dear Leader? ManBearPig?
    Choose your model wisely Al.
    BTW, did you have a good weekend?

  83. CoRev May 19, 2008 at 11:53 am #

    Creepy, I didn’t give up. I just realized you enjoyed the argumentation and not the argument. Your positions shifted so much, at times you were arguing the skeptics side. What’s the point in flogging a masochist. I decided I did not want to be your latest ove object. Not my cuppa, don’cha know.

  84. CoRev May 19, 2008 at 11:54 am #

    That was love object. Gotta learn to proof read.

  85. Alarmist Creep par excellence. May 19, 2008 at 12:16 pm #

    wjp – more Che Guevara

    errr joke wjp …. joke …

    Yes you did CoRev – ran off – unable to have a structured argument. Very disappointed Revsy.

  86. SJT May 19, 2008 at 2:00 pm #

    “So if climate is weather averaged, how was it you were not planning on controlling weather?”

    You question doesn’t make any sense. Climate is defined to be something other than the weather because climate is not the weather. It is derived from the weather, but the day to variation of the weather is removed from the picture so the chaotic day to day behaviour of that aerial soup above us can be understood in terms of the big picture.

    Our current warming effects are not ‘controlling’ the weather any more than a car running into a building and altering it is controlling that building. It’s affecting it alright, but that’s not controlling it.

  87. James Mayeau May 19, 2008 at 4:03 pm #

    http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.html
    Then again all of global warming including the resent global cooling might be (hell with might be) are artifacts of the massive culling of surface stations. This being done with the goal of creating the fraud called global warming.

  88. SJT May 19, 2008 at 5:16 pm #

    “This being done with the goal of creating the fraud called global warming.” It’s a laugh a minute here, folks.

  89. gavin May 19, 2008 at 5:50 pm #

    The wise one reckons I should leave the blog and stop hobnobbing with the flat earthers after I asked if any of this latest sceptic campaigning affected outcomes where it really matters.

    Guess what, the part time house wife also supported the view that the AGW argument is over. They both noted even the mainstream media doesn’t bother with the other side now.

  90. gavin May 19, 2008 at 5:53 pm #

    SJT: When does it cease to be entertaining?

  91. SJT May 19, 2008 at 6:08 pm #

    Just about now :(.

  92. Louis Hissink May 19, 2008 at 10:26 pm #

    SJT wrote:

    “Our current warming effects are not ‘controlling’ the weather any more than a car running into a building and altering it is controlling that building. It’s affecting it alright, but that’s not controlling it.”

    Some interesting logic here – a car running into a building might have indeed altered part of it, true, but that collision has no part in maintaining the structural integrity of the biuilding. Which means that the building is not dependent on the presence of the car for its existence, much in the same way that the earth’s atmosphere isn’t dependent on its existence by the effect of human emission.

    After all, isn’t life an epiphenomenon of the earth?

  93. CoRev May 19, 2008 at 11:07 pm #

    SJT, I provided the IPCC definition of “Climate.” In a nutshell it is the accumulated averages over time and space of weather. Is temp measured at a land site weather? Is rainfall measured at a land site weather? Is wind measured at a land site weather? Accumulate then averaged for an area, still weather? Accumulated again and then averaged for a short period, still weather? Accumulate and averaged over a longer period, 18-30 years, it becomes climate? And climate is not weather, right?

    Oh, I almost forgot, we adjust the original data points to match some perceived effect, and then run several statistical tests to identify some patterns. That’s climate, right?

    Control the climate without controlling the weather. Go for it!

    Then Creepy says we can change it by lowering man’s input of 3% of CO2. Modifying the currents, seasons in a ham-fisted way to make things all bettah!

    Oh, wait, what are we making bettah? Oh, that’s right, Global Warming. Which obviously is bad. Is it? And, all this based upon an ensemble of computer models never initialized to reality, and not able to match reality.

    Creepy, did I not make myself clear? Your arguments are not structured, they are inconsistent and only prove your enjoyment of arguing. Not, definitely NOT, structured.

  94. Alarmist Creep par excellence. May 20, 2008 at 4:51 am #

    No CoRev – You’ve got a tiny weeny myopic view of the issues. And no understanding how farming systems work in a variable environment.

    Everything you say just makes me sigh.

    It’s “ham-fisted” – as you are expecting “precision” in a system with existing episodic behaviour. We’ve not talking about parking the problem nicely with 1% tolerance. Usual denialist ruse insisting that if the answer isn’t as precise as you want it it must be wrong.

    And this is utterly classic “to make things all bettah!” – errr NO NO NO – to stop variability getting WORSE ! You’ve driven past the diner by 20 kms mate. Go back.

    And you’ve just done the typical disingenuous denialist ruse of going for the teensy weensy try-on “3″. You have already tried the flux versus nett argument. Another fav.

    “this based upon an ensemble of computer models never initialized to reality” – no it’s based on truckloads more than that – you have FAILED to read any links above or any of the literature or IPCC’s WG1. FAILED as you have already made up your mind. It’s a closed steel trap. You will die and go to hell if you read any of that material. Your skin will self-combust. Or maybe not.

    Let me try again.

    ************************************

    Many farming operations operate within an envelope of climate variability. Good years give profits, some years break even, and some drought years are losses.

    Episodic multi-year runs of bad years. i.e. years of drought in a row (back to back) can nudge operations to the wall. In Australia you go broke, in Africa you starve.

    In the Australian context (but we could get wider) there is a broad prediction from the models of drying for the southern sub-tropics.

    This has some more focussed specific evidence (some by links above I have tabled (unread by you obviously)) that show changes in behaviour of the Walker circulation, El Nino frequency, Indian Ocean, Southern Annular Mode, Tasman Sea perhaps are linked to ongoing droughts in Australia. Also higher temperatures now appearing in drought years than say the 1901 droughts exacerbating the evaporative demand.

    These OBSERVATIONS are further explored by modelling studies which have implicated both AGW and natural components.

    So if AGW is just starting this is of some great concern. MORE variability than we have already or nudging the system to a drier state would be devastating for us. Sure it will rain well again at some point. But the real issue is how long till the next drought. Too often and you go bust.

    So the issue for government and policy makers is how much evidence do we have to make a link to AGW. I’m suggesting enough to start making some moves on the issue, notwithstanding the enormous and complex difficulties of any mitigation effort.

    Imagine a China with food production problems. Think they’re going to sit there and accept the consequences. Ability to produce enough food for 6.6 billion heading towards 9 billion is critical.

    So when you ask me “precisely” how will this affect the weather – it’s really a not question. I can glibly say less rain here.

    It’s really how circulation systems get moved around by long term changes to the energy balance.

    And if this sound fanciful – look up how many degrees difference there is in the sea temperatures of El Nino compared to neutral years. Doesn’t take much to have global impacts. Cold temperatures off western southern Africa, Western Australia and Chile turn those areas into deserts.

    Now is this all tied up with a nice pink ribbon for you. 100% certain – nope. Come back in 20-50 years and we’ll see. BTW if it is a continuing problem or even worse – there will be ZERO opportunity to act.

    There is already multi-layered evidence (NOT just models – MUCH MORE).

    specific climate observations.

    knowledge how climate variation interacts with farming system viability

    climate modelling evidence of how the interactions work. Shows AGW and natural variability forces at work. This ties the story together.

    And you would like me to reduce this complex problem to a dial on the CO2 valve so you can select what weather you’d like tomorrow?

    I’m not asking you to have a religious moment and have a “conversion”. But as I read through the sceptic arguments and papers you owe it to yourself running a major web site on climate change to get across the arguments. I didn’t come to climate worrying about AGW – I came to it worrying about existing climate variation. I was unconcerned about AGW until the evidence started to pile up. Especially on rainfall.

    So that’s it – haven’t got anything else unless you do.

    BTW – I am not saying “move the seasons” – something about orbit of the planet may be involved. Hmmmm… seasonal climate issues or seasonal forecasting = 3-12 months ahead. It’s just a term.

    P.S. And perversely with all I’ve described above it would ironic if the winners and losers game that is played with rainfall ends up with a warmer moister North America – especially in your cereal belt. And a warmer drier southern Africa, southern Australia and Amazon. The biggest emitter to date actually benefits. ROTFL for you !! But God is most likely a North American WASP after all eh?

  95. Gary Gulrud May 20, 2008 at 5:31 am #

    “the part time house wife also supported the view that the AGW argument is over. They both noted even the mainstream media doesn’t bother with the other side now.”

    Anyone noticed the trends for participation as ‘mainstream media’ or ‘part-time housewives’?

  96. CoRev May 20, 2008 at 6:41 am #

    Creepy, you really are scary. Did you read what i said? Nope. Translated my rant about weather/climate into some private universe, where Australian farming is central to the issue.

    Tell me, yes, this is a challenge. What do you propose to do? In the short term does your proposal effect weather or climate.

    Everything you have said is weather related because it is all localized and short term. Rainfall, droughts,. wind shifts. etc. Get a grip. Read instead of emoting. You’ll be a better person, and maybe be able to make an organized argument. So far you have failed in that area.

  97. Alarmist Creep par excellence. May 20, 2008 at 9:07 am #

    NO NO NO

    Our droughts may be delivered as local weather, but that weather derives from dominant circulation patterns set up from ENSO, IOD, SAM etc. For heavens sake. Do you know anything?

    And have you noticed having cold water next to you tends to make you more likely to be a desert.

    And matey boy this happens to be an Aussie blog where the local issues may have some relevance. Perhaps you hadn’t noticed. But yanks are normally US myopic. Shocking that the rest of the world exists hey. But hey you know hey – you could add in the whole southern hemisphere, chunks of Asia and southern USA too.

    Even heard of a case study or studies ? “Duh – gee dude wazza kase studee” Obviously not. You seem to really really like not being specific !! If you squeezed the brain really hard you might find it could be useful for southern Africa and Indonesia too.

    ever visited http://portal.iri.columbia.edu/portal/server.pt – why isn’t it on your blog roll?? Check the “global” nature of the “world” map.

    What’s going to happen in the short term – zilch.

    The longer term 20-50 years – yes heaps.

    At the his point CoRev your responses are somewhat mindless.

    Tell me – just fabricate an answer you’d expect to see. What would it look like.

    Here’s a start “if you adopt our proposal it will ….”.

    I’d be really curious to know what you’d expect to see.

  98. gavin May 20, 2008 at 9:10 am #

    Gary: You may not have noticed but my comments are usually made in a more general context of casual interviews on a semi regular basis with hundreds of people either living in or passing through our Capital.

    A long time ago it seems now I arrived in the centre government enterprise with the express purpose of building a better understanding of how the political machine works downunder.

    Feedback takes many forms and the media including the ABC with talkback is one of the most important trend gauges.

    What’s left behind as lives change in response to fresh demands is another gauge. I’m also a connoisseur of hand tools, useful gadgets and practical books on how to many of which go round and round in the right circles.

    Stability thrives in groups where one or two can keep an eye or an ear on the ground.

  99. gavin May 20, 2008 at 9:19 am #

    CA: CoR probably doesn’t understand that the scientists you or I may meet on and off are monitoring a vast section of the globe AND some are here from the US and other places to learn how we do it.

  100. CoRev May 20, 2008 at 9:29 am #

    Creepy, I see you dodged the question/challenge again. Instead turning it back on me. let me remind you: “Tell me, yes, this is a challenge. What do you propose to do? In the short term does your proposal effect weather or climate.”

    Didn’t answer either one. Tsk, tsk, tsk, then you get snarky with me for pushing for an answer. Stop dodging and weaving and making extraordinary claims of effect. If you don’t know admit it.

    What I have seen is a passionate believer with a thin layer of knowledge. There are other opinions and they could be as correct as yours. But with your debating technique of never sticking to an issue nor answering a question, it is too difficult to have an in depth discussion.

    BTW, thank you for the link. I will go to it. If you wish to add others to the blog just email me. Address is on the left column near the top.

  101. Luke May 20, 2008 at 10:37 am #

    Answer: Both ! But not in the short term. Can you turn the Queen Mary on a dime.

  102. CoRev May 20, 2008 at 11:21 am #

    Luke, I expected that answer. I do not see how we can effect climate without first effecting weather. No matter what is proposed, it will show up in changes in weather.

    Of course the first part of the question was: “What do you propose to do?” Then we can discuss the merits of said proposal, but we have yet to hear from Creepy for a proposal.

  103. Luke May 20, 2008 at 11:36 am #

    Reduce growth of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

    “show up in changes in weather” yes of course

  104. Luke May 20, 2008 at 11:38 am #

    Now you’ve asked enough. Your turn.

    What causes years with different weather patterns.

    What does science tell us. I know – let’s use Australia as an interesting case study.

  105. gavin May 20, 2008 at 12:04 pm #

    Luke: What does science tell us? Our kids are the future!

    Some interesting comments on ABC talkback from Dr Alan Finkel in Canberra today re our science education and programs for generating future students for global warming studies / remedies long term.

    “Finkel received his doctorate in Electrical Engineering at Monash University in 1981. After
    two years of postdoctoral research at the Australian National University in Canberra he went on to establish and lead Axon Instruments Inc, a world-class supplier of electronic and robotic instruments and software for use in cellular neuroscience, genomics and drug discovery both in the university and pharmaceutical company research sectors.

    He recently invented a device that was successfully commercialised to speed drug research, and has also co-founded the award-winning science magazine COSMOS, managed the merger of several prominent research institutes, represented the Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering in a program to foster appreciation of science in secondary school students, and co-founded a company distributing educational toys and books for children”

    http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1257

  106. SJT May 20, 2008 at 9:08 pm #

    “Creepy, you really are scary. Did you read what i said? Nope. Translated my rant about weather/climate into some private universe, where Australian farming is central to the issue.”

    Rev, he made perfect sense. He’s trying to tell you where you tiny mind is incapable of understanding science and the big picture, and he did quite an good job of it too. You need to ask yourself why you need to seek comfort in little corners from which you are afraid to venture.

  107. CoRev May 20, 2008 at 10:38 pm #

    SJT, OK. I suspect my little corners are more open than yours, but it is just my perception.

    I have learned in my doddering old age that passion almost always trumps logic because of the energy levels associated with it. The best lesson I have learned is when to say “Yes, Dear!” So, consider it said.

  108. Alarmist Creep May 20, 2008 at 11:58 pm #

    CoRev seems to have gone very quiet when asked a question back.

    Interestingly in the Wiki definition of weather it says:

    “Surface temperature differences in turn cause pressure differences. A hot surface heats the air above it and the air expands, lowering the air pressure. The resulting horizontal pressure gradient accelerates the air from high to low pressure, creating wind, and Earth’s rotation then causes curvature of the flow via the Coriolis effect. The simple systems thus formed can then display emergent behaviour to produce more complex systems and thus other weather phenomena.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather

    Complex systems and emergent behaviour eh? mmmmm

    sort of like I’ve been saying. And some of these phenomena even lock in for a season or more too.

    It also said about climate …. “Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get.”

  109. CoRev May 21, 2008 at 3:00 am #

    Creepy, sometimes we have other duties and/or things to do than respond to blog questions. Regardless, my answer would have been related to atmospheric and ocean/sea currents effecting conditions locales, sometimes for extended periods. Since we were talking about Australia, just some examples of these phenomena are the NAM, PDO, ENSO, and La Ninas. But none of these make sense without including the Sun and Geothermal heat sources, and their effect on them. Happy?

    Notice neither of us mentioned GHGs nor CO2 in our answers. Unlike Luke, we seem to have centered on the conditions and natural causes.

    So now you claim after defining weather:
    “Complex systems and emergent behaviour eh? mmmmm

    sort of like I’ve been saying.” you were talking about weather all along? Isn’t that what I have been saying? Just asking.

    Gonna go update my Blog, and thanks for the links. G’Day!

  110. Alarmist Creep May 21, 2008 at 8:19 am #

    Just joshing ya.

    Well NAM might be a little way from Aussie. Perhaps SAM might be better. And maybe the southern ozone hole size too.

    For Aussie you could have added in Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) and Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO – if it exists and isn’t just the PDO in disguise)

    But all that would be being picky.

    Geothermal eh …. screws up face.

    Oh yes agree with the Sun as an energy source – THE energy source. And what do you think the temperature of the Earth would be with a greenhouse effect, or what might happen at night without one. Is the climate of Earth similar to the Moon?

    But are these phenomena triggered by solar variations or volcanoes – reckon not. (Notwithstanding that the Sun is the energy source of weather and climate).

    And global warming can change the energy balance.

    And what variations in sea temperatures give an El Nino event? Just for some sense of proportion.

    Could changes in energy balance push the Pacific into an “El Nino like mean state”. Has the Walker circulation already weakened?

    If ozone depletion and greenhouse forcing already affecting SAM?

    The “complex systems” quip was merely that local “weather” gives rise to larger phenomena which I was talking about. In other words these oscillations (SAM, IOD, ENSO, anti-ENSO (La Nina)) are emergent properties of all the meteorological circulations going on. i.e. episodic oscillations originate and propagate.

    But moreover – why don’t you summarise where you think we’re at. Coz I’m not sure after all the excitement whether it was 5 shots or 6.

  111. CoRev May 21, 2008 at 9:56 am #

    ONE! You don’t remember? And the first time I’ve been out in 2 decades. I don’t remember the length, but 2 decades and a “ONE”, well you had to ask. I reckon, now your envious aren’t you? You, of course, do remember our wager?

    Well, enough frivolity, off to find another windmill.

  112. gavin May 21, 2008 at 10:50 am #

    Hey, blow all this weather stuff.

    Your not off the hook till you had done with the ever rising sea!

  113. SJT May 21, 2008 at 11:28 pm #

    CoRev

    I can get a good idea of what the average height is for a population. But if I was to ask a group of people to come through a door, one by one, I could not predict what the height of the next individual would be. That’s the difference between climate and weather.

Website by 46digital