Reality seems to be obstructing any meaningful deal in Bali – looks like another holiday, sorry, I mean conference, will be needed, somewhere else ‘nice.’
In public, climate scientists and European politicians are generally optimistic that rising carbon dioxide levels and temperatures can be curbed. In private, some are less sanguine; but there has been a widespread unwritten code of optimism to avoid being accused of scaremongering or creating despair. Now, science advisors to two governments with claims to leadership in global climate politics, Germany and the UK, have told BBC News it is unlikely that levels of greenhouse gases can be kept low enough to avoid a projected temperature rise of 2C (3.6F).
Meanwhile, the UK still plans a huge airport expansion, there is not the slightest hint of a deal that would see rich nations pay poor nations to capture their emissions from coal and even Democrats in the US Congress want to postpone any tough action on emissions until after 2020. That may be why the scientists’ mask of optimism is beginning to slip.
Roger Harrabin, BBC News, 10 December 2007
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has ruled out endorsing proposed short-term greenhouse gas emission targets of up to 40 per cent by 2020 but says that does not mean the Bali climate change conference will be a failure. Mr Rudd ruled out endorsing a draft proposal from conference organisers for drastic cuts to emission levels of between 25 and 40 per cent over the next 12 years for developed nations
The Age, 10 December 2007
Washington rejected stiff 2020 targets for greenhouse gas cuts by rich nations at U.N. talks in Bali on Monday as part of a “roadmap” to work out a new global pact to fight climate change by 2009. Other countries such as Japan are also opposed, fearing such stiff goals would choke economic growth.
Reuters, 10 December 2007
The head of Japan’s biggest business lobby warned Monday that another set of ‘irrational’ greenhouse gas emission targets like those in the Kyoto Protocol would weaken Japan Inc’s competitiveness. ‘If irrational regulations of total emissions are set, as it was the case under the Kyoto Protocol, we cannot avoid a weakening of our international competitiveness,’ said Fujio Mitarai, who is the head of the Japan Business Federation and also chairman of Canon Inc.
Forbes, 10 December 2007
Britain is responsible for hundreds of millions more tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions than official figures admit, according to a new report that undermines UK claims to lead the world on action against global warming. The analysis says pollution from aviation, shipping, overseas trade and tourism, which are not measured in the official figures, means that UK carbon consumption has risen significantly over the past decade, and that the government’s claims to have tackled global warming are an “illusion”.
David Adam, The Guardian, 10 December 2007
On ‘global warming’, the only thing in which Britain leads the world is in the illusion of its political rhetoric.
Philip Stott, 10 December 2007
Rio. Kyoto. Bali. [Hawaii]. That’s environmental conferences for you. They always occur in sunlit places ending in vowels, and with a consonantal component of no more than 50%. They’re never in vowel-light locations like Nitvinggen or Bblarrgh or Quivdansk, where summer lasts a few hours some time in June, and where the locals spend their long winters rummaging through their clothing of animal pelts, popping lice with gnarled, nutshell fingernails, and musing vowellessly. For, there is almost a defined UN Green Meridian, where conferences To Save The World must always be held.
Kevin Myers, Belfast Telegraph, 7 December 2007
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I once worked for a large food manufacturer. Whenever we needed a quick decision, we would hold our meeting in the blast freezer. The next global warming “holiday” should be held outdoors at the South Pole.
Al Gore invokes the ghosts of the Nazis
http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=7931
So after all the fretting and worrying by bloggians here about world government, it appears self-interest is serving you very well. Probably no change. Perhaps our inside man, agent David Archibald scuttled the deals. “007” saves western civilisation as we know it.
Well at least Indonesia, Aussie and the US are joining up in a collaboration to save the orangutan. Was a tad surreal as Yudhoyono gave a press conference decrying the parlous situation about destruction of habitat. Couldn’t help but think “well it’s your country mate” – “sort it”.
Bali Day 9
Luke, I know what you are thinking. You think that you deserve to be in Bali. You imagine yourself playfully picking the lint out of some warmer chick’s matted underarm hair, and she, seeing you scratch yourself, offering to comb the nits out of your hair, and then nature takes its course. Well it’s not going to happen, because you haven’t put in the hard yards. You have to publish, publish, publish. To get noticed these days, you will have to go extreme wacko. May I suggest that you start off with a paper saying that flush toilets cause global warming. The next one of these conferences is in Poznan, Poland from 1st to 12th December, 2008. I have already picked out a nice five star hotel in walking distance from the conference venue.
or you could repeatedly invoke Godwins Law, just like big Al;
“In 1939, as clouds of war gathered over Europe, many refused to recognize what was about to happen. No one could imagine a Holocaust, even after shattered glass had filled the streets on Kristallnacht. World leaders waffled and waited, hoping that Hitler was not what he seemed, that world war could be avoided. Later, when aerial photographs revealed death camps, many pretended not to see. Even now, many fail to acknowledge that our victory was not only over Nazism but also over dark forces deep within us.
In 1989, clouds of a different sort signal an environmental holocaust without precedent. Once again, world leaders waffle, hoping the danger will dissipate. Yet today the evidence is as clear as the sounds of glass shattering in Berlin.”
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE1D6113EF93AA25750C0A96F948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
Reality just came to NSW, the lefty ALP govt is to privatise power stations and utilities to build more freeways and another power station (coal).
Last time those Greens hand over their preferences..
Bit too black and white for me Luke – if the politicians are to be blamed for complacency and self interest then let’s hear your condemnation of the warmers for their lack of preparedness to compromise on nuclear.
50% reduction by 2020 is well and truly achievable with nuclear and though more expensive , it’s affordable.
If nothing comes of Bali then there’s plenty of blame for everyone.
So the Bali romp is about to wind up. My imagination must be playing tricks…Just had a vision of Karoly cavorting with some of David’s warmer chicks. Is it today that the Rudd show hits town? Wonder how many are with him? Maybe ‘The Three’ are there.
‘Far away places with strange sounding names..Calling, calling…to me’ so the song goes. Kevin Myers was not entirely correct. Poznan ..Not much of a lilt there…And oh dear, can be quite cold in Dec. too! Will it be a repartee’ of COP 11 in Montreal? Now there is word. Doesn’t end in a vowel, but does have a consonantal lilt to it. Problem was that the luvvies were caught in an arctic blast, which set some new record lows in Montreal while they were talking about “global warming”.
Didn’t stop the true believers walking around with placards at minus 28c chanting “It’s hot here it’s hot here,There’s too much carbon in the atmosphere”.
Jim – well I’m happy with some state of the art nuclear but you have zero chance of talking the average Aussie into it.
Prepare to adapt. Nothing is going to happen on AGW for another 10 years. Self interest rules OK !
Jim – “50% reduction by 2020 is well and truly achievable with nuclear and though more expensive , it’s affordable.”
It is even more achievable with solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, wave, gasified coal and natural gas.
Why would a country like Australia need nuclear?
“talking the average Aussie into it” would be easier if we cut the bogeyman element out Luke.
Nuclear is a tough sell – but who’s to blame for that?
Ender – been here before many times – because it offers the only reliable CO2 free solution where the technological challenges are all solved and roll-out is only dependent on political will.
Actually despite Sid’s predilection for cool statistics it seems things are warming up in the NT.
http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/nt/20071203.shtml
A researcher is also worried about thermal limits with the local avian fauna
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/11/2115475.htm
Jim – “been here before many times – because it offers the only reliable CO2 free solution where the technological challenges are all solved and roll-out is only dependent on political will.”
All challenges have been solved except for the waste disposal that I guess does not bother you as you can safely ignore because it will only be a problem for future generations when you will be safely dead.
We get the power they get the problems – perfect
Then go to the far queue, Patrick.
Thermal limits for birds? And the bozo claims the record nightime temperature is the one that will knock em over, not the daytime one that was much warmer. It must be extremely frustrating to a climate crank when all the so-called “extreme” events are the ones well inside the normal range.
What exactly was this record nighttime temp? and how much lower was it compared to the daytime maximum that all the birds appear to have survived? I don’t know if the dude has noticed but all sorts of wildlife adjust to very hot days by resting in the shade and drinking more water until the end and start of the day when all cuts loose.
But needing to move them south? Now there’s a junket for the boys and girls.
Me thinks professor Garnett is looking for a bigger grant this time round.
ABC reporting is about as usefull as the UN stuff.
You have to be very thick to believe any of it.
You’d rather have Sid’s cherry picks then?
Interesting:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/117857349/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
No Ender – waste disposal is well and truly solved ; but I accept it’s the last strawman of the “anything but nuclear” troglodytes.
We could even offset some of our own nuclear development costs by charging other countries that don’t have such ideal geological and political climates as out own a s–tload for storing their nuclear waste.
Where are the scientists in these debates?
It’s all about science isn’t it?
Hasbeen, still going for the body line? I have a friend who is a climate researcher. He lives in your average house on your average income. He is smart enough to make a lot more money in private industry.
SJT!
“average house on your average income.”
“makes a lot more money in private industry.”
So, which is it? “average income?” or “lot more money?”??
Reality arrives at Antarctic Peninsula
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/unhappy-feet/2007/12/11/1197135455022.html
“Antarctica’s penguin population has slumped because of global warming as melting ice has destroyed nesting sites and reduced their sources of food, a WWF report said on Tuesday.
The Antarctic peninsula is warming five times faster than the average in the rest of the world, affecting four penguin species – the emperor penguin, the largest and the grandest in the world, the gentoo, chinstrap and adelie, it said.
“The Antarctic penguins already have a long march behind them,” Anna Reynolds, deputy director of WWF’s Global Climate Change Programme, said in a statement at the Bali climate talks.
“Now it seems these icons of the Antarctic will have to face an extremely tough battle to adapt to the unprecedented rate of climate change.”
The report, “Antarctic Penguins and Climate Change”, said sea ice covered 40 per cent less area than it did 26 years ago off the West Antarctic Peninsula, leading to a fall in stocks of krill, the main source of food for the chinstrap and gentoo penguins.”
Jim – “No Ender – waste disposal is well and truly solved ; but I accept it’s the last strawman of the “anything but nuclear” troglodytes.”
Really Jim so you should be able to provide a list of all the currently operating geological waste burial sites. Just to save you the trouble I will post them below.
Pretty impressive list!!!!
Quite right Ender – the capacity of the truly ignorant ( or malevolent ) to scare and misdirect is impressive!
Isn’t that your point with regard to sceptics?
http://www.uic.com.au/nip49.htm
Well SJT, anything coming from the WWF can be dismissed as mere propaganda which ends with the usual incantation about blaming industrial countries for ‘global warming’.
However it should be noted that the WWF is the extremist of all the extreme fundamentalist green NGO’s who peddle such dis-information and outright lies to advance their agenda.
The WWF was responsible for promoting false and misleading stories about the plight of Polar Bears, because of “global warming”. Now it seems to be the Penguin’s turn.
The full paper related to the abstract and news article I linked earlier is now available here:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
cheers
We always get stories about melting Antarctic ice when it’s summer in the Southern Hemisphere – why would that be I wonder!?
Thanks Arnost – I received the SEPP press release a few days ago, but I hadn’t spotted the pdf on ICECAP.
Thanks Arnost, very interesting….
Yes, Arnost, thank you for providing very strong evidence that the 22 main Global Climate Models CANNOT be reconciled with observed data over the past 25 years.
For the record, the conclusion was;
“The last 25 years constitute a period of more complete and accurate observations and more realistic modelling efforts. Yet the models are seen to disagree with the observations. We suggest, therefore, that projections of future climate based on these models be viewed with much caution”.
Stoat took it to task thoroughly and predictably Lubos responded. You guys are desperate to be quoting Singer. Wonder how Mottsa reconciles it all with buga-up. But you gimps would believe anything particularly Motty. Christy and Singer ROTFL.
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/12/tropical_trends.php#more
Icecrap = denialist central.
But meanwhile – back in Artic – it’s screaming !
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/12/11/arctic.melt.ap/index.html
Could the artic be ice free in 5 years? Will 2009 be less and 2008 an outlier.
It’s obvious – you’re all 100% wrong, total idiots and you WILL die if don’t accept world government, drastic reduction in your standard of living – and you MUST believe totally in global warming.
Will Motty go out backwards going “But but but but – my 1940 atlas says …but but but … well OK it is warming then but we can adapt but but but … as a flock of flying foxes drop dead at his feet”…. “Hey why is my envelope wet – WTF”
Suckers.
(Yes I know – it was a wind burst this year – you guys always have some lame excuse)
QUOTES from CNN:
I don’t pay much attention to one year … but this year the change is so big, particularly in the Arctic sea ice, that you’ve got to stop and say, ‘What is going on here?’ You can’t look away from what’s happening here,” said Waleed Abdalati, NASA’s chief of cyrospheric sciences. “This is going to be a watershed year.”
2007 shattered records for Arctic melt in the following ways:
552 billion tons of ice melted this summer from the Greenland ice sheet, according to preliminary satellite data to be released by NASA Wednesday. That’s 15 percent more than the annual average summer melt, beating 2005’s record.
A record amount of surface ice was lost over Greenland this year, 12 percent more than the previous worst year, 2005, according to data the University of Colorado released Monday. That’s nearly quadruple the amount that melted just 15 years ago. It’s an amount of water that could cover Washington, D.C., a half-mile deep, researchers calculated.
The surface area of summer sea ice floating in the Arctic Ocean this summer was nearly 23 percent below the previous record. The dwindling sea ice already has affected wildlife, with 6,000 walruses coming ashore in northwest Alaska in October for the first time in recorded history. Another first: the Northwest Passage was open to navigation.
Still to be released is NASA data showing the remaining Arctic sea ice to be unusually thin, another record. That makes it more likely to melt in future summers. Combining the shrinking area covered by sea ice with the new thinness of the remaining ice, scientists calculate that the overall volume of ice is half of 2004’s total.
Alaska’s frozen permafrost is warming, not quite thawing yet. But temperature measurements 66 feet deep in the frozen soil rose nearly four-tenths of a degree from 2006 to 2007, according to measurements from the University of Alaska. While that may not sound like much, “it’s very significant,” said University of Alaska professor Vladimir Romanovsky.
IT’S A TIPPING POINT – YOU’RE ALL GOING TO DIE !!
HAHAHAHAHAHAAA ROTFL etc
Anyway I’m awaiting the blog ninnies op-ed to the Australian newspaper (Australia’s denialist daily) – led my Mottsa – detailing all your theories and learnings …. should be a ripper…
Meanwhile back at the Bali ranch,
Rudd to appeal against the death sentences given to the Bali 9.
Should plug the gap left by the non agreement of global targets, mais non?
..and the US sticks two fingers to the UN by showing how they are coping without signing Kyoto
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iIKudUaDjacPlK0Ul9MgvNxkhofAD8TFI7FG0
signing = ratifying
Jim – “Quite right Ender – the capacity of the truly ignorant ( or malevolent ) to scare and misdirect is impressive!
Isn’t that your point with regard to sceptics?”
So this is the bait and switch tactic which means that you cannot supply any operating geological nuclear waste storage sites that are accepting waste and burying them safely.
So the nuclear waste problem is so solved? So prove it then, don’t evade. You made a statement either support it or retract it!
Poor ol’Stoat, scrapping the bottom of the barrel for a morsel of criticism. Still, it satisfies young Luke.
IT’S A TIPPING POINT – YOU’RE ALL GOING TO DIE !!
HAHAHAHAHAHAAA ROTFL etc
Not me buster.
Being a true skeptic, I’ve taken the precaution of living 600 meters above sea level where I’m unlikely to be inundated, it is an average 4℃ below the coast and there will be an abundance of CO₂ and an extended warm season to help me grow tomatoes.
Retract what?
Nuclear waste can be successfully stored underground – there have even been proposals to do just that in Australia. No technological problems just lack of political will and a good old fashioned dog whistle to the masses from the anti-nuke ignorami.
You’re saying that because we don’t have one in operation it’s not feasible?
Pangea and the IAEA don’t agree – I’m with them.
Another interesting titbit:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/11dec_themis.htm
It will be interesting to see if there is an variation in this type of activity over the next solar maximum. I think that I will add this to my list of potential causes for a MWP…
The Pope condemns the climate change prophets
Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.
The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.
The German-born Pontiff said that while some concerns may be valid it was vital that the international community based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=501316&in_page_id=1811
This time i think Luke has truly lost it – the other times he was just practicing.
I blame it on the werewolves.
Err – the POPE is talking about dogma !!! – oh precious day – ROTFL and LMAO to the nth power.
No Rog I’m serious – repent or you’re doomed. MWHUAAAAAAAA …. hehehehehe
It’s interesting that a measured rise of 0.4 degrees in the temperature of Alaskan permafrost 66 feet below the surface is presented as evidence of climate change. But the IPCC says that atmospheric temperature rose by only 0.6 degrees in the past 100 years.
It beggars belief that such a small rise in atmospheric temperature can cause such a rise in temperature 66 feet below the surface.
Maybe something else has caused it?
Maybe some other force of nature?
PP
“Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.”
Quick, bring out the salts, I think I’m going to faint.
Wake up PP – the Artic is warming faster than the average. Sheesh !
Actually there’s a big volcano underneath it all.
And the Antarctic isn’t warming at all…….
But of course the larger sea area is absorbing more CO2 – or some “lame excuse” like that.
Labor is right to sit with the developed doubters
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22910380-5014047,00.html
Australia, always the recalcitrant under the Howard government, is now being lumped with developed doubters such as Japan, Canada and the US, which fear the cost of buying an emissions pig in a poke. What it also shows – and what has surprised some people – is that the Labor Government’s outlook and attitude, which is correctly based on waiting for Ross Garnaut’s assessment of the economic cost of new targets, now appears little different to that of John Howard. Rudd knew the negotiations with developing nations would be tough and could be an economic threat. That’s what he is doing now. Under the mask of being a Kyoto ratifier, he’s looking after Australia’s national interest. It’s just not what some green groups and Labor voters expected.
Nonsense Paul – you guys were all bleating about the sky falling in with Ruddster and Kyoto. He has symbolically ratified Kyoto Mk I and gained a seat at the front. Australia should be able to meet this target. Even the Libs are now cool with this.
And prudently Australis isn’t going to drop its pants quickly unless other global players do too and without an economic analysis. Did you ever think otherwise. Come on ! Don’t be a bunch of ninnies.
But of course you guys being the rabble that you are – are not influencing the debate. Where’s the big IPA, Lavoisier, Motty submission to Garnaut?
Jim – no you’ll find the Southern Ocean appears to be saturating; NOT ABSORBING MORE CO2; and strangely the mid-troposphere above Antarctica is warming faster than anywhere. Try to keep up eh?
Jim – “And the Antarctic isn’t warming at all…….
But of course the larger sea area is absorbing more CO2 – or some “lame excuse” like that.”
Go out and buy a world globe. Look at the Southern part of it and the Northern part of it and try to work out which has the most ocean and which has the most land.
Don’t think even the IPCC can alter all the globes in the world.
Second see if you can find maps of the ozone depletion. Antarctica is more affected by loss of ozone (a greenhouse gas) than increases in CO2.
“But of course the larger sea area is absorbing more CO2 – or some “lame excuse” like that.” Lame excuse? I guess if science makes you feel uncomfortable, that’s going to make you feel relaxed and comfortable, isn’t it?
wrt Arctic ice read this.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/844
Particularly note, “Notice how much ice has already formed this winter, a more rapid growth than previously in the record.” As a consequence, they have had to fly in supplies to many of the remote northern settlements this fall instead of bringing them in by sea like they normally would.
People who live with this:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SNOWPICTURE.jpg
just have a hard time believing the Alarmists!
Relax Ender – I was trying to get a bite out of Luke ; the thread was getting boring and I thought a good old fashioned brain explosion topped off by his blog tourettes would liven things up!
Believe it or not , I don’t dispute the greater ocean area in the Southern Hemisphere.
Luke ( tongue in cheek ) referred previously to the NASA explanation of unususal wind patterns as the cause of rapid Arctic ice met as a “lame excuse” – NASA’s only reliable when it sticks to the script apparently.
Wait till the surface of Antarctica starts to warm Lukey boy – then all this “don’t mention the war” stuff can come to an end!
Well Jim – the Antarctica stuff is pretty stoopid. (1) The Peninsula is warming highly (2) the old circumpolar vortex is a good reason why the place is walled off weather wise. Also a part of the reason the high pressure belts had moved, and Australia missing out on rainfall in the recent drouight, also part of why the Southern Ocean is saturating with CO2, (3) strangely all this perhaps caused by an interaction with stratospheric ozone and troposheric greenhouse.
Wouldn’t it be soooo ironic for you if all this was a strong part of the intial warming story. And you dumb trucks missed it. I’ve put about 6 papers on the above into the blog but I can’t be f’ed requoting them as we continually revisit stupidity. “It’s all in the archives”.
And yes the Southern Ocean will warm more slowly but Macquarie ISland is warming steadily thank you. I’m sure it’s because the met station is next to the boiler.
My bet Antartica stays the same for another 20 years then moves rapidly to a warming. “It’s a tipping point”. MHUWAAAAAAA HEHEHHEHEEEEE
You guys only ever look at X-Y plots – never the story behind them. So :K%$&!@$OYR{(*U*R$Y{(*R^)*RYIYF*YIUT(&$^&(**^$*)$ and something with a goat using a cake-mixer.
This will explain it all
I really dig about 3:32 in.
Play it loud OK !
Getting really bloody angry now – bloody RC – they taken a dirty big meat axe to the latest bit of denialist doggy doo at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=509
Not pretty. But getting tired with RC now – they’re starting to swing at all this irrelevant poorly written nonsense and wasting time. Should be off on the big mission to Berlin informing us with impressive pompous position posts educating the rest of us – “the great unwashed” and “we who are not worthy” – not off chasing side flack. Let the denialists edit their own bilge or just shove in E&E if they can’t be bothered.
Hmmm, better then Stoat but hardly a meat axe. Considering McKitrick’s robust replies to RC’s previous limp criticisms, I’m looking forward to Douglas et al reply.
BTW, Gavin should be the last person accusing anyone of ‘over-confidence’.
Did anyone notice how stoat had the gall to claim that because the observed results were within the error bars of the climate muddles then they can be reconciled?
On that logic, any instance of observed warming that falls within the historical range can be ignored. But watch the clown scream if anyone were to draw the same conclusion.
Meanwhile, back at Krudd central, poor Kevie has just had the briefing from Treasury on the real state of the US junk mortgage crisis and went full white knuckle in the chair.
If anyone thinks there is still a lazy $trillion bucks lying about for a planeteers indulgence they are seriously deluded.
Obviously the Pope has recognised AGW alarmism as a new religion, and is simply following the First Commandment, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Ball
yes Mark, Tim ball is right, everyone else is wrong. Back to the sandpit now – looks like Ian is there with a bucket having a great time
The unchallengeable authority of wikipravda! Say no more!
Global warming causing record disasters: report
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/13/2117667.htm
The International Federation of the Red Cross (IFRC) says global warming caused a record number of natural disasters across the world in 2007, up nearly 20 per cent from a year earlier.
“As of 10 October 2007, the Federation had already recorded 410 disasters, 56 per cent of which were weather-related, which is consistent with the trend of rising numbers of climate change-related disasters,” the IFRC said in its World Disasters Report.
In 2006, the IFRC recorded 427 natural disasters, a rise of 70 per cent in the two years since 2004.
Over the last 10 years, the number of natural disasters rose by 40 per cent from the previous decade, while the number of deaths caused by disasters doubled to 1.2 million people from 600,000, the report said.
The number of people on average affected by natural disasters each year rose to 270 million from 230 million over the same period.
“Better reporting of smaller disasters partially explains these increases. However, more severe disasters are also on the increase,” the IFRC report said.
The report warned that vulnerable groups in society such as women, disabled people, the elderly and ethnic minorities face extra hardships when coping with natural disasters.
Deltoid has spilt the beans on Pope story – a shocking misrepresentation by denialists.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/12/simon_caldwell_is_a_liar.php#more
There is nothing that Rudd has said at bali that is not a complete copy of the libs policy – except for ratifying Kyoto.
There is no point preparing an analysis of the Garnault report until it is published – and that wont be until mid 2008. In fact, it will probaly be an election issue 2010.
So settle down Luke, stop being such a hysteric.
Luke, you must be joking. The mere fact that Caldwell quotes from the same selection Lambert quotes, suggests the latter is engaging in ‘shocking misrepresentation’ himself, and slander to boot.
The Pope’s statement is general, conventional, and, in parts, vague and can be interpreted in any number of ways, and all require caveats.
Lambert’s suggestions that the Pope appears to support Stern’s low discount rate as well as the reports of the IPCC, are said, hopefully, with his tongue firmly in his cheek.
rot
What a surprise! Another peer reviewed paper that doesn’t suppport the CO2 driven end of the world get’s the treatment that AIT and MBH missed out on. The arguments about the accuracy of models, near surface temperature, satellite and radiosonde data goes on and on.
As for the Pope:
It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances.
Amen to that!
He means that denialists should not swallow amatuerish shitty papers from tobacco shills designed to mislead. That’s what it says. Or at least use more bread if you do have to swallow shit sandwiches.
Go Deltoid – denialist slayer !
Meanwhile RC report from AGU 98% of the named Alaska glaciers are retreating, 95% of 612 studied Tibet glaciers are retreating, and 98% of monitored Alpine glaciers are retreating. …. also had incontrovertible evidence that there has been massive melt on Kilimanjaro. NOT sublimating but melting. You guys will doing a lot more “but but buts” next year.
It’s gonna be an AGW landslide with some of the science in the pipe. Prepare for shock and awe. And massive denial !!!
None of that proves AGW – and what were the glaciers doing in previous warm periods? Is atmospheric CO2 going to be reduced or keep rising – regardless of ‘holiday camp Bali?’
Well yes it does – do glaciers suddenly experience accelerated melt for no reason? I think not.
The old “something happened before” ruse is utterly non-scientific. I know – “it’s nature !”
“It’s simply natural”. In nature, stuff just happens for no reason. Yea sure.
Of course Bali hasn’t done much – but that’s another issue. I don’t think the global climate system recognises Bali’s credentials somehow. A warm breeze just wafts over them.
Just an illustration of the sheer difficulty of really doing anything with multiple nation states. Far from world govt nonsense – the UN usually finds it hard to organise a chook raffle.
We’ll all just have to wait for the Garnaut Report will will say – “it’s a bit harder than we thought actually”. So pop a valium and lie back and wait. Rudd still needs to win the next election.
If 98%/95% are retreating, does that mean the other 2%/5% are sceptical glaciers?
What’s causing the warmimg I wonder? I find warmimg, cooling, warming, cooling, retreating, advancing, retreating, advancing very un-exciting.
Paul – you know better than that. Not even a good try.
What’s causing the warming – oh I know- “nature” or 1 of 100 different solar theories (not!).
And given it’s all heat islands from the latest “trial by regression” style of science – “I correlate therefore I am!”. – these glaciers have been norty and are hanging around town centres.
But hang on – we’re cooling.
But given the temperature record is crook maybe we don’t know.
It’s all so confusing.
Wonder of Mottsa is submitting some sickening rhetorical rant to Garnaut.
My Environmental sciences colleague contacted JC.
Response to RC:
The (treatment of) errors on all datasets were discussed in the text.
ALSO
To quote from realclimate. org “The sharp eyed among you will notice that the satellite estimates (even UAH) – which are basically weighted means of the vertical temperature profiles – are also apparently inconsistent with the selected radiosonde estimates (you can’t get a weighted mean trend larger than any of the individual level trends!).” This was written by someone of significant inexperience. The weighting functions include the surface, and the sondes align almost exactly with UAH data … the weights are proportional, depending most on 850-400 but use all from the surface to the stratosphere. The quote is simply false.
ALSO
The LT trend for RAOBCORE v1.4 is still considerably less than the models. However, as I stated before, v1.4 relies very strongly on the first guess of the ECMWF ERA-40 reanalyses that experienced a sudden warm shift from 300 to 100 hPa with a change in the processing stream (I think stream #4 ?). Consistent with this was a sudden increase in precipitation (I think about 10%), a sudden increase in upper level divergence (consistent with the increase in precipitation) and a sudden rise in temperature. We have a paper in review on this, but we were not the first to report it. I think Uppala was the first. v1.2 had less dependence on the ERA-40 forecast model, and so was truer to the observations. There is more on this, but what I said should suffice.
Remember, in the paper, the fundamental question we needed to answer before the comparison was “what would models show for the upper air trends, if they did get the surface trend correct?” We found that through the averaging of 67 runs (RealClimate seems to miss this point … we wanted to compare apples with apples). Then the comparison could be made with the real world.
John C.
“And given it’s all heat islands from the latest “trial by regression” style of science – “I correlate therefore I am!”. – these glaciers have been norty and are hanging around town centres.”
It would be handy if the ‘sceptics’ could all just get together and get their story straight.
Hi Mark, a quick overview of the past and current state of the arctic. Happy reading
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_untersteiner.html
http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20070810_index.html
but but… the wind! but but… the antarctic!
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
hmmm, lets play spot the appeal to authority
The Douglass paper stands – RC’s pathetic attempts to smear it are dealt with by John Christy above. So it doesn’t look much like greenhouse warming.
The claim that 98%/95% of glaciers are melting/retreating cannot be substantiated, and represents a new low in climate truth.
There are about 11,000 glaciers around the world, and the great majority of these are not monitored in any way. Of those that are monitored, a substantial number are actually advancing.
This begs the question, Are only the ‘convenient’ ones used?
The above claim takes ‘cherry-picking’ onto a new plane.
Paul – JC said – “I think Uppala was the first. v1.2 had less dependence on the ERA-40 forecast model, and so was truer to the observations.”
Yes that might be correct and who am I to question John Christie however using an older version of a dataset when a more up to date version exists leaves you open to the suggestion that you used it because it better fitted what you wanted to show. Surely of the claims in this paper were robust they should show the same no matter what dataset you use.
“This was written by someone of significant inexperience.”
I don’t think that any of the team at RC are inexperienced and some of them include team members of teams that JC was a part of or headed. I am pretty sure that he would not cast nasturtiums at fellow scientists. Perhaps there is something a bit deeper here. I will ask at RC
Read it again Sid. You’re misrepresented yet again.
Sid – “There are about 11,000 glaciers around the world, and the great majority of these are not monitored in any way. Of those that are monitored, a substantial number are actually advancing.”
And you can supply the reference that supports this?
Most of the ones that are selected to be monitored are key ones in the area that represent the others. Unless you would support a massive massive increase in funding for the researchers then it is not possible to monitor every glacier.
Again I would be interested in the source that confirms that glaciers are in fact advancing.
And here is Gavin’s response to what John Christie said: I cannot color the comments – Gavin’s words are after the “Response:
“#
This is a post at an Australian Blog, Jennifer Morohasy, where a co-author has posted what is reported as a quote from John Christie:
“My Environmental sciences colleague contacted JC.
Response to RC:
The (treatment of) errors on all datasets were discussed in the text.
ALSO
To quote from realclimate. org “The sharp eyed among you will notice that the satellite estimates (even UAH) – which are basically weighted means of the vertical temperature profiles – are also apparently inconsistent with the selected radiosonde estimates (you can’t get a weighted mean trend larger than any of the individual level trends!).” This was written by someone of significant inexperience. The weighting functions include the surface, and the sondes align almost exactly with UAH data … the weights are proportional, depending most on 850-400 but use all from the surface to the stratosphere. The quote is simply false.
[Response: JC is of course welcome to point it out to us ourselves. I will amend the post accordingly. If he would be so kind as to mention whether the RSS and UMD changes are also in line with the sondes, I will be more specific as well. We have no wish to add to the sum total of misleading statements. – gavin]
ALSO
The LT trend for RAOBCORE v1.4 is still considerably less than the models. However, as I stated before, v1.4 relies very strongly on the first guess of the ECMWF ERA-40 reanalyses that experienced a sudden warm shift from 300 to 100 hPa with a change in the processing stream (I think stream #4 ?). Consistent with this was a sudden increase in precipitation (I think about 10%), a sudden increase in upper level divergence (consistent with the increase in precipitation) and a sudden rise in temperature. We have a paper in review on this, but we were not the first to report it. I think Uppala was the first. v1.2 had less dependence on the ERA-40 forecast model, and so was truer to the observations. There is more on this, but what I said should suffice.
[Response: The point was made above that we are not trying to demonstrate the v1.4 or v1.2 is better, merely that there are quantitative and systematic uncertainties in the observational data set that were not reported in this paper. If JC wanted to make the point that v1.2 was better, then why was the existence of 1.4 or 1.3 not even mentioned? At minimum, this is regrettable. – gavin]
Remember, in the paper, the fundamental question we needed to answer before the comparison was “what would models show for the upper air trends, if they did get the surface trend correct?” We found that through the averaging of 67 runs (RealClimate seems to miss this point … we wanted to compare apples with apples). Then the comparison could be made with the real world.
John C.
[Response: That is not the test they made. Though I did do it, in response to Viento comment #5 – gavin]
John is quoted as saying that one of the items in your post is false. I am not sure if you have communicated with Christie about the paper however as a layman I cannot tell what is the truth here. Is there anyway you can explain what you said in your post that I would be able to understand?
Comment by Ender — 13 December 2007 @ 5:41 PM”
“The Douglass paper stands – RC’s pathetic attempts to smear it are dealt with by John Christy above. So it doesn’t look much like greenhouse warming.”
Jeepers Paul
They go hunting for a flaw in the models. The models make several predictions, about the different layers of the atmosphere, and the areas of the atmosphere, tropical and non tropical. They pick a particular part of one layer, and in one area. That’s just crazy, since the models are known to be flawed, and are being improved all the time. What else is new? As it is, there is a reasonable argument that the models are still correct on this point.
Ender, SJT and other alarmists – non-objective RC really aren’t worth John Christy’s or anyone elses time.
I suggest genuine scientific comments are done through proper, meaningful channels – written up and submitted for peer review to the journal concerned, so that the authors can respond – rather than be subjected to pointless hand-wringing in the RC alarmist echo-chamber.
Send your Douglass et al comments here:
Welcome to the International Journal of Climatology manuscript submission and peer review website:
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/joc
FRAME THIS ONE GUYS !!!
“I suggest genuine scientific comments are done through proper, meaningful channels – written up and submitted for peer review to the journal concerned, so that the authors can respond – rather than be subjected to pointless hand-wringing in the RC alarmist echo-chamber.”
ALSO TA TA DENIALIST CESSPIT BLOG AND FEEDING FRENZY SITE – CLIMATEAUDIT !!!
Yep all for Paul’s suggestion…. Suddenly the denialists after ranting how corrupt the formal establishment system is – now actually want to use it. ROTFL !
Gee next minute Climateaudit will be performing an educational function instead of being a soapbox in some far flung park.
The retired owner of the excellent ‘Climate audit’ has a peer reviewed position on pc1, bristlecones etc. but the same flawed methodology and proxies keep popping up.
RealClimate is supposed to be about real, working climate scientists – so they are better placed to write up negative comments for peer review in the appropriate journal.
BTW – I posted the link to the ‘International Journal of Climatology manuscript submission and peer review website’ on RC – let’s see if it gets censored or not.
So Climateaudit isn’t about real working scientists then? Just game playing and rabble rousing. Where’s Waldo and other childish drivel. The lack of a serious number of publications on anything new from climateaudit is stunning.
I think you’ll find RC scientists do more than their share of peer review and editing.
SM is an IPCC reviewer, and I think he also reviewed the Juckes et al paper. He currently has a guest post from consenus scientist Judith Curry – who I admire because she is one of the few scientists who will interact in blogs and forums.
However, this post is most intersting – more inconvenient data joins the witness protection program:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2504
I know that RC scientists edit, peer review and write papers – all the more reason to submit comments to the approriate journal on a paper they don’t like, outside the RC ‘echo-chamber.’
Who isn’t an IPCC reviewer.
Petty – given the history of things. Maybe they will.
Well, Ender, it would jam up Jennifers blog to give too many refrences to glacier advance, but here are two to start with.
http://www.sitnews.us/0607news/062707/062707_ak_science.html
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/7/story.cfm?_id=7&objedid=10363304
The Swiss based World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS) is firmly committed to the AGW Doctrine, which is probably why it has only picked (cherry) 30 mountain glaciers to monitor. One must ask why only 30 when in NZ alone, the gov’t agency, NIWA monitors 50?
98%/95% of 30 is hardly an accurate representation of 11,000 !
Sorry, the second ref. is.-
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/7/story.cfm?c_id=7&objectid=10363304
Sid – get updated – that was a state of the art new reports direct from the AGW meeting. Try to keep up.
Make a big list Sid – I’m sure Jen will put it in the Wiki and link to it for you. It won’t then clog the blog. Don’t just run a big bluff with TWO – TWO !! – hahahaha
Your link “Staff believe the risk of ice collapse at the face of the Fox and Franz Josef Glaciers is high and visitors are ignoring warning signs and putting themselves at risk. ” YES INDEED – probably coz it’s melting and falling apart.
Even your own article shoots you in the foot – did you actually even read it
“Tidewater glaciers-glaciers with tongues that dip into salt water-advance and retreat regardless of the warmth, or coolness of the air. Hubbard Glacier, for example, is threatening to bulldoze its way into Gilbert Point, north of Yakutat, as it keeps advancing. At the same time Hubbard and a few other tidewater glaciers are advancing, the vast majority of glaciers that begin and end on land are retreating.”
“Tidewater glaciers are indifferent to climate warming because of the effects of the ocean, and the shape of the surrounding landscape. These oceanfront glaciers often grow and shrink in a repeating cycle: Snows high in the mountains bulk up a tidewater glacier and force it to advance, the tip of its tongue shoving forward underwater mounds of gravel. The glacier eventually backs off the shoal into deeper water, which makes it calve more and retreat. When a glacier retreats to the head of a fiord and stops calving, another advance can begin. ”
Thanks Sid – provide even more evidence to beat you guys with. Post some more.
Paul – “I suggest genuine scientific comments are done through proper, meaningful channels – written up and submitted for peer review to the journal concerned, so that the authors can respond – rather than be subjected to pointless hand-wringing in the RC alarmist echo-chamber.”
Really Paul? So is they why you wrote off too your mate – for meaningful scientific discussion.
This is almost exactly what gavin said so why run off to get a comment when JC when you think the place for conversation is peer reviewed journals????
Ender – you need to learn the difference between discussion and RC trying to trash peer reviewed papers because they don’t support climate alarmism. The RC post on the Douglass et al paper is garbage.
If a comment is sent to IJC it will be responded to in full by the authors, who won’t waste their time in the RC echo-chamber.
Now run back to your RC masters like a good doggie.
ooooooo
no hypocrisy here
Paul – “The RC post on the Douglass et al paper is garbage.”
How do you know it is garbage??
“Now run back to your RC masters like a good doggie.”
So now you return to type and start the abuse. Obviously you have reached the limit of your very limited knowledge and all you have left if the ammunition of all bullies – abuse.
John Christie is a respected and qualified climate scientist. I do not have the knowledge to question what he signs his name to. Gavin Schmitt and the others that write RC are equally qualified and ARE able to critisise John Cristy’s work. They have made themselves available to answer questions from laypeople such as myself.
Now with this new found scientific humbleness that you have found I guess we will hear no more critisism of the peer reviewed MBH99. Your unqualified hero McIntyre has no problems trashing peer reviewed work in the CA echo chamber with you cheering on. So is what is good for the goose good for the gander – eh Paul????
Luke displays a fair bit of glacial ignorance, with a few shards of truth, (above).
I have no academic qualifications to discuss glaciers. So I observe, and do try to follow unbiased expert glacial advice and observations.
We recently visited the Franz Joseph and Fox glaciers, and can state truthfully that the are both certainly advancing again, and have been generally doing so since 1982, with a short retreat since then. In 2004 the FJ terminus became visible from the village for the first time in 30 years, and today is quite visible from there.
Since the 1700’s, (LIA) the FJ has retreated some 2km as temps. have risen. Along the way there have been several advances and retreats. The present advance has gained some 400 meters; quite impressive. A good reference site is…
http://www.nzphoto.tripod.com/glaciers/index.htm
Note his comment ‘present temporary advance’ !! Doesn’t qualify the retreats!
There is some excellent study being done on SH glaciers..
http://www.victoria.ac.nz/geo/papers/staff/Marsden-Mackintosh-2006
Note the comment ‘SH glacial advance growing in response to temperature decline, possibly a global signal’.
And here is another on Alaska..
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/~truffer/McGinnisSurge/
I’m also an amateur in this field but I found this information on Greenland on a Norwegian scientific site.
” There has accumulated more ice on mountain tops ove 2000 m during the last three years, but there is even a more powerful melting on lower grounds . Totally this makes for more melting….
Not having much luck with my ..sites. Try again..
http://nzphoto.tripod.com/south/04Glaciers.htm
http://www.victoria.ac.nz/geo/papers/staff/Marsden-Abstract-Mackintosh-2006
Ender – I’m not going to say how I know the RC critique is ‘garbage.’
You did run to RC with our pers comm.
RC failed to publish my post.
RC’s Gavin is out of his depth compared to Christy on this issue.
People who live in the greenhouse shouldn’t throw stones – the write it up for peer review was levelled at CA first – now it returned with interest to RC.
Peer review is infallible, except for non-alarmist papers?
Meanwhile, an interesting AGU poster by Penner and Andronova:
Conclusions:
the tropical atmosphere has absorbed less energy and the Earth’s surface has gained energy which is consistent with the temperature increase in the tropics;
the tropical atmosphere has recently become less reflective and more absorbing while the Earth’s surface gained radiative energy; thus, the tropical atmosphere had recently become more transparent to the incoming radiation and there is an overall brightening of the Earth’s system;
none of the AR4 models simulates the overall brightening of the Earth system. The majority of the models show a loss of radiative energy by the tropical energy in the post-Pinatubo period, suggesting that the models have still not properly captured the feedbacks between temperature change and clouds.
This supports the failure of the tropical troposphere to warm more than the tropical surface. It doesn’t disprove the greenhouse hypothesis, but it does support the accuracy of Christy’s data.
Next!