Extremely extreme?
In January 2008, three gentlemen at the Met office Hadley Centre published a paper named: “Human contribution to rapidly increasing frequency of very warm Northern Hemisphere summers”. Those three were Gareth S. Jones, Peter A. Stott and Nikolaos Christidis.
In the abstract we can read the following:
The European summer of 2003 was exceptionally warm, and there is evidence that human influence has at least doubled the risk of such a hot summer. It is possible that by the 2040s, summers over southern Europe will be as warm or warmer 50% of the time. (…) We detect the dominant influence of anthropogenic factors on observed warming in almost every region, which has led to a rapidly increasing risk of hot summers. We show that hot summers which were infrequent 20–40 years ago are now much more common and that our projections indicate that the current sharp rise in incidence of hot summers is likely to continue.
Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to read the entire paper yet, but a few questions arise immediately. How were these scientists able to prove that human influence has doubled the risk of heat waves? How can they know that Southern European summers will be as warm as 2003 or warmer half of the time? And what are the signs of human influence on the observed warming?
Is it just me who smells a rat in here?
20 comments
Perhaps no one’s told them 1998 was the peak for heat…
The Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute (KNMI) reported last month that Western Europe warms up more quickly than the rest of the world.
They gave 2 causes for this:
- a change in prevailing wind patterns (that could be related to a change in PDO)
- reduction of airpollution in Western Europe since the 1980’s
Strictly speaking: the second reason for the extra warming is caused by humans. Maybe we should make more pollution (aerosols, soot etc.) to save the climate.
So the KNMI admits that there are other factors contributing to climate change. This is a giant leap forward for this conservative institute.
But the KNMI still blames the increased greenhouse-effect for the background warming of the entire planet.
Err, was it 1934,
(after the surface station corrections last year,
urban heat islands effecting temperatures recorded,
once taken into account things looked a bit different..)
or was that a close or undecieded thing …
1921 is undisputed third anyways.
It’s not easy what with all this science and trying to keep all the climate change politicians happy.
and of course “hansenised” data..
Cold have something to do with Europe being paved over. More UHI effect.
This summer here on Vancouver Island is a little cooler than normal, Every cold day people complain about the cold weather. Every hot day (there haven’t been too many) they go on about global warming.
Just after the Atomic Bomb was first triggered everyone blamed any weather perturbations on “The Atom”. In distant times wasn’t ‘God’ teaching mankind a lesson when floods/droughts occurred?
Now we have Al Gore/James Hansen etc to tell us the ‘Real Story’
Try reading the ENTIRE paper and not just the abstract before analyzing and critizing the results. Just a tip.
Concerning Europe other authors come to the same conclusion, as already mentioned by Hans Verbeek. Interesting is what Elena Xoplaki, “Autumn 2006 is Very Likely the Warmest of Over More Than Half a Millennium”, http://scitizen.com, 23 Dec. 2006; has said in her contribution:
· The warmest autumns covering the last 507 years were in 1938, 1772, 2000 and autumn of 2006
· over the last 30 years the strongest autumn warming over that period was experienced over Scandinavia and the British Isles.
· It is interesting to note that the previous autumn warming from World War 1 to the late 1930s did also show strongest warming over northern Europe.
A recent paper “A Large-Scale Experiment with Climate – The Extreme Winter of 1939/40 and Climate Research –“, published at http://www.oceanclimate.de/ actually explains why the warming since the end of WWI was stopped when WWII commencement in winter 1939/40, and also explains what activities at sea in semi enclosed sea, as the North- and Baltic Sea may do from the end of the summer season until spring:
· Phase 1: The cooling process is first accelerated, and more heat and moisture is transferred to the atmosphere (late autumn).
· Phase 2: Although the surface of the sea has cooled off sufficiently for the water to begin to freeze, cruising ships or battles “stir up” warmer water from greater depths, preventing early freezing (turn of the year).
· Phase 3: The upper seawater layer has cooled to a depth of more than 10 metres and to a greater extent than normal, leading to a very sudden and substantial freezing of the seas.
Today there are permanently more than 2000 sizable vessels at sea at any time, capable to turn-over the entire sea-surface layer of the Baltic Sea down to 2-10 meters in less than 14 days time, and thus are serious candidates for some of the warming over Northern Europe.
Is this a speculative theory. Or is there full figures and calculations of how this has been arrived at.
For phase II, which sea? The sheer power required to stir a large mass of deep water I imagine would be quite significant. more then a handful of depth charges.
Dear Sirs,
Carbon emissions have no discernable effect on climate, but our gullibility nets promoters of this “crisis” billions per year. Meanwhile they change nothing of their own lifestyles, though they also live on the planet they claim we are destroying. Claiming to want to save us from our folly, they seek to strip away our freedoms while destroying our economy. While the climate itself mocks their so-called linkages, and our economy is already on the edge of collapse, a Democratic Congress is still pushing for carbon cap legislation. What will it take to bring this farce to an end?
Your website leads me to believe we share the concerns about this attempt to sell out our country for profit and power. Would you help me promote a book I have written examining this hoax? It is intended to make readers angry over being played for patsies. If enough people read it, it would create a public backlash against that legislation, but through my own efforts, I have been unable to sufficiently publicize this work. Would you also pass this e-mail on to all your peers you think might agree and help?
The book is entitled “A Climate Crisis a la Gore” and is organized as follows:
• Introduction – the motivation behind the assembly of this information for public use.
• Part 1 – Excerpted ideas from Mr. Gore’s book, The Assault on Reason. I use Mr. Gore’s own claims regarding the proper and reasonable way to enter an argument or evidence into the marketplace of ideas, the forum of reason, the real power behind democracy.
• Part 2 – A claim by claim analysis of Mr. Gore’s documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. These are evaluated with simple logic, claims elsewhere in the documentary, Mr. Gore’s excerpted written principles of reasoning, and scientific research and findings regarding the subjects of his claims.
• Part 3 – Discussion and disclosure of players and special interest groups creating the perception of a global climate crisis. The history of the movement is examined, motives behind involvement, dollar amounts of profit already being reaped by promoters, and what they stand to gain if America enacts carbon legislation.
• Conclusion – The coming economic storm resulting from enacting this legislation and a plea to readers to contact legislators demanding such laws be reconsidered.
Excerpts can be reviewed and the book ordered at Amazon.com by entering the title, ISBN# (978-1-4196-8684-9) or by following the link http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Crisis-Gore-perception-warming/dp/1419686844/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202424474&sr=8-1 If you are willing to inform your readers of its contents and availability, an informed (and angry) population of voters might be a real, and maybe the only, check and balance system capable of stopping Congress.
Sincerely,
Paul Spite
My take: The Polar Bear Population has substantially increased 400% since the 1950s. Therefore it’s polar bear farts that have been increasing the warming.
It’s a direct coalition to cause and effect since it supports AlGores temp charts perfectly. Therefore, Polar Bears must be taxed for emissions under proposed cap and trade rules.
The only way the Eco lobby will be stopped is when someone takes the carbon trading companies to court and claims damages for fraud. If they claim it is based on science then take the scientists to court for criminal negligence. They need to learn to handle the sort of pressure that anti AGW supporters have endured which gave rise to the “concensus”.
Anyway if the models are not based on a proper knowledge of weather forecasting capable of producing accurate daily forcasts then the climate forcase are not science they are statistical predictions and worth no more than a MORI poll guarantees the next candidate predicted.
I admit to sour grapes when told that I must curb my use of my 45mpg car and pay carbon tax to fund a carbon trader’s 5000 mile holiday round trip in a one mpg luxury motor launch.
” D Cage { 09.09.08 at 4:05 pm }
The only way the Eco lobby will be stopped is when someone takes the carbon trading companies to court and claims damages for fraud. ”
Lehman bros, pro AGW, very heavily into carbon trading schemes,
scientific advisor JimHansen, and Al Gore also involved…..
Now I wonder what triggered the recent banking collapse,
maybe, just maybe some money men “getting out” of carbon trading.
Then the short sellers took over.
What was it Mark Green said, or rather advocated,
the best way to be a socialist,
is to be a capitalist….
(presumably a very bad one…..)
Re: Killian, 01 Sept
__It is until now the only explanation how it could happened that Northern Europe was suddenly back in the Little Ice Age, respectively one of two theses , if one considers the option as reasonable that an El Nino event had been the driving force behind this presumably most significant climatic event during the last century (S. Brönnimann et al), which is not shared here.
__Concerning Phase II (preventing early freezing in winter 1939/40) addresses particularly the situation in the North- and Baltic Sea.
__What to say about “a handful of depth charges”, that ignores a lot, e.g. the sea-short fighting along the Polish coastline, the up to 150’000 sea mines laid during the first few month, and the thousands of depth charges, or aerial bombs versus submarine and ships, and so on.
What also happened, here are three excerpts to serve as examples from: http://www.seaclimate.com/
__The following case involving Russian vessels might illustrate such a situation: “(Russian) commanders of transport ships and torpedo boats were so much afraid of being attacked by a Finnish submarine in the Gulf of Finland, that they set off depth charges every 15 minutes or whenever an unconfirmed sighting of a periscope was reported, resulting in a total of 400 depth charges having been dropped by end of operation that day”. (Chapter 2_15)
__Off Copenhagen shore: “Gales have loosened several hundred mines in the German mine field… drifting mines exploded on the coast near the suburbs (of Copenhagen), breaking windows and frightening citizens with their terrific detonations. (Chapter 2_14)
__Extract from a British eye witness account: “Our outlook shouted, ‘Planes right ahead, Sir; three planes; they are diving, Sir’. Then things happened awfully quickly. Our foremost guns opened fire, with a roar that drowned everything. The muzzles were elevated almost level with the bridge and yellow flames sprang out, obliterating the shapes of the German machines swooping over the convoy. The sea leapt up in columns where their bombs were dropped.” (Chapter 2_15).
Apologies my post 9.19.08, I said Mark Green,
obviously I meant Maurice Strong.
Come to think of it an easy mistake to make..LOL.
http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1841
- Opinion: Sun Warms and Cools the Earth
by Dr Zbigniew Jaworowski
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/
From the BBC about a $1,000,000 grant.
“A global search has begun for food crops with traits that are able to withstand changes to the climate.
The project, co-ordinated by the Global Crop Diversity Trust, is searching national seed banks for “climate proof” varieties, including maize and rice.
The team will screen seeds for natural resistance to extreme events, such as floods, droughts or temperature swings.
They hope the strains will help protect food production from the impacts of climate change.”
It will be an “Extreme Event” when the BBC stops the AGW Hysterical themes it promotes at present.
I’m waiting to hear about a grant for research into longer stemmed corn/wheat to combat sea levels rising.
Probably better to find plants that keep growing when the ground is frozen!
I recently came across a comment about the actual stated
BBC policy about how it covers “contraversial” subjects.
The below excerpt can be found in the following link,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/09/21/do2105.xml
Excerpt,
” ‘BBC News currently takes the view that their reporting needs
to be calibrated to take into account the
scientific consensus that global warming is man-made.
The BBC’s Editorial Guidelines, issued to all editorial staff,
state that
“we must ensure we avoid bias or an imbalance of views on controversial subjects” and, given the weight of scientific opinion, the challenge for us is to strike the right balance between mainstream science and sceptics since to give them
equal weight would imply that the argument is evenly balanced.
The BBC Governors and BBC Management jointly commissioned a report,
“From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel
- Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century”‘
published in June 2007, which noted that:
“There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate change is definitely happening and that
it is at least predominantly man-made…
the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus.’ ”
End of excerpt.
I think from that it is fairly clear where the BBC stands..
You can only complain to the BBC about it’s coverage, if you think it is biased or unreasonable,
so you now know it will not get a fair hearing.
A bit like political parties really………
Not much point in complaining to them either.
No wonder the number of voters not voting are rising
in general / national elections, in many, many countries.
The madness will only end soon after the first
non-”green” credible politicians stand to be elected,
in the numerous countries where at present there are none.
Hence there is no one to vote for at present,
regardless of whether you are Left, Right, or Centre.
Maggie! Where are you? Hellooooooooooooooooo…………!
Leave a Comment