Our theories and forecasts fell flat, so we will now attribute everything to CO2 – and contradict everything we said previously.
Where extreme weather and climate change intersect
Saturday, 2 July 2011There are several inconvenient truths relating to the science and politics of climate change.
But perhaps the most inconvenient of all is that so many people remain to be convinced that the climate really is changing.
For the past two winters on the run, for instance, Britain has experienced weeks of freezing temperatures and heavy snowfalls. This is not what we should expect in a world made warmer by the emission of billions of tons of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. And every cold snap, wet summer and cloud-filled sky inevitably brings a popular backlash against scientists who warn against letting the climate slip into dangerously instability.
Such a reaction, though, is wrong. And it is wrong because
of another inconvenient truth: weather and climate are not the same thing. Weather is what we experience on a daily basis, whereas climate is what is expected over months, years and even centuries. We need to take the long view when it comes to the climate and not be hoodwinked by short perturbations in the weather. But this rubs up against another problematic truth, which is that the human mind tends to operate on a timescale that responds better to day-to-day fluctuations of the weather than to longer-term changes of the climate.
We notice changes to the weather because they are obvious every time we go outside. But we do not have such an instinctive feel for the climate. Yet, ultimately, it is the climate that will dictate what sort of weather we are likely to get. Which is why it is important that scientists will now be looking at the short-duration changes to the weather – extreme events such as storms, floods and droughts – to try to establish whether they are being exacerbated by global warming.
So, climate is what occurs over the long haul. Scientists will now “scientists will now be looking at the short-duration changes to the weather” to see if it is climate…… k, got it……ahahahahahahahhahahha!!!
Just when you thought it couldn’t get any more stupid …
“If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull.”
— W.C. Fields
A tribute to those that believe global warming has caused more hurricanes, tornadoes and floods etc. lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-jsqZQ4OOY
The original prediction was that winters would become more mild….
There would be less cold in the winter.
That’s how powerful CO2 is. It can not only change the climate but also the predictions. It is much worse than we thought we thought. Prediction Disruption. And it seems to be reaching a tipping point, with unprecedented melting of formerly firm predictions – with catastrophic impacts on the AGW research-industrial ecosystem.
At this rate we may not even know exactly how warm it will be in 2100. How can anyone build a healthy taxosystem with that kind of uncertainty?
Mommy, will there be any Climatutes when I grow up?
They have now been reduced to looking at weather events due to the lack of warming. This is a sign of desperation. A lingering feeling that their jobs and grants are on the line. A lingering feeling that they got it wrong. ;(
As I have pointed out many, many times extreme weather events show no trends.
Scientists say skeptics are smarter than true believers…….
The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Culture Conflict, Rationality Conflict, and Climate Change
Abstract:
The conventional explanation for controversy over climate change emphasizes impediments to
public understanding: Limited popular knowledge of science, the inability of ordinary citizens to assess technical information, and the resulting widespread use of unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk. A large survey of U.S. adults (N = 1540) found little support for this account. ….
……………On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503&http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503
lol, beautiful Lat!!!
From the conclusions…… “Our study results belie the conventional view that controversy over policy-relevant science is rooted in the public’s lack of scientific knowledge and its inability to engage in technical reasoning.”, but the money quote is later in the conclusions.
“The principal reason people disagree about climate change science is not that it has been communicated to them in forms they cannot understand. Rather, it is that positions on climate change convey values—communal concern versus individual self-reliance; prudent self-abnegation versus the heroic pursuit of reward; humility versus ingenuity; harmony with nature versus mastery over it—that divide them along cultural lines.”
I may not have stated it exactly in that manner, but its close enough…… it is individual exceptionalism vs collective defeatism.
I was wondering when you would catch this……….LOL
lol, yeh this is bad, here I am at work and people are expecting me to do stuff other than read the climate blogs……. weird….
Off topic, PIPS has a forecast for tomorrow so it seems to be back up. Missing days haven’t been filled in though:
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/archive/retrievepic.html?filetype=Thickness&year=2011&month=7&day=7
Cool, thanks
Climate is NOT what we expect but the study of long term weather. Long term is thousands of years because we now know that weather patterns display variability from daily to hundreds of thousands of years. For some variations one hundred years is not enough and for some one thousand years is not enough. All the variations interact with each other giving us daily regional weather. You can not “know” the future until it becomes the past but by studying the past you can prepare for possible futures.
Er….I think the Un-independent [AGW is the orthodox] has gone all post normal [in my life, unless we include the deranged ramblings of Hansen and his sidekick Al ‘beachfront property’ Gore] I’ve never heard so much codswallop/puddled thinking.
What is needed – the editor of Indie to be rebooted, good and properly.
After a damn good rebooting, send off to WUWT/Real science et al – for reprogramming.
Even U.N. Admits That Going Green Will Cost $76 Trillion
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/07/06/even-un-admits-that-going-green-will-cost-76-trillion/#ixzz1RMHXSuNN
Going Green is an illusion.
We will accelerate the use of fossil fuels and resources to produce useless wind and solar crap technology.
Green energy is an illusion, it doesn’t deliver and needs 100% conventional back up
To power our civilization we need base load power 24/7, end of discussion.
http://notrickszone.com/2011/07/04/weed-covered-solar-park-20-acres-11-million-only-one-and-half-years-old/
Absolutely correct! We’re not even close in technology to get us where we’d need to be for “green” energy. Its a vapid fairy tale told to simpletons that believe we can control the climate.
Aye, well said indeed.
So the most expensive law ever passed in the UK has nothing but mindless Bull Sh*t babbling to back it up.
It’s over folks this will not continue for too much longer in the UK, not when the people there have just been informed that they are the only country on the planet effected by low solar activity causing colder seasons (not just winters) but man causes the warming not High solar activity. the damn stupidity is at an all time high of dangerous proportions.
I don’t need to tell anyone here who Edward Maunder was do I? /jk
When the European heatwave of 2003 took place, they were more than happy to sell weather as climate. Same with the 2010 Moscow heatwave. You could only imagine the handwringing if this were 1936, when in was going up to 110+ degrees every day over much of the nation and you were getting repeated crop failures so catastrophic that the US was importing grain.
Now that we are having basically moderate weather and bumper crops, along wth several cold, snowy winters, weather is MUCH, MUCH different than climate. And us average folks are too stupid to know the difference.
Climate is the framework within which weather happens.
There is no global climate – only regional climates.
There is no point in averaging the climate of Polynesia with the pole regions, particularly when you attempt to use the results to describe the future climate of Oregon.
If all the climate regions are warming then we can say wow – we have a warming world. We cannot say we have a warming world if some climate regions are warming more than others are cooling – no averaging, remember. We can only say wow – that climate region is warming but that this other climate region is not, or is staying the same. We cannot coerce from that a global trend. It is really simple – one place changed differently than another.
There was a kill cold snap in Bolivia at the same time there was a killer heat wave in Russia. Not related, no math to do here, no averaging. People were impacted – they needed help. We talked about CAGW. Stupid.
Seriously – you can no more state what a regional climate is from examining global averages than you can predict the next major earthquake in Nebraska by averaging global earthquakes.
Speaking of senseless babbling,
the schemings of a Communist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-ZeyeLzH9Y
Go to any web site on the Atmospheric Carbon Cycle and you will find that mankind is responsible for about 7.1 gigatons of CO2 put into the atmosphere every year, while nature contributes 210 gT. Man 3.27%; nature 96.73%.
After you dial in the greenhouse gas effect of CH4, N2O, O3, H2O, and CFCs you discover that man is responsible for 0.28% of the GGE; nature 99.72%.