Skip to comments.Science News: Expert says climate cooling misinterpreted
Posted on 12/29/2010 6:46:40 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
CANBERRA, Australia -- Recent short-term cooling of global temperatures shouldn't be misinterpreted as meaning an end to global warming, an Australian expert says.
Barrie Wanker-Hunt of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization says overall global warming is happening despite natural variability that can bring periods where the global climate can be either cooler or warmer than usual.
Seasonal cold spells can still be expected under enhanced greenhouse conditions, he says.
"Future changes in global temperature as the concentration of greenhouse gases increases will not show a simple year-on-year increase but will vary around a background of long-term warming," he says.
This underlying warming trend, he says, will highlight the need to both adapt to what is now inevitable change and mitigate even greater changes.
(Excerpt) Read more at upi.com ...
You have to give it to the Global Warming Moonies, they are brazen. Catch them in lies they go right on. Bury them in snow it makes no difference. This theory is their God.
For purposes of giving myself and fellow scientists money please ignore the "cooler" and focus only on the "warmer".
When it gets warmer... that’s CLIMATE CHANGE.
When it gets cooler... that’s JUST THE WEATHER.
Now wise up, abort your children, give all your money to the government and move into a cave and eat berries.
Trust your betters; they know what’s best for you.
How can he know that his GW warming numbers are not the short term climate that is counter to the long term climate cycle?
“Barrie Wanker-Hunt of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization.”
He could be the janitor - they never give a position and I have found that one man with a fax that agrees with liberal media will get more ink then 1,000 professionals in a real organization.
Clearly Barrie Wanker-Hunt (I cannot believe this is a real name, wanker-hunt seems like the name of a gay bar)
While our betters live like princes.
But the question remains: Which was Mum? Which was Dad?
“The 1995 IPCC draft report said, “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.” It also said, “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of observed climate changes to anthropogenic causes.” Those statements were removed, and in their place appeared: “The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on climate.” - Excerpted from item below:
“....... And so, in this elastic anything-goes world where science-or non-science-is the hand maiden of questionable public policy, we arrive at last at global warming.
The Green Hijack of the Met Office is crippling Britain
The Met Office’s commitment to warmist orthodoxy means it drastically underestimates the chances of a big freeze
By Christopher Booker 8:00AM GMT 26 Dec 2010
By far the biggest story of recent days, of course, has been the astonishing chaos inflicted, to a greater or lesser extent, on all of our lives by the fact that we are not only enjoying what is predicted to be the coldest December since records began in 1659, but also the harshest of three freezing winters in a row. We all know the disaster stories thousands of motorists trapped for hours on paralysed motorways, days of misery at Heathrow, rail passengers marooned in unheated carriages for up to 17 hours. But central to all this as the cry goes up: Why wasnt Britain better prepared? has been the bizarre role of the Met Office.
We might start with the strange affair of the Quarmby Review. Shortly after Philip Hammond became Transport Secretary last May, he commissioned David Quarmby, a former head of the Strategic Rail Authority, to look into how we might avoid a repeat of last winters disruption. In July and again in October, Mr Quarmby produced two reports on The Resilience of Englands Transport System in Winter; and at the start of this month, after our first major snowfall, Mr Quarmby and two colleagues were asked to produce an audit of their earlier findings.
The essence of their message was that they had consulted the Met Office, which advised them that, despite two harsh winters in succession, these were random events, the chances of which, after our long previous run of mild winters, were only 20 to one. Similarly, they were told in the summer, the odds against a third such winter were still only 20 to one. So it might not be wise to spend billions of pounds preparing for another random event, when its likelihood was so small. Following this logic, if the odds against a hard winter two years ago were only 20 to one, it might have been thought that the odds against a third such random event were not 20 to one but 20 x 20 x 20, or 8,000 to one.
What seems completely to have passed Mr Quarmby by, however, is the fact that in these past three years the Met Offices forecasting record has become a national joke.
Ever since it predicted a summer warmer and drier than average in 2007 followed by some of the worst floods in living memory its forecasts have been so unerringly wrong that even the chief adviser to our Transport Secretary might have noticed.
The Met Offices forecasts of warmer-than-average summers and winters have been so consistently at 180 degrees to the truth that, earlier this year, it conceded that it was dropping seasonal forecasting. Hence, last week, the Met Office issued a categorical denial to the Global Warming Policy Foundation that it had made any forecast for this winter.
Immediately, however, several blogs, led by Autonomous Mind, produced evidence from the Met Office website that in October it did indeed publish a forecast for December, January and February. This indicated that they would be significantly warmer than last year, and that there was only a very much smaller chance of average or below-average temperatures.
So the Met Office has not only been caught out yet again getting it horribly wrong (always in the same direction), it was even prepared to deny it had said such a thing at all.
The real question, however, is why has the Met Office become so astonishingly bad at doing the job for which it is paid nearly £200 million a year in a way which has become so stupendously damaging to our country?
The answer is that in the past 20 years, as can be seen from its website, the Met Office has been hijacked from its proper role to become wholly subservient to its obsession with global warming. (At one time it even changed its name to the Met Office for Weather and Climate Change.)
This all began when its then-director John Houghton became one of the worlds most influential promoters of the warmist gospel.
He, more than anyone else, was responsible for setting up the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and remained at the top of it for 13 years. It was he who, in 1990, launched the Met Offices Hadley Centre for Climate Change, closely linked to the Climatic Research Unit in East Anglia (CRU), at the centre of last years Climategate row, which showed how the little group of scientists at the heart of the IPCC had been prepared to bend their data and to suppress any dissent from warming orthodoxy.
The reason why the Met Office gets its forecasts so hopelessly wrong is that they are based on those same computer models on which the IPCC itself relies to predict the worlds climate in 100 years time.
They are programmed on the assumption that, as CO2 rises, so temperatures must inexorably follow.
For 17 years this seemed plausible, because the world did appear to be getting warmer. We all became familiar with those warmer winters and earlier springs, which the warmists were quick to exploit to promote their message as when Dr David Viner of the CRU famously predicted to The Independent in 2000 that within a few years winter snowfall will be a very rare and exciting event. (Last week, that article from 10 years ago was the most viewed item on The Independents website.)
But in 2007, the computer models got caught out, failing to predict a temporary plunge in global temperatures of 0.7C, more than the net warming of the 20th century. Much of the northern hemisphere suffered what was called in North America the winter from hell. Even though temperatures did rise again, in the winter of 2008/9 this happened again, only worse.
The Met Office simply went into denial. Its senior climate change official, Peter Stott, said in March 2009 that the trend towards milder winters was likely to continue. There would not be another winter like 1962/3 for 1,000 years or more. Last winter was colder still. And now we have another even more savage random event, for which we are even less prepared. (The Taxpayers Alliance revealed last week that councils have actually ordered less salt this winter than last.)
The consequences of all this are profound.
Those who rule over our lives have been carried off into a cloud-cuckoo-land for which no one was more responsible than the zealots at the Met Office, subordinating all it does to their dotty belief system.
Significantly, its chairman, Robert Napier, is not a weatherman but a climate activist, previously head of WWF-UK, one of our leading warmist campaigning groups.
At one end of this colossal diversion of national resources, permeating every level of government, we have the hapless Mr Quarmby, who feels obliged to follow the Met Office and advise that the present freeze is a random event and calls for no special responses with the results we see on every side. At the other, fixated by the same belief system, we have our Climate Change Secretary, Chris Huhne, hoping we can somehow keep our lights on and our economy running by spending hundreds of billions of pounds on thousands more windmills.
More than once in the past week, as our power stations have been thrashed way beyond normal peak power demand, the contribution of wind turbines has been so small that it has registered as 0 per cent. (See the website for the New Electricity Trading Arrangements: Google neta electricity summary page, and find the table of source by fuel type.) At the heart of all this greenie make-believe that has our political class in its thrall has been the hijacking of the Met Office from its proper role.
Its no longer just a national joke: it is turning into a national catastrophe.
The Sierra Club’s Mission
“Don’t you care about global warming?” asked a sign carried by a Sierra Club demonstrator. The preachy admonishment packs the same intellectual weightiness as “Free the color purple!” Well-adjusted people “care” about neither purple nor global warming. Colors and recurring natural climate phenomena fly below the radars of emotionally healthy minds. ..” [snip]
Why is it so cold? Simple... it’s the North Atlantic Oscillation - and it’s got a bit stuck
By Fred Pearce 26th December 2010
Many climate scientists want to link up the recent wild swings of the NAO with global warming. But they cant work out what the link is or if there is a link. ...
....Another bunch of researchers, led by James Overland of the U.S. governments National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, has been suggesting in recent weeks that global warming is kicking the NAO into a kind of super-negative state and causing our bad winters. Overland points out that global warming is causing massive summer melting of Arctic ice and he says this is playing havoc with the old weather patterns. If that is right, then we have the weird prospect of global warming unfreezing the Arctic and kicking northern Europe into a run of colder winters without end.
But others are dubious about this theory, including the legendary Nasa climate guru Jim Hansen.
Frankly, they dont know. ~
Matchett-PI’s NOTE - PS: Hansen’s GISS colleague declared that the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report had “no scientific merit”.
How a freak diversion of the jet stream is paralysing the globe with freezing conditions
“...Other weather patterns are also causing havoc across the may also be affecting the weather, such as the current in the tropical Pacific Ocean, called La Nina, which is disturbing the jetstream over the north Pacific and North America. ...”
The Cancun Climate Con
As conference delegates shivered in Cancun during its coldest weather in 100 years, power-hungry elitists labored behind the scenes to implement the real goal of this global warming summit, this sixteenth Conference of the Parties (COP-16), this clever political con job. That the Cancun summit was never a climate conference at all has become increasingly obvious. Even before it began, IPCC Working Group III co-chair Ottmar Edenhofer said, COP-16 is actually one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War . One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. In fact, it has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy. Its real purpose is redistributing the world’s wealth and natural resources. A few days later, IPCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres told conference attendees, The world is looking for new answers to the political, economic and social challenges which all countries face. That the new answers focused primarily on how much more money and technology developed nations owe poor countries further affirmed the proceedings true nature. ....
Claims that the science is settled and there is scientific consensus on manmade climate disasters have already been demolished. The ClimateGate emails, revelations that numerous peer-reviewed IPCC studies were actually environmentalist press releases and student papers, and admissions by alarmists themselves took care of that. There has been no statistically significant warming since 1995, Dr. Phil Jones of East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit admitted to the BBC in February 2010. ....
In fact, there is not now and never has been a consensus on manmade global warming. ... Swedish climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, accused the alarmist community of relying on inadequate computer models to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming, to generate funding, gain attention and influence public policy. If this is what science has become, he added, I as a scientist am ashamed. [...snip...]
Claims that the science is settled and there is scientific consensus on manmade climate disasters have already been demolished.
The ClimateGate emails, revelations that numerous peer-reviewed IPCC studies were actually environmentalist press releases and student papers, and admissions by alarmists themselves took care of that.
“We have to pass it so you can see what’s in it.”
“The seriousness of the charges requires an investigation”
“I’m smarter than you, so I don’t have to back up my pontifications with facts or answer any of your mean and ignorant questions. So there. Phbthhhhhht!”
Just really annoying.
“wanker-hunt seems like the name of a gay bar”
Okay, I can’t wipe any more coffee off this keyboard - I’ll send you the bill.
You can study global warming as long as you want but you will not....
1. Get one dime of government money for research
2. You will not implement any taxes or fees to mitigate this fantasy
3. You will not pass one policy, implement one regulation that will affect anyone
4. You will publish all your data unadulterated and without any filters.
With those 4 conditions, you can continue to publish, whine and squeal about this farce to your hearts content. NOT ONE DIME SOCIALIST PIGS, WE ARE ONTO YOU GODLESS SCUMBAGS.