The new normal: Europe hasn’t seen flooding this bad since the middle ages (you read that correct)

The River Danube flooding (Austria):

danube_floodwall

…welcome to the Anthropocene and the new normal.

Dr. Jeff Masters:

A historic multi-billion dollar flood disaster has killed at least eighteen people in Central Europe after record flooding unprecedented since the Middle Ages hit major rivers in Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Poland and Slovakia over the past two weeks. The Danube River in Passau, Germany hit the highest level since 1501, and the Saale River in Halle, Germany was the highest in its 400-year period of record.

Numerous cities recorded their highest flood waters in more than a century, although in some locations the great flood of 2002 was higher. The Danube is expected to crest in Hungary’s capital city of Budapest on June 10 at the highest flood level on record, 35 cm higher than the record set in 2006. The flooding was caused by torrential rains that fell on already wet soils.

In a 2-day period from May 30 – June 1, portions of Austria received the amount of rain that normally falls in two-and-half months: 150 to 200 mm (5.9 to 7.9″), with isolated regions experiencing 250 mm (9.8″). This two-day rain event had a greater than 1-in-100 year recurrence interval, according to the Austrian Meteorological Agency, ZAMG. 

Prior to the late May rains, Austria had its seventh wettest spring in 150 years, which had resulted in the ground in the region becoming saturated, leading to greater runoff when the rains began.

About these ads
Tagged , , , , ,

190 thoughts on “The new normal: Europe hasn’t seen flooding this bad since the middle ages (you read that correct)

  1. […] 2013/06/11: WtD: The new normal: Europe hasn’t seen flooding this bad since the middle ages (y… […]

  2. For Mark “there’s no such thing as normal”.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/ncdc-releases-2012-billion-dollar-weather-and-climate-disasters-information

    NCDC Releases 2012 Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters Information

    U.S. 2012 Billion Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters. Full-size version also available.
    According to NCDC’s 2012 weather and climate disasters information, 2012 saw 11 weather and climate disaster events each with losses exceeding $1 billion in damages. This makes 2012 the second costliest year since 1980, with a total of more than $110 billion in damages throughout the year. The 2012 total damages rank only behind 2005, which incurred $160 billion in damages due in part to four devastating land-falling hurricanes.

    The 2012 billion-dollar events included seven severe weather and tornado events, two tropical cyclone events, and the yearlong drought and its associated wildfires. These 11 events killed over 300 people and had devastating economic effects on the areas impacted. With 11 events, 2012 also ranks second highest in total number of billion-dollar events behind 2011, which had 14 events.

    The two major drivers of the damage costs in 2012 were Sandy at approximately $65 billion and the yearlong drought at approximately $30 billion. Sandy’s large size, with tropical storm force winds extending nearly 500 miles from the center, led to record storm surge, large-scale flooding, wind damage, and mass power outages along much of the East Coast.

    The yearlong drought, which affected more than half the country for the majority of 2012, was the largest drought extent in the United States since the 1930s. U.S. Department of Agriculture Drought Disaster Declarations reached more than 2,600 of the Nation’s 3,143 counties. While drought impacts are often most costly to agricultural centers, their conditions also led to several devastating wildfires that burned over 9 million acres nationwide during 2012.

    • Mark says:

      I have no idea what your point is here. That 2012 was normal? That a normal world doesn’t have disasters? That you have no idea what a normal world looks like?

      BTW,still looking forward to your explanation as to how I implicitly believe there is such a thing as a normal climate.

      I’d be very disappointed to find that you’d just concocted that as some juvenile debating point.

      • john byatt says:

        http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-012-0668-1#

        Abstract
        The last decade has produced record-breaking heat waves in many parts of the world. At the same time, it was globally the warmest since sufficient measurements started in the 19th century. Here we show that, worldwide, the number of local record-breaking monthly temperature extremes is now on average five times larger than expected in a climate with no long-term warming. This implies that on average there is an 80 % chance that a new monthly heat record is due to climatic change. Large regional differences exist in the number of observed records. Summertime records, which are associated with prolonged heat waves, increased by more than a factor of ten in some continental regions including parts of Europe, Africa, southern Asia and Amazonia. Overall, these high record numbers are quantitatively consistent with those expected for the observed climatic warming trend with added stationary white noise. In addition, we find that the observed records cluster both in space and in time. Strong El Niño years see additional records superimposed on the expected long-term rise. Under a medium global warming scenario, by the 2040s we predict the number of monthly heat records globally to be more than 12 times as high as in a climate with no long-term warming.

        • Mark says:

          So again….what is normal? A climate where there is no change?

          The more you are unable to say what a normal climate is, the more obvious it ought to become that there is no such thing.

        • BTW, still waiting for you to reference the quote you dishonestly attributed to me.

        • john byatt says:

          Our normal climate is not one in which there are increasing numbers of extreme events all around the globe, within a ten year period as we are currently seeing occur,

          A normal climate at Stanthorpe is not one in which minimum winter temperatures rise above the required number of required low chilling hours to instigate flowering in stone fruits.

          http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~sco/normals.html

        • john byatt says:

          delete one, required

        • Mark says:

          this is getting rather hilarious….

          You keep saying what normal isn’t. Do you have any notion what normal is?

          Can they grow grapes in the UK in normal climate?

        • BTW, and speaking of normal, It is normally accepted practice to reference quotes. I am still waiting for you to reference the quote you dishonestly attributed to me.

        • john byatt says:

          I know that it is hard for you to work out that a normal climate is one does not have increasing temperature and extreme events

          another one to add to the list

          Mark “grapes are a proxy for climate”

      • BTW, still waiting for you to reference the quote you dishonestly attributed to me.

        • john byatt says:

          It is normal practice for mark to paraphrase and claim something
          ridiculous, then attribute it.

          it’s all in his mind

        • Mark says:

          Look uknow_etc, I didn’t quote you.

          I know you are trying very hard to disown your original idiocy but do it by saying you were wrong rather than trying to pretend it didn’t happen.

          Here’s how it went down:

          In the “LET’S END THE PSEUDO DEBATE” thread I was asking what would constitute, in the mind of the swarm, proof that the AGW theory was wrong ie how it could be falsified.

          You then said it would happen when a series of climate conditions you listed returned to “normal”. I then mocked your idea that there was such a thing as normal climate and asked you what it would look like and when it existed.

          You then said, rather unconvincingly, that ““Normal as in sitting within the 95% interval”. Since that makes no sense I asked to which interval you referred. You never responded.

          In this current thread I referred to your original assertion that there was a normal climate.

          That’s it. You said there was such a thing as a normal climate, even tried to feebly define it, and I refered to that.

          Now I don’t blame you for wishing you’d never made such a silly claim. But be honest and admit you misspoke. Don’t be dishonest and try to pretend that I somehow concocted something.

        • No, idiot. In this thread you said…

          “Its rather amusing that I get defined as a climate change denier, when I believe climate always changes while the likes of you think the climate only changed recently.”

          Please provide a reference to where I said that the climate only changed recently…and I don’t mean your idiotic interpretation of what you think I might have said.

          Until you either come up with the reference or admit you have falsely attributed the excrement from the insane workings of your own mind, I will continue to call you a liar.

        • Mark says:

          Oh, OK, so you don’t think it changed recently? I apologise.

          So you think is no longer normal but it changed to abnormal a long time ago? When? 1900? 1000? 10000BP? During the Cretaceous Extinction? oh boy!

        • Well, there you go. Finally we are making some progress. That didn’t hurt did it? I’m very proud of you and I accept your apology.

          Now, for what it is worth. “Normal climate” can be defined as what the climate should be doing in response to natural forcings such as sunspots, Milankovitch cycles, volcanic eruptions and other geologic events like plate tectonics etc. My understanding is that since the industrial revolution, humans have been pumping increasingly more GHG’s into the atmosphere, altering the atmospheric chemistry as well as ocean chemistry. This has allowed the atmosphere to trap more longwave radiation and has resulted in the average global temperature rising above what “normal” forcings, or natural forcings if you like, could produce.

          I’ve tried to keep this simple for you so there are no mistakes in future, should you feel the need to attribute any quotes to me.

        • Mark says:

          So after all that you agree with me that there is no normal climate…that it changes ” in response to natural forcings such as sunspots, Milankovitch cycles, volcanic eruptions and other geologic events like plate tectonics etc”.

          That the climate in 1000AD was just as normal as that in 1650, or 1800, or 5000BP, or 10000BP or 65mya.

          Quite a circuitous route to get to the bleeding obvious.

        • Mark says:

          So uknow_etc,

          Are you able to point to the time(s) in the past 10000 yrs or so when climate was normal? Or was it all normal?

        • Watching the Deniers says:

          Mark the climate is a system with that changes with amplifying and stabilising feed backs. What is “normal” to us is merely one climate state that allows human civilisation to thrive. A different climate state makes it harder.

          Normal is the wrong word. The present climate state is what we wish to preserve. The climate is changing in response to more heat trapping gases, which amplify certain trends.

          It will stablise at different state in the future, what that is uncertain. But the trend is for a new climate considerable warmer – as measured by average global temps.

          Think like the stock market. Boom and bust.

        • All climate in the past was a result of natural forcings. A few bumps along the way from impacts and anomolous geological upheavels could be considered to have taken the climate out of “normal”. I am better equipped to judge which commentators on blogs aren’t normal. You are barking up the wrong tree with me. Until you lose the d-k effect you are clearly suffering from, any conversation about science between you and I is pointless.

        • Mark says:

          This entire ‘normal’ discussion grew out of comment I made that, in the hands of many true believers, AGW is unfalsifiable. I asked what conditions would cause others to believe AGW had been disproved. unknow_etc ventured that he would see it as disproved when climate returned to normal.

          Over the journey we have now arrived at the only possible conclusion, that there is no normal, or that climate is a moving feast in which the ‘current’ climate is always normal, or was pre-1850.

          In this way of thinking, climate was as normal in 10000bp as it was at the height of the MWP or the depths of the LIA.

          As such therefore, knowing what is normal right now is impossible and therefore, under uknow_etc’s critieria it is impossible to ascertain whether or when we are in a normal climate. Hence, as I originally opined, in this way of thinking, AGW is unfalsifiable in that it will always be possible to claim that present climate isn’t normal.

        • No. Under my criteria it is easy to identify what is normal. Take the effect of human contribution of ghg’s out of the equation…voila …normal. this then brings us to whether you accept that we are pumping ghg’s into the atmosphere and that those gases adhere to the laws of physics. So..what do you think mark? Are you one of these people who dont accept the laws of physics.

        • john byatt says:

          Mark read up on the current radiative forcing due to human activities.
          then check out what the TOA energy imbalance is, again due to humans.

          Mark .”I don’t think there is a normal climate”

          A normal climate is one in which the climate is only subject to natural variations.
          those natural variations might some day preclude humans.At the moment and into the foreseeable future they don’t

          without action, the climate which we are now in the process of creating will also preclude humans and will within the foreseeable future. take your pick

          .

        • Mark says:

          Oh a new definition of normal climate….one without humans.

          Is that why you fantasised about 300million people dying each year. You wanted to hurry us along to a time when the climate was again normal?

        • Watching the Deniers says:

          Eugenics is off topic, no one here is suggesting it. Please refrain from making this claim Mark.

          Consider this a second warning and stay on topic.

        • Mark says:

          Eugenics? Are you serious?

          I was simply referring to a previous thread where John had sought to enhance his argument by declaring that pollution killed 300 mill people pa. I was having a sly dig at his previous ‘error’ – well he called it an error anyway.

        • john byatt says:

          john byatt says:
          June 14, 2013 at 4:56 am
          It is normal practice for mark to paraphrase and claim something
          ridiculous, then attribute it.

          it’s all in his mind

      • Ah, you’ve obviously missed the bit where I asked if you would accept the WMO’s definition of normals. If you’re going to use the headless chicken gambit of “there is no normal” let’s start by defining what you’re trying to assert can’t or shouldn’t exist.

        • Mark says:

          I responded above as follows:

          JHS – so normal climate is what applied in the last 30 years? So it changes each generation. Wow – logic fail.

          Snide derision is so funny when it rebounds.

        • So you don’t accept the standard definition as used in the scientific community? Well, I can’t say that shocks me. First because it’s standard and secondly since your argument instantly collapses.

          Off you go then, what do you define as “normal climate”?

        • john byatt says:

          JHS defined as 30 years data (minimum)

          mark “so it changes every thirty years”

          russian heatwave was the worst in a millenium

          denier “so it was worse a thousand years ago?”

        • Mark says:

          JHS – I’m not saying I don’t accept that as the way to calculate so-called normals for determining anomolies. But that is different to what we are talking about. We were talking about what is a normal climate so that we know when we’ve moved to a new normal. If, as you propose, normal changes each decade or so as a new 30year interval is determined, then there is no normal climate. In your scenario, 1900-30 was normal until, 1910-40 became normal, until 1920-50 became normal etc etc. In that case, at some time current climate will be considered to be normal. But you guys want to contend its abnormal.

          By your definition some 30yr period in middle of the MWP was normal while some period in the middle of the LIA was normal. If everything is normal, then nothing is normal.

          Or is that too logical?

          BTW thanks for the acknowledgement that I hadn’t ignored your ‘probing’ question.

          “Off you go then, what do you define as “normal climate”?”

          JHS, I don’t know how many other ways I can say this….I don’t think there is a normal climate. I’ve said it explicitly on who-knows how many ocassions. I know have somehow decided I think otherwise but you’ve yet to tell me how you arrived at that remarkable conclusion – which I find revealing in and of itself.

        • Mark says:

          “JHS defined as 30 years data (minimum)

          mark “so it changes every thirty years””

          John, read the full exchange and then come back and acknowledge what a dill you’ve made of yourself.

          But you won’t do that…you never do. Get caught doctoring an article so that it says what you want it to say rather than what it actually says and you skedaddle. Get found out saying Lindzen says something he doesn’t say and you skedaddle. Get caught out saying Mann doesn’t buy the consensus and you skedaddle. I’ve only been reading this blog for a month or so and I’ve already seen you do this a half a dozen times. Its rather unedifying.

        • You are a slithy tove, Mark.

          You won’t accept the standard definition (and mischaracterise it). You then won’t define the term yourself. And you then explicitly assert such a thing can’t exist.

          How are so-called climate sceptics so unsceptical? You should tear off your sceptic epaulettes and hand them in in shame.

          Your denial is just a recital of Jabberwocky. O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!

          Thanks for acknowledging your argument is mere uffish thought.

        • Mark says:

          When a bowl of petunias is suddenly yanked into existence miles above the planet Magrathea “the only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell was Oh no, not again. Many people have speculated that if we knew exactly why the bowl of petunias had thought that we would know a lot more about the nature of the Universe than we do now.”

          Still the petunias made more sense that JHS’ comment.

        • john byatt says:

          Careful JHS he will be claiming that you said this

          “If, as you propose, normal changes each decade or so”

        • It would seem Mark’s understanding of Charles Dodgson is on par with his on Eric Blair.

          He defines words in, shall we say, charitably, an unusual fashion. If we didn’t know yet he wasn’t to be taken seriously, we do now. Unleash the dogs of mockery.

        • zoot says:

          That faint whirring sound you can hear is Douglas Adams spinning in his grave.

        • john byatt says:

          john byatt says:
          June 14, 2013 at 4:56 am
          It is normal practice for mark to paraphrase and claim something
          ridiculous, then attribute it.

          it’s all in his mind

  3. john byatt says:

    THE UK last week lifted its estimate for wheat imports this season above expectations.

    The lift sees it on track to import more wheat than Bangladesh due to poor weather boosting demand, as well as cutting yields last year to a 20-year low, agrimoney.com reports. The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs upgraded its forecast for UK wheat imports in 2012-13 by 275,000 tonnes to reach 2.54 million tonnes, almost three times as high as last season.

  4. Pretending you can control the weather or a nation’s economy using ‘central planning’ makes you a kook. You might as well decide to control a nova in space.

    • BBD says:

      Since we are beginning to experience climate change forced by anthropogenic CO2 emissions we can clearly influence climate involuntarily. So now we need to decide to influence it voluntarily. Before matters get too seriously out of hand.

    • We have been influencing the weather. Pretending we’ve not is kooky. Pretending we can’t do something about it is simply perversely daft. What man makes he can unmake.

  5. Dr No says:

    Heat waves offer no dramatic images of flying debris or surging seawater. Yet each year torrid temperatures take more lives in the U.S. than tornadoes, hurricanes, floods and lightning combined.

    The silent killer also discriminates, as low-income communities of color often start with poorer underlying health than other communities, and have fewer tools and resources to combat a heat that can be further intensified by their immediate environment

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/07/heat-wave-climate-change-poor-minorities_n_3401994.html?ref=topbar

    Again, nothing to worry about here. After all, only the poor colored communities are likely to be affected. They will get over it when we explain to them that it is really “NATURAL VARIABILITY” and nothing to do with that really wonderful gas we pump into the atmosphere.

  6. Dr No says:

    This is the stuff Eric “the wise” writes:

    “Water vapour is a greenhouse gas – the dominant greenhouse gas, by several orders of magnitude. But it doesn’t slavishly follow CO2.” !!!!
    ……This was news to me. Even though they are both greenhouse gases, somehow the H2O molecules have decided to behave differently to the CO2 molecules. Very clever and decent of them if you ask me.

    “If water vapour simply amplified other forcings, the hottest places in the world would be the wet tropics – the water vapour piling up in the atmosphere over tropical islands would heat the surface temperature to levels far in excess of temperatures observed in other parts of the world.” !!!
    ……I see now. It has nothing to do with the effect of liquid water (clouds) reflecting solar radiation back to space. That means that the drier the air, the warmer it must be overnight. I always thought that clear skies led to colder overnight minimum temperatures. But, I defer to the “wise one”.

    “In the real world, the hottest places tend to be dry places – the middle of deserts, far from sources of water vapour.” !!!
    ….. Again, I always thought this was due to the absence of clouds (liquid water) not to water vapour. I will sleep under the stars tonight since it must be warmer now we have an anticyclone over us. Again, thank you for your illumination.

    And finally, I saved the best quote to last:
    ”The cooled air is then returned to the surface as rain or hail.”
    Yes, dear reader, you read that correctly:
    ”The cooled air is then returned to the surface as rain or hail.” !!!!!!
    …..Amazing. I always wondered where that cool air came from. A cooled gas comes back to us in the form of solids and liquids. !

    Really, we must all must revise our erroneous views about climate science and the laws of physics when confronted by such insights. I will also burn all my text books.
    Thank you O wise one.

    • BBD says:

      Water vapour is a greenhouse gas – the dominant greenhouse gas, by several orders of magnitude. But it doesn’t slavishly follow CO2.

      It’s all just complete and utter crap. Eric hasn’t read Lacis et al. (2010) so Eric doesn’t realise that he is spouting nonsense.

      And Eric doesn’t *understand* what adiabatic means. He doesn’t understand that after rising, hot air is pumped DOWN within the convecting troposphere. Down to the surface again. Which, incidentally, is why subtropical deserts are very hot and dry. See “Hadley Cell”.

      • BBD says:

        (sodding HTML tags)

        And Eric doesn’t *understand* what adiabatic means. He doesn’t understand that after rising, hot air is pumped DOWN within the convecting troposphere. Down to the surface again. Which, incidentally, is why subtropical deserts are very hot and dry. See “Hadley Cell”.

    • john byatt says:

      Yes it all came together in 1883

      with the evidence from Krakatau , that was 130 years ago

      Simple Models of Climate – American Institute of Physics
      http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm‎
      Until then, the climate community had good reason to keep theory at arms’ length. … Of course, there was abundant historical evidence of variations lasting a few … (To be specific: a molecule of carbon dioxide, water vapor or some other ….. like the famous Krakatau explosion of 1883, might block enough sunlight to allow ..

      .

  7. […] at the excellent site, Watching the Deniers, a number of us go into the comment sections to deal with serial trolls whose constant […]

  8. john byatt says:

    another keeper

    Eric Worrall says:
    June 11, 2013 at 4:57 am
    Perhaps your poor reading skills are why you are an alarmist.

    I variously described the CTL *process* as emitting far more CO2 than processing tar sands, and the Chinese *pilot* plant (though at $40 billion its a pretty large pilot plant) as likely to emit a lot of CO2, based on a few metrics such as the scale of the compressors.

    Somehow in your addled mind this has translated into you claiming I said this one CTL plant would emit more CO2 than the entire Canadian tar sands industry.

    I can’t help your memory problems John, and your tendency to put up imaginary strawmen, though I can laugh at some of the consequences.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-27/china-beats-u-s-with-power-from-coal-processing-trapping-carbon.html

    helping to clean up China’ s pollution

    power from coal processing trapping CO2

    for eric

    john byatt says:
    June 11, 2013 at 6:42 am
    “The Chinese are deploying some of these decarbonizing technologies more aggressively than anyone,” says Chris Hartshorn, vice president of Boston-based Lux Research Inc., which on March 1 released a 40-page report on China’s technology priorities. “They have the money, and their system for investing simultaneously in research, technology and market adoption should be the envy of the world.”
    China is underpinning its cleanup by boosting the efficiency of coal-burning plants. Turbines from Shanghai Electric Group Co. (601727), the world’s largest provider of coal-fired electricity-generating equipment, require less carbon-spewing rock to begin with.
    China Huaneng Group Corp. (902) is designing its GreenGen plant in Tianjin to wring more power from coal while capturing more than 98 percent of its sulfur emissions, which can then be sold to industrial users. By 2016, Huaneng plans to trap 80 percent of GreenGen’s carbon emissions and use them to boost production in oil wells in nearby Bohai Bay

    eric It is obvious to me that the Chinese are not idiots, nearly tempted to use up one of my warnings there,

  9. There is no debate. There are just people who don’t like the science. They shout a lot.

    Over the last few days the American Geophysical Union is meeting to discuss how to communicate the science. Here’s one man who is presenting there, http://climatecrocks.com/2013/06/10/lighting-in-a-bottle-communicating-the-science-through-social-media/

  10. john byatt says:

    This has got to the best since his few 100 years quote

    It seems the claimants work like John….pick a big scary number and hope it passes muster.

    The great Phillip Stott used to talk about “the sin of presentism”. Its the very human view that the present must be special, must be worse, must be the worst. We lack perspective and are overwhelmed by the seeming growing numbers of disasters. But looking through the prism of statistics we find little evidence that the world is getting worse.

    to be sure, these days we cloak our primitivism in science. In the year 1000 Europeans were utterly convinced that the date carried great portents and they were living in special times. In the year 2000 we were no less convinced that the date carried great portent and disaster would follow. We dressed it up as Y2K but it was no less wrong than those from 1000 years who dressed it up as Armageddon.

    When you read the accounts of those who lived through the turbulent times of 1816-20 you find the same fears as now. They thought things are getting worse, and will get worse still. Their reaction to the ebbs and flows of climate are the same irrational reactions as ours today.

    In the dim past, climate catastrophes were met by attempts to appease the gods. In a round about way our ancestors thought they were to blame for whatever afflicted them and equally they thought that salvation (through appeasing whatever god was upset with them) was in their hands.

    We are no better than our ancient forebears. We now dress our fears up in science and have convinced ourselves that we both are the cause of the current ebbs and flows of the climate, and have the ability to set it right. uknow_etc spoke recently of a normal climate. Every generation thinks there is some time when things were better, sustainable, in equilibrium. uknow_etc is just as wrong as our ancestors who held to an Eden myth.

    Climate changes. Its always changing. We have no more control over it than some shaman dancing around Stonehenge. But we think otherwise, Just as they did.

    The floods are not the new normal. They aren’t normal at all. But equally, they aren’t unusual. there is no such thing as normal climate. Never has been, never will be.

    your work here is done Mark,

    • Mark says:

      Again reporting my missives holus-bolus.

      This hero worship has to stop.

      • Your pathological dishonesty needs to stop.

      • I didn’t know holus-bolus was Latin for utter-bollocks. I thought it had another meaning altogether.

        You see, there can’t be allowed to be a normal. That would give us something to we could discuss and work on. One minute we have no atmosphere, the next it rains cats and dogs – literally. The other morning it was Siamese and Boxers. Today it was Calicoes and Jack Russells. If we define normal we will have lost some of the magic in believing in the supernatural that rules us all. And where would we be then?

        Long live blogscience!

  11. Stuart Mathieson says:

    It’s not about climate change, it’s about Eric

  12. Simon Wild says:

    Reblogged this on SIMON WILD and commented:
    Worth reading the comments at the bottom of this blog from Watching the Deniers – deniers versus believers debate in real time

  13. Mark says:

    Its probably a good idea to make sure its normal before calling it the ‘new’ normal.

    The Oz 2007:

    “The long-term average inflow into the Murray River is 11,400GL. But rainfall over the six years to June this year averaged just 4200GL. Last year, it was 1317GL. So far this year, inflow has been 1675GL.

    Dr Jones [CSIRO] said most of southern Victoria, over the past 11 years, had had rainfalls of about 20 per cent below average. He said Melbourne had effectively lost two years of rainfall over the past 10 years.

    “It really does raise the question, is this a drought or is this — in southern Australia — becoming the new normal, a much, much drier future that we have to get used to,” Dr Jones said.”

    2013:

    “The Queensland Murray-Darling Basin Committee is seeking volunteers to help farmers clean up properties and recover following the recent floods.”

    Time and again the new normal looks a lot like the old normal.

    • john byatt says:

      Why do you deniers have so much trouble with both increasing droughts and record rains in other years , have a look at how much of the country is in drought right now

      • Eric Worrall says:

        We do get it John – you and your fellow travellers are trying to claim every unusual event as proof of your theory, along with obligatory claims to have “predicted it all along”.

        http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/antarctic-concensus-flips-warmer-water-means-more-sea-ice/

      • john byatt says:

        well they are are exactly what was predicted to occur.

        if you believe that the increase in extreme events and even 1 in a 100 year events are the old normal then you are out of touch with reality

      • john byatt says:

        Now put up the winter temperature long term graph for europe or else it is just rhetoric

      • Eric Worrall says:

        In Planet Alarmosphere,

        Antarctic ice is predicted to decrease more slowly = we predicted Antarctic ice would increase.

        And if you’re doing trends and predictions, tell us when your climate heroes predict the mild European winters will start – inquiring minds want to know.

      • john byatt says:

        eric put up your papers and stop the moronic rhetoric,

        do you know that global sea ice hit an all time record low last year
        do you know that Antarctica is losing mass ?

        now find the temperature graph for european winters over the last decades

        you do know how big europe is I hope, it is not just some small town you find with a decrease

        total european temp graph eric and recover a thread of credibility

      • john byatt says:

        the main prediction that the IPCC got wrong was the decline of the Arctic, expected to remain into 2100, now likely to hit a one day zero ice within a decade, my prediction is 2015,

        So now we see the outcomes from the loss of ice or the Arctic amplification on the jet stream. that is what is know as a black swan, and europe and asia with suffer even more than forecast
        there was a effing hole at the NP a few days ago

      • Eric Worrall says:

        You forgot the warmer, wetter European winters, and warmer, drier European Summers prediction in AR4.

        But hey, you can always cover those failures by claiming you also predicted “extreme events”.

        So you can reasonably lay claim to any unusual event has having been “predicted” – any possible photogenic weather event is “proof” of your theory.

        • Nick says:

          Northern half of Europe,north of Alps, was predicted to get wetter,Eric…pull your socks up,duffer. AR4 Chapter10 is waiting for your perusal…has been for nearly six years.

      • john byatt says:

        IPCC AR4 Europe
        Climate-related hazards will mostly increase, although
        changes will vary geographically (very high confidence).
        Winter floods are likely to increase in maritime regions

        and flash
        floods are likely to increase throughout Europe
        [12.4.1]. Coastal
        flooding related to increasing storminess and sea-level rise is
        likely to threaten up to 1.6 million additional people annually
        [12.4.2].

        Warmer, drier conditions will lead to more frequent and
        prolonged droughts, as well as to a longer fire season and
        increased fire risk, particularly in the Mediterranean region
        [12.3.1.2, 12.4.4.1]. During dry years, catastrophic fires are
        expected on drained peatlands in central Europe [12.4.5]. The
        frequency of rock falls will increase due to destabilisation of
        mountain walls by rising temperatures and melting of permafrost

        [12.4.3].Without adaptive measures, risks to health due to more
        frequent heatwaves, particularly in central and southern Europe,
        and flooding, and greater exposure to vector- and food-borne
        diseases are anticipated to increase [12.3.1.2, 12.6.1]. Some
        impacts may be positive, as in reduced risk of extreme cold
        events because of increasing winter temperatures. However, on
        balance, health risks are very likely to increase [12.4.11].

        all, those things are happening

      • Mark says:

        Some of the claims:

        Worst floods in a decade;
        Worst floods in 50 years;
        Worst floods in 500 years;
        Worst floods ever;(I’m not sure what Gilgamesh would say about that!)

        It seems the claimants work like John….pick a big scary number and hope it passes muster.

        The great Phillip Stott used to talk about “the sin of presentism”. Its the very human view that the present must be special, must be worse, must be the worst. We lack perspective and are overwhelmed by the seeming growing numbers of disasters. But looking through the prism of statistics we find little evidence that the world is getting worse.

        to be sure, these days we cloak our primitivism in science. In the year 1000 Europeans were utterly convinced that the date carried great portents and they were living in special times. In the year 2000 we were no less convinced that the date carried great portent and disaster would follow. We dressed it up as Y2K but it was no less wrong than those from 1000 years who dressed it up as Armageddon.

        When you read the accounts of those who lived through the turbulent times of 1816-20 you find the same fears as now. They thought things are getting worse, and will get worse still. Their reaction to the ebbs and flows of climate are the same irrational reactions as ours today.

        In the dim past, climate catastrophes were met by attempts to appease the gods. In a round about way our ancestors thought they were to blame for whatever afflicted them and equally they thought that salvation (through appeasing whatever god was upset with them) was in their hands.

        We are no better than our ancient forebears. We now dress our fears up in science and have convinced ourselves that we both are the cause of the current ebbs and flows of the climate, and have the ability to set it right. uknow_etc spoke recently of a normal climate. Every generation thinks there is some time when things were better, sustainable, in equilibrium. uknow_etc is just as wrong as our ancestors who held to an Eden myth.

        Climate changes. Its always changing. We have no more control over it than some shaman dancing around Stonehenge. But we think otherwise, Just as they did.

        The floods are not the new normal. They aren’t normal at all. But equally, they aren’t unusual. there is no such thing as normal climate. Never has been, never will be.

        • “We are no better than our ancient forebears. We now dress our fears up in science and have convinced ourselves that we both are the cause of the current ebbs and flows of the climate, and have the ability to set it right. uknow_etc spoke recently of a normal climate. Every generation thinks there is some time when things were better, sustainable, in equilibrium. uknow_etc is just as wrong as our ancestors who held to an Eden myth. ”

          My apologies Mark. Clearly I gave you far too much credit when I said “normal”. I had wrongly assumed you would have the intelligence to understand that when talking about “normal” I would mean within a statistical sense. I’m pretty sure I clarified that for you previously. However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt in that regard, but in future, if you wish to attribute something to me, make sure you also mention my correction of your ignorance. After all, that would be the honest thing to do.

          As for your ridiculous suggestion that we “dress our fears up in science”, I must thank you for yet again demonstrating that you haven’t the foggiest clue of how science works. I’m not even going to bother trying to explain to you how stupid this statement is. All I will recommend to you, is that you enrol for a science degree…if you can qualify for entry, so that you can look back in 4 years time and understand exactly why every person with even a modicum of scientific training thinks your statement is idiotic. Your work here is clearly done if you are trying to convince us that you are stupid.

        • Nick says:

          That’s a load of garbage as usual Mark. We know why 1816-20 was nasty. Y2K was real,and the work done in anticipation was rather useful.. Now 2002,2006 and 2013 have been quite something,1:100 year events,3 in a decade. That’s a little unusual.

        • Mark says:

          ” I’m pretty sure I clarified that for you previously. ”

          Actually, uknow_etc, you didn’t. You mumbled something about “Normal as in sitting within the 95% interval” and when I asked what that meant and what interval you were talking about you confidently responded with….UTTER SILENCE.

          Normal climate can’t be defined because it doesn’t exist. At the time you were happy to talk about normal this and normal that because, until I’d made the point, it hadn’t occurred to you, and I suspect others, that the fabled normal climate didn’t exist.

          And if there is no old normal, there can’t be a new normal. Its just another of those slogans beloved of the alarm-osphere to pretend that something is unusual, when indeed, climate changes are the most usual of all things.

          Its rather amusing that I get defined as a climate change denier, when I believe climate always changes while the likes of you think the climate only changed recently.

        • “Its rather amusing that I get defined as a climate change denier, when I believe climate always changes while the likes of you think the climate only changed recently.”

          This constant need you have to attribute things to me that are patently untrue is unsettling and dishonest. I think this is about the third time now and it appears to be pathological. I wouldn’t be surprised if you do it to everyone you annoy. Please provide a reference for where I have stated that I “think the climate only changed recently” in the broader context that YOU have provided above.

        • john byatt says:

          Joos 2008 abstract
          The rate of change of climate codetermines the global warming impacts on natural and socioeconomic systems and their capabilities to adapt. Establishing past rates of climate change from temperature proxy data remains difficult given their limited spatiotemporal resolution. In contrast, past greenhouse gas radiative forcing, causing climate to change, is well known from ice cores. We compare rates of change of anthropogenic forcing with rates of natural greenhouse gas forcing since the Last Glacial Maximum and of solar and volcanic forcing of the last millennium. The smoothing of atmospheric variations by the enclosure process of air into ice is computed with a firn diffusion and enclosure model. The 20th century increase in CO2 and its radiative forcing occurred more than an order of magnitude faster than any sustained change during the past 22,000 years. The average rate of increase in the radiative forcing not just from CO2 but from the combination of CO2, CH4, and N2O is larger during the Industrial Era than during any comparable period of at least the past 16,000 years. In addition, the decadal-to-century scale rate of change in anthropogenic forcing is unusually high in the context of the natural forcing variations (solar and volcanoes) of the past millennium. Our analysis implies that global climate change, which is anthropogenic in origin, is progressing at a speed that is unprecedented at least during the last 22,000 years.

        • Mark says:

          Heret is a graph of rainfall in southern Aust over the past century.

          Depending on where you were in the cycle, there would always seem to be new normals. If you lived in the 1920′s, mild drought would have seemed to be the new normal. If you lived in the early 40′s disastrous drought would have been the new normal. If you lived in the early 50′s or early 70′s, debilitating floods would have seemed the new normal.

          Actually, if you lived in those times, you wouldn’t have thought about new normals at all. You would have accepted that climate, being climate, changed. Its only in these ‘more enlightened’ times, that we think these changes are something special and all our fault. Although when the alarmists say ‘our’ fault, they really mean ‘your’ fault. They, being pure of heart and in love with Gaia, couldn’t possibly be the cause.

        • john byatt says:

          A new normal which covers nearly the entire globe

          record heatwaves, droughts,flooding, storms from all over the globe

          http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/science/climate_assessment_2012.html

        • Mark says:

          “That reads remarkably like a creation twit’s post i read last year

          how come all these so called atheists are anti science ,”

          An atheist creationist? Another typo?

      • john byatt says:

        That reads remarkably like a creation twit’s post i read last year

        how come all these so called atheists are anti science ,

        as soon as they bring religion up then they give themselves away

      • There’s “no such thing as normal climate”. Our entire way of life depends upon a climate operating within certain bounds. Consider the food supply. We are seeing more records fall and more extremes in weather.

        • Mark says:

          “Consider the food supply. ”

          Well, since we are producing more food in total and more food per capita then we must be living in the normal-est time ever.

        • john byatt says:

          UN October 2012
          World grain reserves are so dangerously low that severe weather in the United States or other food-exporting countries could trigger a major hunger crisis next year, the United Nations has warned.

          Failing harvests in the US, Ukraine and other countries this year have eroded reserves to their lowest level since 1974. The US, which has experienced record heatwaves and droughts in 2012, now holds in reserve a historically low 6.5% of the maize that it expects to consume in the next year, says the UN.

          “We’ve not been producing as much as we are consuming. That is why stocks are being run down. Supplies are now very tight across the world and reserves are at a very low level, leaving no room for unexpected events next year,” said Abdolreza Abbassian, a senior economist with the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). With food consumption exceeding the amount grown for six of the past 11 years, countries have run down reserves from an average of 107 days of consumption 10 years ago to under 74 days recently.

          Prices of main food crops such as wheat and maize are now close to those that sparked riots in 25 countries in 2008. FAO figures released this week suggest that 870 million people are malnourished and the food crisis is growing in the Middle East and Africa. Wheat production this year is expected to be 5.2% below 2011, with yields of most other crops, except rice, also falling, says the UN.

          The figures come as one of the world’s leading environmentalists issued a warning that the global food supply system could collapse at any point, leaving hundreds of millions more people hungry, sparking widespread riots and bringing down governments. In a shocking new assessment of the prospects of meeting food needs, Lester Brown, president of the Earth policy research centre in Washington, says that the climate is no longer reliable and the demands for food are growing so fast that a breakdown is inevitable, unless urgent action is taken

        • Mark says:

          Grain production in 2012 was 3% down on 2011. OMG we’re in for it now.

          However 2011 was a record year and 2012 was the second highest production year ever. Yes ever. The doomsayers are always…doomsaying. But it never ever quite happens. As usual they troll all the available stats, find the one that suits their purposes and it suddenly becomes the most important thing in the world.

          Calorie produiction and calorie intake have been rising for half a century. All the predictions about famine in the 1970′s were wrong. Thy’re always wrong.

          Lester Brown (I can’t believe you raise Brown) has been predicting these things since he was a foetus. He predicted disaster for China way back in the early 1990′s. But it never happened. Still, the nature of these things is that the perpetually gullible always forget the failed forecasts and put utter faith in the next forecast.

        • Have you sources for your assertions on harvests, Mark? 3% is quite a large fall.

          You have implicitly conceded that there must, by definition, be a normal. Rather than deal with the consequences of a measurably changed climate you’d actually just walk away from the issue. Hey ho.

        • and while you’re getting that source, Mark, don’t forget your reference to back up the statement you have falsely and dishonestly attributed to me.

        • john byatt says:

          a large fall with a global population large increase

          in effect we need record food production every year to cover the tens of millions extra mouths

          must be trying to google UN to find out who they are

        • Mark says:

          Data from the USDA:

          http://www.earth-policy.org/indicators/C54

          “You have implicitly conceded that there must, by definition, be a normal. ”

          Say what? I’ve explicitly said on umpteen occasions that there is no normal climate and then you say this?

        • You explicitly, and crazily, state there is no normal climate. Then you implicitly, and logically, concede there must be. Yes. I’m merely pointing out your internal contradiction, the one you refuse to recognise.

        • john byatt says:

          Mark’s link

          No problem

          Full Planet, Empty Plates: The New Geopolitics of Food Scarcity
          Lester R. Brown

          With food scarcity driven by falling water tables, eroding soils, and rising temperatures, control of arable land and water resources is moving to center stage in the global struggle for food security. “In this era of tightening world food supplies, the ability to grow food is fast becoming a new form of geopolitical leverage. Food is the new oil,” Lester R. Brown writes.

          What will the geopolitics of food look like in a new era dominated by scarcity and food nationalism? Brown outlines the political implications of land acquisitions by grain-importing countries in Africa and elsewhere as well as the world’s shrinking buffers against poor harvests. With wisdom accumulated over decades of tracking agricultural issues, Brown exposes the increasingly volatile food situation the world is facing.

        • john byatt says:

          Mark (I can’t believe you raise Brown)

          In this book, published in 1995, Brown highlights the pressure on world resources as more countries, especially China, become developed. He writes, “To feed its 1.2 billion people, China may soon have to import so much grain that this action could trigger unprecedented rises in world food prices.”

          news
          2012 China grain imports to surge seven fold by 2015/16

          wonder what mark’s prediction was?

        • Mark, do you read what you post? Your 3% fall is taken from http://www.earth-policy.org/indicators/C54, thank you for posting your sources – and a reputable one at that.

          Did you notice the headline, let alone the body? “Global Grain Stocks Drop Dangerously Low as 2012 Consumption Exceeded Production”

          !The world produced 2,241 million tons of grain in 2012, down 75 million tons or 3 percent from the 2011 record harvest. The drop was largely because of droughts that devastated several major crops—namely corn in the United States (the world’s largest crop) and wheat in Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Australia. Each of these countries also is an important exporter. Global grain consumption fell significantly for the first time since 1995, as high prices dampened use for ethanol production and livestock feed. Still, overall consumption did exceed production. With drought persisting in key producing regions, there is concern that farmers in 2013 will again be unable to produce the surpluses necessary to rebuild lowered global grain reserves.”

          Ethanol production contributed to the problem. But the driver was drought. The climate prediction was for more extremes. This is just another example. The rolled up data shows it.

        • I love it when deniers do that.

        • Mark says:

          I’ve often said that one difference between climate realists and alarmists is the level of optimism. I show you a graph that shows a steady rise in food production over a 60 year period and all you can see is a slight drop from record highs in one year.

          Did you notice that there have been quite a few drops in the past which then reversed and the inexorable rise continued? No, of course you didn’t. You want to see it. In the real world what happens is that as production falls, for whatever reason, prices rise. Price rises give price signals and production increases. Additionally (and I know this will go over your heads) climate changes naturally and so if production falls because of climate conditions, those conditions later improve and production picks up. How do we know this….look at the data.

          Yet here are the perennial pessimists seeing a one year drop and deciding this is the beginning of the end. Why? Because in reality they long for such problems as proof of what they so hope is true. But its never true. The graph I showed just goes back to 1950 but you could take it back to 1800 and see the same results.

          Imagine if I showed a graph that showed temperatures falling by 3% in one year and declared that that was significant. You’d, quite rightly, scream foul. But somehow you think that’s a valid way to think in this regard. Dumb.

        • Mark says:

          “2012 China grain imports to surge seven fold by 2015/16″

          I wondered why you didn’t link to that or give a direct quote. Now I know.

          “Corn imports by China, the world’s second-largest consumer, may surge sevenfold to a record 28 million metric tons by 2015-16 as local production fails to keep pace with increased demand.”

          So you just paraphrased? Oh and forgot to mention that it was about just one type of grain. And it was one person’s prediction. Naughty naughty.
          But I’m getting used to it.

          As to Brown, he’s been predicting the decline of food production per capita since 1974. He’s specifically predicted it at least 10 times. eg “per-acre yield of all cereals in the United States peaked in the early ’70s.” That is/was plain wrong. But he’s been doing it over and over. And the perpetually gullible buy it each time.

          Oh and one last thing from the article you somehow failed to link…
          “Global food costs have declined 10 percent since reaching a record in February 2011, according to a 55-item gauge compiled by the Rome-based Food & Agriculture Organization, a United Nations agency.”

          Do you know why prices fall? An increase in supply? No, that can’t be true, Lester Brown said so!!

        • Mark says:

          “You explicitly, and crazily, state there is no normal climate. Then you implicitly, and logically, concede there must be. Yes. ”

          Well, this ought to be fun. Tell me JHS, how, where, when have I implied that there is a normal climate. Please walk us through the logic (for want of a better word) of that assertion.

          Crazily state there is no normal climate? So you think there is such a thing? So tell us, what does a normal climate look like? When did it exist?

          Its little wonder that you so badly understand the issue if you really believe this Eden myth.

        • Mark, I am still waiting for you to reference the quote you dishonestly attributed to me. How much longer am I going to have to wait?

        • Fascinating how deniars claim they are realists – and then disregard the science. Eric Blair would recognise their use of language.

        • Mark says:

          “Please provide a reference for where I have stated that I “think the climate only changed recently”

          uknow_etc…you specifically said you thought that the AGW had taken us out of a normal climate…QED

        • and again you misrepresent my position.

          “My apologies Mark. Clearly I gave you far too much credit when I said “normal”. I had wrongly assumed you would have the intelligence to understand that when talking about “normal” I would mean within a statistical sense. I’m pretty sure I clarified that for you previously. However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt in that regard, but in future, if you wish to attribute something to me, make sure you also mention my correction of your ignorance. After all, that would be the honest thing to do.”

          You are pathologically dishonest.

        • john byatt says:

          http://www.theage.com.au/business/world-business/china-grain-imports-at-sevenyear-high-as-demand-soars-20120411-1ws3t.html

          corn is a grain

          GRAIN imports by China have risen to the highest level in at least seven years as the world’s most populous nation stepped up overseas purchases amid rising demand.
          China imported 1.64 million tonnes of cereals and cereal flour in March, from 280,000 tonnes in the same month last year. Imports in the first quarter totalled 3.84 million tonnes, up sixfold, the customs agency said on its website yesterday.
          The world’s fastest-growing economy is turning to foreign supplies as rising incomes spur increased food and livestock-feed demand and farmland is lost. Corn imports by China may surge sevenfold to a record 28 million tonnes by 2015-16.
          ”Grains imports are on a rising trend because of limited arable land, water and labour, at a time when demand is growing,” said Li Qiang, the chairman and chief consultant of agricultural researcher Shanghai JC Intelligence Co.
          Advertisement
          About 70 per cent of the cereal imported by China in March was corn, Shanghai JC Intelligence said.
          The US Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, announced last month what he called the country’s biggest farm-trade mission to China to boost sales. Last year, China became the largest buyer of US farm goods, with $US20 billion in purchases.
          China’s farmland has shrunk by 8.33 million hectares in the past 12 years, Chen Xiwen, the top agriculture adviser to the Premier, Wen Jiabao, said last year. Land under cultivation has fallen almost to the government’s 120 million-hectare limit after being covered by apartments and factories, lost to desertification and used for a forestation campaign.
          Grain output in China may have been overstated in past official estimates, suggesting supply may have been less than expected, according to Shanghai JC Intelligence.

          Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/business/world-business/china-grain-imports-at-sevenyear-high-as-demand-soars-20120411-1ws3t.html#ixzz2VzkhL1vq

        • john byatt says:

          GRAIN imports by China have risen to the highest level in at least seven years as the world’s most populous nation stepped up overseas purchases amid rising demand.
          China imported 1.64 million tonnes of cereals and cereal flour in March, from 280,000 tonnes in the same month last year. Imports in the first quarter totalled 3.84 million tonnes, up sixfold, the customs agency said on its website yesterday.
          The world’s fastest-growing economy is turning to foreign supplies as rising incomes spur increased food and livestock-feed demand and farmland is lost. Corn imports by China may surge sevenfold to a record 28 million tonnes by 2015-16.
          ”Grains imports are on a rising trend because of limited arable land, water and labour, at a time when demand is growing,” said Li Qiang, the chairman and chief consultant of agricultural researcher Shanghai JC Intelligence Co.
          Advertisement
          About 70 per cent of the cereal imported by China in March was corn, Shanghai JC Intelligence said.
          The US Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, announced last month what he called the country’s biggest farm-trade mission to China to boost sales. Last year, China became the largest buyer of US farm goods, with $US20 billion in purchases.
          China’s farmland has shrunk by 8.33 million hectares in the past 12 years, Chen Xiwen, the top agriculture adviser to the Premier, Wen Jiabao, said last year. Land under cultivation has fallen almost to the government’s 120 million-hectare limit after being covered by apartments and factories, lost to desertification and used for a forestation campaign.
          Grain output in China may have been overstated in past official estimates, suggesting supply may have been less than expected, according to Shanghai JC Intelligence.

          Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/business/world-business/china-grain-imports-at-sevenyear-high-as-demand-soars-20120411-1ws3t.html#ixzz2VzkhL1vq

          :

        • Shall we start with defining a climactic normal? It would seem sensible to start with something like http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~sco/normals.html or this http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/normals/usnormals.html.

        • john byatt says:

          http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/wfs-home/csdb/en/

          At the current forecast level, total cereal utilization in 2012/13 would remain roughly unchanged at the 2011/12 level, constrained by rising grain prices and faltering ethanol demand.

        • Mark says:

          John 1…”2012 China grain imports to surge seven fold by 2015/16″ (false)

          John 2…”Corn imports by China may surge sevenfold to a record 28 million tonnes by 2015-16.” (true, after I chipped him on his ‘error’)

          As close as we’re ever likely to get to John admitting he paraphrased to deceive.

        • Oddly enough there is an agreement, one could almost say consensus, as to how a climate is measured – and what normal is. We could start with http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~sco/normals.html. The WMO seems a reasonable place to start.

          (Note that an earlier comment of mine included two links and has been put into moderation, where it may linger.)

        • Mark says:

          JHS – so normal climate is what applied in the last 30 years? So it changes each generation. Wow – logic fail.

          JB – no comment on your deception?

        • BTW, and speaking of deception, I’m still waiting for you to reference the quote you dishonestly attributed to me.

  14. john byatt says:

    just checked out the deniers

    jo nova 2011 blockbuster salby paper out soon

    wtfu, monckton ( this week 2013) three blockbuster papers from salby soon

    salby, CO2 follows temp

    flying monkeys, it has been cooling for 16 years

    • Eric Worrall says:

      It hasn’t been warming – 1998 is still the high year of your “global warming catastrophe”.

      • john byatt says:

        so the CO2 follows temp is crap? go and post it on the flying monkey blog, see how you go

      • john byatt says:

        world met rankings using all data sets

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/28/2012-ninth-warmest-year-record

        looks like warming to me

      • Eric Worrall says:

        CO2 does follow temperature in the historical record – or are you denying SkS as well these days?

        http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

        • BBD says:

          This is a lie Eric. Been through this with you before – SkS page links to Shakun et al which explains why you are simply lying:

          Orbitally forced NH melt inhibits NADW formation, halts AMOC, forces SH ocean to warm, carbon released from deep sediment reservoirs globalises warming, onset of full deglaciation -> Holocene.

          Repeating falsehoods is utterly unacceptable Eric.

      • john byatt says:

        So which is it eric, has it cooled in the last 16 years thus proving that CO2 follows temperature ?

        that is what the monkeys are saying

      • Eric Worrall says:

        CO2 does follow temperature in the ice core record John, even SkS says so.

        What we are questioning is the theory that CO2 is 100% responsible for 20th century warming.

        • BBD says:

          CO2 does follow temperature in the ice core record John, even SkS says so.

          No, it does not. And the SkS page links to Shakun et al. (2012) which explains how NH melt inhibits AMOC, warms SH ocean, releases CO2 which globalises warming etc.

          Already been through this lie with you Eric, and yet here you are, repeating it again.

          Utterly unacceptable.

      • john byatt says:

        So put up a peer reviewed paper backing whatever your position is and we will get somewhere and away from your rhetoric

      • Eric Worrall says:

        If you’re denying SkS’s statement that CO2 follows temperature in the historical record, thats your lookout John.

        • BBD says:

          This is a lie. Last time you linked to that SkS page I told you that it did not support your position and pointed out why – Shakun et al. (2012). Yet here you are again, repeating your lies.

          Utterly unacceptable.

      • 80% loss of Arctic sea ice volume since 1979 has changed the northern hemisphere’s weather. Record heatwaves, record droughts, heat records exceeding cold records three to one. It’s steadily getting worse.

      • I, for one, am pleased Eric has started to read reliable science, such as SkS, discarding the likes of Watts, considered spam by the likes of SciAm.

        So I’m sure he will back the conclusion of the article he cites, “Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurred after the CO2 increase.”

      • BBD says:

        THREAD HIJACK

        “It’s not warming” lie – again.

      • BBD says:

        Compare and contrast denialist lies with the facts:

        Denialist lie:

        It hasn’t been warming – 1998 is still the high year of your “global warming catastrophe”.

        Facts:

        Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution at the UK’s Met Office, whose data contributed to the WMO estimate, said: “Although the first decade of the 21st century was the warmest on record, warming has not been as rapid since 2000 as over the longer period since the 1970s. This variability in global temperatures is not unusual, with several periods lasting a decade or more with little or no warming since the instrumental record began.”

        Although climate change sceptics may seize on the data, it does not change the long-term warming trend. Nine of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 2001, according to the Met Office. As well as the La Niña variation, there may have been other weather effects at work.

        Stott said: “We are investigating why the temperature rise at the surface has slowed in recent years, including how ocean heat content changes and the effects of aerosols from atmospheric pollution may have influenced global climate.”

        There have been multiple examples of unusual or extreme weather this year, including superstorm Sandy, which was one of the strongest storms on record to hit New York. Before that there was a serious drought over much of the US’s grain-growing region, which has pushed up global food prices. There has been drought in parts of Russia, as well as disruptions to the Indian monsoon, and floods in parts of Europe, including a record wet spring and early summer in the UK.

      • By surface temperatures, 2010 was the warmest year. The last decade was the warmest decade. Anyone looking at the surface temperature record will notice a number of short term hiatuses but an unmistakeable long term trend. Other indicators such as water levels and ocean temperatures show unmistakeable warming.

        Eric is either propogandising or desperate to fool himself. Mind you, it is, unquestionably, a popular lie. But a lie nonetheless.

  15. john byatt says:

    will those dykes hold over next few days, thousands evacuated

  16. Eric Worrall says:

    Wasn’t Europe supposed to become hot and dry? Oh yes, I forgot – any unusual weather these days is proof of the hand of satan Global Warming Climate Change Global Climate Disruption

    We should add the European floods to the list.

    http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

    • Eric Worrall says:

      I did of course forget Global Weirding… :-)

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01f893x

      But that never really caught on – too much like a middle age witchcraft reference…

      • john byatt says:

        eric what is the purpose of you being here if you just tell lies and distortion, if you cannot be honest then go back to flying monkey mates at WUWT

        we want a debate but your drivel has to be continually rebutted and we do not actually discuss anything meaningfull

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I know you would prefer an echo chamber John – but so far Mike has run a reasonably open shop. Perhaps you should redouble your efforts to change his mind.

      • BBD says:

        The reasons are becoming clear – see Petoukhov et al. (2013) or just try reading the Wunderblog link properly before wading in with your rubbish.

        The point here is that the response is unexpected and non-linear. If you thought more and foghorned for the fweemarket less this would give you pause.

      • Didn’t Europe have a mini-ice age in middle ages, too?

        • BBD says:

          Apart from demonstrating that the Earth’s climate system is indeed rather sensitive to radiative perturbation, what does the LIA have to do with modern GHG-forced warming?

          Do you have even the vaguest idea what you want to say?

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Eric,

        It is quite possible that very specific predictions and especially regional predictions will in some cases turn out to be wrong. I, for one, am not convinced that Polar bears are going to go, extinct.
        But if it IS indeed true that this is the worst flooding in central Europe for 4-500 years then it certainly bears consideration. It is certainly easy to take anecdotal evidence to make it fit a conclusion, but the fact that Irene and Sandy happened in subsequent years, the Russian heat wave, Pakistani floods, the Incredible heat wave across 90% of Australia last year, the immense loss of ice all have happened in a few years time seem extraordinary.
        Sandy was the largest atlantic storm on record, I just read that last months tornado was the largest ever recorded beating one in 2006. There was another storm in the Atlantic a from months ago that went from the Caribbean to Portugal to Labrador, astounding meteorologists.
        And here we have the worst flooding in many hundreds of years.
        IS there ANYTHING that will make you consider the possibility that the increased warming of the last 30 year could be responsible for serious consequences already, and that if tempos increase MORE, it could get worse
        Sometimes i think of deniers like the person who scoffed at Hitlers belligerence. then excused the Anschluss as being somewhat reasonable, the Sudetenland acceptable, and the invasion of Poland regrettable but understandable, but then howls in indignation at the idea that Hitler would try to take over all of Europe, while at the same time saying that destroying Russia would be a GOOD thing for the world
        Of course in 1939 one couldn’t be ABSOLUTELY sure Hitler would overrun Europe, but those that were attacking the
        Alarmists were operating out of ideological desire and not reality.

        And I have no qualms about Godwinning, since it is so appropriate in these sort of cases

    • john byatt says:

      Do we have to suffer your continual lies eric?

      IPCC AR4 Europe
      Climate-related hazards will mostly increase, although
      changes will vary geographically (very high confidence).
      Winter floods are likely to increase in maritime regions and flash
      floods are likely to increase throughout Europe [12.4.1]. Coastal
      flooding related to increasing storminess and sea-level rise is
      likely to threaten up to 1.6 million additional people annually
      [12.4.2]. Warmer, drier conditions will lead to more frequent and
      prolonged droughts, as well as to a longer fire season and
      increased fire risk, particularly in the Mediterranean region
      [12.3.1.2, 12.4.4.1]. During dry years, catastrophic fires are
      expected on drained peatlands in central Europe [12.4.5]. The
      frequency of rock falls will increase due to destabilisation of
      mountain walls by rising temperatures and melting of permafrost
      [12.4.3].Without adaptive measures, risks to health due to more
      frequent heatwaves, particularly in central and southern Europe,
      and flooding, and greater exposure to vector- and food-borne
      diseases are anticipated to increase [12.3.1.2, 12.6.1]. Some
      impacts may be positive, as in reduced risk of extreme cold
      events because of increasing winter temperatures. However, on
      balance, health risks are very likely to increase [12.4.11].

      and you still have not conceded that your China CTL ” make Keystone look green by comparison was crap, and another lie.

      it would take China using The CTL article you posted 1000 years to emit as much as XL will emit in 40 years

      .

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Hilarious – John believes Chinese CTL is low emission, despite evidence of the scale of the project – a compressor order which can produce 40,000 tons of liquid oxygen per day, and a plant which costs $40 billion.

        Just a reminder – the basic CTL formula is:-

        2C + 2H20 = CH4 + CO2

        So half your carbon is converted into CO2 before you get any liquid petroleum.

        As for your AR4 post, in case you hadn’t noticed, it isn’t winter.

        Winterfloods are likely to increase in maritime regions and flash
        floods are likely to increase throughout Europe [12.4.1]. Coastal
        flooding related to increasing storminess and sea-level rise is
        likely to threaten up to 1.6 million additional people annually
        [12.4.2]. Warmer, drier conditions will lead to more frequent and
        prolonged droughts
        , as well as to a longer fire season and
        increased fire risk, particularly in the Mediterranean region

        In other words, the current Summer floods were not a prediction of your AR4 quote, which predicted winter floods and warm dry Summers.

        But why let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of your climate lie?

      • john byatt says:

        you you have a lot of trouble with comprehension. no reply required there eric, you have done it for me

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Some impacts may be positive, as in reduced risk of extreme cold
        events because of increasing winter temperatures.

        Given the brutal length and freezing conditions of the last European winter, your AR4 quote is now going into my list of favourites.

        Thanks John.

      • john byatt says:

        Hilarious – John believes Chinese CTL is low emission,

        eric you claimed that the China CTL would make keystone look green by comparison

        your paraphrasing is nonsense

        your CTL article shows that it would take over a thousands years to emit what keystone will emit in the next forty,

        your claim was utter rot as usual and you cannot even debate without verballing

      • Eric Worrall says:

        If you bothered reading John, what I claimed was the CTL process makes tar sands look like clean energy – at least 50% of the coal is converted to CO2 before you extract any hydrocarbons from the process (more likely more than 50% – the conditions required to force a mixture of coal and water to burn are rather extreme).

        I didn’t claim that a single Chinese plant would outdo the entire Canadian tar sands industry – though I did suggest that, if it works, it it likely to be repeated.

      • john byatt says:

        backpeddle now, it only becomes worse than XL if they make it become worse than XL

        your alarmist rhetoric is now conditional on China building enough CTL plants to produce more than 230GTS emission output within forty years.

        effin hypothetical put up as fact

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Perhaps your poor reading skills are why you are an alarmist.

        I variously described the CTL *process* as emitting far more CO2 than processing tar sands, and the Chinese *pilot* plant (though at $40 billion its a pretty large pilot plant) as likely to emit a lot of CO2, based on a few metrics such as the scale of the compressors.

        Somehow in your addled mind this has translated into you claiming I said this one CTL plant would emit more CO2 than the entire Canadian tar sands industry.

        I can’t help your memory problems John, and your tendency to put up imaginary strawmen, though I can laugh at some of the consequences.

      • john byatt says:

        It is rubbish eric you do not know what the emissions are, you talk of half the emission of coal for some other process, you said that it would be used with CCS but then that every one would die if they did that,. you do not know what the final product will even consist of or its energy rating or emissions are

        you cannot ell me one thing about it except hypothetical junk

        now do you actually have anything

      • john byatt says:

        eric “I variously described the CTL *process* as emitting far more CO2 than processing tar sands,

        you said that it made it look like green energy

        now until you actually know the full process and emissions from all stages then you are just repeating absolute drivel

      • john byatt says:

        http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-27/china-beats-u-s-with-power-from-coal-processing-trapping-carbon.html

        helping to clean up China’ s pollution

        power from coal processing trapping CO2

        for eric

      • john byatt says:

        “The Chinese are deploying some of these decarbonizing technologies more aggressively than anyone,” says Chris Hartshorn, vice president of Boston-based Lux Research Inc., which on March 1 released a 40-page report on China’s technology priorities. “They have the money, and their system for investing simultaneously in research, technology and market adoption should be the envy of the world.”
        China is underpinning its cleanup by boosting the efficiency of coal-burning plants. Turbines from Shanghai Electric Group Co. (601727), the world’s largest provider of coal-fired electricity-generating equipment, require less carbon-spewing rock to begin with.
        China Huaneng Group Corp. (902) is designing its GreenGen plant in Tianjin to wring more power from coal while capturing more than 98 percent of its sulfur emissions, which can then be sold to industrial users. By 2016, Huaneng plans to trap 80 percent of GreenGen’s carbon emissions and use them to boost production in oil wells in nearby Bohai Bay

      • BBD says:

        THREAD HIJACK

    • Chris O'Neill says:

      Global Warming, the term unpopularized by the Bush regime.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        There’s actually an amusing Climategate quote, in which they discuss the need to switch from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”, so they can include predictions of colder conditions.

        http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=4141.txt

        In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public
        relations problem
        with the media, which can become public perception. It
        provides a new story for the old news that is climate change – a story that
        has been running since 1985/88.

        I think this is a real problem, and I agree with Nick that climate change
        might be a better labelling than global warming.
        But somehow I also feel
        that one needs to add the dimension of the earth system, and the fact that
        human beings for the first time ever are able to impact on that system. That
        is why the IGBP in a recent publication “Global Change and the Earth System”
        underline that we now live in the anthropocene period

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Interesting memo. No wonder everyone switched to using the phrase “Climate Change” – everyone, pro and anti alarmist, thought it was good PR…

        • That’s 61. You’re nearly there.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          Eric,

          you are conflating PR with accurate labeling. Luntz was specifically saying that using the Phrase “climate change” would be politically opportunistic for deniers because of the advantage of focusing on uncertainty, whereas the climate change emails, as well as plenty of public explanations were wanting to clarify the reality so that deniers wouldn’t be able to fool people so easily.
          the difference being that in the Luntz case it was encouraging dishonesty, and in the climate scientists case it was encouraging honesty

        • john byatt says:

          Eric is on long service leave tony, (temporary ban for the Nazi and eugenics) dis railing threads after many warnings that his obsession was off topic,

          he may turn on on WUWT with his nonsense that China CTL program makes keystone look like green energy.

          People may actually return to comments now as many have stated ” why try to debate his absurdities”

      • john byatt says:

        NASA has always used both,

        Hansen 1998 testimony : “the forces that drive long-term climate change

        The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body,[1][2] set up at the request of member governments.[3] It was first established in 1988

        retards, “the alarmists changed it to climate change after 1998 because it was not warming”

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Both the climategate email I produced, and the memo you helpfully produced, show there is at least some evidence of a groundswell of support for the term “climate change” around 2004.

        Noone is claiming the term was never used before 2004 – the Climategate email I produced shows the intention to claim “a story that has been running since 1985/1988″.

        But as the Climategate email I produced shows, at least some of the support for switching to the phrase “Climate Change” was to avoid public embarrassment when predicting the possibility of global cooling.

        Though I think Monckton called it right when he suggested they started using the term Climate Change more frequently after the world stopped warming.

        • The world hasn’t stopped warming so your hero, the idiot Monckton, is making his incorrect statement based on a false premise. Your continuation of his lies makes you a bigger moron than he. Are you sure your vision is ok?

      • john byatt says:

        read the email see Nick, they are discussing the Luntz memo and have an opinion on that, how does it prove some sort of conspiracy to change global warming to CC because it was not warming?

        it is bollocks

      • Eric Worrall says:

        John you should talk to someone about your tendency to believe in conspiracy theories.

        And Uki, blustering that warming is continuing in some disguised form is all very well, but it would be nice to know when the “settled science” predicts surface temperatures will rise again.

        • I guess when your eyesight is poor you find it difficult to read the documented evidence for global warming. Trenberth has done a good job of reporting it. Your inexpert non-acceptance of the evidence or point-blank refusal to read about it doesn’t mean it is “hidden”. The scientific community is well aware of the warming oceans as they are also aware of how ENSO has a major impact on where the warming is expressed. The irony in all this of course is how you and the other morons bluster on with your cherrypicked 1998 when that was exceptionally high for surface temperatures because of the strength of the accompanying El Nino. Obviously in your alternate reality where your blindness requires you to use your imagination, ENSO only has an influence when it gives you the opportunity to go down the up escalator in regard to surface temperatures, and to answer your question, Buzz, about when surface temperatures are predicted to increase at a higher rate than they currently are, it is generally expected that the next El nino event will set the global surface temperatures climbing again. That information too is readily accessible. You just have to want to read it. However, given your ostrich-like mentality…

      • john byatt says:

        What disguised form?

        john byatt says:
        June 11, 2013 at 3:16 am
        world met rankings using all data sets

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/28/2012-ninth-warmest-year-record

        looks like warming to me

      • Eric Worrall says:

        CO2 is now just under 40ppm higher than in 1997.

        ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt

        363.71 (1997)
        ~400ppm (now)

        So when are we going to see all the “warming” which should be occurring in the surface temperature record?

        Oh sorry, thats right – your “settled science” models don’t do falsifiable predictions.

        • “Oh sorry, thats right – your “settled science” models don’t do falsifiable predictions.”

          Oh sorry, that’s right – your ignorance of science is so great it allows you to call for the collapse of entire ecosystems through the removal of apex predators in the pursuit of human endeavour, completely unaware that humans are part of the nature you are hellbent on destroying. Even ostriches don’t shit in their own nest and they aren’t very bright.

        • Tony Duncan says:

          Eric,

          saying ACC is unfalsifiable is blatantly ridiculous. If surface temps decrease significantly in the next few years ( as deniers have been claiming they would for over a decade) and there is no quantifiable cause. such as a large volcanic eruption, that would go a long way to falsifying ACC. If the arctic increases SIE minimum to over 6 M Km consistently in the next few years, that would go a long way to falsify it. It has been very clearly explained that natural variation is quite capable of causing plateaus or even short term dips in temp, and the explanations for the “pause” are all reasonable and not ad hoc explanations to shore up a failing theory. Ocean heating, Lower Solar radiation, Asian Aerosols, even melting arctic ice are all factors of various degree that could explain some or all of the pause.
          Whereas the religion of the deniers, when faced with the huge SIE loss last year, ran around clucking until they picked up on the AMO, which they say gives them another few years before the cycle brings all the ice back. but NONE of them thought of that BEFORE 2007, since they all predicted ice recovery after that.
          what appears to be unfalsifiable is the opposition to ACC. No matter what evidence supports it, there is always some new invented excuse to “prove” it is wrong.

        • john byatt says:

          Contradiction number 565

          Climate sceptics party.. ACC is unfalsifiable

          Climate sceptics party….ACC has been falsified

      • john byatt says:

        the Hadcrut trend is 0.15Degc last decade
        and 0.17Degc in three proceeding decades

        warming has continued but not as fast and the Hadcrut data does not include the high Arctic even which is warming much faster as we see from the current death spiral

        do not even need to look at the acceleration of ocean warming,

        do not even need to look at acceleration in SLR from 1.7mm per year in 20th century to now over 3mm per year

        all info available

      • The IPCC was created in 1988, 25 years ago. For two groats guess what what the “CC” in it stands for.

      • BBD says:

        THREAD HIJACK

        OHC Eric. Been through this many times and you are still spamming the same old lies.

      • If any scientist had a coherent and sensible scientific revelation that we needn’t be worried about fossil-fuel greenhouse-gas emissions causing a dangerous global warming problem, that scientist would write what would very quickly become the most celebrated research paper ever published. The publication would be in one of the world’s most prestigious science journals, and that journal would be proud to have the honor and privilege. Literally hundreds of other scientists would quickly validate the research, and the author of the paper would become the most famously celebrated scientist in history.

        Every last one of us — scientist or layperson, conservative or liberal, religious or not — shares the same confirmation bias: we would strongly prefer that the problem of global warming were not real and not serious. Those of us who do understand the science would be the first in line to shake the hero’s hand and thank them for delivering the best news civilization has ever gotten.

        But that’s not reality. We are experiencing, all at once, not just global warming but the entire suite of climate change phenomena that go along with it. Unprecedented droughts. Unprecedented heatwaves. Unprecedented storms. Unprecedented floods. Unprecedented precipitation events. Such a high ratio of new record high temperatures to new record low temperatures that it would be statistically impossible without a definite global warming trend (and that ratio is growing). Earth’s perennial ice is melting — including the entire north polar ice cap.

        Who predicted 25 years ago that these things were going to happen?

        These phenomena were, in fact, predicted by the very same scientists who say that carbon emissions from burning enormous amounts of fossil fuels are building up in Earth’s atmosphere and causing global warming — as originally predicted in 1896.

      • mgm75 says:

        @John Harvey Samuel – and on the other side we have the same “scientists” who claimed that tobacco smoke was harmless and that acid rain wasn’t a problem. Why people like Eric would prefer to listen to such people I do not know. Or then again perhaps because a lot of their rhetoric appeals to the McCarthyite in every right winger.

      • In fairness all I did was cut’n’paste from the Global Ecologist, to be found on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/GlobalEcologist. My apologies for not citing my source first time around.

    • Nick says:

      You’d know the answers to your question if you read the science you so dispute…so I guess you’ll go off and find out now? [sarc]

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 773 other followers

%d bloggers like this: