Climate change linked to extreme weather surge

A pair of climate scientists has examined the thorny question of whether the cluster of recent extreme weather events has been caused by increasing global temperatures. Their answer? No proof, but it seems likely. Dim Coumou and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research say that the jury is still …

[Anonymous Coward]

As a representative of the tobacco industry, I would like to point out...

... that although smoking may "load the dice" in favour of getting cancer, it is still possibly the case that smoking has never caused cancer and that every single smoker who has died of cancer got it anyway, from other causes. Despite the so-called "evidence" apparently supporting "anthropogenic cancer causation", our opponents still cannot prove in even a single individual's case that their cancer was definitely caused by smoking, and so we feel confident in asserting that smoking-related cancer is a myth, perpetrated by so-called cancer researchers who simply want to obtain more grants and funding and ensure their own perpetual job safety.

Thank you for your attention.

[Matt Bryant]

Re: As a representative of the tobacco industry, I would like to point out...

Once again, one of the Faithful is taking a relatively simple biological example and pretending it is similar to the vastly more complex global weather system. We know smoking causes cancer because we can reproduce the exact same effect (cancer) by reproducing the cause (tobacco smoke) in lab animals. The problem with all the screaming around AGW is that no-one can even come close to modelling all the variables that make up the global weather system, which is why we have everyone having to say they think something may happen, but they can't say for sure. Well, that is except for the AGW zealots.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: As a representative of the tobacco industry, I would like to point out...

"a relatively simple biological example"

I'm sorry , but wtf? You think the human body and cancer is "relatively simple"?? Perhaps you should get a job in the pharmceuticals industry , you could make your fortune curing all diseases and become a world renowned scientific celebrity.

Well what are you waiting for?

[despun]

Re: As a representative of the tobacco industry, I would like to point out...

I'd say it's relatively simple. Wife's a cancer scientist. OK - maybe simpler is the wrong word, but it is much more tightly understood. Simply because you can repeatedly observe it in the lab and understand various cancers down to the molecular level. "Curing" it is something else, of course. In contrast climate modelling is a muddle, a tangle of ad hoc mechanisms ( Detect and Attribute is ther jargon for their peculiar methodology ). Little - very little - quantatively and reliably understood at the mechanistic level. "The science is settled" is BS.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: As a representative of the tobacco industry, I would like to point out...

"Little - very little - quantatively and reliably understood at the mechanistic level."

Oh really? Which part of carbon dioxide absorbs infrared light and therefor heats up the atmosphere and hence more of it means more heat retained isn't reliably understood? Perhaps you have a new take on the physics you can share with us?

[thehealer]

Re: As a representative of the tobacco industry, I would like to point out...

But carbon dioxide is heavier than air, which is why plants evolved to thrive on it. If anything, it's heating the ground. It's the dihydrogen oxide you should be worrying about when it comes to atmospheric heating, Shirley?

[Thought About IT]

Re: As a representative of the tobacco industry, I would like to point out...

"carbon dioxide is heavier than air, which is why plants evolved to thrive on it. If anything, it's heating the ground"

That'll explain why we're all suffocating in it!

The effect of gravity on CO2 is tiny compared with the effect of air currents. That's why it'll take centuries for the concentration of CO2 to get back to pre-industrial levels, after we stop burning fossil fuels.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: As a representative of the tobacco industry, I would like to point out...

@Thehealer - Yes, I would be worried about bleach in the atmosphere. Unless perhaps you meant the tediously rolled out by people who want to look clever "di-hydrogen monoxide".

If you're going to make your point by patronising people and trying to make them look foolish, best to get your own patronising correct.

[Bill Neal]

@boltar

What about the HFC refrigerants' warming properties? or the various aerosol cooling properties? or solar weather? Saying it is ONLY the carbon is like saying ONLY the nicotine in tobacco kills, not the other chemicals at all.

[Some Beggar]

Re: @boltar

Which straw man are you talking to? Nobody has said "it is ONLY the carbon". Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: As a representative of the tobacco industry, I would like to point out...

"Oh really? Which part of carbon dioxide absorbs infrared light and therefor heats up the atmosphere and hence more of it means more heat retained isn't reliably understood? Perhaps you have a new take on the physics you can share with us?"

First point, the greenhouse effect is about greenhouse glasses allowing sunlight to pass through from space, but then reflecting back heat from below. It isn't about CO2 absorbing infrared light. Secondly, many other gasses are far bigger causes of the greenhouse effect than CO2. Water vapour is about 100x the greenhouse gas that CO2 is. And funnily enough is way more unstable. We can't even decide whether it is a positive or negative feedback on the system. As things get hotter we produce more water vapour which increases the greenhouse effect; but at some point that vapour condenses into clouds which reflect sunlight back into space and reduce the greenhouse effect. If you bother to study the detail of the climate models being used in the research at the moment (and I have) you would notice that our understanding of the effects of water vapour on the cycle is close to zero, but we do know it has a huge effect on the results.

[Marshalltown]

Re: As a representative of the tobacco industry, I would like to point out...

In fact, experimentation demonstrated over 100 years ago that the GHE was actually the result of limiting convection. The glass allows the interior of the GH to warm, but limits the effects of cooling through convection.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: As a representative of the tobacco industry, I would like to point out...

"First point, the greenhouse effect is about greenhouse glasses allowing sunlight to pass through from space, but then reflecting back heat from below. It isn't about CO2 absorbing infrared light."

Wrong - it is exactly that. Infra red that would have escaped back to space after being reflected (or as a result of visible or UV being converted into IR) gets absorbed by the atmosphere instead. Back to physics 101 for you.

"Secondly, many other gasses are far bigger causes of the greenhouse effect than CO2. Water vapour is about 100x the greenhouse gas that CO2 is."

Oh FFS , why does this old chestnut keep cropping up as if its the answer to everything?

"As things get hotter we produce more water vapour which increases the greenhouse effect; but at some point that vapour condenses into clouds "

And there you have it - it condenses out of the atmosphere. Left to its own devices it would completely preciptate out of the atmosphere and we'd have snowball earth. CO2 doesn't precipitate out , it remains - its a constant force.

"our understanding of the effects of water vapour on the cycle is close to zero, but we do know it has a huge effect on the results."

That is complete and utter total bollocks.

[Marshalltown]

Re: As a representative of the tobacco industry, I would like to point out...

"Which part of carbon dioxide absorbs infrared light and therefor heats up the atmosphere and hence more of it means more heat retained isn't reliably understood? "

The part where it has a clear, measurable effect that can be correlated directly with CO2 concentrations. Looking at the graph, the've quite accidentally started their graph in the depth of the LIA, consequently accidentally biasing their trend data. They should be looking at the last 10,000 years to protect themselves from such problems.

The history of AGW "science" consists of a laboratory observation - CO2 absorbs LWIR, followed by a reasonable hypothesis - increased atmospheric CO2 will warm the atmosphere, followed by a complete - not partial but complete failure to confirm. There is no empirical field data that supports the validity of the hypothesis, and pertinent geological and paleoclimatic data are available spanning more than half-a-billion years. There absolutely no evidence of an increase in atmospheric CO2 that was followed by a consistent warming pattern. The best real paleoclimatic data shows quite the opposite: that temperature drives atmospheric CO2 concentrations, an effect that is not only just as well supported in the laboratory, but has just as well understood physics behind it.

The most reasonable conclusion to draw is that we do not have a clue about how climate works (or if it even exists for that matter, since it is consistently derived from an average of weather observations or weather proxies). It is quite possible, even likely, that until we understand weather, we will not understand climate.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: As a representative of the tobacco industry, I would like to point out...

"There is no empirical field data that supports the validity of the hypothesis, and pertinent geological and paleoclimatic data are available spanning more than half-a-billion years. "

There is no reliable climatic data going back that distance in time, either CO2 concentrations or temporature. They're guesses at best +/- quite a large error percentage.

"It is quite possible, even likely, that until we understand weather, we will not understand climate."

Thats a bit like saying because you can't predict the second by second patterns in a pan of boiling water you won't be able to predict that if left long enough on a fire it will boi.

[Tom 13]

Re: We know smoking causes cancer...

Actually, most scientists THINK we know what causes lung cancer, Mesothelioma, etc. And while the experiments are repeatable and have statistically similar outcomes, I'm not so sure we do.

I don't think we've exposed the actual mechanism by which the chemical mutates the cells to cause the cancer. And more importantly, we don't have the means to control for one of the variables in the problem: the cutting of the cell walls from the small sharp pieces. It may be that cancer is simply a low probability biological event given a cut of the cell membrane. Increasing the number of cuts increases the probability of a cancer event. Then there's another healing probability complex to repair things, and increasing cancer events reduces the probability of the repair function stopping it. And therefore we will eventually see the same results for the allegedly benign fiberglass we now use for insulation.

Now there is a certain sense in which that means cigarettes still cause cancer, but not the sense the anti-smoking nazi's mean. (And yes, I'm the obnoxious one wearing the Cancer Cures Smoking button, but that doesn't mean I want the government imposing that restriction on you.)

[The Axe]

Oooo Look!

Look a hockey stick!

[JohnMurray]

While it is PROBABLE that I will be alive after a nights sleep, it is not certain.

Nothing is certain.

Now, what was the degree of global warming for the last 150 years ?

Nearly one degree centigrade ?

Barbeque time ?

[Michael M]

Re: Stefan Rahmstorf

I think this comes under the heading 'playing the man not the ball'. What's the german equivalent of that english idiom?

Disinterested? I imagine only those scientists not from this planet are disinterested.

[Anonymous Coward]

They keep repeating themselves, so I will reciprocate.

The question is NOT : is the climate warming up. This can be easily substantiated with relevant statistics.

The questions ARE, however : do we humans have anything to do with it, if so how much and can we influence it in a significant way by modifying our general behaviour. What would be the result we wish to achieve and is it at all possible.

[Tim Parker]

Re: They keep repeating themselves, so I will reciprocate.

"The questions ARE, however : do we humans have anything to do with it"

This question has been answered repeatedly, regardless of how many times people say there are no forthcoming answers. Nice overviews are available (as normal) here

http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us.htm

and if you're a back-of-the-envelope sort of person, you could do worse than have a look at some of the stuff on

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/

Whether you choose to listen to answers, or choose to disagree with them, is entirely your prerogative - although former would rather exclude you from any reasoned debate.

[Matt Bryant]

Re: Re: They keep repeating themselves, so I will reciprocate.

Did someone forget to tell you that clouds (or the lack of) have a much more pronounced effect on both weather and local temperatures? In effect, water vapour is by far the biggest contributor to "global warming", not CO2. But the really fun bit is the scientists are still struggling to understand how clouds and the weather system interact, quote : "....Changes in clouds result from changes in the distribution of water vapor, temperature, and winds. The effects of global warming on these factors are complex and not well understood....." Marian Koshland Science Museum of the US National Academy of Science.

[Tim Parker]

Re: They keep repeating themselves, so I will reciprocate.

"Did someone forget to tell you that clouds (or the lack of) have a much more pronounced effect on both weather and local temperatures? In effect, water vapour is by far the biggest contributor to "global warming", not CO2. "

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-warming-35-percent.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-stratosphere-global-warming.htm

"But the really fun bit is the scientists are still struggling to understand how clouds and the weather system interact"

Indeed - it's a bloody complex system which a lot of work is being expended on. Do the scientists know it all ?... of course not, but they have some ideas how parts of it fit together and most of the very short-term, extreme feedback mechanisms can be discounted.

"quote : "....Changes in clouds result from changes in the distribution of water vapor, temperature, and winds. The effects of global warming on these factors are complex and not well understood....." Marian Koshland Science Museum of the US National Academy of Science."

Well put that man - you'll notice he didn't say "these factors are complex and not understood at all" or "Aieee !! We know bugger all and never will !!!! Run and hide under the bed, it's just intractable !!!".

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: They keep repeating themselves, so I will reciprocate.

@Matt - A lot of work is being carried out in this area and "Not well understood" is not the same as "Not understood at all" which is what you are trying to represent. The scientific meaning of "Not Well Understood" is basically along the lines of, "we don't understand everything about this subject."

You also can't make simplistic comments about clouds like "...have a much more pronounced effect on both weather and local temperatures" it's vastly more complex than that there are feedbacks all over the place.

[Matt Bryant]

Re: Re: They keep repeating themselves, so I will reciprocate.

"......"Not well understood" is not the same as "Not understood at all"...." Yes, which means even you will have to admit the matter is not settled, the science is advancing but is in no way complete. Why is the Faithful can ignore any science that ge

ts in the way of their doom'n'gloom gig by saying "it's incomplete", but cannot seem to grasp the simple fact that cuts both ways.

[rtli-]

Cue a response article by the black hats of El Reg pointing out that any level of uncertainty means we should ignore the issue entirely.

[Danny 5]

still going?

i don't get it, why are we still debating wether the planet is heating up or not?

i was quite convinced that we reached consensus on this matter. It doesn't matter wether we're responsible for any issues, but it's a good idea to take care of the planet if we want to remain on here for the long run. Who cares if it's an incident or not and who cares what can be proven at this point, we need to take care of this big blue marble regardless.

[Ru]

Re: still going?

We're not.

This article is about climate change being linked to recent weather extremes. The debate is about whether the changes are natural, or due to human activity.

[Sean Timarco Baggaley]

Re: still going? (@Ru)

"The debate is about whether the changes are natural, or due to human activity."

You state this like it's an either / or question with a simple digital answer: "Nature did it" or "Man did it".

The most likely answer is that it's going to be a bit of both.

However, if Climate Change is mostly natural—and, given the past few million years' worth of evidence, that would seem to be the most likely—I'd like to ask another question: "Should we do anything about it?"

If we interfere with what is primarily a natural process, we would, by definition, turn it into an unnatural process. From that point on, the responsibility for the entire climate of this planet rests on our shoulders as we might divert it too far from its natural course for it to return there on its own without serious consequences during the transitional phase.

I have no quarrel with reducing our species' footprint on this planet wherever possible—pollution isn't exactly fun to breathe, but it is also an indicator of inefficiency in a process. Good businesses generally abhor process inefficiencies and try to keep them to a minimum, so a focus on these aspects makes far more sense than the endless cries of "Wolf!" (Note: probably NSFW).

We don't need these extreme exhortations to get things done. It's incredibly patronising and wins you no friends.

[Tads]

Re: still going? (@Ru)

Hilarious, how can you say digging centuries worth of dead dinosaur carbon from deep underground storage and burning it is not "interfering with the natural processes of the planet". Doing something ABOUT global warming us out for you because it is "unnatural" but burning coal and oil in the first place isn't. Ahh deniers, never change.

[Gordon 10]

Re: still going?

Of course it matters. If we cant identify if/how we are impacting it, how the hell do you expect us to fix/mitigate it?

Or should we just piss money away on the off chance we might fix something?

[Danny 5]

Re: still going?

There's tons of things you can start doing without knowing what the exact cause is. put more focus on renewables for example. If you think that's "pissing money away" then that's quite sad imho.

As i said before, it doesn't really matter if the planet is heating up, it doesn't matter if we're responsible for something like that and it doesn't matter what the cause is. We're using tons of things that will eventually run out and it makes sense to do something about that, regardless of climate change. if the end result also takes care of climat change, then that's an added bonus.

Finding alternatives for stuff that will eventually run out makes sense.

[asdf]

Re: still going?

When you got a significant portion of the population that believes in an invisible sky fairy and that a undead zombie from 2000 years ago is their savior its not surprising really no consensus can be reached on virtually anything. The type of people that deny natural selection occurs (evolution) are ironically usually the first in line for antibiotics. Many people hate everything about science except often the results.

[Scott Broukell]

Meanders in the northern jet stream

I understood that recent torrential rain storms and heat waves etc were largely due to meanders in the northern jet stream, becoming temporarily static, and the jet stream itself moving further south than is usual.

Weren't two meanders shown to be responsible both for the heat wave in Russia a couple of years ago (sucking hot air up from north Africa) and the Pakistan floods (drawing moist air off the Indian Ocean and causing precipitation when that same air cooled over mountainous regions).

Only asking.

[Thought About IT]

Re: Meanders in the northern jet stream

Why has the jet stream been meandering in this unusual way?

Only asking.

Actually, NASA has just launched their Anomalous Transport Rocket Experiment, to help them understand this phenomenon. Unfortunately, research by the "boffins" at NASA is only a good thing on El Reg if it's about other planets, not our own.

[Nick Collingridge]

Re: Meanders in the northern jet stream

One place to look is here:

http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?type=article&article_id=218393120

A quick précis of their theory is that the atmosphere in the sub-tropics is heating and expanding, and this is pushing the jet streams progressively towards the poles.

I have also seen suggestions that the ice cover on the Barents Sea has disappeared and this means that instead of reflecting the sun's IR it is now being absorbed, and the relative heat from this is affecting the course of the jet streams.

Either way these are effects of the climate warming.

[Scott Broukell]

Re: Meanders in the northern jet stream - Reactive Systems

And yet, if warming increases the amount of fresh melt-water from glacial reduction in the Arctic, does this not increase the chance of the North Atlantic Oscillation (Conveyor thingy) breaking down, thus plunging Britain into a mini ice-age, as opposed to an area of increased BBQ'ness ?

Is this great big system (Earths climate et al) not just going through phases of adjustment all the time in order to balance (relatively speaking) its temperature. And we are all tiny tings that will just have to adapt. And will that regulatory system of adjustment ultimately adjust our humin population as well, thereby reducing any impact from our own emissions n'that.

So should we care at all - just how much impact could all these climate protocols (nobody seems to give a sh*t about probably cos there eat into profit margins) actually have ?

I'm pretty sure it's not our private cars and patio-heaters that do the most damage if any, but rather the industrial processes that make the shiny shiny we are told we must have all the time.

mmmm ......

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Meanders in the northern jet stream

Meanders in the northern jet stream, eh? And is Eddy in the space time continuum?

[Tom 13]

Re: meandering in this unusual way

More important question:

Given the short time for which we have known about, and therefore been able to study the jet stream and its affect on the weather, IS this unusual?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever the reason , another heatwave in europe this summer...

.... is looking likely given the current weather patterns and low rainfall we've had. Apparently this is due to the jet stream moving north (though no one ever says why , the jet stream is just another reactive system, its not the atmospheres prime mover). I really hope not but I suspect in britain the records of the summer of 1976 may well be broken.

[NomNomNom]

Re: Whatever the reason , another heatwave in europe this summer...

I am also suspecting a very hot summer this year. no science just a hunch

[Sarev]

Re: Whatever the reason , another heatwave in europe this summer...

> I am also suspecting a very hot summer this year. no science just a hunch

I tell you what, I'll book a camping holiday. That usually does the trick in guaranteeing me torrential rain, high winds and knee-deep mud.

[Philip Lewis]

Re: Whatever the reason , another heatwave in europe this summer...

hej, you probably live in UK?

Here in Northern Europe, Denmark, the precipitation levels for 2011 were, "normal" according to DMIs yearly report.

I am just pointing this out to you, because your single data point proves exactly nothing, as does mine. Your prediction is equally unfounded by definition.

I have not seen aggegated Norther Europe numbers and I don't care enough to find them.

philip

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Whatever the reason , another heatwave in europe this summer...

"Here in Northern Europe, Denmark, the precipitation levels for 2011"

Newsflash - its 2012

[Philip Lewis]

Re: Whatever the reason , another heatwave in europe this summer...

Newsflash, unless the OP was basing his prediction on the past 10 weeks of casual empricism, the 2011 data are relevant. Why don't you go look up the data for Jan-Feb 2012?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Whatever the reason , another heatwave in europe this summer...

"Newsflash, unless the OP was basing his prediction on the past 10 weeks of casual empricism, the 2011 data are relevant. Why don't you go look up the data for Jan-Feb 2012?"

I was talking about the weather so far this year numbnuts , wtf has that got to do with rainfall totals in denmark for LAST year??

[Philip Lewis]

Re: Whatever the reason , another heatwave in europe this summer...

hey numnuts,

I fucking live in Northern Europe - check out a map.

My original points are still valid and logically unassailable.

a) It hasn't been drier in Northern Europe (sample space a country in N. Europe)

b) A single point is invalid as a basis for prediction.

From Danish Meteorological Institute DMI:

I gennemsnit ud over landet faldt der 79 millimeter nedbør i januar 2012. Det er 22 millimeter eller 39 % over normalen for 1961-90

I gennemsnit ud over landet faldt der 31 millimeter nedbør i februar 2012. Det er 7 millimeter eller 18 % under normalen for 1961-90 (normal 38 mm).

So the 110mm of rain puts Denmark 15mm ABOVE average (average being calculated 1961-1990 - dan't ask I don't know why DMI uses this period for "normal") for 2012 so far.

p

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Whatever the reason , another heatwave in europe this summer...

I wouldn't put too much money on that.

For the last 5 years or so in Britain the weather pattern has been for decent springs followed by rubbish summers. These rubbish summers seem to be associated with a southward shift of the jet stream. I contacted the Met Office last year and they confirmed that this was not a expansion of the JS radius but it had shifted southward in the Atlantic reion and northwards in the Bering Sea region.

And this coincides with ice loss in the Bering Sea region whilst the ice mass of Greenland remains.

Looks more like a slight shift in the summer thermal pole.

[Great Bu]

Asking the wrong questions.....

This whole climate change debate is asking the wrong questions. We should not be worrying about whether the weather (see what I did there ?) is getting warmer or whether this is caused by mankind or not.

We should be asking - 'If the climate is getting warmer, should we care ?'

If the only consequences of climate change are that Norfolk is under water and BBQ season is longer then I am all for it.

There is a lot of poorly evidenced catastrophising* about the consequences of this or that level of temperature change which is used to justify various legislative alterations aimed at reducing the change and this mis-informs any debate using statistics.

*if it's not a real word already, then I'm copyrighting it......

[Anonymous Coward]

Weasels

"we may be on the cusp of a period in which the probability of such events increases rapidly, due primarily to the influence of projected increases in greenhouse gas concentrations." And they quoted someone else, so they don't have to put their own name on the quote - very sneaky.

Weasel sords kowtowing to the research grant committe. Nothing more and nothing less.

The base point notion of "as expected in a stationary climate" is so completely bogus as to defy coprehension. No-one, not even the AGW zealots believe there is such a thing as a stationary climate, and no-one not even the anti-AGW zealots proposes that there is such a thing.The planet is gradually warming, coming out of an ice-age. The rest is background noise.

Dweeb

[NomNomNom]

Re: Weasels

"kowtowing to the research grant committe"

baseless conspiracy theory. Why do they care what your imaginary "grant comitte" think? They've already got the grant. You think "grant comitte"s are so facile that they hand out grants based on some byline from a previous paper rather than the text of a grant proposal? You think such a conspiracy even makes sense?

"No-one, not even the AGW zealots believe there is such a thing as a stationary climate"

Yes there is. It's when the climate doesn't change very much over a period of time. It can even be relative.

".The planet is gradually warming, coming out of an ice-age."

We finished warming out of an ice age 10,000 years ago. The planet's climate has been *relatively stationary* since then.

[Xris M]

Should we care?

Maybe, maybe not.

While current estimates of change (50cm (ish) sea level rise, increases in precipitation and extreme weather events) pose a level of risk the problem is the uncertainty of triggering one of 736 doomsday scenarios e.g. collapse of the West Antarctica Ice Sheet, disrupting the ocean conveyor, methane clathrate release, in which case we could be royally f**ked.

[mememine69]

All REAL planet lovers are former climate blame believers. Get ahead of the curve.

Since the entire scientific world agreed that climate change was real, why didn’t the millions of them in the global scientific community, “ACT” like they all agreed it was going to be the worst crisis imaginable, outside of a comet hit? Three were dozens of climate change protesters and NONE of the millions from the science world to march with them? Why? Could consensus as well as crisis be exaggerated?

Scientific exaggeration trumps any scientific consensus.

This is all good news to real planet lovers who are happy a crisis was avoided for whatever reason.

Pollution is real, CO2 death threats to billions of children was a crime.

Meanwhile, the entire world of SCIENCE had allowed bank-funded and corporate-run “CARBON TRADING STOCK MARKETS” to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 26 years of insane attempts at climate CONTROL.

[NomNomNom]

Re: All REAL planet lovers are former climate blame believers. Get ahead of the curve.

"Three were dozens of climate change protesters and NONE of the millions from the science world to march with them? Why?"

I bet if they had you'd be smearing them as "activists"

[Some Beggar]

Re: All REAL planet lovers are former climate blame believers. Get ahead of the curve.

Baseless conspiracy theories are always more convincing when they're TYPED with random UPPER CASE emphasis.

Herp derp derp.

[haloburn]

Seriously is someone posting scepticalscience as a credible source of information on this? Really?

The question is sensitivity to CO2, everyone agrees that a doubling of CO2 will lead to a direct increase of about 1 degree. Thereafter we are talking about feedbacks with the CAGW mob claiming a positive feedback of anywhere from 2-6 times depending on what computer models they use. The models believe clouds are transparent to IR and have little to no feedback, in reality the actual feedbacks appear to be 0.6 or a negative feedback as has been demonstrated in the actual temperature readings. The straw man argument is that to not take the chicken little approach we somehow deny climate is changing and that anthropogenic increase in CO2 has a contribution; it’s time to grow up.

As for increased extreme weather – evidence please? Or is this another case of the Himalayan glaciers are going to melt in 20 years scare.

[NomNomNom]

skepticalscience is a credible source of information because they cite their sources and have a track record of properly understanding and representing them.

"everyone agrees that a doubling of CO2 will lead to a direct increase of about 1 degree"

and everyone agrees that it will lead to further indirect warming through:

a) reduction in albedo as ice melts - more sunlight absorbed = warmer

b) warmer air holds more moisture - increase water vapor in the atmosphere - water vapor is a greenhouse gas = warmer

You've missed that because you jumped straight to clouds. Don't mangle the uncertainty of cloud feedback with water vapor and albedo feedback as if you can start from 1C. Add the certain positive feedbacks first THEN add the uncertainties in cloud feedback.

[Daren Nestor]

"a) reduction in albedo as ice melts - more sunlight absorbed = warmer"

Melting and re-freezing ice, at least in the short term, increases albedo.

"b) warmer air holds more moisture - increase water vapor in the atmosphere - water vapor is a greenhouse gas = warmer"

This is the dangerous one from a temperature perspective.

I'd like to see more of this kind of research. One of my bugbears is that any claims that extreme weather is more extreme seems to rely on dollar amounts, when the reasons that dollar amounts of damage increase is because we've plonked a load of buildings in really stupid places, or populations have expanded massively. This paper seems to have managed not to fall into this trap.

A fantastic example of this is the size of Miami from 1970-present, and the massive increases in dollar damage even though the events (hurricanes) themselves were generally well below "worst recorded" levels.

[Tim Parker]

"Seriously is someone posting scepticalscience as a credible source of information on this? Really?"

Interesting.... your problem being what, precisely ? Does your view of a lack of credibility extend to the numerous references from there, or merely their own output ?

"The models believe clouds are transparent to IR and have little to no feedback,"

"The" models.... what on Earth is that supposed to mean ? All climate models are based on this ? There is a little sealed box somewhere with 'the' models in them, unchanging and never questioned ? There are models which have cloud modelling in them and other that don't - there are models *solely* of cloud interactions, of cloud and sea interactions, of cloud and wind interactions, of cloud and seed interactions.

" in reality the actual feedbacks appear to be 0.6 or a negative feedback as has been demonstrated in the actual temperature readings. "

There are ranges of feedback for different cloud types in different circumstances, both negative and positive. This is dealt with in the scientific literature and various models which include cloud models (not all models do, or do so as a lumped response with other factors).

"The straw man argument is that to not take the chicken little approach we somehow deny climate is changing and that anthropogenic increase in CO2 has a contribution;"

You're not seriously using a straw man argument to prove your point about a straw man argument are you ?

" it’s time to grow up."

Ah - and here we agree....

"As for increased extreme weather – evidence please? "

The article, and study, are referring to the *clustering* of extreme weather events, and whether there is anything that can be said about them. There are a number of studies regarding numbers and types of weather events, linked to in both the article and (apparently) the study. There are pictures, taken from the article regarding this.

Why don't you actually go and read some of them before you ask for 'evidence please' ? If they are insufficient in your mind, you can always come back and explain why you think so - some, perhaps many, of the people reading these comments might actually be interesting if you come up with something.

[Keep Refrigerated]

Global Warming is a false dilema...

What we really should be worrying about is our nearest star, Sol, is burning approximately 600 million tons of hydrogen per second.

When that runs out, the earth is cooked. We need to find a way to control that!

[Nick Collingridge]

Re: Global Warming is a false dilema...

I hate it when primary school kids think they've got something to contribute to this debate...

[Luther Blissett]

Re: Global Warming is a false dilema...

So you didn't notice the paradox of a false apposition ironically wrapped in a conceit?

[Matt Bryant]

Re: Global Warming is a false dilema...

".....When that runs out, the earth is cooked....." Shirley, that should be frozen, not cooked? Cra*p! Best burn some more fossil fuels to warm things up before the Sun burns out!

[Justin Ert]

"Disasters to drive public opinion?"

Nature Climate Change, which as we all know is strictly for advocates of carbon price floor economics, and whose target audience is generally, but not exclusively (heaven forbid) sceptiphobic believers.

As Judith Curry says:

"The substantial interest in attributing extreme weather events to global warming seems rooted in the perceived need for some sort of a disaster to drive public opinion and the political process in the direction of taking action on climate change."

Indeed. This coal face between policy advocacy and science is mined by Nature Climate Change and the results are papers from activist scientists that inevitably conclude ambiguously - as the Register has it- "No proof, but it seems likely." Such is the new probabilism that has infected politico-scientific discourse in the wake of the precautionary principle and the IPCC's "likelihood-ometer" metric for possible future climates.

Sadly though, this information cascades, the message gets amplified, just as planned - and often unknowingly - by the type of uncritical churnalism such as this lazy piece. And we even have the caption "...recent weather has been crap" to assist in "driving public opinion" and raising awareness. But where would we be without the cascade? With more exterme weather? Maybe, maybe not.

I would say: Out of character for the Register. Not worth more than two ratings blobs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "Disasters to drive public opinion?"

Sorry, but anyone who introduces a personal, unproven opinion with "as we all know," tars others' opinions as "activist," and salts in ad hominem attacks such as "uncritical churnalism" loses all credibility, IMHO.

[Justin Ert]

Re: "Disasters to drive public opinion?"

Complete cobblers I'm afraid, in the gentlist possible way. Firstly, Stefan Rahmstorf is an activist, ipso facto, as he is a member of several political organisations such as this one:

http://www.wbgu.de/en/council-members/

An advocay group for global "sustainable development" no less, that uses the climate change narrative as a tool to lobby government and influence policy. Interestingly, even the wiki have this to say about their activism:

" In the most recent flagship report, the WBGU dealt with the transformation to a low-carbon society..."

But ironically Stefan Rahmstorf is no stranger to perpetrating nasty ad hominem attacks himself, and was quite recently found guilty by a German court and ordered to "stop violating a journalists persoanl rights":

http://notrickszone.com/2011/11/07/german-court-orders-stefan-rahmstorf-to-cease-and-desist-violating-journalists-personal-rights/

Lastly, describing this piece as "uncritical churnalism" is not an ad hominem. Do you know what ad hominem is? Because this is not an example of it.

However, had the journalist who churned and contributed to the information cascade actually researched the Nature Climate Change publication, when it was founded and why, who the primary contributors are... and then perhaps a cursory glance at the recent political activities, advocacy and behaviour of Stefan Rahmstorf himself, they might - whoever they are - have approached the piece from a more enlightened angle.

As I inferred in my original post, I have a higher level of expectation of the Register.

[Jim Birch]

It's the bullets, not the gun...

Anyone who thinks it's the H2O not the CO2 that's important needs to be able to describe how to raise the CO2 level without raising the H2O level. They are coupled. In a simple column model of the atmosphere this is a clear no brainer, CO2 drives H2O. In the real atmosphere this would be the "default" effect that you would expect if other things tend to balance out. You'd want a good reason to believe otherwise - well, I would anyway, because random processes tend to work like that: dice rolls work as physically expected, dead things rot, etc. Strange attractors are unusual.

For the people who haven't totally departed from actual physical science (into flat out denial, wild conspiracy theories, etc) the most likely process that might throw a strange attractor are clouds which are made of water and reflect sunlight back to space. It's logically possible that increased H2O might mean more clouds and stop or reduce the heating. This is, of course, a simplistic take on clouds, since clouds are dynamic phenomena. More water vapour does not make more condensation if the temperature is increased. This isn't something we can deduce from simple theory, we have to go out and measure it in the real atmosphere. It's hard to measure, since we need a statistical results. The result - to date - is that the cloud feedback is not going to stop global warming but more work is needed to get better numbers on the cloud effect. Nailing this effect down is one important experiments that is being designed into current meteorological satellites.

Of course, there's another extremely powerful experimental result that demonstrates that clouds won't stop global warming: the global temperature record. The fact is: CO2 is increasing, water vapour is increasing, and temperature is increasing. And, when known confounding factors like aerosols, the El Nino cycle and net solar insolation are removed from the global temperature record it shows a remarkably steady increase, just like the CO2 level, see link below.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/the-real-global-warming-signal/

[Matt Bryant]

Re: It's the bullets, not the gun...

Wrong gun and wrong bullets, tbh. No-one is denying that global warming has occured and is likley to carry on happening, though some think it is a cyclical process and we're just as likely to go into a new ice age as all burn up. What the disagreement is about is are we to blame, and does our suspicion that we might have a part in the process justify crippling our development. By blaming ourselves and acting rashly we could ensure our own destruction in the case of a new ice age.

If we do slip into another ice age then it makes an even better case to build more nuke power stations as a new ice age means a definite need for lots of electrical power, if just for heating alone. And if we're actually contributing to the problem through burning fossil fuels then nukes make sense again as they will alow a much easier conversion to electric vehicles than any other option (please don't pretend wind, solar and wave generation are going to even make up half the extra power needed to replace our increasing levels of traffic).

/This is me not holding much hope of the Greens agreeing that nukes make sense either way.

[legal61]

The UN scientists

"Their answer? No proof, but it seems likely." Scientists are supposed to be ALL about PROOF. Shame on them.