Risk of drought restrictions spread

We need months of rain. A hot summer could be bad in some parts. Other areas won't notice a thing.

Hosepipe ban for the Olympics, how's that going to work? Maybe we ought to cancel them due to climate change, we don't want to over stress all the visiting competitors.

Hey Paul...Are the BBC going to be doing a piece on the Peter Gleick confession?

Link to piece in case (very likely) that nobody knows about the Gleick scandal https://t.co/Hn5QNlhK



Typically if some sceptical organisation had been caught with its pants down like this we would all know from the BBC News headlines banging on about it. That we have now descended to this level should indicate the term 'settled science' should be thrown into the bin of history. Anything so cock sure doesn't need acts of fraud to help 'prove' it, and the inference that sceptics are well funded when the US Govt has spent over $100 BILLION in the last 20 years on this political dogma is beyond laughable.



Returning to topic ;) I assume that East Yorkshire will avoid water problems due to the pipe network this summer. As ukpahonta points out just how will tankering water to the Olympics pan out in front of the entire planet?



Would be a great story for climate change sirens though :)

I understand the rain will come heavily. But while we still have an opportunity, why don't we fleece the wealthy bankers in the South East, like they have the North for the last thirty years, by exchanging water with them. I call this balancing the economy.

Hey Paul...Are the BBC going to be doing a piece on the Peter Gleick confession?





Richard Black is working on it right now





Hang on something just flew by my window, it was pink had 4 legs and was going 'oink'

Spelman is living in a dream world if she expects water companies to join forces to solve the water distribution problem. Water and its supply should be coordinated under a single authority - i.e. nationalised. There would then,at least,be a vague chance that a national strategy could be planned and actually carried out ( subject, of course, to the protection of crested newts and native crayfish).

Long time development of anything in this country is almost beyond our capabilities. The 20 year plus project that has built a new tunnel through the Alps is classic example of long term planning of which we are incapable.

It is quite obvious that the water shortage in the south east is more to do with population density than seasonal variations from the normal rainfall pattern.

Eastern England has always been drier than the rest of the country and increases in population density and more intensive agricultural water usage are bound to have a long term effect on water supply.

Spelman and the water companies couldn't plan and coordinate their way out of a paper bag.

Playstation4 to be designed around specific software title!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17100224

I echo the sentiments regarding charging the south east large sums of money for any water they want. I can see this sort of argument could bolster thoughts of Scottish independence in the future. Of course an alternative to a very expensive national water grid is to move people to the water.

Today, Suzanne Goldenburg at the Guardian continues to misrepresent the facts. She writes:



"A leading defender of climate change admitted tricking the libertarian Heartland Institute into turning over confidential documents detailing its plans to discredit the teaching of science to school children in last week's sensational expose."



How the hell can she get away with that. Its utterly disgraceful.

"I echo the sentiments regarding charging the south east large sums of money for any water they want"



coming from the south east I would then reply with sentiments insisting we cease then to subsidise certain other parts of the countries on a tit for tat retaliation!



especially those bits that basically rely on the public sector to support their whole regional economy :-)

4. millennia wrote:



"Anything so cock sure doesn't need acts of fraud to help 'prove' it..."



What Gleick has admitted to is disgraceful in my opinion, especially posting the fake policy document that he *claims* was sent to him in the post along with all the other documents, which appear to be genuine.



But it was not an attempt to 'prove' the consensus position on AGW; it was a misguided means of exposing some of the funding of various groups and individuals hostile to that position.



Let's not forget that the 'climategate' emails, which were seized upon by 'sceptics' and extensively edited and quote mined, were also 'stolen'. So you might equally ask why, if sceptics are so cock sure, they too resorted to such means? I don't recall any hullabaloo being raised over the morality of that by Anthony Watts and co, do you?



Mud tends to stick, however. Even though the 'climategate' scientists were repeatedly cleared of any scientific malpractice, many people still perceive the science to be tainted. The Heartland Institute and WUWT, etc actively encourage this perception.



When the dust of 'deniergate' settles people will remember that, for instance, a scientist like Fred Singer, who hasn't produced a peer reviewed scientific paper for decades, is paid $5,000 per month to carry out "research" that amounts to nothing other than nay saying the consensus opinion on AGW. They will also remember that this salary is ultimately funded, at least in part, by fossil fuel interests.



So what Gleick did was wrong and I'm not defending him. But as with the equally wrong 'climategate' email release, long term his actions might prove to have been effective.

In the discussion of drought conditions it is important to distinguish between reduced supply, via rainfall and increased demand, due to population, industrial usage etc.

While consumption is increasing, there has also been less rainfall than usual, but such periods are not unusual and increased usage does add to the problem of reduced supply.

It is a while since I looked at the UK rainfall statistics in any detail, but up to 2009, annual rainfall in the SE was actually showing an upward trend. It's obviously time to update my figures to see what is currently going on.

Haven't looked at the regional figures but for England & Wales precipitation has been slowly increasing over the whole of the MO 250 year record, with no change in the rate of increase over the last 100 years.



https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadukp/data/monthly/HadEWP_monthly_qc.txt



Not sure if any of this could be down to improved data gathering but it would leave you to believe in the need for improved infrastructure to help cope with increased usage.

""So what Gleick did was wrong and I'm not defending him. But as with the equally wrong 'climategate' email release, long term his actions might prove to have been effective.""





I dont think the release of the real documents was that wrong, if Heartland were stupid enough to hand them out thats their problem



Same with the climategate e-mails, there is an obvious public interest case for both



If Gleick has sexed up the documents though then he deserves to be sacked

I haven't being paying attention to the Heartland Institute affair.

Can anyone explain what has happened in a few simple sentences?

Yes I know I am being lazy, but don't have time to read everything!

The met office have been saying they need super computers to forecast better. I think they need to start using their common sense, before being given more powerful computers.

At the risk of being accused of going off topic, an update on AQUA CH5 temperatures.

Channels 5-8 have continued to decline since February 8th. If anything the rate of decline in ch5 is accelerating as the 17th and 18th show the largest declines over the period. On the other hand, there is a hint of a slowdown in the rate of decline in ch7 and ch8.

The ch5 temp. on the 18th was 251.948k, compared to the record February low of 251.901k on February 1st, 2008. Another day's fall could see this record broken. The lowest figure on record for Feb. 18th was 252.241k, again in 2008.

All of the anomalies are in a very similar position to where they were at the same date in January, so another low UAH figure now seems quite likely.

This year's ch5-8 temperatures have so been characterised by longer periods and larger ranges of rise and decline than last year and if the pattern for January is repeated, we may see a UAH anomaly of about -0.120c by the end of the month.

It isn't clear to me why the global temperature should fluctuate in this apparently cyclical pattern, and it makes me wonder whether there isn't something "artificial" in the measurements.

someone (and apparently we now know who) tricked the heartland institute into emailing them some documents, including a budget report - funding, salaries, projects, etc and they put them up online. But one of the documents included in the bunch put online was a memo not emailed by heartland.



The memo contains two bad sounding phrases, so it was the dynamite of the bunch. The others are just tables and dry budget kind of stuff. In my opinion the memo is fake, not produced by the heartland at all.



In fact even if the memo were genuine it still wouldn't be a scandal in as the bad sounding phrases in it are only bad sounding - there's only two of them in quite a large memo, and they could easily be typos/out of context due to the casualness of the thing. It's much like Mann's "cause", it sounds bad, but you'd have to assume context to substantiate it.



I would label the genuine documents as interesting (in the sense of "huh?") rather than scandalous. I hear one of the documents shows the NIPCC report produced by heartland is funded to the tune of over $1 million for example, and that seems to be primarily going to one author.

newdwr54 said

"So what Gleick did was wrong and I'm not defending him. But as with the equally wrong 'climategate' email release, long term his actions might prove to have been effective."



I draw the opposite conclusion. As it stands, the (stolen) HI documents (obtained fraudulently) were nothing short of dull with the sole exception of the apparently forged scan. The biggest surprise being that they don't get anything like as much funding as people assumed.



On the other hand, Gleick, Desmogblog and various other journalists have revealed themselves as generally untrustworthy. They will almost certainly find themselves in court with their reputation in tatters. This, placed alongside other PR disasters like the 10/10 adverts shows how desperate the AGW cause is. I'm not speaking here of AGW science or the scientists in general - just the followers and believers.



I'd be amazed if consensus climate scientists now see this as anything but a disaster, along the lines of 'with friends like this, who needs enemies.' They have a hard enough job as it is trying to persuade people of AGW, this has made their job much tougher.

@16 QuaesoVeritas



Bunch of documents leaked. Heartland yet to confirm if any are genuine (but some people mentioned in budgets, etc have admitted to the figures being correct).



1 document is a scanned memo the rest are emailed PDF's. The PDF's contain the info that is used in the memo, but memo appears 'sexed' up.



Interesting titbits (i.e. which scientists/commentators are on retainers from Heartland) but mostly confirms what people knew already.



Nothing of any science just political lobby group stuff.

"long term his actions might prove to have been effective." LOL yeah for getting him in front of a judge.

@22 nibor25



Will be interesting to see if it gets in front of a judge. Heartland are still saying there are doubts over all the documents and wont say which bits are genuine. In court they will have to say under oath what is real and what is fake.



WUWT have gone big on this because Watts probably feels his reputation could be effected by his links to Heartland. It gives his opponents an easy jibe, which makes you wonder why he asked Heartland to help fund his new project, he knows how these things work, why give an easy shot?

@17 Sheffield_city



"The met office have been saying they need super computers to forecast better. I think they need to start using their common sense, before being given more powerful computers."



Would that be the common sense that forecast -20's and blizzards in November?

Would that be the common sense that forecast -20's and blizzards in November?



no the one that said snow would be a thing of the past with warmer summers milder winters etc, followed by 3 of the worst winters we have ever seen then 12 years where they had a warming bias in 11 of those years in their forecasts



you can fool some of the people some of the time but after a while.........

@25 openside50



3 of the worst winters ever seen? Hahahahaha oh dear...

john_cogger. We were always on the border line. 200 miles either way and it could have be a whole different story for winter. -18 in Buckinghamshire when it did actually move a few hundred miles. But at the end of the day it is ok to lose a few battles, as long as you win the war. I will be the one who laughs last. What makes you such a big expert in this field!

Sceptics 1 - 0 True Believers

Gleik. P og 90'

lots and lots of comments on richard blacks latest article being dissallowed - now I wonder why that is?



thank go9d for Paul Hudson is all I can say, sooner he gets promoted the better

@ 18. QuaesoVeritas wrote:



"there is a hint of a slowdown in the rate of decline in ch7 and ch8."



Plots of the daily changes in ch7 and ch8 over the last few days look remarkably similar almost linked together. ch5 and ch6 are showing a similar "linkage" but their changes appear to be a day or so behind 7 & 8. Next few days will be interesting to watch.



Feb 2012 is at same average as last year but with daily numbers lower and still falling. How long it will continue to fall we don't know, looking at 7 & 8 maybe a few more days. Still more than a week before the end of the month, time will tell.

@27 Sheffield_City



Sorry didn't realise you had to be an expert to post here...I bow to your knowledge and will listen to your forecasts in future.



Though there won't be many comments at all if we actually need any expertise in the subject!

Can we all agree that this drought is not down to global warming and that future water shortages will be mainly due to population pressures rather than decreased rainfall

I like many others own a site that has no natural rain water drainage, if it was made easier by the government to conect to their drainage this would ease drought problems considerably

"I like many others own a site that has no natural rain water drainage, if it was made easier by the government to conect to their drainage this would ease drought problems considerably"



goes down a different hole I think! :-)



besides our water shortage if it happens wont effect our ability to have enough to drink - not being able to wash my car or water the garden isnt imvho a water shortage

#32. - openside50 wrote:

"Can we all agree that this drought is not down to global warming and that future water shortages will be mainly due to population pressures rather than decreased rainfall"

I agree that the drought is not due to "global warming" but may be due to short-term random fluctuations in rainfall figures. I haven't seen anyone claim it's due to "climate change" yet, but I wouldn't be surprised. In any event, the advocates, including the BBC are much more subtle these days, with "climate change" implied, without actually saying so.

quake & john_cogger,



Thanks for your respective summaries.

I think I understand it a bit better now.

Has there been any mention of it in the conventional media?

#29. - openside50 wrote:

"lots and lots of comments on richard blacks latest article being dissallowed - now I wonder why that is?"

Which article is that, the one about Airlines & Tar Sands?

Openside. I think you will find out that the banking in the South East was bailed out by the rest of the country. You can't run an economy without manufacturing, what ever Thatcher thinks. I would be the first to starve the professional welfare claimants to get them back to work, but I would ban using immigrants for cheap labour and the minimum wage is an insult unless you still live at home with mum and dad. Pushing manufacturing into third world countries is irresponsible and China is an example of that. John_cogger. Having worked in the Carbon Trust arena, I found out what goes off behind the scenes. Al Gore is a typical example, it is a shame he doesn't practice what he preaches. How many houses and cars does he have, how often does he travel on a plane. Reminds me a bit of Prince Charles. Too many people are making out of an industry that uses stealth tax's and achieves very little and damages the economy. Before that I believed in man made global warming then came to my senses.

"Which article is that, the one about Airlines & Tar Sands?"



Yes its quite funny actually, speaking of sands Richard seems to have buried his head in it and has decided that ignoring the story will make it go away!



His readers seem to think otherwise - one can see why too as he is incredibly quick to jump on anything that paints the sceptic side of the argument in a bad light

#17. - Sheffield_city wrote:

"The met office have been saying they need super computers to forecast better. I think they need to start using their common sense, before being given more powerful computers."

Maybe we will get severe weather warnings and forecasts a full 5 days ahead, as they theoretically should be, instead of 2 days at the moment.

I have my doubts about whether faster computers will be able to make much difference to accuracy, but what we will probably get is more precise definitions of uncertainty, which will tell us nothing.

If they are provided with more powerful computers it should be on the basis of more rigorous and independent performance measurements, so that we will actually find out how accurate the forecasts are, instead of merely the MO stating that they are more accurate as is the case at the moment.

QV



https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/ukv-improving-accuracy



It's the UKV model at 1.5Km grid scale that is giving the improved accuracy at daily scales but cannot be translated into longer predictions due to the lack of umph in the bytes department.



Still can't find HOW the accuracy is measured or what the difference from the 25Km grid scale is though.

Yes, E.Yorks remains pretty dry.



It is wildlife that is more likely to suffer here. Sometimes quite simple actions by people can cause a lot of harm. On wetlands near Beverley, (a nesting site for lapwings) - due to the dryness, dog walkers can now stroll right across the site, with their darling pets running amok. This will probably cause breeding failure on this site normally inaccessable due to flooding. And these are not even aquatic species!

#41. - ukpahonta wrote:

"Still can't find HOW the accuracy is measured or what the difference from the 25Km grid scale is though."

Thanks for the link.

However, one "cherry picked" example by the M.O. of what they claim is accuracy, isn't good enough. It is impossible to tell from from the maps precisely how accurate the forecast was.

What I am talking about is precise, numeric data on how accurate the daily forecasts are for an individual locations, so that how the accuracy is changing can be evaluated over time.

As far as I know, this does not exist, since when I asked the MO, they could not provide it.

to Lateintheday #170 (previous blog) - talking of wildlife.



Regarding your "loose screw". Allow me to tighten it for you!



It is a curious paradox on this blog that many who refute AGW nevertheless claim to care deeply about "real" (as they call it) environmental problems. The general view seems to be that concern about climate change is likely to distract attention from the "real" troubles.



Whilst there may be some tendency to put CC at the top of the "baddies" list, the vast majority of environmentalists concerned with CC are also concerned about other issues and indeed view them as closely intertwined - being as they all relate to human population/pollution/consumption.



Contrast this with groups such as the American right. Deniers of CC; against environmental legislation; creationist/anti scientific; relentless pursuers of the American Dream. Here is one of the world's great powerhouses of AGW scepticism. Just listen to such as Sarah Palin or the current Republican pres. candidates.



Whilst one would not neccessarily expect sceptics on this blog to be uncritically entirely on the side of the "Angels" on this one, it might be reasonable to at least expect that the Angels might be given the first benefit of the doubt.



Instead it is the anti environmental "Devils" whose anti AGW stance is accepted as reasonable, whilst the sincerity of Angels is doubted.



Please explain the logic of your loose screw.

QuaesoVeritas :-) The trouble the met office will have a disclaimer for each forecast, which causes confusion, so it is difficult for you to say they were wrong in the first place. They will just become better at edging the bets, so that they really say nothing in the first place. It doesn't really take super computers to do that.

#45. - Sheffield_city wrote:

"QuaesoVeritas :-) The trouble the met office will have a disclaimer for each forecast, which causes confusion, so it is difficult for you to say they were wrong in the first place. They will just become better at edging the bets, so that they really say nothing in the first place. It doesn't really take super computers to do that."

I think that one of the things they were asked to do was to give more information on uncertainties, which as you say will probably only cause confusion.

18. QuaesoVeritas wrote:



".... an update on AQUA CH5 temperatures. Channels 5-8 have continued to decline since February 8th."



Just on that: I had a spare hour. I obtained weekly ENSO (NINO 3.4 region) figures from July 2007-present from the Aussie Met Office site and then converted AMSU ch 5 data into weekly format to cover the same period (it was a slow afternoon).



I found there was actually very good correlation even with the raw data. However if you offset the temps 8 weeks from the ENSO index (i.e. introduce an 8-week 'lag' between changes in ENSO and changes in temperature recorded by Ch 5), then the correlation increases greatly.



So I'm saying I believe there is (weak) evidence to support the view that there is an 8-week interval between changes in SST in NINO 3.4 region and temperatures in the global atmosphere at 14,000 ft.



To test my hypothesis, I venture the following (it's just for fun!!):



i) Ch 5 temperatures will continue to decline slightly until the end of February;

ii) after this they will pick up for 1 wk - 10 days;

iii) they will then enter a period of steep decline;

iv) following this, from late March/early April, they will rise rapidly.



Here endeth the prophecy. When UAH release the latest ch 5 figure within the next 1/2 hour, point i) might be immediately disproved. My hypothesis might all fall apart at the very first hurdle. Another hour wasted on climate issues.

47.newdwr54 wrote:



"Another hour wasted on climate issues."



No DW, never wasted and interesting I will watch with interest.



Must admit my view has always been to watch Global SSTs v CH5. It has been said that SSTs move in relation to ENSO and I am sure they do but what about magnitude? The present La Nina in NINO 3.4 index shows warmer than last year but Global SSTs are lower?



Are you using actual NINO 3.4 SSTs or the NINO 3.4 index?



PS pool of warm starting to show to the east of NINO 3:-



https://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif

47. newdwr54 wrote:



"i) Ch 5 temperatures will continue to decline slightly until the end of February;"



"When UAH release the latest ch 5 figure within the next 1/2 hour, point i) might be immediately disproved. My hypothesis might all fall apart at the very first hurdle."



Not gone yet DW, not going to debate the magnitude of the latest "decline" but it has recorded the lowest daily Feb number for a decade. But all 4 channels showing that the rate of decline is slowing, so "continue to decline slightly until the end of February" is still very much in play.

Paul you really need to take speech lessons and get rid of that annoying tendency to say er in just about every sentence. I think you probably picked it up from Peter Levy as he does my head in as well. For a public speaker and presenter it really is bad that you cannot speak fluently on your subject. I turn Peter Levy off whenever I am unfortunate enough to hear him and I'm beginning to get that way with you too. You're a nice bloke so please do something. Ta

49. greensand:



Yes, I'll fall short of claiming prescience in all things climate for a few weeks on this one.



I'd just like to reiterate that my (non-scientific) findings were based on weekly average figures from both ENSO and AMSU, not daily ones. So don't be too dismayed by daily fluctuations - up or down.



Keep the faith!?

51. newdwr54 wrote:



"weekly average figures from both ENSO and AMSU,"



Do you mean ENSO Index?



"Keep the faith!?"



I am only interested in facts and actual observation data, no need for faith.

52.greensand:



Re the ENSO index I used, it is here: https://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/nino_3.4.txt



It was a struggle to transfer this to a spreadsheet, even with 'text to columns'. The date formatting does not lend itself readily to Excel; far less corroborating it with daily data supplied by AMSU (which I had to convert to weekly). If you want the grim details - just ask (if I can remember how I did it myself I will oblige).



"I am only interested in facts and actual observation data, no need for faith."



Amen brother.

jkilller56. "It is a curious paradox on this blog that many who refute AGW nevertheless claim to care deeply about "real" (as they call it) environmental problems. The general view seems to be that concern about climate change is likely to distract attention from the "real" troubles."



I am one of those. I found it very ironic when working for a Carbon Management company, that there were 9 of us and there was only me that didn't smoke. I came to the conclusion that they had their priorities wrong being concerned about C02, when they were inhaling nicotine. Recently I found out the local herbalist only sells products to make money, not because he lives that life style, he fooled me for 10 years by employing other people to run the shop, I was given the impression those people owned the shop until the weekend. I won't be purchasing any more of his products.

#47 - newdwr54 wrote:

"i) Ch 5 temperatures will continue to decline slightly until the end of February;

ii) after this they will pick up for 1 wk - 10 days;

iii) they will then enter a period of steep decline;

iv) following this, from late March/early April, they will rise rapidly."

For what it's worth, from simply looking at the AQUA numbers, I would expect ch5 temp. to continue to fall until about the 23rd, then start to rise until the end of Feb., for about 15 days, then fall again. Can't say how much, but so far, the pattern for this year seems to be about 15 days of fall and 15 days of rise.

As greensand says, the February low record was broken with the latest figure, and possibly the annual lows set this January will also be broken. That is in February, when temperatures should be rising slightly, so the anomalies may be lower than in January.

53. newdwr54 wrote:



"Re the ENSO index I used, it is here:"



Thanks DW, will take a look.

To Sheffields City #54



Not sure what your point is here (especially with regard to the herbalist!). Surely you are not suggesting that smoking cigarettes by carbon management employees is a sign that the entire concept of global carbon control is a flawed endeavour?!



I know from past posts you have said that CO2 is mostly "natural" therefore not a "pollutant". So it is - most of it. But it is the man made extra that this whole debate is about!



Likewise, sulphur dioxide is "natural" - from volcanoes - but it is all the extra from power stations and industry we have to be concerned about - and have the power to do something about.



Methane is "natural", but extra large volumes released from melting tundra through AGW (as well as intensive stock rearing) have the potential to raise temps even further. Do you then blame carbon industry employees for farting?!



As I said - please explain the logic of the "loose screw"

to Millennia#4



Had a quick look at the "Gleik" issue ( on the so impartial and authoritative WUWT link you gave)



As you say, the BBC might have made much of sceptic pants being down. But they didn't. Equally they could have made much of the "exposure" itself ( as they did with "climategate" 1 and even 2). But they didn't.



Perhaps the BBC just see this whole thing as a continuing grubby squabble between irreconcilable protagonists, which sheds no light whatever on the science or validity of AGW theory?

jkiller. If people do things purely for money and don't walk their talk, I tend not to buy from them. If nature creates 95% of C02, it can't be a bad thing. I would be more concerned with noise pollution, as I had to create a special device to record the sound of a running river, to cut out all the non nature noises. I tend to get a screw driver out and tighten up loose screws.

jkiller@44 says

"It is a curious paradox on this blog that many who refute AGW nevertheless claim to care deeply about "real" (as they call it) environmental problems."



Not sure why you think this is paradoxical - the two are not mutually exclusive. Your set up is a non sequitur.



"Whilst one would not necessarily expect sceptics on this blog to be uncritically entirely on the side of the "Angels" on this one, it might be reasonable to at least expect that the Angels might be given the first benefit of the doubt."



Still struggling on with naive concepts of good and evil I see. Despite the inverted commas, the phrasing here reveals a particular human weakness. With the odd exception, we all find moral justifications for our thoughts and actions. Sorry to burst your balloon Jkiller but there are no 'angels' or 'devils'. Your 'angels' are just people with a stronger leaning towards a mythical social responsibility who in all probability, haven't thought through their actions to a logical conclusion or even considered the dichotomy of the rights of the individual and the needs of the state.



Don't be fooled by the wrapping paper. AGW and climate change skepticism is not owned by big oil anymore than the consensus view is owned by greenpeace or left wing idealism. Climate science will stand or fall (eventually) by its own merits and in the interim, we can choose our own position but cannot choose our bedfellows. For this reason, I find the term 'denier' insulting but hey ho, I've been called worse.



'Big Green' is extremely well funded by government and industry alike. As with all funding, it's directed to those who are either already on message, or could potentially be used to obliquely bolster an argument for the benefit of the funder.



The logic of my loose screw is based in a rather simplistic application of critical analysis. Who is motivated to say what and why. Those most susceptible to instinctively accepting AGW on the weakest of evidence are those with the most prejudicial environmentalist views. It fits their world view like hand in glove. Whether they can truly divorce their science from their highly developed anti industrial development instinct is another matter entirely. The Gleick/HI story shows that clearly, some professionals struggle with this more than others.

Yesterdays forecast was for four hours of rain in the afternoon. This morning they forecast closer to the event, a heavy shower this afternoon. It has been raining now for the last three hours. Were the met office right or wrong with the prediction?

To Lateintheday #60



I use the term "angels" and "devils" - not in any objective moral sense but in an environmental sense - of those who see protecting the environment as a good or necessary thing (angels) and those who do not (devils). Call them rooks and crows if you prefer! From your earlier remarks, I assumed you thought environmental protection (rainforest specifically mentioned) to be "good". Was I mistaken?



And I would also contend, incidentally, that concern for the environment is wedded to the perspective that the "common good" necessarily trumps individual rights to do what the hell you like. AGW is part of the environmental concern spectrum - hence the (sceptic) paradox of contending that some concerns are taken seriously but others are not or are somehow politically suspect.



Why ever do you think that "those with leanings towards social responsibility" have thought through their actions any less than those who think the reverse - rampant self interest? I can certainly see there is a conflict here - but not that one view is somehow more insightful of the future than the other.



Here is the nub of your argument of course - you perceive AGW science as a political threat or "anti industrial". Perhaps it is. But my point is - are AGW protection measures any more "anti industrial" (here I must emphasise meaning the OLD view of "industrial") than most other environmental protection measures? The American Right certainly thinks they are all from the same stable - so why don't you? And I think in their analysis they are broadly correct (as well as more honest about it than you!).



So, why worry about the rainforest - it has enormous potential for industrial exploitation? It could of course be regarded as a very valuable "carbon sink". But why bother if you are sure AGW is a load of rubbish? If you are not certain, why acquiesce (passively) to the industrial lobby by insisting that the carbon option must first prove itself beyond all doubt before protection could be justified on such grounds? Or are you wedded to some hazy dream that it has "intrinsic value" that must speak for itself?



This is what I mean by the sceptic paradox. If climate/environmental issues appear to point in a certain political direction (even one you dislike intensely)- so be it - wear the hat that fits. But this is no grounds for refusing to believe the science itself.

Surely the problem with linking up the nation with water pipes, is that it would all be clean treated water. Dry areas would require water at a time when wetter areas may well not be in excess. Would it not be better to move excess water around as and when it is in plentiful supply. While we watch excess water team over our reservoirs, others look at dry beds, it is this water that needs moving around, far less costly too.

jkiller@62 said . . .

"Here is the nub of your argument of course - you perceive AGW science as a political threat or "anti industrial".

Nope, that's not the nub at all - that's just your own prejudice showing. Environmental concern about oceans or rainforest is in no way conditional on belief in AGW. If AGW was somehow proven false, I doubt if you would suddenly abandon your concerns about deforestation. There is no paradox.



Neither did I say that "those with leanings towards social responsibility" had thought any less than others. My point was simply that they hadn't thought it through any more than others and relied solely on specious, socialist greenwash for their angelic status. The 'common good' is often used as an 'excuse all' clause and to be honest, it is a phrase that gets my hackles up - last refuge of a scoundrel etc. The common good should have no place in determining the validity of science and yet by dint of its pervasive influence over environmental groups, politicians and perhaps a few scientists, it inevitably does.



Neither have I argued that AGW is a load of rubbish or that protection of wildlife habitats is contingent upon some financial offset. If you continue to read between the lines, might I suggest that you occasionally read the actual lines - just for context.

55.QuaesoVeritas wrote:



"I would expect ch5 temp. to continue to fall until about the 23rd,"



Good call, looks like being spot on, the whole stack is now in line.



Latest show a reducing decline (if that makes sense) up the stack:-



Ch5 -0.045

Ch6 -0.036

Ch7 -0.019

Ch8 -0.002



Doesn't look as though there can be anymore days of Ch5 deline after 23rd (until the next change in direction). Also this change appears to be quite strong? Now we see how high we go?

#65. - greensand wrote:

"Doesn't look as though there can be anymore days of Ch5 deline after 23rd (until the next change in direction). Also this change appears to be quite strong? Now we see how high we go?"

I now think that the upturn may be a day or two earlier but as long as the daily aqua anomaly remains below the cumulative anomaly, the cumulative will continue to fall, resulting in a lower UAH figure. It will be interesting to see if March follows the same pattern.



I reckon that the daily aqua anomaly was -0.5 degrees on the 20th, and the cumulative figure could end up at -0.26 degrees, equivalent to a UAH of about -0.2c to -0.15c.

It's remarkable how similar the pattern in February has been to that in January, and how so far the fluctuations this year have been much greater than in previous years.

I have updated my UK rainfall figures for the SE of England and I can find no evidence of declining rainfall in at least the annual figures.

While rainfall for 2010 and 2011 was below the 1961-90 mean, the current 30 year and 10 year means are actually slightly higher than the 61-90 mean.

Furthermore, the long-term annual linear trend (over the entire series), is rising, the 30 year mean was at it's lowest around 1911 and the rolling 10 year mean was at it's lowest around 1901. The lowest rainfall recorded since 1873, was in 1921.

The conclusion from this is that the SE is going through a short-term period of lower than average rainfall, within a possibly slowly increasing trend. Any shortages must therefore be due to increased usage or poorer husbandry of water supplies.

Of course this is only based on annual rainfall and it is possible that there may be seasonal variations which also affect supply.

I do not think that the Climategate emails, V1 and V2, were stolen given that these were from scientists working on our pound, ie., they were working using our tax money. The Heartland Institute is privately funded which means FOI requests cannot be used. They can with publically funded organisations but the CRU was ignoring these which is technically a criminal offense.



I see from the UAH global temperature data that February was the coldest on the satellite record despite it being the 23rd. Solar magnetic output is low with no sign of recovering anytime soon. Low solar magnetic output correlates with low global surface temperatures rather like the LIA.

Interesting data to be released:-



"UK submarine data de-classified to aid climate science"



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17129988



"...the MoD will release measurements to researchers at the National Oceanography Centre (NOC) in Southampton."



I wonder how far back the data goes? No dates mentioned also the following statement is lost on me:-



"If you look at a trace of temperature, you can see it wobbling around. But within that there will be particular length scales at which it wobbles,"

#69. - greensand wrote:

"I wonder how far back the data goes? No dates mentioned also the following statement is lost on me:-



"If you look at a trace of temperature, you can see it wobbling around. But within that there will be particular length scales at which it wobbles,""



Yes, it doesn't mean a lot to me either.

I see that Paul Rincon has provided an e-mail address.

Very nice of him, but he may live to regret it.

It doesn't look as if the figures will be available to the general public, and I get the impression that it will be fairly recent data.

To lateintheday#64



No I would not abandon environmental concerns if AGW proved false. But the point I was making was that having environmental concerns should incline one to give AGW the BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT - rather than the reverse (your position?) - for obvious reasons that if it is even likely to be true - it presents one of the most potentially serious environmental threats of all.



As regards the common good, I simply reiterate that the philosophy behind environmental protection is that there are things about the world that should be preserved for the benefit of everyone (including generations unborn) rather than left to the mercy of individual/corporate whim for their own gain. This is not my own opinion - it simply IS what environmental protection is about! I am not sure why you resent this concept so much, particularly as you gain from it yourself.



Nor can I see that it has any influence on the science itself. However in our case, climate is unavoidably a shared resource and therefore it seems only reasonable that any problems should be a shared responsibility. In order to share responsibility, it seems inevitable to me that some degree of collective political structure will be needed. In national isolation it is obvious nothing can be achieved at all. In order to achieve the ideal of fairness - quite a lot of collective organisation and sacrifice may be required. This may well suit certain political philosophies more than others. So what?



Do I detect that because it doesn't suit your philosophy - this is the source of your resentment and "scepticism"? My word yes, I think I do!



So if you don't think AGW is a "load of rubbish" - what exactly do you think? And if you believe there is something in it - at risk of becoming boring here - as a concerned environmentalist yourself- why don't you give AGW the benefit of the doubt and force the sceptic case to prove itself "beyond all doubt"?



Don't take all this too personally by the way - it applies to many others besides yourself.

#71. - jkiller56 wrote:

"No I would not abandon environmental concerns if AGW proved false. But the point I was making was that having environmental concerns should incline one to give AGW the BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT - rather than the reverse (your position?) - for obvious reasons that if it is even likely to be true - it presents one of the most potentially serious environmental threats of all."

I know that this is addressed to lateintheday, but I am afraid that I disagree with this. I don't think one's attitude to the environment should have any bearing on one's belief in the theory of "climate change", or any other theory come to that. The theory should stand on it's own merits, not on whether or not it fits in with one's attitude to the environment. In any case, I don't think there is any evidence that "climate change" represents a greater potential threat to the environment than other forms of human activity.



"As regards the common good, I simply reiterate that the philosophy behind environmental protection is that there are things about the world that should be preserved for the benefit of everyone (including generations unborn) rather than left to the mercy of individual/corporate whim for their own gain."

You see, you have assumed that the only point of protecting the environment is to preserve it for the benefit of MANKIND. We should be protecting the environment because it benefits other species, even if it has no benefit to mankind. We are not the only species on the planet and the planet is not exclusively ours to do with as we wish. We do not "own" the planet any more than any other species does. Our culture and achievements are inconsequential in terms of other species and the Universe as a whole. In many ways, other species are superior to us, because they live within the limits set by the planet's resources. In many ways, the human species has a parasitic relationship with the rest of the planet.

Jkiller says . ."This is not my own opinion - it simply IS what environmental protection is about! I am not sure why you resent this concept so much, particularly as you gain from it yourself."



I resent the flagrant abuse of the the phrase 'common good', not its inherent principle. Hence last resort etc. I've no problem judging specific proposals by this standard but I baulk at the generic, ill considered wishy washy policies which seem to rely entirely on it.



Take windfarms for example. You may have picked up that I've fought against them locally so it's something I've researched and know a little about. When speaking out against them in public, I'm routinely chastised for being a nimbyist flat-earther, incredibly short sighted and heartless. A greedy consumption driven 'me first' man who cares nothing for the world our children will inherit and who puts his chocolate box landscape views above the 'common good'.



The supporters of windfarms feel able to use this language because they've heard it used by the great and the good. Politicians such as Ed Milliband and his ilk are of the view that those who oppose windfarms should be treated like pariahs, akin to drink drivers or worse. They fraudulently lay claim to the moral high ground through the pretext of 'common good'.



My personal view of windfarms was not forged in any ideological furnace. I simply read as much as possible from the widely available literature and listened carefully to the views of environmentalists and industrialists, engineers and economists. It perhaps helped that I had previously worked for ten years in Planning and Economic Development and so had some basic grounding in balancing the protection of the environment against the benefits of development.



I may not have come to the same conclusion as others on this, but I have spent a considerable amount of time and energy reaching my position. I generally find that those who attack my views most vehemently rely almost entirely on the argument of common good. They have not invested one iota of independent thought to the matter and have simply fallen for the spurious, guilt laden drivel put forth by developers as public consultation. I recognise it as drivel because that's what I specialise in now, although professionally its usually referred to as marketing and PR.

On the subject of drought - this is one of the few areas in which I think wind power might prove useful. With a bit of joined up thinking, I'd like to see a report that looks at the potential benefits of routing water supply pipes alongside major infrastructure initiatives such as the high speed rail proposal. Presumably, there would be both environmental and economic benefits through land use, minimising disturbance and a potential for construction costs sharing. Further, the variability of wind power would not compromise the performance of the piped water system since it would inevitably be balancing stored quantities between reservoirs rather than satisfying immediate demand. Just a thought.

Given the glee with which Paul reported the latest spring warming the latest data from RSS shows a negative temperature anomaly for the last 15 years. RSS and UAH, both use satellite data capture and, after a brief spat a few years ago, now agree with each other.

#75. - John Marshall wrote:

"Given the glee with which Paul reported the latest spring warming the latest data from RSS shows a negative temperature anomaly for the last 15 years. RSS and UAH, both use satellite data capture and, after a brief spat a few years ago, now agree with each other."

Not entirely, at the end of January, the 10 year trend for UAH was +0.02c/decade, while that for RSS was -0.086c/decade.

After adjustment to the same base period, RSS has been lower than UAH since September 2010.

This may be due to the fact that RSS only goes to 82.5 degrees north and -70 degrees south. I assume that UAH covers the entire globe, although I haven't got any hard evidence for that.

#74. - lateintheday wrote:

"On the subject of drought - this is one of the few areas in which I think wind power might prove useful."

Sorry, but I don't understand the point you are making.

Are you suggesting that surplus wind power should be used for pumping water, when it is not required for other consumption?

QV - I mean for pumping water only - I wouldn't bother with tie ups to the grid. This limited use might then allow the turbines to be smaller or fewer in number to mitigate visual and environmental harm. Droughts don't happen over short periods, so we could use the turbines yearly average power outputs as a realistic guide to designing the system. It could chug along slowly in the background and dripfeed reservoirs, balancing resources night and day almost irrespective of short term demand.



I said I'd like to see a report. That's simply because I've no idea if this is feasible.



Overall, I don't think wind power is the way forward or even a major part of the way forward. I certainly don't think we should be designing the grid around it or building power stations that are less efficient than they could be, simply to shore up its deficiencies. That said, I can't help thinking that there must be some use for the technology, which has the real benefit of not relying on imported fuel sources.

To QV#72

I agree with your first point - overall - attitude to the environment does not affect whether AGW science is correct or not. However, I would contend that it might (quite reasonably) influence the way you deal with the evidence you receive.



My point is that where there is a degree of uncertainty, then IF you care about the environment, it would be more reasonable to err on the side of caution and accept the probability thay AGW science is basically correct and wait for sound contrary evidence, rather than to do the reverse ie assume AGW is wrong until proven definitely right.



I am afraid I do not see why this is such a difficult idea to get across, because it does not fundamentally alter the facts or truth in any way. I am not suggesting that you make up your mind that AGW is right and reject everything to the contrary - just that you demand very high standards of proof of contrary information because the potential threat to the environment may be considerable.



Its a bit like the logic of wearing a seatbelt. You may never crash, but if you do, not having a belt could be catastrophic. So why not wear it in case, rather than assuming you will never crash and not wear it until you are convinced that a collision is inevitable (too late)? So if you like - the "seatbelt" is the assumption that AGW science is correct. I am not sure if I can make it any clearer! And OK, you can take it off when you get home! (if the final truth of the matter proves AGW to be a false alarm).



Whether or not AGW is or is not a really serious threat, again depends on the evidence - however, the same logic applies - I would contend.



As to your second argument about "mankind". This is a more subtle one!

I appreciate everything you say about the "right" of all life to be respected regardless of its obvious or otherwise value to mankind and I agree absolutely - ABSOLUTELY!



However it is Man who is doing the protecting - the relationship can never be an equal one. Fundamentally it is OUR values that are driving the moral choices. Yours (and mine) may value everything. But we have no prior moral claim over someone who values nothing. Those who believe in God might argue otherwise of course - but even God has his favourites it often seems (man?)!



Therefore, decisions to protect a particular species or place are entirely dependent on human attitudes. How often do bacteria or slime moulds get a look in for instance? Inevitably therefore, protection is done in the name of mankind.%

Continued from above



Also, I would contend, protection is done in the name of the "common good" of mankind. And depite the derogatory and dismissive views expressed about the common good in other posts above, I would suggest that the motives and achievements come pretty close to the absolute ideals you advocate. Why else designate the entire of the Antarctic continent to be as near as damn it, a pristine biosphere reserve, for example?



Anyway, I hope my remarks do not sound too pretentious or grandiose - they are not meant to be. By all means continue this discussion - I think it is a good and worthwhile one.

#79. - jkiller56 wrote:

"However, I would contend that it might (quite reasonably) influence the way you deal with the evidence you receive."

Sorry, but I disagree again. My don't think my attitude to the environment should make any difference to how I interpret the evidence for "climate change". Simply because I "care for the environment", that does not make me any more likely to accept dubious evidence.



"I am afraid I do not see why this is such a difficult idea to get across, because it does not fundamentally alter the facts or truth in any way. I am not suggesting that you make up your mind that AGW is right and reject everything to the contrary - just that you demand very high standards of proof of contrary information because the potential threat to the environment may be considerable."

Since it is not possible to prove a negative, i.e. that "climate change" is not happening, I require a very high standard of proof that it is happening.



I don't think your seat belt analogy applies since there is definite evidence that car crashes occur, while there is no definite evidence of climate change. The analogy would apply if car crashes were entirely theoretical, as if someone said that they were likely to happen, but had no evidence that they actually were.

"However it is Man who is doing the protecting"

No, it is Man who is doing the destroying. We only need to "protect" other species because we are their main threat.

Coninued:

"Also, I would contend, protection is done in the name of the "common good" of mankind. And depite the derogatory and dismissive views expressed about the common good in other posts above, I would suggest that the motives and achievements come pretty close to the absolute ideals you advocate. Why else designate the entire of the Antarctic continent to be as near as damn it, a pristine biosphere reserve, for example?"

For about as long as nobody finds a vast supply of oil there.

You talk of the "common good of mankind", but what about the other inhabitants of the planet, which have as much right to live as we do?

This attitude is so ingrained that even environmental bodies seem to be concerned only about but impacts which effect humans. A large part of the concern about possible "climate change" is for how it will effect the human lifestyle. There is nothing inherently bad about sea level rise or shrinking glaciers, other than it's impact on humans. You may argue that the concern about Polar Bears is evidence that we are concerned for other species, but I contend that is mainly because humans will be deprived of seeing them in the wild. If we were genuinely concerned about Polar Bears, would we allow the Inuit to hunt them and sell surplus hunting rights to rich Americans?

to Lateintheday#73



I have thought about what you wrote at 73 and I can see where there might be some missunderstanding. And no, I hadn't picked up on you windfarm activity- sorry.



What I am definitely NOT saying is that if you are an AGW sceptic you therefore do not/cannot possibly care for the environment. I just suggest (aproaching it the other way round) that if you do care, it is far more reasonable to give AGW the benefit of the doubt - because of the obvious potential threat to the environment. I hope you can see the difference.



You obviously do care, so I can see why you might be annoyed, if you thought I implied you didn't.



With regard to windfarms etc. I would suggest that this is a slightly different argument from the central AGW is it or isn't one. Derived and resulting from it yes - but not the same. Call it the "so what do we do about it?" argument, if you like.



It is abused by both sides. Pros. arguing as you have experienced, that almost any sacrifice must be made in the name of AGW and anyone who opposes is a selfish nimby etc. Sceptics abuse it by saying - all this is ridiculously expensive; they are all in it for the money; this whole AGW thing must be a hoax.



In reality, sacrifices must be balanced with the potential losses and gains.



Look at two big conservation charities as examples - the Royal Soc. for the Protection of Birds and the National Trust. Both accept the reality of the climate change threat. The RSPB does not oppose windfarms due to the AGW help and because they seem to be little problem for birds. However they do oppose the Severn tidal barrier. They see it as a sacrifice too far, causing birdlife more direct risk than the potential risk of AGW.



The N T do what they can to ameliorate AGW risk, but I don't think they would ever agree to covering historic houses in solar panels, or their historic landscapes or gardens in wind turbines.



So it remains a question of values rather than of science - which is why I suggest it is a different question. I can't comment on your campaigns, but I would hazzard a guess that you might gain more traction by acknowledging AGW and arguing about sacrifice, rather than being dismissed too easily as a denier who can therefore be ignored.

To QV above.



Can I reply to yours later please as I have to go out.

jkiller@79 said . . .

"it would be more reasonable to err on the side of caution and accept the probability that AGW science is basically correct and wait for sound contrary evidence"



There was a discussion between PB and Labmunkey a few threads ago regarding the technical employment of the null hypothesis. Whilst to those with scientific backgrounds, the 'null' has a very specific meaning, the rest of us use it improperly as a metaphor for 'assumed natural causes that nobody understands clearly'.

Using this latter, albeit improper definition, you're advocating the reverse of the null and subsequently, the application of the precautionary principle. But the precautionary principle does not come without implications which must be weighed against the potential threats should AGW science be largely correct. It is therefore prudent to assess the quality and exactness of the science thus far, before committing to international agreements with far reaching socio-economic consequences.



To my mind, it follows that the burden of proof should lie with the AGW theorists. Whilst the consensus climate scientists may be right, they have failed so far to put forward a case which is convincing despite the billions spent and decades of research. Moreover, it has become clear over the last few years, that the certainty of the science behind AGW has been heavily exaggerated (mostly by lobby groups, politicians and the media) in order to drive policy.



As for the wind farm advice @83 - I agree entirely. When the subject of AGW is raised at public meetings, I am always conscious of my responsibility to our group as a whole - that is to say, I keep my gob shut!



Maybe that's why I mouth off so much here.

lateintheday @ #85



I know I'm late to this debate........ and it's also late at night.



"Whilst the consensus climate scientists may be right, they have failed so far to put forward a case which is convincing despite the billions spent and decades of research."



This is not quite correct.



Climate scientists may not have put forwards a case which is convincing to YOU and many other bloggers who post here. However, they clearly HAVE convinced pretty well everyone working in the field, as well as all the major science academies. In other words, they have produced evidence which convinces nearly everyone who is familiar with the scientific method and truly understands the science.



What the "think tanks" and the blogosphere say to the contrary almost certainly has an impact on public opinion, but it has no bearing at all on the SCIENCE..... unless they start writing peer-reviewed papers which provide EVIDENCE that contradicts the scientific consensus. Thus far, they have singularly failed to do so.



Paul

86.Paul Briscoe wrote:



"and it's also late at night."



So very, very, true hence only one comment:-



"provide EVIDENCE that contradicts the scientific consensus"



The scientific method, thankfully, provides the comprehension that a "consensus" can never have any scientific standing.

greensand @ #87



"The scientific method, thankfully, provides the comprehension that a "consensus" can never have any scientific standing."



The scientific method is based on evidence and a consensus builds up behind a particular theory because of evidence in favour of that theory and lack of evidence for alternative hypotheses.



As pointed out on a previous thread, scientific consensus actually underpins pretty well every aspect of science. This is because very few of the theories we rely on will ever be truly proven (and all are subject to revision in the light of new evidence) and there will always be a few individuals who reject a theory which most scientists accept.



Paul

#84. - jkiller56 wrote:

"Can I reply to yours later please as I have to go out."

Don't feel obliged to reply.

#86. -Paul Briscoe wrote:

"However, they clearly HAVE convinced pretty well everyone working in the field, as well as all the major science academies. In other words, they have produced evidence which convinces nearly everyone who is familiar with the scientific method and truly understands the science."

By definition, those who have been convinced were those who would most easily be convinced. I have seen so called scientific research which "proves" that the short-term increase in heavy rain events in the U.K. is evidence of climate change, simply because there has been an increase in such events, which coincides with the climate model prediction that such events would increase. The fact that the data doesn't go far enough back to say for certain that such events were not as frequent in the past, seems to have been ignored. In fact, what evidence does exist, suggests that such events were as frequent in the past. I am sure there are more examples of this which I have not seen. This is confirmation bias pure and simple.

I know that the analogy isn't entirely valid, but this is similar to when lots of people, including the U.N., were convinced by the "evidence" that Iraq had W.M.D., when in practice there was no actual evidence. Everyone wanted to believe there was evidence, so it was found.

QV @ #90



I'm well aware of your views on this, QV!



"By definition, those who have been convinced were those who would most easily be convinced."



Not so! Scientists are by nature more sceptical than most!



"I have seen so called scientific research which "proves" that the short-term increase in heavy rain events in the U.K. is evidence of climate change, simply because there has been an increase in such events, which coincides with the climate model prediction that such events would increase."



What you have seen is media articles and blog posts which give the IMPRESSION that this represents "proof". However, I suspect that if you were to check the original research papers, which are what I always prefer to discuss, you would find all of the necessary caveats - indeed, the papers would be unlikely to get through peer review if the caveats weren't there. Scientists tend to use the words "may", "might" and "suggest" quite a lot in the literature....... and for good reasons!



The point is that you would expect an incease in the incidence of heavy rain events with a warming planet. Seeing this in practice represents circumstantial evidence, nothing more........ but all the individual bits of circumstantial evidence add to the "big picture" I keep talking about.



Paul

Going back to droughts, there are areas on the East Midlands/West Anglia that have had less than 65% of average rainfall in 2011. The comes off a 2010 that had the same areas at 75% of average. Add in population increases, etc and you can see why there is an issue.

#91. - Paul Briscoe wrote:

"Not so! Scientists are by nature more sceptical than most!"

I repeat, by definition, those who have been convinced *must* be those who were most easily convinced.



"What you have seen is media articles and blog posts which give the IMPRESSION that this represents "proof". However, I suspect that if you were to check the original research papers, which are what I always prefer to discuss, you would find all of the necessary caveats - indeed, the papers would be unlikely to get through peer review if the caveats weren't there. Scientists tend to use the words "may", "might" and "suggest" quite a lot in the literature....... and for good reasons!"

This was a research paper produced by a scientist at Durham University. I haven't read it for a while, so I don't recall the caveats. However, I will try to find a link and post it.



"The point is that you would expect an incease in the incidence of heavy rain events with a warming planet. Seeing this in practice represents circumstantial evidence, nothing more........ but all the individual bits of circumstantial evidence add to the "big picture" I keep talking about."

A million examples of circumstantial evidence mean no more than a single example.

QV @ #93



"I repeat, by definition, those who have been convinced *must* be those who were most easily convinced."



Given that it is only the experts who really understand the science and given that they are by nature sceptical people, one would actually expect them to require a considerable body of evidence before accepting something. It is actually far more likely that those who are not convinced are clinging to misconceptions.



"A million examples of circumstantial evidence mean no more than a single example."



Now that's just plain wrong, QV!!



If you have a series of expected "fingerprints" of a warming planet, then one piece of evidence confirming one of those fingerprints means very little. However, multiple independent pieces of evidence confirming multiple fingerprints adds up to something extremely meaningful.



Paul

I find it very difficult to understand why we are suffering from drought when we are surrounded by water. Yes it is salinated water but surely with some investment in desalination plants we should be in a position where we are not relying solely on rainfall.

#94. - Paul Briscoe wrote:

"Now that's just plain wrong, QV!!"

I should probably have qualified my statement by putting "incorrect" in front of "circumstantial evidence".

Each additional piece of incorrect circumstantial evidence does not make the previous pieces any more correct.

Again, in the case of W.M.D., they had lots of circumstantial evidence, none of which proved to be correct.

#95. - Dorothy wrote:

"I find it very difficult to understand why we are suffering from drought when we are surrounded by water. Yes it is salinated water but surely with some investment in desalination plants we should be in a position where we are not relying solely on rainfall."

Presumably it is not considered economicall viable to build desalination plants but apparently one has already been built but seems to be used to clean polluted water.

https://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/28/water-desalination-plant-beckton-london

I notice that it is stated that it would only be used during "prolonged dry periods".

The problem with the S.E. doesn't seem to be the lack of rain, of which there is as much as there ever was, but waste (26% leakage) and increased usage.

to QV #81/82

I see this debate has moved on somewhat!

Anyway, one quick point first - you say -"you can't prove a negative- ie that cc is not happening" - please elaborate. I would have thought you could prove someone is not walking down hill by showing that they are walking up hill. Likewise - that the climate of the Arctic is not stable/cooling, by showing that the frozen areas are melting/shrinking?



Regarding the main issue - whether it is reasonable to assume in favour of AGW first. Aren't we really dealing with a RISK v HAZZARD argument here? If you have anything to do with Health & Safety - you will know what I mean. ( risk being likelyhood of an accident - hazzard the potential seriousness of the event). So in the case of CC - even if the risk is v. small (highly debatable)- the hazzard is potentially v. high. Therefore, I would argue it is far more reasonable to err on cautious side.



I accept that my "seatbelt" metaphor was not perfect (and not theoretical). So I will give you another - involving a miniscule RISK, but a totally theoretical yet potentially serious HAZZARD, which was taken quite seriously at the time by scientists. You may remember the manned lunar landings? On their return they were put in quarantine briefly in order to check for "moon bugs". Was this not the most rational thing to do? Or would you think it more sensible to wait and see if there were definite proof of "moonbugs" before bothering?



The question of high standards of proof is already being discussed above. I would just add, that particularly for the non specialist - it boils down in the end to a question of "authority". What sources are authoritative/most reliable/ carry the most weight? What is the authority of others who agree with them? Even the scientific peer review system is not perfect, of course. But those who insist on perfection will wait forever.

To QV continued argument re: mankind#82



Your point about Antarctica being pristine "until they find oil" is a possibility. However you miss out the most likely route by which man's fingers may violate the continent- AGW!



"No, man is the destroyer not the protector". OK, yes protector and destroyer - but my point is that it is MAN'S decision/value system which decides. And one man's value system is not the same as anothers. I would not actually argue that we care for polar bears for their own sake - but in fact we do it for the benefit of mankind. The Inuit value system sees polar bears as a game item. Why do your values hold precidence over theirs? Why might the rights of polar bears hold precidence, for that matter? Even if you said - "because they are rare, bear right should supercede those of the Inuit". Who is making that judgement? MAN of course - and which men in particular?.



Life has "Intrinsic value" perhaps - but it is still MAN who judges that to be so. And does all life have the same rights - so who decides? If it does, presumably plants are equal to animals - if not, why not? Does the fact that most things are incapable of moral thought affect whether they have rights at all? What about eating things to live? These are all questions which might arise from your assertions - but one thing is for sure only MAN will judge because only man can!



I would suggest that environmental groups often seem concerned with the human impact of AGW partly because if humans are forced into migration or smaller land areas it will have a massive impact on the natural world. Equally, many more people will react if they believe human life will be affected, than if they are only told it matters to obscure species on the other side of the planet.



I think it would be ridiculous (sorry but it really is!) to argue that serious changes like glacier melt, and other CC events would only really be a problem for humans. Of all species humans, are the ones most likely to survive serious CC - along with perhaps rats, cockroaches etc! The pressure of human desperation on the natural world would be the last straw for many other species, even if the ecological upheaval failed to do it.

QV (finally!)



To summarise the two sections of this discussion.



Given your almost misanthropic - or "Deep Green" - as they say in the trade, view of the environment, it seems extraordinary that you eschew what is perhaps the most powerful weapon you could have in your environmental defense armoury - AGW! Truely you are a paragon of the "sceptic paradox" that I began this discussion with many posts back.