Contemplating climate change on a frosty June morning



They’re contemplating it on the Gold Coast too, in a remarkably under-publicised conference.

TONY EASTLEY: The first international conference on adapting to climate change opens on the Gold Coast today (29 June). Scientists are warning that even if the world stops all greenhouse gas pollution today a certain amount of warming is inevitable. Jennifer Macey reports.
JENNIFER MACEY: Scientists warn that if the world does nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions world temperatures will rise on average by about four degrees Celsius. The pledges made at the Copenhagen climate conference put the world on track to about three degrees of warming. So experts say it’s time start seriously considering how to live with these rises in temperatures.
ANDREW ASH: We’ve put a lot of emphasis in the last few years on how we reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but the impacts of climate change are upon us and they’re unavoidable in the coming decades. So, we need to start looking at how we can adapt to those changes.
JENNIFER MACEY: Dr Andrew Ash heads the CSIRO Climate Adaptation Flagship. The CSIRO and the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility are co-hosting an international conference on the Gold Coast to consider how best to respond to these changes…


Given the tenor of the comments I am adding some recent reading.

Scientific Guide for Skeptics.

35 thoughts on “Contemplating climate change on a frosty June morning

  1. “Sydney recorded its coldest June morning today since 1949, with temperatures diving to 4.3 degrees just before 6:00am (AEST).” — ABC News

  2. It is good to see a group of people coming together to consider how best to take action on such possible problems as bush and forest fires, tsunamis, cyclones and earthquakes. It is likely that all of these tings will strike some where at some time in the future and we ought to be prepared for them. To waste time discussing the unlikely possibility such as the rising of sea level by 1.11 metres in 100 years is a total waste of effort and will lead to unnecessary changes which will be inonvenient, costly and more than likelytotally useless. To pretend that the earth may warm, that sea levels may rise, that … like a stupid game. To then expect governments to formulate policy on such nonsense is criminally irresponsible. The CSIRO found it had to abandon its silly protests that the earth was warming and we should reduce CO2 output as their models were not capapble of tracking the weather let alone 50 years of climate. So, what next? You simply raise the possibility that certain scenarios might occur, repeat them untill someone starts to think perhaps something should bw done, and then push for processes that should be carried out incase these things come to pass. Every one knows they won’t happen, but making preparations is far enough removed from the reality that global warming is dead for it to be allowed to happen as it were behind a smoke screen.
    The 1,000 delegates are a muster of bodies to provide publicity and nothing else.
    John Nicol.

  3. This just in: Climate scientists make new claim that Sydney might record its coldest June morning today since 1949, with temperatures diving to 4.3 degrees just before 6:00am if global warming legislation isn’t passed soon.

    Heh :). Don’t worry. The true believers will come to your aid and blame AGW no matter WHAT happens to you. But when they tell you to start selling flowers at the airport, I hope you’ll finally realize what you bought into*.

    * – as an English teacher, I hope you understand that prepositions sometimes need to be dangled.

  4. Yeah, the weather sure is frigid, but at least the climate’s hot! Turn off the heat. The climate change will keep you warm.

    Heh. I’m just messing with you. Leading indicators suggest that climate alarmism is on the way out (except for backwards NZ of course), so I’m no longer worried that climate legislation will harm the economies of the free world. Too many people realize it’s bunk. Nonsensical laws regarding carbon simply won’t pass.

    When you join in on the NEXT enviro-scam claiming that man is destroying the planet by doing {insert wild claim here}, I’ll argue with you again. But until then, I’m just going to poke fun at your AGW claims. They’re so 1998 :).

    Until then, let’s all be happy that climate and weather are not related, according to the genius left at least.

  5. Not according to the genius left, but according to the dictionary.

    CLIMATE: A summary of mean weather conditions over a time period, usually based on thirty years of records. Climates are largely determined by location with respect to land- and sea-masses, to large-scale patterns in the general circulation of the atmosphere, latitude, altitude, and to local geographical features.

  6. Hmm, my dictionary says ‘climate’ is “The meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region.” What kind of hippie dictionary are you using that says ‘climate’ is based upon 30 years of records? Is it Michael Mann’s dictionary or something?

    C’mon. Before climate alarmism became a thing for the left, had you EVER heard of a thirty year period? You’re old enough to know that the answer is ‘no’, and that you continue to be had.

  7. It’s from the Dictionary of Geography (2004) from Oxford University Press. See also the Oxford Dictionary:

    climate | klLmt | n. & v. LME. [(O)Fr. climat or late L clima, -mat- f. Gk klima, -mat- slope of ground, zone, region, f. klinein to lean, slope.] A n. 1 A belt of the earth’s surface contained between two parallels of latitude. LME-L18. b Any region of the earth. L15-L18. 2 A region considered with reference to its atmospheric conditions or its weather. E17. 3 The prevailing atmospheric phenomena and conditions of temperature, humidity, wind, etc., (of a country or region). E17. b fig. The mental, moral, etc., environment prevailing in a body of people in respect of opinion, some aspect of life, etc. M17.

    Excerpted from The Oxford Interactive Encyclopedia
    Developed by The Learning Company, Inc. Copyright (c) 1997 TLC Properties Inc. All rights reserved.

  8. How many times does Michael Mann have to be vindicated?

    You may recall that last fall when ClimateGate exploded, Pennsylvania State University launched an investigation of Michael Mann’s work. In February, a faculty review panel cleared him on three points of inquiry. Since then Ken Cuccinelli, attorney general of Virginia, filed a subpoena asking for documents relating to Mann’s work on projects while a faculty member at the University of Virginia. AAAS called Cuccinelli’s action “apparently political”, and the University of Virginia took the unusual step of hiring its own counsel to oppose the subpoena. Even a harsh critic of Mann slammed Cuccinelli.

    Why do I mention all of this? Because yesterday Penn State announced the final results of its inquiry.

    Penn State Professor Mann has been cleared of any wrongdoing, according to a report of the investigation that was released today (July 1). Mann was under investigation for allegations of research impropriety that surfaced last year after thousands of stolen e-mails were published online. The e-mails were obtained from computer servers at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England, one of the main repositories of information about climate change.

    Many news outlets have picked up the story…

  9. This elementary distinction bedevils much discussion of climate. See also Webster online: “2: Average of day-to-day weather conditions at a given place on earth over a fairly long period, usually 30 years or more. Also includes extremes in weather behavior during the same period…”

  10. A serious dialogue is impossible if you believe Michael Mann is vindicated. Perhaps you should compare his predictions to reality and notice the dramatic differences. As I said before, there is no longer any reason to debate this. The world is awake now, and we don’t accept AGW alarmism. AGW belief will die a slow death, but at least it will die.

    Thanks for clueing me in that the Dictionary of Geography is bogus. I had never heard of them before you quoted that incorrect definition of ‘climate’, but I’ll keep a look out for their misinformation in the future.

  11. The Dictionary of Geography is published in print by Oxford University Press.

    Didn’t you do Geography at school? The definitions of climate above are both authentic and standard. If you don’t know the difference between climate and weather then dialogue is indeed rather like Alice in Wonderland.

    Persist in the Michael Mann bashing if you like. It is looking increasingly irrational.

  12. I did do geography at school, though we didn’t use a dictionary. Frankly, that seems like a strange way to study geography, but to each his own.

    Still the point remains – when the entire northern hemisphere (on land at least) had a mild summer followed by a frigid winter, the AGW sycophants claimed it was ‘weather’. But if it rains too much or not enough, or we get an exceptionally hot week, suddenly it’s not weather. It’s because of climate change!

    Thanks for allowing me to continue bashing noted climate change trickster Michael Mann. I shall continue to do so with great fervor, since some of his fallacious predictions helped cause this massive waste of money that we call global warming research to begin with.

  13. No need for video proof, Neil. You’re preaching to the choir here. I totally agree with you that Michael Mann is a creepy dude. Just an image with him wearing that goofy ‘stache is enough to convince me that there’s something off about that guy. No need for a video.

    But if you’re trying to persuade me that Mann is not mistaken by showing me examples of people who believe his tripe, you’re fighting a lost cause. AGW is a political issue now, so of COURSE you’re going to be able to find a few thousand videos supporting his misguided beliefs, even though they’ve pretty much all been proven to be incorrect. That’s the nature of a political beast. You could easily find a few thousand videos refuting his bogus claims as well, if you were so inclined.

    What’s the point? He scammed America out of a few million dollars, and he’s going to get away with it. Why dwell on the past? Let’s just all do our best to make sure he doesn’t scam any MORE money from the working class to create his ridiculous armageddon scenarios that might be used as justification for MORE theft of the working class’s money.

  14. The other videos are a physicist whose views on climate change are more nuanced or moderate, some might say, but is nonetheless convinced of the reality of climate change — as distinct from the month-by-month or day-by-day vagaries of the weather.

    On the role of the media in the Mann/Climategate affair.

  15. You were an English teacher. Typos and grammatical errors are NOT acceptable from you, Neil.

    And Michael Mann, although he was a bit player in climategate, is most notorious for his fake hockey stick chart showing the imminent demise of the planet from CO2 related destruction. The fact that he came up with a trick to massage the tree ring data to make it look like it was a reasonable estimate of global temps is small potatoes in comparison.

    • I’ve corrected the typo.

      To adapt Jane Austen, it is not a truth universally acknowledged that the hockey stick is wrong.

      In the endless – and senseless – assault on Michael Mann and his famous hockey stick graph, it is generally overlooked that the graph has withstood all of the criticism and, still today, stands as a perfectly accurate picture of climate over the past millennia.

      Most convincingly, its results have been replicated by other methods, using other proxies on more than a dozen occasions.

      As well, however, Mann’s conclusions were vindicated in two independent reviews, the second of which, by Edward Wegman, was particularly hostile in it conception, but ultimately exculpatory. Arie Brand covered this so well in a comment to the next post that I felt compelled to reproduce his note here, for the convenience of those who are too offended by the trolls to pick through all of the excellent comments buried among the mindless criticisms.

      See also New Scientist “Climate myths: The ‘hockey stick’ graph has been proven wrong”.

  16. And happy US Independence day! If you guys ever decide to sack your queen, please do it on July 4, so we can celebrate independence together. It would be a great way to bond our nations together.

  17. So swapping our monarchy for US dependence is independence? Hmmm…

    Happy 4 July to you anyway.

  18. “I’ve corrected the typo.”

    Which is why I love you like a brother, Neil. A hippie, ultra-progressive brother who grumbles a lot and likes to tax others. But still, a brother. Don’t let anyone tell you that you’re not awesome, ’cause you are, bro.

    I’m slightly shocked that you believe that Mann’s hockey stick graph has been vindicated by history. Even in Australia, you must receive enough data to know that it hasn’t been vindicated at all. Quite the opposite, in fact. Forget what others write about it, Neil. Look at the chart and today’s data yourself, Neil. There’s no relation between his predictions and reality. None.

    I like your Jane Austen adaptation though. That stuff is quite fun, and I wholeheartedly hope you do more of it in your regular posts. Even more fun – let us know that you did it and let us guess which book you pulled from. Just a thought.

    Also, AGW is lame. Have a great US Independence Day!

  19. Forget everything I’ve said previously. It just turned wickedly hot down here in southern Louisiana. Who would have thought that it would be hot in Louisiana in July? No one, that’s who. I know you call cold snaps ‘weather’, but this is a ‘hot snap’. Surely that counts as an example of CLIMATE CHANGE in your non-scientific world, right?

    Heh. I’m kind of making fun of AGW believer’s seeming inability to use logic, but on the other hand, it IS really hot. Can you guys do a dance around a campfire or beat on a drum to lower the temps here? Hug a tree, commune with nature, smoke some weed for gaia, something like that? Any help would be appreciated.

    Thanks in advance for any hippie crap you decide to do.

  20. A hot snap is a change in the weather. By itself it means nothing.

    A change in climate depends on means changing significantly over a 30 to 50 year period.

  21. Glad to see one climate change site I do like making a similar point.

    The oppressive heat wave gripping the eastern United States, by itself, shouldn’t have any influence on what policymakers think about global warming.

    But after the ridiculous spectacle of climate science deniers claiming that last winter’s blizzard disproves global warming, I hope that the record heat we are experiencing now will help focus their minds on the underlying science. A string of recent authoritative reports unequivocally reaffirming the science and rejecting the malicious allegations against climate scientists provides plenty of material to focus on…

  22. “A hot snap is a change in the weather. By itself it means nothing.”

    Michael Mann disagrees! The hot snap in eastern US is an example of global warming, he says in this video. You can’t make this stuff up. Cold = weather, hot = climate change, in the True Believer’s world.

    Probably the funniest part of that video is that it calls Michael Mann ‘exonerated’. I think he meant ‘alarmist’ but can’t spell very well.

  23. By itself means nothing, but as part of a continuing trend does tend to confirm that the trend is in fact ongoing.

  24. I’m having trouble parsing your statement. Are you agreeing with me that Michael Mann is a bit of a scuzzball for claiming that current hot Eastern US weather is proof of climate change? After claiming that our frigid Eastern US weather a few months ago was just ‘weather’?

    If so, I completely agree and support your newfound opinion of a very disreputable man. Michael Mann is a scuzzball.

  25. All I am saying is that if climate data over the past 30-50 years has a particular trend, which it undeniably has, then it would not be surprising to see that trend apparently continuing in the latest weather data. On the other hand it is also quite possible for a particular set of weather data over, say, a month to appear to go against the trend. Weather goes up and down. The trend line, however, can still be apparent, and that is the climate situation.

    You could have the coolest winter ever one year, and then, as it seems you may be having, a very hot summer. Where would that leave the overall trend, Kevin?

    Yes, I still say a weather event BY ITSELF proves nothing — either for or against climate change. I really can’t understand why, aside from applying your fixed belief that climate change is not a problem, you can’t understand a point that to me is bleeding obvious.

    Take another trend. Apparently in recent times Chinese people, thanks to improved nutrition and health services, are getting taller. That is a trend. If you find a whole town full of short people, does that nullify the trend?

  26. I have to say, your logic is sound*. At least in that last comment. We are in agreement! Hot or cold temps are not caused by AGW. It’s just plain old climate. Noted disgraced climatologist Michael Mann does not agree with us, Neil, as proven by the video above. He thinks a warm two weeks (the overall summer has been somewhat cooler than average, but the last two weeks have been deadly hot) are just another example of AGW. Why you give that man any credence is beyond me.

    *Ok. I didn’t HAVE to say it. I wanted to. I could have just thought it. Can we agree that Mann is a horrible person so that I can move on to showing you why the other dozen or so AGW believers that are scientists are also disgraceful? Hint – $$$

  27. Hint on the business as usual contrarians, Kevin: $$$$

    You have perversely misinterpreted what I said as you still don’t grasp the difference between climate and weather.

    Merriam-Webster 2010:

    Main Entry: cli·mate
    Pronunciation: \ˈklī-mət\
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Middle English climat, from Middle French, from Late Latin climat-, clima, from Greek klimat-, klima inclination, latitude, climate, from klinein to lean — more at lean
    Date: 14th century
    1 : a region of the earth having specified climatic conditions
    2 a : the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation b : the prevailing set of conditions (as of temperature and humidity) indoors
    3 : the prevailing influence or environmental conditions characterizing a group or period : atmosphere

    Brittanica online:

    Weather differs from climate in that the latter includes the synthesis of weather conditions that have prevailed over a given area during a long time period—generally 30 years.

    Mann (who HAS been thoroughly vindicated) may be remiss in what he said, strictly speaking, but as I said if a series of weather events are unsurprising given the marked trend line in climate data it is fair to remark it, even if the event taken by itslelf proves nothing. We are having a cool few weeks here in Sydney at the moment, but the fact is that the overall climate trend is still towards warming.

    See also a great post, with humour, from the University of Western Australia: Hotties vs Frosties?.

    … What are hotties like? Hotties are latte sipping, bicycle riding, quasi-intellectual, communist, greeny idealogues who hate the modern world and want to drive us back to the dark ages. Most Hotties have been hidden away in their ivory towers for so long suckling off the taxpayers teat that they know almost nothing about the real world, the world they are trying to destroy. They want to impose more and more rules limiting what you can do. Hotties have been brainwashed by an elite who are using the threat of climate change for their own ends. The elite consists of politicians are intent on creating a world government, and tame but dishonest scientists who are rewarded financially for fudging data and saying what the politicians want to hear. Hotties try and drown out all dissenting opinions. Philip Adams is their hero. Hotties should wash more often.

    How about the frosties? Frosties are chainsaw wielding, grumpy, overweight, middle-aged men who drive older model 4WDs. They have Galileo complexes and opinions on everything, are outraged by most things, rail against the youth of today, and are suckers for conspiracy theories. They cherry pick data, and use tired and discredited arguments as though they are brand new. They would argue that black was white, if they thought that admitting black was black would weaken their position. They intimidate and harass real climate scientists, while their own Plimer, Monckton, Nova, Archibald, etc are in the pay of industry and have less credibility than John Worsfold talking about the Eagles next premiership. They don’t have heroes. Rugged individuals who are single-handedly supporting the whole of western civilisation have no need for heroes. Some do have a bit of a crush on Jo Nova though.

    So I’ve spent some time on both hotty and frosty blogs, and this is not what I see…

  28. I grasp the difference between climate and weather. I’m just sick of warmerists saying cold temps are weather and hot temps are climate, as Michael Mann did in that video.

    I too think stereotyping is funny. Your quote is hilarious, even though untrue. Except that I do need to lose 10 pounds :(. This line certainly belongs in the ‘hotties’ camp, considering the cherry picked tree ring data and the discredited hockey stick: “They cherry pick data, and use tired and discredited arguments as though they are brand new.”

    Also, I don’t know who Philip Adams is. Is he your hero? I thought your hero was discredited warmerist Michael Mann.

  29. Yes, there are obvious Aussie references in that post. Adams is a columnist in “The Australian” and a broadcaster on ABC Radio National. He recently resigned from the Labor Party. You read the column, according to one of your comments on another post.

    His work “clearly places Dr. Mann among the most respected scientists in his field…. Dr. Mann’s work, from the beginning of his career, has been recognized as outstanding.“

    Few if any American climate scientists have been as falsely accused — and thoroughly vindicated — over both their academic practices and scientific results as Dr. Michael Mann.


  30. Oh, is he the guy who said Rudd was murdered, meaning only that he was ousted? That WAS very funny.

    It’s also funny how much credence is given to worshipers of global warming exonerating other worshipers of global warming, as we’ve seen in the last week. Heck, I’d bet that kkk members would exonerate other kkk members too. But I wouldn’t call them exonerated either. What’s next, Chicago politicians exonerating Chicago politics?

    He should have said, “Dr. Mann’s work, from the beginning of his career, has been recognized as outstanding by the True Believers, but ridiculed by true scientists.

    This whole AGW thing has become ridiculous, Neil. I’m no longer worried about proponents of the scam crushing western industry, and thereby destroying the west. It’s still possible, but I can’t see it happening anymore. So believe what you want. There’s only a small chance that it will affect regular people. For that, I’m quite happy.

Comments are closed.