"There is no environmental reason for people to go hungry now or in the future. There is no need to use any more land to sustain humanity...
The only limit to creating a planet that future generations will be proud of are our imaginations and our social systems."
Erle C. Ellis writing in the New York Times
'Extent northern hemisphere snow cover decreasing over whole 20th century'
Okay, I'm being good and taking it to the open thread. I still think the most blatant beatup is that creaky old SLR that's been going on for over two centuries, but re the above. Now I really don't care if there is such a thing as a global temp and if it's up, but let's point out that summer snow extent in the northern hemisphere has indeed been trending down, but the rest is a different story:
http://www.climatedata.info/Impacts/Impacts/snow_files/BIGnh-snowcover.gif.gif
And this is what a global downward spiral in snow and ice cover actually looks like, even after a "careful" reworking by Rutgers:
http://www.climatedata.info/Impacts/Impacts/snow_files/BIGglobal_snow_and_ice.gif.gif
As to why this is all so, I'm sure the alarmists have a nice mechanistic, simplistic explanation right out of RC or SkS or the Tammy who isn't Sandra Dee or Debbie Reynolds. They always do have a nice mechanistic , simplistic etc...
Thought I'd better include this here in case I get zipped at the other post.
Luke I’ll stick with the sane scientists like Curry, Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Singer, Carter etc plus the thousands that signed the Oregon petition.
But I also believe in common sense and simple maths and simple logic and reasoning. You don’t but that’s your problem not mine.
You can quote all the others until you drop but you’ll never wake up until you admit you’re wrong about the AGW mitigation fraud.
I couldn’t care less whether your side yaps forever about AGW, but don’t expect me to believe in the trillions dollar fraud and con of mitigation.
Of course Labor thinks we should DO SOMETHING and yet on the other side of their brain they promote and encourage fossil fuel exports at ever increasing tonnages every year.
This con and fraud couldn’t be easier to understand and yet you still don’t get it. Labor under Gillard even tried to get the Vic Coalition govt to export modified brown coal by the millions of tonnes, but you still don’t get it. As big as the Pilbara they said—– bi-polar anyone?
The German govt woke up after wasting over a hundred billion on renewables for decades, but they’re now using brown coal again.
It doesn’t seem to to have hurt Merkel too much because they have just received their best vote in about 50 years and the Greens slumped.
I hope the Bolter gives this stupid SPM 5th report some attention on his show tomorrow. Meanwhile Lindzen and many other scientists are already ripping into this ridiculous report.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/28/mit-climate-scientist-dr-richard-lindzen-rips-un-ipcc-report-the-latest-ipcc-report-has-truly-sunk-to-level-of-hilarious-incoherence-it-is-quite-amazing-to-see-the-contortions-the-ipcc-has/
Just filing this here...
Dear Jen,
Yesterday's IPCC rooster
Today's feather duster IMO
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/27/reactions-to-ipcc-ar5-summary-for-policy-makers/
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/9/28/lindzen-on-ar5.html
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/9/27/keenan-writes-to-slingo.html
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/9/27/ar5-press-cuttings.html
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/9/27/intergovernmental-ar5-patch-up-josh-240.html
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2013/09/hearing-what-you-want-to-hear-from-the-climate-report.html
Hope you invested in the popcorn market!
Cheers
[Name withheld]
I do wish the IPCC would stop making long term predictions, even if they try to
give themselves some leeway by calling them projections. Humans jest aren't
good at prediction. Yogi Berra and Nassim Taleb nailed it when they said say
we aren't good at prediction. The history of doomsday climate oracles, Malthus,
Club of Rome, Erlich, Hansen, Flannery and Co demonstrate we aint good at it.
In 'The Australian' Newspaper 21/09/13 an article by Judith Curry. on page1,
includes a graph showing IPCC surface temperature projections from the first
four Assessment Reports, compared to the observed global annual temperature
record. They don't even come close. I do wish the IPCC would - stop - making -
long - term - predictions. ( Or any predictions.)
Has anyone kept up with the matter of the recent leak of the IPCC SPM? In particular, the question of the warming rate being half the figure in AR4. I understood the original discussion by David Rose noted that in the leaked summary it showed a recent rate of .12C per decade whereas in AR4 it was .2C per decade. This was then jumped on because in AR4 it was actually .13C per decade.
Is that true? I had a dig around in AR4 and while I did find a mention of the .13C figure, that seemed to be over a longer period. But it clearly stated that the warming from 1991 to 2005 was earlier projected to be between .15 and .3 and that compared now to an observed (in 2005) rate of .2C per decade.
So to me the original claim of Rose stands. The IPCC projected a rate of warming from 1991 to be around .2C and that's what it turned out to be come 2005. But looking at it now the number is .12C. I'll assume that's the effect of the 1998 El Nino which has now been offset by the 'hiatus' to date.
Thus, the current rate of warming according to observations is in fact half that projected by the IPCC.
So why the gleeful claim that Rose got it wrong? I haven't read enough blogs and comments to be up to date on this one, but it was mentioned on ABC yesterday... And again tonight in the 7.30 report.
I'm going to be blogging more at M&TM, my latest plot of interesting historical snow depth data... http://www.mythandthemurray.org/shrinking-snowcap-in-aussie-alps/
Dunno Jen 🙂
I think I would have about the same amount of luck by flipping a coin!
Great little piece BTW.