# "It's cold, so there's no global warming." Do they KNOW that's false? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 13, 2011, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421 "2011-01-13T03:27:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2011, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/301 "2011-01-23T02:26:58Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Well, there are all those endorsement deals, movie and book contracts, royalties (‘scientists’ get a cut every time ‘Global Warming’, or own of the other trade marked names are used in print), that sort of thing. Not to mention those vast grants they get that are unavailable to the poor schmucks working for corporations on research to prove GW and AGW is all a hoax or a opium dream. > > Plus, let’s not forget the Global Warming groupies… > > -XT Yeah, groupies, they put out easily because the world is ending and they all live in coastal areas. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2011, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/302 "2011-01-23T02:50:44Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Of course, care to reply to the Pat Michaels question? Is he wrong? And Why? He is right in that there is no cooling in the last 10 years or so. If you start with the EL Niño year you might get there. Why? Data. > [@](#): > > Do you even have a clue who to quote to get support about your say so’s? Who will I quote for completely-out-my-ass figures? My ass? > [@](#): > > What part of “The answer is that _not only I would accept it_” did you do not understand? None. > [@](#): > > What part of “start at minute 16 for the important part (saying that you could ignore the rest before)” do you do not understand? None. > [@](#): > > What it is clearly to all is that you just assume your opponent is using the same rotten tactics that you are using. NO, I don’t. > [@](#): > > While you pretend the images with no context are the end of it all, the reality is that if they are finally offered we may find the original scientific source or the stupid reasoning of the deniers that made the article. In any case, the evidence was already presented that scientists do not go adjusting data just for shits and giggles. No, I don’t pretend that. I never even remotely said such a thing. I never said they did it for shit and giggles, I said the opposite. Poor you. > [@](#): > > The images you posted omitted the warming that appeared during the 70’s, you just had a beef when I pointed that out, and clearly the denier source that cropped the images had the intention to mislead others. I they did, which I’m alsmost sure I didn’t, it was my mistake. You can have an extra cookie tonight. > [@](#): > > Time to show the Gallina how ignorant is he once again: > > This was replied before and with sources, you seem to have good memory about what a denier says with cropped graphs, but not a good one for what the scientists said before. > [What does past climate change tell us about global warming?](http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm) > > What was the reason for the changes in temperature before the evidence mounted that humans began to change it in the 70’s? > The old reason many deniers still insist is driving the current warming, solar activity. > [Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions](http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm) > [Why did climate cool in the mid-20th Century?](http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century-advanced.htm) When did I mention the Medioeval warm period? SOlar activity? Sunspots? Where did I deny that CO2 is causing warming and that human activity produces CO2 and therefore it causes warming? The cause of the temperature rise in the last 40 years is definitely and completely related to human activity. (How much? I don’t know.) The cause of a very similar temperature rise in the 30s was caused mostly by natural forces. Therefore, we cannot underestimate the force of nature alone. > [@](#): > > I see, “just asking questions”, as even skeptics that drink one every time a denier resorts to that tactic can tell you, you are not impressing even the serious skeptics. > [Northern Colorado Skeptics in the Pub: Asking Questions](http://nocoskeptics.blogspot.com/2010/08/asking-questions.html)🙂 Hmmm. I see that you know how to link. > [@](#): > > Bulls-eye, can I call it or not? What you are demonstrating to all is that your brain is at least smart enough to not bring the context where you got the images. And if you consider the request to post the link to where you got the images to mean that I consider myself “some international expert” it is not me who has a problem. You can call what you like. It is not I who starts all the time “it’s a well-known denier site” like it helps with the answer. There, there, you can watch half-an-hour of TV. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2011, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/303 "2011-01-23T03:28:40Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > He is right in that there is no cooling in the last 10 years or so. If you start with the EL Niño year you might get there. > Why? Data. He said that you will even discredit real skeptics by using that argument, so don’t weasel out of the question, was he right? > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Who will I quote for completely-out-my-ass figures? My ass? > None. > None. > NO, I don’t. Well, more acknowledgments of ineptitude from your part I see. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > When did I mention the Medioeval warm period? SOlar activity? Sunspots? > Where did I deny that CO2 is causing warming and that human activity produces CO2 and therefore it causes warming? > The cause of the temperature rise in the last 40 years is definitely and completely related to human activity. (How much? I don’t know.) It is clear your little poultry brain is not well developed, I never said you mentioned that, the point was to explain why nature was mostly driving the increase in heat then. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > The cause of a very similar temperature rise in the 30s was caused mostly by natural forces. Therefore, we cannot underestimate the force of nature alone. And it wasn’t. you are still painfully ignoring that natural forcings are just being \*\*added \*\*to the man made CO2 warming that took place in the late 20th century and now. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > You can call what you like. It is not I who starts all the time “it’s a well-known denier site” like it helps with the answer. > There, there, you can watch half-an-hour of TV. It actually helps when the climate deniers are reaching for the tactics of creationists, in the end, the reality is that deniers have catastrophically lost in the science journals, academics, and science media, the only outlet left is the popular press and the denier sites. Until recently, even science reporters were offering a kind of fairness, for example, the science reporter that is making most of the youtube videos I linked, was criticizing both deniers and popularisers of science like [Al Gore](http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/c/A4F0994AFB057BB8/3/N2B34sO7HPM), unfortunately deniers burned or showed so much misleading reporting on the “climategate” and the IPCC “scandals” that science reporters that before had some respect for people that called themselves “skeptics” like [George Monbiot](http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/08/26/the-smearing-of-an-innocent-man/) in England and elsewhere were burned badly, so even in the popular press, deniers are losing support and it is because even the mainstream media can not be mislead forever… Except FOX. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2011, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/304 "2011-01-23T05:49:09Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > He said that you will even discredit real skeptics by using that argument, so don’t weasel out of the question, was he right? Read my previous answer. In case that’s difficult I’ll say it again: He’s right. > [@](#): > > Well, more acknowledgments of ineptitude from your part I see. You’re so cute…in a sad way. > [@](#): > > It is clear your little poultry brain is not well developed, I never said you mentioned that, the point was to explain why nature was mostly driving the increase in heat then. Thanks for accepting that you’re were simply linking away. Apparently nature has taken a break. > [@](#): > > And it wasn’t. you are still painfully ignoring that natural forcings are just being \*\*added \*\*to the man made CO2 warming that took place in the late 20th century and now. It may be painful to you, and if it is, you’re taking this waaaaaay to seriously. You know (or should) that I know that because I’ve said it. > [@](#): > > It actually helps when the climate deniers are reaching for the tactics of creationists, in the end, the reality is that deniers have catastrophically lost in the science journals, academics, and science media, the only outlet left is the popular press and the denier sites. > > Until recently, even science reporters were offering a kind of fairness, for example, the science reporter that is making most of the youtube videos I linked, was criticizing both deniers and popularisers of science like [Al Gore](http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/c/A4F0994AFB057BB8/3/N2B34sO7HPM), unfortunately deniers burned or showed so much misleading reporting on the “climategate” and the IPCC “scandals” that science reporters that before had some respect for people that called themselves “skeptics” like [George Monbiot](http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/08/26/the-smearing-of-an-innocent-man/) in England and elsewhere were burned badly, so even in the popular press, deniers are losing support and it is because even the mainstream media can not be mislead forever… > > Except FOX. You’re the brave man, fighting for science among the brain-impaired. Gigantic web-cojones, dude. You keep mentioning stuff that I haven’t to make me look bad by extension, while throwing ad hominems like you got paid for it and thoroughly avoiding debate. Well done, honey, well done. You can get your “IPCC teh r0x0r” badge now. One more thing. Don’t get angry; it’s bad enough that you’re wrong. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2011, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/305 "2011-01-23T06:10:40Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > One more thing. Don’t get angry; it’s bad enough that you’re wrong. And here again you are wrong, who said I was angry? I’m still analyzing what kind of denier you are. Since you accept what Pat Michaels says, it is clear now that you are just an “asking questions” guy that does not want to learn much. 😛 What I still know is that you and your side have less and less support, whatever you have imagined\* that the scientists do with the data, it is getting harder to find good experts that support even your sorry questioning so far. \*And you still have not even demonstrated how specifically the data was wrong. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2011, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/306 "2011-01-23T06:14:08Z")
[QUOTE=Ají de Gallina] You’re the brave man, fighting for science among the brain-impaired. Gigantic web-cojones, dude [/QUOTE] And I’m supposed the be the one that is angry? 😃 Nah, it does not take much effort, nor bravery, nor it is hard to deal with self declared impaired fowl men. There are plenty of sites with information to counteract virtually all that you imagine the scientists are doing wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2011, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/307 "2011-01-24T04:05:04Z")
> [@matt](#): > > Good point. I wonder if there is actual comparative rainfall data available? There should be for 1974, at least. There would certainly be data from what rainfall stations there are and I suspect (and hope) that in the next few months there will be a paper by someone who has done the comparison. > [@](#): > > Possibly, but that would imply that the rainfall seen was still not unprecedented, not that that proves anything much one way or the other. I don’t see how that implication arises. However, given that Queensland has just had its wettest year, Spring, September and December on record, the overall message is “it has been unusually wet here”. Whether the specific rains of two weeks ago that caused the flood are a new record is perhaps a little less signficant in terms of this debate (even assuming either factoid is relevant at all). ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2011, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/308 "2011-01-24T05:13:02Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > There would certainly be data from what rainfall stations there are and I suspect (and hope) that in the next few months there will be a paper by someone who has done the comparison. All I could find was this, which only goes up to 2007 and sadly doesn’t go back before 1900: [http://lwa.gov.au/files/products/managing-climate-variability/pn22179/pn22179.pdf](http://lwa.gov.au/files/products/managing-climate-variability/pn22179/pn22179.pdf) No real trend in total annual rainfall from 1900-2007, and what looks like a slight downward trend in Autumn rainfall from 1900-2007, with exceptionally dry Autumns from 1997-2007. This year is a pretty big divergence from that trend! Having belated noted your location, how has the flooding affected you? Hope you’re okay. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2011, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/309 "2011-01-24T05:47:33Z")
There may well be much older paper records. If you look at [http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/](http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/) and check some of the weather stations they go back prior to 1900, it just depends on the station. At least on line there isn’t much before 1900 in SE Qld I live on a hill. We lost power for a few days, and had downtime at work because our CBD building was inaccessible but no problem really. ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2011, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/310 "2011-01-25T01:32:10Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > I live on a hill. We lost power for a few days, and had downtime at work because our CBD building was inaccessible but no problem really. Glad to hear it! > [@GIGOBUSTER](#): > > Ignorance showing once again, it is not only models that are used to calculate how warm it will get. > > [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010...es\_lindzen.php](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010...es_lindzen.php) > > The important bit starts at minute 16, the models agree with the data. You know, there are other, diplomatic ways to phrase things that might be more persuasive. “That turns out not to the case” is a useful little phrase, for example. The distinction between empirically-derived sensitivity values and model-derived values isn’t as clear-cut as you might believe, because the models have a lot of parameters that have to be tuned to the the empirical record. An analogy: Suppose you have a nice, easily modelled physical system: a pendulum consisting of a smooth spherical lead bob on a monofilament line. You want to determine the period and decay properties of the pendulum. The system can be modelled purely using the physics - constant force mg in a downward direction and aerodynamic drag given by the sphere’s drag coefficient and instantaneous velocity. The model kicks out a period and decay constant that you can have confidence in. Or you can do it empirically and actually measure the period and decay constant. Two seperate routes to the same answer, and you can expect good agreement. Suppose however that you have a less predictable pendulum: a large irregular styrofoam bob that spins and flexes. Modelling the drag is now hopeless, and you’re not even sure where the centre of mass of the bob is at any one time. So now you have to put some empirical data into the model - parameters that give “working values” for the drag coefficient and centre of gravity, determined by averaging a lot of empirical data. Getting the period and decay constant for _this_ pendulum by “modelling” is not independent of the data - not really a seperate route from the empirical method. To determine climate sensitivity directly from the data, you need to take the temperature record over a known period (say 2nd half of 20th Century) and the forcings over the same period and then calculate it. This is the same data that is used to tune the models. And as highlighted in the report I cited earlier ([http://downloads.climatescience.gov/...report-all.pdf](http://downloads.climatescience.gov/...report-all.pdf)) the problem with that is that the sulphate aerosol forcing history is very uncertain. Whether you’re modelling or calculating, you have to ASSUME a sulphate forcing history, and if you assume a big sulphate effect you get a high CO2 sensitivity, small and you get a low one. It’s no wonder then that the empirical methods show a similar spread in values to the models, see: [How sensitive is our climate?](http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=115) The empircal methods if anything give slightly lower upper-range values that the models. This is probably because the empirical methods neglect slow, long-term positive feedbacks whose effects aren’t being seen yet in the data, whereas the models can include them. IPPC 5 is due out 2013-2014. Hopefully GLORY will fly in February and give good aerosol data, and the models will be modified using GLORY and ARGO data to give a far more narrow range for climate sensitivity. I will go on record, here and now, that I expect the average sensitivity estimate to fall to below 2 deg C per doubling, but I wouldn’t bet a large sum on it. In the meantime, alarmists and downplayers can argue for any value in the IPPC range and not be demonstrably right or wrong. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2011, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/311 "2011-01-25T02:24:22Z")
You did not see the video huh? The point was that models were not the only way scientists arrived to the estimation of the expected warming. Also , I do not want to leave the issue of the water vapor with no comment, just by investigating a little one can see that your say so of “And the previous several years of drought could have been a bumper growth season fed by moderate rains before AGW… or not” was actually a silly jab. > **[A Global Warming Skeptic Clouds The Issues](http://www.science20.com/chatter_box/global_warming_skeptic_clouds_issues)** > > A global Warming Skeptic Clouds The IssuesThis article is written in response to Dr. Roy Spencer's claims about cloud albedo effects in an article by Cameron J English: Interview With A Global Warming Skeptic: Dr. Roy Spencer.One of the most common... [http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/global-environmental-issues-1006](http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/global-environmental-issues-1006) > [@](#): > > It’s Getting Drier (Except Where It’s Getting Wetter) > > One of the hardest things to comprehend about climate change – and one of those things that can send skeptics into fits – is that scientists predict both severe droughts and historic floods will be a consequence of global warming. How’s it possible? In short, the climate is a complicated system, and what it can give with one wind, with another it can taketh away. As weather patterns shift, some areas will be starved of moisture, while in others, warmer air will hold additional moisture that it will unleash in fiercer storms. > > The U.S. Southwest, for instance, is in the midst of a prolonged drought that climatologists say is consistent with the predictions of a world altered by climate change; the record summer heat waves that affected much of the Eastern U.S. this summer, and intense wildfires in past years (and this year in Russia) also align with predictions. On the other hand, the catastrophic flooding in Pakistan is an example of massive deluges that are expected to hit more frequently, not only in Southeast Asia, but across the world, including in parts of the U.S. As Gavin Scmidt, a NASA climate scientist recently told The Daily Green, “Things that used to be one-in-100-year events maybe now are one-in-25-year events.” ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2011, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/312 "2011-01-25T03:16:00Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > You did not see the video huh? > > The point was that models were not the only way scientists arrived to the estimation of the expected warming. I’ve seen it before, a while back. Did you even read my post? I didn’t disagree that models were not the only way. The whole post was about empirical methods vs. parametised models. I even linked to a skeptical science page talking about the different methods! My point was that both models and non-model methods have to incorporate a highly uncertain forcing contribution that strongly affects the results, which is why they give such a wide range. There is no way around that. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Also , I do not want to leave the issue of the water vapor with no comment, just by investigating a little one can see that your say so of “And the previous several years of drought could have been a bumper growth season fed by moderate rains before AGW… or not” was actually a silly jab. You took that literally? It was a demonstration of how meaningless the word “could” was in your comment “What this tells me is that what we see in Australia could had been just a hard torrential month before AGW, instead of the disaster that turned up”. Sure, you could be right. You could be wrong. The previous drought could have been contributed to by AGW. Or maybe it wasn’t. We DON’T KNOW. There’s no overall trend in the average rainfall in Victoria over the past 107 years, but there is a lot of variation. There IS a trend of reducing Autumn rainfall over the late 20th Century with a severe recent drought, that has been attributed to AGW. How that translates into flooding is a matter for a case-specific analysis. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2011, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/313 "2011-01-25T03:22:11Z")
> [@matt](#): > > I’ve seen it before, a while back. Did you even read my post? I didn’t disagree that models were not the only way. The whole post was about empirical methods vs. parametised models. I even linked to a skeptical science page talking about the different methods! > > My point was that both models and non-model methods have to incorporate a highly uncertain forcing contribution that strongly affects the results, which is why they give such a wide range. There is no way around that. And I also did not disagree much with your point, only that it is not a show stopper, so I’m only saying.. > [@matt](#): > > You took that literally? It was a demonstration of how meaningless the word “could” was in your comment “What this tells me is that what we see in Australia could had been just a hard torrential month before AGW, instead of the disaster that turned up”. Sure, you could be right. You could be wrong. The previous drought could have been contributed to by AGW. Or maybe it wasn’t. We DON’T KNOW. > > There’s no overall trend in the average rainfall in Victoria over the past 107 years, but there is a lot of variation. There IS a trend of reducing Autumn rainfall over the late 20th Century with a severe recent drought, that has been attributed to AGW. How that translates into flooding is a matter for a case-specific analysis. What I do know is that the already detected increase in water vapor and energy is bound go somewhere. And it is not just me who said that the intensity and frequency of incidents like this one was not predictable. [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/andrew\_bolt\_can\_get\_fooled\_aga.php](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/andrew_bolt_can_get_fooled_aga.php) ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2011, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/314 "2011-01-25T03:45:55Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > What I do know is that the already detected increase in water vapor and energy is bound go somewhere. > > And it is not just me who said that the intensity and frequency of incidents like this one was not predictable. > > [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/andrew\_bolt\_can\_get\_fooled\_aga.php](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/andrew_bolt_can_get_fooled_aga.php) Well the Deltoid blog post seems more interested in debunking “Andrew Bolt” than anything else, but its click-through link from The Age is rather good. [Hotter, colder, wetter: it's a new world of extremes](http://www.theage.com.au/environment/weather/hotter-colder-wetter-its-a-new-world-of-extremes-20110115-19s1d.html) \*\*"So one side of the continent is inundated by the worst floods in memory, while its south-west corner is hit by bushfires. Is this the future? Are these a sign of things to come with climate change? The short answer, from a range of experts consulted by The Sunday Age, is yes and no."\*\* The anaysis is well worth a read, but a fairly accurate summary is “it looks suspicious, but we don’t know yet.” ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2011, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/315 "2011-01-25T03:56:09Z")
> [@matt](#): > > Well the Deltoid blog post seems more interested in debunking “Andrew Bolt” than anything else, but its click-through link from The Age is rather good. [Hotter, colder, wetter: it's a new world of extremes](http://www.theage.com.au/environment/weather/hotter-colder-wetter-its-a-new-world-of-extremes-20110115-19s1d.html) > > \*\*"So one side of the continent is inundated by the worst floods in memory, while its south-west corner is hit by bushfires. Is this the future? Are these a sign of things to come with climate change? > > The short answer, from a range of experts consulted by The Sunday Age, is yes and no."\*\* > > The anaysis is well worth a read, but a fairly accurate summary is “it looks suspicious, but we don’t know yet.” Of course, but I can say that the “No” part is referring to the effect of La nina, and the “Yes” part to global warming. > [@](#): > > ‘‘We certainly can’t say there is or isn’t a global warming signal because the work’s not been done,’’ says Professor Pitman. ‘‘Scientists just can’t say yea or nay. The actual analysis has to be done and, boringly, that takes a very long time.’’ But there are so many extreme weather events happening, and at such an unusual frequency, one has to be ‘‘extremely suspicious’’ that there is some connection, he says. > > Professor Will Steffen, executive director of the Australian National University’s Climate Change Institute, says there’s ‘‘definitely’’ a growing risk that events of this type will become more frequent as the climate warms. ‘‘One-in-100-year events would become a one-in-20 or one-in-30-year event as the climate shifts … we say with some confidence they are becoming more frequent and they will become more frequent in future.’’ > > Dr Kevin Tolhurst, Melbourne University fire ecologist, notes that, basically, what drives the world’s weather systems is heat and a lot of that comes from the sun. ‘‘The consequence of global warming is like putting your foot harder on the accelerator, you still have variation, you still go up and down hills. But you’ve got more energy in the system to push in both directions, so you go down hills faster and you go higher up the hills.’’ > > Certainly, the world appears to have increasingly suffered wild and damaging swings in its weather in recent years, from the record high temperatures and bushfire havoc of Black Saturday in February 2009 to monsoonal flooding in January 2011, from scorching Russian summer to recently snowbound Europe and North America. > > Global reinsurance giant Munich Re recently plotted 950 natural catastrophes over 2010. It found more than 90 per cent were weather-related - with a cost of more than $US130 billion and a huge loss of life. It estimated the Russian heatwave and associated fires and air pollution in July killed at least 56,000 people and Pakistan’s worst-ever floods killed 1769. > > Worldwide, 2010 was the wettest on record but, according to the World Meteorological Organisation, also the hottest since instrumental climate records began in 1850. Eighteen nations experienced their hottest-ever temperatures. It was the coolest year in Australia since 2001 but still above the long-term average. > > Professor Nicholls says that while it is not possible to accurately predict global warming-induced changes to natural variables like La Nina, one prediction can be made with confidence - heatwaves. > > ‘‘The last 10 years has been the decade of unprecedented heatwaves around the world,’’ he says. ‘‘A whole string of heatwaves much more dramatic than we’ve seen before and they’ve been killer heatwaves.’’ > > The last three days of January 2009, in the week before Black Saturday (at 46.4 degrees, itself the hottest February day in Melbourne by more than three degrees) there were 374 extra deaths in Victoria due to the heatwave, he says. > > Dr Tolhurst says we can also expect more fires. In Victoria, about 27 per cent of bushfires in the past 30 years have been started by lightning. Because of inaccessibility and multiple strikes causing separate fires to converge, the area burnt is about 70 per cent of the total. But lightning-sparked fires have been increasing. In 2003 and 2007 they accounted for about 40 per cent of all bushfires. > > University of Southern Queensland climatologist Professor Roger Stone, director of the Australian Centre for Sustainable Catchments and chairman of a United Nations global team investigating the impacts of climate change and extreme weather on agriculture, says the see-saw pattern of changes between La Ninas and El Ninos would have a significant future impact on Australia’s economy. > > ‘‘These events can often reduce GDP growth by half of 1 per cent because they have a huge impact on our mining industry, agriculture, tourism, insurance companies … someone has to pay for this at the end of the day.’’ > > Professor David Karoly, from Melbourne University’s school of earth sciences, agrees: ‘‘In terms of planning for these events, we need to develop adaptation measures that cope with even greater variability in rainfall in Australia. So hotter and drier conditions in some years and very wet conditions in other years,’’ he says. ‘‘We need to be able to cope with Australia becoming a land of more droughts and worse flooding rains.’’ ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2011, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/316 "2011-01-25T04:07:16Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] Of course, but I can say that the “No” part is referring to the effect of La nina, and the “Yes” part to global warming. [/QUOTE] Well I don’t read it as _quite_ so clear-cut as that, but I prefer my summary to their “short answer”. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2011, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/317 "2011-01-25T04:13:13Z")
> [@matt](#): > > Well I don’t read it as _quite_ so clear-cut as that, but I prefer my summary to their “short answer”. Again, just saying, the summary was leaving some context out. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421.md?page=15)