Snow job February 11, 2010Posted by BlueGreen in Doesnt Understand, Misrepresentation, Uncategorized.
Post 12 February 2010
One of Andrew Bolt’s constant refrains has been that AGW advocates use weather events to claim evidence for climate change. This is a resonable response by Bolt and, whilst it is scientific to claim that weather events can be exacerbated by climate change, it is not reasonable, especially in these relatively early stages of climate change, to suggest that weather events are caused by AGW.
So, it’s clear that Andrew, to make this call, understands to some degree that weather is not the same as climate. Yet, here he has done exactly what he says is wrong and misleading. What does that say about Andrew Bolt?
But to the post:
Firstly, Andrew admits and even provides a link to the explanation for why these extreme weather events are indeed part of the climate change associated with global warming:
There is some evidence that climate change could in fact make such massive snowstorms more common, even as the world continues to warm.
Keith Olbermann on MSNBC slaps down “deniers” and “idiots” who don’t realise climate change will bring exactly more such “extreme events”:
But then Bolt makes his own attempt to say how these weather events contradict the IPCC’s claims. And this is where Bolt provides yet more evidence of his willingness to misrepresent and shows his lack of understanding of the basics.
First, how could Bolt really “scientifically” or logically demonstrate that these weather events contradict the IPCC’s claims?
He’d have to demonstrate that the IPCC had said something like:
- Extreme cold weather events, including snow storms will no longer occur (after a certain amount of warming);
- Record or near record seasonal events, including snow, will no longer happen (after a certain amount of warming).
Let’s see if Bolt has shown this.
Bolt quotes from Joseph D’Aleo:
But Joseph D’Aleo says the warmists are wrong to now pretend they always knew global warming would bring more snow:
So to try and save their agenda, the green media and alarmists spin the tale that these storms are what you expect during global warming. Actually friends they conflict with statements from the IPCC and EPA Technical Support Document that drew on the NOAA CCSP.EPA TSD ES3 “Rising temperatures have generally resulted in rain rather than snow in locations and seasons where climatological average (1961-1990) temperatures were close to 0C. (32F).”IPCC FAQ 3.2 Observations show that changes are occurring in the amount, intensity, frequency and type of precipitation. More precipitation now falls as rain rather than snow in northern regions. For a future warmer climate, models project a 50 to 100% decline in the frequency of cold air outbreaks relative to the present in NH winters in most areas.“The 2009 U.S. Climate Impacts Report found that large-scale cold-weather storm systems have gradually tracked to the north in the U.S. over the past 50 years.” …We are also told “The extent of NH snow cover has declined”. (IPCC4.2) They go on to say it will decline so much as to endanger the winter sports industry. Well two years ago, Michael Berry, President of the National Ski Areas Association told the AP that “This could very well be the record year”. Across almost all of North America, 2007/08 was the best, or one of the best seasons ever for those who enjoy winter sports. Practically every ski area from Alaska across Canada in the Western U.S. – the Midwest and New England saw plenty of snow; many places reporting all-time record snow.
And January in 2008, a new record for snowcover was set for the hemisphere.
The quotations from the IPCC are all statements and facts related to long term climate trends related to snowfall and rainfall.
The first is actually a statistic that very clearly says something about rainfall and snowfall in: seasons where climatological average (1961-1990) temperatures were close to 0C. (32F). The author and Bolt clearly do not understand the specificity of this statement.
The second statement outlines a probabilistic climate model projection: For a future warmer climate, models project a 50 to 100% decline in the frequency of cold air outbreaks relative to the present in NH winters in most areas. This statement is clearly completely irrelevant to a single seasonal event. Contradiction of this projection would require an analysis of the fequency of cold air outbreaks over many NH winters.
The 3rd is actually a statement of fact and a scientific finding. It is clearly irrelevant to the claim of contradiction and is just evidence of climate change.
What is very clear is that Bolt via D’Aleo comes nowhere near to proving 1 or 2 above.
But, here is the real kicker that demonstrates the possibility that AGW advocates could actually be correct about the fact that severe weather events are indeed associated with global warming:
These snow storms and this cold season in parts of the USA has occurred at the same time as we see that, from evidence that Bolt himself uses that January 2010 is the:
warmest January in the 32-year satellite record.
So, we have record breaking snowfalls in the USA at the same time as we have near record global temperatures. Exactly what climate scientists have claimed can occur.
Blog Rudd right back February 4, 2010Posted by BlueGreen in Uncategorized.
If you’ve joined Rudd’s blog to use this opportunity to ask the Prime Minister to explain why, for instance, the world is actually cooling, and what measurable difference to the climate we’ll make if Australia cuts its gases by even half, please let me know what response you got.
The world is actually cooling? No, it’s not.
Measureable difference if we cut our gases by half?
I wonder if Bolt believes it’s logical that I alone in all the world should be permitted to litter because it makes no measurable difference? Such is the childish nature of Bolt.
Andrew Bolt on Climate Change February 4, 2010Posted by BlueGreen in Uncategorized.
This blog was created to catalogue the lies, deceptions and misrepresentations that Andrew Bolt has published on his blog over the past 6 months. Each post will categorise the post as either a lie, a deception or a misrepresentation. The counter-argument with a link to the proof will be provided in each case.