Typical weasel wording from the Greens. After years of banging on about “global warming”, with all the attendant images of boiling seas and melting icecaps, they are now slipping discreetly into a new vocabulary of “climate change” where hot, cold and temperate weather is declared a symptom. Win, win, win.

Clever, really – given that one thing we can be sure of is that weather will fluctuate.

It would be more honest (and accurate) to stick with the warming narrative.

For the world has warmed: by about 0.8 of a degree over the past 150 years.

(The fact that the 150 year period in question saw the invention of the electric light, central heating, the motor car and the aeroplane; saw a massive shift of population from rural to urban living, witnessed a massive increase in global population etc. of course has nothing to do with it.)

@ Flowerpower

“The fact that the 150 year period in question saw the invention of the electric light, central heating, the motor car and the aeroplane; saw a massive shift of population from rural to urban living, witnessed a massive increase in global population etc. of course has nothing to do with it”

I’m trying to work out if you’re being sarcastic or not. If not, you’re sincerely denying that man-made climate change is taking place (which fits the bash-the-greens tone of your post). If so, you are affirming that man-made climate change is taking place (which doesn’t). I’m confused.

Oh, and the global warming/climate change thing really isn’t rocket science. The average global temperature is predicted to rise, but the temperature in some areas of the world may fall. This is no more “weaselly” than the prediction that average global life expectancy will rise, but life expectancy in some areas may fall.

@Flowerpower: both terms are accurate and correct; which you use depends on the context; besides, ‘climate change’ pre-dates use of ‘global warming’ anyway: http://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm

However, there is a small controversy in the Green Party’s response: according to research by the Met Office, our recent cold winters were mostly caused by low solar activity, which has been at the cool end of its 11-year cycle: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/solar-variability

“Joanna Haigh, Professor of Atmospheric Physics at Imperial College London, said: “Compared with the effect of man-made emissions over the last century, solar variations still have a very minor effect on long-term global climate trends, but this study shows they may have a detectable influence on winter climate.”

Regardless, buying some suitable vehicles to help in extreme weather seems a sensible idea; it’s a shame that some people decide to try to start an argumentum ad hominem about it…

@ Flowerpower

“Typical weasel wording from the Greens. After years of banging on about “global warming”, with all the attendant images of boiling seas and melting icecaps, they are now slipping discreetly into a new vocabulary of “climate change” where hot, cold and temperate weather is declared a symptom. Win, win, win.”

I was under the impression that the term “climate change” was coined mainly because “global warming” confused people too stupid to understand what the word “global” means, a group that evidently includes the incredibly uninformed Booker, and in a rather optimistic attempt to stop those tiresome morons who declare that global warming has been proved wrong every time the weather in their local area gets colder.

As for changing predictions surrounding climate change: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” Global warming could potentially eliminate the Gulf Stream, which could plunge Britain into Norwegian temperatures. And no doubt we’d have a merry chorus of “Hah, those Greens are looking stupid now!” from people like you who have either accidentally or deliberately missed the point.

So …. let me get this straight …. every single word that Christopher Booker said was, you know, true?

Where’s the beef exactly?

@ 4

If you don’t know much about climate change, you’ll have to actually read the whole article before it’ll make sense.

(Short version for the deliberately obtuse: Booker presents global warming as if it’s contradicted by a cold winter. It isn’t.)

2. G.O.

Oh, and the global warming/climate change thing really isn’t rocket science. The average global temperature is predicted to rise, but the temperature in some areas of the world may fall. This is no more “weaselly” than the prediction that average global life expectancy will rise, but life expectancy in some areas may fall.

Except we know roughly where life expectancy will rise and we have a pretty good idea where it will fall. We also have an excellent idea of what causes it to rise or to fall. Unlike the science of Climate Change.

It is weaselly because they don’t even try to make sensible predictions. They simply say that whatever happens, whether it gets hotter or colder, Global Warming is underway and we need to panic.

3. Chaise Guevara

I was under the impression that the term “climate change” was coined mainly because “global warming” confused people too stupid to understand what the word “global” means

Perhaps you might like to explain what it does mean?

As for changing predictions surrounding climate change: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

Alas, if only partisans of Climate Change did so. They don’t.

Global warming could potentially eliminate the Gulf Stream, which could plunge Britain into Norwegian temperatures.

Could you please explain to me the logic of this. By what possible mechanism could climate change eliminate the Gulf Stream? No, seriously. The equator is warmer than the poles. That means water will always flow from one to the other. It may flow faster or slower, but unless that heat engine shuts down completely, it will flow. The Earth’s spin and the geology/geography of the ocean basin determines which direction it will flow from East to West. Which of these factors could ever be effected so much as to shut down the Gulf Stream?

What is the point? That anything is evidence for Climate Change?

5. Chaise Guevara

(Short version for the deliberately obtuse: Booker presents global warming as if it’s contradicted by a cold winter. It isn’t.)

No he does not. He presents the Greens as if they believe that Britain is going to get warmer. As they consistently did until Britain conspicuously failed to do so. That is why the Met forecasts are so wrong – they are based on the assumption that Global Warming is a fact.

Now you can argue that Global Warming will mean localised cooling in Britain. But I am not sure the Greens of Brighton have been arguing that. Still, I am open to evidence. Anyone know what they have been saying?

1 and 7,

I suspect you have been told this before but chose to ignore it, but just in case you were genuinely unaware and sincerely mistaken:

“Climate” is not the same thing as “weather”.

Yes?

@ SMFS

“Perhaps you might like to explain what it does mean?”

It means “worldwide”, as in “not specific to your country or village”. In the sense of “global warming”, it refers to average global temperatures rising.

“Alas, if only partisans of Climate Change did so. They don’t.”

True of partisans for any cause. I agree that there’s now a reflex reaction against evidence showing climate change is less severe than predicted, but that’s largely the fault of denialists who refuse to believe it exists merely because “I want to drive my Land Cruiser” or “If a liberal says it I must disagree”. The backlash against this behaviour is unhelpful but unsurprising.

“Could you please explain to me the logic of this. By what possible mechanism could climate change eliminate the Gulf Stream?”

From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/impact/gulf_stream.shtml): “At the end of the last Ice Age, when the ice sheet covering North America melted, the sudden increase in fresh water reduced the salinity of the north Atlantic surface water and therefore less ‘dense water’ sank and moved towards the equator. This reduced, or even shut-down completely, the warm Gulf Stream.”

The same article admittedly states that the Gulf Stream is unlikely to shut down completely within the century. So we can probably dispense with the worst-case scenario in the short term.

“What is the point? That anything is evidence for Climate Change?”

No indeed. The point is that global warming can lead to local cooling, something that Booker apparently refuses to understand.

“No he does not. He presents the Greens as if they believe that Britain is going to get warmer.”

Where? Show me the quote from the article above, please.

“As they consistently did until Britain conspicuously failed to do so.”

You really need to stop acting as if changing your mind in the face of evidence is a Bad Thing. It doesn’t sit well with your attacks on climate change science – or, indeed, say much for your ability to reason sensibly.

“Now you can argue that Global Warming will mean localised cooling in Britain. But I am not sure the Greens of Brighton have been arguing that. Still, I am open to evidence.”

As long as nobody uses said evidence to reassess their position, right?

“Anyone know what they have been saying?”

You just said that YOU know what they’ve been saying. Make your mind up.

G.O. @ 2

I’m trying to work out if you’re being sarcastic or not.

Yes, I’m being sarcastic.

The intended point of the sarcasm was to point up the fact that it should hardly be surprising that the move from a bucolic way of life to an urban/industrial way of life (with all those heat-generating inventions like cars, planes, central heating, light bulbs, ) plus all those extra people doing stuff should have raised global temperatures a bit. And so they have.

By a fraction of one degree.

And since a fraction of one degree is well within the margin of error of my home thermostat, most thermometers and every weather forecast, perhaps we should not get excessively alarmed.

What matters, of course, is what happens next. In the early 1990s, when the “global warming” panic began in earnest, it was confidently predicted (on the basis of computer models) that temperatures would rise sharply.

But between 1998 and 2005 global average temperatures rose so imperceptibly as to be equivalent to zero.

It may rise more noticeably again.

But we do not need to re-think our whole economic model or way of life.

Because it doesn’t really matter very much.

In the UK, for instance, average daytime temperatures have not altered significantly at all. There has been some “UK warming” in that average annual temperatures have indeed risen. But their rise is almost entirely attributable to a drop in the frequency of night frosts at particular times of year.

The biggest implication of that is that we can now grow a slightly wider range of sensitive shrubs and flowers in our gardens.

Big effing deal.

“But between 1998 and 2005 global average temperatures rose so imperceptibly as to be equivalent to zero.”

You really think that people won’t notice that you are cherry-picking your data here?

Still, at least I can now rule out the possibility that you are honestly mistaken.

Flowerpower: “Typical weasel wording from the Greens. After years of banging on about “global warming”, with all the attendant images of boiling seas and melting icecaps, they are now slipping discreetly into a new vocabulary of “climate change” where hot, cold and temperate weather is declared a symptom. Win, win, win.”

I notice the markets went up yesterday, and I can see with my own eyes that there are lots of new premium organic shops in Richmond, indicating massive prosperity. This clearly proves the recession is a Trotskyite-BBC hoax.

Seriously. The models have predicted this all along. There will be an overall warming, and because there is more energy in the weather system there will be more extremes.

SMFS: “Could you please explain to me the logic of this. By what possible mechanism could climate change eliminate the Gulf Stream? No, seriously. The equator is warmer than the poles. That means water will always flow from one to the other.”

It’s not that simple.

Changing salinity (as well as temperature) plays a huge part in the Gulf Stream. Suddenly melting ice can reduce the salinity of the ocean at the northern end of the Gulf Stream, and can stop the flow of water on a temporary (talking geologically – about 750 year) basis. There’s considerable evidence that it happened in the distant past, the last time about 12,000-17,000 years ago, estimates vary. Look up “Heinrich Events” if you’re interested. There has been a bit of (so far inconclusive) research into the possibility that the rapid melting of Greenland/Arctic ice could trigger a modern-day Heinrich event and shut down / divert the Gulf Stream.

SMFS: “Could you please explain to me the logic of this. By what possible mechanism could climate change eliminate the Gulf Stream? No, seriously. The equator is warmer than the poles. That means water will always flow from one to the other.”

How do you think this is driven, then?

Flowerpower: “And since a fraction of one degree is well within the margin of error of my home thermostat, most thermometers and every weather forecast, perhaps we should not get excessively alarmed.”

When there’s a hole in a flood barrier, and there’s a lot of water behind it, it’s probably unwise to derisively claim it’s of no concern to stout-hearted men because the current flow is – hah – less than your home bathtap.

@Clever, really – given that one thing we can be sure of is that weather will fluctuate.

Not so clever from you though as you don’t know the difference between weather and climate.
That difference is explained at KS 3 Geography. There are many text books out there to explain.

If you don’t know the difference then your understanding of Quaternary climate change and its cause, including how human activity has recently influenced it, is amoebic in its size.

Peter Lee @ 16

To be fair to Flowerpower and the other Tory vermin that infest this board, they understand completely the difference between climate and weather. The science has been examined with a fine tooth comb for at least twenty years and these cunts have read it as much as the rest of us. They know perfectly well the science stacks up and feigning complete ignorance is merely a pathetic smokescreen.

It is not the ‘science’ they have a problem with; it the implications for their ideology that dealing with Global Warming they have a problem with. These people care for nothing other than their own greed and will lie, cheat and even plead fucking ignorance rather than face up to their own selfish behaviour’s consequences.

The problem for the science end of the argument is that they assume that the Tories are honestly confused about the science. When you start of with the premise that they are not ‘mistaken’, ‘mislead’ or ‘confused, they are in fact merely scum attempting to avoid taking action, then it all falls into place.

The scientists keep trying to come up with different forms of words to convince these people of the truth about the science because they assume that your average Tory has something approaching a conscience and would change his mind if he was given enough evidence. Nothing could be further from the truth. These people are fundamentally evil and will condemn millions of people to lose their livelihood, houses, lives just so the can continue to burn as much fossil fuels as they can before they die.

A significantly higher percentage of climate scientists (98.7%) believe in AGCC than biologists believe in Evolution (94.2%). So, if you don’t believe in AGCC…

@17 – The UK is set to cool significantly. So we WILL either end up burning a lot of fossil fuels, build nuclear power stations, or invest in morgues to take the stiff corpses of the frozen out of their unheated houses, since they couldn’t afford that heating.

Of course AGCC is real, but trying to price the poor out of affording utilities is equally a bad policy.

@1

The Greens and environmentalist lobby even went back and changed all references to the Intergovernmental Panel on Global Warming(IPGW) to ‘Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’, as well as documentaries from decades earlier.

By the way, most of the ‘fraction’ (the fraction being 1/2) of that degree in rising temperature has happened recently and the speed at which it rises has also increased. A margin of error on one thermometer accounts for the heat directly around it. If such a thing were to appear on thermometer’s all over the world and measures taken from space, that isn’t a margin of error; that’s a lot of thermometer’s indicating the same thing. A half a percent in global terms is huge; how much BTUs of heat do you think would have to be produced to heat the Earth like that directly?

Leon @ 18

I totally argee with you with regard to finding solutions that appeal to the public and are fair(ish), but the Right are sticking their fingers in their ears and nar, nar nenaring while the decent people are at least making the attempt to set out policy. Okay, sometimes the adults have to do the unpopular thing and put carrots and stew on the table while the children would rather have pizza and ice cream, but the Left cannot shy away from the fact that we need to be responsible while the Right get to play the indulgent granny.

This is too important for mere party politics and most of us see it. The Bell weather for politics is this subject. The Right have been found out, in my view. The fact that they cannot come up with anything sensible on something where all the evidence points one way and they still manage to get it wrong shows just how much these people are serious and how mature they are.

It turns out that scum are scum right across the board. How can we expect to come to agreement on anything when they are STILL clinging onto this charade even when EVERYTHING is pointing the same way?

13. jungle

Changing salinity (as well as temperature) plays a huge part in the Gulf Stream. Suddenly melting ice can reduce the salinity of the ocean at the northern end of the Gulf Stream, and can stop the flow of water on a temporary (talking geologically – about 750 year) basis. There’s considerable evidence that it happened in the distant past, the last time about 12,000-17,000 years ago, estimates vary.

That took the draining of Lake Agassiz. Which contained enough fresh water to raise all the world’s oceans by perhaps as much as ten feet. I don’t think we are going to see that again. Nor do we have much reason to think anything is going to happen suddenly.

In the meantime, the Gulf Stream was much stronger in the Mediaeval Warm Period than in the Little Ice Age so it looks as if Britain may get nicer.

16. Pete Lee

Not so clever from you though as you don’t know the difference between weather and climate.

As the joke goes, weather is when it is cold, climate is when it is hot.

19. Mason Dixon, Autistic

If such a thing were to appear on thermometer’s all over the world and measures taken from space, that isn’t a margin of error; that’s a lot of thermometer’s indicating the same thing.

But that is not what is happening. Ground temperature measurements have to be calibrated. Somehow magically, everyone pushes them up. Originally they tended to show all sorts of trends, but then they were “corrected” and by and large they didn’t. Not all of them, but a lot of them. So if that correction is wrong, it will make them all wrong. Half a degree is well within a margin of error for a lot of things. Not just the measurements.

And of course, we only have good data going back to the 1970s when the first satellites went up. Even that has to be corrected, although that is not all that controversial. So we have 40 years of data. That is, perhaps, a single short term cycle, not enough data for any predictions with confidence. The ground data is partial with a strong bias to Britain and the US. The proxies are often unreliable. And they both have to be massaged to show any sort of warming trend at all. Hence the “hide the decline”.

@21

All of which are non-specific points which assert no argument either way. By taking measurements from lots of thermometers it smooths out sampling errors. Half a degree is a margin of error for one measurement, not thousands. The raw data for all of them goes through the same corrective calculations but no one from the self-proclaimed ‘climate sceptics’ ever spots errors, only the non-crank scientists do and they correct them.

Anthony Watts tried to make a point out of where the measuring stations were placed and failed to find systematic error even though he claimed to. The stations he labelled as ‘bad’ were compared with the ones that were ‘good’ and the trends they were tracking were identical. Things like weather, urban heat islands and air conditioning vents did not effect the quality of the measurements coming from them because what matters are the overall changes over a long period, not the ambient fluctuations.

It’s not hard to grasp this. Even with one thermometer that has much as five degrees in error margin, you can make accurate measurements over time by looking at the averages. If somehow you had no other information, you could tell by temperature over a long period of time what time of the year it is and what latitude you are on, where as a single look on just one day will not.

22. Mason Dixon, Autistic

All of which are non-specific points which assert no argument either way.

So you do not even have an educated layman’s understanding of the science?

By taking measurements from lots of thermometers it smooths out sampling errors.

If that is what we are talking about you might have a point. You only have half a point because there is no guarantee lots of measurements will smooth out sampling errors. There may be a systematic error in all the measures. As, for instance, if they were using a really bad thermometre. But let’s ignore that for the moment. We are not talking of measurements, but adjustments. If the same methodology is applied, they can all have new errors that can’t be smoothed. For instance, few measuring stations have been where they are for decades. Most get moved at one point or another. You then have to calculate what adjustment to make in the data to reflect that move. The Heat Island effect is significant and all the raw data has to be “corrected” to take it into account. And so on. I would go on but it would be a waste of time.

Half a degree is a margin of error for one measurement, not thousands.

The result is unlikely to be better than the data that goes in to it. In fact I could swear I remember being taught way back when that the result cannot have a smaller margin of error than the data. Because errors can multiply.

The raw data for all of them goes through the same corrective calculations but no one from the self-proclaimed ‘climate sceptics’ ever spots errors, only the non-crank scientists do and they correct them.

If you know nothing about this subject you really should not comment. It was skeptics who, for instance, noticed that every single piece of New Zealand raw data had been adjusted upwards. It was the skeptics that pointed out that GISS in particular has an overwhelming bias towards upwards adjustments. It was most famously of all Steve McIntyre who pointed out the errors in the bristle cones and in the use of Siberian tree rings. The good scientists have corrected these. Most of them. But the biased in adjusting towards making the world look as if it is warmer is an odd one.

Anthony Watts tried to make a point out of where the measuring stations were placed and failed to find systematic error even though he claimed to. The stations he labelled as ‘bad’ were compared with the ones that were ‘good’ and the trends they were tracking were identical.

Then the data is rubbish. As the heat island effect is real, if it does not show up it is de facto proof the figures are garbage and presumably faked.

Things like weather, urban heat islands and air conditioning vents did not effect the quality of the measurements coming from them because what matters are the overall changes over a long period, not the ambient fluctuations.

Umm, the heat island effect is a change over a long period of time. So is air conditioning for that matter. As cities have got bigger, most measuring stations have become surrounded by more concrete, more asphalt, more cars and so on. The long term trend is for the artificial surrounds to become hotter and hotter. This is especially true of airports, where most are located for obvious reasons, as grass strips are replaced by concrete and tarmac and as plane numbers grow and grow. To deny this has a long term impact is nuts.

It’s not hard to grasp this. Even with one thermometer that has much as five degrees in error margin, you can make accurate measurements over time by looking at the averages.

That depends. Some errors do even out. Most do not. Errors tend to only grow. This is basic mathematics. There are whole subjects devoted to things like numerical analysis which begin with a study of how errors screw you up.

If somehow you had no other information, you could tell by temperature over a long period of time what time of the year it is and what latitude you are on, where as a single look on just one day will not.

You could tell something but what I don’t know. Let’s look at a simple example. Three measuring stations. One is read by a guy who gets up first thing in the morning and reads it before he has had his coffee and while he is half asleep. The other one is read at 12 o’clock while that guy is in a rush to get to the canteen to have lunch, while the third is read by a guy who stops on the way home after his has had his usual three pints. Tell me their errors will average out.

It is not I who does not know the difference between climate and weather, it is the alarmists who deliberately confuse them for propaganda purposes.

Look at the Green’s letter, quoted in the OP:

Our belief that climate change poses a serious threat to all of us did help fuel a Green victory. Colder winters are part of this change.

The clear implication is that the recent and expected snowfalls in Brighton have something to do with “climate change”.

But a quick look at the annual snowfall in South East England since 1600 confirms that this isn’t at all unusual or novel.

Flowerpower: “Look at the Green’s letter, quoted in the OP… The clear implication is that the recent and expected snowfalls in Brighton have something to do with “climate change”.”

What he says only means that to someone looking for something to smear him with. He doesn’t say the recent colder winters in Brighton actually prove climate change must be happening. All he’s saying is that colder winters in Brighton are in line with what’s predicted by climate change, which is entirely true.

@SMFS #23:

Then the data is rubbish. As the heat island effect is real, if it does not show up it is de facto proof the figures are garbage and presumably faked.

OK, answer me this. (Hypothetical figures follow). Take one weather station in the middle of London – say on the Met Office roof. Take another on the North Downs. In say 1950, average summer daily maximum temperatures were 20C on the Met Office roof; 19C on the North Downs. In 2000, as a result of climate change, the respective figures were 20.5C and 19.5C, showing a rise in that measure of temperature by .5C at each location.

What is the inferred UHI effect on the Met Office temeprature, and how does this affect the measurement of the temperature rise as a result of climate change?

#21:

<blockquote.That took the draining of Lake Agassiz. Which contained enough fresh water to raise all the world’s oceans by perhaps as much as ten feet. I don’t think we are going to see that again. Nor do we have much reason to think anything is going to happen suddenly.

Quick question; how much fresh water is there on the North American continent East of the continental divide, and how much on Greenland? Were you aware that studies are already showing (have been for years) that the water in the Atlantic Ocean off Canada is getting measurably fresher?

So Much For Subtlety #23

There are not too many UHI in the oceans. Satellites measure temperatures on land and sea, are not overly affected by the UHI effect and correlate very well with land station figures.

You either believe and accept the evidence or look for ways to justify denying it.

23,

“That depends. Some errors do even out. Most do not. Errors tend to only grow. This is basic mathematics.”

The theoretical boundaries of error do grow with more data. The margin of error, however, decreases.

You wouldn’t be deliberately trying to confuse the two, would you?

This is a great article because it provides a valuable insight into the tribal mentality of Hundal:

HUNDAL: ‘Telegraph’s Booker gets nailed on ‘cooling’’

BOOKER: ‘ Brighton’s Green-controlled council is *BANKING* on another big freeze this winter ‘

HUNDAL: ‘ It’s not the first time Booker has published complete FABRICATION. ‘

GREEN CLLR: ‘Green councillors SUPPORTED THIS DECISION’.

So, they were banking on a big freeze through backing the decision of the previous Councillors – as well as the point about global WARMING (although to be fair, since this has been renamed climate change, just about any weather pattern can be ascribed to it, so perhaps he is just a stupid lying right-winger and should shut up and pay his carbon taxes).

Jungle @ 25

All he’s saying is that colder winters in Brighton are in line with what’s predicted by climate change, which is entirely true.

But they are not “colder winters” in the sense of being colder than hitherto or representing a trend. They are just ‘cold winters’, as ever was.

This idea that cold weather, hot weather and medium weather are all “what’s predicted by climate change” means that any kind of weather can be used by you to confirm climate change is occurring, and suggest that it is alarming, when, in fact, the weather conditions in any specific case might have nothing to do with AGW at all.

There are some effects of global warming that it is legitimate to point to – death of coral reefs in areas where sea temps have risen, for instance.

But to claim every hot day and any snowy day are “proof” of alarmist predictions is balls.

@Flowerpower #30:

But to claim every hot day and any snowy day are “proof” of alarmist predictions is balls.

Agreed. But so is claiming that one or more cold winters in Brighton is somehow inconsistent with global warming – which is the thrust of Booker’s piece.

@ 31

…..which is the thrust of Booker’s piece

I didn’t think that was the thrust of Booker’s piece. The thrust was the irony of Greens ordering 4X4s.