Sales of winter clothes and thermal underwear are soaring as Britons suffer a dismal summer and prepare for a winter of high fuel bills, according to a leading retailer. Department store Debenhams said shoppers were turning their back on summer sarongs, shorts and swimwear and opting for woollens instead. Sales of thermal underwear at the store are up 54% on this time last year, winter coat sales are up 76% and warm knitwear is up by 53%. Debenhams said the figures were similar to those traditionally seen during October.

The retailer said it had expected a slight increase in sales of winter clothes during the dismal August weather, but put the “massive boost” in figures down to “hibernation hysteria”. It noted the higher sales followed comments by Jake Ulrich of Centrica - the parent company of British Gas - telling consumers struggling with soaring fuel bills that “maybe its two jumpers instead of one”. Debenhams’ spokesman Ed Watson said: “The awful weather clearly has something to do with this hibernation hysteria.

“However with gas and electric companies turning up the heat, it looks like many people will be turning to their wardrobe rather than the central heating thermostat this winter to keep warm. “I suppose it’s a reluctant thanks to Jake Ulrich as well. A full set of Debenhams’ long johns and a couple of our woolly jumpers are in the post so he can follow his own advice.”

One of the most vocal criticisms I get is when I write about weather events around the globe. For example one commenter, “beaker” recently wrote this criticism to my story about Denver setting two new record low maximum temperatures on consecutive days, breaking one record that stood for 118 years: “Why is this site so obsessed with short term extrema? All this will do is reinforce crackpot opinions on long term climate change on the basis of irrelevant weather noise.”

In a nutshell he’s saying “weather is not climate”. We all understand that. I always make sure that I tag such entries as “weather’ and not “climate change”. It’s not the first nor will it be the last time I get criticized for talking about weather events on a blog that focuses mostly on climate change. As I pointed out though, weather is in fact my career, so I reserve the right to talk about it.

To his credit, “Beaker” was gracious in acknowledging that he was not specifically referring to me as a “crackpot”. It is true that any single weather event can’t be linked to climate change, and even in periods of a year, linking even a collection of weather events to long term climate change is problematic. And yes, as “Beaker” points out, can be fodder for “crackpots”. Tim Flannery and Al Gore come to mind as people that use specific weather events to point out “climate change”.

Take for example Hurricane Katrina, long the poster child for climate change, yet several studies have shown that there is no trend linking global warming to increased hurricane activity. Thus naming specific storms as linked to climate change is just not supportable. Senator (and former presidential candidate) John Kerry recently said that a tornado outbreak in the USA was attributable to “global warming”, when in fact it is related to the La Nina pattern in the Pacific.

There seems to be no dearth of prominent people willing to connect weather events with climate change. But these are often politicians, celebrities, and book pushers.  They stand to gain from attention, even if the words they say are not based in fact, so it is not surprising. Along those lines, this is a bit more troubling. I’d like to share this graphic, which is titled on the published page: “Figure 1.1 Geographical distribution of notable climate anomalies and events occurring around the planet in 2007”. I apologize for the quality of even the large image, as it was scanned from paper. Here are some of the “climate anomaly” events listed on the graphic:  Northeast U.S.A/Southeast Canada - Major winter storm (Feb) Around 300,000 people affected, Hurricane Felix (Sep) Max winds 270 km/hr - Second major hurricane in the 2007 season, Uganda (Jun) Heaviest rainfall in 35 years, China - heaviest snowfall in 56 years (Mar).  And the source for this graphic listing those “climate anomalies”? This ”Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 89, Number 7, July 2008, page S14”.

I find it odd that I get criticism when I talk about weather events and the oft repeated maxim “weather is not climate” yet here we have the premiere meteorological organization doing exactly the same thing - pointing out extreme weather events. Yet, they don’t even mention the word “weather” in the context of the graphic, preferring the more worrisome but less accurate label of “climate anomalies”. At least I have the good sense to tag the sort of entires I make on this blog about record events, significant storms etc. as “weather”.  Sadly AMS just wraps it up in a supplemental journal boldly titled as “State of the Climate in 2007”. If I did such a thing, noting all the weather events I’d posted on during the year and titled it “State of the Climate in 2007” I’d be villified in comments for doing so: “Anthony - what are you thinking? Weather is not climate!” But in this case, it’s the AMS, so that makes it all OK I guess. Read more here.

Icecap Note: This continues a downward spiral for AMS under weak, misguided leadership the last few years during which time they have catered to the needs of the academic community which is benefiting from the windfall in global warming grant money. Some non-academic members have dropped membership but others who hold seals or other honors like CCM or Fellow like myself refuse to leave. We will hopefully be around to pick up the pieces and help return the society to its former greatness someday.

A major international scientific conference prominently featured the voices and views of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears.  The International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists’ equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Oslo, Norway, from August 4-14.

The conference was criticized by the activists at RealClimate.org (who apparently are threatened by any challenges to their version of ‘consensus’ on global warming science) for being too balanced and allowing skeptical scientists to have a forum. RealClimate’s Rasmus E. Benestad lamented on August 19 that the actual scientific debate during the conference “seemed to be a step backwards towards confusion rather than a progress towards resolution.”

During the Geologic conference, Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia of the Center of Advanced Study in Geology at Punjab University and a visiting scholar of the Geology Department at University of Cincinnati, openly ridiculed former Vice President Al Gore and the UN IPCC’s coveted Nobel Peace Prize. [An online video of an August 8, 2008, conference climate change panel has been posted and is a must-see video for anyone desiring healthy scientific debate. See: here ]

“I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” Ahluwalia, a fellow of the Geological Society of India, said during a question and answer panel discussion. [Ahluwalia’s remarks can be viewed beginning at 22:14 of the online video] - [ Ahluwalia’s full bio here]

Ahluwalia, who has authored numerous scientific studies in the fields of geology and paleontology, referred to the UN climate panel as the “elite IPCC.” “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds.” [See other critiques of IPCC here: UN IPCC ‘a purely political body posing as a scientific institution’ - & here: Report Debunks So-Called ‘Consensus’ On Global Warming]

Ahluwalia, a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet also criticized the promoters of man-made global warming fears for “drawing out exaggerated conclusions” and took the UN to task for failing to allow dissenting voices. “When I put forward my points in the morning, some IPCC official got up to say that what I was [saying was] ‘nonsense.’ See, when we have that sort of attitude, that sort of dogma against a scientific observation that would not actually end up in very, very positive debate. 

Panel participants at the August 8 debate included skeptical Physicist Dr. Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Centre and Paleoclimate scientist Dr. Bob Carter of Australia’s James Cook University, former chairman of the earth science panel of the Australian Research Council, who has published numerous peer-reviewed papers and is an outspoken dissenter of Gore and the UN IPCC’s climate claims. Prominent scientist Professor Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, a leading world authority on sea levels and coastal erosion who headed the Department of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics at Stockholm University, was also on hand during the panel’s question and answer session.

Another scientist stood up to a key question about the recent global cooling trend. “We know temperature goes up and down, we know there is tremendous amount of natural variations, but for how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand—we politicians and scientists-- that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” the scientist asked to applause from the audience.

See full story here.

Mt Ruapehu is claiming the biggest snow base ever recorded for a New Zealand skifield with over 4.5m of snow on the ground. Ruapehu Alpine Lifts, operator of Mt Ruapehu ski area, was celebrating what it called a major milestone today. The snow measuring stake at Turoa previously only stood at 380cm so had to be extended to measure today’s 455cm snow base.

The Whakapapa side of the mountain also had 350cm of snow, the biggest since 1995. Mt Ruapehu marketing manager Mike Smith said the record-breaking snow base would be paradise for skiers and boarders, and with such large bases the season could potentially keep going into November. Staff at Ruapehu’s ski fields have been kept busy looking out for avalanche risks and working to dig many of their lifts and buildings out, straining under the weight of huge snowfalls.

But while the North Island field was claiming the record, southern skifield Cardrona, near Queenstown, was proclaiming the quality, not quantity, of its snow. Geoff Wayatt, who runs the snow safety and ski patrol for Cardrona, said the snow measured 78cm at the base and about 110cm at the top station. The weather patterns meant that the more northern fields could receive bigger snow falls, he said. “They have got great terrain, we have got better snow. The further south you go the colder it gets and the better the snow quality.” Mt Hutt reported a 267cm snow base.

Dunedin and Christchurch residents woke to snow this morning as sleety showers moved north. Meanwhile in Canterbury, a further 3 to 5cm was expected to hit the Port Hills and the Banks Peninsula where the Christchurch City Council has reported roads closed.  Read more here and here.

See larger graph here. Go to ski area here.

My grandmother used to say, “Your sins will find you out.” It’s a variation on Sir Walter Scott’s comment, “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!” but far more direct to an impressionable grandson. World leaders consistently cite the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the basis for their policies on energy and environment.  In response to my email on the subject John Baird, Canadian Minister of the Environment stated in part, “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2007, presents compelling scientific proof that the world’s climate has changed because of human action and industrial growth.  With respect to the role of carbon dioxide in causing climate change, the Panel finds that carbon dioxide is “the most important” human-produced greenhouse gas. The Government of Canada accepts the Panel’s findings, and is moving forward to address climate change.” Most other governments take the same position, which is unfortunate because the IPCC position is based on an unproven theory tested with a computer model designed to prove the theory, but which consistently produces results that don’t match reality. Ironically, it is their definitive positions and statements that provide the evidence for their tangled web.

There is not a single case in history for any period of any duration where CO2 increase precedes temperature increase. All records show temperature increase precedes CO2 increase. But the IPCC have ‘proved’ with computer models they are 90% certain that the current warming is due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases, namely CO2. This is pre-determined because the computer model is programmed to have an increase in temperature if CO2 increases. By their own definitive statements, temperatures cannot go down as long as CO2 increases. Trouble is CO2 has continued to increase but temperatures have declined and many scientists expect them to go lower until at least 2030.

It didn’t take long for nature to show the IPCC was wrong. Excuses were equally quick to appear. For example, they said it was El Nino but that turned out to be a non-event. Of course, the IPCC couldn’t get the right answer for the cooling trend because it was not programmed in the computer. While they include solar activity they only consider one aspect - the electromagnetic spectrum. Meanwhile they studiously avoided any discussion of the clear relationship between sunspot activity and temperature. They claimed there was no mechanism to explain the correlation so it could not be included, but that is incorrect. A very valid mechanism known as the Cosmic Theory (Svensmark and Calder, “The Chilling Stars") has been in the literature with increasing detail since 1991. The date is important because IPCC claimed it was excluded because it was not published in time to meet their cut off date for consideration.  Solar activity has declined since a peak at the end of the 20th century. There have been virtually no sunspots for over 400 days. The simple relationship is more sunspots higher temperatures, fewer sunspots colder temperatures. The Cosmic Theory provides the mechanism.

The IPCC mandate is to examine human causes of climate change. However, you cannot determine the human effect if you do not know the cause and extent of natural climate change. You cannot determine the effect if you leave out major components of the climate system and make assumptions that contradict natural evidence. As a result they have publicly determined with a 90% certainty that human CO2 is the cause of temperature change. Now events have caught up with them - their sins have found them out. My Grandmother wouldn’t be surprised nor should the public once they understand what is going on behind the so-called science. Read moe here.

I have been involved in climate change for nearly 30 years. In 1980, a few of us in the research organization of a large multinational energy corporation realized that the climate issue was likely to affect our future business environment.We subsequently started the only industrial research activity in the basic science of climate change. The move was justified by the fact that the best way to really understand a complex technical issue is to actually work in the area, interacting with other scientists. I have supervised climate scientists working in the area of climate change and have followed the area closely. Over the years our researchers have served as authors of key IPCC report chapters. I would like to share some perspectives with you.

I retired four years ago, and at the time of my retirement I was well convinced, as were most technically trained people, that the IPCC’s case for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is very tight. However, upon taking the time to get into the details of the science, I was appalled at how flimsy the case really is. I was also appalled at the behavior of many of those who helped produce the IPCC reports and by many of those who promote it. In particular I am referring to the arrogance; the activities aimed at shutting down debate; the outright fabrications; the mindless defense of bogus science, and the politicization of the IPCC process and the science process itself.

As contrary evidence has accumulated, proponents of strong AGW have begun to display signs of cognitive dissonance. The famed social psychologist Leon Festinger, developer of the concept of cognitive dissonance, conducted early studies of the phenomenon. One study looked at people who bought bomb shelters during the cold war. It was found that such people tended to exaggerate the threat of nuclear war, and nothing could dissuade them. Good news about relaxed tensions and peace initiatives was rejected. Such developments brought about cognitive dissonance, bizarrely almost as if they were invested in nuclear war. The psychological model is that their belief system became part of their identity, their self, and information at odds with that belief system became an attack on the self. This helps explain why such people can be resistant to information that would be judged positive on a rational basis.

Having said all this, it does not mean that there is no threat or that we should not debate some kind of action to control atmospheric CO2. It does mean that the case for immediate draconian measures that will have the effect or restricting world economic growth is poor. It does mean that the climate is unpredictable, even with modern tools, and this implies that continuing to load the atmosphere poses imponderable risks to terrestrial life. I believe that the way to a solution lies with new technology for both energy supply and for directly controlling net emissions. In this regard the role of governments is not to enact restrictive economic measures via market interventions, or to choose the winners in a technology race. Its proper role is to encourage the development and deployment of new technology through direct funding of R&D and through tax incentives for industries that research, develop, and deploy such technology.Read more here.

Dr. Roger Cohen is an APS Fellow

I have spent the last 3 days driving back to Calgary from Montreal which has given me the opportunity to ponder the reality of this whole issue (of man-made global warming). Our letter to the UN demonstrates that this is not an issue of science but a moral issue of self serving individuals imposing their ideology on the world under the guise of environmentalism and this has caused nothing but hardship for the entire world.

It is not about science because the globe is cooling and CO2 is increasing falsifying the hypothesis. It is not about reducing fossil fuel consumption because biofuels do not increase the energy supply but in fact require more energy than they produce.  Sequestering CO2 is also a negative with respect to energy because the compression of CO2 to 30 atmospheres requires the energy equivalent of about 5000bbls for each megatonne sequestered.

It is not about the environment because CO2 is not a pollutant and this issue focuses primarily on reducing CO2 and totally ignores the actual pollution from fossil fuels as is clearly demonstrated by the current state of the air quality in Beijing which has resulted primarily from coal fired power plants that have no pollution controls. It is not about economics because unlike the premise of the Stern Report that states economic benefit to addressing human caused global warming now as opposed to the cost of dealing with its consequences, there is no human caused global warming to address so there are no consequences of human caused global warming to face in the future.

Like it or not the global economy is based on energy. The countries with the highest energy consumption are the economic leaders and those with the lowest are the poorest countries. All of the global temperature datasets show that the world has cooled since 2002. In 2002 the oil price was $27.60/bbl; in the last month it has peaked to over $145.00/bbl. By 2002 the warmers realized that the global thermometers were not supporting their agenda and they stepped up the rhetoric about impending disasters and vilified CO2 as a pollutant and the source of this problem. The most significant consequence of this attack on CO2 was to make new coal fired power generation an uneconomic venture because “clean coal” now required sequestering CO2 which increases the cost by at least 3 times. Effectively this removes coal as a competitive energy source and with nuclear energy already in the environmental bad books there is no competitive alternative to oil and therefore no price control. Without this control, speculators can take advantage of every rumor about possible threats to the oil supply and drive up the price of oil to its current level with no energy alternative providing a ceiling cap to the price.  Read full report here.

After I posted GISS Spackle and Caulk, a number of commenters marveled at the symmetry of the histogram (GISS temperature estimate minus actual temperature). Some were dismayed that there was not a clear warming bias in the plot. Others were giddy for the very same reason. A few noted (as I hoped) that the differences tended to be rather large, but most seemed content with the fact GISS could hit the side of a barn from five feet.

No one should be surprised with the shape of the histogram. The “simulation” I performed required that all three months be available in a specific season for a specific station in order to calculate an estimate and compare it to the real value. For example, if summer 1957 was being tested, I needed June, July and August. If August were missing, the GISS algorithm would not be able to estimate June or July, and I would not have a real August to look at either. With all three months available, I forced symmetry into the result. For every over-estimated August I needed a corresponding under-estimated June or July. The algorithm demanded that if I estimate all three months, their average must match the true average.

However, that is akin to saying that if I flip a coin often enough, the number of heads will be roughly equal to the number of tails. As most of us have experienced, coin flipping can be quite streaky. It is not uncommon to flip eight heads in a row. But having flipped that many heads does not change the probability of the next coin flip. And so it goes with temperatures. In the actual application of the GISS algorithm, at most one month in a season can be estimated, so symmetry is not guaranteed. If one month is estimated more than another, it might be possible to introduce asymmetry.

As chance would have it, one specific month-year GHCN entry has had its temperature estimated by GISS far more than any other combination in the record. And as luck would have it, we have real GHCN data to compare against those estimates.

As has been noted repeatedly on this blog, MCDW records began replacing most non-US temperature records in the late 1980s. Most of the MCDW records begin in January 1987, and the records they replace generally end between December 1989 and December 1990. During the period of overlap, the MCDW records usually match exactly those that they replace. In a few cases they might differ by one or two tenths of a degree in the occasional month.

When an MCDW month begins in January 1987, the winter season temperature (DJF) is missing the December 1986 value, so GISS must estimate it. But the record that MCDW replaces contains a real, live December value. This means that, when an MCDW record agrees with an existing record during the period of overlap, the real December value can be compared against the estimate from MCDW. So of course I looked at this for all GHCN records. Following is a histogram showing the GISS estimate of December 1986 minus the actual for GHCN stations in Europe and Russia. I will show other regions of the world in future posts. The reason I focus on this broad swath of land is that the resulting records are among the most lengthy available.

See larger image here

One might notice GISS under-estimates December 1986 for this region by a greater than 2 to 1 margin. By cooling the older record and leaving the current record unchanged, an enhanced warming trend is introduced. This is completely artificial, of course, because the actual December 1986 temperatures are available.  In this case, GISS got their eight heads in a row. Read the full account here.