A post by Steve Milloy of Junkscience has turned up some interesting figures about the ‘Population Bomb’. Here they are:
Per capita global food production has […] increased by 26.5 percent between 1968 and 2005, according to the World Resources Institute. The number of people who starve to death daily declined from 41,000 in 1977 to 24,000 today, according to The Hunger Project, an organization combating global hunger
http://junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/2008082108.html
If you multiply 24,000 by the number of days in a year, this works out at about 8.7 million deaths from starvation per annum; a million more than the whole population of Greater London.
Later in his article, Milloy mentions that:
According to U.N. statistics, the number of people in the developing world who were considered to be undernourished in 1968 was estimated at about 900 million. That estimate is on track to be reduced by more than 50 per cent by 2015, according to the U.N.
The United Nations is an organisation that loves to take credit for any improvement in the human condition, and it has no shame about self-administered pats on the back. But looking more closely at these figures, we find some rather nasty facts that we should all be ashamed about.
If the number of undernourished people in the developing world has almost halved in the last forty years, that still leaves nearly 450 million people today – almost half a billion out of a global population of about 6 billion – who do not get enough to eat. And of course malnutrition increases mortality rates from numerous causes other than starvation.
The downward trend is encouraging, but it should not be used to disguise the fact that in the first decade of the 21st century, more than one in 13 of the world’s population are deprived of the most fundamental necessity of existence; they are not getting enough to eat.
If these figures applied equally to both the first world and the developing world, then what would the reaction of European and North American governments – and the electorates that have voted them into office – be? Just imagine what our priorities would be if 13 out of every 100 people in the UK were undernourished? What would the headlines in the media say?
At the moment there is much hand-ringing among world leaders about the ‘world food crisis’,which has been caused, in part at least, by demand for biofuels. And until quite recently, biofuels were hailed as one of the alternative sources of energy that could stop climate change. The organisation that has done more than any other to spread alarm about possible global warming is, of course, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a UN agency.
I only saw the starvation and malnutrition figures because I happened to get an email notification about Steve Milloy’s article. So far as I know the press and the rest of the mass media made nothing of the story. Contrast this lack of reaction with the following, which comes from a lead story in the Washington Post in 2005:
Climate Shift Tied To 150,000 Fatalities
Most Victims Are Poor, Study Says
By Juliet Eilperin
Earth’s warming climate is estimated to contribute to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses each year, according to the World Health Organization, [another UN agency] a toll that could double by 2030.
The data, being published today in the journal Nature, indicate that climate change is driving up rates of malaria, malnutrition and diarrhea throughout the world.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111602197.html
Not surprisingly, this story was the subject of worldwide headlines within hours, and the mantra ‘climate change is killing 150,000 people a year’ has remained popular with global warming advocates ever since.
Whether or not the small rise in global temperatures that we saw during the 20th century was caused by human activity, and can therefor be controlled, has yet to be decided. What is certain is that it is well within our capabilities to make sure that people get enough to eat, provided that the political will exists to give this matter priority.
I have no opinion on the validity of the WHO’s research, which was carried out by the University of Wisconsin; it is the public attitude that interests me. The figure for supposed climate change induced deaths is one-three-thousandth of that for malnutrition. There is a body of research that shows that mortality anomalies are higher when temperatures fall than when they rise, and it is common ground that natural variation in temperature has always been a characteristic of Earth’s climate. One thing that we can be sure of is that global temperatures are not, and never have been, constant. There will always be a trend either up or down, and there will always be some people who suffer as a result.
Many climate change sceptics consider that the present concerns about global warming now amount to hysteria, and our assessment of the scientific evidence is no longer rational. If this is the case, then millions in the developing world are going hungry unnecessarily while the eyes of the first world are focused on efforts to control the climate.
This kind of hysteria kills.
Looks like we’ve wandered down a “blind alley” a bit on this blog, which started out as a discussion on “How Many People Has ‘Climate Change’ Killed?” (where “climate change” is the new “brand name” for “anthropogenic greenhouse warming”).
It has now become an interesting discussion on causes and effects of the horrible recent Australian fires.
Changes in climate are known to have killed millions in the historical past. Most notable in recent history was the period of unusually cold climate called the Little Ice Age, which followed a period of unusually mild climate and human population growth.
With this cooling came crop failures, food shortages and famine, followed by pestilence and plagues, made worse by the harsh climate.
In 1976 the late climate researcher at the University of Wisconsin, Reid Bryson (known by many as the father of climate science) responded to the question, “Do we face an ice age” with:
“Climate is always changing. About 1000 B.C. there was a sharp cooling after 5,000 years of climate optimum. Scandinavian winters became so severe as to inspire legends about the winter – fimbulveter – that heralded the end of civilization on earth. By the time of the Roman Empire, world climate was stable again: warm and dry. Then, from A.D. 550 to 800, the climate grew cold. This and other evidence suggested that changing climate might be the cause of many ups and downs in civilization. Could bitter winters be the cause of the Dark Ages? After A.D. 800 there was a remarkable warming that restored mild temperatures `all the way to Greenland, which probably favored Viking expeditions across the Atlantic. Then came what is now known as the Little Ice Age. Symptoms appeared in Europe in the 13th century and elsewhere soon after. Severe phases followed around 1430 to 1470 and between 1550 and 1700. The Norse colony died out. Chinese farmers abandoned orange growing in the southern province of Kwangsi. Winters were so severe in Ireland that famines became the norm. By 1850, the cooling reversed, and a warming trend continued until the mid-1940s. Summer rain came to the Sahel pastures south of the Sahara. The summer monsoon rains seldom failed in India. Then, after World War II, temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere began dropping, recently reaching the level of the late 19th century.”
This was around the time that another climate scientist, Dr. Stephen Schneider (at that time at the National Center for Atmospheric Research at Boulder, CO), was predicting a new little ice age, and yet another, Dr. Walter Orr Roberts (also at NCAR), suggested a period of severe droughts, based on historical records and the solar cycle.
When asked if he believed that the world was entering another ice age, Dr. Bryson said, “The evidence is clear that climate is changing in a direction that is not promising.” But Bryson, who had previously predicted the possibility of an onset of a new ice age by the mid-21st century due to solar influences, fell short of predicting one in 1976.
Other scientists agreed. Dr. Kenneth Hare of the University of Toronto and former president of the Royal Meteorological Society said, “Bryson is the most important figure in climatology today. I take what he says seriously.” Another renowned climate scientist and historian of the time, Dr. Hubert H. Lamb, of East Anglia University added, “Bryson and I have almost identical views on this”.
All of this happened a mere 30+ years ago. Dr. Bryson has recently passed away, but he maintained his position that “climate is always changing”. And with it, the fate of humanity.
So I believe that our question is not really “how many people has climate change killed?”, (because we know that the answer to this question is “millions over the course of history” (mostly during periods of abnormally cold weather or resulting long periods of drought, crop failure or famine).
Our question should be “how many people has the recent period of suspected anthropogenic warming since the mid-20th century killed?”
And there are several studies out there (notably the exhaustive one by Indur Goklany, plus medical studies from several sources), which indicate that the answer is “very few, if any” and, on balance, fewer deaths than before the slight warming.
Max
If the wording of the question is up for discussion, how about “how many people will AGW kill in the 21st and 22nd centuries?”
The proposed climate mitigation program is designed to counter future climate changes. We cannot change whatever has happened.
The nature of human psychology is a problem. We tend to learn by our mistakes. We are all reactive in nature, no matter how much modern business types promote the vitues of proactivity. It wasn’t even a word in the English language until recently. When things go wrong they get fixed. People get killed on a dangerous road junction, and it is improved. An aircraft crashes due to design problem. It gets grounded and the problem is solved.
We can’t afford the same approach with climate change. We can’t afford to wait until the problem gets so bad, then it gets fixed. It will be too late by then.
Hi Peter,
You suggested: “If the wording of the question is up for discussion, how about ‘how many people will AGW kill in the 21st and 22nd centuries?’”
The answer to this question is obviously “nobody knows”.
If one looks back at the recent past, the answer is obviously “none, so far”.
But to look into the future, we must first establish many things that are unknown to us.
Examples:
Will the unusually inactive solar cycle 24 continue for an extended period of time?
Will the latest shift from an unusually high number of (warming) El Nino events in the late 20th century to more (cooling) La Nina events in the 21st century continue?
Is this trend in any way connected to the changes in solar activity, as some scientists conclude?
Will the 21st century cooling trend in the “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly” continue as a result of the above developments?
Or will we again see a reversal to a continuation of the long-term warming trend we have experienced since coming out of the Little Ice Age?
Will human CO2 emissions play a significant role in 21st century climate development as IPCC projects?
Or will we see that the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity is really only around 0.6 to 0.8C, rather than 3.2C, as assumed by IPCC with all the assumed “positive feedbacks” fed into the computer models, rendering human CO2 as “insignificant” to our future climate?
Is there some new scientific breakthrough on the horizon that will drastically affect ourknowledge of climate change and cause a major shift in the current AGW paradigm?
These are all very much open questions. And there are obviously many more.
Until we answer these questions it would be utterly foolish to embark into a discussion on “how many people will AGW kill in the 21st and 22nd centuries?”
If you have another opinion on this, please advise.
Regards,
Max
Max,
You ask If you have another opinion on this, please advise.
Will the unusually inactive solar cycle 24 continue for an extended period of time? No
Will the latest shift from an unusually high number of (warming) El Nino events in the late 20th century to more (cooling) La Nina events in the 21st century continue? No. We are due for a return to El Nino. Then in future it will be back to La Lina again.
Is this trend in any way connected to the changes in solar activity, as some scientists conclude? No
Will the 21st century cooling trend in the “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly” continue as a result of the above developments? No
Or will we again see a reversal to a continuation of the long-term warming trend we have experienced since coming out of the Little Ice Age? No. That ended around 1970. More AGW in pipeline though
Will human CO2 emissions play a significant role in 21st century climate development as IPCC projects? Yes
Or will we see that the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity is really only around 0.6 to 0.8C, rather than 3.2C, as assumed by IPCC with all the assumed “positive feedbacks” fed into the computer models, rendering human CO2 as “insignificant” to our future climate? No Its not just the IPCC. Every major scientific body in the world would agree that around 3 deg is the likely figure.
Is there some new scientific breakthrough on the horizon that will drastically affect ourknowledge of climate change and cause a major shift in the current AGW paradigm? More likely to be a continuing accumulation of knowledge than ‘breakthrough’.
It would be utterly foolish to not to embark into a discussion on “how many people will AGW kill in the 21st and 22nd centuries”
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your “crystal ball” prophesies on what the future will bring.
I cannot accept your prophesy as anything more that just a statement of quasi-religious “belief”, i.e. “the end is near” stuff.
You have no observed facts to support this belief.
The fact that many scientists still support the notion of a 2xCO2 impact of 3.2C (despite the fact that it has been thoroughly refuted by the physical observations on cloud feedbacks by Spencer et al.) is because they earn from supporting this belief.
It’s the old combination of “no crisis, no funding”, “follow the money trail” and billions of taxpayer dollars money at work, with some rather gullible individuals like you falling for the ruse.
Sorry, Peter. AGW has killed no one to date and we certainly cannot predict with any degree of certainty that it will kill anyone in the future.
But if you think that you can provide viable quantative projections that this is incorrect, please do so.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
For your enlightenment, below is an extract from Encyclopaedia Brittanica on the Little Ice Age, a period from which we have gradually been emerging since around 1850.
A lesser, recent glacial stage called the Little Ice Age began in the 15th century and advanced and receded intermittently over more than three centuries.
Studies of glacial sediments, tree rings, and written records show that, from the beginning of the 16th century until the mid-19th century, cooler and harsher conditions prevailed in most parts of the world than immediately before or after.
Its maximum development was reached about 1750, at which time glaciers were more widespread on Earth than at any time since the principal Quaternary Ice Ages. Throughout most of what is commonly called the Little Ice Age (1500-1850) the mean solar activity was quite low, but positive fluctuations occurred around 1540-90 and 1770-1800. The main westerly storm belts shifted about 500 kilometres to the south, and for much of the time the northern latitudes came under cool continental conditions.
Observed temperature series in Europe from Paris to St. Petersburg show large fluctuations until 1850. Glacier advances are recorded in the Alps, in the Sierra Nevada, and in Alaska. Corresponding low sea levels are recorded by early tide gauge records in The Netherlands and Germany. Even in equatorial latitudes there are traces of mountain glacier advances (as in the Andes of Colombia).
Given man’s dependence on nature, the deterioration of the climate during the Little Ice Age should be considered as a demographic factor. The absence of sunspots after 1645 was noted by astronomers using the recently invented telescope; the aurora borealis (caused by high-energy particles from the Sun entering the Earth’s atmosphere) was so rarely visible that it was thought ominous when it did appear; measurement of tree rings shows them to be relatively thin in this period but containing heavy deposits of radioactive carbon-14, associated with the decline of solar energy; snow lines were observed to be lower; and glaciers advanced into Alpine valleys, reaching their farthest point about 1670.
All of these phenomena support plentiful anecdotal evidence for a period of unfavourable climate characterized by cold winters and wet summers. A decrease of about 1 percent in solar radiation meant a growing season shorter by three weeks and the altitude at which crops would ripen lowered by 500 feet.
With most of the population living near subsistence level and depending upon cereal crops, the effect was most severe on those who farmed marginal land, especially on northerners for whom the growing season was already short.
They were not the only ones who suffered, for freakish conditions were possible then as now. Around Toledo–where until the late 17th century the plains and sierras of New Castile provided a bare living from wheat, vines, and olives–disastrous frosts resulted in mass emigration. Drought also brought deprivation.
During 1683 no rain fell in Andalusia until November; the cattle had to be killed, the crops were dry stalks, and thousands starved. In the great winter of 1708-09, rivers froze, even the swift-flowing Rhône, and wolves roamed the French countryside; after late frosts, which killed vines and olive trees, the harvest was a catastrophe: by December the price of bread had quadrupled.
Less spectacular, but more deadly, were the sequences of cold springs and wet summers.
From the great mortalities such as those of 1647-52 and 1691-95 in France the population was slow to recover; women were rendered infertile, marriages were delayed, and births were avoided. They were times of fear for masters and shameful resort to beggary, abortion, and infanticide for the common people.
It was also a hard time for the government and its tax-collectors. Crop failures were common. The disastrous harvest of the previous year was the direct cause of the revolt of the Sicilians in 1648. The connection between the outbreak of the Fronde in the same year and harvest failure is less direct: some revolt would probably have occurred in any case.
There is a clear link, however, between the wet Swedish summer of 1649 and the constitutional crisis of the following year.
Although the main cold phase ended about 1700, the bleak winters and cool, moist summers that characterized the Little Ice Age continued in many parts of the world until as late as the mid-19th century. In 1850, for example, meteorological instrument records show that temperatures were still about 0.7°C below present-day global values.
Copyright © 1994-2000 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
How many people would a return to colder climate versus warmer climate kill?
Think about it a bit from the actual historical perspective, Peter, not from the “vitual reality” of GIGO computer models.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
You obliged by giving me your “crystal ball” prophesies for the future in your #79. Thanks!
Now let me give you mine:
Will the unusually inactive solar cycle 24 continue for an extended period of time?
Who knows? (Not Peter. Certainly not the IPCC.)
Will the latest shift from an unusually high number of (warming) El Nino events in the late 20th century to more (cooling) La Nina events in the 21st century continue?
Who knows? (Not Peter. Certainly not the IPCC.)
Is this trend in any way connected to the changes in solar activity, as some scientists conclude?
Probably, but who knows for sure? (Not Peter. Certainly not the IPCC.)
Will the 21st century cooling trend in the “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly” continue as a result of the above developments?
It’s likely, but who knows? (Not Peter. Certainly not the IPCC.)
Or will we again see a reversal to a continuation of the long-term warming trend we have experienced since coming out of the Little Ice Age?
Who knows? It appears likely that the very slight warming trend of around 0.6C per century will continue, but we may not be that lucky, if some solar scientists are right.
Will human CO2 emissions play a significant role in 21st century climate development as IPCC projects?
No, not any more than they have in the past (0.3C over the past 100 years).
Or will we see that the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity is really only around 0.6 to 0.8C, rather than 3.2C, as assumed by IPCC with all the assumed “positive feedbacks” fed into the computer models, rendering human CO2 as “insignificant” to our future climate?
Probably, since physical observations on cloud feedbacks support this premise.
Is there some new scientific breakthrough on the horizon that will drastically affect our knowledge of climate change and cause a major shift in the current AGW paradigm?
Extremely likely. Climate science (like any new science) is a rapidly moving target. Today’s paradigms are quickly superseded by new knowledge, leading to a fundamental “paradigm shift”. This has happened in many scientific fields in the past, and is very likely to occur again. Is Svensmark a candidate here with his cosmic ray / cloud hypothesis? Who knows? (Not Peter. Certainly not the IPCC.)
It would be utterly foolish not to embark into a discussion on “how many people will AGW kill in the 21st and 22nd centuries”
Peter added the word “not”. I believe that it would, indeed, be “utterly foolish” – “until we answer the above questions”. And we obviously have not done so yet, Peter..
Regards,
Max
Peter Martin, Reur 74, I see that yet again you have evaded the issues in my 73 around bushfire and maximum temperature history, in THE STATE OF VICTORIA by implying among other things that data published by the Oz BOM are wrong.(for the state of VICTORIA, but not for central Oz). It is the VICTORIAN data that you should be trying to understand, and not that of some other part of Oz, or what that fruitcake Karoly might think. Just look at the FACTS for the state of VICTORIA
I repeat the issues listed in my 73, that you evade
1) Please clarify what you mean by your apparent accusation of me: “doctoring the BOM graphs”.
2) Please confirm that you agree that the BOM graphics that I have presented in 69, 62 & 60 show no correlation in the state of VICTORIA between monthly average MAXIMUM temperatures and global warming.
3) Please confirm that you agree that the BOM graphic link that YOU have presented in 70 shows no correlation in the state of VICTORIA between the number of very hot days and global warming.
4) Please confirm that you agree that the BOM graphics that I have presented in 60 show no correlation in the state of VICTORIA between yearly average MAXIMUM temperatures and severe bush fires, (or global warming), as far back as 1910, (The biggest was in 1851; Black Thursday)
I guess you will continue to evade these issues, so here are some alternative entertainments:
5) Please advise if you really meant to write in your 65, “But when they come from Central Australia [the north winds] they’ll be much hotter, dryer and stronger.”, and if you still believe this to be true.
6) If your answer to 5) is that you believe a “hotter desert centre” will result in stronger north winds, would you please advise why it was that when the airflow from there was very gentle during the January 3-day heatwave in Melbourne, the temperatures slowly built-up as follows: day one; ~43C, day two; ~44C & day three; ~45C?
Please conform to proper standards of debate, and respond to these issues.
Max,
It may well that many of the residents of Northern Europe, or Canada and the Northern parts of the USA would prefer to live in a warmer climate.
Your solution: Warm the climate. Bad idea.
My solution: Suggest they move to Southern Europe, or the Southern parts of the USA. Good idea.
Hi Peter,
You wrote some (tongue in cheek, I assume) “words of advice” to “residents of Northern Europe, or Canada and the Northern parts of the USA” to “move to Southern Europe, or the Southern parts of the USA”.
Many have done exactly this, particularly retirees, who can choose their place of residence more freely.
In so doing, many have extended their life expectancy or quality of life, since it is medically proven that warmers climate is better for the health than colder climate, particularly harsh winters.
But isn’t that what this whole thread is all about?
Regards,
Max
P.S. I agree with you that “warm the climate” is a “bad idea”, primarily because there is no way we can really do this. (Or possibly you want to explain to someone living in Minnesota how he/she can “warm” the winter climate there?)
Mr Peter Marshall, the Australian United Firefighters Union general secretary, says that in 25 years of being a firefighter, he has never seen anything like the devastation Victoria is currently facing.
and wants ‘urgent action on global warming’
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/12/2489847.htm
Peter Martin, Reur 86, in which you wrote:
Marshall has also been active in the Victorian Trades Hall Council as president. I guess he is quite correct in saying that the continuing fires in VICTORIA, are the worst he has seen in his 25 years of experience. However, what about the past history of drought and fire?
Quoting quickly from the www (Google):
So; Australia’s population has increased let’s say four-fold since WW1. (Actually, I have recollection from somewhere that the OZ population was more like 4 million during WW1). Was Peter Marshall around on Black Friday 1939 when officially 71 people were killed by bushfire, (but many saved in no longer used low-tech dug-outs), or pro rata approaching ~300 people in today’s terms. (plus somewhere between 1.5 -2.0 million hectares burnt, and a few etc’s)
Or was he here on Black Thursday 1851, when ~5 million hectares were burnt, and 12 people killed, when the population of Melbourne was only about 1/16 of what we have now?
Amusingly, you have previously worshipped Karoly as a true prophet, but now a trades union activist is your oracle of the ultimate truth not only in history but also in global warming?
Putting that diversionary comedy aside:
WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO RESPOND TO THE SIX ISSUES THAT I HAVE RAISED ABOVE, SEVERALLY?
Bob_FJ,
Do I detect an element of anti-Trades Unionism in your comments? Are firefighters, widely considered to be national heroes when they are stood in front of the flames, suddenly transformed into dangerous subversives when they form trade unions?
If you are aware of Australian history you’ll know that some of the original ‘convicts’ who were transported here in the 18th and 19th centuries were guilty of nothing more than being members of a trade union.
On your points regarding the Bushfires I’ll just refer you to the Wikipedia entry on the subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Victorian_bushfires
Everyone has free right of access to edit Wikipedia, so and it might be a useful way to test out your arguments on someone other than myself.
You might just want to take a look at the section on the Forest Fire Danger Index. This was devised to have a scale of 1-100. 100 representing the conditions of the previous worst Victorian fires, Black Friday in 1939. Values ranging from 120 to 190 were recorded at various times during the recent fire storm.
I guess climate sceptics will inevitably ask the question of “Can it be proved that the recent fires were caused by AGW?” They’ll take heart when scientists truthfully have to say “No it can’t be proved”
But neither can we prove that a loaded dice will land on a six because it is loaded. If it were a fair dice it would, of course, land on a six, one in six times. The loading would change that to one in four times maybe. Even if it were so highly loaded that it was landing on a six every other time, or even 99.9% of the time, it still wouldn’t be possible to say with absolute certainty, each time that it landed on a six, that a six was certainly the result of the dice being loaded.
That’s the same situation with climate change. The dice will be progressively loaded as CO2 concentrations rise. Dangerous fires in Victoria will become increasingly common. Don’t think of moving to the more dangerous areas!
Peter Martin, Reur latest yawn in your 88 ramble;
I ask yet again:
WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO RESPOND TO THE ISSUES, CLEARLY NUMBERED 1 through 6, THAT I HAVE RAISED ABOVE, and severally reminded you of?
Bob_FJ,
I’m not sure how you can claim any lack of correlation, by looking at monthly figures, between Victorian temperatures and bushfires when the February monthly data hasn’t been released yet!
And even if they were available, it is quite possible that the cooler weather for the second half of month will mean that the average will be not much different than normal.
What we do already know about February was that record temperatures were broken, the Forest Fire Index went off the scale and Victoria had the highest casualties ever from bush fires.
It should also be remembered that the extent of the Victorian forest is much diminished. Less than half what it was 100 years ago. At the same time the level of technology that is now available to fight fires has improved out of sight compared with what was available to previous generations. They didn’t have water bombing helicopters for instance.
People were less mobile. We’ve seen that even modern cars have difficulty outrunning a bushfire. They would have had horse drawn carts and maybe bicycles.
And yet with all these factors in our favour the death toll from the fires has reached record levels.
I’m sorry its all a bit of a yawn to you. If you’d followed my advice and kept off the plonk you might be able to stay awake a bit better.
Instead of pestering me with you silly questions why don’t you read up on what the Australian Climate Institute have to say on the bushfires:
http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=374:the-fires-of-climate-change&catid=39:media-releases&Itemid=36
Peter Martin, you wrote in part in your 90, apparently in response to only my item 1) of my list of six JOINT issues:
Although it was very naughty of you to take only one of the concert of 6 items, you should be aware that:
Any single event in the weather, for instance the regional extraordinary cold in China in January 2008 with its massive almost unbelievable infrastructure failures, is no indication of global warming or cooling. It is long term trends that are significant, as YOU have often stated. In the regional case of the state of VICTORIA, the Oz BOM has published graphics showing the monthly average of MAXIMUM temperatures for January and February, the peak fire-season, and also the lesser risk December and March periods.
These ALL SHOW that the trend of MAXIMUM temperatures for each of these months for the last 58 years has been flat, including long-ago months that have been significantly warmer than in recent years. This is intuitively opposite to global trends, given that according to Phil Jones at UEA/CRU/Hadley, the global average temperature has risen ~0.6 degrees C, and BTW, according to YOU, the temperature of the hot central deserts in Oz have risen ~2C over that time. However, these are NOT the only FACTS showing that the recent Melbourne heatwave and bushfires show NO CORRELATION to global warming, as you have claimed. In addition there are the five other issues that I listed that are JOINTLY FACTUALLY OVERWHELMING in that conclusion. (See my 73 above, and following repeats)
Now if you might think to bleat that 58 years is not long enough to observe a trend in monthly average temperatures in VICTORIA, (Or for example in the case of item 2, that data for the number of “very hot days” over the past 58 years), then I will remind you of the mantra you espouse that about 30 years of satellite observation “prove that regional Arctic sea-ice melt was the “worst ever” in 2007.” (This is despite that Greenland records show that it was warmer in the early 20th century, and that exploration of the unknown NWP with the then relatively primitive technologies, such as inadequate mapping of a very complex archipelago, were crudely successful etc.)
Pete, please stick to the FACTS, and avoid making fundamentalist assumptions and believing the Karoly‘s, the politicians, and the trade unionists etc in this world.
In the immortal words of “Sportin’ Life” in George and Ira Gershwin’s great folk/jazz opera:
It ain’t necessarily so…. The things that you’re li’ble to read in the Bible, it ain’t necessarily so!
Peter Martin,
Have just got back from a pleasant walk with the dog.
We had a cool change come through, where the wind direction reverses, and temperatures suddenly fall
Consequently, the threat of ember attack or advanced spotting of fires ahead of the northerly fire-front towards Warburton and elsewhere has gone.
Unfortunately though, the town of Upwey (per the radio, before my walk) is now instead said to be under threat, despite the cool temperatures.
Such a cool change, (wind reversal), trapped and killed 17 fire-fighters on Ash Wednesday 1983 BTW.
Wind is what causes fire-storms, not ambient temperature BTW.
Bob_FJ,
You write “Wind is what causes fire-storms, not ambient temperature BTW.”
Its just a chore having to correct this sort of basic mistake, but I’m sure that even you can understand that this is obviously wrong if you just give it a moments thought. You just don’t get forest fire storms in the cooler parts of the world, or even in the Victorian winter no matter how dry or windy it might be.
Look up the factors that go into the Forest Fire Danger Index. Sure wind is included. As is temperature, relative humidity, and forest dryness.
Peter Martin, Reur 93, unless you are trolling, you appear to have not correctly read the concluding remark in my 92. I’ll try again, but this time with emphasis added to a key word
“Wind is what causes fire-storms, not ambient temperature BTW.”
Here it is again: FIRE-STORMS
There! Did you get it this time?
It should also be read in the context of the preceding text and graphic of the cool change.
I’m not talking about prolonged drought or fuel accumulation etc which create bad conditions
I’m not talking about the path a fire takes either in the direction of a township or benignly away from habitation.
I’m not talking about how fires start, or how high temperatures make it terrible for the fire-fighters….and so-on.
I’m talking about the effect of wind, and for instance the fire-storms that killed so many in their path on 7 Feb, regardless of many other factors.
I think I have already referred the following to you somewhere, but here it is again concerning the COOL CHANGE and WIND REVERSAL during the Ash Wednesday fires in 1983:
After the Wind Change
The wind change moved through south-west Victoria by early evening. This was disastrous, as the westerly winds caused the fires to change direction and size. Prior to the wind change, the fires had been relatively long and thin, with a narrow head, or front. After the wind change, the long side of the fire then became the head, or front, of the fire, burning across a much wider front.
The wind change also caused fires to merge, such as the Cudgee/ Ballangeich fire near Warrnambool. Firefighters had many problems trying to control these large bushfires. Most of the losses of life and property occurred in the hour following the wind
change.
“I could not believe the speed at which the flames moved… ……there’s no way you could have beaten it running”
Warrnambool Resident, (from Oliver, et. al. 1984) (The emphasis is original; not mine)
The effect of wind in bushfire is greater than that of bellows blowing into a blacksmith’s fire. There are several additional reasons for that. Are you able to find-out or deduce what they are?
BTW, the ambient T in a blacksmith’s shop makes no detectable difference to the 1000 – 2000C T in his fire.
Psst: Peter Martin:
Further to my 92, here is a later 11:05 PM version of the pen-graphic for Melbourne city temperatures that I posted in my 92:
Can you see that something significant happened, quite suddenly shortly after 4:00 PM at the BOM city site?
Not long after this, (as the wind travels), the worrying threat to beautiful Warburton to the north east etc was removed, but instead some new threats were radio-broadcast for Upwey and other areas further north.
I know it is a bit challenging for you, but are you able to understand the significance of the graphic?
Peter Martin,
You may have heard yesterday that firefighters, working on the important bits (= human assets threats) of a fire circumference reportedly at ~1100 Km in Victoria were worried about a forecast of strong north winds for today, to be followed by a gusty cool change, (wind reversal). However, I hope you are not too disappointed, but it did not happen. Here is the pen-trace of temperature in the city, for today, which you might like to compare with earlier less benign plots posted earlier. I hope it’s not too complicated for you, but perhaps you might learn something if you really try.
Incidentally the min and max temperatures today for 3 out of 19 Melbourne localities were
1) Melbourne City: 17.1 – 34.0C
2) Melbourne (international) Airport: 14.6 – 35.5c
3) Viewbank (NE suburb ~2Km south of me): 14.3 – 34.4
http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDV60900.shtml This was in real time, a short while ago
Someone please tell me what the average T of Melbourne was today, regardless of the time of day that the max or minimum occurred, or the variable shape of the pen trace for each day or locality.
Hello hello Pete,
You seem to have been active elsewhwere, but not on this thread.
Don’t be shy; please comment here too!
Peter Martin,
You seem to have been active elsewhwere, but not on this thread.
Don’t be shy; please comment here too!
Do you have any comments on the very strong winds forecast for tomorrow and the very dangerous fire-risk wind-change from northerly, to ~90 degrees across the flanks of any initially driven big fires by not a wind reversal but to a westerly, somewhat like that lethal wind change on Ash Wednesday 1983?
Hopefully of course, any such potential firestorm will not present to major areas of habitation.
Bob_FJ,
I wasn’t at all disappointed that the total death toll did not rise the other day as you suggested I might be. Hopefully it won’t rise again today either. I wouldn’t wish death by burning on anyone – not even the paid hirelings of the coal and oil companies who are busily spreading as much disinformation as possible and trying to discredit the scientific case in any way possible.
I suggest we take our lead from Max on this one. He got quite cross when he mistakenly thought I was showing disrespect to solar science. Saying I should “admit that [I] do not know more about solar forcing of 20th century climate than all these scientists”. Absolute right. Well said Max. And I don’t. And I don’t think I’m disagreeing with them or any other body of scientific opinion such as the IPCC either.
None of us know more about the Australian Climate than the many well qualified scientists at the CSIRO and Aussie BOM.
Lets just wait until they’ve presented their evidence to the Royal Commission. Let’s wait until the report is written and we can discuss the topic again then.
To answer the original question in this blog I would say ‘not many’.
It is an interesting question, and sort of question people ask all the time about a whole range of issues. For instance, if there is drug problem among young people we ask how many have died from overdoses etc. If we get the same answer of ‘not many’ then it probably wouldn’t go to the top of anyone’s priority list.
The question illustrates the reactive nature of human thought patterns. If there is a problem, let’s fix it. If not let’s leave well alone.
I’d like to argue that AGW should be treated somewhat differently. The current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 387ppmv. That’s up from 280ppmv in pre-industrial times. If it doesn’t get any higher than that I don’t think many people would be too worried. However it’s rising at 2-3ppmv per year and there seems to be no stopping it. The position of mainstream science is that this is a dangerous course to follow. Sooner or later the climate will reach a point of no return.
An appropriate analogy would be that we are all marching lemming-like towards the cliff edge. Some of us are saying ‘Lets stop this now or at least lets slow down a bit’. Others are saying ‘No. We are all perfectly safe and you lot have absolutely no proof that we aren’t. No-one has died yet. Let’s all keep going!’