No, Anthony Watts, this global warming is not "natural"

They really are a pack of duffers at WUWT, aren't they. Anthony Watts has an article about a doctoral thesis on climate change communication, which was based on farmers in Sweden (archived here). The paper was by Therese Apslund of Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Department of Water and Environmental Studies. Anthony reckons that:

Swedish farmers reject the 97% climate change consensus
...The researcher who discovered the degree of scepticism among farmers was surprised by her findings. Therese Asplund, who led the study, was initially looking into how agricultural magazines covered climate change, but got a lesson in reality from swedish famers [sic].

I looked over the paper and, while many of the farmers involved in the study were questioning whether global warming is anthropogenic in origin or merely some local variability, it's clear it wasn't all farmers in Sweden who doubt climate science. However farmers are a conservative lot in the main. If Swedish farmers are anything like Australian farmers then there will be a large proportion of them who are slow to accept science (including agricultural science). The more progressive the farmer in regard to adopting new farm technology, the more likely she is to accept climate science.

Climate change and agriculture

Here's a short article on some of the downsides of climate change and opportunities that climate change may create for Australian agriculture. And here's a list of just some of the research that is going on in my part of the world, to help farmers adapt. And if you think farmers as a whole are oblivious to the science you'd be wrong. Australia's peak farmer organisation, the National Farmers' Federation has this to say in it's policy statement on climate change:

The changing climate is potentially the biggest issue facing Australian farmers in the future. As a sector so dependent on natural resources, climate change poses a significant challenge to agriculture.

Anyway, the doctoral paper was about communication and framing of information about climate science and its implications. It wasn't an opinion poll of Swedish farmers.

Cyber-clubs for fools

As you know, deniers will turn to anyone to support their rejection of science. They find it reassuring that there are other wilfully ignorant people in the world. That doesn't make the science wrong, it just means that if you reject science (be it evolution, climate, geology, medicine or whatever) you can find like-minded people on blogs created as cyber-clubs for fools - like WUWT.

From the WUWT comments

Jean Parisot says:

June 30, 2014 at 7:07 pm
So the hypothesis that the farmers are right didn’t make it into the study?
God Forbid we listen to people with decades and generations of experience dealing with weather and climate professionally.

earwig42 doesn't realise that consensus is intrinsic to science. There'd be virtually no scientific advances if not for consensus. Researchers would be stuck in a loop forever repeating research from first principles. earwig42 says:

June 30, 2014 at 7:12 pm
Consensus is (or should be) irrelevant in Science. In Politics it is everything.

john piccirilli has a very strange view of scientists who research how the earth works, and says:

June 30, 2014 at 7:16 pm
Who do you believe, a farmer who is out in the weather every day 12hours a day, or some clown
Sitting in an air conditioned cube playing with his computer trying to get grant money? 

Mac the Knife is proud of his scientific illiteracy and says:

June 30, 2014 at 9:19 pm
God Bless the Farmers, every one!
From an old Wisconsin plow boy, bale chucker, and …. manure shoveler,
Mac

ntesdorf mimics john piccirilli says:

June 30, 2014 at 10:16 pm
Farmers around the World are practical people. Their livelihood depends on their having a knowledge of weather that is rather lengthy and rather detailed and which is passed on over the generations. Who would you rather believe on the Climate, a farmer who spends much of his day out in the weather or a government paid scientist who spends his day hunched over his computer, submitting applications for CAGW Grants?

NikFromNYC is a very mixed up chappie. He believes in the "climate science is a hoax" conspiracy but at the same time denounces Tim Ball's idiocy when he says:

June 30, 2014 at 10:54 pm
The full opening sentence is: “Researchers the world over almost unanimously agree that our climate is changing because of the increasing amounts of carbon dioxide humankind pumps into our fragile atmosphere.”

This claim lives on and on as if alarm too is agreed upon and as if mainstream skepticism denies the textbook greenhouse effect. Alas, just enough do in fact loudly deny it to allow this slander to continue. Gee thanks, Tim Ball, a regular writer here, coauthor of the Sky Dragon book. Thankfully Mark Steyn has taken Ball’s ball and run with it with a counter suit against Mann, minus the maverick background. Sure, perhaps the greenhouse effect is lesser than assumed, but it’s self-defeating to promote that idea out of the blue in the face of clear evidence of scientific fraud coupled to highly speculstive amplification of that assumed greenhouse effect. A focus on fraud is now dearly needed, and you can’t cry fraud unless you also utterly and fully distance yourself from mavericks, because it won’t otherwise work, since no layperson will believe you when Al Gore can sincerely point to your association with greenhouse effect denial. 

Mario Lento has no idea that the climate has been relatively stable throughout human civilisation. He's going to be in for a rude shock in coming decades (depending on how old he is):

June 30, 2014 at 10:57 pm
The argument is silly. Climate changing is a given. Otherwise the word climate would have been defined as “homeostasis until the advent of industry.” The real deniers are CAGW believers.

---

Asplund, Therese. "Climate change frames and frame formation: An analysis of climate change communication in the Swedish agricultural sector." (2014). DOI:10.3384/diss.diva-105997

About face at WUWT - backing off from denialism

The last couple of days have seen a few contradictions at WUWT. Or more properly, about faces. Par for the course for the denialati.

About face number 1 - Neukom2014 is "good science"

First up, I noticed that WUWT-ers at first didn't like the recent paper of Neukom et al which reconstructed surface temperatures of the southern hemisphere over the past 1000 years. Anthony tagged it as "bad science".  Wondering Willis wrote a couple of articles where he decided it was all wrong because Steve McIntyre said it was all wrong, and Willis agreed.  Their argument seems to have been that in their opinion, proxies are more reliable than modern thermometers, which seems a bit silly to me. If a potential proxy didn't reflect temperature as measured by a modern instrument then I'd be inclined to go with the modern instrument - wouldn't you?


It doesn't matter anyway because now Anthony Watts has done an about face. Neukom et al is no longer "bad science". It's very good science. The WUWT about face (archived here) is because of an article in Nature Climate Change by Kim Cobb, which is based on Neukom et al. Anthony Watts' headline is:

New paper finds climate sensitivity to CO2 is lower than previously believed, strong natural variability in Southern Hemisphere

Going by the excerpts published at WUWT, the article doesn't make that finding. It does suggest that climate sensitivity calculations based solely on Northern Hemisphere reconstructions may err on the high side.

If the new reconstruction of Southern Hemisphere temperature is accurate, then estimates of climate sensitivity — the response of global temperature change to a given amount of external radiative forcing — may be lower than those calculated based solely on Northern Hemisphere reconstructions10.  

Given that Anthony has now embraced Neukom et al, which said pretty much the same thing as Kim Cobb wrote, what does that mean for deniers? In particular, does it mean they will let go of their obsession with the medieval warm anomaly, which wasn't in much evidence down south? Does it mean they'll accept estimates of climate sensitivity that are based on global (as opposed to NH only) temperature reconstructions?

This is Figure 3 from the Neukom paper showing extreme warm and cold decadal temperatures. The third chart from the top is the combined northern and southern hemispheres. It's getting mighty hot:

About face number 2 - people can afford climate control

In what is a second about face by the denialiati, it's no longer the case that people will all die of cold when an ice age cometh.  I deduce that from Anthony being co-author of a comment to a paper about deaths from heat extremes in Stockholm County in Sweden. (I wrote about that paper several weeks ago.) Anthony and his co-authors are apparently arguing that people will adapt to hot weather by spending up big on air conditioners, therefore they won't die, unlike people in my home state of Victoria. (More people do die in heat waves in my home state. Anthony's only talking about Sweden. Perhaps people in Sweden are tougher.) And in any case, they argue, what about Urban Heat Islands.

The WUWT article is archived here. Pat'n Chip and Anthony's published comment can be read here. Anthony doesn't link to the reply by Åström and colleagues so I will - you can read it in its entirety I think on Readcube.

The main arguments of Pat'nChip and Anthony are:

• Stockholm temperatures aren't the same as global temperatures - which is an odd argument because the scientists didn't ever claim it was. It's irrelevant. They threw in "what about UHI" for good measure.
• People adapt to heat by getting cool.

The main response is (verbatim):

• The observed [temperature] changes are the result of natural processes, including regional climate variability, and anthropogenic influences, including urbanization.
• Our data indicate that there is no adaptation to heat extremes on a decadal basis or to the number of heat extremes occurring each year. Although another study observed a reduction in the population health impact of hot and cold extremes over the twentieth century, this decrease should not be confused with adaptation to climatic change.... 
• Whether future development pathways will continue to increase resilience will also depend on many factors other than climate change. Importantly, it is not appropriate to assume that historic trends will continue, with or without climate change.

There's more in the reply.

Anthony doesn't say what Swedish people do when it gets too hot for the air conditioners to work.  Or what happens when the power companies ration power because there isn't enough to go around with everyone running their new air conditioners full blast.

Anyway if, as Anthony maintains, poor people can afford to buy and run air conditioners when it gets too hot to handle, then they can presumably also afford to buy and run heaters in cold weather.

One thing is that everyone, including Pat'nChip and Anthony Watts are accepting the fact that Sweden is getting hotter. This regional warming is, needless to say, consistent with global warming.

---

Cobb, Kim M. "Palaeoclimate: A southern misfit." Nature Climate Change 4, no. 5 (2014): 328-329. doi:10.1038/nclimate2219

Neukom, Raphael, Joëlle Gergis, David J. Karoly, Heinz Wanner, Mark Curran, Julie Elbert, Fidel González-Rouco et al. "Inter-hemispheric temperature variability over the past millennium." Nature Climate Change 4, no. 5 (2014): 362-367. doi:10.1038/nclimate2174

Åström, Daniel Oudin, Bertil Forsberg, Kristie L. Ebi, and Joacim Rocklöv. "Attributing mortality from extreme temperatures to climate change in Stockholm, Sweden." Nature Climate Change 3, no. 12 (2013): 1050-1054. DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2022

Knappenberger, Paul, Patrick Michaels, and Anthony Watts. "Adaptation to extreme heat in Stockholm County, Sweden." Nature Climate Change 4, no. 5 (2014): 302-303. doi:10.1038/nclimate2201 (full text here)

Åström, Daniel Oudin, Bertil Forsberg, Kristie L. Ebi, and Joacim Rocklöv. "Reply to'Adaptation to extreme heat in Stockholm County, Sweden'." Nature Climate Change 4, no. 5 (2014): 303-303. doi:10.1038/nclimate2202 (full text here)

Killer cold, killer heat and Dunning Kruger at WUWT (again)

There was a recent article at WUWT about some research that compared deaths associated with cold in Adelaide and Sweden (archived here).

The implication being, I guess (given that its WUWT), that the cometh-ing ice age will kill everyone, or lots of people, or people who live in Adelaide, or something like that.

The headline Anthony used was: "Forensic science reports more deaths in Australia than Sweden due to cold" but that's a bit misleading.  The press release was only about deaths in South Australia, not Australia as a whole.  Still, it's not that odd, when you think about it, that cold would kill more people in climates where extreme cold is rare than it would in places where cold is the norm.

Here are maps of Australia, showing South Australia and Sweden:

Here is the essential bit from the press release:

South Australia has a higher rate of deaths from extreme cold compared with the northern European nation of Sweden, according to new research from the University of Adelaide.

The study, by a team from the University's School of Medical Sciences, analysed forensic cases of hypothermia deaths from 2006-2011 in both South Australia and Sweden.

The results show that South Australia had a rate of 3.9 deaths for every 100,000 people, compared with Sweden's 3.3 deaths per 100,000. In total, there were 62 fatal cases of hypothermia in South Australia and 296 cases in Sweden over the six-year period...

...Hypothermia is defined as a decrease in core body temperature below 35°C, with fatal hypothermia occurring at body temperatures of 26°C to 29°C...

...The results of this research will be published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences later this year.

The press release went on to say that most of the deaths in Australia were elderly women living alone and found in their home.  Most of the deaths in Sweden were of middle aged drunken men found in the open.

Naturally that brought out all the WUWT-ers who were decrying the rising cost of electricity and gas, as if the price of electricity and gas is going up in South Australia but not in Sweden.

People in Sweden pay around 0.21 Euro/kWh and in South Australia - well there are so many plans that it's hard to be precise, but let's say around 35c/kWh.  In US dollars that would be around 29c/kWh in Sweden compared to 31c/kWh in South Australia.  None of which tells you much about heating bills.  It's a lot colder in winter in Sweden than it is in winter in South Australia. I don't know how the cost of living or average earnings compare either.

Heat is a big killer in Australia

In any case, lets take a look at how many people die from heat in Australia, compared to the number cited as dying from cold.

According to the press release, there were on average around 10 people a year who died from cold in South Australia.  By contrast, while estimates vary widely, this paper by pwc is among the more conservative and estimates there are currently around sixty heat related deaths in Adelaide alone each year (refer page 29). (Adelaide is the capital city of South Australia.)

Here is another paper that studied heat related deaths and hospital admissions during recent heat waves in South Australia.  That's excess deaths from heat waves, which I guess wouldn't include the "background" deaths from summer heat. It discusses the type of problems that excessive heat waves can cause, particularly renal failure and ischemic heart disease (the latter particularly in the 15 to 64 year age group).  Heart disease was cited as having the biggest ambulance callouts during the recent heat waves in Melbourne this year, too.

What about Sweden?

Okay, you say. But that wouldn't be the case in Sweden, would it.  Well, yes it is but heat isn't as big a killer in Sweden.  At least according to this study by Åström et al, published late last year in Nature Climate Change.  The paper found that:

the number of deaths attributable to climate change over the past 30 years due to excess heat extremes in Stockholm is estimated to be 288...

Not accounting for urbanization and the urban heat island effect would yield a net reduction of 12 cold spells and 33 (95% CI: 18, 49) lives saved owing to fewer cold extremes. The increase of the number of heat extremes would be even more remarkable with 273 excess heat extremes occurring in 1980- 2009, resulting in 447 (95% CI: 252, 646) excess deaths attributable to changes in the frequency of heat extremes. The estimates derived from the observed data would increase the excess number of heat related deaths due to climate change by as much as 55% as compared with the adjusted data

In other words, if you include heat from UHI effects, which are real, in Stockholm alone there were around 15 extra deaths a year attributed to heat but only 3 fewer deaths a year because of having not so many cold spells.  (Stockholm pop.789,000 is smaller than Adelaide pop. 1.2 million.)

From the WUWT comments

A selection of comments from the archived article.

Gary says:

February 12, 2014 at 11:18 am
I’m not surprised at all. Swedes have more experience culturally with cold and most cases of hypothermia result from foolish behavior. Control for that and South Australia would rank even higher.

philjourdan says:

February 12, 2014 at 11:28 am
Bu-bu-but! They just had their “hottest” year on record!

On a serious note. Man can survive cold (thrive is a different issue). It does take preparedness however. That is why another glacial period would be more deadly than the mild temperatures we have experienced. But that does not fit the alarmist meme.

A.D. Everard says:

February 12, 2014 at 11:32 am
I’ve lived in rural South Australia. The houses are old with little or no insulation. Many are almost ruins, which is why they are so cheap. Also, most houses here are designed with Summer in mind, with ample shading, which backfires in Winter. My mother, who came to Australia as a young woman, always said she was far colder in Australia than she was in England or Canada.

ghl says:

February 12, 2014 at 11:40 am
South Australia has the most wind farms and the most expensive electricity of all australian states.

The first part is true.  South Australia gets about 30% of its electricity from wind these days.  However I don't know about the second part.  We're charged around the same tariff as those I saw for Adelaide (we're in rural Victoria).  Not that we have to pay for electricity, thank goodness.  We get paid instead for now.


Boadicea says it's cold and wet in South Australia - huh?:

February 12, 2014 at 1:49 pm
The climate in SA is one of long cold and wet winters with shorter hot summers. 

When I lived in Adelaide it seemed like one long summer, with June, July and August milder than December, January and February :)  As for wet, well South Australia is the driest State in the second driest continent (after Antarctica). Here is the annual temperature range for Adelaide and Oodnadatta (for those who like it hot).  Click to enlarge.

Source: BoM and BoM

Here is the annual rainfall range for Adelaide and Oodnadatta (for those who like it dry).  Note the very different scales. Click to enlarge.

Source: BoM and BoM

And for comparison, here is a chart showing temperature and rainfall data for Stockholm, Sweden.  The blue bars are the rainfall and the red line is temperature:

Source: ClimateData.org

Eric Worrall says it was warmer in the 1930s - Huh?:

February 12, 2014 at 2:40 pmTry to sleep overnight in the cool southern states, in any Aussie house built in the 1930s and you will freeze your nuts off. Why? Because houses built in the 1930s were designed for a much warmer climate.

Here's Australia's "much warmer climate" of the 1930s:

Data Source: BoM

---

Åström, Daniel Oudin, Bertil Forsberg, Kristie L. Ebi, and Joacim Rocklöv. "Attributing mortality from extreme temperatures to climate change in Stockholm, Sweden." Nature Climate Change 3, no. 12 (2013): 1050-1054.

Nitschke, Monika, Graeme R. Tucker, Alana L. Hansen, Susan Williams, Ying Zhang, and Peng Bi. "Impact of two recent extreme heat episodes on morbidity and mortality in Adelaide, South Australia: a case-series analysis." Environ Health 10, no. 1 (2011): 42.