---

From: John Nissen <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tue, 21 December, 2010 18:23:47
Subject: Re: Conspiracy of silence

Hi all,

One of the references George Monbiot was using was this:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/atmosphere.html

Quote: "While individual weather extreme events cannot be directly
linked to larger scale climate changes, recent data analysis and
modeling suggest a link between loss of sea ice and a shift to an
increased impact from the Arctic on mid-latitude climate (Francis et al.
2009; Honda et al. 2009). Models suggest that loss of sea ice in fall
favors higher geopotential heights over the Arctic. With future loss of
sea ice, such conditions as winter 2009-2010 could happen more often.
Thus we have a potential climate change paradox. Rather than a general
warming everywhere, the loss of sea ice and a warmer Arctic can increase
the impact of the Arctic on lower latitudes, bringing colder weather to
southern locations."

However, Sir David King did not mention this link to sea ice (and hence
to global warming).  Instead he chose to mention the similarity between
the Polar Oscillation (strong negative phase [1]) now and that in the
early 60's, saying we might have a repeat.

I wonder what Prof Beddington will say to David Cameron?

Cheers,

John

[1] http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/patterns/arctic_oscillation.html

---

On 21/12/2010 11:12, Mark Levene wrote:
> Bob,
>
> on the contrary, (and I do not claim unlike yourself or Michael to be a
> climate scientist, I am not!) what strikes me most obviously about the media
> reportage is the absence of discussion on the relationship of 'the weather'
> to climate change.  For instance, we have had some obscure references on
> standard BBC broadcasts (my main source of 'news')  that HMG is consulting
> its  chief scientific officer as to long-term trends, but we have had little
> feedback on what the science community is offering by way of insight. I did
> note however that while the term climate change again was absent from the
> sound-bite Sir David King this morning (or was it yesterday?)  on the BBC
> DID infer a trend. i.e. this ought to be a subject of informed discussion.
>
> Thus from a personal perspective in supporting Michael what I would argue is
> that we need more information on the above. What instead we are getting
> media-way is avoidance and dissembling. I propose, thus, that Michael's
> concern ( as conspiracy or otherwise)  is a valid one!
>
> cheers,
> mark
>
>
>
>
> on 21/12/10 8:55 am, Bob Ward at [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
>> Michael and Mark,
>>
>> I was wondering whether you might indulge me by explaining exactly what
>> you believe can be said about the current cold weather in the UK in
>> relation to climate change. I have seen previous posts pointing out that
>> this is likely the cause of the negative phase of the Arctic
>> Oscillation, but I would be interested to know what connection, if any,
>> this has with climate change.
>>
>> I would observe that we are now in the unfortunate position of having
>> every individual weather event discussed in terms of whether it
>> disproves or proves climate change. This isn't helping the public's
>> understanding of the relationship between weather, natural climate
>> variability and climate change.
>>
>> Bob Ward
>>
>> Policy and Communications Director
>> Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment
>> London School of Economics and Political Science
>> Houghton Street
>> London WC2A 2AE
>>
>> http://www.lse.ac.uk/grantham
>>
>> Tel. +44 (0) 20 7106 1236
>> Mob. +44 (0) 7811 320346
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mark Levene
>> Sent: 21 December 2010 08:36
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Conspiracy of silence
>>
>> Michael,
>>
>> Just for confirmation I saw it too, thought back to your and other
>> material
>> which has passed on the CF site, and was indeed, similarly confounded by
>> the
>> sheer inanity of Shukman's narrative, almost all of which 3 minute
>> primetime
>> TV seemed to be taken up in disinformation/ avoidance, of the issue!
>>
>> With the lack of anything else on offer by way of explanation, your
>> analysis
>> would seem to be (alas) all too correct,
>>
>>
>> mark
>> (Crisis Forum)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> on 21/12/10 1:01 am, Michael Northcott at [log in to unmask] wrote:
>>
>>> I just watched a BBC 'science' correspondent do 3 minutes in prime
>>> time news on the present extreme weather with no reference to climate
>>> science and the clear links made in a number of peer reviewed papers
>>> published since 2009 - I sent a link to this lust of one of these two
>>> weeks ago - between reduced Arctic sea ice, warming in Arctic and
>>> subarctic latitudes including dramatic warming in Greenland and the
>>> pressure changes that have caused the last two strong winters in
>>> Northern Europe and Northeast US. I begin to detect a weird conspiracy
>>> of silence in this blatant refusal to connect weather and climate so
>>> permitting the pointy eared climate sceptics to ramp up their anti-
>>> scientific nonsense. The BBC even interviewed a guy from the Met
>>> Office who simply acted dumb and said no we can't predict weather/
>>> climate beyond a few months. Is this the UEA effect or simply the BBC
>>> gradually morphing into Fox News, as apparently its overpaid DG Mark
>>> Thompson would like?
>>>
>>>
>>> Professor Michael Northcott
>>> New College
>>> Edinburgh
>>> EH1 2LX
>>> UK
>> Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
>> communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer
>>