A little late starting this month’s open thread – must be the weather…
Reader Interactions
435 Responses to "Unforced variations: Feb 2014"
Jim Eagersays
Dwight, the Inuit are now seeing robins in summer, a species they don’t even have a name for because they have never seen them before now.
So far, global warming/climate change has been relatively benign for many people (while anything but benign for others), but keep in mind that it is not yet as warm as it will be based on only the increase in CO2 so far, never mind that the increase continues unabated.
2013 was hotter than 1998 despite the latter being warmed by a powerful El Niño event
Ric Merrittsays
Bruce, don’t go overboard. Weather is quite variable. I’m close to you in the US upper midwest. This winter is indeed a reminder of the “old normal”, but only a reminder, not a return. We had far colder spells in the 80’s and 90’s, and quite a few colder Januaries. You just forget, or somehow get older and less tolerant. This has been covered recently, with an excellent cartoon from xkcd about St Louis. Subtract 20 deg F and you have our graph.
Tom Adamssays
NC Museum of Natural Sciences declined to show the climate change film “Shored Up”:
MAY I ASK A QUESTION? I know much of eastern North America is enduring severe cold, and that the UK is being deluged with rain.
On the North American west coast, however, it has been strangely mild and dry (I’m in Victoris, BC). Normally, January would bring lots of rain, but there hasn’t been that much. I read on our provincial snow pack data that Vancouver Island is very low, although other parts of the province are above average. Now I see that California has a severe drought. Like us, the winter rains have failed. I also saw the other day that Alaska is abnormally warm.
I am guessing that this polar vortex bringing misery to the East is somehow also causing the Western anomalies. But I could be wrong. Any thoughts?
Second, is the bizarre weather related to global warming? Or is it unclear on that?
Dave Peterssays
Re: #’s 11, 14 & 19–
There was a highly math-dense piece I encountered around six months ago, by two authors, and perhaps I linked to it via RC. I will try to find it for you, but I have never searched that far back.
Two take aways were that a “two cell” circulation regime requires a reversal of vertical moment from what we currently have at the poles. How does the air rise over the coldest spot? Not likely.
Second, they claimed the existence of paleo evidence suggesting a singular cell regime prevailed in prior epochs (I believe I recall multiple episodes), but only in the boreal hemisphere. I recall mentioning the gist of this to a friend in a phone chat, and he wanted to know what that would mean for, say, Nebraska? I told him, off the top of my head, I’d guess the prevailing winds would originate in the NE.
I have oft wondered in ensuing months, whether any of the complex models had ever tripped into such a state. I will give the retrieval effort a solid try.
Bruce Coppolasays
Dan H: Thanks. I’m an XC skiier and have been enjoying the snow too – when the wind chills haven’t been too brutal. Just got back from skiing my local Metropark. I remember that “cluster” in the late 70s. That’s when I took up both downhill and XC. Then it seemed about 1980 or 81 and ever since (with a few exceptions) it became “hey, what happened to Winter?”
Making light of all this is, of course, very much gallows humor.
Dave Peterssays
I previously suggested (Jan. UV, #594) that one problem with “putting across” the warmist perspective is unwittingly complicated by the absence of a canonical analysis interval. Thus, one minimalist contributor to a prominent conservative monthly admitted last June that he could not distinguish between seeing “today’s cooling” as blip from Nineties warming, or recent decade’s warmth as blip from Fifties cooling. Merely by quoting from the NY Times however (the rise in temps over last 15 years is markedly lower than prior 20), he had no trouble jumping to this florid depiction of what had hit the hockey stick: a “forlorn droop”.
Our new GISS data for 2013 crawls forward a notch to further undermine this favorite meme. The most recent 5-yr. moving average (centered on 2011) was 108.4 hundredths F. above mean, for a heating of 28.1 hundredths F. in this measure from fifteen years ago: [the 1998 centered 5-yr. value was +80.3 hundredths F.] Thus, in the thirteen years since 1998, the 5-yr. has warmed by 2.2 hundredths F. per year. Had we established a consensus viewpoint by now, to assess the planetary warming from the time it measurably began actually heating, both sides could begin from the same fiduciary. Energy flowing into and from the near surface for over a third of a century just balanced in 1907, at minus 0.55 F., compared with the GISS mean from 1951 – 1980. Through 1998, we warmed by 135.6 hundredths F. in 91 years, or at an average rate of a hundredth and a half F. annually across most of the last century. After the five year interval which closed that century (the beginning of the minimalist’s specially chosen start point for the “plateau/hiatus”), global heating, framed within a context of our entire experience with the phenomenon, unambiguously accelerated by nearly half (45%).
Note that the “droop” is achieved by a double-dip to the cherry bowl, first by keying off the Mother of All El Ninos, but also by comparing its aftermath to the anomalously hyped heating of the 20th Century’s final quarter. Many prominent conservative writers have visited the watering hole provided by the former, exceptional event, and I will comment further upon them later. My rejoinder to the periodical last June concluded by pointing out to their editors, that it certainly was an insult to their readership, if a writer who chose the topic of climate, could not even distinguish between a reduction and an enhancement in a rate of change, much less a “cooling,” from accelerated heating.
[MARodger, BTW, has been both vigilant and spot-on, in his running commentary about the persisting dissonance between loose language and the underlying reality of our thermal record during the 21st century.]
Bob Loblawsays
” Is the pattern … likely to repeat…? Because if so, I need to buy a bigger snowblower.”
This is actually a great example to illustrate the difference between weather and climate. As a result of the weather, Bruce wishes he had a larger snow blower now. Snow blowers usually don’t come for free, however, so Bruce is wondering whether the decision to buy one makes sense. How much does one cost? Would the investment be worth it?
…and those are questions of climate, not weather.
“…pattern…”
“…repeat…”
Those are the key words that make Bruce’s pondering part of climatology: what are the future expectations of weather? Like mutual funds, will past performance fail to be an indicator of the future?
Bruce (apparently) currently does not own a large snow blower, based on past climate where he lives. Will future climate be the same? Will Bruce incur future costs due to a shift in climate?
a) economic? (cost of a larger snow blower)
b) health? (heart attack shoveling snow, because he didn’t buy a larger snow blower)
How will Bruce adapt? Can he afford to adapt?
Questions that society writ large has to deal with on many scales.
flxiblesays
Frau Katze @ 54
Living a bit north of you on the Island for over 30 years, I would say that the *historically normal* January is exactly what we’re experiencing right now, below freezing day and night with predominately clear skies. Historically at least 2 weeks straight in January, sometimes after a heavy snowfall -, some years the entire month of Jan has been frozen. The seasons have shifted, some say we’re getting 4 or 5 seasons now.
But you’re right about the lack of rain, although that would “normally” occur more late Oct to year end. Blame that mostly on ENSO being neutral, just wait for next fall, when El Nino kicks in – which may not help California, they’re at least 3 years into drought now. Meanwhile, expect the unexpected.
Thomassays
Bruce. There is another type of snow removal tool. The one I had had 25-30 years ago was called something like a Snow_shue. It was a large scoop, with a flat bottom, and an angled U shaped handle. It works by sliding along the ground, and filling with the snow. Mine could carry nearly a cubic yard at a time, with no lifting, only pushing. Needless to say, the hardware store had them well hidden in the back, as they’d much rather sell a several hundred dollar snow blower, than a $25 snow pusher. Some models have wheels on the bottom, but I never had any problem with having to slide it. In any case I could clear a large volume on snow in a little bit of time with no backstrain.
patricksays
“Further summer speedup of Jackobshavn”: Joughin, I. and Smith, B. E.: Further summer speedup of Jakobshavn Isbræ, The Cryosphere Discuss., 7, 5461-5473, doi:10.5194/tcd-7-5461-2013, 2013:
Correction: there’s no audio link there for Ian Joughin. Lost it, very sorry.
Jim Eagersays
Thomas @61, I still have and use one of the snow scoops you describe. It does indeed work great, but to use it you do need a place to push the snow to since when full it is impossible to lift to empty, so it won’t work in some tight places with small yards. Mine is an older sheet metals scoop, but the newer ones I’ve seen have plastic scoops.
We’ve been assured by a certain stripe of denialist that the polar bears will be just fine under warming because ‘they will adapt.’ And so they are, apparently–but now what are the eider ducks and thick-billed murres going to do? (And what will the polar bears do later, after they’ve decimated the available egg/duck/murre supply?)
Weather: I live in Oslo, Norway running a private weather station. Tomorrow will be the 30th day in a row with snowfall. In the same period I’ve recorded 160 minutes of sunshine (divided between two different days), i.e. less than 3 hours. In a month! And the forecast for the next week hasn’t even a hint of a break in the clouds, and still quite likely snow every day. I really begin missing the blue sky.
Alas, for so many activists, if there is not bad news, then there is essentially no news.
If I’m an activist, Dwight must be an inactivist. I can’t be an activist, though, because for me “U.S. House passes Federal Lands Jobs and Energy Security Act of 2013” is mostly bad, but isn’t really news; while “President signs substantive carbon tax into law” would really be news, and could be very good.
cowichansays
flxible @ 60: Long term January average temp in Victoria is 7.6C daily high and 1.44 daily low. Hardly ” below freezing day and night”
Tietjan Berelulsays
Is there anything about global warming that climate scientists and skeptics agree upon ?
Bruce Coppolasays
Rob Loblaw #59: Indeed – a nice analysis of how our individual situations are a microcosm of the society as we face climate change.
Tietjan Berelul #70: Yes. Both know that major economic and social changes are necessary to deal with climate change. The difference is that scientists urge us to face it and deal with it. The “skeptics” (scare quotes intentional) fear this and resort to denial. And incidentally, a lot of average citizens like me wonder if things like buying cars with a bit better gas mileage and switching to CFL and LED light bulbs amount to much more than pissing in the wind.
I visit RC occasionally but I think this is the most – maybe the first time – I’ve commented here.
dhogazasays
“Is there anything about global warming that climate scientists and skeptics agree upon ?”
Skeptics don’t even agree with each other, not even on the broadest things. Some deny that CO2 is a GHG. Some deny it is warming. Others agree it is warming, but that it is due to natural variation. Or a 60 year cycle. Or the sun. Or the urban heat island effect. Etc.
The only thing skeptics agree on is that climate science is wrong, wrong, wrong. They can’t even agree on why this is. Some believe climate scientists are part of a worldwide conspiracy to turn the world communist. Or fascist. Or to tear down the first world to the level of the developing world. Or to get goverment grants because, you know, governments are such strong backers of action to mitigate global warming. Or because they’re natural born frauds and liars. A very few believe that climate scientists are honest but error-prone. Some believe that physics is totally wrong, i.e. about relativity etc as well as atmospheric physics. Etc.
Given that skeptics, taken as a whole, put forward a nearly infinite variety of often conflicting and contradictory beliefs regarding global warming and climate science, exactly what is a climate scientist supposed to agree with? It’s impossible to agree with all skeptics, or even a large minority of skeptics, because of these fundamental disagreements amongst themselves.
So, allow me to bounce the question back to you: Is there anything *skeptics* agree upon other than “climate science (and/or the IPCC summary of the current state of knowledge of climate) is wrong”?
flxiblesays
cowichan @ 60 – What does “long term” constitute for your average? Doesn’t seem to agree with Enviro Canada records of ’61-90. Does it include 1975? 1980? 1985? At any rate I pointed out I’m further north [than Vic or Cowichan], where it’s always a bit cooler. And this past week doesn’t fit averages down there or up here, but wanting to see some real chill hours for a change, for the sake of tree fruit production, I like it. :)
Jonsays
@TB (#70)
The skeptics would have to achieve a consensus among themselves before your question could even be meaningfully addressed. There really isn’t a mainstream skeptic position that nearly all of them broadly subscribe to the way mainstream climate scientists broadly agree over most of what ends up in the IPCC reports. There are the skeptics who claim the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist because it would violate the second law of thermodynamics, the ones who admit it exists, the ones who claim the increase in atmospheric CO2 content is mostly of natural origin rather than the result of our burning fossil fuels, and on and on – climate skepticism is a big tent with the only litmus test being agreement that even if the climate is changing nothing should be done about it.
owl905says
Not the wine! Please! Not having one of those vintage twistcap-sealed Ontario table wines could ruin the next lost weekend. And don’t expect the other scruffies will share from their sewer-cellars.
This piece of mildly mixed-emotions news carries the serious bitter truth of AGW – higher prices for everyone everywhere because the new ranges of weather-potential is going to hit your wallet right in the bread basket. Pallet that. If you doubt it, you haven’t been checking food prices over the last decade.
Chuck Hughessays
Bill Nye handles the scientifically illiterate with grace:
In Crash on Demand, David Holmgren not only updates Future Scenarios (2007) work but also builds on his essay Oil vs Money; Battle for Control of the World (2009), as a running commentary on the rapid changes in the big picture context for permaculture activism, especially in the Australian context.
David’s argument is essentially that radical, but achievable, behaviour change from dependent consumers to responsible self-reliant producers (by some relatively small minority of the global middle class) has a chance of stopping the juggernaut of consumer capitalism from driving the world over the climate change cliff. http://holmgren.com.au/crash-demand/
Radio Interview:
“A growing group of activists, ecologists, authors and scientists are saying only a serious economic crash could save us from climate doom.”
CRASH ON DEMAND – Do we need to break the system to save the climate? Permaculture co-founder David Holmgren says “YES”, in this rare radio interview. http://www.ecoshock.net/downloads/ES_140205_Show.mp3
– http://www.ecoshock.org/
Tietjan Berelul @70.
It is probably best if we define your “skeptic” as those who can in some way be described as climatologists. Publication is not a helpful marker as there are many academics with papers published in this field who are seriously off the planet. There is the question of where to draw the line on who is a climatologist and who is not. Do we include say Singer (an old climatologist), Tsonis (a meteorologist) or include Svenmark (solar physicist)? What of Humlum and Akasofu (flavours-various of Geologist) or Scarfetta (astrophysics modeller and not of this world)? It is probably best to see if the ‘skeptical’ climatologists generally consider their work worthy of merit.
Doing that allows us to take the message of the ‘skeptic’ Lindzen. All should agree that mankind is creating a net climate forcing that is positive (warming) and that the climate is indeed warming. You can probably add to Lindzen’s list of agreement by saying that all agree that the value of mankind’s net climate forcing is not well defined.
But what is very evident from a scientific analysis of the ‘skeptical’ position is that while the ‘skeptics’ disagree with the consensus position, all the ‘skeptical’ hypotheses are themselves in disagreement with each other. A ‘skeptic’ may cite many such hypotheses as though they constituted some unified (or unifiable) theory. Lindzen, for instance, cited Tsonis, Zhou&Tung, Svenmark and Wyatt(?) when he gave evidence before a Parliamentary committee a few weeks back. All four of these hypotheses are incompatible with each other.
With the exception of Zhou&Tung, what they do have in common is a proposal for reducing the value of climate sensitivity well below the IPCC values. This is probably the big science-“skeptic” divide. The “skeptics” never address directly the evidence that establishes a high sensitivity, a rather telling absence.
For the record, Zhuo&Tung accept the consensus values of sensitivity but revise the anthropogenic climate forcing. In doing this they are however straying badly into denialist territory in many other ways.
BojanDsays
After an unusually warm January, Slovenia was hit by sleet; some areas ended with 10-centimeter thick ice cover. The term “ice age” is being used a lot, though the temperatures were just slightly below freezing and the sleet was only made possible by warm air in high altitudes. Strangely, I detected no cynicism regarding global warming beyond occasional commentator:
Tietjan Berelul,
There’s not even anything that all pseudoskeptics agree upon–and indeed, most pseudoskeptics don’t even maintain consistency with their own beliefs over time, so it’s kind of a moot point, don’t you think?
But will it make the media start reporting on extreme weather events which are happening around the world with increasing frequency & ferocity and link them to climate change (for which anthropogenic GHG emissions are to blame) – there still appears to be a massive disconnect, or is it a wilful ignorance ?
Meanwhile, while most of Britain has been cut of by rail from the West Country, an article in the BBC “How do you fix the Dawlish problem ?” had the cheek to suggest that Hitler was to blame for the problem, while not mentioning extreme weather, climate change or sea level rise once. For web link just google “Dawlish+Hitler” !
Tietjan Berelulsays
Ray Ladbury,
I was not trying to make a point.
I am trying to make up my own mind about global warming. The thing both sides have in common is that they accuse the other side of exactly the same thing.
Tietjan Berelul, it’s not a matter of “making up your mind”… it’s a matter of understanding the science.
That’s like “debating” Evolution. There is no “debate”. Just people who understand the process and those who don’t. Whether or not you accept the facts doesn’t change the outcome or reality.
CO2 traps heat and accumulates. Humans produce it in mass quantities. More CO2 traps more heat. Lather, rinse, repeat.
flxiblesays
Tietjan Berelul, What ‘skeptics’ are accusing ‘scientists’ of is being a world wide conspiracy, what ‘science’ is accusing ‘skeptics’ of is being unscientific conspiracy theorists – you want to be spending some time at http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php to learn what scientists really have to say about climate science vs skeptic “theories” [there is really no coherent skeptic scientific theory of climate] – if you really do want to make an educated decision on it all.
SecularAnimistsays
Bruce Coppola wrote: “a lot of average citizens like me wonder if things like buying cars with a bit better gas mileage and switching to CFL and LED light bulbs amount to much more than pissing in the wind.”
Enough people pissing makes a mighty river. There are many things that “average citizens” can do to reduce our demand for fossil fuels — most of which will also save us money and improve our health and quality of life.
LED light bulbs are now very affordable, save consumers money over their lifetime, and have significant potential for reducing electricity consumption. According to the US DOE:
Residential LEDs — especially ENERGY STAR rated products — use at least 75% less energy, and last 25 times longer, than incandescent lighting.
Widespread use of LED lighting has the greatest potential impact on energy savings in the United States. By 2027, widespread use of LEDs could save about 348 TWh (compared to no LED use) of electricity: This is the equivalent annual electrical output of 44 large electric power plants (1000 megawatts each), and a total savings of more than $30 billion at today’s electricity prices.
As for “buying cars with a bit better gas mileage”, for some of us in the automobile-dominated USA who would have difficulty functioning without a car, there may be no practical options other than choosing the most fuel-efficient car available and driving only the minimum necessary.
Having said that, the current generation of mainstream hybrid cars (e.g. the Prius) and the newer pluggable-hybrids (e.g. the Volt) do get more than “a little bit better” gas mileage than conventional gasoline-fueled cars and are increasingly affordable.
And there are now a number of zero-emission battery electric cars available (e.g. the Leaf). Batteries are improving rapidly so purchase prices are dropping and range is increasing, which combined with much lower costs of operation and maintenance compared to fossil fueled cars is making EVs increasingly popular.
And EVs can significantly reduce emissions — a recent NASA pilot program in which employees at the Kennedy Space Center commuted in EVs which they charged at work found that “electric cars are reducing greenhouse gas emissions by a far greater amount than expected … the numbers are 10 times better than we thought we’d ever see”.
We are really approaching the point where it will be entirely “mainstream” for US suburbanites to live in solar-powered homes that will not only be “net zero energy” in the sense of generating as much or more energy than the house itself consumes, but will also generate all the electricity to operate an EV, which will be integrated with the house so its batteries can provide power to the house at night and during grid outages.
I am trying to make up my own mind about global warming. The thing both sides have in common is that they accuse the other side of exactly the same thing.
Well, one thing they don’t have in common is that the vast majority of working, publishing climate scientists have concluded that global warming is real, is caused by us, and will have drastic consequences for millions of people in the next few decades. That consensus is supported by nearly every professional scientific body in the world, and is succinctly stated by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences:
Climate change is occurring. It is very likely caused by the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities, and poses significant risks for a range of human and natural systems. And these emissions continue to increase, which will result in further change and greater risks.
The publications at the NAS link are free to download, and are easily understood by educated laypeople. The NAS is America’s most prestigious scientific body, created by Congress in 1863 to “investigate, examine, experiment, and report upon any subject of science.” While there are a handful of AGW “skeptics” among its members (incidentally dispelling any notion of enforced orthodoxy), they are increasingly ignored by the majority. They scrupulously guard their credibility against any attempt at politicization. If you can’t trust the NAS to be objective, you can’t trust anyone.
For a while the skeptics had some at least to the uneducated plausible conjectures for why warming wasn’t due to CO2. Galcitc Cosmic Rays, have long since been demoloshed, but I’m sure they still have their following.
As Secular Animist said about plugins, they are getting affordable and attractive. I wouldn’t quite call them mainstream today, but wait 2-5years. This can cut fossil fuel usage by a factor of 2-5 over conventional vehicles. Also you can look into purchase or lease of solar. You can support via crowdfunding or other investment vehicles the funding of more renewable energy. None of these are enough, but they will at least start moving society in the right direction.
Waltersays
#83 Tietjan Berelul says:
“Ray Ladbury,
I was not trying to make a point.
I am trying to make up my own mind about global warming. The thing both sides have in common is that they accuse the other side of exactly the same thing.”
The other thing many have in common Tietjan, is that they also both DO the same thing. Suffer the same degree of Biases and fall into the pit of Logical Fallacies daily. They also do not clearly hear what the other side is actually saying, usually because they are so busy reacting and focusing on what it is they want to say next.
Typical human behavior. Best if you do the work by yourself and read the original materials absent other people’s opinions and rhetoric. The scientific evidence does not take sides, has no emotions, and isn’t a political beast. Read it. Follow your own instincts and use common sense.
this will go away innabit, like a few days; i dont want to host it since i have to leech data off the realclimate site. i would rather someone at realclimate implement similar. Not so hard, mebbe an afternoon or two + bugfixes…
If there is interest, i will make the scripts available, but really i would rather see it reimplemented cleanly here, rather than a third party site. I shan’t use it myself, i have a frankenstein thing that works off a usenet type thing…
28 Lief
Anything dissolved or suspended in the near surface water column can alter its radiative equilibrium . But just as things that absorb solar energy tend to raise daytime water temperatures , those that reflect light may lower it by increasing albedo and ‘undershine’.
“… only a serious economic crash could save us from climate doom.”
In theory communism could work: if everyone behaved so as to improve the wellbeeing of all of us, owners of eveything, the situation could be good …
But we DO know that our so aimed effort would be just a drop in the ocean … Efficiency drops dramatically, relative to when most of our effort directly benefits us or our family …
And capitalism reigns practically all over the world … bar its “upper” part.
ATMOSPHERE is intrinsically a communist “estate”: no private property possible.
If only each of us could own its private part of the atmosphere! We would not spoil it as we do.
Could a global (but partial) communist “dictatorship” help to solve the problem? Not foreseeable.
So, as a general mind change is really really difficult, I am afraid have to agree with what quoted above.
GREENLAND’S LARGEST GLACIER BREAKS SPEED RECORD
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON Original Study
Posted by Hannah Hickey-UW on February 4, 2014
The Jakobshavn Glacier, which is widely believed to be the glacier that produced the large iceberg that sank the Titanic in 1912, and the largest glacier in Greenland is moving ice from land into the ocean at a speed that appears to be the fastest ever recorded.
The new observations show that in the summer of 2012 the glacier reached a record speed of more than 10.5 miles (17 kilometers) per year, or more than 150 feet (46 meters) per day. These appear to be the fastest flow rates recorded for any glacier or ice stream in Greenland or Antarctica. http://www.futurity.org/greenlands-largest-glacier-moving-record-setting-speed/
Ray Ladburysays
Tietjan Berelul
Well, you could look at which side has the imprimatur of the National Academy of Sciences and every other honorific or professional organization of scientists. It should tell you something when not one professional organization of scientists supports the denialist side.
From California to the Middle East, huge areas of the world are drying up and a billion people have no access to safe drinking water. US intelligence is warning of the dangers of shrinking resources and experts say the world is ‘standing on a precipice’
Dwight, the Inuit are now seeing robins in summer, a species they don’t even have a name for because they have never seen them before now.
So far, global warming/climate change has been relatively benign for many people (while anything but benign for others), but keep in mind that it is not yet as warm as it will be based on only the increase in CO2 so far, never mind that the increase continues unabated.
2013 was the second-hottest year without an El Niño since before 1850
Bruce, don’t go overboard. Weather is quite variable. I’m close to you in the US upper midwest. This winter is indeed a reminder of the “old normal”, but only a reminder, not a return. We had far colder spells in the 80’s and 90’s, and quite a few colder Januaries. You just forget, or somehow get older and less tolerant. This has been covered recently, with an excellent cartoon from xkcd about St Louis. Subtract 20 deg F and you have our graph.
NC Museum of Natural Sciences declined to show the climate change film “Shored Up”:
http://shoredupmovie.com/
MAY I ASK A QUESTION? I know much of eastern North America is enduring severe cold, and that the UK is being deluged with rain.
On the North American west coast, however, it has been strangely mild and dry (I’m in Victoris, BC). Normally, January would bring lots of rain, but there hasn’t been that much. I read on our provincial snow pack data that Vancouver Island is very low, although other parts of the province are above average. Now I see that California has a severe drought. Like us, the winter rains have failed. I also saw the other day that Alaska is abnormally warm.
I am guessing that this polar vortex bringing misery to the East is somehow also causing the Western anomalies. But I could be wrong. Any thoughts?
Second, is the bizarre weather related to global warming? Or is it unclear on that?
Re: #’s 11, 14 & 19–
There was a highly math-dense piece I encountered around six months ago, by two authors, and perhaps I linked to it via RC. I will try to find it for you, but I have never searched that far back.
Two take aways were that a “two cell” circulation regime requires a reversal of vertical moment from what we currently have at the poles. How does the air rise over the coldest spot? Not likely.
Second, they claimed the existence of paleo evidence suggesting a singular cell regime prevailed in prior epochs (I believe I recall multiple episodes), but only in the boreal hemisphere. I recall mentioning the gist of this to a friend in a phone chat, and he wanted to know what that would mean for, say, Nebraska? I told him, off the top of my head, I’d guess the prevailing winds would originate in the NE.
I have oft wondered in ensuing months, whether any of the complex models had ever tripped into such a state. I will give the retrieval effort a solid try.
Dan H: Thanks. I’m an XC skiier and have been enjoying the snow too – when the wind chills haven’t been too brutal. Just got back from skiing my local Metropark. I remember that “cluster” in the late 70s. That’s when I took up both downhill and XC. Then it seemed about 1980 or 81 and ever since (with a few exceptions) it became “hey, what happened to Winter?”
Making light of all this is, of course, very much gallows humor.
I previously suggested (Jan. UV, #594) that one problem with “putting across” the warmist perspective is unwittingly complicated by the absence of a canonical analysis interval. Thus, one minimalist contributor to a prominent conservative monthly admitted last June that he could not distinguish between seeing “today’s cooling” as blip from Nineties warming, or recent decade’s warmth as blip from Fifties cooling. Merely by quoting from the NY Times however (the rise in temps over last 15 years is markedly lower than prior 20), he had no trouble jumping to this florid depiction of what had hit the hockey stick: a “forlorn droop”.
Our new GISS data for 2013 crawls forward a notch to further undermine this favorite meme. The most recent 5-yr. moving average (centered on 2011) was 108.4 hundredths F. above mean, for a heating of 28.1 hundredths F. in this measure from fifteen years ago: [the 1998 centered 5-yr. value was +80.3 hundredths F.] Thus, in the thirteen years since 1998, the 5-yr. has warmed by 2.2 hundredths F. per year. Had we established a consensus viewpoint by now, to assess the planetary warming from the time it measurably began actually heating, both sides could begin from the same fiduciary. Energy flowing into and from the near surface for over a third of a century just balanced in 1907, at minus 0.55 F., compared with the GISS mean from 1951 – 1980. Through 1998, we warmed by 135.6 hundredths F. in 91 years, or at an average rate of a hundredth and a half F. annually across most of the last century. After the five year interval which closed that century (the beginning of the minimalist’s specially chosen start point for the “plateau/hiatus”), global heating, framed within a context of our entire experience with the phenomenon, unambiguously accelerated by nearly half (45%).
Note that the “droop” is achieved by a double-dip to the cherry bowl, first by keying off the Mother of All El Ninos, but also by comparing its aftermath to the anomalously hyped heating of the 20th Century’s final quarter. Many prominent conservative writers have visited the watering hole provided by the former, exceptional event, and I will comment further upon them later. My rejoinder to the periodical last June concluded by pointing out to their editors, that it certainly was an insult to their readership, if a writer who chose the topic of climate, could not even distinguish between a reduction and an enhancement in a rate of change, much less a “cooling,” from accelerated heating.
[MARodger, BTW, has been both vigilant and spot-on, in his running commentary about the persisting dissonance between loose language and the underlying reality of our thermal record during the 21st century.]
” Is the pattern … likely to repeat…? Because if so, I need to buy a bigger snowblower.”
This is actually a great example to illustrate the difference between weather and climate. As a result of the weather, Bruce wishes he had a larger snow blower now. Snow blowers usually don’t come for free, however, so Bruce is wondering whether the decision to buy one makes sense. How much does one cost? Would the investment be worth it?
…and those are questions of climate, not weather.
“…pattern…”
“…repeat…”
Those are the key words that make Bruce’s pondering part of climatology: what are the future expectations of weather? Like mutual funds, will past performance fail to be an indicator of the future?
Bruce (apparently) currently does not own a large snow blower, based on past climate where he lives. Will future climate be the same? Will Bruce incur future costs due to a shift in climate?
a) economic? (cost of a larger snow blower)
b) health? (heart attack shoveling snow, because he didn’t buy a larger snow blower)
How will Bruce adapt? Can he afford to adapt?
Questions that society writ large has to deal with on many scales.
Frau Katze @ 54
Living a bit north of you on the Island for over 30 years, I would say that the *historically normal* January is exactly what we’re experiencing right now, below freezing day and night with predominately clear skies. Historically at least 2 weeks straight in January, sometimes after a heavy snowfall -, some years the entire month of Jan has been frozen. The seasons have shifted, some say we’re getting 4 or 5 seasons now.
But you’re right about the lack of rain, although that would “normally” occur more late Oct to year end. Blame that mostly on ENSO being neutral, just wait for next fall, when El Nino kicks in – which may not help California, they’re at least 3 years into drought now. Meanwhile, expect the unexpected.
Bruce. There is another type of snow removal tool. The one I had had 25-30 years ago was called something like a Snow_shue. It was a large scoop, with a flat bottom, and an angled U shaped handle. It works by sliding along the ground, and filling with the snow. Mine could carry nearly a cubic yard at a time, with no lifting, only pushing. Needless to say, the hardware store had them well hidden in the back, as they’d much rather sell a several hundred dollar snow blower, than a $25 snow pusher. Some models have wheels on the bottom, but I never had any problem with having to slide it. In any case I could clear a large volume on snow in a little bit of time with no backstrain.
“Further summer speedup of Jackobshavn”: Joughin, I. and Smith, B. E.: Further summer speedup of Jakobshavn Isbræ, The Cryosphere Discuss., 7, 5461-5473, doi:10.5194/tcd-7-5461-2013, 2013:
http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/7/5461/2013/tcd-7-5461-2013.html
Clear, broad, informative plain-talk (BBC audio) from Prof. Ian Joughin, includes mechanisms:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26032188
“The millimeters add up…” (to potentially surprising events due to sea-level rise).
Author profile and “21st-Century Evolution of Greenland Outlet Glacier Velocities”:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/people/investigators/ian-joughin/
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6081/576.full
Correction: there’s no audio link there for Ian Joughin. Lost it, very sorry.
Thomas @61, I still have and use one of the snow scoops you describe. It does indeed work great, but to use it you do need a place to push the snow to since when full it is impossible to lift to empty, so it won’t work in some tight places with small yards. Mine is an older sheet metals scoop, but the newer ones I’ve seen have plastic scoops.
#61–Yes, still around. See, for example:
http://www.amazon.com/Suncast-SF1850-22-Inch-Scoop-Shovel/dp/B000A1CENK
…and many variations on the theme.
This just in at CBC.ca:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-has-polar-bears-on-egg-diet-1.2527740
We’ve been assured by a certain stripe of denialist that the polar bears will be just fine under warming because ‘they will adapt.’ And so they are, apparently–but now what are the eider ducks and thick-billed murres going to do? (And what will the polar bears do later, after they’ve decimated the available egg/duck/murre supply?)
Weather: I live in Oslo, Norway running a private weather station. Tomorrow will be the 30th day in a row with snowfall. In the same period I’ve recorded 160 minutes of sunshine (divided between two different days), i.e. less than 3 hours. In a month! And the forecast for the next week hasn’t even a hint of a break in the clouds, and still quite likely snow every day. I really begin missing the blue sky.
Dwight
If I’m an activist, Dwight must be an inactivist. I can’t be an activist, though, because for me “U.S. House passes Federal Lands Jobs and Energy Security Act of 2013” is mostly bad, but isn’t really news; while “President signs substantive carbon tax into law” would really be news, and could be very good.
flxible @ 60: Long term January average temp in Victoria is 7.6C daily high and 1.44 daily low. Hardly ” below freezing day and night”
Is there anything about global warming that climate scientists and skeptics agree upon ?
Rob Loblaw #59: Indeed – a nice analysis of how our individual situations are a microcosm of the society as we face climate change.
Tietjan Berelul #70: Yes. Both know that major economic and social changes are necessary to deal with climate change. The difference is that scientists urge us to face it and deal with it. The “skeptics” (scare quotes intentional) fear this and resort to denial. And incidentally, a lot of average citizens like me wonder if things like buying cars with a bit better gas mileage and switching to CFL and LED light bulbs amount to much more than pissing in the wind.
I visit RC occasionally but I think this is the most – maybe the first time – I’ve commented here.
“Is there anything about global warming that climate scientists and skeptics agree upon ?”
Skeptics don’t even agree with each other, not even on the broadest things. Some deny that CO2 is a GHG. Some deny it is warming. Others agree it is warming, but that it is due to natural variation. Or a 60 year cycle. Or the sun. Or the urban heat island effect. Etc.
The only thing skeptics agree on is that climate science is wrong, wrong, wrong. They can’t even agree on why this is. Some believe climate scientists are part of a worldwide conspiracy to turn the world communist. Or fascist. Or to tear down the first world to the level of the developing world. Or to get goverment grants because, you know, governments are such strong backers of action to mitigate global warming. Or because they’re natural born frauds and liars. A very few believe that climate scientists are honest but error-prone. Some believe that physics is totally wrong, i.e. about relativity etc as well as atmospheric physics. Etc.
Given that skeptics, taken as a whole, put forward a nearly infinite variety of often conflicting and contradictory beliefs regarding global warming and climate science, exactly what is a climate scientist supposed to agree with? It’s impossible to agree with all skeptics, or even a large minority of skeptics, because of these fundamental disagreements amongst themselves.
So, allow me to bounce the question back to you: Is there anything *skeptics* agree upon other than “climate science (and/or the IPCC summary of the current state of knowledge of climate) is wrong”?
cowichan @ 60 – What does “long term” constitute for your average? Doesn’t seem to agree with Enviro Canada records of ’61-90. Does it include 1975? 1980? 1985? At any rate I pointed out I’m further north [than Vic or Cowichan], where it’s always a bit cooler. And this past week doesn’t fit averages down there or up here, but wanting to see some real chill hours for a change, for the sake of tree fruit production, I like it. :)
@TB (#70)
The skeptics would have to achieve a consensus among themselves before your question could even be meaningfully addressed. There really isn’t a mainstream skeptic position that nearly all of them broadly subscribe to the way mainstream climate scientists broadly agree over most of what ends up in the IPCC reports. There are the skeptics who claim the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist because it would violate the second law of thermodynamics, the ones who admit it exists, the ones who claim the increase in atmospheric CO2 content is mostly of natural origin rather than the result of our burning fossil fuels, and on and on – climate skepticism is a big tent with the only litmus test being agreement that even if the climate is changing nothing should be done about it.
Not the wine! Please! Not having one of those vintage twistcap-sealed Ontario table wines could ruin the next lost weekend. And don’t expect the other scruffies will share from their sewer-cellars.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/polar-vortex-claims-another-victim-ontario-grapes-1.2527648
This piece of mildly mixed-emotions news carries the serious bitter truth of AGW – higher prices for everyone everywhere because the new ranges of weather-potential is going to hit your wallet right in the bread basket. Pallet that. If you doubt it, you haven’t been checking food prices over the last decade.
Bill Nye handles the scientifically illiterate with grace:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8fPLitlcr8
Crash on Demand: Welcome to the Brown Tech Future
In Crash on Demand, David Holmgren not only updates Future Scenarios (2007) work but also builds on his essay Oil vs Money; Battle for Control of the World (2009), as a running commentary on the rapid changes in the big picture context for permaculture activism, especially in the Australian context.
David’s argument is essentially that radical, but achievable, behaviour change from dependent consumers to responsible self-reliant producers (by some relatively small minority of the global middle class) has a chance of stopping the juggernaut of consumer capitalism from driving the world over the climate change cliff.
http://holmgren.com.au/crash-demand/
Radio Interview:
“A growing group of activists, ecologists, authors and scientists are saying only a serious economic crash could save us from climate doom.”
CRASH ON DEMAND – Do we need to break the system to save the climate? Permaculture co-founder David Holmgren says “YES”, in this rare radio interview.
http://www.ecoshock.net/downloads/ES_140205_Show.mp3
– http://www.ecoshock.org/
Enjoy!
Walter
Tietjan Berelul @70.
It is probably best if we define your “skeptic” as those who can in some way be described as climatologists. Publication is not a helpful marker as there are many academics with papers published in this field who are seriously off the planet. There is the question of where to draw the line on who is a climatologist and who is not. Do we include say Singer (an old climatologist), Tsonis (a meteorologist) or include Svenmark (solar physicist)? What of Humlum and Akasofu (flavours-various of Geologist) or Scarfetta (astrophysics modeller and not of this world)? It is probably best to see if the ‘skeptical’ climatologists generally consider their work worthy of merit.
Doing that allows us to take the message of the ‘skeptic’ Lindzen. All should agree that mankind is creating a net climate forcing that is positive (warming) and that the climate is indeed warming. You can probably add to Lindzen’s list of agreement by saying that all agree that the value of mankind’s net climate forcing is not well defined.
But what is very evident from a scientific analysis of the ‘skeptical’ position is that while the ‘skeptics’ disagree with the consensus position, all the ‘skeptical’ hypotheses are themselves in disagreement with each other. A ‘skeptic’ may cite many such hypotheses as though they constituted some unified (or unifiable) theory. Lindzen, for instance, cited Tsonis, Zhou&Tung, Svenmark and Wyatt(?) when he gave evidence before a Parliamentary committee a few weeks back. All four of these hypotheses are incompatible with each other.
With the exception of Zhou&Tung, what they do have in common is a proposal for reducing the value of climate sensitivity well below the IPCC values. This is probably the big science-“skeptic” divide. The “skeptics” never address directly the evidence that establishes a high sensitivity, a rather telling absence.
For the record, Zhuo&Tung accept the consensus values of sensitivity but revise the anthropogenic climate forcing. In doing this they are however straying badly into denialist territory in many other ways.
After an unusually warm January, Slovenia was hit by sleet; some areas ended with 10-centimeter thick ice cover. The term “ice age” is being used a lot, though the temperatures were just slightly below freezing and the sleet was only made possible by warm air in high altitudes. Strangely, I detected no cynicism regarding global warming beyond occasional commentator:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/amazing-scenes-severe-storm-encases-slovenian-town-ice-1434997
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9DUkZXwyaA#t=1m
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3WxqIYJ4NI
Tietjan Berelul,
There’s not even anything that all pseudoskeptics agree upon–and indeed, most pseudoskeptics don’t even maintain consistency with their own beliefs over time, so it’s kind of a moot point, don’t you think?
UK Flooding and the Science of Climate Change
A new report, jointly between Met Office & CEH,
“The Recent Storms and Floods in the UK” out now
URL http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/2014/uk-storms-and-floods
or directly (as PDF):
URL http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/n/i/Recent_Storms_Briefing_Final_07023.pdf
… I hope it comes with a waterproof cover (;-)
But will it make the media start reporting on extreme weather events which are happening around the world with increasing frequency & ferocity and link them to climate change (for which anthropogenic GHG emissions are to blame) – there still appears to be a massive disconnect, or is it a wilful ignorance ?
Meanwhile, while most of Britain has been cut of by rail from the West Country, an article in the BBC “How do you fix the Dawlish problem ?” had the cheek to suggest that Hitler was to blame for the problem, while not mentioning extreme weather, climate change or sea level rise once. For web link just google “Dawlish+Hitler” !
Ray Ladbury,
I was not trying to make a point.
I am trying to make up my own mind about global warming. The thing both sides have in common is that they accuse the other side of exactly the same thing.
More state of the art American climate policy:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-02-06/business/chi-exelon-earnings-20140206_1_nuclear-plants-coal-fired-power-plants-power-prices
Tietjan Berelul, it’s not a matter of “making up your mind”… it’s a matter of understanding the science.
That’s like “debating” Evolution. There is no “debate”. Just people who understand the process and those who don’t. Whether or not you accept the facts doesn’t change the outcome or reality.
CO2 traps heat and accumulates. Humans produce it in mass quantities. More CO2 traps more heat. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Tietjan Berelul, What ‘skeptics’ are accusing ‘scientists’ of is being a world wide conspiracy, what ‘science’ is accusing ‘skeptics’ of is being unscientific conspiracy theorists – you want to be spending some time at http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php to learn what scientists really have to say about climate science vs skeptic “theories” [there is really no coherent skeptic scientific theory of climate] – if you really do want to make an educated decision on it all.
Bruce Coppola wrote: “a lot of average citizens like me wonder if things like buying cars with a bit better gas mileage and switching to CFL and LED light bulbs amount to much more than pissing in the wind.”
Enough people pissing makes a mighty river. There are many things that “average citizens” can do to reduce our demand for fossil fuels — most of which will also save us money and improve our health and quality of life.
LED light bulbs are now very affordable, save consumers money over their lifetime, and have significant potential for reducing electricity consumption. According to the US DOE:
As for “buying cars with a bit better gas mileage”, for some of us in the automobile-dominated USA who would have difficulty functioning without a car, there may be no practical options other than choosing the most fuel-efficient car available and driving only the minimum necessary.
Having said that, the current generation of mainstream hybrid cars (e.g. the Prius) and the newer pluggable-hybrids (e.g. the Volt) do get more than “a little bit better” gas mileage than conventional gasoline-fueled cars and are increasingly affordable.
And there are now a number of zero-emission battery electric cars available (e.g. the Leaf). Batteries are improving rapidly so purchase prices are dropping and range is increasing, which combined with much lower costs of operation and maintenance compared to fossil fueled cars is making EVs increasingly popular.
And EVs can significantly reduce emissions — a recent NASA pilot program in which employees at the Kennedy Space Center commuted in EVs which they charged at work found that “electric cars are reducing greenhouse gas emissions by a far greater amount than expected … the numbers are 10 times better than we thought we’d ever see”.
We are really approaching the point where it will be entirely “mainstream” for US suburbanites to live in solar-powered homes that will not only be “net zero energy” in the sense of generating as much or more energy than the house itself consumes, but will also generate all the electricity to operate an EV, which will be integrated with the house so its batteries can provide power to the house at night and during grid outages.
Tietjan Berelul:
Well, one thing they don’t have in common is that the vast majority of working, publishing climate scientists have concluded that global warming is real, is caused by us, and will have drastic consequences for millions of people in the next few decades. That consensus is supported by nearly every professional scientific body in the world, and is succinctly stated by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences:
The publications at the NAS link are free to download, and are easily understood by educated laypeople. The NAS is America’s most prestigious scientific body, created by Congress in 1863 to “investigate, examine, experiment, and report upon any subject of science.” While there are a handful of AGW “skeptics” among its members (incidentally dispelling any notion of enforced orthodoxy), they are increasingly ignored by the majority. They scrupulously guard their credibility against any attempt at politicization. If you can’t trust the NAS to be objective, you can’t trust anyone.
Dan H. and Wheelsoc:
It,s not that clear that “CO2 fertilization is a known effect” … Stomata ususally close with more CO2, to reduce water loss … Water and soil nutrients availability limit yield, rather than CO2.
See f.e.:
Global CO2 rise leads to reduced maximum stomatal conductance in Florida vegetation
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/02/16/1100371108.abstract?sid=cfabd7c2-810b-4a6a-89eb-82fc54754ceb
For a while the skeptics had some at least to the uneducated plausible conjectures for why warming wasn’t due to CO2. Galcitc Cosmic Rays, have long since been demoloshed, but I’m sure they still have their following.
As Secular Animist said about plugins, they are getting affordable and attractive. I wouldn’t quite call them mainstream today, but wait 2-5years. This can cut fossil fuel usage by a factor of 2-5 over conventional vehicles. Also you can look into purchase or lease of solar. You can support via crowdfunding or other investment vehicles the funding of more renewable energy. None of these are enough, but they will at least start moving society in the right direction.
#83 Tietjan Berelul says:
“Ray Ladbury,
I was not trying to make a point.
I am trying to make up my own mind about global warming. The thing both sides have in common is that they accuse the other side of exactly the same thing.”
The other thing many have in common Tietjan, is that they also both DO the same thing. Suffer the same degree of Biases and fall into the pit of Logical Fallacies daily. They also do not clearly hear what the other side is actually saying, usually because they are so busy reacting and focusing on what it is they want to say next.
Typical human behavior. Best if you do the work by yourself and read the original materials absent other people’s opinions and rhetoric. The scientific evidence does not take sides, has no emotions, and isn’t a political beast. Read it. Follow your own instincts and use common sense.
Start here: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/#.UmSc6Plmh8E
Glossary and the SPM first. Do not be in a hurry. Focus on the ‘evidence’. Listen to what IT is saying to you. Not people.
Walter
Implemented a killfile mechanism, test version on the first 500 comments of the thread “If you see something,say something” is at
http://membrane.com/cgi-bin/getnames
this will go away innabit, like a few days; i dont want to host it since i have to leech data off the realclimate site. i would rather someone at realclimate implement similar. Not so hard, mebbe an afternoon or two + bugfixes…
If there is interest, i will make the scripts available, but really i would rather see it reimplemented cleanly here, rather than a third party site. I shan’t use it myself, i have a frankenstein thing that works off a usenet type thing…
sidd
Sidd, great little app thanks. Very helpful for all.
You overlooked these IDs though:
Not my regular handle too much background
Kevin O’Neill
Joseph O’Sullivan
Devil’s Advocate
It’s my eye for detail, perhaps.
Walter
28 Lief
Anything dissolved or suspended in the near surface water column can alter its radiative equilibrium . But just as things that absorb solar energy tend to raise daytime water temperatures , those that reflect light may lower it by increasing albedo and ‘undershine’.
You may find the references in this Climatic Change paper useful
http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4737323/Seitz_BrightWater.pdf?sequence=1
Sidd, nice. I ticked me.
Walter *77
“… only a serious economic crash could save us from climate doom.”
In theory communism could work: if everyone behaved so as to improve the wellbeeing of all of us, owners of eveything, the situation could be good …
But we DO know that our so aimed effort would be just a drop in the ocean … Efficiency drops dramatically, relative to when most of our effort directly benefits us or our family …
And capitalism reigns practically all over the world … bar its “upper” part.
ATMOSPHERE is intrinsically a communist “estate”: no private property possible.
If only each of us could own its private part of the atmosphere! We would not spoil it as we do.
Could a global (but partial) communist “dictatorship” help to solve the problem? Not foreseeable.
So, as a general mind change is really really difficult, I am afraid have to agree with what quoted above.
The DailyMail today:
“Mr Paterson has been dismissed by Cabinet colleagues as ‘stupid’ for failing to take seriously the threat posed by climate change.”
GREENLAND’S LARGEST GLACIER BREAKS SPEED RECORD
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON Original Study
Posted by Hannah Hickey-UW on February 4, 2014
The Jakobshavn Glacier, which is widely believed to be the glacier that produced the large iceberg that sank the Titanic in 1912, and the largest glacier in Greenland is moving ice from land into the ocean at a speed that appears to be the fastest ever recorded.
The new observations show that in the summer of 2012 the glacier reached a record speed of more than 10.5 miles (17 kilometers) per year, or more than 150 feet (46 meters) per day. These appear to be the fastest flow rates recorded for any glacier or ice stream in Greenland or Antarctica.
http://www.futurity.org/greenlands-largest-glacier-moving-record-setting-speed/
Tietjan Berelul
Well, you could look at which side has the imprimatur of the National Academy of Sciences and every other honorific or professional organization of scientists. It should tell you something when not one professional organization of scientists supports the denialist side.
FYI …
Why global water shortages pose threat of terror and war
By Suzanne Goldenberg
The Observer
Saturday 8 February 2014