Can anyone point me to the specific peer-reviewed papers in which these changes in conditions in these regions of Australia have been shown to have been predicted/projected/forecast/what-if’d/whatever. Maybe the info is in the IPCC AR4 somewhere.

In the absence of connections between observed conditions and a prior published peer-reviewed papers, do we get to simply pick-n-choose our validation metrics?

Thanks

The headline for the article: Australia Police Confirm Arson Role in Wildfires

I think it is safe to say that if the fires had not occurred, the article might not have even been written. There might have been some discussions about the recent combustible conditions, but those very likely would not be as visible.

On a Climate Science issue, aren’t 30 years of data required in order for changes in Climate patterns, in contrast to changes in weather conditions, to be verified? Have the conditions responsible for the combustible conditions been present for 30 years?

The same questions obtain for the flooding; wetter conditions.

“The flooding in the northeast and the combustible conditions in the south were consistent with what is forecast as a result of recent shifts in climate patterns linked to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases, said Kevin Trenberth, a scientist at the United States National Center for Atmospheric Research.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/world/asia/10australia.html?hp

And at well South of -50 C, it’s going to be Cold there for a very long time, no matter how long ‘not cooling’ occurs on the remainder of the planet.”

Yes, that’s why I was so appalled by the headline:

“Antarctica is Cold? Yeah, We Knew That”

…it’s a blatant misrepresentation. The critique was that measurements seemed to show the Antarctic was cooling; no “sceptic” claimed that the Antarctic shouldn’t be cold!

And this misrepresentation is repeated in the summary:

“Bottom line: A cold Antarctica and Southern Ocean do not contradict our models of global warming. For a long time the models have predicted just that.”

The models have predicted “A cold Antartica and Southern Ocean…for a long time…”!

“Well, whoopteedo, Edit’!” (As Archie Bunker would say.)

Then, what was orders of magnitude more appalling and disgraceful (but typical for Real Climate) they refused to correct the misrepresentation, or even print my comment about it.

Many people have represented Real Climate as not simply a legitimate climate science blog, but as a very good climate science blog. But their disgraceful behavior on just this one post should be enough to show that they aren’t a good climate science blog.

And at well South of -50 C, it’s going to be Cold there for a very long time, no matter how long ‘not cooling’ occurs on the remainder of the planet.

Clearly I must put in some time reading Prometheus!

Eric Steig should read more carefully, lest he be fooled by the sophistry of Real Climate!

The headline for the post is, “Antarctica is Cold? Yeah, We Knew That”

This is typical of the smarmy and bogus writing at Real Climate. Weart conflates “cold” with “cooling.”

The conflation of “cold” and “cooling” is emphasized both by the headline and the conclusion to the post:

“Bottom line: A cold Antarctica and Southern Ocean do not contradict our models of global warming. For a long time the models have predicted just that.”

As several commenters have noted here, it’s interesting (but not surprising) that Eric Steig didn’t submit even 1 of the 449 comments on Weart’s post.

P.S. Here is a comment I made to Real Climate, pointing out the conflation (misrepresentation):

“The headline for this post is, ‘Antarctica is Cold? Yeah, We Knew That.’

I’m curious…why does Spencer Weart make such a blatant misrepresentation of opponents’ arguments? I’m also curious…why did Real Climate publish such a blatant misrepresentation, or not correct it?

Or do you all not think that headline is a misrepresentation?

Based on my understanding of the English language (well, at least the U.S. version), there is a substantial difference between “cold” and “cooling,” (or “cold” and “not warming”). Do you all not think there is a substantial difference between those words? Or can any of you point to anyone who has ever said that Antarctica should not be cold?”

Of course, “Real Climate” didn’t publish the comment. That’s also typical of “Real Climate”.