Data IPCC Omniclimate Science

Global Warming May Be Just European

(originally published as “Global Warming May Be Just European” on Dec 11, 2007)

Readers of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report – Working Group 2 (AR4-WG2) may be forgiven to think a colossal misreading of available data may be at the foundation of contemporary Climate Change/Global Warming scares.

That report contains a map of “significant changes” (SC) already observed around the world. It is repeated throughout, and you can see it in the Summary for Policymakers, page 10, Figure SPM.1.

A total of 29,459 SCs are reported. An impressive number, at first glance.

Only, 96% of those changes regard just Europe.

The IPCC itself could not list more than 1,225 SCs not related to Europe.


This enormous geographical bias does not get better when we count how many of those SCs are actually “consistent with a warming world”.

Planet-wise, there are 26,285. Of those, 96% are in Europe. Actually, 25,022 are European SCs related to “biological systems”.

That’s 95% of the total.

That means that outside of Europe, the IPCC could not find more than 1,150 SCs “consistent with warming”.

Compare that to the number of European SCs NOT-“consistent with warming”: 3,100

We have twice as many changes that are INCONSISTENT with warming in Europe, than CONSISTENT with warming in the rest of the world.


Note also the distribution of the other “observed changes”. Only 7 for the whole of Africa, 114 for Asia, and 144 for the Polar Regions.

But what is most notable is that in the whole of North America (where, one would expect, a lot of researchers reside), only 810 SCs have been reported. Of those, 752 are consistent with warming.

That’s 3% of the total.

So for a summary: 96% from Europe. 3% with North America. Almost nothing for everywhere else.

How global can that be?

17 replies on “Global Warming May Be Just European”

(a) You haven’t said a word about the possibly-besieged City analogy

(b) One cannot know there are metastases until one looks (seriously) for them

(c) Percentages can be misleading, if not looked within the context of the absolute numbers behind them.

For the whole of Australia/New Zealand, the IPCC could find only 6 significant changes (SC). For the whole of Africa, 7 SCs. For the whole of Latin America, 58 SCs. For the whole of Asia, 114SCs.

In terms of SC per square kilometer, Europe has:

1- 11,978 more than Africa
2- 85 more than North America
3- 853 more than South America
4- 1066 more than Asia
5- 3,702 more than Australia/New Zealand
6- 270 more than Antarctica

But you may say, I am putting too much emphasis on the 28,000+ European biological SCs. Let’s recompute the above with reference to North America then. In terms of SC per square kilometer, North America has:

1- 142 more than Africa
2- 10 more than South America
3- 12 more than Asia
4- 43 more than Australia/New Zealand
5- 3 more than Antarctica

It is evident for all that want to see it, that more data has to be collected at least about Africa/Asia/Australia-New Zealand/South America before we can speak of global warming.

We are talking 67% of the total land area of the planet.

It’s you that should take care of your own Black Knight, with a giant left arm called Europe, a minute right arm called North America, and very, very, very little else. Look, he’s missing two-thirds of his body!!

You’re right, I was unclear:

Cancer in the lung. No toe cancer, but lung cancer metasteses in the toe. Lung cancer cells in the brain, forming a tumor, but not glioblastoma. Lung cancer cells in the liver, but no liver cancer. Lung cancer cells in the kidney, but no kidney cancer.

Why should the victim worry? Most organs lack cancers specific to that organ.

But that detracts from the other point, which you fail to deal with: The data show overwhelmingly that there is warming. In the area with the lowest percentage of data showing warming, 89% of the data confirm it. In other words, worldwide, more than 90% of the data confirm warming in every place on the globe.

You focus on the 11%, and claim it overpowers all other data, making them wrong.

If there is any scientific, statistical or mathematical logic to your claim, it escapes me. The chart you cite shows global warming everywhere on Earth, with very little data that don’t confirm the point (and, if we read the chart scientifically, no data that contradict).

Oops. Not unanimous. Not good enough for you. And since it’s not unanimous, you claim that it’s not even a majority.

Like the Black Knight of Monty Python, you’re convinced you can win this case, though there is not a leg to stand on, nor an arm to swing a blade.

Here’s another example. Imagine a City that is expecting an enemy army, but knows not where from, North, East, South or West, and how big it will be.

Explorers are sent out in all directions. Those sent to the North, West and South report they have spotted from afar what may or may not be small enemy units.

The explorers that have gone to the East come back describing a large army in great detail, down to the number of available men and weapons.

Now, if you were in charge of that City, what would you do? Would you prepare as if four armies as big as the one from the East would approach from all directions? Perhaps you would.

But that is expensive, maybe even impossible to cope with…you may therefore be pigeonholing yourself needlessly into a difficult siege, rather than fight the enemy in open field well before the City is reached.

Of course the other decision, to fight the enemy in open field, has its own risks. Perhaps there really are other armies coming from North, South and/or West.

How could you know?

Why, by sending more explorers in those directions! Definitely the opposite stance from “the exploration is settled” and “people not believing there are enemies everywhere are denialists”.


You’re either trying to make my case, or may want to try for a better example. “Cancer in the lung” is “cancer in the lung”. There is no point trying to cure the toe or the ear if the cancer is in the lung.

As a matter of fact, people do get checked for metastasis, when a cancer is diagnosed, because the treatment for localized cancer (say, in the lung) is different from the treatment for when the cancer has spread elsewhere in the body.

Analogously, the policies to put in place for European-only warming are different from those needed for truly Global warming.

If you think warming is akin to cancer, then as we know there’s been some in Europe, we need to be sure ASAP if there are metastases or not.

Cancer in the lung. No cancer in the toe. No cancer in the ear. No cancer in the knee. No cancer in the arm.

Why should the patient worry? Most of the evidence, according to your standards, shows no cancer at all.

To Ed: I believe you are mixing up the Europe/Outside of Europe figures in your comment.

It should be simply a matter of adding up numbers, really . Outside of Europe, the IPCC found (a) 1,150 significant changes “consistent with warming”.

In Europe, (b) 3,100 SCs NOT-”consistent with warming”.

And (b) > 2 * (a).

Intra-area percentages are irrelevant as my point is about the numerical bias. We are talking 96% in Europe vs 4% elsewhere, 24 times as many. If we remove the Northern American data, it’s even worse.

The above does show that for every other “major geographic area” we know next to nothing compared to Europe. The results are consistent both with a European-only and a global warming.

The decision to include tens of thousands of biological systems’ data was not mine. Either those are needed, or are not. And what about the fact that thousands of those are NOT consistent with warming?

If I believed in AGW I would shout loudly in favor of a worldwide (non-European, perhaps even non-Northern American) observation campaign.

We have twice as many changes that are INCONSISTENT with warming in Europe, than CONSISTENT with warming in the rest of the world.

The lowest percentage of changes consistent with warming in the map is 89%, in Europe. In several other places 100% of the changes are consistent with warming.

You’ve made a subtraction error somewhere. You can’t get twice as many changes inconsistent with warming when there is no more than 11% of the changes not consistent with warming in the largest set of data.

It’s interesting that Europe is so heavily observed – but then, that’s what we should expect with a 400-year tradition of making such observations in Scandanavia, Germany, France, Italy, Switzerland, and the UK. The bias there is because that’s where the biological systems are best documented and best known.

That 89% of the systems where we know them best, demonstrate warming, is quite persuasive if one were simply looking at the data. That data from every other major geographic area corroborates those data suggest they are no fluke.

I think you’ve misread the chart.

Given the geological evidence that has been shown throughout the years, it seems to me that global warming is more of a climate trend that has persisted over time. Technology becomes more sophisticated and we are able to uncover more about our past than ever before. But let’s not forget the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Our world is in a state of potential entropy, heat energy transfer is inevitable but does leave us with the question; can we really do anything about it?

For those like me who live in Europe this is really great news. A little warmer climate with a bit more sunshine would be most welcome here.


Leave a Reply - Lascia un commento

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.