Climate change another name for Weather

[basilio]

Re New Evidence of warming in the Antartic

Bloggers are already poking holes through the wafer thin credibility of this

http://australianclimatemadness.blog...are-story.html

It's

One derisory blogger from a skeptical website overcomes the analysis of a scientific team whose whole expertise is examining and measuring temperatures.

Well done Wayne. Up to your usual standards.

 

[Pat]

Re New Evidence of warming in the Antartic



One derisory blogger from a skeptical website overcomes the analysis of a scientific team whose whole expertise is examining and measuring temperatures.

Well done Wayne. Up to your usual standards.

We're all experts Basilio

 

[explod]

There is one thing missing from your hypothesis... THE SCIENCE.

Where's the science linking recent cold weather with melting ice and not solar activity and/or La Niña.

Let's get real eh?

The science is in the actual examination of core samples of Antartic ice which show that the ice level has melted to areas that have been covered for many millions of years. Actual scientifically examined and handled from location to laboritory. And did you read the authentic notes to it in the book quoted. Unfortunately my own copy has been lent on and not returned. Library should have it. Or s/h on google.

The science to recent activitiy is not yet available as you would well know. And La nina is a right wing description of global warming efffects, created to confuse the sheeple, and it does.

Used to be right into this stuff years ago, too busy now stirring up sketptics to reality.

 

[wayneL]

The science is in the actual examination of core samples of Antartic ice which show that the ice level has melted to areas that have been covered for many millions of years. Actual scientifically examined and handled from location to laboritory. And did you read the authentic notes to it in the book quoted. Unfortunately my own copy has been lent on and not returned. Library should have it. Or s/h on google.

The science to recent activitiy is not yet available as you would well know. And La nina is a right wing description of global warming efffects, created to confuse the sheeple, and it does.

Used to be right into this stuff years ago, too busy now stirring up sketptics to reality.

In other words - pure speculation based on.... nothing.

...and la nina is a right wing invention? WAHAHAHAHAHAHA Google it.

 

[wayneL]

Re New Evidence of warming in the Antartic



One derisory blogger from a skeptical website overcomes the analysis of a scientific team whose whole expertise is examining and measuring temperatures.

Well done Wayne. Up to your usual standards.

Yes, and that standard is requiring evidence that hasn't been "modeled" to obtain a specific result. But I note that you can not dis his analysis.

There are teams of scientists trying to prove young earth creation too. They release research "proving" it all the time. That doesn't mean some intelligent person can't come along and rightfully punch holes through the faulted logic and fraudulent science.

My standards are apparently... in fact are, higher than your standards, on a number of levels.

 

[wayneL]

OK I thought Roger Pielke (an honest broker and real scientist) would comment on this matter sooner or later.

Pielke is in the pro AGW camp, but but does not abide by the junk science spewed forth by muppets on the funding gravy train. He has my full respect.

http://climatesci.org/2009/01/21/fo...dy-antarctica-joins-rest-of-globe-in-warming/

An AP article was released today which reports on a Nature paper on a finding of warming over much of Antarctica. I was asked by Seth Borenstein to comment on the paper (which he sent to me). I have been critical of his reporting in the past, but except for the title of the article (which as I understand is created by others), he presented a balanced summary of the study.

My reply to Seth is given below.

I have read the paper and have the following comments/questions

1. The use of the passive infrared brightness temperatures from the AVHRR
(a polar orbiting satellite) means that only time samples of the
surface temperature are obtained. The surface observations, in
contrast, provide maximum and minimum temperatures which are used to
construct the surface mean temperature trend. The correlation between
the two data sets, therefore, requires assumptions on the temporal
variation of the brightness temperature at locations removed from the
surface in-situ observations. What uncertainty (quantitatively)
resulted from their interpolation procedure?

2. Since the authors use data from 42 occupied stations and 65 AWSs sites,
they should provide photographs of the locations (e.g. as provided in
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=20) in order to
ascertain how well they are sited. This photographs presumably exist.
Do any of the surface observing sites produce a possible bias because
they are poorly sited at locations with significant local human
microclimate modifications?

3. How do the authors reconcile the conclusions in their paper with the
cooler than average long term sea surface temperature anomalies off of
the coast of Antarctica? [see
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.1.15.2009.gif].
These cool anomalies have been there for at least several years. This
cool region is also undoubtedly related to the above average Antarctic
sea ice areal coverage that has been monitored over recent years; see
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg].

4. In Figure 2 of their paper, much of their analyzed warming took place
prior to 1980. For East Antarctica, the trend is essentially flat since
1980. The use of a linear fit for the entire period of the record
produces a larger trend than has been seen in more recent years.

In terms of the significance of their paper, it overstates what they have obtained from their analysis. In the abstract they write, for example,

“West Antarctic warming exceeds 0.1C per decade over the past 50 years”.

However, even a cursory view of Figure 2 shows that since the late 1990s, the region has been cooling in their analysis in this region. The paper would be more balanced if they presented this result, even if they cannot explain why.

Please let me know if you would like more feedback. Thank you reaching out to include a broader perspective on these papers in your articles.

Regards

Roger

 

[basilio]

There is more discussion on the the Nature report on the warming of Antarctica.

A couple of the co-authors have addressed some of the interpretations that have been made by Roger and others.

Main points are quoted below. The remainder of the discussion is at Real climate.

A couple of us (Eric and Mike) are co-authors on a paper coming out in Nature this week (Jan. 22, 09). We have already seen misleading interpretations of our results in the popular press and the blogosphere, and so we thought we would nip such speculation in the bud.

The paper shows that Antarctica has been warming for the last 50 years, and that it has been warming especially in West Antarctica (see the figure). The results are based on a statistical blending of satellite data and temperature data from weather stations. The results don't depend on the statistics alone. They are backed up by independent data from automatic weather stations, as shown in our paper as well as in updated work by Bromwich, Monaghan and others (see their AGU abstract, here), whose earlier work in JGR was taken as contradicting ours. There is also a paper in press in Climate Dynamics (Goosse et al.) that uses a GCM with data assimilation (and without the satellite data we use) and gets the same result. Furthermore, speculation that our results somehow simply reflect changes in the near-surface inversion is ruled out by completely independent results showing that significant warming in West Antarctica extends well into the troposphere. And finally, our results have already been validated by borehole thermometery ”” a completely independent method ”” at at least one site in West Antarctica (Barrett et al. report the same rate of warming as we do, but going back to 1930 rather than 1957; see the paper in press in GRL).

Here are some important things the paper does NOT show:

1) Our results do not contradict earlier studies suggesting that some regions of Antarctica have cooled. Why? Because those studies were based on shorter records (20-30 years, not 50 years) and because the cooling is limited to the East Antarctic. Our results show this too, as is readily apparent by comparing our results for the full 50 years (1957-2006) with those for 1969-2000 (the dates used in various previous studies), below.

2) Our results do not necessarily contradict the generally-accepted interpretation of recent East Antarctic cooling put forth by David Thompson (Colorado State) and Susan Solomon (NOAA Aeronomy Lab). In an important paper in Science, they presented evidence that this cooling trend is linked to an increasing trend in the strength of the circumpolar westerlies, and that this can be traced to changes in the stratosphere, mostly due to photochemical ozone losses. Substantial ozone losses did not occur until the late 1970s, and it is only after this period that significant cooling begins in East Antarctica.

3) Our paper ”” by itself ”” does not address whether Antarctica's recent warming is part of a longer term trend. There is separate evidence from ice cores that Antarctica has been warming for most of the 20th century, but this is complicated by the strong influence of El Niño events in West Antarctica. In our own published work to date (Schneider and Steig, PNAS), we find that the 1940s [edit for clarity: the 1935-1945 decade] were the warmest decade of the 20th century in West Antarctica, due to an exceptionally large warming of the tropical Pacific at that time.

So what do our results show? Essentially, that the big picture of Antarctic climate change in the latter part of the 20th century has been largely overlooked. It is well known that it has been warming on the Antarctic Peninsula, probably for the last 100 years (measurements begin at the sub-Antarctic Island of Orcadas in 1901 and show a nearly monotonic warming trend). And yes, East Antarctica cooled over the 1980s and 1990s (though not, in our results, at a statistically significant rate). But West Antarctica, which no one really has paid much attention to (as far as temperature changes are concerned), has been warming rapidly for at least the last 50 years.

http://www.realclimate.org/

 

[explod]

In other words - pure speculation based on

Cunningly you continue to ignore the solid facts and attack the asides. The results of the core sample testing were concluded (and documented) back in the mid 1990s. They prove that the effect/impact of co2 on the icepacks has been unprecedented in millions of years. And I have quoted the source and anyone earnestly interested would check it out.

I get the feeling that you are not. But unless you do, you cannot rubbish the research in this instance.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

Pull up a current sat image of the polar regions. http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh t's only slightly less than 20 years ago. Compare any period you want

The northern polar ice cap summer minimum was on a declining trend from 1979 until 2007, that's indisputable by anybody. If there was going to be a cold effect, it would have been in the middle of this decade in the summer season.

But the last two seasons have seen a significant INCREASE in polar ice, compared to 2007.

The cold weather CANNOT be caused by melting ice when it is in fact freezing. Look to the Sun!!!!!!

As a matter of fact, look to real science not some zealot nutters talking out of their @ss.

Think what your saying explod, that's just ridiculous. There are no credible scientists talking about anything except solar activity.

The warmeners in ABC Radio have now gone so far as to censor any expert who dares to question the GW "science".

Bill Kinnimoth from the CSIRO had parts of the transcript and a podcast censored by the ABC following an interview on ABC Radio.

He disagreed with the godbothering like orthodoxy as delivered via scientists and aunty, so they censor him.

What a great democracy we live in.

http://www.blogotariat.com/item/mod...ng-and-editor-removes-comment-climate-sceptic


gg

 

[ghotib]

The warmeners in ABC Radio have now gone so far as to censor any expert who dares to question the GW "science".

Bill Kinnimoth from the CSIRO had parts of the transcript and a podcast censored by the ABC following an interview on ABC Radio.

He disagreed with the godbothering like orthodoxy as delivered via scientists and aunty, so they censor him.

What a great democracy we live in.

http://www.blogotariat.com/item/mod...ng-and-editor-removes-comment-climate-sceptic


gg

Except that the audio of the interview with Kininmonth is now available on the ABC AM website http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2471659.htm, and Kininmonth says that he hasn't read the Nature paper in detail. The AM piece is about the paper and it's entirely appropriate to exclude comments from someone, even an expert, who hasn't read it. I should think Kininmonth himself would have preferred to wait till he'd done a detailed analysis.

Ghoti

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Except that the audio of the interview with Kininmonth is now available on the ABC AM website http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2471659.htm, and Kininmonth says that he hasn't read the Nature paper in detail. The AM piece is about the paper and it's entirely appropriate to exclude comments from someone, even an expert, who hasn't read it. I should think Kininmonth himself would have preferred to wait till he'd done a detailed analysis.

Ghoti

Its heartening to know that the ABC monitor ASF and respond quickly when they are caught out.

A good outcome.

gg

 

[wayneL]

From the US Senate committee on Environment and Public works:

Scientists, Data Challenge New Antarctic ‘Warming’ Study

‘It is hard to make data where none exist’

Comprehensive Data Round Up Debunks New Antarctic ‘Estimate of Temperature Trends’

MR EXPLOD,

Cunningly you continue to ignore the solid facts and attack the asides. The results of the core sample testing were concluded (and documented) back in the mid 1990s. They prove that the effect/impact of co2 on the icepacks has been unprecedented in millions of years. And I have quoted the source and anyone earnestly interested would check it out.

I get the feeling that you are not. But unless you do, you cannot rubbish the research in this instance.

All I want is some science, where is this source you speak of?... provide a flipping link that supports your hypothesis and how it relates to recent cold weather.Then you can stop the revolting attempted character assassination.

It seems you warmers can't debate anything without playing the man. It's vile. (actually it usually means the hypothesis is collapsing, which in this case, it most certainly is)

 

[lucas]

Wow! You guys really don't believe in global warming! This is amazing!

Aussie Stocks Forums - meet - Fox News! Hannity wins! OMG it's worse than I thought.

Are you all seriously contending that the major world countries are deluding themselves, wasting billions of dollars no-one has any more, to right a crisis that doesn't exist?

 

[basilio]

Wow! You guys really don't believe in global warming! This is amazing!

Aussie Stocks Forums - meet - Fox News! Hannity wins! OMG it's worse than I thought.

Are you all seriously contending that the major world countries are deluding themselves, wasting billions of dollars no-one has any more, to right a crisis that doesn't exist?

And exactly what is wrong with choosing to believe exactly what you want to believe Lucas ??? Lots of Very Important People, businessmen ( funnily enough many in coal and oil) , many politicians, Fox reporters, just believe - with every dollar in their pocket- that we can grow our way out of everything. They believe that Global warming is a self serving myth of thousands of scientists with their snouts in the public trough. That the ice is not melting (that much ) and anyway whatever is happening we are not responsible .

This was particularly well summed up by a senior Bush advisor who noted that a particular writer belonged to the "reality-based community" which the advisor said "believed that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality ".

But that was no longer true because "we're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality"

This is the real, delusional world Lucas. And yes Aussie Stock Forum proudly has its own intellectual giants who will insist to the last post on the centerpiece of creating a more comfortable reality - global warming denial.

By the way did you see the story from Jonathan Schell on Barack Obama in The Age ? I pinched the above excerpt re the Bush advisor from the article. The rest is just the ravings of a madman who wants Barack to tackle real problems with real solutions.....

http://www.theage.com.au/world/cometh-the-man-of-hope-20090123-7ood.html?page=-1

 

[wayneL]

Basilio,

Actually, the group deepest into denial, are the global warming alarmists.

What have the AGWers got? A computer model that doesn't work. That's it. It's OK to have a model and to hypothesize over scenarios, but where they fall down is that they preach it as fact.

Sorry mate, real world observation, AKA "fact", trumps a computer model every time. The observable facts are that the IPCC model is not working, it has failed, miserably and utterly to be predictive of anything it is attempting to model; from air temperatures at various atmospheric levels, ice levels at the poles, ocean temps... everything.

AGWers have even taken to destruction of their own model via fiascos such as the current Antarctic temperature farce. It's laughable.

Take for instance the denial of the warmers that solar activity has nothing to do with warming/colling trends, but when activity decreases.... SHAZAM! The world goes into a cool phase just like now. They then try to say that melting ice caps are causing the cooling, 'cept the arctic ice cap is having an uptick at the moment, ice is increasing since 2007. Antarctic ice has always been increasing since satellite records have been taken. Haha, scratch that theory.

The problem with the warmers is that they don't like reading ALL the science. I will readily accept that non-warmers do the same, but there are a few who do, such as Roger Pielke(a pro warmer) - and they have serious challenges with how junk science is being used by Al bore and the IPCC.

In other words in the real world, anthropogenic CO2 increasesmay have some affect on climate, but if it does, it is minor and other natural forcings are more influential.

As it stands AGW is not a proven fact.

It is not even a theory.

It is a hypothesis only.

The world is right to study it and should reduce fossil fuel use anyway for other reasons such as hydrocarbon and soot pollution etc and energy security.

But to convert it to a neat little political tool of fear and control is quite another matter. This will in the long term will be counterproductive for the environment. Folks are waking up to the fraud/ruse and are rejecting all environmental arguments as a consequence (as I predicted).

Lucas,

That is the truth of the matter and if you take notice the warmers, because of a dearth of credible scientific argument, must resort to ad hominem insults, straw man arguments, appeal to authority and other glaring logical fallacies that in the cold light of day, just don't stand up scientifically.

There are straight out "deniers" but these are no worse than the farcical Al Bore movie that is about as scientifically accurate as Bruce Willis' "Armageddon". Both movies are great entertainment, but nothing more.

 

[basilio]

I originally entered this debate with a constructive approach to the discussion. I took a lot of care to research and explain how CO2 warms the atmosphere and that increasing the amount of CO2 will hold more and more heat.

Moving on we now have 40 years of clear evidence that the earth is warming. This is the proof of the theory. This evidence has been sufficient to convince the vast majority of scientists working in the field that we face a situation that requires immediate, huge reductions in CO2 emissions if we are to have any chance of of avoiding changes to our climate that would destroy the habits of millions of species - and obviously us as well.

One of the other critical conversations was examining the background of the people who posed the most critical responses to the work of scientists. I showed that a substantial part of this criticism was simply created by advertising agencies on behalf of firstly tobacco and then fossil fuel companies. So why would you give such sources any credence?

The response has been short and swift. All these scientists are on a GW gravy train. The world is not warming, the ice is not melting, and if there is any climate change it certainly isn't caused by human produced CO2.

And anything that is written on the topic by The Guardian, New Scientist, or god forbid George Monbiot, is rubbish. (Somehow the fact that all the information on the source of GW criticism came from the perpetrators was overlooked..)

And for God's sake stop taking up so much space....

I don't think it's possible to rationally discuss this topic with that range of responses.

There is no suggestion that the whole story of GW is simple. There are many factors. But what is certain is that one factor, the extra CO2 emission which we are largely responsible for, is currently destroying the habitability of our earth. Ignoring it or denying it or rubbishing the messengers won't change the reality. That's why I brought up Jonathan Schells extremely powerful argument on the delusions our current political system accepts particularly during the recent 8 years of Bush presidency.

The science on GW is nuanced. If anyone takes the trouble to go to RealClimate.org the can judge for themselves the toing and froing that takes place on each piece of research. I've posted a simple example in relation to the discussion of the paper which examined warming in the Antarctic.

On many occasions on this site it’s been said that cooling in Antartica is consistent with AGW, as the models show etc…. Now it appears that a warming Antarctica is also consistent with AGW. I am curious to know, is there any kind of change in temperature down there which would invalidate the AGW thesis?

[Response:Why do the critics think that everything is so simple and binary, for example that we can lump all anthropogenic forcings into a simple “AGW” forcing. Guess what, its not that simple. There are multiple anthropogenic forcings that have quite different impacts (e.g. anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases, aerosols, land-use changes and, yes, stratospheric ozone depletion). Anyone who follows the science is of course aware of this.

The temperature trends in Antarctica depend on the time interval and season one looks at, because certain forcings, such as ozone depletion, are particularly important over restricted past time intervals and during particular seasons. The interval over which we expect cooling of the interior is when ozone depletion was accelerating (1960s through late 20th century) and this is precisely when we reproduce the cooling trend both in the reconstruction (primarily during the Austral fall season) and the model simulation experiments discussed in the paper.

Over the longer-term, and in the annual mean, greenhouse warming wins out over the more temporary and seasonally-specific impacts of ozone depletion in our simulations, and apparently in the real world. Do you really think that all of the authors and reviewers would have overlooked a basic internal contradiction of logic of the sort you imply, if it actually existed? This is all discussed in detail in the paper....-mike]

 

[rederob]

I've challenged Wayne numerous times to support some of the links he posts, to no avail.
Roger Pielke who is a good scientist, is also a not picker - which has merit in some instances. However, he's not enamored by CO2 forcing arguments and puts more faith in sea temperature and other anthropogenic factors. Pielke also argues strongly in favour of more localised forecasting needs, and more localised climate change responses.
Pielke's approach has some interesting pitfalls. First, he knows that IPCC models are not predictive of local climate, but he has no solution: Knowing full well that only meteorological models have a predictive capacity for the very near term. In other words, the probability of a weather prediction being significantly different than forecast a week in advance, is high.
While ocean temperatures clearly have an important role to play in weather, and in climate for several years ahead, radiative forcings from greenhouse gases have a long term "magnifying" effect. That is, irrespective of any other influences, if the proportion of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere continues to increase, the troposphere will, on average, continue to get hotter.
Climate change deniers who hark on about the shortcomings of IPCC models, or modelling per se, are simply clutching at straws on the "forcings" front.
And Wayne, who places great faith on the area of sea ice at the poles, continues to overlook the importance of ice volumes.
I won't get into the Antarctic debate. I understand how the scientists proxied data to arrive at their conclusions. The fact is that without actual temperature records (which some would want to challenge anyway) at the locations they proxied, we will never know if they were right or wrong.

 

[wayneL]

Rederob,

Why should I support the links I post. You don't, and nor should you. Science should support itself and be able to counter objections on its own merit.

The problem is that warmers don't appreciate valid objections nor countering science (appreciating that some objection is rubbish). Instead warmers as a group resort to tearing down personal credibility of dissenters via the tactics in my post immediately prior to this one.

E.g. Basilio, while taking on a thin veneer of reasonableness, subtly continues with this same logically fallacious agenda of dodging the big science picture and focuses on character assassination. Meanwhile, the vested interests of his own lobby is glossed over and ignored. If you look closely, he even contradicts his own logic

In the end, what's real is real. The reality is not conforming to the model, therefore the model should be discarded. It's rubbish.

 

[rederob]

In the end, what's real is real. The reality is not conforming to the model, therefore the model should be discarded. It's rubbish.

In the end, what is real is a warming earth.
To which climate change deniers find more and more creative ways of obfuscating.
In the end, I support the links I post.
Your denial of that is unsurprising given the lack of credibility of much you post.

 

[Calliope]

Greenies do crazy things, but I don't think even Bob Brown would do this;

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_...22_woman_bites_driver_over_nonhybrid_bus.html