Resisting Climate Hysteria

[basilio]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...al-warming-since-1997-underestimated-by-half/

Cowtan and Way apply their method to the HadCRUT4 data, which are state-of-the-art except for their treatment of data gaps. For 1997-2012 these data show a relatively small warming trend of only 0.05 °C per decade – which has often been misleadingly called a “warming pause”. The new IPCC report writes:

Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

But after filling the data gaps this trend is 0.12 °C per decade and thus exactly equal to the long-term trend mentioned by the IPCC.

That was a very interesting paper. What the authors noted was that the HadCRUT4 data had almost no measurements in the Arctic , Antarctic and a number of spots in Africa.

It has been clear for the last 15 years that the Arctic is warming at a considerably faster rate than the rest of the earth so incorporating temperature figures from the Arctic makes sense.

The delicious irony of the paper ? The source of the infill Acrtic temperatures was the satellite measurements supplied by the University of Alabama from Christy and Spencer who have repeatedly attempted to use the satellite temperature figures to refute global warming.

Nice video abstract of the paper on you tube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhJR3ywIijo

 

[trainspotter]

Numerous journal articles have reported on studies of temperature trends in Antarctica, with a remarkably consistent conclusion…….

Whereas climate models suggest that temperatures in Antarctica should have been warming in recent decades in response to increases in greenhouse gases, measurements show otherwise. Although some regions do show increases, the majority of the continent shows no significant trend or an actual decrease. There is evidence that atmospheric and ocean circulation patterns have much stronger impacts on Antarctic climate than do greenhouse gas increases.

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/is-antarctica-getting-warmer-2/

As meteorologist Anthony Watts explains, new data show ice mass is accumulating on the Antarctic continent as well as in the ocean surrounding Antarctica. The new data contradict an assertion by global warming alarmists that the expanding Antarctic sea ice is coming at the expense of a decline in Antarctic continental ice.

The new data also add context to sensationalist media stories about declining ice in small portions of Antarctica, such as portions of West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula (see here, for example). The mainstream media frequently publish stories focusing on ice loss in these two areas, yet the media stories rarely if ever mention that ice is accumulating over the larger area of East Antarctica and that the continent as a whole is gaining snow and ice mass.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/

IN the debate on global warming, the data on the climate of Antarctica has been distorted, at different times, by both sides. As a polar researcher caught in the middle, I’d like to set the record straight.

In January 2002, a research paper about Antarctic temperatures, of which I was the lead author, appeared in the journal Nature. At the time, the Antarctic Peninsula was warming, and many people assumed that meant the climate on the entire continent was heating up, as the Arctic was. But the Antarctic Peninsula represents only about 15 percent of the continent’s land mass, so it could not tell the whole story of Antarctic climate. Our paper made the continental picture more clear.

My research colleagues and I found that from 1986 to 2000, one small, ice-free area of the Antarctic mainland had actually cooled. Our report also analyzed temperatures for the mainland in such a way as to remove the influence of the peninsula warming and found that, from 1966 to 2000, more of the continent had cooled than had warmed. Our summary statement pointed out how the cooling trend posed challenges to models of Antarctic climate and ecosystem change.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/opinion/27doran.html?_r=0

So the Antarctic Peninsula which represents 15% of the continents land mass is warming and the rest is cooling? You do the maths

 

[Knobby22]

Did you read the article or just the proaganda??

Further sections follow, you should read it:

Our study did find that 58 percent of Antarctica cooled from 1966 to 2000. But during that period, the rest of the continent was warming. And climate models created since our paper was published have suggested a link between the lack of significant warming in Antarctica and the ozone hole over that continent. These models, conspicuously missing from the warming-skeptic literature, suggest that as the ozone hole heals ”” thanks to worldwide bans on ozone-destroying chemicals ”” all of Antarctica is likely to warm with the rest of the planet. An inconvenient truth?

In the meantime, I would like to remove my name from the list of scientists who dispute global warming. I know my coauthors would as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/opinion/27doran.html?_r=1&

 

[trainspotter]

Did you not see the headbang icon at the end of the sentence? One minute he is saying 15% of the land mass is warming but the rest is cooling BUT the overall trend is for warming as the ozone heals?

Antarctica is likely to warm with the rest of the world? I am likely to win lotto if I keep playing as well.

Our summary statement pointed out how the cooling trend posed challenges to models of Antarctic climate and ecosystem change

 

[Knobby22]

Come on Trainspotter.

He is saying he is sick of being misquoted by "skeptics" and having words put in his mouth that he didn't say by unreputable people.
You are continuing it! He stated that his paper represented the whole of Antartica, not the peninsula.
How come you are misquoting? Read this bit.

In January 2002, a research paper about Antarctic temperatures, of which I was the lead author, appeared in the journal Nature. At the time, the Antarctic Peninsula was warming, and many people assumed that meant the climate on the entire continent was heating up, as the Arctic was. But the Antarctic Peninsula represents only about 15 percent of the continent’s land mass, so it could not tell the whole story of Antarctic climate. Our paper made the continental picture more clear.

My research colleagues and I found that from 1986 to 2000, one small, ice-free area of the Antarctic mainland had actually cooled. Our report also analyzed temperatures for the mainland in such a way as to remove the influence of the peninsula warming and found that, from 1966 to 2000, more of the continent had cooled than had warmed. Our summary statement pointed out how the cooling trend posed challenges to models of Antarctic climate and ecosystem change.

Rupert below says it best. He's no dummy.

 

[basilio]

Interesting to see what you find you look at the whole picture rather than carefully selected sections that are used to promote distortions on the science around global warming.

As Knobby pointed out Peter Doran undertook research on climate change in the Antarctic and ended up having the paper selectively quoted to attack the science around CC. He has gone on the record to explain the whole picture of his research and repeatedly requested to have his name taken off the list of scientists who doubt the reality of global warming.

( Incidentally what are to make of organizations that distort a scientists findings and then repeatedly use the distortion to boost their own argument? Look to the Heartland Foundation et al for that honour)

With regard to warming in the Antarctic and the expansion of sea ice. The reality of GW doesn't necessarily mean every part of the earth will warm in the same way. There are a host of local conditions which will impact on the local climate. Antarctica is a HUGE continent with warming and cooling happening in different areas. In fact the expansion of sea ice in Antarctic is allegedly a consequence on changes in the ozone layer and a freshening of the Southern Ocean.

Overall however Antarctica is losing significant volumes of ice from the landmass.

Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?
Link to this page
What the science says...
Select a level... Basic Intermediate

Satellites measure Antarctica is gaining sea ice but losing land ice at an accelerating rate which has implications for sea level rise.
Climate Myth...

Antarctica is gaining ice
"[Ice] is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap." (Greg Roberts, The Australian)

Skeptic arguments that Antarctica is gaining ice frequently hinge on an error of omission, namely ignoring the difference between land ice and sea ice.

In glaciology and particularly with respect to Antarctic ice, not all things are created equal. Let us consider the following differences. Antarctic land ice is the ice which has accumulated over thousands of years on the Antarctica landmass itself through snowfall. This land ice therefore is actually stored ocean water that once fell as precipitation. Sea ice in Antarctica is quite different as it is ice which forms in salt water primarily during the winter months. When land ice melts and flows into the oceans global sea levels rise on average; when sea ice melts sea levels do not change measurably.

In Antarctica, sea ice grows quite extensively during winter but nearly completely melts away during the summer (Figure 1). That is where the important difference between Antarctic and Arctic sea ice exists as much of the Arctic's sea ice lasts all the year round. During the winter months it increases and before decreasing during the summer months, but an ice cover does in fact remain in the North which includes quite a bit of ice from previous years (Figure 1). Essentially Arctic sea ice is more important for the earth's energy balance because when it increasingly melts, more sunlight is absorbed by the oceans whereas Antarctic sea ice normally melts each summer leaving the earth's energy balance largely unchanged.

Figure 1: Coverage of sea ice in both the Arctic (Top) and Antarctica (Bottom) for both summer minimums and winter maximums
Source: National Snow and Ice Data Center

One must also be careful how you interpret trends in Antarctic sea ice. Currently this ice is increasing overall and has been for years but is this the smoking gun against climate change? Not quite. Antarctic sea ice is gaining because of many different reasons but the most accepted recent explanations are listed below:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

 

[trainspotter]

Come on Trainspotter.

He is saying he is sick of being misquoted by "skeptics" and having words put in his mouth that he didn't say by unreputable people.
You are continuing it! He stated that his paper represented the whole of Antartica, not the peninsula.
How come you are misquoting? Read this bit.

In January 2002, a research paper about Antarctic temperatures, of which I was the lead author, appeared in the journal Nature. At the time, the Antarctic Peninsula was warming, and many people assumed that meant the climate on the entire continent was heating up, as the Arctic was. But the Antarctic Peninsula represents only about 15 percent of the continent’s land mass, so it could not tell the whole story of Antarctic climate. Our paper made the continental picture more clear.

My research colleagues and I found that from 1986 to 2000, one small, ice-free area of the Antarctic mainland had actually cooled. Our report also analyzed temperatures for the mainland in such a way as to remove the influence of the peninsula warming and found that, from 1966 to 2000, more of the continent had cooled than had warmed. Our summary statement pointed out how the cooling trend posed challenges to models of Antarctic climate and ecosystem change.

Rupert below says it best. He's no dummy.

Come on Knobby22,

The peninsula represents 15% of the landmass which was warming and the rest was cooling? He then goes on to say it is likely that the rest of Antarctica will warm with the rest of the world? Contradictory at best. Fallacious at worst.

He wanted his name taken off the records due to a book by Michael Chricton which misrepresented his thesis.

My bolds. It does not make sense HENCE the headbang at the end of my sentence?

Rupert is no fool .. *sniff sniff* .. is that the smell of money?

"[W]e have saved millions of dollars by improving the energy efficiency of our day-to-day operations.

"Twentieth Century Fox's Ice Age franchise and the most successful film of all time, Avatar, prove that passionate environmental messages can be fodder for both blockbusters ...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/01/rupert-murdoch-news-corp-carbon-neutral_n_829640.html


Money money money !

 

[basilio]

Congratulations to Rupert Murdoch on his achievements to reduce CO2 emissions with News Corp and save a buck.

However if he was fair dinkum about his commitment he would not be allowing Andrew Bolt to be trashing climate scientists at every opportunity and misrepresenting the dangers. He would be giving the earth "the benefit of the doubt" as he put it in 2006

In a sense we are seeing Rupert make sure his stateroom in the Titanic is neat and tidy...

 

[Knobby22]

Basilio

Rupert knows it's real and needs to say so for two reasons:
1. It will reflect on his legacy.
2. It helps protect him from advocates

However he is aligned with powerful interests who pay him money to serve their interests. He doesn't mind taking the money as long as he can be above it all. He will take money from whoever offers it. I'm sure he enjoys using his power to make movies like Avatar and shows like the Simpsons with their messages which are opposite to the so called "serious" commentators of Fox who feed the hard line Republican voters with what they want to hear.

Rupert has never been as conservative as he is portrayed. He supported Labor in Britain and Labor in Australia at various times. Don't forget Hilary Clinton's campaign was heavily backed by Rupert. I think he is playing with the Republicans at present. Read the link below.

http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2012/11/24/Fox-News-Republicans/

 

[spooly74]

But after filling the data gaps this trend is 0.12 °C per decade and thus exactly equal to the long-term trend mentioned by the IPCC.

Where & when did the IPCC 'mention' this .12 °C per decade?
IIRC, its always been .2 °C per decade.

It might be exactly equal to the lowest estimates of warming.
Luke warmers, anyone?

 

[wayneL]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/

The new maths 52% = 97%

 

[medicowallet]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/

The new maths 52% = 97%

Gotta love Tom Lehrer.

 

[Knobby22]

Good article. Blows Cook away.

Some points though:

62% say both climate and human induced.

Also interesting was that the less qualified you are to comment, the more likely you are to be in the negative.
If you are publishing in the field of climate change then its 88%.

Finally this is a poll of only of US scientists in which the debate is politically charged.

 

[spooly74]

New Report Finds Climate Change Caused By 7 Billion Key Individuals

In a landmark report experts say fundamentally reshapes our understanding of the global warming crisis, new data published this week by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found that the phenomenon is caused primarily by the actions of 7 billion key individuals.

These several billion individuals, who IPCC officials confirmed are currently operating in 195 countries worldwide, are together responsible for what experts called the “lion’s share” of the devastating consequences of global warming affecting the entire planet.

“Our research has proved conclusively that, year after year, the acceleration of the rate of global warming and the damage caused by this man-made acceleration can be clearly linked to 7 billion main culprits,” explained lead author Dr. John Bartlett, noting that many of these individuals have links to climate change going back nearly a century. “Worse, the significant majority of damage was done within the past two decades, when the consequences of climate change were widely known and yet these specific individuals did nothing to curb or amend their practices.”

http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-report-finds-climate-change-caused-by-7-billio,34658/?ref=auto

 

[wayneL]

Judith Curry on Michael Mann: http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/23/week-in-review-5/

Up the level of your scientific game when discussing climate change with the public. Most importantly, stop trashing other scientists that disagree with you. It reminds the public of Climategate and all of the irresponsible and unethical practices that are the root source of why they don’t trust climate scientists. You continue to damage the credibility of climate science in ways that you apparently can’t imagine.

Also some interesting stuff from Von Storch at the link

Also linked, which I invite all to read http://scottishsceptic.wordpress.com/2013/11/19/the-police-visited-today/

 

[cynic]

...
Also interesting was that the less qualified you are to comment, the more likely you are to be in the negative.
...

Yes! I often say the same thing about people whom disagree with my infallible opinion! Especially on matters that are yet to be conclusively proven.

Everybody whom disagrees with my self esteemed opinion must therefore be unqualified to comment by merit of intellectual impairment, inexperience or conflict of interest!

Does this misguided philosophy sound familiar to anyone?

Would anydody like a side order of fries with their order for cognitive bias?

 

[noco]

I have just read a letter dated 1st November 1913 posted to my mother from her brother who lived in Mt Morgan at the time.

He stated to her it was 101 degrees F AND THEY HAD NOT HAD ANY RAIN FOIR 4 MONTHS.

Global Warming....Climate Change......or was it caused by CO2 EMMISSIONS?

 

[Knobby22]

Yes! I often say the same thing about people whom disagree with my infallible opinion! Especially on matters that are yet to be conclusively proven.

Everybody whom disagrees with my self esteemed opinion must therefore be unqualified to comment by merit of intellectual impairment, inexperience or conflict of interest!

Does this misguided philosophy sound familiar to anyone?

Would anydody like a side order of fries with their order for cognitive bias?

Yes, you definitely have some.
The more qualified as a scientist in the field, the more likely you come to the conclusion shown. Is that so hard to fathom?

It is like going to a doctor with heart problems, who will most likely provide the best diagnosis? the GP, the brain surgeon or the heart surgeon? Hardly a communist conspiracy

 

[Knobby22]

I have just read a letter dated 1st November 1913 posted to my mother from her brother who lived in Mt Morgan at the time.

He stated to her it was 101 degrees F AND THEY HAD NOT HAD ANY RAIN FOIR 4 MONTHS.

Global Warming....Climate Change......or was it caused by CO2 EMMISSIONS?

I think if he was here he would express shock that the new maximum record broken in 1990 was 113.5 degrees Farenheit! And even this year it was over 102 degrees F.

I reckon he would be wondering what his descendants were doing about it.

 

[trainspotter]

This photo captures the River Murray near Mildura before the lock system was introduced on the river between 1922 and 1937. The Murray ceased to flow in the drought years of 1901, 1915 and 1923.