Arctic Sea Ice Refuses to Melt
Posted by jennifer, August 16th, 2008 - under Uncategorized.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change
“Just a few weeks ago, predictions of Arctic ice collapse were buzzing all over the internet. Some scientists were predicting that the ‘North Pole may be ice-free for first time this summer’. Others predicted that the entire ‘polar ice cap would disappear this summer’,” writes Steven Goddard in yesterday’s UK Register.
The article continues, “The Arctic melt season is nearly done for this year. The sun is now very low above the horizon and will set for the winter at the North Pole in five weeks. And none of these dire predictions have come to pass. Yet there is, however, something odd going on with the ice data…
Read more by clicking here.
Regarding tonights 60 Minutes, Dr David Evans was approached to contribute ( as a result of his recent excellent article in The Australian).
The reporters who interviewed him sensed that here were facts which could blow the AGW case apart, and could make for sensational television. They consulted management on the issue and requested icreasing the story from one segment to two in the programme.
Meanwhile apparently the AGW “Thought Police” leaned on Channel 9, who then directed the production team to cut it back to one segment and make it less contraversial!
Bad luck for David and bad luck for truth.
And just shows how the sinister AGW tenticles appear to have such a grip on our media.
“..who then directed the production team to cut it back to one segment and make it less contraversial!”
… and apparently to run it when it would be up against the Olympics as well.
” Climate myths: Global warming stopped in 1998
11:00 15 August 2008
NewScientist.com news service
Michael Le Page
PrintSendFeeds UK Met Office Hadley Centre datasetEnlarge NASA’s global temperature land-ocean indexEnlarge Satellite imagery of sea surface temperatures taken during January 1998 shows the strong El Nino that helped make it one of the hottest years on record. (Image: NOAA)EnlargeAdvertisement
See all the climate myths in our special feature
Even if the atmospheric temperature near the earth’s surface has become cooler recently, that doesn’t mean the planet as a whole isn’t heating up
Imagine two people standing at the South Pole, one dressed in full Antarctic gear and the other wearing not much at all. Now imagine that you’re looking through one of those infrared thermal imagers that show how hot things are. Which person will look warmest – and which will be frozen solid after a few hours?
The answer, of course, is that the near-naked person will appear hotter: but because they are losing heat fast, they will freeze long before the person dressed more appropriately for the weather.
The point is that you have to look beyond the surface to understand how a body’s temperature will change over time – and that’s as true of planets as it is of warm-blooded bipeds.
Now take a look at the two main compilations (see figures, right) of global surface temperatures, based on monthly records from weather stations around the world.
According to the dataset of the UK Met Office Hadley Centre (see figure), 1998 was the warmest year by far since records began, but since 2003 there has been slight cooling.
But according to the dataset of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (see figure), 2005 was the warmest since records began, with 1998 and 2007 tied in second place.
Tracking the heat
Why the difference? The main reason is that there are no permanent weather stations in the Arctic Ocean, the place on Earth that has been warming fastest. The Hadley record simply excludes this area, whereas the NASA version assumes its surface temperature is the same as that of the nearest land-based stations.
It is possible that the NASA approach underestimates the rate of warming in the Arctic Ocean, but for the sake of argument let’s assume that the Hadley record is the most accurate reflection of changes in global surface temperatures. Doesn’t it show that the world has cooled since the record warmth of 1998, as many claim?
Not necessarily. The Hadley record is based only on surface temperatures, so it reflects only what’s happening to the very thin layer where air meets the land and sea.
In the long term, what matters is how much heat is gained or lost by the entire planet – what climate scientists call the “top of the atmosphere” radiation budget – and falling surface temperatures do not prove that the entire planet is losing heat.
Swaddling gases
Think again about that scantily clad person at the South Pole. If they put on some clothing, they’ll appear cooler to a thermal imager, but what’s really happening is that they are losing less heat.
Similarly, if you could look at Earth through a thermal imager, it would appear slightly cooler than it did a few decades ago. The reason is that the outer atmosphere, the stratosphere, is cooler because we’ve added more “clothing” to the lower atmosphere in the form of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.
As a result, the planet is gaining as much heat from the sun as usual but losing less heat every year as greenhouse gas levels rise (apart from the exceptional periods after major volcanic eruptions, such as El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991).
How do we know? Because the oceans are getting warmer.
Tricky oceans
Water stores an immense amount of heat compared with air. It takes more than 1000 times as much energy to heat a cubic metre of water by 1 degree Centigrade as it does the same volume of air. Since the 1960s, over 90% of the excess heat due to higher greenhouse gas levels has gone into the oceans, and just 3% into warming the atmosphere (see figure 5.4 in the IPCC report (PDF)).
Globally, this means that if the oceans soak up a bit more heat energy than normal, surface air temperatures can fall even though the total heat content of the planet is rising. Conversely, if the oceans soak up less heat than usual, surface temperatures will rise rapidly.
This is why surface temperatures do not necessarily rise steadily year after year, even though the planet as a whole is heating up a bit more every year. Most of the year-to-year variability in surface temperatures is due to heat sloshing back and forth between the oceans and atmosphere, rather than to the planet as a whole gaining or losing heat.
The record warmth of 1998 was not due to a sudden spurt in global warming but to a very strong El Nino (see figure, right). In normal years, trade winds keep hot water piled up on the western side of the tropical Pacific.
During an El Nino, the winds weaken and the hot water spreads out across the Pacific in a shallow layer. Its heat is transferred to the atmosphere. (During a La Nina, by contrast, as occurred during the early part of 2008, the process is reversed and upwelling cold water in the eastern Pacific soaks up heat from the atmosphere.)
A temporary fall in the heat content of the oceans at this time may have been due to the extra strong El Nino.
What next?
Since 1999, however, the heat content of the oceans has steadily increased again (despite claims to the contrary). Global warming has certainly not stopped, even if average surface temperatures really have fallen slightly as the Hadley figures suggest.
In the long term, some of the heat being soaked up by the oceans will inevitably spill back into the atmosphere, raising surface temperatures. Warmer oceans also mean rising sea levels, due to both thermal expansion and the melting of the floating ice shelves that slow down glaciers sliding off land into the sea. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which rests on the seabed rather than on land, is also highly vulnerable to rising sea temperatures.
Some climate scientists are predicting that surface temperatures will remain static or even fall slightly over the next few years, before warming resumes. Their predictions are based largely on the idea that changes in long-term fluctuation in ocean surface temperatures known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation will bring cooler sea surface temperatures.
If these predictions are right – and not all climate scientists think they are – you can expect to hear more claims from climate-change deniers about how global warming has stopped. But unless we see a simultaneous fall in both surface temperatures and ocean-heat content, claims that the “entire planet” is cooling are nonsense.
And while a big volcanic eruption could indeed trigger genuine cooling for a few years, global warming will resume again once the dust has settled.
Learn more about climate myths in our special feature
Climate Change: Want to know more about global warming: the science, impacts and political debate? Visit our continually updated special report.”
Link to the New Scientist article:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn14527
Weather prediction seems to be 50/50 – random.
This means we do not understand what causes weather.
And no one seems to be aware of this problem?
I was very amused watching Rudderless playing “Whack-a-Mole” on 60 Minutes tonight. He was brave enough to stick the top of his head up with a couple of platitudes (”xx of the yy hottest years have been in the last zz years”), but as soon as he got a difficult follow-up question, he immediately ducked for cover with the standard “The IPCC says …”
This is interesting. Apparently Rudderless has taken a leaf out of the Great Guano’s book – this is his stock-standard answer as well. These ETS pushers are all smart enough to realise that when AGW turns to $hit and they need scapegoats, that it is the gubmint science boys who are going to take all the flak. Which, of course, will be a good start.
“Even if the atmospheric temperature near the earth’s surface has become cooler recently, that doesn’t mean the planet as a whole isn’t heating up…”
Right. But we know it isn’t heating up since we have the ocean data. So thats the end of that one.
With this evidence, can we now take polar bears off of the endangered species list?
Gordon Robertson, you present two points:
The first is that weather and climate aren’t really different. Again, the difference is scope and scale. The difference between weather and climate is analogous to the difference between the trees and the forest. It’s the small picture versus the big picture — and by “big”, I mean not just spatial but temporal. Right now we’re having a heat wave where I live, and it happens to be cooler south of us. Our weather right now is hotter than their weather, but our climate is cooler than their climate. That’s the difference.
Your second concern arises from the nature of prediction. I think you’re taking an overly black-and-white approach: either you can or you cannot predict the future. The reality is gray. You can make predictions that are more accurate, and predictions that are less accurate. We can make really good predictions for the climate in my location over the next five years. Looking ten years into the future, our predictions are not so good. Looking 50 years into the future, our predictions aren’t very reliable — but we can still make predictions and, if they’re broad enough, they can still be useful. We don’t know whether the climate in North American will be 10 degrees hotter or 8 degrees hotter, but we can be pretty sure that it will more than 3 degrees hotter and less than 15 degrees hotter. That’s a pretty broad uncertainty band, to be sure — but it’s still useful, and as the science gets better, we can narrow the uncertainty band.
Sid Reynolds is pushing the conspiracy theory:
“Meanwhile apparently the AGW “Thought Police” leaned on Channel 9″
You see how deeply ingrained conspiracy theory is in the opposition to AGW?
New Scientist is part of Al Gore’s propaganda machine
“New Scientist is part of Al Gore’s propaganda machine”
More conspiracy theory!
Not necessarily. New Scientist could just be staffed by idiots like yourself. In any case an aversion to conspiracy theory is no proof of anything. Leftists are stupid and tribal. They act AS IF they are part of a conspiracy instinctually.
“In any case an aversion to conspiracy theory is no proof of anything.”
Correct. I have been using a piece of link analysis software (similar to what the cops use to analyse major fraud cases) to analyse the linkages between all the people listed on the front page of the AR4 Synthesis Report.
The results of this analysis so far is that there is a near 0% probability that all of these people have come together as a result of any recognised process of independent selection – (which is one definition of a conspiracy). It makes a further assessment that these linkage structures are similar to those seen in the mafia.
Boy, Ivan, is THAT an example of conspiracy theory thinking!
Yes, people who work in the same fields share a lot of common links. Why is such an obvious fact of any significance?
So .. it’s all for the greater good is it?
No independent checks and balances?
No independent reviewers?
Trust us – we’re climate scientists?
Almost no other legitimate commercial or governmental endeavour would tolerate this closed community of interest organisational structure.
You AGW guys are far more dangerous than I ever suspected.
Birdie forgot to mention that solids require even more energy to heat. And the climate muddles conveniently assume that no heat is transferred to any of the solid we know as the earth’s crust. That is, both land and ocean beds.
Yet, we know that past atmospheric temperature changes leave a signature down through the soil and rock strata. And over time, this slow but consistent transfer of heat to global solids must operate to reduce any modelled cumulative atmospheric and oceanic warming.
Conversely, a single cubic metre of molten lava on the sea bed, at 1203 degrees C. will release enough heat to warm in the order of 10,000m3 of water by 0.5C.
Ivan, you ask if there are independent reviewers and independent checks and balances. Indeed there are. You seem to think that scientists are part of some huge global organization. They’re not. They are scattered all over the world in a huge variety of institutions. In other words, they’re ALL independent!
Ian, what you’re describing is part of the “heat capacity” of the earth, defined as the amount of energy necessary to increase its temperature by one degree K. Most of the heat capacity of the earth is in the oceans, not the rock, because most atmospheric heat (or coolness) penetrates only a few cms into the earth most places. The heat capacity of the earth’s oceans is about 5 * 10**24 JK**-1. Thus, if the sun were to simply disappear, the oceans of the earth would initially cool at a rate of about one ºK per year. Similarly, if the sun were suddenly to double in brightness, the oceans of the earth would increase temperature at the rate of about 1 ºK per year. This is one reason why it’s so silly to check the latest weather reports to decide whether the earth’s temperature is increasing or decreasing: the oceans smooth out the changes so that they take place more slowly than would be the case without their heat capacity.
As for the transfer of heat to the earth’s crust, the thermal gradient points in the reverse direction: heat is traveling outward from the core because of the heat being generated throughout the earth’s interior by the decay of radioactive species.
“you ask if there are independent reviewers and independent checks and balances. Indeed there are.”
Indeed there are not – and if you either can’t see this, or refuse to accept it, then you are either disingenuous or just plain dumb.
Compare the IPCC AR4 Synthesis Report authors and editors to any Superior court in a representative democracy.
Let’s first take the High Court or Supreme court. All the judges appointed to these courts would have known and worked with each other in their careers. But what are the chances that all of the judges on any superior court would agree with each other (i.e. consensus) on all significant points? It would never happen – and the headlines would scream “Stacking the Bench” if it even looked like this might be happening.
Now let’s take the IPCC. Like the legal framework, AGW is also not based on any hard-and-fast science, but rather on the interpretation of a set of observations, and the projection of this guesswork into the future based on some computer modelling. (The law, is at least based on some written words that can be subejct to interpretation.)
The IPCC and its AGW adherents seems to be quite comfortable in letting a group of so-called experts come together virtually on the say-so or recommendation of each other. There is no independent review of the people who are appointed to these positions to assess their qualifications. There is no audit or independent review of their output – if there was, there would be dissenting opinions and/or minority reports WITHIN the IPCC framework (fat chance of that). Rather, any dissent has been rigorously expunged such that you are left with this cabal of similar-thinking adherents. Much like the Politburo.
This would not be tolerated in any other field of endeavour – in fact, as soon as everyone started agreeing with each other, alarm bells would go off. Most reputable organisations have corporate governance committees in place expressly to make sure that this sort of thing can’t happen, and that there is a diversity of opinions and some degree of independence in selection processes. All except for Enron, of course.
Not so, Chris Crawford. I don’t have a link to the papers but recent studies have found clear evidence of deeply penetrating heat signatures in bedrock. So there are two heat sources for the planetary crust. One is external and travelling down while the other is internal travelling up.
It follows that a change in the intensity of the external source, either by increased inputs or by increased retention will eventually produce a new equilibrium point in the crust where the new values meet.
Those (including climate muddlers) who would have us believe that the apparent short term mass characteristics of surface solids is consistent with the long term actuality are essentially arguing that heat does not, and will not, transfer from liquids and gas to a solid. It is blatant crap.
And your continual attempts to portray scepticism as a conspiracy theory fool no-one. Evidence of fraud is not a theory, it is a fact. Get used to it.
A demonstrated reluctance to divulge source data is not a theory, it is evidence of a fundamental unwillingness to account for and substantiate one’s statements. It is evidence of an intention to be selective with the truth and a strong indicator of a willingness to actively mislead.
I could go through a whole series of primary and secondary indicators of fraud that are consistently exhibited by the IPCC in particular and the climate mafia in general. But that information would only teach the scumbags how to be better liars so readers will just have to take my word for it.
Chris,
When you say “We don’t know whether the climate in North American will be 10 degrees hotter or 8 degrees hotter, but we can be pretty sure that it will more than 3 degrees hotter and less than 15 degrees hotter”, I am, of course, assuming that you have some verifiable data that supports this assertion.
Would you be good enough to share it with everyone and provide the references?
Ivan challenges my assertion that there are independent reviewers of climate change science — and then spends the rest of his time talking about the IPCC process. I am talking about the literature upon which the IPCC bases its conclusions. That literature is most definitely created under strict protocols that insure lots of independent review and criticism. Thus, the foundations upon which the IPCC process is built are most definitely operating with independent review.
Ivan asks “what are the chances that all of the judges on any superior court would agree with each other (i.e. consensus) on all significant points?”
Indeed, they are low. But that’s because easy cases are dealt with in lower courts. The highest courts get only the real wobblers that could go either way. The IPCC has to deal with all the issues; some are very easy to achieve agreement on, and the IPCC writes those as having “high confidence”. Other issues are more controversial, and the IPCC tags those as “low confidence” statements. Your suggestion that the IPCC is some sort of monolithic bloc — well, that’s just conspiracy theory.
“The IPCC and its AGW adherents seems to be quite comfortable in letting a group of so-called experts”
Are you saying that the people writing the IPCC reports are not experts? Could you name names and reveal those persons whom you regard to be fraudulent experts?
Ian Mott rejects my assertion that heat from the surface doesn’t penetrate deep into the earth: “I don’t have a link to the papers but recent studies have found clear evidence of deeply penetrating heat signatures in bedrock.”
The trick here, perhaps, is the difference between heat and “heat signatures”. Perhaps you’re referring to something like the Oklo reactor, or some other indicator of high temperatures. In any event, I think it incumbent upon you to either produce some sort of evidence for your assertion, or at least define your terms precisely. What’s a “heat signature”?
By the way, I’m not arguing that heat cannot transfer from the surface to the interior. I’m arguing that the temperature difference between surface and subsurface is usually negative (it’s hotter down below that it is on the surface) so there’s no delta-T to drive much heat transfer. For example, for much of North America the temperature of the soil a few feet down is fairly stable at around 10ºC – 15ºC. When the surface is warmer than this, then heat moves downward. But when the surface is colder than this, heat moves upward. So in general what we see is an oscillation, with heat moving downward in the summer, but moving upward during the rest of the year.
I must say, there’s something ironic about your last two paragraphs. In the first paragraph, you write: “A demonstrated reluctance to divulge source data is … a strong indicator of a willingness to actively mislead.”
And in your next paragraph you write: “But that information would only teach the scumbags how to be better liars so readers will just have to take my word for it.” Sounds like you’re reluctant to divulge your source data. ;-)
Ivan would like me to present source information on my assertion that it is likely that temperatures in North America will be warmer by between 3º and 15º. I cite IPCC AR4, Chapter 10, page 749 as well as Figure 10.8.
All bullshit, Chris. Dissembling at its finest.
“and then spends the rest of his time talking about the IPCC process.”
Of coourse I’m talking about process, you moron, simply because there is none. The rule of law and accountability runs on process – unless you’re suggesting that the IPCC and AGW is outside the rule of law?
“The highest courts get only the real wobblers”
We’re talking about the ‘real wobblers’ here – remeber the word “unequivocal”? Does it come any bigger than spending billions of dollars, closing down industries, bankrupting companies, putting people out of jobs? You don’t think there should be some process behind that ?? Process is very important – all of these disadvantaged people are going to need to be able to identify who is to be held accountable and sued for all these bad decisions that are made in the name of AGW.
“Are you saying that the people writing the IPCC reports are not experts? Could you name names and reveal those persons whom you regard to be fraudulent experts?”
“Fraudulent experts” are your words, but for starter’s there is:
> Peter Bosch – a Project Manager
> Ogunlade Davidson – a Mechanical Engineer
> William Hare – a political adviser to Greenpeace
> there are several meteorologists (i.e. weather forecasters — and remember: ‘weather isn’t climate’ – your words).
> there are a number that are indeterminates as well, either don’t have qualifications or are reluctant to publish them.
Ivan, if you continue to engage in verbal abusiveness, I shall refrain from replying to your comments. You list three names of people whom you consider to be in some way less than desirable. Not one of those names appears in IPCC AR4 Annex II “Contributors to the IPCC WGI Fourth Assessment Report”, nor do they appear in Annex III, “Reviewers of the IPCC WGI Fourth Assessment Report”. Could you specify the roles that they played in the preparation of IPCC AR4?
“Could you specify the roles that they played in the preparation of IPCC AR4?”
So — let’s ignore the substantive issues and concentrate on the side issues? Is that it?
If you go back and re-read my posts at 09:56 AM and at 01:49PM, you will notice that I said quite clearly and distinctly in both cases: “The AR4 Synthesis Report”. If you look at the front page of the AR4 Synthesis Report, you will see their names there, at the bottom.
For clarity, the Preface of the AR4 Synthesis Report says: “It draws together and integrates
for the benefit of policy makers and those from others professions, up to date policy-relevant scientific, technical and socio-economic information on climate change. This report is
intended to assist governments and other decision-makers in the public and private sector in formulating and implementing appropriate responses to the threat of human-induced climate
change.”
That is, it is the key document – the one that the decision makers are supposed to refer to. The one that, above all others, needs to be factual, precise, and squeaky-clean. As a decision-maker, having being pointed at this document, I would make it my business to establish the credentials of the authors. And, as you can see, they are indeed found to be wanting. On a decision this big, I’m supposed to take the word of a Project Manager, a Mechanical Engineer, and a political adviser to Greenpeace (plus a few weather forecasters)?
“Ivan would like me to present source information on my assertion that it is likely that temperatures in North America will be warmer by between 3º and 15º. I cite IPCC AR4, Chapter 10, page 749 as well as Figure 10.8.”
Chris – this is yet more nonsense.
If you read page 749, it says — quite clearly — at the top of the page:
“The future climate change results assessed in this chapter are based on a hierarchy of models..”
If you re-read my original question, I asked for verifiable data. Models are not verifiable data (in the same way that “weather isn’t climate”). You can’t just keep hiding behind the “AR4 says..” argument all the time.
Also – can you please point out for me where abouts in Chapter 10 the IPCC models actually predicted the cooling episode in 2007/2008 – which is acknowledged by the WMO in both Info Note 44
(www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/info_notes/info_44_en.html)
and the WMO Update of 24 June
(www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/wcasp/enso_update_latest.html)
This should be easy. Once we’ve established that the IPCC models accurately reflect and predict what happens in the real world, getting buy-in on the longer term projections should be easy.
Uh..oh.
Bit of a model problem.
If I read WMO Update of 24 June:
(www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/wcasp/enso_update_latest.html)
“While some modest return of cooling is possible over the next few weeks, the main message from prediction models and expert interpretation is that near-neutral conditions should be considered the most likely outcome for mid-year or shortly thereafter.”
Oh no! Is the WMO telling us that models are not verifiable data after all?
I wonder what impact this will have on Figure 10.8?
These guys are such lunatics that their own soothsaying becomes evidence. The computer proves itself. I don’t know why they just don’t get the computer to take the kids to school and wipe the babies butt.
“Ivan would like me to present source information on my assertion that it is likely that temperatures in North America will be warmer by between 3º and 15º. I cite IPCC AR4, Chapter 10, page 749 as well as Figure 10.8.”
My goodness. Crawford prattling on like some sort of research-grant-whore. No evidence. Just UN Soothsaying.
“Ivan, you ask if there are independent reviewers and independent checks and balances. Indeed there are. You seem to think that scientists are part of some huge global organization.”
SCIENTISTS???
Mate you are barking up the wrong tree here. This is a movement of research-grant-whores, leftist lunatics, barely reconstructed communists and neo-Malthusians, dwarves, misfits, oddballs, loony tunes and science workers. There is barely a SCIENTIST amongst them.
OK Lovelock. I’ll give you Lovelock. But Lovelock aside you couldn’t find a serious character amongst these nutballs.
“But Lovelock aside you couldn’t find a serious character amongst these nutballs.”
The part I really like is the cast of goofballs that make up the authorship of the AR4 Synthesis Report – a project manager, a mechanical engineer, a political hack from Greenpeace, and so on.
It’s a bit like coming home from visiting a specialist and your wife asks: “How did it go, dear?”
And you reply; “Well, the oncologist’s report came through, but the guys I saw were Cafeteria Manager, the Maintenance Manager and the guy who organises the annual fundraiser. They went over the oncologist’s report with me, and we kicked over a few alternatives. One is to have my foot amputated, the second is to have root canal treatment and the third is to have the our microwave and television removed – something to do with black body radiation. Can’t remember if they mentioned what sort of cancer it was – but then again, they’re the specialists and they’re paid big dollars, so they must be right.”
“Ivan, you ask if there are independent reviewers and independent checks and balances. Indeed there are.”
This is of course abject nonsense of the first order.
Read the IPCC’s “Principles” document, under the section “Participation”
(www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf)
7. Participation in the work of the IPCC is open to all UNEP and WMO Member countries. [i.e. a closed shop. Non-WMO/UNEP Member countries may not participate, but they can expect to have the consequences of IPCC decisions forced upon them.]
8. Invitations to participate in the sessions of the Panel and its Working Groups, Task Forces and
IPCC workshops shall be extended to Governments and other bodies by the Chairman of the IPCC. [Note: not "by the Chairman in consultation with his board of directors" -- i.e. all power to the Chairman - more UN enlightenment for all of us]
9. Experts from WMO/UNEP Member countries or international, intergovernmental or nongovernmental organisations may be invited in their own right to contribute to the work of the IPCC Working Groups and Task Forces. Governments should be informed in advance of invitations extended to experts from their countries and they may nominate additional experts. [Do we know if there has ever been a 'nongovernmental' organisation invited to join one of the working groups].
Anybody see anything that looks remotely like a check or balance in any of this?
“You seem to think that scientists are part of some huge global organization.”
If the above doesn’t describe ’some huge global organization’ (along the lines of the Mafia), then I struggle to think what does.
Crawford – you are a complete and utter fraud.
“You list three names of people whom you consider to be in some way less than desirable. Not one of those names appears in IPCC AR4 Annex II “Contributors to the IPCC WGI Fourth Assessment Report”, nor do they appear in Annex III, “Reviewers of the IPCC WGI Fourth Assessment Report”. Could you specify the roles that they played in the preparation of IPCC AR4?”
Chris, you are a fraud – or is it just laziness? In addition to the Synthesis Report, check out: (www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-annex3.pdf)
- page 827 for Peter Bosch
- page 828 for Bill Hare
Ivan, your continuing ungentlemanly behavior leads me to conclude that further discussion with you is pointless. However, I will take the time to explain a few points.
You cite the authorship of the IPCC AR4 Synthesis Report as evidence that the IPCC does not include scientific experts. You misunderstand the role of the various Working Groups. There are three Working Groups, flamboyantly labeled as Working Group I, Working Group II, and Working Group III. Working Group I has responsibility for assessing the physical basis of climate change. This is the science, analyzed and written by the scientists. I have relied exclusively upon their report for my contributions here.
Working Group II addresses climate change impacts, adaptation, and vulnerabilities. Their website says: “In its reports, Working Group II assesses the scientific, technical, environmental, economic and social aspects of the vulnerability (sensitivity and adaptability) to climate change of, and the negative and positive consequences for, ecological systems, socio-economic sectors and human health, with an emphasis on regional sectoral and cross-sectoral issues.”
Working Group III assesses the various mitigation strategies available to us. They write: “Working Group III is charged to assess available information on the science of climate change, in particular that arising from human activities. In performing its assessments the WGIII is concerned with the scientific, technical, environmental, and economic and social aspects of mitigation of climate change.”
Thus, your complaint that the WG III Synthesis Report includes non-scientists reflects a misunderstanding of its assignment.
You also seem to misunderstand the role of models. You require evidence in support of my claims regarding future temperatures. Then you object that I relied upon models for that evidence — you want actual data. The problem is, I don’t have a time machine that allows me to travel into the future to collect the data you demand. If we want to predict the future, we have to plug data from the past into a model to predict the future.
Barring some dramatic change on your part, I shall not be responding to any future comments you write.
Yeah like thats a great loss. Any twit that mistakes baseless soothsaying for evidence is just going to get in the way anyhow.
What if we just cut off all the funds? Its not like the world is going to end.
CC: “Did the ocean continue to expand during the Little Ice Age?”
Hard to say. Changes to sea level
are hard enough to properly assess today with modern satellite capabilities. But given the latest data which shows a flattening of sea level rise as sea surface temperatures have started cooling,
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SeaLevel_TOPEX.jpg
there may have indeed been periods where it dropped within the longer term trend of increase.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
However given trends as indicated, there is absolutely no evidence that increased CO2 levels are responsible for an increasing rate of rise in ocean levels.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise_png
“..leads me to conclude that further discussion with you is pointless.”
That is the usual response of people that have been caught out telling lies.
“You cite the authorship of the IPCC AR4 Synthesis Report as evidence that the IPCC does not include scientific experts.”
That’s not what I said. Let me be clear to lessen the chances that you will misrepresent my words further. The authors listed on the front of the AR4 Synthesis Report are not qualified to make the executive level summaries that are contained within the report. There. Is that clear enough for a fraud like yourself?
“Thus, your complaint that the WG III Synthesis Report includes non-scientists reflects a misunderstanding of its assignment.”
That wasn’t my complaint (although it would be valid – there are a number of non-scientists in WG3). My complaint was that you are a liar and a fraud. You asserted that the indiviudals I named were not included in either Appendix 3 or Appendix 4 of the WG documents. A quick check shows that 2 of them are. A reasonable person would call that a lie, I think.
“The problem is, I don’t have a time machine..”
Sorry. Not good enough. You admit that you do not have proof, cannot obtain proof, and don’t see the need for proof — and we just have to take your word for it, is that it?
“You also seem to misunderstand the role of models.”
Not at all. Let’s examine the WMO’s own words on the subject (noted in my previous post):
1) “While some modest return of cooling is possible over the next few weeks” Interpretation: “We are clueless as to what is happening on a week to week basis – let alone 50 years into the future”. (The giveaway is the word ‘possible’).
2: “the main message from prediction models and expert interpretation..” Interpretation #1: The WMO thinks that their models speak to them. What sort of witch-doctor religion is this? Interpretation #2: The models are completely worthless and have to be “re-interpreted” on a regular basis. Not sure which Interpretation worries me most.
3: “near-neutral conditions should be considered the most likely outcome for mid-year or shortly thereafter.” Interpretation: “We haven’t got a frigging clue. We were completely blindsided by this one, but rest assured we are busy re-working the models.” Should + likely + shortly thereafter = bullshit. Look it up on Wiki.
“I shall not be responding to any future comments you write.”
Big deal. You misrepresent and duck all the main issues anyway. What’s to be missed?
“..leads me to conclude that further discussion with you is pointless.”
Does that mean Luke will come back? Sigh.
Actually, the Arctic sea ice is NOT ‘not refusing to melt’:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gU8J3xEhFmRPw87tPfwb-oXa5h9gD92QNA480
Oops…
Newsflash: Massive Canadian Ice Shelf Suddenly Breaks Up:
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/50087/story.htm
Arctic Melting shows severity of global warming:
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/50081/story.htm
If only this was just about winning on-line debates, and not about the planet turning into one big New Orleans, and not in a good way.
Wow folks – that’s one hell of a rowdy debate you have got going down here. I’m really pleased to see the feelings are running so high. We need this kind enthusiasm. Better than good old apathy. May I gently suggest that we take a risk based approach and try to find some common ground. Statistics and past experience suggest that I may crash my car this year. I reckon I’m not and can do my best to avoid doing so, but I’ll be taking insurance just in case. Don’t know who’s right or wrong here – but if the warmers are proved right and we’ve done nothing to prepare, that’s a hell of a risk to take? And if they are wrong and we have prepared for nothing, well, I like the idea of more time with my family, less time in a car, eating better food and an economy that’s not founded on an inevitably dwindling resource. I don’t think at the end of the year when yet again I have failied to crash my car “I wish I hadn’t taken out that insurance” C’mon what have we got to lose? Let’s just shake hands, make up and get on with the insurance policy.
lol Robsterillo
[...] to blame for polar warming Oh dear!. Yet IPA’s corporate environmental spokesperson Jennifer Marohasy continues to live a world where Arctic ice may actually be increasing, and hey, Britain has had [...]