Decline in the extent of Arctic sea ice may have more to do with changes in circulation patterns of fresh water entering the Arctic Ocean from rivers in Russia than changes in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide according to a new article in Nature:
“FRESHENING in the Canada basin of the Arctic Ocean began in the 1990s and continued to at least the end of 2008. By then, the Arctic Ocean might have gained four times as much fresh water as comprised the Great Salinity Anomaly of the 1970s, raising the spectre of slowing global ocean circulation. Freshening has been attributed to increased sea ice melting and contributions from runoff, but a leading explanation has been a strengthening of the Beaufort High — a characteristic peak in sea level atmospheric pressure, which tends to accelerate an anticyclonic (clockwise) wind pattern causing convergence of fresh surface water. Limited observations have made this explanation difficult to verify, and observations of increasing freshwater content under a weakened Beaufort High suggest that other factors must be affecting freshwater content.
Here we use observations to show that during a time of record reductions in ice extent from 2005 to 2008, the dominant freshwater content changes were an increase in the Canada basin balanced by a decrease in the Eurasian basin.
Observations are drawn from satellite data (sea surface height and ocean-bottom pressure) and in situ data. The freshwater changes were due to a cyclonic (anticlockwise) shift in the ocean pathway of Eurasian runoff forced by strengthening of the west-to-east Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation characterized by an increased Arctic Oscillation index. Our results confirm that runoff is an important influence on the Arctic Ocean and establish that the spatial and temporal manifestations of the runoff pathways are modulated by the Arctic Oscillation, rather than the strength of the wind-driven Beaufort Gyre circulation.
*****
From: Changing Arctic Ocean freshwater pathways
By: James Morison, Ron Kwok, Cecilia Peralta-Ferriz, Matt Alkire, Ignatius Rigor, Roger Andersen & Mike Steele
In: Nature 481, 66–70 (05 January 2012) doi:10.1038/nature10705
Link: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7379/full/nature10705.html
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Who does NOT believe that the oceans are fantastically variable from moment to moment, and that they are fantastically huge and complex?
Who does NOT believe that our understanding of the oceans is in its infancy?
This is a little bit off topic, but I’m interested to read on page 81 of Lomborg’s book ” Cool It” about the estimates for all models of SL increase attributed to both Greenland and Antarctica until 2300, or the next 300 years.
All of Greenland’s contribution is positive with an increase of about 1mm a year , while Antarctica is negative with a neg contribution of at least 1.5 to 2mm mm a year.
The study he quotes is the Gregory & Huybrechts 2006 study, but the graph he includes must be included in their study, although I can’t find it online.
Anyhow if all the models agree to the melt contribution of both above for the next 300 years it’s difficult to see where these many metres of SLR will come from when one considers the size of Antarctica.
On page 80 Lomborg actually states that the above estimates come from the IPCC.
So what is this panic all about?
Hi, Neville
Sea level rise up till recently is mostly thermal. As we continue our recovery from the Little Ice Age, the oceans warm. As the water warms, it expands. The LIA was about 500 years of cold. We have only had about 150 years of warming from that period and it takes a long time to warm the ocean. It is much easier to cool the ocean from above than it is too cool it. You can cool the abyssal deep from the surface due to convection. Colder water will fall to the bottom. You can’t warm the abyssal deep from the top because warm water will remain on the surface. You have to wait for the cold water that accumulated in the abyssal deep to completely circulate through the system a few times. It takes 600 to 800 years to completely ventilate the ocean (according to most estimates) which means to expose the water to the atmosphere and exchange gasses (and temperature). So most of the water that was exposed to the atmosphere during that very cold period has not yet cycled through the system. The oceans will likely continue to rise for another 500 years or so even with no change in global atmospheric temperatures.
One thing to keep an eye on are the satellite sea level measurements from the University of Colorado. They are updated infrequently, only a few times a year but you can follow the progress here:
http://climate4you.com/images/UnivColorado%20MeanSeaLevelSince1992%20With1yrRunningAverage.gif
You can see that sea level rise has stopped recently. You might also be interested in how that correlates with global ocean heat content:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55-07.png
That graph is updated more frequently but as you can see, heat content of the upper 700 meters of the ocean also stabilized along with rise in sea levels. Surface temperature has also been in rather rapid decline since 2010, too, but the surface temperatures are often more of a proxy for wind conditions, it’s heat content that determines thermal expansion of the oceans as a whole:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/1-global.png
As for sea ice, we have seen a general reduction in sea ice that has trended along with the general increase in global temperature and ocean temperatures that we saw from about 1976 to around 1998. It has become more pronounced during the very active solar cycles of the 1990’s and early 2000’s. There seems to be some correlation between length of the solar cycle and sea ice with about a 10 year lag. When we have solar cycles of a shorter duration, we tend to have more active cycles and for reasons not fully understood, these more intense cycles seem to result in a climate response of warming. When we have longer cycles, they tend to be weaker and there is a cooling response from the climate. This is not fully understood because the change in total solar illumination doesn’t change much during a cycle but what does change is the balance of energy in the spectrum. During an active cycle there is a little less light in the visible portion of the spectrum of light but more UV. Weak cycles have a lot less UV but overall the total energy from the sun is nearly the same.
When we have more UV, we get heating of the stratosphere and possibly more energy penetration into the oceans as UV is the deepest penetrating portion of the solar spectrum into the oceans. This heating of the stratosphere may result in a general warming of the convective troposphere by increasing the temperature at the top of the convective column. If you increase the temperature at the top, you may increase the temperature at the bottom due to the adiabatic lapse rate. Temperature warms as you decrease in altitude so if you start from from the top with a warmer temperature, you end at a warmer temperature. But that is all still speculative at this point. What *is* known is what seems to be quite good correlation between the two events and the current solar cycle is the longest one we have seen since the late 19th century so we might be in for a great increase in sea ice in 10 years time, we’ll just have to wait and see. We can tell that the amount of ice for today’s date is higher than it has been for the past several years:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
The anomaly hasn’t been this low at this point in January since the early 2000’s so we maybe be on the cusp of a significant recovery of Arctic sea ice. If we should see a reduction of summer minimum ice coverage, that would be another indicator that we are due for a bit of cooling as that increases the amount of sunlight that is reflected back into space and is not absorbed by the Arctic Ocean during its 24hr sunny summers.
All in all, we are just going to have to wait and see but the signs are currently lined up pointing to greater cooling in the near future, not warming.
No one knows the holocene history of Arctic sea ice to any accuracy except for the last 3 decades. I think any “anthro” reduction would have a bit to do with nuclear powered ice breakers.
One thing about the earth’s climate, it is never in equilibrium.
As the equatorial SLs drop and the poles build from increased snowing, the earth rotates faster, causing more cooling.
http://popesclimatetheory.com/page28.html
Interesting to see that the global sea ice anomaly is now positive:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Very good down to earth thoughts, George B.
Judith Curry has just opened a post on this:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/01/10/nonequilibrium-thermodynamics-and-maximum-entropy-production-in-the-earth-system/#more-6565
“The United States and the Soviet Union are mounting large-scale investigations to determine why the Arctic climate is becoming more frigid, why parts of the Arctic sea ice have recently become ominously thicker and whether the extent of that ice cover contributes to the onset of ice ages.” – New York Times – July 18, 1970
“An international team of specialists has concluded from eight indexes of climate that there is no end in sight to the cooling trend of the last 30 years, at least in the Northern Hemisphere. – New York Times” – January 5, 1978
This must have come as a great relief to elderly readers of the New York Times, who had previously been edified with this:
“Is our climate changing? The succession of temperate summers and open winters through several years, culminating last winter in the almost total failure of the ice crop throughout the valley of the Hudson, makes the question pertinent. The older inhabitants tell us that the Winters are not as cold now as when they were young, and we have all observed a marked diminution of the average cold even in this last decade.” – New York Times June 23, 1890
Well, after that experience, I’m sure that “international teams of specialists” and the New York Times would never want to beat up another Arctic ice scare, whether of the warming or cooling variety. No way.
I know, I know. I left out the cooling scare around the turn of the twentieth century, hot on the heels of the warming scare of 1890:
“The question is again being discussed whether recent and long-continued observations do not point to the advent of a second glacial period, when the countries now basking in the fostering warmth of a tropical sun will ultimately give way to the perennial frost and snow of the polar regions” – New York Times – February 24, 1895;
And the big hotting of ’33:
“America in longest warm spell since 1776; temperature line records a 25 year rise” – New York Times 3/27/1933″
I also left out the simultaneous threat of advancing and retreating of Arctic ice in the twenties, depending on whether you read the WaPo or Time Magazine. (I try never to read either.)
No way we’d get sucked in again, right?
Surely the increased volcanic activity in Iceland must contribute additional heat to the system.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15995845
So many typos, so little time! “If we should see a reduction of summer minimum ice coverage” of course I meant if we should see an INCREASE in summer minimum ice coverage.
And there are several other goofs that are easier to spot. I get in a hurry sometimes.
Totally OT but worth checking out
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3769886.html
unbelievable!!
Yes, John, unbelievable; the ABC’s idiocy continues apace and this witless author is just another example of the head up the arse syndrome. The author asserts this:
“This is not just about planting trees. Changing the way crops are managed, or the way cattle are grazed, could mean a reduction of millions of tonnes of carbon pollution, and a viable, long-term business prospect for our farmers.”
Actually it’s more likely to produce this:
http://www.beefcentral.com/news/article/391
Henbury Station, a productive, food, producing farm has been sold under the auspices the Federal government’s Farming Initiative bills; this is oxymoronic legislation because it will decrease farming and Henbury Station is a classic example of where once productive land will now lie fallow.
What a double wank
“Decline in the extent of Arctic sea ice may have more to do with changes in circulation patterns of fresh water entering the Arctic Ocean from rivers in Russia than changes in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide according to a new article in Nature:”
– where does the paper say that or imply that? It doesn’t.
“Henbury Station is a classic example of where once productive land will now lie fallow.”
check out where south of Alice Springs is Cohers. Check median rainfall. Try land degradation city. Talk about septic sceptic spin. “fallow” – choke choke – as if it is cropping land … fallow !!!
luke, Henbury ran 17,000 head. That would feed about 100,000 people for a year. Anyway the point holds, the Farming Initiative legislation is not designed to ‘improve’ agriculture as the abc wanker says but to close down farms; it is classic green cognitive dissonance.
““fallow” – choke choke – as if it is cropping land … fallow !!!”
Now Luke, don’t have apoplexy or any other cerebrovascular event. We quite understand what cohers means.
Productive land being made unproductive. What a solution for the taxpayer. And paying people to become unproductive!
Lovely boy luke never stops moaning about farmers’ drought subsidies yet he seems to support this grand scheme.
I’ll bet that after the great seasons they’ve had there that instead of letting it lie fallow it could be growing watermelons.
My reply hasn’t been printed. How dare he propose that all the benefits and gains are due to WWF – as I say the benefits are due to the Australian Agricultural Department and the Academics of our Universities.
Good to see Luke hasn’t lost his sense of humour. But as Machiavelli pointed out if you play B graders you risk becoming one. Nevertheless and taking the risk, I did get a laugh out of Cohers and his fallowed station in the NT. I suppose he thought a station was where the workers get the train. Then there was Robert quoting science to 1978 – I hope his doctor has read more recent stuff! And there is more. The anomalous George B will by now have hairs on the back of his hands having gone blind looking at graphs where he has lost the wood for the trees. A bit of not unusual noise does not a trend make. A climate trend to be your friend would need to be more like 30 years than 30 months. Spare me.
Hi Luke,
You and some others have made much of the mild start to the US winter. Some grasping it gratefully after the last couple of cold ones.
Months ago Piers Corbyn predicted it all .
Here is a beginners guide to what is happening.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/feeds/16518868
About Centralian land degradation
Do you know about the ‘bush telegraph’ , where if on gets a breakdown on ones native land ,one starts a fire to get attention ?
I am continually amazed by the Green denial of past stewardship of ‘iconic’ land, by farmers and ‘iconic’ forest, by foresters. Why are all these places not wastelands like Meadow Bank and Emu Plains ?
What 17,000 head in a good year – out of how many … LOLZ
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/into-the-farm-of-the-future-boots-and-all-with-rm-williams/story-e6frg6xf-1226212776042
Bazza – I guess Cohers thinks all Aussie beef properties look like some poncy white-fenced boutique tax dodge in the upper Hunter. Polo anyone? Old sport – old boy? I must put the nature strip back to “fallow” Guffaw.
Ian T – compare how many Corbyn gets right and wrong. Alas.
Luke ,whether Piers Corbyn gets it right or wrong, the point of the link is that the snow was falling elsewhere in the US and now winter is back. All to do with little understood vagaries of jetstreams .
Mr Corbyn at least is studying the causes and not trying to fit CO2 into the picture as a starting point.
As it is believed that the Laurentide Ice Sheet bent jetstreams permanently making it self perpetuating,
perhaps a little study of this ‘memory’ event may not hurt scientific progress.
Of course the disciples cannot tax solar flares and jetstreams.
Completely O/T, but in line with previous posts, there is now local concern at the degradation already apparent in the Edward River from it being used as a SA environmental water race.
So that is the Bidgee and the Edward . The Murray will be next as it is now nearly always at peak flow.
And SA still hasn’t got the MDBA wish water .
Please, let’s give the SA farmers a cheap piped supply ,at a price tied to interstate wholesale rates- not town supply rates. The billions are there to build it.
Bazza, it’s true I quoted science to 1978, for a clear purpose. It’s true that you relate this fact accurately…for an altogether obscure purpose. (As a mercy to all of us, I’ll overlook your “doctor” comment, and be grateful it wasn’t an even lamer flatulence or senility crack.) I can’t help thinking you want to debate me because you are displeased with me, but can never find a hook to hang your debate upon.
The world has been in a warming period for a long time.It has also been lot hotter during the Middle Ages than now .It is not just a recent event.We are overdue for an ice age. Adding a small % of CO2 will not over ride the influence of the Sun or the changes in the magnetic fields that deflect some of the Sun’s energy.Only a fool would pretend that they know how this complex system interacts.Only a fool would pretend to copy it with a computer model and arrive at a conclusion that AGW is out of control. The evidence no longer supports the theory.
Well said Ross.
Did you get that Luke?
The evidence no longer supports the theory. That actually includes theories other than just the one you adhere to.
All of them contain elements that seem to be plausible BUT none of them are matching real time data. Therefore the models and the theories are deficient NOT the real time data.
Maybe the one that Jen has posted here re Arctic ice holds part (repeat PART) of the answer?
Something very “GetUp” in tone is this gotcha over cohers’ use of the word “fallow”. Whereas the word is usually applied to land that is plowed but unsown, it has a secondary and figurative meaning of “unused”. Certainly, I knew what he meant. Try to get the point: large tracts of abandoned farmland will create costs, liabilities and conservation headaches, and the kind of people who want to eliminate the farming are not the kind who want to knuckle down and do the conservation. But why talk of conservation to its bitter enemies: the GetUp/Green Left?
O/T but
More help for peer review
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/12/winegate-red-wine-health-researcher-falsified-data/
“Fallow”; yes, as in what lies between the ears of luke and bazza.
So we have Ian telling us climate scientists only know about CO2.
And ever gullible and dumbo Debs Discovers solar energy. And that models have some gaps. Somebody told her something on the intertubes.
And now Robert surpasses Cohers fallow with FARMLAND. “Farmland !” …. ergh
Wow oh wow ! Bazza – it’s devastating isn’t it.
Luke and Bazza,
A couple of likely lads with all the answers such as you two could help this bloke out no end:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/12/earths-baseline-black-body-model-a-damn-hard-problem/
Nope Luke,
the point is valid despite your verballing.
AC02 is not behind the steering wheel like the modelling hypothesises. That doesn’t suddenly mean that the other theories are correct either.
The modelling does not just have gaps, it is deficient.
As Ross said, the evidence does not support the theory.
Sorry, I should have eliminated all possible confusion by writing: “large tracts of abandoned grazing land, of abandoned farmland and of abandoned irrigation land”. Heaven knows, I don’t want to unleash another tirade of baby slang and teenie-talk. Ergh. Wow oh wow! That would be devastating. LOLZ.
“The world has been in a warming period for a long time.It has also been lot hotter during the Middle Ages than now”
The trend over the past 4000 years has been toward cooling. Yes, we have warm periods and cool periods but each warm period seems to be a bit cooler than the one before and each cool period also a little cooler than the one before. The Minoan warm period was warmer than the Roman warm period which was warmer than the Medieval Warm Period which so far has been warmer than the Modern warm period (which may now be at an end with a grand solar minimum apparently at our door).
We started cooling in earnest some 2000 years ago and are, I believe, already starting the slow, gradual, fade into the next glacial period. Hey, Alaska has some 27 feet of snow on the ground and winter there isn’t even half over. If we don’t get a change in the Arctic Oscillation soon that is pushing the storms up and over the Pacific Northwestern US, we might get more snow up there than can melt in a year.
Hi Luke,
I did not claim that ‘climate scientists’ only know about CO2. I stated that ,in my opinion, many are using it as the basis of their studies.
I wonder if you can lead me gently to some publicly funded climate study which does not rely on this AGW stuff for its initial funding.
In contrast there are definitely cases where scientists have been not only refused funding, but actively discouraged, from their studies into astrophysical influences.
You can’t tax the stars and ,as yet, George Soros can’t buy them.
I still can’t understand why the IPCC quotes all the models that show cooling in Antarctica for the next 300 years and yet creates more panic about global warming and dangerous SLR.
The holocene optimum was much warmer than today with boreal forests growing up to the arctic coastline and much higher SLs around the world.
Arctic ice must have been much lower over this long period of warming, because trees have retreated much further south as we can observe today.
Frank Lansner thinks the PDO is responsible for at least a good part of our climate, very interesting.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/does-the-pdo-drive-global-temps-and-is-there-a-siberian-connection/#more-19713
Pity it’s not though eh? More sceptic amateur rubbish. It’s only a second order variability influence. EOF2
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/~bhatt/CJC/Parkeretal_2007.pdf
And as to “I wonder if you can lead me gently to some publicly funded climate study which does not rely on this AGW stuff for its initial funding.” well how and who do you think has done the seminal work on ENSO, IOD and IPO then? sheesh and good grief ! and all those solar physicists must be so confused eh?
IOD and IPO, probably a succession of oceanographers ,fishermen and weathermen.
El Nino (or ENSO). Well do we mean 3 or 400 years ago, or in the last few years ,when the’ back room boys’ were predicting one which would never end ? Something which has been acknowledged and feared for centuries had the seminal work done by some long forgotten South American climate priests.
The wider influences were built on from there, again long ago.
The study of the causes of these events ,was at least underway when Darwin was in the area.
Inigo Jones had theories on what planetary events may influence ocean currents and therefore weather patterns.
If you mean the ‘climate scientists’ who built a computer model of their behaviour, well that is seminal. – Even though Inigo has recently proved a little more accurate in predicting the duration of the recent drought. ( Which was never going to end .)
The IPCC has been so thoroughly and completely discredited at this point that nobody takes their models or their projections seriously anymore. We are currently out of the error range of their projections on the low side. Then just in the past couple of days we learn the extent to which the IPCC has gone to make sure that their process remains opaque rather than the transparency that was initially promised. Opacity is required in order to perpetrate deception and the IPCC is deceiving people and have been caught out more than once. At this point nearly every single one of their projections are failing. Sea level rise has nearly stopped. Ocean temperatures are cooling, surface temperatures have not risen. It simply isn’t coming to pass as they projected it would with their “models”. This is one reason no traction was gained at Copenhagen or Cancun or Durban. People aren’t willing to commit their nations to billions of dollars to mitigate something that might not be happening. The only people who seem to believe it is are those who take it as some kind of a matter of faith because the observations aren’t providing data to back up the claims.
You’re such a dope luke; and you are like that doggie returning to its breakfast, in this case the Parker paper; Parker finds 3 time distinguished climate variables with PDO being the middle one and the shorter one, based on SST’s, representing AGW; SST for the last 10 years:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/trend
Hey dogs returning to their vomit is my joke borrowed from P Keating.
Oh look http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2000/trend
Now you can play silly buggers Cohers or we can look at the entire SST record. A very basic statistical analysis says that the first component of explaining variance is a global centennial scale trend. With PDO and AMO being less order EOFs but nevertheless important in terms of large scale variability.
Ian – BoM have long ago checked Inigo’s stuff – little skill !
and as for “IOD and IPO, probably a succession of oceanographers ,fishermen and weathermen.” – plain ignorant and very insulting.
If this happens in medicine, imagine what goes on in climate science.
Phil Jones, where’s your data?
“Ginny Barbour, a senior editor with the PLoS group of journals, said one-third of authors could not find the original data to back up figures in scientific papers when these were questioned.”
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/1/13/corruption-in-the-academy.html#comments
How’s that warming Southern Ocean holding up, Luke?
“New paper finds no change in Antarctic snowmelt since measurements began in 1979
Since 91% of the earth’s glacial ice is held in Antarctica, this dynamites Warmist scares about rising sea levels
A paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters finds no significant change in Antarctic snowmelt over the entire 31 year period of satellite observations 1979-2010. The paper actually shows a declining trend in snowmelt over the past 31 years, although not statistically significant. Of note, the abstract states,
“other than atmospheric processes likely determine long-term ice shelf stability.” Translation: increased CO2 and other ‘greenhouse gases’ do not threaten stability of the Antarctic ice shelf.”
And lucky the Arctic didn’t get any colder:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL049784.shtml
But that was last winter:
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/12/10136564-25-foot-sea-ice-ridge-confronts-alaska-fuel-convoy
Well speaking of sea level – you’ll enjoy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHrVOnLKjuQ
And a declining trend in Antarctic snowmelt is what you’d expect Spangles – thanks for playing …. sheesh !
And of course you haven’t read the entire paper which concludes with
“Still, ice-shelf breakup seems
to have increased, and the ice shelves that break up had been
in place for centuries [Scambos et al., 2000]. This suggests
that an increased forcing must have been acting in recent
decades, and that this forcing must come from below the ice
shelf, in the form of increased basal melt [Shepherd et al.,
2003]. A picture emerges in which the ultimate fate of ice
shelves is governed by oceanic forcing from below, whereas
the timing of their breakup depends on the occurrence of
‘favorable’ atmospheric conditions”
thanks for playing ….
The Southern Ocean is also cooling rather significantly at the moment. Here’s a graph of the temperature anomaly (deviation from the mean) since 1982:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/13-southern.png
The Southern Ocean is currently about 0.28 C below the mean temperature for the period.
The weekly graph for global sea surface shows that we are very close to the mean since 1982:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/15-weekly-global.png
The monthly global data are shown here:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/1-global.png
What you see is an upward trend until about 2002 and then it flattens. The trend since 2006 is fairly rapid cooling.
“And a declining trend in Antarctic snowmelt is what you’d expect Spangles – thanks for playing …. sheesh !
And of course you haven’t read the entire paper which concludes with”
Er – Who hasn’t read the paper?
It found no statistical change in Antarctic snowmelt since satellite obs began in 1979.
And did you see those pathetic old graphs Josh Willis used? Showing a steady SLR since the end of the last glacial? Claiming that SLs have not been higher than today during the holocene?
If you still believe that warmwash, what explains this?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1066712/Uncovered-lost-beach-Romans-got-toehold-Britain.html
Thanks for those links George B, hope Luke checks them.
Luke,
Seriously?
Your comments are starting to make me laugh.
You can point out that Inigo has little skill and trade papers and theories until you disappear under a massive pile of them.
The point remains that the evidence (real time data) is not supporting the theory.
Seriously it is getting to the point that tossing a coin has just as much succes of predicting a solid trend in the climate and naming they key driver.
The latest evidence is also not pointing towards any catastrophe that we haven’t learnt how to deal with somewhere in our history.
Yet still we tie an enormously expensive and unproductive political agenda to theories that are failing to come to fruition.
Why?
The dumbest comment for January 2012 goes to Debs “Seriously it is getting to the point that tossing a coin has just as much succes of predicting a solid trend in the climate and naming they key driver.”
Did you read Parker et al cited above Debs – of course not. Over your head my dear – back to your knitting and home homilies.
Luke, the only conclusion you can draw….you need to learn more or be happy in ignorance:
http://newnostradamusofthenorth.blogspot.com/2012/01/new-study-people-with-better-knowledge.html
Yes Luke,
they have been read.
No Luke, I hate knitting.
The point remains valid despite the verballing.
The evidence is not supporting the theory.
Yet still we tie an expensive and unproductive political agenda to a failing hypothesis.
Why?
Those models are deficient, they dont just have gaps.
And Luke, that doesn’t suddenly mean I am a supporter of another projective theory. It also doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate a lot of the OTHER work that BoM and CSIRO and SEACI etc have done, especially in their data collection and tabling and graphing and updating of records.
The projective modelling however is showing a coin tossing probabilty of success.
Well, there have been so many papers published, even recently (Steig, et al being a famous recent example), that have turned out to be total junk that the “peer reviewed” science is becoming nothing more than “pal reviewed” science.
What I found really interesting was a recent paper where Phil Jones was a co-author that showed both the LIA and the MWP in South America *and* shows MWP temperatures warmer than today. It appears that Jones is putting some distance between himself and Mann’s fabrication of a stable climate until 1975.
The situation is that we now have a growing number of people who aren’t simply taking this stuff on its face and are really looking at it with a critical eye. When Steig used the data from one single station on the Western Peninsula of Antarctica to “adjust” temperatures over half the continent and showed a vision of vast “warming” over Antarctica that was featured on the cover of Nature, that was probably the last straw for a number of people. Temperatures over most of Antarctica have been cooling rather significantly. What Steig did was intellectually dishonest and has now been thoroughly discredited, yet the preliminary AR5 documents still cite that piece of junk. No wonder the IPCC wants to keep those documents hidden!
BTW I’ve just found the graphs of Gregory etc from their study showing all the models and the contribution of Antarctica and Greenland until 2300.
Greenland only contributes positively while Antarctica piles on more ice and is negative.
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1844/1709/F4.large.jpg
The word around sceptic land is that HADCRU are about to adjust recent years in this last decade to make them warmer than 1998.
It’s just getting too long since we had any warming and this is serious mum.
Anyone know if there is any truth in this?
Bleats Debs about no evidence – just a proclamation “The evidence is not supporting the theory.”
for heavens sake Debs – if that’s your logic better build more barrages then.
“The projective modelling however is showing a coin tossing probabilty of success.” well where’s your data set and analysis. Wouldn’t be placed on “feelings” would it.
You’ve had a world-wide warming that in the last 50 years is not explained by solar activity or PDOs or … It is well explained by well known greenhouse physics.
Your mind is simply clogged with all sorts of random denialist memes.
Geezz Luke the world has been slowly warming as it emerged from the LIA, plus more solar radiation, plus two strong warm PDOs in the last 100+ years and yet you fanatically cling to GHG s.
There has been no stat significant warming since at least 1998 and that last rate of warming is similar to the warming periods starting in 1860.
CO2 is probably causing some of the recent warming but to claim it will be a real problem is an exaggeration and highly speculative.
Prof Nir Shaviv shows that the IPCC projections show far too much warming that the actual temp record doesn’t confirm.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/nir-shaviv-on-ipccs-exaggerated-climate-sensitivity-and-the-emperors-new-clothes/#more-19772
No Luke,
just good old fashioned extensive reading and observation.
My feeling is that we definitely should not attach a political agenda to what I have observed is a failing hypothesis.
The data sets are there for all to read. Why do you need me to post more?
I have also observed that they are often contradictory depending on which projective model those numbers are being crunched into. Haven’t you?
Your accusation sounds like you may projecting.
You appear to be very emotionally attached to CAGW theories. I’ve not seen one that sufficiently explains observed evidence over time, including CAGW.
Maybe you need to understand the difference between feelings and observation? We all have both. They both certainly operate in this debate.
Recognise anyone here:
http://fenbeagleblog.wordpress.com/2012/01/14/221/
Loved this comment:
We are not wortheeee!
ROFL.
SD great cartoons and graphs, but surely you don’t see our Lukey promoting those scary scenes? Yuk, Yuk.
The Bolter is spot on, we’ve become a silly mob of dills here in Oz, lead by a clueless lying govt and a stupid delusional media.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/why_are_we_more_obsessed_than_everyone_else/
Don’t tell Luke that Carl Sagan and Steven Schneider published a paper in the 1970’s that said not only were we slipping into the next glaciation, but it would take an 8x rise in atmospheric CO2 in order to make any appreciable difference, which they said wasn’t likely within the next several thousand years (because there just isn’t enough fossil fuel on the planet to raise atmospheric CO2 that much).
But more importantly, it just isn’t happening. Every single projection from the IPCC has been shown to be false. Every one! The only way they manage to create warmer temperatures is to continually “adjust” modern temperatures upward and past temperatures downward. That’s why they (CRU) “lost” the raw data; so you can’t audit the adjustments. Not only did they lose the raw data, they lost the metadata. They don’t know which stations were used in which months so you can’t even recreate their database if you could get the raw data directly from the stations.
It’s just ridiculous and I think an increasing number of people are coming to that realization.
CSIRO up to their usual B/S excrapolations, ie, anal retrieval.
http://www.news.com.au/technology/sci-tech/climate-warming-would-cause-loss-of-life/story-fn5fsgyc-1226245137356
4c increase would make Brisbane similar to Darwin.
And we would all DIIIIEEEE!!!!!
No data from Debs – just more homilies while does crocheting.
Neville – the warming is inexplicable without GHG forcing. That’s not to say multiple forcings need to be integrated. The “rebound” from the LIA is simply emotional paff.
Good to see George B having a good old deny – when multiple lines of evidence and multiple analyses show the same warming trend. But you can never please deniers..
Gee George “a paper” from Sagan and Schneider. Now that is significant – boy oh boy oh boy. How shocking. Certainly that just dismisses a whole IPCC report doesn’t it. Obviously ….
zzzzzz
Luke how is that inexplicable without co2, or let’s say other things forcing the slight rise in temp over the last 100 years?
Also why is a recovery from the LIA just emotional paff? It is a fact because the temp increased slightly and didn’t cool further. It’s just warmed slightly. It’s warmer now than then so what are you arguing about?
What wrecks your argument Luke is the panic about a return to an ice age just a decade before Gore and Hansen’s fabricated global warming scare in 1988.
How can any sane assessment change from an ice age scare to a global warming scare in just 10 years?
BTW Luke here is your hero Hansen making about as much sense as GAIA brain Timmy Flannery.
Fair dinkum where do you get these gormless fools from, real whackos.
Remember this is the whacko that started this nonsense off in 1988 with his pal big HIPPO Al Gore. You know how caring big Al is about the environment that he has the carbon footprint of a bigfoot or Yeti.
He has several homes , his own private jet and flys to his chosen restaurant just to eat his favourite meals. He’s about as genuine as a two bob watch, but boy has he made billions with his con.
Anyhow let’s leave you to Hansen and his boiling oceans scenario, etc, etc. What a nut job and more than slightly unhinged. But hey Luke believes him, what a flipwreck.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/12/quote-of-the-week-dr-james-hansen-of-nasa-giss-unhinged/#more-54673
“when multiple lines of evidence and multiple analyses show the same warming trend.”
Here’s a “line of evidence” for ya Lukie.
And don’t knock that “recovery from the LIA” piece of natural variation. It works both ways, remember. You need all the natural variation you can muster [only negative this time] to explain this “line of evidence”:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend
Very few of its leading lights believe in CAGW. There is not the slightest evidence from the lifestyles of Pachauri, Gore, Hansen, Branson, Flannery etc that they believe any of it. They are like Renaissance popes, relaxing with their mistresses or catamites after a hard day’s piety. Maybe there is some vague, repressed faith, a smidgin of guilt, but it’s all quickly over-ridden. I suppose Monbiot tries harder than the others, but he settles for just trying.
There is more sincerity on the middle level, but the problem with environmentalism is that it is a cool opinion-set, rather than natural kindness or moderation. The people who want to have all the best and most up-to-date opinions want everything else that’s smart and cool. They may have certain routines and fetishes to make their high consumption respectable, but they remain the smart set, and will never do without. Their environmentalism is just another “aware” consumer choice, part of the struggle to stay ahead of those vulgar aspirationals, who never really “think”, to quote the Cate Blanchett T-shirt.
Pity the humble, unpaid or lowly paid GetUp shill, who really does believe.
From 1910 to 1940 we saw a warming trend of practically exactly the same rate of warming as from 1975 to 2005. Same duration, same warming. Only we are led to believe that the earlier rise was natural variability and the later rise is due to human activity. None of the IPCC models correctly “hindcast” the earlier rise.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2004/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2004/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1975/to:2004/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1975/to:2004/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1942/to:1975/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1942/to:1975/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1911/to:1942/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1911/to:1942/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1879/to:1911/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1879/to:1911/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from/to:1879/plot/hadcrut3gl/from/to:1879/trend
The IPCC models are completely broken and they did have a brief (30 year) correlation between CO2 rise and temperature rise and they are attempting to tell us that correlation is causation even though there has been no correlation for the 30 years prior to 1976 or since about 1998.
Another important data point is that global human CO2 emissions actually declined in 2009 but global atmospheric CO2 rise did not change by any measurable amount. That says that human emissions are a negligible portion of atmospheric CO2 increase. If you actually DECREASE human CO2 emissions and the rise in global CO2 continues unchanged, that is pretty important. The oceans are still recovering from the LIA and probably will continue to do so for a few hundred more years. As the abyssal deep very gradually warms (even if only at a rate of 0.1degrees/century) that water will give up CO2 when it is exposed to the surface.
So Mr Hansen has figured it out that water vapour is a bad greenhouse gas . All the oceans are going to evaporate, the whole place is going to look like New Orleans. Hold it, isn’t half hat city below storm surge level? Wasn’t there something about levies and pumps ? Wasn’t it actually not the biggest storm around ?
ROFL,
I like crocheting even less than knitting.
Remember when you point your finger there are always three others pointing straight back at you.
Just because I choose not to clutter up this blog with even more sets of data if I don’t see the need to does not automatically mean I have not read them.
Also Luke, you seem to have forgotten that small business owners use projective modelling all the time….we know their limitations as well as their useful advantages. We know they are only a useful tool. Nothing more, nothing less.
You may be right you may be wrong about C02….however the evidence is not supporting the current modelled theories. The real time data is not deficient, the projective models are.
And my FEELING, as opposed to the OBSERVATION is we should not be attaching a political agenda to a failing modelled hypothesis.
The emerging data (which is real time data as opposed to modelled projective data) is not matching even the lower ranges of those models.
The basic point and the basic argument has never changed.
Your precious models have been hijacked by a political agenda and they are staking their careers and an enormously expensive PR campaign trying to prove that those models are the answer to all our climate woes….and that they can control and manage the climate…??????
Trouble is Debbie that campaign is paid for by the poor Aussie taxpayer for a zero return.
It must be a zero return until China, India etc and all of the non OECD play ball and stop modernising.
About as much chance as a snowballs chance in hell, so kindy maths shows us that we are wasting all our time and money and it will never change.
That’s if you believe in CAGW, but that’s a secondary issue if simple maths proves it’s a complete waste of time and money.
Under the present situation the planet’s co2 emissions must increase and it’s almost all due to non OECD countries not the OECD.
In fact over the last 20 years 7.3 giga tonnes to one Giga tonnes. p.a. ( 1990 to 2009)
When will these dunces ever wake up?
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8&cid=CG6,CG5,&syid=1990&eyid=2009&unit=MMTCD
Green energy and greens are barking mad, just look at the number of birds and bats turbines are killing.
Hug trees but kill birds, but of course those nice turbines wouldn’t
kill an endangered species, would they?
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/terry-mccranns-column/flying-in-the-face-of-logic/story-e6frfig6-1226245805867
One of the best short summaries of the science is settled nonsense that I’ve read for a while.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/16/the-myth-of-settled-science/#more-54812
Poor George now reverting to drongo-ism. “None of the IPCC models correctly “hindcast” the earlier rise.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png alas…..
Here’s an on-line course for you Debs – see if you can pass – then you can teach Neville and George B some basics. http://forecast.uchicago.edu/moodle/
Who cares what Gore and Hansen do?
And for game playing Spangled – get this inda ya – Tamino also had a number of articles about stats dweebs
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1996/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1996/trend
There we were thinking we had only another year to falsify AGW when anong comes HadCRU4 and…Voila! AGW is alive and well again.
HadCRU4 does a Jimmy and all the scoundrels are back in business with not a sign of embarrassment:
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2012/01/not-so-fast.html
All they had to do was to find a few hot spots like those Siberian settlements with the central heating pipes running through the snow [cant put ’em underground because of the permafrost] which, like Svalbad, show huge warming anomalies comparable to surrounding countryside but which are effectively huge fudge factors.
Then you can excrapolate those warm readings over millions of sq kilometers of frozen tundra.
Be good to get the emails behind all that.
It will of course be fully snorted, inhaled and consumed by the IPCC for AR5.
Why am I so cynical?
I mean, the world media will get hold of this and tear it to pieces, show it up for the cheap stunt it obviously is.
Even Luke will protest.
Yeah, right.
Luke,
I have completed 3 university degrees.
I know exactly how to pass them…don’t you?
All I have to do is answer their questions from their own information sources and make sure that I never ever plagerise and also make sure I correctly reference everything.
In fact, to talk of the insincerity of individuals is to miss the wider and more fatal insincerity of the GetUp/Green Left. While our Green Betters are trained to give a permissive nod to nuclear power when that issue is raised, no means to concretise it in Australia are ever to be discussed. Their evasiveness here is quite ingenious. Meanwhile, there is a tacit but broad understanding that the whole business of taxing emissions and spending on absurd toy technologies is underpinned by Australia’s current flow of wealth through mineral exports to Asia. Our Green Betters love the tidiness and centrality of our coal export dependence, as they are in horror of the messiness of small business and agriculture, the realm of the insolent kulak.
Of course, there is a GetUp/Green “aspiration” to “transition” from all fossil fuels, but the evasiveness on this subject is akin to their attitude to nukes. It’s a wonderful idea, but, excuse please, can we talk about it another time?
The seventy five percent of our coal production being burnt offshore is not the elephant in the Green Room. It’s the whale humping the brontosaurus in the Green Room.
Fancy someone like Spangles hanging around high brow sites like James Annan. Stopped slumming it eh?
Luke, look:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/on-the-ipccs-undue-confidence-in-coupled-ocean-atmosphere-climate-models-a-summary-of-recent-posts/
And actually read it. The IPCC models so no skill except for one 30 year period.
You might also notice that Arctic sea ice is currently more now than in several years past. Also, as we are now seeing the South Atlantic begin dramatic cooling, we will start seeing North Atlantic cooling in a couple of years time. Arctic ice generally follows solar cycle length lagged by 10 years with very good correlation over a very long period of time. You can find articles from the 1920’s and 1930’s that arctic ice was disappearing at a fearful rate during that warm period but we didn’t have comprehensive satellite measurement as we have had since 1979. We have absolutely no clue as to total ice extent prior to 1979.
We can say with absolute certainty that many regions of the arctic were much warmer in the past than they are now because there are farms in Greenland where cows grazed that are still frozen in permafrost today. Planting and harvest records also show us that many regions of Northern Europe were much warmer than they are today because crops were growing in valleys where they can’t grow now. There were working copper mines in the Alps that are currently still under ice.
Climate changes all the time, Luke. Sometimes it changes drastically in a very short period of time. It isn’t due to CO2 but they don’t know what causes it. Could be changes in persistent weather patterns over the ocean that change circulation patters, could be changes in solar UV output, we have no idea. We just know that temperatures can, in the middle of a glacial period, shoot suddenly to nearly interglacial temperatures and stay there for a century or two. Or they can suddenly drop to extremely cold temperatures and stay there for a few centuries, too. The change takes place in a decade or less; amazingly fast changes of spectacular degree, and nobody has a clue as to what causes them.
There isn’t a lot you can do about climate change on a global scale. It is going to change regardless of what you do. We can’t really dump enough CO2 into the atmosphere to make more than a temporary change because there just isn’t that much fossil fuel and CO2 is constantly scrubbed out much of it more or less permanently scrubbed out. All the limestone, dolomite, gypsum, and marble on the entire continental land mass of Earth is CO2 that was scrubbed out of the atmosphere. Much of what lies under the ocean will subduct and be recycled through the atmosphere but continents don’t subduct. They are lighter rock that “floats” on top of the heavier ocean crust so the carbon that is sequestered in those rocks remains locked up in many cases forever.
And we also can’t forget that nearly all creatures including mankind are carbon based life forms.
Just basic high school science.
We all produce more C02 when we exhale than when we inhale.
Tisdale is a disinformation source as has been well illustrated by Tamino late last year. So yawn and why bother.
As for the climate has changed before “well yuh”. And in world of 30 days food security and 6B humans going to 9B it could be a bit of an issue. Whether the cause is natural or anthropogenic it’s a concern if the changes are great enough.
Gee Debs is that so?
“Whether the cause is natural or anthropogenic it’s a concern if the changes are great enough.”
Who could argue? Why, Luke, you’ve been lying with us dogs so long you’re catching our fleas.
“And in world of 30 days food security and 6B humans going to 9B it could be a bit of an issue.”
Now it’s almost a bromance! Soon you may reject those Marie Antoinettes who say “let them eat coal-revenue” and start to see the point of all that mucky stuff called agriculture. Who’d have thought it? Luke in Kansas with us hayseeds!
Anyone who believes a word Grant Foster (Tamino) publishes is living in a fantasy world, Luke. Sorry, man, you show yourself to be not very serious on the question. Have a look at this:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/01/16/is-it-necessary-to-lie-to-win-a-controversial-public-debate/
And read the whole thing. The entire AGW “debate” is nothing more than a ruse designed to get people to go along with a certain social agenda. You first scare the people into believing something horrible is happening so that they willingly give up their money and other things (property rights in many cases) in order to go along with a global socialist agenda of resource management (it’s called “Sustainable Development” under Agenda 21 of the Rio Declaration) and is now finally coming under scrutiny by a broad array of political factions here in the US.
For example: http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/
But anyway, it just isn’t happening, Luke. They say the heat has just gone missing, that it is lurking in the Hadley Heat Hidey Hole or something. Nobody can find it. The troposphere isn’t warming, the oceans aren’t warming, surface temperature isn’t climbing, sea level rise isn’t accelerating, none of it is happening. But if you take the data, adjust it, turn it sideways, squint just right, and maybe torture it until it tells the “truth”, maybe you can manage to manipulate the numbers enough to show a little bit of a rise.
But Tamino? Really? Come on, you can do better than that.
Tisdale is not a “disinformation source”. He uses the ACTUAL data. Those aren’t his data that he displays on that link above. That is IPCC model data against the HADCrut3 from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. The graph I linked to in the posting before was also HADCrut3 data. I am not “disinforming” anyone and neither is Tisdale. He is simply showing the data, something these “climate scientists” would rather avoid at all costs:
http://climateaudit.org/2012/01/12/stockers-earmarks/
The above link shows the extent to which certain members of the IPCC will go to keep their process hidden from the public when it was touted as being transparent.
They’re liars, Luke, plain and simple and the whole AGW debate is being used as a showcase for how a scientific issue is politicized and demagogued. Luke, its a political issue, not a scientific issue and scientists have political positions and sometimes they are persuaded to “make a difference” in the world through their science.
Look at Tyndall Centre working paper 23 and you will see the blueprint for Kyoto 2 and Copenhagen and Cancun and Durban. Look at email 4687.txt of the Climategate 2 bunch of mails and see them actually doing it, Luke.
That was from Neil Adger to the late Steven Schneider. Did you know that Schneider co-authored a paper with Carl Sagan in the 1970’s that said we were headed into an ice age and that CO2 from burning fossil fuel had such a small impact on the global temperatures that it would take an 8x increase in CO2 to make any measurable difference and that there wasn’t enough fossil fuel on the entire planet to increase Earth’s CO2 by 8x even if it was burned all at once?
More importantly, because the response to CO2 is logarithmic and not linear, practically ALL of the impact of a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels has already been felt. Going to rest of the way to 2x would have little to no additional impact. When you go from 280ppm to 560ppm, nearly all the impact is felt in the first 100ppm increase. We’re already there. No real impact! We are still within the range of normal climate for the Holocene.
It Just Isn’t Happening.
Geezzz Lukes been fooling us all along, he really does understand kindy sums and perhaps he now understands that it’s all about the non OECD countries and not about us.
All the OECD can do is ADAPT to whatever the climate throws at us , good or bad, natural or with some anthropogenic mix.
That’s where we should be spending just a fraction of the funds wasted on so called renewable energy.
When required we must spend money on infrastructure and a steady flow of funds to proper, sensible climate research but always sensible ongoing R&D on new energy invention.
Whether the change is natural or anthropogenic? ? ? ?
Don’t tell me you may have found some middle ground?
Are you conceding that maybe humans aren’t causing major climate and environmental catastrophe via C02 after all?
Maybe those models don’t just have gaps.
Maybe the contradictory real time data re sea levels, sea temps, weather patterns etc aren’t just wiggles or wobbles or noise or one of the numerous other excuses offered by those who just can’t afford to admit they may be mistaken?
You do also understand I hope that also means we can’t really control and manage the climate?
Therefore, why are we attaching a very expensive political agenda to the assumption that we can control and manage the climate?
Since when in the whole history of mankind has a centralised bureaucracy been successful at managing anything like that?
There is much we don’t know but there are some things we do know with absolute certainty:
A 2C rise in temperatures would not cause an environmental catastrophe. We know that with certainty because we lived through such a situation for thousands of years ending about 4000 years ago when things began to cool in earnest to today’s temperatures.
A 5C rise in temperatures would not cause an environmental catastrophe because the previous interglacial was 5C warmer than this one has been so far and every species alive today made it through that period (some even not alive today made it through that period but perished later).
A 5x increase in CO2 would not kill corals and shellfish. We know that with certainty because corals and shellfish species that are currently populating the oceans first appeared when CO2 was more than 5x current levels.
We know with absolute certainty that climate changes, often drastically and rapidly, and will do so again in the future. We also know that cooling is much worse than warming because cooling directly takes food from our mouths while warming adds it.
It seems to be the goal of the UN to create a “crisis” at every opportunity in order to justify their regulation of the world. It’s time to tell them to mind their own business. They are not a government and they need to get their noses out of matters that don’t pertain to them. They are a diplomatic body. There aren’t here to “solve global problems”, they are here to resolve disputes between nations.
Oh, and there’s also this: http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/ice-shelf-collapse-not-caused-global-warming
Yawn more disinformation sources – Curry – hah ! Climate fraudit – pls. Tisdale has bene getting it wrong for so long now it’s embarrassing. Notice he NEVER publishes. Why – would be shredded.
You’re going to have some cognitive dissonance when the temperature starts climbing again.
George any major shift in climate will change rainfall distribution. Try the MWP for a dry run of the argument (LOL!)
Why worry about the UN – can’t organise a chook raffle.
But good to see you have all your denier memes down pat.
And who the hell is D Hoffman – just more internet noise on the vine. Don’t confuse it with science George.
Debs instead of generalist blabber – try making some cites.
“Since when in the whole history of mankind has a centralised bureaucracy been successful at managing anything like that?” Well gee Debs – that’s because a grand challenge such as that has not occurred before. a duh
“…when the temperature starts climbing again…”
So the temp has stopped climbing? I tell you, the guy’s a walking sceptic MEME! (Thought I’d practise my hipster talk to make our new buddy feel at home amongst us knitters and pensioners.)
“…when the temperature starts climbing again…”
Pleased to see you are also sceptical of the “team” with the “cause”:
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2012/01/not-so-fast.html
What ‘grand challenge’ would that be Luke?
Do you mean the ‘greatest moral challenge of our time’?
ROFL 🙂
May I suggest you do a little educational tour through political and social history and see how many so called ‘grand challenges’ have been taken on by centralised governments and then do a very simple count on their successes versus their failures. Go all the way back to ancient times.
With hindsight (which is a very valuable tool) you may find that the successes re the solving of their designated so called ‘grand challenges’ are at zero.
Amazingly us totally immoral creatures who just simply refuse to ‘stay equal and just believe what we’re told’ manage to muddle our way through again and again and again and again….and nearly every time those so called ‘grand challenges’ were in fact not a grand challenge at all. There was usually a simple solution that required the encouragement of human ingenuity NOT ‘the hob nailed boots and all’ interference of a centralised government.
Go to France, go to Germany, go to Ancient Rome, go to Russia, go to South America go wherever you like where a centralised government has used a ‘grand challenge’ as a moral excuse. They inevitably implode.
‘…when the temperature starts climbing again.’
This is the big test, to see which way it goes.
If we could just concentrate on regional cooling and warming it should give us a better handle on things.
BoMs seasonal forecast for the south-east is looking dodgy (those damn models) and if it fails to warm in February…. they will look silly.
A double dip La Nina is producing wet conditions and a slight cooling because of the extra cloud cover, but snow in summer is unusual and possibly periodic. I noticed surgeon White (on the First Fleet) commenting on Taswegian snow in summer.
Luke, do you think SAM is responsible for the unseasonal weather? What exactly are the mechanisms involved?
EG, don’t ask poor Luke about SAM.
He is totally bewildered.
The last 12 months have made his life a SHAM.
All that rain in southern Australia was never supposed to come ashore and distribute such bounty.
And still it keeps coming. When it was supposed to be DROUGHT!!!
DAM! DAM! DAM! DAM!
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/rain/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest&step=0&map=anomaly&period=18month&area=md
Wind energy is a pathetically expensive joke and yet we’ve had the ABC trumpeting this groupthink nonsense all day long. It’s also an eyesore and bird killer as well.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/pardon_csiro_peer_reviews_its_own_work/
Neville,
Slim [T Boone] Pickens and others give wind away and go for GAS:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-17/electricity-declines-50-in-u-s-as-shale-brings-natural-gas-glut-energy.html
Because it’s probably the world’s greatest current cheap energy resource and we need to apply a little more science to our similar situation:
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Unites-States-Possesses-The-Largest-Energy-Resources-On-Earth.html
The stuff seems to be everywhere in huge quantities.
A greenies nightmare:
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/84367840/
Wikipedia and a lot of sceptic websites incl WUWT have blacked out in protest against SOPA and PIPA acts in the US:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Debs – try googling “wiki grand challenge science” when the lights come back on. Or http://www.sciencemag.org/content/314/5806/1696.full
Spangled – more stupidity – it’s the longer term view that’s the issue. You’re just on the old sceptic meme of “they said it will never rain again” – cite the paper pls !
Next drought is always out there – SEACI has unravelled what’s new. It’s beyond your grade level to think about.
You an’ Tim, you’re rain denialists. The glass never makes it beyond 10% full but you still go to water.
You’d be hopeless working for anyone but the govt. Just listen to yourself, “Next drought is always out there” — It’s always bloody well been out there and always will. And guess what? In spite of all that the world has never been in a better state food-wise.
You blokes need a big shot of courage and starch just so’s you can smell the roses.
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/rain_denied/
Luke,
Enough already!
I have absolutely nothing against science of all fields and what they have achieved.
My objection has never changed.
It is the current polical agenda that has completely hijacked climate science that is the issue.
I suspect SD is correct. You are so cocooned in your protected world that you seriously can’t see the forest for the trees.
The political agenda is asking us to ignore the facts, including the historical facts, in favour of some failed modelling.
C02 is looking less likely to be the driver of climate. It’s probably a combination of many things and no one has cracked it yet.
Despite all your blustering, you have no more idea than I do. I do not pretend otherwise.
Guess what Debbie Juliar and her cohorts don’t believe that co2 causes CC either and it’s so easy to prove.
If they believed their nonsense about “tackling CC or taking action on CC” the first thing they would do is ban all coal exports overseas and gas etc.
That would reduce our contribution to world co2 emissions by 75% at least and give the leftwing luvvies that warm inner glow and of course bankrupt Australia in the process.
The whole thing is an unbelievable con and fraud because Juliar is doing exactly the opposite and is trying her best to increase coal exports year on year.
A recent example of more “bogosity” (or is it bogusness) on the part of “climate scientists” when it comes to “adjusting” the past to make it conform more to their hypothetical view:
http://www.real-science.com/smoking-gun-hansens-arctic-data
So now Hansen has turned up into down and down into up and supposedly this is an “improvement”?
And sadly, George B, this revisionist agenda is accelerating more, the less it warms.
http://en.vedur.is/climatology/clim/nr/1213
With a moronic MSM we now have HadCRUT as well.
Ah! The travesty of non AGW!
A couple of good links, spangles, and you are correct about Luke not having the answer.
In the old days we argued the toss about the dry SWWA, but Luke’s faith in AGW science was dashed by natural climate cycles. Flood follows drought in a regular way, linked to the IPO and Sol.
I’ll do some research on SAM.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-whitehouse-annan-wager.html
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha -classic “how sceptics view the same data” hahahahahahaha
What drongoism – the IPO was defined by AGW climate change guru Chris Folland. So why do you trust it. Oh I forgot – selective drongoism.
SAM appears to be a bit player in SEA – SEACI revealed critical movement in the STRi as an amplifier. El Nino and La Nina cycles not withstanding. But you’d need some sophistication about ya to appreciate the implications. So back to drongoism with yas.
Really, it is impossible to cure the the GetUp/Green Left of their belief in the Big Lever. Even The Market has become a conduit for Big Policy. The Market will love 23 dollars per ton. The Market will not love any price below 15 dollars. The Market is free to decide as Nanny has already decided.
In the modern field of bogus physical sciences, just describe some poorly understood set of phenomena as a mechanism, give the “mechanism” its own acronym or initialism – even better with a number appended – and watch ’em go.
And when they decide to control a climate mechanism with a policy mechanism linked to a market mechanism…stand back!
Luke, SS are pathetic. Honestly, if a situation changes, does science really have to scratch its arse for 20 years to be sure?
The losing team can’t win again for two decades?
Ken U B Sodumb?
But I notice you seem to approve of them all cooking the books….
I’m sure they’ll find a way to attend to UAH and RSS in due course. There’s too much money [and ideology] at stake.
“the IPO was defined by AGW climate change guru Chris Folland. So why do you trust it.”
In its pos and neg phases seem to have more influence on our weather than anything else.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/SkepticsvRealists.gif
I just can’t stop laughing
http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/skeptical-quote-surgery-pat-michaels/
Neither can I.
Anyone pointing to the “skeptical science” as any source of reference is, to put it as generously as possible, terribly naive. That site is well known for doing such things as editing people’s comments to say things they didn’t say, reordering comments to make things look like they happened differently than they did, inserting comments after the fact, etc.
In other words, it isn’t a science site, it is an agenda site. It exists only to further an agenda, not to seriously debate anything or bring new knowledge out.
Luke, you are exposing yourself as a fool.
Limp lettuce attempt at diversion George.
Funnily enough George I normally utter your comments above about sceptic sites, their commentators – and gee George sceptic sites never have agendas do they. Pullease. Do go on !
Luke,
George is right.
You are foolishly making assumptions about people and a demkgraphic that you clearly don’t understand and who you see as some type of enemy.
You are attempting to use ‘put down’ tactics that you have obviously learnt in the closed world of academia.
People are questioning the way the science has been used.
Business owners, farmers, entrepreneurs, independent researchers etc, know that modelling is a very useful tool. Nothing more and nothing less. That would be because they use them and update them all the time 🙂
They are also perfectly capable of spotting a political agenda when they see one.
!!!! silly tablet!!!! DemOgraphic!!!!
George B,
It’s interesting that a “sceptical science” site whose raison d’etre is promoting and consolidating AGW, has a whole lot of “sceptical” adherents like Luke.
What a bunch of self-deluding fakes.
Do tell us about the agendas of true sceptics, Luke.
Poor Luke – he really believes Skeptikal Science is s “science” site. Oh dear!
sp – such extravagance – why not just “s”?
Debs – actually your fellow travellers here taught me the style. When in Rome …. I used to be a nice boy.
About time to an RC post I guess … or a Deltoid or Tamino … eeny meeny miny mo catch a denier (lying again) by the toe …. if they squeal put the boot in ….
So I trundled over to Deltoid and Tim refererred me back to http://www.skepticalscience.com/patrick-michaels-serial-deleter-of-inconvenient-data.html
Poor Debs
“…over the most recent 25-65 years, every study put the human contribution at a minimum of 98%, and most put it at well above 100%”.
“The average of the five models put the human contribution at 86% of the observed warming, and greenhouse gases at 138%, with a very small natural contribution.”
Skeptical Science rules! They are 237% right about about that Michaels guy.
You fascinate me Luke, how you warmers can get so indignant about Michaels but the Climategates are just fine.
At least with Michaels there is no need to rig fake enquiries or make you suffer years of FOIA denial.
But like the wicked sins of Wedgman, I’m sure you’ll be able to beat it up into something absolutely outrageous.
Poor Debs????
Read the link and can’t see the connection.
What was your point?
Mine was that the people you are accusing are laughing at you 🙂
You clearly don’t understand the demographic.
Many of us use modelling all the time and they’re trying to show you that they are merely a useful tool AND that if you want to, if you torture them for long enough, they will admit to just about anything.
That link just proved the point.
For some reason you are completely missing that.
Ok, so in about 150 years we have had about 0.8 degrees of temperature rise. About half of that occurred in the first 75 years and about half in the second 75. There has been no significant warming in the past 13 years. The trend since 2006 has been fairly rapid cooling. An interesting play by numbers that you could say that the annual global temperature average was higher in 2010, but the peak temperature in 2010 did not reach the peak temperatures of 1998. We had a broader El Nino but it didn’t peak as hot that year. 2011 didn’t even make it into the top 10 warmest years, it was 11th.
It just isn’t happening. Sea level rise isn’t accelerating. Sea temperatures are not rising. Surface atmospheric temperatures are flat. Sorry, just isn’t happening.
George – you just hang onto that, squeeze those little hands tight, and keep saying it. This is a long game. And it is just physics.
Cool IPO 1890 – 1924, 1947 – 1976 and 2005 – 2034.
The AGW signal will be back soon, stay tuned.
What Luke is saying is that Pat Michaels needs to be more upright and forthright like Michael Mann:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/19/mann-of-the-people/#more-55034
Latest ocean heat content update. Heat content of the top 700 meters of the oceans fell. The rise on ocean heat content has virtually stopped since about 2003 or so.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/sl_therm_55-07.png
Sorry, that last graph was sea level anomaly. This is the heat content, they’re nearly identical, though, since sea level rise is mainly due to thermal expansion:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55-07.png
How amazing – George sees “stopped”
Thanks for those links George B.
I wonder if that 15 mm SLR was actually measured or just “interpolated”.
Do you know how much data is actually avaliable to calculate sea temperatures at 700 meters prior to 2003 since when Argo has provided the data?
Or are these data extrapolated from the old SSTs of that era?
“Do you know how much data is actually avaliable to calculate sea temperatures at 700 meters prior to 2003 since when Argo has provided the data?”
I don’t know how it was obtained. I am sure it wasn’t at the same resolution as they have now with ARGO but they did have other floats and buoys before ARGO, just not as many of them. Military records might be one source of data. I’m sure submarines kept track of the water temperatures and some of those records might be declassified over the years if they still exist.
But no, I don’t know the source of the pre-2003 data but they would probably answer you if you asked nicely.
One thing that has started to worry me, though, is this solar cycle. It isn’t looking good. If history is any indication of the future, we might be looking at anywhere from a 3 to 5 degree C cooling over the next 20 years or so. If that happens, temperatures could rival the coldest of the Little Ice Age temperatures rather soon. Keep in mind that according to HADCRUT3 we are currently only 0.8C above annual global temperatures of the 1850’s. You have to keep reminding yourself that all of this arm waiving has been over less than 1 degree of global temperature change in the past 160 years.
If we were to get only 3 degrees of cooling in the next 10-20 years, we would be back to about where we were in 1695. Now keep in mind that when global temperatures cool, the ocean cools very quickly. When surface temperatures warm, the ocean warms much more slowly. In other words, if you are trying to change the temperature of a body of water by adjusting the temperature of the air above it, the entire body responds much more quickly to cooling than it does to warming. This is because cooling works WITH convection and warming works against it. If you heat surface water, it just stays on the surface. If you chill it, it sinks and displaces warmer water to the surface. Cold surface temperatures result in convective overturning that cools the water down to the thermocline very quickly. Warm surface temperatures act much more slowly because it must rely only on conductive transfer of heat.
3 degrees of cooling would be a disaster for many farmers in places like Canada, Iceland, and New Zealand.
This is the scariest graphic I have seen in years:
http://i43.tinypic.com/iyk2mq.gif
That is a graph of the global annual temperature anomaly plotted against the inverted value of the sunspot cycle length. By inverted I mean that a longer sunspot cycle is lower on the graph. You can see extremely good correlation going back to 1860. What might be coming our way is very scary, indeed, and it isn’t warming. It is cooling, and cooling is much more dangerous than warming. Cooling means people starve to death, but they don’t usually do that until they’ve had a good fight for what food is available first.
Also note that the graphic above was based on a 13.5 year cycle. Indication are now that we might be looking at a 16 year cycle. If that is so, temperatures might get even colder still and something close to 5 degrees cooling might be possible. 5 degrees cooling would devastate Canadian agriculture and eliminate what there is in places like Alaska and Iceland.
Thanks for that George B. Ocean warming prior to Argo seems to have a degree of uncertainty.
Yes and historically it seems natural to think cooling is much more likely to be in the pipeline even without these cycles.
The world is warming? We should be so lucky.