“The new normal–Tornadoes strike italy, hundreds dead in UK heatwave, Shanghai record breaking heatwave, Japan’s new national heat wave”
WtD is back on the tired “worst ever, sky is falling, we’re all going to die” track again. Interesting that he does not mention the COLD in England and how many people died from that weather phenomena. Oh, I forgot, only heat waves count.
The IPCC itself says tornadoes CANNOT be said to be a result of climate change but I guess WtD is not really interested in science or what the IPCC has been saying. Terrifying headlines are so much better and scare the daylights out of people. Facts just get in the way.
Heat waves–claimed to be the “WORST EVER” every year for as long as extreme weather became the new mantra of climate alarmists. Using only 30 years of data, as is the definition of climate, perhaps that can actually be claimed. So can extreme cold, increased snow, etc. Plus, picking countries that have heat waves while ignoring that the US has not had prolonged heat waves this year, is dishonest.
Another question here–Did the Southern Hemisphere vanish? As far as I can tell, other than Australia, there is no climate in the Southern Hemisphere. No land, no people, nothing. Well, there is Antarctica, but that gets ignored if it freezes up more than usual. It was a great tour for Al Gore to film ice calving off the land and claim climate change (It does that in the summer, which is when Al was there. Has something to do with mass and gravity, I think.) Can anyone tell me what happened to South America and Africa. After we found out the Himalayas were not going to lose all the glaciers, Africa vanished. Who redefined the Northern Hemisphere as global?
It’s just the same old pictures and scare tactics. Without facts, contradicting facts of their own advocates, etc. No wonder it’s losing followers.
I have reached a point in my studies where I can present my conclusions on what a melting of arctic likely means. Is it a sign of the apocalypse, or a natural phenomena?
First, I note with interest that the National Snow and Ice data center will be updating the sea ice baseline from the currently used 1979 to 2000 to the 1981 to 2010 interval. This means 10 years of diminished ice cover will figure into the average used for comparisons. This should result in the ice extent anomaly becoming smaller—in other words, the melt will be closer to average. In July, the change will be implemented and I look forward to seeing the effects.
Where to start? Studying arctic ice proved enlightening. There are many hypotheses for what causes ice melt. Plus, forces acting on sea ice are not the same as that acting on land ice. Land ice melts in reaction to air temperature, wind, storms, snow cover. Sea ice melts mostly due to water temperature underneath the ice, wave motion and storms.
There are terms:
slp sea level pressure
AO Arctic Oscillation
NAO North Atlantic Oscillation
lfo low frequency oscillation
sst sea surface temperature
enso el Niño southern oscillation
smmr scanning microwave radiometer
ssmi special sensor/ microwave imager
first year ice
multiyear ice (important because the two types of ice have different melting rates)
Beaufort Gyre (a mean annual clockwise motion in the Western Atlantic)
Then the proxies:
Marine sediment records
sea floor sediments beneath the ice give the best information
resolution varies by location—central areas are low resolution with a long time scale
continental margins are high resolution with a shorter time scale
ice rafted sediments are the most direct proxies
skeletons of marine animals/organisms
coastal records, driftwood, whalebone
terrestrial vegetation, ice cores
the 18O/16O ratio
Use of multiple proxies is required to reduce the probability of errors.
According to Lora Koenig, (Goddard glaciologist) a melt similar to the current one occurs every 150 years and this one is right on time. For those of you on the advocate side, I give you: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/28/1114628/-NASA-Made-up-150-year-melt-cycles-NY-Times-Slammed-NASA-for-Unprecedented-Melt-Every-150-Years#
It is a political blog with unlabeled axes on the first graph, but it does provide an alternative point of view (she was pressured by politics—wait—that’s what the questioners say about advocates. Now advocates who rejected that explanation when it was used as an explanation of why climate scientists all stick together and don’t go against “consensus”, are using the argument themselves. Most interesting.) I did not find verification of her political motivation. I did find other articles that verified the 150 year cycles based on ice cores.
Another interesting item was an announcement from NSID that they would revise their algorithm for the Greenland Ice Sheet early. The adjustment resulted in fewer melt days. What is interesting is how measurements are not straightforward. It seems we have to mathematically adjust so many of the measurements. Since no direct measurement may exist, there’s really no way to verify the accuracy, nothing concrete to compare to. The best we can do is have independent calculation and verify the “close fit” or “way off” nature of each method. The change in the algorithm appears to have been
due to temperature records showing the temperature had not hit the melting point. This is as close to direct verification as we get, it seems. This also illustrates the lack of reliability in the science, especially if the melt gets a headline and the correction gets virtually no notice.
In Quaternary Science Reviews, there was an interesting study on the history of sea ice. It explains proxies and many aspects of researching ice. The conclusion was “unexplainable by any of the known natural variations.” The implication was that humans were the only possible cause, not nature. This is basically the exclusionary principle—nothing else explains the phenomena so it must be “x” (in this case, us). In the study, this is not stated but rather implied. The actual conclusion is the ice melt is anomalous. That conclusion is an actual scientific statement that refrains from over-reaching: the ice is melting at a rate outside our defined “normal”.
In researching arctic ice, I found an article with a study saying the record surface melting was caused by “unusual atmospheric circulation and jet stream GrIS. This event was the largest such event since the 70’s and maybe longer. The study involved using a computer model and satellite data. Based on the results, the melt’s main forcing was atmospheric—the NAO, GBI (Greenland Blocking Index—a high pressure system over Greenland) and the polar jet stream. Researchers note that in time we will know if the was anomalous or part of an emerging pattern. Patience before drawing conclusions is a very good practice. So is more data collection.
Sea ice decline is actually small: -2.24% per decade. Headlines such as “Why Arctic Sea Ice will vanish in 2013” are designed to lead people to thinking climate change is much faster and larger than the data would indicate (I’ll wait until September to see if the headline comes true. Also, this story states we have had a stable climate for the last 11,000 years. Any time I ask about a stable climate, I am told “the climate never was stable”. It’s headlines and stories like these that lead people to asking when was climate stable and doubting the accuracy of climate change science.) I also found a report that Peter Wadhams, review editor, IPCC Working Group I report says the arctic will melt by 2015, if not sooner. The exaggerations seem endless.
One of the proxies used for study is historical records. I’m including some here. While there will be an immediate “That’s not science” reaction from many, consider that internet marketing surveys are now being published in peer-reviewed journals. Old newspaper headlines are certainly as reliable a measure as internet marketing surveys.
From Climate Depot:
1922 Washington Post “Arctic Ocean Getting Warm, Seals Vanish and Iceberg Melt”
1923 “Radical Climate Change Melting Down the North Pole”
1935 “Russian Ship Sailed 500 miles from North Pole in Ice Free Water”
1947 “International Agency needed to Stop the Arctic Meltdown” (No word on how that would work)
1907 “Arctic Heat Record—Hottest Place in Europe
Some of these may have been “local” events but the belief in apocalyptic meltdown of the arctic is nothing new.
As you can see, there are many theories/hypothesis on arctic ice melt. What seems most apparent is we lack sufficient understanding at this point to draw accurate conclusions, especially long-range ones. In 2002, satellites from GRACE began detecting tiny variations in Earth’s gravity that indicate changes in mass distribution on earth, including the movement of ice into the ocean. These are detecting decreases, but with only a decade of data, its too soon to establish a pattern as climate change rather than short-term weather changes. Even if we do find a significant decline, we cannot simply jump to “human-caused”. We live on a dynamic planet that is always changing. Monitoring may help us prepare for the changes by alerting us sooner, much like radar for tornadoes and hurricanes. Just like the storm alerts, the knowledge can only warn, not prevent. We can study, learn and adapt, but in all probability, it’s not something we control nor something we can prevent.
Today at Think Progress (a misnomer on all accounts) we find:
“Manmade climate change is happening. One would think that with hundreds of climate-related natural disasters declared since 2011, and 97 percent of climate scientists in agreement, elected officials would follow the evidence. But a shocking number — 55 percent — of congressional Republicans refuse to accept it. Most states have at least one representative who denies climate change science. And it’s even more pronounced in Republican leadership, where 90 percent deny climate science.
It’s no coincidence that deniers are funded in large part by the fossil fuel industry, which profits off of the emissions that cause global warming. Combined, the 157 members of the climate denier caucus have taken over $50 million in dirty energy contributions over the course of their careers. The 378 other Members of Congress and Senators have only taken $33 million total.”
Okay, let’s look at this from a different perspective: Al Gore sold his TV station to an OIL country, one of the evil middle east countries that control the oil the US gets and have caused millions of young men to die in unnecessary wars, according to many environmental activists. Yet we have not seen Al Gore producing a film “Fossil Fuels Forever” and joining the ranks of the “deniers”. If half a billion dollars doesn’t buy someone’s allegiance, how could the paltry $242,000 to house members or $699,000 to senate members? It’s really quite obvious that money does not buy influence, don’t you think? Only in the imagination of climate change advocates does money determine one’s beliefs about the legitimacy of science. They just cannot admit it just might be the science that is the problem.
Skeptical Science sent out an email looking for 25 skeptical blogs to participate in a survey of 25 skeptical and 25 believer blogs. The survey concerns “consensus” and involves the use of research abstracts. From an email posted on WUWT:
As one of the more highly trafficked climate blogs on the web, I’m seeking your assistance in conducting a crowd-sourced online survey of peer-reviewed climate research. I have compiled a database of around 12,000 papers listed in the ‘Web Of Science’ between 1991 to 2011 matching the topic ‘global warming’ or ‘global climate change’. I am now inviting readers from a diverse range of climate blogs to peruse the abstracts of these climate papers with the purpose of estimating the level of consensus in the literature regarding the proposition that humans are causing global warming. If you’re interested in having your readers participate in this survey, please post the following link to the survey:
(no link posted)
The survey involves rating 10 randomly selected abstracts and is expected to take 15 minutes. Participants may sign up to receive the final results of the survey (de-individuated so no individual’s data will be published). No other personal information is required (and email is optional). Participants may elect to discontinue the survey at any point and results are only recorded if the survey is completed. Participant ratings are confidential and all data will be de-individuated in the final results so no individual ratings will be published.
You can also read these blogs for additional comments:
Why survey bloggers and readers about consensus on AGW using technical abstracts?
Why are abstracts from what has always been described as very technical science being used?
First, SkS has not shown interest in what readers of skeptical blogs think in the past. Generally, skeptics and their blogs are characterized as unscientific individuals with some kind of agenda involving fossil fuels and/or shadow governments. NOW he cares?
It has been repeated over and over and over that laymen cannot understand the complexity of climate science. Yet the study involved reading and ranking abstracts from professional journals. (True, it seems the survey just asks if the survey is neural, pro or against AGW, but that’s still a pretty big judgement call for science so reportedly complex and impossible to understand outside the field.)
Let me get this straight: SkS is surveying unscientific, agenda-driven skeptics using science documents written by individuals with advanced degrees and years of research in the field to determine “consensus” in the literature.
This says “marketing” all over it. How can scientists phrase their abstracts to slant public opinion in their favor (in case those pesky skeptics keep encouraging readers to check the research)?
No climate science here. Just how to sell your product more effectively……
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. - J Robert Oppenheimer.