While NASA says sea ice probably won’t set any records this year, we have this horrible news: Sea ice decline spurs the greening of the Arctic
Sea ice decline and warming trends are changing the vegetation in nearby arctic coastal areas, according to two University of Alaska Fairbanks scientists.
A surprise and puzzling finding shows that despite a general warming and greening of Arctic lands in North America, some areas in northern Russia and along the Bering Sea coast of Alaska are showing recent cooling trends and declines in vegetation productivity.
“We don’t know why,” Bhatt said. More: http://www.gi.alaska.edu/node/1667
Biologist Susan Crockford on polar bears and sea ice (elevated from a WUWT comment)
It doesn’t matter how low the ice gets in September, it does not negatively affect polar bears.
As far as polar bears and sea ice are concerned, September is the least important month of the year. They can wring their hands all they like over the next few weeks but the evidence is in.
The attempted correlation between ice levels in September and harm to polar bears has proven to be false – by the work of polar bear biologists themselves.
See my summary of the evidence: http://polarbearscience.com/2013/08/18/polar-bears-have-not-been-harmed-by-sea-ice-declines-in-summer-the-evidence/
Poking the “Slayers” again, Dr Roy Spencer writes via email:
I just posted Part I of my own setup, along with Wood’s original article. It appears he put a glass plate IN FRONT OF the salt plate, which would totally invalidate his whole experiment.
Revisiting Wood’s 1909 Greenhouse Box Experiment: Part I
Much is made in some circles of R.W. Wood’s 1909 experiment which supposedly “disproved” the “greenhouse effect”. As we shall see (below) the experiment reported on in the literature has only cursory detail. It also raises questions over the ability of the setup to demonstrate anything of use to the issue of whether downward IR emission from the sky raises the average surface temperature of the Earth.
I’m finally putting together my own experimental setup, which could be easily replicated by others. We now have widely available materials which are better suited to performing the experiment, and it should be an ideal candidate for High School science experiments.
Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger on the new IPCC report:
‘We can’t say we are surprised. But neither can we say that that the IPCC’s new results will be published without a huge groundswell of pushback from those who won’t be fooled by the IPCC’s misassessment of the current state of climate science. Stay tuned for the fallout from this mushroom.’
That Methane thing again.
Beetles modify emissions of greenhouse gases from cow pats
Cattle contribute to global warming by burping and farting large amounts of greenhouse gases. Some of the same gases are also emitted from cow pats on pastures. But now researchers from the University of Helsinki have found that beetles living in cow pats may reduce emissions of the key greenhouse gas — methane.
Al Gore and his traveling medicine show is back in town with his new, improved snake oil, guaranteed to grow hair, improve digestion, promote regularity and kill roaches, rats and bedbugs. Al and his wagon rumbled into town on the eve of “a major forthcoming report” from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is a panel of scientists affiliated with the United Nations. Their report is expected to buck up the spirits of the tycoons of the snake-oil industry.
A snake-oil salesman’s lot, like a policeman’s, is not a happy one. There’s always a skeptic or two (or three) standing at the back of the wagon, eager to scoff and jeer. The global-warming scam would have been right up Gilbert and Sullivan’s street. Would Al and the U.N. deceive us? No! Never! What! Never? Weeeell, hardly ever.
Pointmans: The great global warming con:
The whole scam will be gone in a decade or so but in the meantime, and with one eye nervously on the exit door, the scammers are now putting their best efforts into a blow off phase. Listen carefully around you now, and for the next few years, and you’ll hear the inch wise retractions which somehow don’t count as full-blooded recantations.
The first excuses were changing the nature of the story slightly. Global Warming subtly mutated into Climate Change, which is now being rebadged as Global Climate Disruption. It’s similar to catching a liar out; the lie mutates to cover whatever hole you’ve pointed out to them.
Models all the way down…
Why are they useless? For one thing, the “modeler has a great deal of freedom in choosing [his inputs]. Thus these models can be used to obtain almost any result one desires.” To highlight the absurdity of this freedom, Pindyck mentions that a “colleague of mine once said ‘I can make a model tie my shoe laces.’”
Heaping ridicule on the methodology of the modelers, Pindyck refers to an IPCC survey of 22 peer-reviewed published studies of climate sensitivities that was summarized into a meaningless graph. The modelers then used this IPCC graph in their subsequent models. “But where did the IPCC get those numbers? From its own survey of several IAMs. Yes, it’s a bit circular.”
Because the models all provide sham estimates, Pindyck advocates throwing them out and taking our best shots at answers. “Perhaps the best we can do is come up with rough, subjective estimates of the probability of a climate change sufficiently large to have a catastrophic impact … Of course this approach does not carry the perceived precision that comes from an IAM-based analysis, but that perceived precision is illusory.”
We want here to set straight some misinterpretations that may have arisen in the blogosphere, e.g. Bishophill, and may also have been present in the review processes by Nature as well.
The main result is that climate models run under realistic scenarios (for the recent past) have some difficulty in simulating the observed trends of the last 15 years, and that are not able to simulate a continuing trend of the observed magnitude for a total of 20 years or more.This main result does not imply that the anthropogenic greenhouse gases have not been the most important cause for the warming observed during the second half of the 20th century. That greenhouse gases have been responsible for, at least, part or even most of the observed warming, is not only based on the results of climate simulations, but can be derived from basic physical principles, and thus it is not really debated. It is important to stress that there is to date no realistic alternative explanation for the warming observed in the last 50 years. The effect of greenhouse gases is not only in the trend in global mean near-surface temperature, but has been also identified in the spatial pattern of the observed warming and in other variables, such as stratospheric temperature, sea-level pressure and others.
Fracktards get routed at Balcombe, give up and go home (or just to the next encampment):
Police have begun to scale down their operation at an anti-fracking protest site in west Sussex after four weeks of demonstrations.
Meanwhile Bishop Hill reports that one of the locals says his water is discolored:
There’s a lot of Twitter noise this morning about Balcombe residents experiencing discoloured water. Many tweets are pointing to a video by “local resident Carl Lee”.
But there’s a glitch, he’s an activist without an understanding of where his water comes from. The water company says:
Balcombe is not supplied by local groundwater but by water taken from the River Ouse near Lewes and treated. South East Water was first contacted by a small number of customers in relation to Balcombe residents experiencing discoloured tap water on Friday 9th August.
Another Balcombe resident tweets:
I live very close to Me Lee, within a 100yd radius he is only person with GREEN WATER! Strange INNIT !
Josh makes merry with #3 of his fracking series, it is, ahem, “well” done. See:
It’s da BOMB, that Methane thing again part 2:
Readers may recall this WUWT story: An alarmist prediction so bad, even Gavin Schmidt thinks it is implausible
Via Andrew Revkin’s twitter feed:
Eight scientists post strong critique of Whiteman & Wadhams Arctic methane bomb piece:
However, the analysis by Whiteman et al. (2013) cannot be supported, as it is based on a hypothetical release of 50 Gt of hydrate-sourced methane, at a flux of 5 Gt per year over a period of a decade from 2015-2025. A methane release on this scale is orders of magnitude greater than found in the geological record, is much larger than suggested by hydrate modelling, and is not seen to date in atmospheric measurements (either locally in the Arctic or globally)
The climate debate is complex: to be credible, risk scenarios need to be factually based and rooted on ongoing observations.