Since failures in climate science claims are on the rise, can we start naming climate prediction failures after scientists and activists? I can think of a few: The Hansen Hiatus, for example.
Climate campaigners seem to think they have a winner with this takedown of elected officials who reject global warming science, in which fake news reports talk of the turmoil and tragedy created by Hurricane Marco Rubio, Hurricane James Inhofe, Hurricane John Boehner and more.
The trouble is, the science on a connection between hurricanes and global warming is going in the opposite direction, if the near-final draft of next month’s climate science assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is any indication.
Andrew Revkin at NYT’s DOT Earth
=============================================================
Twitter / RyanMaue: El Reno tornado reclassified …
El Reno tornado reclassified from EF-5 to EF-3 highlighting some debate at the time about using radar wind data http://www.your4state.com/story/national-weather-service-re-classifies-el-reno-ok-tornado-to-ef-3/d/story/9i6cjSZVfUWnisUjHByPSg …
See also this WUWT story bringing the “widest tornado” claim into question.
==============================================================
What? Polar bears are out on that disappearing sea ice in late summer?
To put all this into perspective, note that research in this region between 2000 and 2005 determined that, on average, only 3.7% of all Southern Beaufort polar bears spent time on land between mid-September and the end of October (Schliebe et al. 2008). As the estimated total population at that time was 1,526 bears (and still is), it means that on average, only about 56 bears spent time on land each summer in the early 2000s.
See Susan Crockford’s blog: Ten out of ten polar bears being tracked this summer in the Beaufort Sea are on the ice
===============================================================
What? Algae don’t have enough atmospheric CO2 so they have to make their own?
A paper published today in Nature finds that marine algae, which evolved and thrived with atmospheric CO2 levels 15 times higher than the present, required a novel adaptation to adjust to the relatively low CO2 levels during the Cenozoic era, when CO2 levels were still more than twice current levels. According to the paper, this novel adaptation was to manufacture their own CO2 at the reaction site for photosynthesis, required due to a paucity of CO2 in the atmosphere. Algae evolved more than 500 million years ago, when CO2 levels were ~15-17 times higher than the present; current CO2 levels are near the lowest levels of the past 500 million years.
Algae evolved more than 500 million years ago, when CO2 levels were ~15-17 times higher than the present.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/08/new-paper-finds-algae-have-to.html
==============================================================
Rowers give up. Another “save the planet from global warming” Arctic trek gets a reality check from Nature:
Severe weather conditions hindered our early progress and now ice chokes the passage ahead.
Our ice router Victor has been very clear in what lies ahead. He writes, “Just to give you the danger of ice situation at the eastern Arctic, Eef Willems of “Tooluka” (NED) pulled out of the game and returning to Greenland. At many Eastern places of NWP locals have not seen this type ice conditions. Residents of Resolute say 20 years have not seen anything like. Its, ice, ice and more ice. Larsen, Peel, Bellot, Regent and Barrow Strait are all choked. That is the only route to East. Already West Lancaster received -2C temperature expecting -7C on Tuesday with the snow.”
Richard Weber, my teammate to the South Pole in 2009 and without doubt the most accomplished polar skier alive today, is owner and operator of Arctic Watch on Cunningham Inlet at the northern end of Somerset Island. Arctic Watch faces out onto our proposed eastern route. Richard dropped me a note the other day advising: “This has been the coldest season with the most ice since we started Arctic Watch in 2000. Almost no whales. The NWPassage is still blocked with ice. Some of the bays still have not melted!”
…we’d require at least another 50-60 days to make it to Pond Inlet. Throw in the issues of less light, colder temperatures, harsher fall storms and lots of ice blocking the route and our decision is easy.
…Our message remains unaffected though, bringing awareness to the pressing issues of climate change in the arctic.
Despite that admission of failure due to so much ice, readers are hard pressed to find many pictures of it in their photo stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/95019072@N08/
I suppose showing pictures of ice is counter-productive to their mission, since like many fools before them, they expected the Arctic to be mostly ice free due to global warming. – Anthony
=============================================================
Uh, oh
New paper finds cloud assumptions in climate models could be incorrect by factor of 2
More problems for climate models: A new paper published in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres finds that models must take into account not only the presence or absence of clouds but also how clouds are stacked vertically. The authors find that changes in vertical stacking of clouds can change radiative forcing assumptions by a factor of two [100%]. However, state of the art climate models do not take vertical stacking into consideration, and most global datasets of cloudiness also do not contain this information. “Clouds, which can absorb or reflect incoming radiation and affect the amount of radiation escaping from Earth’s atmosphere, remain the greatest source of uncertainty in global climate modeling,” and according to this paper, that uncertainty has just doubled from what was previously thought.
See: THE HOCKEY SCHTICK
Why the forthcoming UN IPCC Report is already toast
The IPCC is set to release its latest Assessment Report 5 [AR5] in about 1 month, yet the report will be dead on arrival and hopelessly out-of-date in light of recent inconvenient peer-reviewed papers published after the cut-off date for inclusion, as well as papers published before the cut-off date which the UN continues to ignore. Since almost the entire report hinges on the output of climate models, and those models have recently been falsified at a confidence level of >98% over the past 15 years, and falsified at a confidence level of 90% over the past 20 years, the entire report and its Summary for Policymakers are already invalidated even before publication.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/08/why-forthcoming-un-ipcc-report-is.html
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Good to know that peaple make Michael E. Mann a fool LOL
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/373133788005400576
Climate rowers stuck in ice, Politicans blamed for decline in hurricanes, CO2 even more a wild card in the big climate…its to easy nowadays. 🙂
Despite the evidence before them, the Mainstream last first rowers are still claiming the evidence from their trip is of continuing warming. ‘ Our message remains unaffected though, bringing awareness to the pressing issues of climate change in the arctic.’
Bears on the ice ALL summer! what ice? Isn’t all supposed to be melted/SARC
Quote “the entire report and its Summary for Policymakers are already invalidated even before publication.”
If this is true, and I have no doubt it is true, then where is the outrage from the scientific community? Surely, the IPCC reports have been the center of the evidence on which the international policy of “decarbonization” was based, and these reports were supposedly based on science.
All we are hearing form the likes of the Royal Society, the American Physical Society, etc.etc. are the “Sounds of Silence” (Simon and Garfunkel).
Who will lead the charge from the scientific community to say “Enough is enough!”? I nominate Prof. Judith Curry.
Andy Revkin’s strategy for convincing people of the lies of the climate liars is Mohammed Ali’s of “float like a butterfly and sting like a bee”. Hahahahahaha!
At least he got the floating part right. As in floating in space with halloween-costume astronaut suits on, representing the climate liars’ “science”.
Clearly the rows failed to pay heed to the WUWT: The Maslowski Countdown
which clearly states:
Ice Free Arctic 2013
September 22nd, 2013
and not a day sooner, well OK, BZE says maybe sooner.
More evidence of shoddy climate ‘science’.
Remember the “Link found between cold European winters and solar activity” story a year ago?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/23/agu-link-found-between-cold-european-winters-and-solar-activity/
Turns out the only link is one we’ve seen before – between sloppy science and climate scientists:
“Along with colleagues, van Oldenborgh decided to try and reproduce the findings presented by Sirocko and his team….”The supplementary information in the paper shows that the data record of Rhine freezing is constructed merely on searching the internet for miscellaneous documents containing information about Rhine river freezing, including an oil painting”….These data appeared not to have been checked against other well-established long-term temperature records, such as the Pfister reconstruction of Swiss winter temperatures and the Dutch winter temperatures by van Engelen and colleagues, which are both based on freezing of waterways among other sources. “When we compared Sirocko’s data to these other records we found that Sirocko’s record missed around half of the documented severe winters,” said van Oldenborgh.
Delving deeper into the paper, van Oldenborgh and colleagues found inconsistencies in how the sunspot minimum was defined. Sometimes it was defined as the four years surrounding the minimum and other times it was the single year following the minimum.”
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/54440
From DJ on August 31, 2013 at 6:03 am:
That and other tweets in the sequence here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/28/requesting-some-assistance/#comment-1403068
Watts’ reply, several comments later:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/28/requesting-some-assistance/#comment-1403189
I’m now a tweet follower of Michael Mann. Does that now mean that I am a Mann stalker from WUWT?
Oops, I see that Revkin was positing the Muhammed Ali approach to what he calls “statists”. I think he meant “d*niers”, though, because it’s the statists who are the ones trying to ram the anti-science and lies of CAGW, and the “need” for so-called “green” energy down our throats.
For the last month or so, the Arctic sea ice has melted at exactly the normal rate of the last 30 years.
Daily change in Jaxa and the NSIDC (using moving averages to eliminate some of the wiggles). On average, the loss rate is now 25K (which is declining by 2K per day until the average minimum date on September 12th).
http://s15.postimg.org/lmb48ucp7/NH_SIE_Daily_Change_Aug30_2013.png
The NSIDC September ice extent is still tracking to 5.25 million km^2 (which is higher than all but one of the Arcus sea ice outlook projections).
http://s7.postimg.org/zdcsl2uln/NSIDC_Sept_Min_Proj_Aug30_2013.png
Breaking News from UAH (eh, close enough)
http://blog.al.com/breaking/2013/08/summer_of_2013_among_coolest_o.html
I would like to see an explanation of this part:
UHI contamination of nighttime lows, heard of it. But to throw them out completely while using only the highs which also have problems? It’d be nice if we could get a short write-up of that by Dr. Christy.
See article for more info and stats for statewide and select large cities.
In claiming that the climate models have been falsified, this post at the Hockey Schtick errs. A model that predicts is susceptible to falsification. A model that projects is insusceptible to falsification. The climate models project. They do not predict.
Often, in the literature of climatology, authors treat “predict” and “project” as synonyms in making arguments, though the two words have differing meanings. Such an argument is an example of an equivocation. By logical rule, one cannot properly draw a conclusion from an equivocation. To draw a conclusion, including the conclusion that a “prediction” from a climate model is falsified, is an example of an equivocation fallacy.
For details on the equivocation fallacy in global warming arguments, see the peer-reviewed article at http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7923 .
“Climate campaigners seem to think they have a winner with this takedown of elected officials who reject global warming science,” This approach again illustrates how desperate the warmists are with their failed climate science . Unable to support their claims by valid science they are constantly looking for new ways to discredit those who diagree with their questionable science . If this approach should ever materialize, and I don’t think it ever will , there are countless climate science failures that could be tagged with the certain climate scientists that will soon even the playing field in the eyes of the public
J. Philip Peterson says:
August 31, 2013 at 7:25 am
I’m now a tweet follower of Michael Mann. Does that now mean that I am a Mann stalker from WUWT?
Me to I have set the hook a couple of times but he always wiggles off. ;>)
J. Philip Peterson on August 31, 2013 at 7:25 am:
Nah, but you are a Mann ego-stroker.
I was warned long ago to avoid stupid people who do stupid things, as the stupid rubs off and you can get infected by the stupid. I’ve seen enough tweets from Mann’s clique of twits to have initial confirmation.
You better buy some surgical gloves so you can practice safe stroking.
As for the naming of “things” after CAGW scientists and their supporters, we should not concentrate upon the failures but rather, the successes. For instance, instead of calling the recent warming period the “Modern Warming Period,” it should be known in history as the “Gore Warming Period.” A positive approach is always best, in my opinion, and these guys should be going down in history by using their names assigned to major climate patterns for they have been so concerned about them.
Another recommendation I would have is calling the next major climate cooling period, the “Mann Minimum.” I strongly recommend this name mainly because of the alliteration though, and not because of Mann’s contribution to the identification of this next cooling period.
These poor wretches should have their egos stroked a bit, in other words, because they have little else going for them.
Arctic Rower’s spin – here they are being driven out of the Arctic by the worst ice conditions and coldest temperatures in 30 years according to locals and they are convinced more than ever that the arctic is in decline! Kool aid must freeze at a much lower temperature than previously thought. 22 yachts many turned back, many stuck in the ice. I think they have a case for suing the IPCC and the climate science institutions for misleading them into taking these costly, perilous and useless voyages.
On Algae sucking up the HCO3 from seawater because of the shortage of CO2 in the atmosphere – wow, this means that we have another buffer to any decline in alkalinity in seawater, plus get a bonus of break up of the CO2, releasing oxygen. Negative feedbacks anyone? Maybe a CO2 hungry algae tower to bubble CO2 stack gases through, and use algal production as biomass to refuel the electricity plant boilers.
“…we’d require at least another 50-60 days to make it to Pond Inlet. Throw in the issues of less light, colder temperatures, harsher fall storms and lots of ice blocking the route and our decision is easy.
…Our message remains unaffected though, bringing awareness to the pressing issues of climate change in the arctic.”
In your wildest dreams mates! 50 or 60 days for 1057km http://www.airmilescalculator.com/distance/ycb-to-yio/ … colder temperatures – you’ll be walking boys not rowing with the wind and snow in your face. You sure would bring a lot of awareness to pressing issues when the yellow helicopters came to answer your distress calls. These guys are supposed to be Canadians!
Gary Pearse says:
August 31, 2013 at 8:32 am
> Maybe a CO2 hungry algae tower to bubble CO2 stack gases through, and use algal production as biomass to refuel the electricity plant boilers.
You’d need a huge sunny area for growing the algae, and all the effort at collecting and drying the algae. Easier to use natural gas, coal, or trees. Or nukes or E-cats (maybe).
JimS says August 31, 2013 at 8:30 am:
“Another recommendation I would have is calling the next major climate cooling period, the “Mann Minimum.” I strongly recommend this name mainly because of the alliteration though, and not because of Mann’s contribution to the identification of this next cooling period.
These poor wretches should have their egos stroked a bit, in other words, because they have little else going for them.”
I like it: kinda like ‘irony stroking’
Rather, should not today’s maximum flat point of 1997-2013 be called the “Mann-Made Maximum” ?
I mean, really, we’ve got the LIA and Medieval Warming Period – which uses up the MWP, and since the Modern Warming Period is entirely made up by his numbers …..
@Anthony:
You should be skeptical of the Nature article on algae. First, Nature articles have a track record of being spectacularly wrong in the biological sciences simply because the journal is for cutting edge “big” ideas.
My criticisms after a quick read are: this entire thing is a computer model (no real measurements of cellular parameters), these authors’ results depend upon a good knowledge of 13C and 18O abundance that might not exist, this work was conducted in a geology department not a biology department, many of their arguments are hand-waving about CO2 fluxes without actually measuring bicarbonate or CO2 in cellular compartments, they don’t once use the phrase “statistically significant” because there is no statistical treatment of their data, their actual measurment of 18O in the fossil record from ocean cores has huge changes of variance over the last 16M years, with the highest variance coming recently, which would seem to beg the question why the variance changes, their sampling of time points is sparse in some places. It appears to be a rapid communication. I wonder if someone else is planning to publish something better soon?
“A model that predicts is susceptible to falsification. A model that projects is insusceptible to falsification. The climate models project. They do not predict.”
Businesses use that word for future growth, profit, etc
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewgarrett/2013/08/22/traditional-forecasting-leads-to-traditional-results-failure/
Some of those businesses known as banks used computer models to make those projections!