Above: Al’s high five on ice caps (gone in five years)
Guest post by Steven Goddard
Gore says he has also detected a shift in the view of many business leaders. “They’re seeing the writing on every wall they look at. They’re seeing the complete disappearance of the polar ice caps right before their eyes in just a few years,” .
Responding to James Lovelock, the originator of the Gaia theory, who said the European trading system for carbon was “disastrous”, Gore says: “James Lovelock has forgotten more about science than I will ever learn. “
“Recent headlines have proclaimed that Arctic summer sea ice has decreased so much in the past few years that it has reached a tipping point and will disappear very quickly. The truth is that there is little evidence to support this. Indeed, the record-breaking losses in the past couple of years could easily be due to natural fluctuations in the weather, with summer sea ice increasing again over the next few years.
In a WUWT reader’s poll earlier this month, 91% of respondents forecast that 2009 minimum ice extent will be greater than 2008 – apparently agreeing with Dr. Pope’s comment above. Perhaps Al Gore should swap his Nobel Prize with people who have a better aptitude for learning science.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Anthony, I was wondering if you had any comments about the weather forecasts being so far out this winter? It would be interesting to hear an insiders perspective. Thanks to Clive for the info and that was the weather guy that I was thinking of. I quite enjoy him, and am not bothered in the least by the inaccuracy of his (or others) forecasts. I have learned to prepare for whatever contingency transpires, warm, cold, or (as in Calgary) all of the above, lol !! :^) ___________________________________________________________ I have embraced weather in all it’s forms, and am always in awe of the world we live in, cold or warm. I encourage all sheep to look up from their grazing ( I am also a sheep, who just happened to be told to look up by someone I admire). In the lee of the mountains we are treated to amazing cloud formations. I am particularly fascinated by “lenticulars” which form as the prevailing winds roll over the mountains. Very cool to see, as it looks like a gigantic snake made of cloud crossing the sky. I also find the jet stream to be an unsung hero of the meteorological world. What an astounding piece of work by the nature of our world. Similar in many respect to the “streams” (rivers of water in water) in our oceans. How can one not appreciate these things? It was not long ago that we did not survive if we did not understand our local weather and indicators. Even then, there are no guarantees . Keep adapting, ……..
REPLY: Robert Heinlein once quipped:
Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get.
That pretty much sums it up. In talks I am invited to give, I routinely tell people that we cannot forecast weather beyond about one week with any reasonable skill, even with the complex computers and computer models of today.
Most of the advances in forecasting skill have come about through better observational methods, mostly satellite and radar. These have improved the accuracy of the persistence type forecast methods markedly.
Uncertainty and chaotic motion rule the atmospheric process, not linearity. I don’t think climate is much better, as while the short term (10-30 years) may appear “linear” the longer terms are still greatly affected by chaos and uncertainty that are parts of earth’s systems.
As humans, our vision tends to be linear due to our short term memory.
– Anthony
JimB (08:36:05) :
“I’d go on that trip in a skinnit. What a fantastic voyage.”
Excuse me!
That was meant to be a joke.
You would actually go on a Russian nuclear ice breaker?
Shall I repeat Russian and Nuclear.
You’ll not have any grandchildren.
you want to get on board a Russian Nuclear ice breaker which goes to the North Pole.
Why do you think the Polar Ice is melting?
Yes it is dumping tons of boiling water into the ocean.
WWF cannot see the Polar Bears for steam.
(As an aside their submarines do the same which makes them easy to track.)
Did you look at the video?
Did you see the “guests” being marshalled onto the Russian helicopter or else!
They are going to take off and fly over the Arctic Ocean and not an immersion suit in site. No no no way.
Comparing this and the Catlin Arctic Survey, the Catlin looks safer provided that the Russians do not serve up “Dumplings”.
Anthony, thank you for your response. Loved the Heinlein page. If I understand your response correctly, the models used are linear based with a 10-30 year history. So the weather we are getting is outside that linear frame, hence the inaccuracy of the forecasts. I am not talking about the long range forecast either, which would logically be difficult, but of 24 hour forecasts not even being close. This has been happening all winter. My friends across the prairies have said the same thing for their forecasts. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan and Winnipeg, Manitoba have had brutal winters. I will understand if you do not have the time for a discussion of this nature (pardon the pun).
Actually, using a 5th grade Science textbook (last model, not the newly adopted ones), a 5th grader could predict the climate of any given location’s latitude and longitude combined with information from an Atlas, old or new. They would be able to state the given temperature range, precipitation range, zonal agricultural growing conditions and seasonal weather patterns fairly accurately, within his life span.
B Kerr:
You’re missing the most important part…you get to KEEP the PARKA.
Talk about bling. AND instant party cred. No AGWer would DARE challenge me at a cocktail party if I was wearing THAT.
I already ask people when they’re going to go see ANWR.
Anyway…this amazing voyage is now headlined on CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2009/03/14/wolf.tweel.tech.cnn
Worth a watch so you can see the newsettes giggling about following them on Twitter. The reporter covereing the story also explains about 2/3rds the way in that if the ice melts, then the oceans will absorb “…all that heat” that would normally be reflected off by the ice.
There ya go. Its settled, once again.
JimB
MartinGAtkins (07:03:51) :
Pierre Gosselin was talking about the change in temperature with regard to last months temps, so the anomaly base line is irrelevant.
No he wasn’t. UAH readings increased while GISS, Hadley & RSS went down.
Relative to the same period GISS was coolest; UAH the warmest.
The anomaly base line is only important if you wish to calculate the absolute mean temperature of the globe.
Why?
David Ball:
If you haven’t read Heinlein, I heartily recommend starting with “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”. If you can’t find it in print, it will be at used bookstores. Talk about an eye-opening author! Almost every folly and stupid political move described in his books can be observed in every “modern” first world country, including our own. His lessons about how politics work should be required reading for everyone.
I’ve lived in Calgary for 45 years now, I have yet to see any kind of accurate weather forecasting (other than the most obvious, when it’s been stable for several days and there are no visible changes on their way). Some years back, I think it was the late 80s, Environment Canada brought in a meteorologist from the East who got everything so incredibly wrong it was horrifying. They let this go for a few years before finally replacing him with someone more local.
Meanwhile, check the forecast page at http://www.wx.ca for what I consider a good sanity check. Usually the two forecasts are very divergent, but I find if I average them I can make plans.
JimB (12:12:15) :
“You’re missing the most important part…you get to KEEP the PARKA.”
Yes as it glows in the dark and during the day.
No one would come near you at a cocktail party wearing that.
(Made in Chernobyl.)
“91% of respondents forecast that 2009 minimum ice extent will be greater than 2008” Really? Because most average people agree with a statement makes it true? I can see that as an opinion of whether or not a movie sucked but to leave the truth of science in the hands of laymen’s opinion is ludicrous, and I don’t mean the rapper.
p.s. Heinlein is a genius. I have read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Right on point. Check out The Door Into Summer if you want to see how he anticipated the Roomba and many other automatic devices back in the 50s. Of course he toyed with the time travel paradox, but that is forgiven.
“No one would come near you at a cocktail party wearing that.
(Made in Chernobyl.)”
Actually, I’m ok with that ;*)
JimB
durwin2point0, the 2009 minimum extent will depend on the incoming Arctic Current as well as the vortex of winds that circle (kind of) the Arctic. If the current goes warm (it is part of the AMO so it could do that real quick since it fluctuates much more wildly than the PDO does), and the winds push ice out warmer latitudes, it is possible that the extent will be close to 07-08, meaning that 09 will see a lot of melt. However, if the current goes colder and the winds stay calm, the melt may very well be less than 07 & 08 summer melt. To summarize: I’m not watching the global temperature or CO2 stuff for this. I am watching jet stream patterns and predicted AMO.
PLEASE no more pictures of Al Gore. He makes me nauseous.
Dave L,
Not even one more? click [don’t click if Fat Albert actually makes you nauseous. These are only for fun.]
OK, I have no excuse for that. My apologies. Maybe this will make up for it: click
[I feel the same nausea when I see the globaloney bloviator.]
RIGHT! The little understood (and little-recognized) AMO. Still in its warm phase, he is a key player in all of the current global warming hysteria….and a key player in NH sea ice minima.
Spot on.
Switching over to an atmospheric teleconnections…the PNA has really been PMS-ing for ya’ll out there, eh, Pamela? The PNA when she gets into that time of the month she can be a real *****, no??
Back to Al Gore…..I have to re-post a little of Arn Riewe said earlier in case ya’ll did not see it. Very VERY funny stuff:
“BUT WHAT IF AL GORE IS RIGHT AND THE ICE MELTS IN FIVE YEARS!
I’ve been tortured by this prospect so I went on a search to find a mitigation strategy. After developing a computer modeling program, I have determined that by the year 2013, Al will be big enough to fill the entire Arctic basin. If we dress him in a white suit and tether him to the geographic North Pole, we can replace all the albedo lost from the melting ice!”
durwin2point0,
Perhaps we should ignore laymen’s opinions and leave the triillion dollar decision making to experts like Al Gore, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, Gordon Brown, and Leonardo Di Caprio.
Pamela Grey, just wondering who your post regarding the 5th grader doing weather was aimed at. If it was me, I don’t believe I have done or said anything to draw your disrespect in such a manner. If it was not for me, then disregard. I have always enjoyed your posts as they seem to be very grounded and well thought out, so I was a bit taken aback. WUWT?
John Finn (12:20:55) :
You may have missed it, I gave you the numbers in a another message.
GISS January 0.51 February 0.41 Move -0.1
RSS January 0.32 February 0.23 Move -0.09
UAH January 0.3 February 0.36 Move +0.06
HADCRUT January 0.37 February 0.34 Move -0.03
Relative to what period? 🙂 Even if they use the same anomaly base period, it doesn’t mean the absolute values will be the same.
Perhaps you mean GISS fell the most while UAH has risen.
The anomaly base line is only important if you wish to calculate the absolute mean temperature of the globe.
How are you going to calculate the absolute mean temperature of the earth without the base anomaly number?
Relative to what period? 🙂
Relative to 1979-1997.
The Feb UAH temperatures are 0.36 deg higher than the mean Feb UAH temperatures for 1979-1997; The Feb GISS temperatures are 0.15 deg higher than the mean Feb GISS temperatures for 1979-1997; The figures for RSS and Hadley are 0.23 deg and 0.20 deg respectively>
Note: the GISS anomaly of 0.41 is relative to the period 1951-1980.
Even if they use the same anomaly base period, it doesn’t mean the absolute values will be the same.
Of course the absolute values won’t be the same. The temperatures in the mid troposphere and much lower than the at the surface.
Perhaps you mean GISS fell the most while UAH has risen.
No. I mean exactly what I said. The UAH temperatures are +0.36 deg higher than they were between 1979-97 while GISS temperatures are only +0.15 deg higher than they were between 1979-97. Though, it is true that, relative to January, while GISS was cooler and UAH was warmer, this is not necessarily related to my point.
How are you going to calculate the absolute mean temperature of the earth without the base anomaly number?
From the raw temperature readings, perhaps? I’m not sure what you mean here. The anomalies are calculated from the measurements. But the mean temperature is not that useful anyway since we’re probably more interested in the temperature change over a given period of time.
Smokey (17:17:50) Thanks for keeping the ‘nausea’ alive, I hate to be too repetative by posting it myself.
‘Follow’? The Federal government has taken the lead, courtesy of the Obama administration and the cabal of Pelosi and Reid in the Congress. The spending and borrowing has been so insane that our principal creditors, the Chinese, are getting worried that we won’t be able to pay back our loans. But we will, of course, with dollars worth a fraction of their current value.
California can’t print money, but the Feds can.
/Mr Lynn
George Monbiot today attacking yet another defenseless older man with a series of falsehoods…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/16/monbiot-bellamy-climate-change-denier
Monbiot is actually claiming that Britain didn’t have more vineyards than it does today, that the MWP was cooler than present, that the LIA is disputable, etc
Why doesn’t Monbiot accept debate with a John Christy or someone of that caliber?
Here is another variation on carbon trading coming to the fore:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7942237.stm
An initiative called Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (Redd), which is likely to involve developed nations paying tropical forest-rich nations not to cut down trees, appears to be gaining support.
So your taxes go towards paying poor nations not to clear land for development purposes. What will tropic forest-rich nations use the money for if they can’t develop? Anything they can do with all that free money is going to result in some form of development that will have an impact, no matter how small, on their forests.
Or is this our way of saying, you can have fat bank accounts and come over to our countries for holidays, but don’t develop your countries at all?
********
Roger Sowell (08:02:37) :
The RPS (Renewable Portfolio Standard), which requires 20 percent of all electric power sales in California be from renewable sources by 12/31/2010, will also increase power costs to everyone.
********
From a transmission/distribution-system engineering viewpoint, this is actually impossible. Studies of Texas’ experience w/renewables, 6-10% of the total is about the practical limit & still being able to keep a stable transmission system.
The only way more renewables than that could be incorporated into the system is to abandon the idea of service being available at all times. A rationing/scheduling scheme would have to be adopted, and even then schedules couldn’t be maintained when the renewables quit suddenly — clouds over the sun and wind dying down.
A energy storage system would help, but so far no practical system has been built or demonstrated, other than the pumped-storage ones using dams/water, and building new lakes/cachements for them is “environmentally” impossible now, at least in the US.
@Mr. Lynn (04:23:00) :
“California can’t print money, but the Feds can.”
True in an absolute sense, but California cleverly developed a few ways around this. My adopted state (I’m a native Texan, held captive here but that is a long story and not for this blog) found that they could sell long-term bonds, obtain money now for those bonds, and pay them off using deflated dollars far in the future.
So, borrowing to finance a state budget deficit is almost the same as printing money. The bond rating agencies must be kept honest, and do a competent job of assessing the state’s ability to repay using expected future tax revenues.
California has tested those waters, and the result is the lousy bond ratings.
Another way that California simulates printing money is simply issuing IOUs! I have not seen the recent market values for trading IOUs, but at one time in the Wild West (1850? or thereabouts), people bought and sold IOUs, with the issuing person’s perceived ability to repay guiding the degree of discount.
None of these shenanigans are symptomatic of a healthy economy.
@Tom in Texas — re Texas’ fiscal health. One significant difference between the two states is that California has a vast majority of tax-and-spend members of the state legislature (assembly and senate in California). The state was just 3 votes shy of having the 2/3 majority (tax-and-spenders) required to pass a budget a few weeks ago. Texas is more like 50/50 at this time. Let us see how the budget deficit swells when Texas also has a 65/35 ratio of tax-and-spenders in Austin.
@beng (08:36:58) :
********
You are absolutely correct, sir, in every particular, except that Texas has different renewable resources compared to California. For wind and solar, which are highly intermittent, you are correct. However, California (not surprisingly!) has a different view of renewables.
Renewable energy in California includes wind, solar (PV and thermal, with or without storage), small hydro-electric, bio-mass, bio-gas, SWC (solid waste conversion), and geothermal. Of these, only wind and solar have the low availability and intermittency issues. The others are fairly reliable. Therefore, California’s current renewable energy contribution is much more reliable because wind is a small part, and solar is almost zero. That situation may change as the mix includes more solar and wind.
Given the above, California achieved 11.8 percent from renewables in 2007, the latest year for which figures are available. In 2008, it was likely around 13 percent. Again, this is because of the renewable energy mix of technologies.
see
http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/total_system_power.html