Guest Post by Steven Goddard
Last weeks’ top Antarctic AGW story was :
due to CO2, of course.
This week the #1 story is :
but the increase in size is due to “stratospheric ozone depletion” which is of course also caused by man-made gases.
So Antarctic ice is disappearing faster than expected due to man, and it is also expanding in size due to man. Meanwhile, the early autumn temperature in Vostok, Antarctica is a toasty -95F, a nice warm up from the -104F temperatures earlier this week.
Oh, and one minor problem with the ozone hole theory “The ozone hole occurs during the Antarctic spring, from September to early December” – but the positive ice anomaly occurred during the autumn and winter (March through July) as represented by the red line below.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg
And while the ozone hole was present, ice was normal. So the ice excess probably has nothing to do with the ozone hole.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/polar.shtml
The AGW standard for broad acceptance of new theories seems to be “not completely implausible – if you avoid actually looking at the body of data or what you might have said last week.“
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You can see what part of the year the Antarctic ice extent is increasing through these two charts.
September anomalies trend.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Sep/S_09_plot.png
March anomalies trend.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Mar/S_03_plot.png
This is what happens when everything can be laid at the feet of AGW.
Pretty soon, all sorts of contradictory things are a result of the same thing.
Ice increase=AGW
Ice decrease=AGW
More hurricanes=AGW
Less hurricanes=AGW
More snow=AGW
Less snow=AGW
Fortunately, there is a Computer Model for every iteration and possible scenario.
If they’re not cooking the books, they’re spinning the facts.
And of course, it is the minor trace gas CO2 that causes the AGW.
That’s why the alarmists can not let go of CO2, despite the clear lack of causation.
AGW is like BEER… It’s the cause of, and the solution to, all of mankind’s problems.
-Homer Simpson (except for the “AGW is like” part)
I remember during the Clinton Gore campaign the quote: “Everything that should be up is down and everything that should be down is up”.
This applies here.
And notice the solution is always more government in some way. New programs, new regulation, more spending.
During the boom times we could afford to spend so government expands. When the economy contracts the government has to spend because “no one is will” so government expands. When the AGW crowd manages to get enough politicians onboard to further the climate hysteria, government expands.
I’m beginning to notice a pattern here!
Based on climate models, ozone forcing should cause no change in polar lower troposphere temperature:
http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/hot-spot/Fingerprints%20of%20warming%20v5%20flat.jpg
Latest experiment by NASA has also found, that speed of the chemical reaction between the freon molecules with ozone in simulated “real” conditions is by magnitude lower than expected. A bit humble conclusion was “we do not have mechanism for some 60% of the ozone depletion”. This freon-ozone chemistry was much simpler than climatic stuff and still “science is not settled”.
I have my own model to predict what the AGWholics will do next…
It is shaped like a little cube and has dots on each face (i.e. 1, 2, 3, etc). In order to do the right prediction of how many degrees the earth will warm up in the next few years, you throw the little cube in the air and wait until it stops once on the table (or ground, or whatever horizontal flat surface). The you count the number of dots facing the face facing up, et voila! You now have a number with high confidence of the temperature rise.
That is certainly a robust method. And a good proxy for their approach.
Hey! Let’s give Julienne Stroeve some respect here! (weeks #1 story)
What’s not to believe when dealing with concise, articulate comments (spin) like this:
” . . . but there’s regional differences that are quite different from different regions and we have to deal with what we know about . . .”
Pathetic.
They could be arguing that the Ozone Hole increases the polar vortex year-round so that there is less melting in the sea ice minimum period (February-March) but there is no increase during the sea ice maximum period (September) since the ice extends well beyond the vortex at that time of year.
But if the polar vortex has increased since the Ozone Hole formed (didn’t really get going till around 1980) then it should have expanded to cover the Antarctic Peninsula as well and we shouldn’t have seen increased warming and increased ice-shelf melt in the Peninsula (which is just at the edge – sometimes in – sometimes outside of the vortex).
Ozone Hole trend since 1979.
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/statistics/meteorology_annual.png
“So Antarctic ice is disappearing faster than expected due to man, and it is also expanding in size due to man.”
What if everything stayed the same? Nothing changed?
It would be really weird for them to blame mankind for that?
I feel like I’d have to agree with them.
What a twist.
I guess they’d be warning of dire consequences of no change?
The AGW crusade has the world so screwed up I can’t tell whether to laugh or cry. I tried doing both at the same time but I felt nuts.
Good topic, as I am reading the April 4 edition of New Scientist,in particular an article ‘Fuming-Is the anti-smoking lobby going too far’ in which the medical science of second hand and third hand(lingering smoke particles) smoke is departing from extremist attitudes……..sound familiar?
Meanwhile in the same edition,the esteemed Editor reviewed two books,one on the Natural History of Unicorns and another on the life and times of Bigfoot. Nothing to do with AGW I would have thought….but wait. It appears that belief in Bigfoot dwells in ‘white working class men’ that hunt and ‘the hunters desire to be scientific while simultaneously disparaging the scientific establishment makes for thought provoking reading:there are obvious parallels with the attitudes of intelligent design enthusiasts and climate change sceptics’.
So scepticism is a cultural attitude rather than a scientific position. How on earth do you counter that typecasting?
F. Scott Fitzgerald said that “the true test of a first-rate mind is the ability to hold two contradictory ideas at the same time.”
I think that F. Scott may have been right if he was talking about the creative mind. In fact the creative mind probably can hold even more than two or three contradictory ideas. But I don’t want a novelist, or an actor, or an artist or any person of a creative bent handling scientific enquiry, data or other real things like my money.
I guess that’s why there is such a gulf between the liberal arts and the hard sciences. Sadly, it seems that the gulf has frozen over and the creatives have skated into a new and exciting universe where they believe anything is possible…
Cognitive dissonance is expected when paradigms shatter. What saddens me is that this hoax of exquisite climate sensitivity to CO2 couldn’t be repudiated by honest science, without a perilous period of cooling intervening. Why, oh why has science been so inadequate to the task good policy demands of it? We need to answer that question, and soon, because climate isn’t going to be the only example of science becoming perverted.
======================================
The Global Warming Emperor is beyond naked . . .more like a porn star.
I’m waiting for the press release that says “Temperatures have been dangerously close to average this year. Man made global warming may be to blame.”
Based on ERSSST.v3b data, the majority of the Southern Ocean appears to have a ~100 year cycle.
http://i41.tinypic.com/qsjwwp.jpg
The portion of the Southern Ocean south of the Southeast Pacific (red curve) represents about 20% and is impacted by ENSO. The remaining 80% (green curve) has what appears to be a long cycle.
Somewhat on topic, the SSTs of the Southern Ocean surrounding the Wilkins Ice Shelf has a negative trend for the past 150+ years.
http://i44.tinypic.com/a331xv.jpg
The rest of that post on the ERSST.v3b data of the Southern Ocean is here:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/04/closer-look-at-ersstv3b-southern-ocean.html
Regards
“Antarctic ice is disappearing faster than expected due to man, and it is also expanding in size due to man.”
So that could equal something close to zero net effect… just like it was thousands and millions of years ago.
So, they have found the solution… emit more CO2 to get more snow and emit more CFCs to get less ozone. Why are we cutting emissions again?
Here is a good advice:
Ignore the press! Why? Because all the evil and disasters that would happen to man kind predicted thirty years ago, did not happen.
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/earth-day-predictions-of-1970-the-reason-you-should-not-believe-earth-day-predictions-of-2009
Mike Bryant (16:32:19), that is a thoughtful quote but new ideas in science have to come from somewhere and I guess that distillation of ideas collected in ones scientific study could be called creativity.
Think of Henrik Svensmark’s creative leap after years of data observation to form an hypothesis connecting TSI, cosmic rays and cloud formation.
Acceptance of new ideas comes later after multiple testing, peer approval and the passage of time, but the seed is creativity.
Off topic and at the other end, but has anyone looked at the “tale of the tape” recently?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg
Is that a tipping point I see? Is it just a matter of time before something is said about pollution causing more ice in the Arctic as well?
kim (16:39:41) :
“Cognitive dissonance is expected when paradigms shatter. What saddens me is that this hoax of exquisite climate sensitivity to CO2 couldn’t be repudiated by honest science, without a perilous period of cooling intervening. Why, oh why has science been so inadequate to the task good policy demands of it? We need to answer that question, and soon, because climate isn’t going to be the only example of science becoming perverted.”
Actually, Eisenhower warned us in his last speech about the dangers of the MIC which most people remember, but he also he warned us in the same speech about the danger of government funding of science which was increasing and could result in the perversion of science you now see. DDT, CFC’s, AGW are all examples of promoting unwarranted fears to regulate beneficial products or emissions. Peak Oil, Vaccine safety, GM food safety, etc., are examples where government funding of research controlled by regulators who have a conflict of interest and are pro-industry help promote that which is harmful to people.
It all leads to more government control, and lower living standards, and what will soon be shorter life expectancy rates, and fewer social security checks.
Anyways, George Orwell says hi. Winston says the memory hole is filling up and he is working way too much and Big Brother won’t let him retire, since if you don’t work, you won’t eat.
I had totally forgotten about the ozone hole! It’s so 1980ish. Well time to revive it! And here to think that there was a time when I actually built ozone generators (for water treatment)