Guest post by Steven Goddard
Last week, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon warned that “polar ice caps were melting far faster than expected just two years ago“
This was based on a number of widely publicized scientific studies released this year claiming that both the Arctic and Antarctic are melting faster than expected.
As recently as last week, scientists were sounding the alarm.
Tues., April 28, 2009OSLO – The ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica have awakened and are melting faster than expected, a leading expert told peers ahead of a conference of ministers from nations with Arctic territory.Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, an expert with the Center for Ice and Climate at the University of Copenhagen, told the conference in the Arctic town of Tromsoe that the need for a wake-up call was genuine for the polar and glacial regions.
He apparently didn’t read this paper from last Autumn’s AGU Meeting
Ice loss in Greenland has had some climatologists speculating that global warming might have brought on a scary new regime of wildly heightened ice loss and an ever-faster rise in sea level. But glaciologists reported at the American Geophysical Union meeting that Greenland ice’s Armageddon has come to an end.
One has to wonder if some scientists are lacking access to the Internet, as the amount of polar sea ice on the planet is above the 30 year mean.
Yesterday, NSIDC announced that “Arctic sea ice extent at the end of April 2009 was within the expected range of natural variability.” and “The decline rate for the month of April was the third slowest on record“
The NSIDC graph below shows that April ice extent has actually increased by more than the size of Texas over past last two years. Clearly The UN Secretary General is mistaken when he claims “”polar ice caps were melting far faster than expected just two years ago.”
I took this graph a step further and compared 2009 vs. past years. Current April extent is the greatest in the last 8 years. It is greater than it was 20 years ago.
If you look at the last 20 years, there is no statistically significant trend in the data.
Arctic ice extent is essentially normal.
It is important to remember that ice area between mid-April and mid-August is what affects the earth’s climate, because that is when the sun is up highest in the sky. When the ice reaches it’s minimum in September, the sun is so low above the horizon that the presence or absence of ice has little impact on the earth’s SW radiation balance. A more complete explanation here .
Also, the claim of Polar Bear endangerment is based largely on the idea that the ice is supposedly breaking up earlier than it used to in the spring. The “third slowest melt on record” would hardly support that popular claim.
I continue to be astonished at the amount of misinformation being propagated by some scientists and governmental officials. The correct information is readily available to anyone who has access to Google and five minutes of time. What is the real agenda?
UAH has April at +0.09
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Dr Spencer says RSS satellite is undergoing a lot of “drift.”
George Bruce (09:40:00) : and others —
…. “What is the real agenda?” That is the real question. ….
If you haven’t found this paper (OK, “rant”) then those of you wondering how all this came about will want to read this:
UN Infects Science with Cancer of Global Warming
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EDBLICKRANT.pdf
[i] …how do these politicians plan to extract themselves from the backlash that is inevitable,
They will point out they were honest and sincere victims of advice that was was thought to be accurate at the time, but turned out to be erroneous.[/i]
Has anyone pondered what it will do to the general public perception of science if AGW turns out to be wrong? Several posters here suggest thet AGW proponents do so because of the money. I doubt it. The reputation of the scientists involved is at stake, and on top of that the credibility of science at large. These are very strong motives.
They want it to be true, admitting they are wrong is the worts defeat imaginable.
Tom Fuller (16:49:38) :
I saw the link to you page in another thread here. I live in the Bay Area. I was pleasantly (to put it mildly) surprised to see someone from the Bay Area whose columns didn’t fall in lock step with Al Gore. In fact, I can see you are disappointed with Al Gore. Sorry to hear you are for cap and trade though. Do you think the world needs more tax and regulation right now? Did you see Vaclav Klaus’ column on that? He sums up what I think. Since Vaclav Klaus is involved in politics it might give you the impression I like politics. But I’m don’t. I’m not a Republican. And I loathe politics. (I think it’s amusing how Bernie Goldberg sums up politics in America : “Crazies to the Left of me, wimps to the Right!”)
Here’s a link to the Vaclav Klaus column :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/may/01/vacla-klaus-emissions-economy
You might consider an interview with him, if he’s willing.
My last point to you : I am all for reducing pollution. But co2 is not a pollutant. I can’t see accomplishing one goal by making people think you are accomplishing another. After all, I just want truth. Richard Lindzen sums up very well in this video what I’m trying to say in this point :
P.S. I hope Anthony grants you an interview. HINT, HINT Anthony.
Green Carbon Neutral Expedition
“Their relief was tinged with a sense of irony as the rescue craft sent by Falmouth coastguard was the Overseas Yellowstone, a 113,000-tonne oil tanker.”
This is the sort of thing that makes me laugh in the most unlikely and embarrassing places – funeral, church, wedding, and so on. There are many sites using the phrase “You can’t make this stuff up!”
I wonder if the company will calculate how many CO2 credits they will have to buy to offset this rescue. And will they highlight that in their next carbon neutral brochure.
.
>>>Icecaps around the North and South Poles are melting
>>>faster than expected, raising sea levels as a result of
>>>climate change, a major scientific survey has shown.
I think you mean that sea-levels are falling….
http://www.john-daly.com/ges/images/stokholm.gif
The above is a record of sea-levels at Stockholm, which clearly shows falling sea levels.
.
Robert Bateman (20:44:54) : Let’s see what the Sea has to say.
At first this would seem to be much like the “How not to measure Temperature” series (click on Projects at the top of any WUWT page). Companies have made millions of $$ selling film to people headed to a beach somewhere. However, the complication is that the shore is a very dynamic and high energy environment. There are lots of changes – sometimes in a single storm event. Thus, some effort would have to be expended to document the changes you would see in historic photos and those taken now. Otherwise, a set of photos could easily be interpreted to show what the rising sea did, rather than what some external event did. For example there are spots on the Washington coast where trees were killed by salt water from a “tsunami” that originated near Japan. A report of the event was found tucked away in a Japanese library. Discovering these sorts of connections would be crucial to “Let’s see what the Sea has to say.” [I know – people moved weather stations around without documentation – so it is not all that different. ]
It’s naive to think that our politicians are only pushing the green agenda because of some real or imagined scientific consensus. Politicians are driven by ideology and are perfectly happy to go against science when it suits them – the recent flip-flopping in the UK over the classification of cannabis being a case in point.
Politicians are only using the claimed scientific consensus to push green policies because they had already decided that they wanted to push those policies, and of course there are many good political and economic reasons to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. There’s no reason to expect the policies to be dropped, even if the consensus weakens.
Likewise, the people who are most vocal in wanting to prevent ‘climate change’ are the same ones that had already decided that industry is bad even before the current fad.
Arn Riewe (18:43:17)
For a little inspiration, visit the late Michael Crichton’s website..
Thank you for that link. I was going to quote from it here, but the more I read, the more I wanted to include! We could use him now.
Smokey, your comment that “Instead, all the C&T and other costly proposals are left fully in place” is only too true.
Even income tax was originally a temporary measure (both in the UK and US), just like speed limits and anti-terrorist legislation, none of which ever seems to get repealed…
Smokey (11:03:34) :
. . . why promote RealClimate on the sidebar? Game theory says that quid pro quo is the successful strategy in situations like this.
Harry (11:09:42) :
I think it might be worth pointing out this webite and CA both link to “Real Climate” while the reverse cannot be said.
It’s a matter of having class, and how much you fear the other site’s message.
.
juandos (14:50:49) :
Just how much does this alleged ‘man made global weather change‘ is about real science and how much is it about governments lying to its citizens and reaching into the collective wallets to extort more taxes?
Observe ye these two facts, and come to enlightenment –
1. Every consequence of global warming is bad, and requires government intervention.
2. Every solution for global warming requires raising taxes.
kim (09:32:02) wrote: “We can start reminiscing about Michael Piltdown Mann, now.”
Wish I could come up with lines like that, Kim. Probably does not even need the “Michael”, just the extra “n” would do the trick. Between you and Steve McIntyre even the hockey is just shtick…
I notice that Dr Roy Spencer has now published the April global temperature on http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ at plus 0.09 degree C. It would appear that the slight downward trend is continuing. I wonder if anyone has any views on the relationship between this trend and the current slower melting of Arctic ice cover compared with previous years. I feel we are at a point where global temperatures can go either way and it is difficult to predict with a very high degree of certainty. The next few years will indeed be interesting particularly if the Sun remains quiet and global temperatures continue with the current slight decline combined with steady or growing ice cover around north and south poles. I am not a scientist but I must admit I follow these developments with great interest because of the stakes and they are high indeed.
John Peter (01:54:19) :
I notice that Dr Roy Spencer has now published the April global temperature on http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ at plus 0.09 degree C.
******************
Thank you Jon Peter,
This decrease in the global LT anom in the Spring seems to be the pattern for the past few years.
Bottom lime – No Net Warming since 1940 – one full PDO cycle, despite an 800% increase in humanmade CO2 emissions.
See the first graph at:
http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3774
If CO2 is really driving global warming, it’s running out of gas.
Regards, Allan
Excerpt:
And, Mr. Luntz and Mr. Perkowitz agree, “climate change” is an easier sell than “global warming.”
http://www.icecap.us
May 03, 2009
Seeking to Save the Planet, With a Thesaurus
By John M. Broder, New York Times
The problem with global warming, some environmentalists believe, is “global warming.” The term turns people off, fostering images of shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes, according to extensive polling and focus group sessions conducted by ecoAmerica, a nonprofit environmental marketing and messaging firm in Washington.
Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.” Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.” Don’t confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.”
EcoAmerica has been conducting research for the last several years to find new ways to frame environmental issues and so build public support for climate change legislation and other initiatives. A summary of the group’s latest findings and recommendations was accidentally sent by e-mail to a number of news organizations by someone who sat in this week on a briefing intended for government officials and environmental leaders.
Asked about the summary, ecoAmerica’s president and founder, Robert M. Perkowitz, requested that it not be reported until the formal release of the firm�s full paper later this month, but acknowledged that its wide distribution now made compliance with his request unlikely.
The research directly parallels marketing studies conducted by oil companies, utilities and coal mining concerns that are trying to “green” their images with consumers and sway public policy. Environmental issues consistently rate near the bottom of public worry, according to many public opinion polls. A Pew Research Center poll released in January found global warming last among 20 voter concerns; it trailed issues like addressing moral decline and decreasing the influence of lobbyists.
“We know why it’s lowest,” said Mr. Perkowitz, a marketer of outdoor clothing and home furnishings before he started ecoAmerica, whose activities are financed by corporations, foundations and individuals. “When someone thinks of global warming, they think of a politicized, polarized argument. When you say ‘global warming,’ a certain group of Americans think that’s a code word for progressive liberals, gay marriage and other such issues.”
The answer, Mr. Perkowitz said in his presentation at the briefing, is to reframe the issue using different language. “Energy efficiency” makes people think of shivering in the dark. Instead, it is more effective to speak of “saving money for a more prosperous future.” In fact, the group’s surveys and focus groups found, it is time to drop the term “the environment” and talk about “the air we breathe, the water our children drink.”
Frank Luntz, a Republican communications consultant, prepared a strikingly similar memorandum in 2002, telling his clients that they were losing the environmental debate and advising them to adjust their language. He suggested referring to themselves as “conservationists” rather than “environmentalists,” and emphasizing “common sense” over scientific argument. And, Mr. Luntz and Mr. Perkowitz agree, “climate change” is an easier sell than “global warming.”
*************************************
John Peter (01:54:19) :
“It would appear that the slight downward trend is continuing. I wonder if anyone has any views on the relationship between this trend…”
I don’t understand it. Maximal sea ice formation should correspond to maximal transfer of heat to the atmosphere. We should be seeing significant warming in polar air masses.
Reading between the lines I think you have already been a little tainted by the CAGW crowd. If it were just about the Science there should be no ‘de facto policy’.
The multiple references to politics, yours and ‘ours’, make me think that you haven’t really looked at the ‘skeptical’ position very closely. AGW shouldn’t be political policy it should be judged on the available scientific evidence and outside of computer models there is none. Hence the scepticism.
If this were a court case, apart from smearing the character of the defendant and defence witnesses , the prosecution has offered no evidence that convinces me. Worse still, while I’m on the trial analogy, the charges keep getting changed at hourly intervals to the extent that I couldn’t even tell you what the prosecution is charging any more.
As for ‘our’ politics I wouldn’t dream of speaking for other readers but being from the UK I support our welfare state and in particular the NHS which would make me a Communist to the US right. On the other hand I’m suspicious of big government, increased bureaucracy and anything that interferes with free enterprise and free trade. Which would probably qualify me for free lifetime membership of the Republican party. The point is that Satellite data doesn’t care about my politics, the Tropospheric hot spot doesn’t care and neither does Polar ice. Frankly my scepticism comes from watching years of the CAGW ‘whack a mole’ game.
If you want a good clear (sceptical) starting point then there is a concise and up to date itemized list. All of it is interesting but much is Monkton having to play ‘whack a mole’ with the alarmists (Polar Bears, Hurricanes, disease …..). A distraction. The key points, I feel, are in red flags 1, 10, 20, 25 and 29.
On the upside, as a journalist, you are unlikely to run short of ‘alarms’ in the near future. As I posted on another thread, ever since we saw the first picture of our planet from space, the big picture, all data has become anomalous. Uncharted territory. Many people just have a pathological need for an impending disaster and any sign or portent will do. This need has been exploited in scandalous ways throughout history, CAGW being just the latest.
.
>>of course there are many good political and
>>economic reasons to reduce our reliance on
>>fossil fuels.
Not if you replace them with renewables. Not only are renewables generally two or three times as expensive as fossil fuels, you still have to keep the fossil-fueled infrastructure for the days when renewables simply do not work.
.
New global temperature graph.
I like this quote:
Quote:
The smooth curve in the graph … smooths out the … variability in the data and helps reveal the underlying ‘trends’. (There is no claim that this curve has any predictive power for the coming months or years.)
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Either is shows a trend or it does not. The reason that they don’t want to acknowledge any predictivity in the graph, is that the trend is looking decidedly cooler.
.
the north pole is tilted closer to the sun than usual. you couldn’t do anything if you tried. chill.
propernoise.wordpress.com
maduniversal.wordpress.com
thatshaute.wordpress.com
2 years warming and global warming is over? well, ok, guess an alternative view wouldnt be scientific
Mike Bryant (16:39:49) :
WestHoustonGeo (18:29:08)
Yes, disappointing and illustrative of the group think if true.
Another defection? I think this has been doing the rounds but summarised succinctly in this report.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/06/mike_hulme_interview/
Top British boffin: Time to ditch the climate consensus
Don’t use science to get round politics, says Hulme
By Stuart Blackman • Get more from this author
Posted in Environment, 6th May 2009 12:02 GMT
Interview Just two years ago, Mike Hulme would have been about the last person you’d expect to hear criticising conventional climate change wisdom. Back then, he was the founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, an organisation so revered by environmentalists that it could be mistaken for the academic wing of the green movement. Since leaving Tyndall – and as we found out in a telephone interview – he has come out of the climate change closet as an outspoken critic of such sacred cows as the UN’s IPCC, the “consensus”, the over-emphasis on scientific evidence in political debates about climate change, and to defend the rights of so-called “deniers” to contribute to those debates.
As Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia, Hulme remains one of the UK’s most distinguished and high-profile climate scientists. In his new book, Why We Disagree About Climate Change, he explores how the issue of climate change has come to be such a dominant issue in modern politics. He treats climate change not as a problem that we need to solve – indeed, he believes that the complexity of the issue means that it cannot be solved, only lived with – and instead considers it as much of a cultural idea as a physical phenomenon.”
Perhaps the most surprising thing to hear from a climate scientist writing about climate change is that climate science has for too long had the monopoly in climate change debates. When we spoke to him on the phone, Hulme cited as evidence the 2007 protests against Heathrow’s third runway, where marchers made their case by waving a research paper at the TV cameras under a banner bearing the slogan “We are armed only with peer reviewed science”. [The paper wasn’t actually peer-reviewed science – see Bootnote]
“To me, that’s the most dispiriting position,” says Hulme. “For these people who feel so passionately about this, their ultimate authority is a report from a group of scientists, and they’re saying ‘this is where we stand, forget about our moral concerns, forget about our ethical positions, forget about whether we are Right, Left or centre, forget about whether we are Christians or Buddists, no, none of that matters.’ The only thing that matters is that they’re holding a report from peer-reviewed science that in itself justifies their position.”
“To hide behind the dubious precision of scientific numbers, and not actually expose one’s own ideologies or beliefs or values and judgements is undermining both politics and science”
And it’s not just protesters who are hiding behind the authority of science. World leaders are doing it, too.
Much more at the link given above and the related links are also of interest. The Register or “El Reg” as it is affectionately known to its patrons has previously also given space to Steven Goddard of these parts. 🙂
Ralph Ellis (00:30:27)
You don’t have to go as far as Stockholm to find falling sea levels. I’ve seen somewhere that, of the six or so United States’s sea level gauges; the one in Sitka, Alaska, is falling.
It is appaling to read such comments. The USA seem to be obsessed with denying the obvious fact that we are experiencing man-made global warming. To say the contrary is wrong, no matter how often it is repeated.
How does a blogger know about the polar ice caps by just sitting in front of a monitor. Get serious. Scientist have conducted research for decades and facts are simply clear. Ecology is not domestic US politics, you can write what you like about your administration.
If you want to state that the moon is rectangular, that evolution does not exist etc, fine. But there are so many proofs that sea level is rising by 1 mm a year, Tuvalu is being submerged etc that discussion must concentrate on what to do against global warming. That is the point.
MODERATOR NOTE: readers, troll alert.
Global warming has stopped, or at least taken a break. Still, it is apparentliy able to melt ice in such a rate that the ice cover increases. Global warming must be magic!