A Guest Post by Basil Copeland
Like many of Anthony’s readers here on WUWT, I’ve been riveted by all the revelations and ongoing discussion and analysis of the CRUtape Letters™ (with appropriate props to WUWT’s “ctm”). It might be hard to imagine that anyone could add to what has already been said, but I am going to try. It might also come as a surprise, to those who reckon me for a skeptic, that I do not think that anything was revealed that suggests that the global temperature data set maintained by CRU was irreparably damaged by these revelations. We’ve known all along that the data may be biased by poor siting issues, handling of station dropout, or inadequate treatment of UHI effects. But nothing was revealed that suggests that the global temperature data sets are completely bogus, or unreliable.
I will return to the figure at the top of this post below, but I want to introduce another figure to illustrate the previous assertion:
This figure plots smoothed seasonal differences (year to year differences in monthly anomalies) for the four major global temperature data sets: HadCRUT, GISS, UAH and RSS. With the exception of the starting months of the satellite era (UAH and RSS), and to a lesser degree the starting months of GISS, there is remarkable agreement between the four data sets – where they overlap – especially with respect to the cyclical pattern of natural climate variation. This coherence gives me confidence that while there may be problems with the land-sea data sets, they accurately reflect the general course of natural climate variation over the period for which we have instrumental data. While we need to continue to insist upon open access to the data and methods used to chronicle global and regional climate variation, and refine the process to remove the biases which may be present from trying to make the data fit the narrative of CO2 induced global warming, it would be wrong to conclude that the “CRUtape Letters” prove that global warming does not exist. That has never really been the issue. The issue has been the extent of warming (have the data been distorted in a way that would overstate the degree of warming?), the extent to which it is the result of natural climate variation (as opposed to human influences), and the extent to which it owes to human influences other than the burning of fossil fuels (such as land use/land cover changes, urban heat islands, etc.). And flowing from this, the issue has been whether we really know enough to justify the kind of massive government programs said to be necessary to forestall climate catastrophe.
Figure 2 plots the composite smooth against the backdrop of the monthly seasonal differences of the four global temperature data sets:
Many readers may recognize the familiar episodes of warming and cooling associated with ENSO and volcanic activity in the preceding figure. With a little more smoothing, we get a pattern like that depicted in Figure 3, which other readers may notice looks a lot like the cycles that Anthony and I have attributed to lunar and solar influences (they are the same):
In either case, the thing to note is that over time climate goes through repetitive episodes of warming and cooling. You have to look closely on Figures 2 and 3 – it is much clearer in Figure 1 – but episodes of warming exist when the smooth is above zero, and cooling episodes exist when the smooth is below zero. Remember, by design, the smooth is not a plot of the temperature itself, but of the trend in the temperature, i.e. the year to year change in monthly temperatures. The intent is to demonstrate and delineate the range of natural climate variation in global temperatures. It shows, in effect, the trend in the trend – up and down over time, with natural regularity, while perhaps also trending generally upward over time.
Which brings us to Figure 1. Here we are focusing in on the last 30 years, and a forecast to 2050 derived by a simple linear regression through the (composite) smooth of Figure 3. (Standard errors have been adjusted for serial correlation.) There has been an upward trend in the global temperature trend, and when this is projected out to 2050, the average is 0.114°C per decade ± 0.440°C per decade. Yes, you read that right: ± 0.440°C per decade. Broad enough to include both the worst imaginations of the IPCC and the CRU crowd, as well as negative growth rates, i.e. global cooling. Because if the truth be told, natural climate variation is so – well, variable – that no one can say with any kind of certainty what the future holds with respect to climate change. Be skeptical of any statistical claims to the contrary.
I think we can say, however, with reasonable certainty, that earth’s climate will remain variable, and that this will frustrate the effort to blame climate change on CO2 induced AGW. Noted on the image at the top of this post is a quote from Kevin Trenberth from the CRUtape Letters™: “The fact is that we cannot account for the lack of warmth at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t.” Trenberth betrays a subtle bias here – he cannot acknowledge the recent period of global cooling. It is, rather, “a lack of warmth.” But he is right that it is a “travesty” that we cannot fully account for the ebb and flow of earth’s energy balance, and ultimately, climate change. I think Trenberth just sees it as a lack of monitoring methods or devices. But I think there still remains a considerable lack of knowledge, or understanding, about the mechanics of natural climate variation. If you look carefully at Figure 1, you will notice that there seem to be upper and lower limits to the range of natural climate variability. On the scale depicted in Figure 1 (the scale is different with other degrees of smoothing), when warming reaches a limit of approximately 0.08-0.10°C per year, the warming slows down, and eventually a period of cooling takes place, always with the space of just a few years. Homeostasis, anyone? While phenomenon like ENSO are the effect of this regularity in natural climate variation, they are not the cause of it.
In my opinion, what is the real travesty of the global warming ideology is the hijacking of climate science in the service of a research agenda that has prevented science from investigating the full range of natural climate variation, because that would be an inconvenient truth. We see this, quite clearly, in the CRUtape Letters™ where the Medieval Warm Period is just “putative,” and a rather inconvenient truth that needs to be suppressed. Or the “1940’s blip” that implies that global temperatures increased just as rapidly in the early part of the 20th Century, as they did at the end of the 20th Century, an inconvenient truth at odds with the narrative preferred by the IPCC.
It is a truism that “climate varies on all time scales.” With respect to the variability demonstrated here, I’m convinced that someday it will be acknowledged that variability on this scale is dominated by lunar and solar influences. On longer scales, such as the ebb and flow from the Medieval Warm Period, through the Little Ice Age, and now into the “Modern Warm Period,” I do not think climate science yet has any real understanding of the underlying causes of such climate change. If we are, as seems possible, on the verge of a Dalton or Maunder type minimum in solar activity, we may eventually have an answer to whether solar activity can account for centennial scale changes in earth’s climate. And I do think it is reasonable to conclude, at the margin, that human activity has had some influence. It is hard to imagine population growing from one to six billion over the past one and a half centuries without some effect. Most likely, the effect is on local and regional scales, but this might add up to a discernible impact on global temperature. But until all of the forces that determine the full range of natural climate variability are understood better than they are now, there is no scientific justification for the massive overhaul of economic and government structures being promoted under the guise of climate change, or global warming.
Increase of a degree or less globally is meaningless. We can all cope with that or delight in it. That is why the Global Warming industry have had to extrapolate way beyond that in order to ramp up the scare factor. They have done this in two ways:
1. Attempting to ‘credit’ Global warming with any sort of bad weather anywhere or anywhen. Every time there is a flood, drought, hurricane etc the response is Global warming…global warming… you ain’t seen nothing yet… global warming. This actually has worked as evidenced on last week’s BBC question time when a lady in the audience asked along the lines if Global Warming is rubbish then why have there been these floods in Cumbria! Lady politician (Scotland 2nd Minister no less) agreed that there was something wrong with the weather… That’s when I turned off.
2. Claiming that warming will be much worse at the poles, sea level will rise, there will be floods. This has worked as well. As can be seen in many forums, a common response from a general public believer is along the lines of if there is no Global Warming then why are the ice caps melting. It is now popular wisdom that the icecaps are melting. Cue pictures of large chunks of ice falling off the end of a glacier. Cue cute polar bear pictures…
We should certainly beware ice caps melting because even though Arctic Ice does not affect sea level it strongly affects public opinion. And to be fair we should keep an eye on polar ice as a matter of sensible precaution. But if those who think we are in for a period of cooling are right then we should make sure the public are aware of it if ice cover increases.
Just wanted to let you all know, In Australia there has just been a change of leader in the Opposition party with the new leader definately against our cap and trade legisltation. let the change roll on globally.
In case you’re interested, Tony Abbott is now the head of the Lib Dems in Australia. They’re saying it means the party will be destroyed in the next election–but for now it means NO ETS!!! Live blogging at The Australian site.
O.T.
Just in from Australia:
TONY Abbott has secured the Liberal leadership in a knife edge three way tussle but the fate of Labor’s emissions trading scheme is still not clear.
While Mr Abbott has pledged to deliver an anti-ETS policy as a condition of his leadership, up to eight Liberal MPs are threatening to cross the floor and vote with Labor.
Kevin Rudd only needs seven Liberal MPs to vote for an ETS in the Senate and it will become law.
“Because if the truth be told, natural climate variation is so – well, variable – that no one can say with any kind of certainty what the future holds with respect to climate change. Be skeptical of any statistical claims to the contrary.”
This says it all for me.
A lot of environmentalist, in their zeal to save mother earth, resort to scare tactics in order to change human behavior. My high school science teacher did back in 1973 when he announced, with the utmost certainty, that the planet would die out within 30 years. This was based on the predictions of leading environmentalists at the time (read the speeches from the first Earth Day for a sample).
For most of my classmates, it didn’t change our behavior but it did scare the hell out of us. We questioned why we should bother going to college, even graduate high school. Sadly I now see this same concern with my children’s classmates.
The one thing from the FOIA that scared me the most was the .pdf “Rules of the Game”.
TonyB (13:39:54) :
Yep I am aware of the Greek myth… which must be a myth, because they claim melting of the wax on the wings because he flew too close to the sun. Obviously the writer had never hiked up any big hills in his life, or he might have noticed the temperature drop with altitude. I mean, exactly how high was this lad flying?
PLEASE: If any body cuts and pastes these links anywhere else.
PLEASE: keep them all together and this message: it includes pro AGW articles a s well
Hi
Please Create a topic for this post: I believe it is a as fair as possible quick summary representation of the mainstream media, in the UK, and ALSO has links to the MOST pro AGW main stream newspaper in the UK (if not Europe)as well.
The Telegraph: and for balance the Guardian: – (and I do give credit to George Monbiot)
ie If a non-regular passer by, and see these links. (keep updating new ones with the current dates
Then the story is in the real world, not just lots of crazy sceptics sites..
At least they will see that the Story about the story is being covered somewhere in the MSM,
especially important as it is in the UK, where the CRU is,
The Telegraph have reported this pretty impartially to start with, and then with increasing annoyance at the other mainstream media (lack of) actions. (LOOK at their comments sections)
The Guardian is VERY pro AGW and Copenhagen. (and they have taken flack because of it)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100018034/climategate-e-mails-sweep-america-may-scuttle-barack-obamas-cap-and-trade-laws/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018192/climategate-the-ipcc-is-over-says-uea-climate-scientist/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018236/climategate-the-conservative-backlash-begins/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018246/climategate-how-the-greatest-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation-got-its-name/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018263/climategate-googlegate/
the Guardian Is VERY pro AGW – BUT they ARE reporting the story, so they must be due a lot of credit (you can see it is painful for them)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/27/climate-email-hackers-access-month
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/23/global-warming-leaked-email-climate-scientists
Couple more from the Dail Mail (the first may be of particular interest)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230943/Climate-change-scandal-BBC-expert-sent-cover-emails-month-public.html
this next blog may have been the cause of your miracle.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/10/whatever-happened-to-global-wa.shtml
as the blogger (a bbc reporter says he recieved emails in OCTOBER, search the leaked emails for bbc and Paul Hudson)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-cru-hacked-into-an.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-what-next.shtml
See what happens (or not) when you search for Climate gate, or Climate Scandal on the main http://www.bbc.co.uk website
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230635/Scientist-climate-change-cover-storm-told-quit.html
A bit late to the party.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936289.ece
Very interesting post. Once again WUWT leads the way!
Woohoo! Tony Abbot (the anit-EST – Cap & Trade) candidate has just been elected leader of the Australian opposition on the promise to delay and/or reject the legislation in the senate.
Tenuc (13:19:46) : Temperature is a poor proxy for the myriad of energy transfer mechanism that comprise the Earth’s chaotic climate system [] I think the quote from Kevin Trenberth in the hacked CRU Letters, “The fact is that we cannot account for the lack of warmth at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t.” is revealing. It shows the frustration the guy is feeling, that after spending god knows how much money on climate science the scientists involved still don’t have a clue.
So well formulated and accurate – this should have been my comment… 🙂
The main problem is that the climate models fail. I think I know one reason why; in order to tune a nonlinear fluid flow model with experiments, you need to do a lot of experiments, over and over again. This is fine tuning, and I have been involved in tuning a most complicated multiphase flow model, so I know that you’ll need thousands of independent experiments to validate and verify a model. For our climate with transients over decades, it will thus at least take 1000 ∙ 10 y = 10 000 years to fine tune a climate model. Without fine tuning, the model will fail, over and over again. Possibly the climate forecast for the 10 years from 12010 to 12020 could be quite accurate… 🙂
You say
“There has been an upward trend in the global temperature trend, and when this is projected out to 2050, the average is 0.114°C per decade ± 0.440°C per decade.”
Question : Why project out to 2050? Surely it is sufficient to calculate the trend in the available data. Projection simply introduces uncertainty.
Question : Have you examined whether there is a trend difference between satellite and surface temperatures over the common period? If so, have you considered the possibility that the difference may be an indication of the extent to which surface temperatures have been manually adjusted or are inaccurate (eg. badly sited stations)? I ask this question particularly because I have plotted satellite and surface tropical temperatures from UAH and CRU (1980-2009), and the surface warmed by noticeably more than the troposphere over that period. It was also very noticeable that briefly during El Ninos the opposite applied – the troposphere warmed more during El Ninos then dropped back below the surface temperature again.
Basil: “I think Trenberth just sees it as a lack of monitoring methods or devices.”
Trenberth’s articles suggest he understands that natural variation is complex. (I don’t necessarily see Trenberth & Meehl as ‘bad guys’… no further comment…)
Basil: “But I think there still remains a considerable lack of knowledge, or understanding, about the mechanics of natural climate variation.”
You could drop “But I think” and change “considerable” to “staggering”.
Basil: “± 0.440°C per decade”
I reject the assumptions upon which this estimate is based. (Note: This does not affect the key points & major theme of Basil’s article.)
Thank You:
This article is a breath of fresh air (after the pattern of the last week). Judge Basil has laid down a judgement that accurately hits several important points. When this thread starts to settle down (politically), I imagine we’ll get refocused on discussing natural variations. I have some fresh notes I might share…
Icarus, so the climate has been warming at 0.2C per decade for the last few decades. Even if that were true, and it isn’t, so what? When it was cooling for a few decades in the 50s’ and 60s’ “scientists” told us a new ice age might happen. The data is rubbish, the “adjusted” data is corrupt and there is no long term global warming or cooling sufficient to cause a threat.
Slamdunk (13:23:16) :
“Could we please change it to the “SCRUtape letters.””
Clever.
“Its going to take some time for the ‘temperature to cool’ so to speak. Meanwhile it will cost a fortune.”
Not necessarily. Give Climategate awhile to sink in, and for additional dirty laundcry to come to light, and for additional scientists to weigh in against the consensus. The pendulum of alarmism has reached its apogee and is poised to swing the other way. Copenhagen is a dead man walking.
There is no chance now that the US will pass any major carbon tax without a lot of hearings and scientific investigations first that produce findings supporting alarmism–and that is impossible, if neutral scientists oversee the process, similar to the Wegman investigation.
And if the US won’t get on board, neither will China and India. So the only money lost will be in Europe, similar to what happened post-Kyoto.
basil – if you look at the thread relating to the exchange between Phil Jones and the Swedish professor Karten, you will see that what CRU did with the data was to interpolate and adjust such that it bore no relation to the actual Fennoscandinavia station data – and that region has a good set of data, and he could not give Karten a straight answer as to why not – not only could he not explain WHAT data he had used, he could not explain the adjustment process either.
I expect the same inexplicable process has occurred for all the other regions- producing the regional graphs for the IPCC 4th meeting that all then showed a mini version of the hockey stick.
I have a particular interest in the Arctic data sets – the station data for 30+ sites from Alaska through Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Norway and Russia – in 2004 I could find only one data set that showed higher levels than in 1940, and by 2007, about half of the stations had peaked at about the same level or slightly higher than 1940 and in 2009, all showed a recent decline – the centennial graph looked like a two-humped camel and nothing like a hockey-stick. Unable to find the ‘warming’ I assumed that CRU had a better scientific method of dealing with interpolation (vast areas with no stations), anomalies, etc etc. I trusted that at the very least the data sets were basically sound – it was the interpretation of causation that was at fault.
Now I no longer have such faith. The climate-gate emails are damning on many levels but represent an all-pervading corruption of the processes of science – not just of peer-review, but of data handling and the role of critics (all scientists should be sceptics!).
Somebody asked about what all this means for the CO2 issue and has anyone got a handle on whether it is 5 or 10 or 50% of the warming. I have published an in-depth review of this issue (Chill: a reassessment of global warming theory) – I went to the surface radiation data provided by NASA – there you will find that for the whole of the period 1980-2000, there was an excess of Short Wave (visible light) radiation to the surface of the Earth (70% ocean). The computed Infra Red effect from CO2 is about 1/5th the radiative forcing from this warming power. That is to say – the potential carbon dioxide effect (computed – it cannot be measured because the natural IR flux from cloud is so variable) is 20% maximum. This can also be confirmed from another data set looking at the albedo changes of the Earth from cloud cover. Over the same period, cloud thinned by 4% – that is what let the warming light through.
This warmth is absorbed by the top 200-300m of the ocean (land cannot store it) and is released slowly over decades and in a complex pattern of cycles, slightly different for each ocean basin. Thus there is a time lag.
The crucial question then is – what causes the clouds to thin and allow the light in. (note: sunlight itself – the only significant source of heat, does not vary very much over time – not enough to explain the cycles).
If you look behind the scenes at NASA, for example – and search out their newsletter (http://eospo.gsfc.nasa.gov/eos_observ/pdf/Jan_Feb08.pdf)
you will find a truthful asssessment by Takmeng Wong, their foremost surface radiation budget specialist, where he admits that from the data it is impossible to tell whether the clouds are thinning naturally and driving the warming, or a result of the GHG gas effect warming the oceans (feedback) –
of course – it could be BOTH, but the key is in what happens to the data from 2000 onwards – clouds shift upward by 2% and the surface input falls. A new cycle has kicked in – ‘natural variability’ dominates the ‘warming’.
If you then look at ocean heat storage data you will see that heat storage levels off around 2002-2003 (as does sea-level rise). This is all in my book.
Further comment on the climategate files. It is disturbing that a specialist of Trenberth’s position as a key man at the IPCC has no clue about why the warming has ceased and even less about the 1920-1940 rise that they tried to eliminate from the record. The data is entirely conisistent not with El Nino – as so often mentioned, but the northern pacific PDO cycle (which effects the amplitude of the ENSO) and a similar multi-decadal cycle in the Atlantic. This is oceanography – and there are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers on this issue. Thus, NCAR may not be able to explain it – but climatology certainly can!
And if one extrapolates from the oceanography – as I have done, you can predict that the Arctic ice starts to come back (2008,2009) the Pacific cools further, the Atlantic also begins to cool……
Now to causes – people ask about cosmic rays – I think they do contribute to the natural pattern, but I think the main driver will prove to be the UV component of solar variability coupled to the magnetic field – through a complex interaction in the Arctic this affects the spatial patterning of atmospheric pressure systems, clouds, ocean heat storage and ocean heat loss. (The IPCC knows this behind the scenes – and this is why they state the warming is very unlikely to be ‘due to KNOWN natural causes acting alone’ – of course, nobody said that was likely – and they regard the UV/magnetics/cosmic ray science – with dozens of papers published and a fullscale CERN/European Space Agency programme underway) as not ‘known’ natural causes – they are covering their collective ass!
If as I suspect it is 80% or more natural – then halving the human CO2 component (and 75% of that is industrial, 25% forest changes) will affect at most about 8% of the driving force – for a cost – if you believe Stern, of 2% of global GDP per annum -which is about $1.5 trillion – the same amount as the rescue package for global banks EVERY year for the next 50 years (he is apparently a respected economist) and with no discernible effect on the climate in the next 100 years!
BUT – I do not argue that this then legitimises the current world development model with business as usual – NATURAL climate change can be dangerous and human support systems are very vulnerable to COOLING (Maunder Minimum effects are concentrated in the northern hemisphere which currently produces a surplus in food that feeds 67 countries in food deficit) – we need a big humanitarian effort to create resilient ecosystems – and that will cost perhaps $100 billion annually. This message gets lost (or deliberately suppressed).
Peter Plail (13:53:15) :
“Icarus, please keep posting here. I just love it when your posts are torn to shreds.”
Good point.
It is instructional to see how his comments are torn to shreds.
google.com
Results 1 – 10 of about 107,000,000 for climategate. (0.07 seconds)
107,000,000 hits?
OT Tony Abbott, CLimate skeptic new leader of the Opposition in Australia – next step is to stop ETS
http://www.twawki.com
This data are not enough to show Earth Temperature History with a good error margin.
Most of Africa,Latin America, and all Sea “only” 70% of Earth are heavily sub-represented in that data. The majority of Earth is not there.
OT-thought this article might interest:
Climate Dementors are not only determined to scare us witless about an imagined impending climate catastrophe, they also want to suck all the joy and happiness out of our lives in the process.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2747744.htm
Fantastic ! Good on ya Tony Abbot !!
The 1998 Briffa paper makes very interesting reading. Have a look at page 5 and the attemted explanation for the divergence between Hadcrut temperatures and tree ring data showing falling temps after 1940-1960.
http://eas8001.eas.gatech.edu/papers/Briffa_et_al_PTRS_98.pdf
He claims ” the cause (of the decline) is not understood ” . He suggests:
” increasing atmospheric CO2″ … I think that would cause more growth ?
” higher levels of pollutant (i.e. nitrates or phosphates) … evidence ?
” other changes in soil chemistry” … across the whole N hemisphere ?
” increased UV-B levels ” … evidence ?
” increasing atmospheric opacity has resulted in a notable reduction in the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface since the middle of this
century (Bradley & Jones 1992).” … wouldn’t that cause cooling ?
He seems to miss the most obvious explanation .. the Hadcrut temps may be wrong.
How does Briffra’s data get so twisted as to show warming after 1970 ?
Listening to Michael Savage, he mentioned climategate and a guset at the bottom of the hour 3:30 PST. I think it is Pat Michaels.
I listen here
http://www.560wind.com/
Bulldust (15:01:39) :
TonyB (13:39:54) :
Yep I am aware of the Greek myth… which must be a myth, because they claim melting of the wax on the wings because he flew too close to the sun. Obviously the writer had never hiked up any big hills in his life, or he might have noticed the temperature drop with altitude. I mean, exactly how high was this lad flying?
Ah well, back in those days the sun was much closer to the earth you see. A consensus of Greek astronomers including Aristotle said so, so it must be true. If you stood on Mt Olympus, you could get yur hair singed by the fiery breath of Phaeton’s chariot horses as they galloped overhead. Even Plato knew that, and he was a dunce with astronomy and geography.
Thank you for being such a reasonable source of good scientific information. But I think the global warmists and their true-believers have more than science on their minds when it comes to climat (As if I’m the first to mention this… of course, that’s what many believe). This writer proves it:
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/144267/naomi_klein%3A_why_rich_countries_should_pay_reparations_to_poor_countries_for_the_cl
TerrySkinner (14:53:56) :
As for the Polar Ice melting, it has been a zero-sum game so far the last 30 years. The AGW camp conveniently left off the growing Antarctic Ice to lay claim of diminishing Arctic Ice as proof of Global Warming.
A distinct sign of true Global Warming or Cooling would be simultaneous shrinkage or expansion of Polar Ice, not just one hemisphere.
The expansion/contraction of the distance from the Poles in which icebergs survive is a sign of climactic conditions, and you might want to keep an eye on that development !!!
The Financial Times comment on the issue. Suggesting tax deductible status is removed from Universities and institutions who do not comply with certain standards of openness.