Gore on the Arctic (again)

ANOTHER BOLD PREDICTION OF AN ICE-FREE ARCTIC

Guest post by Mark Johnson

Former Vice President Al Gore in his home office in Nashville, TN. (Time magazine)
Former Vice President Al Gore in his home office in Nashville, TN. (Time magazine)

Al Gore trumpets the latest conclusions of Climate Change Advocate David Barber. “Sea ice in Canada’s fragile Arctic is melting more quickly than anyone expected,” says University of Manitoba Prof. David Barber, the lead investigator of the Circumpolar Flaw Lead System study released Friday. Barber is the lead investigator in the largest climate change study done in Canada. Barber said before the expedition, scientists were working under the theory that climate change would happen much more slowly.

It was assumed the Arctic would be ice-free in the winter by 2100. “We expect it will happen much faster than that, much earlier than that, somewhere between 2013 and 2030 are our estimates right now. So it’s much faster than what we would expect to happen. That can be said for southern climates as well.” “We’re seeing it happen more quickly than what our models thought would happen,” Barber said.

When you read the article, notice a few things:

1) The conclusions are ALL Based on CLIMATE MODELS.

2) Canada Government paid $156-million to Barber et al for the study.

3) The Inuit population are starting to chase the cash cow as well: “There’s also the need for economic development,” Hmmmmmm.

We have finally heard from the Great Climate Change Advocate Al Gore. On his obscure blog, Al says “Its worse than we thought.” Are you kidding me?

=====================

Obscure blog? Let’s look at the numbers for Al Gore -vs- WUWT and find out.

Click for live stats from Alexa

Yup.

In fact, WUWT does pretty well when you look at the entire family of web offering by Gore’s enterprises:

Click for live Alexa stats

Keep those hits and links coming folks. Thanks – Anthony

NOTE: In the Alexa generated graphs above, the lower number the better for traffic rank. For example in the top graph, WUWT is around the top 10,000 trafficked sites on the web while alogore.com is in the top 100,000 trafficked sites on the web. It’s RANK not HITS.

Since some commenters are confused, here is the description from Alexa:

What is Traffic Rank?

The traffic rank is based on three months of aggregated historical traffic data from millions of Alexa Toolbar users and data obtained from other, diverse traffic data sources, and is a combined measure of page views and users (reach). As a first step, Alexa computes the reach and number of page views for all sites on the Web on a daily basis. The main Alexa traffic rank is based on a value derived from these two quantities averaged over time (so that the rank of a site reflects both the number of users who visit that site as well as the number of pages on the site viewed by those users). The three-month change is determined by comparing the site’s current rank with its rank from three months ago. For example, on July 1, the three-month change would show the difference between the rank based on traffic during the first quarter of the year and the rank based on traffic during the second quarter.

How Are Traffic Trend Graphs Calculated?

The Trend graph shows you the site’s daily traffic rank, charted over time. The daily traffic rank reflects the traffic to the site based on data for a single day. In contrast, the main traffic rank shown in the Alexa Toolbar and elsewhere in the service is calculated from three months of aggregate traffic data.

Daily traffic rankings will sometimes benefit sites with sporadically high traffic, while the three-month traffic ranking benefits sites with consistent traffic over time. Since we feel that consistent traffic is a better indication of a site’s value, we’ve chosen to use the three-month traffic rank to represent the site’s overall popularity. We use the daily traffic rank in the Trend graphs because it allows you to see short-term fluctuations in traffic much more clearly.

It is possible for a site’s three-month traffic rank to be higher than any single daily rank shown in the Trend graph. On any given day there may be many sites that temporarily shoot up in the rankings. But if a site has consistent traffic performance, it may end up with the best ranking when the traffic data are aggregated into the three-month average. A good analogy is a four-day golf tournament: if a different player comes in first at each match, but you come in second at all four matches, you can end up winning the tournament.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
190 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Toto
February 17, 2010 6:48 pm

Al Gore may have invented the internet, but he did not invent the paperless office.

February 17, 2010 6:52 pm

$156 million? Imagine how many poor people in Africa could be fed, clothed and housed for $156 million…its an obscenity.

old construction worker
February 17, 2010 6:57 pm

Al who? Is he a scientist?

Frank
February 17, 2010 6:57 pm

I’m an idiot.
For having voted for an idiot.
What a jackass.
I usually don’t like it when people mock Al Gore.
But he f—–g deserves it after garbage like this.

Van Grungy
February 17, 2010 7:02 pm

Gore doesn’t even have a comment section…
Watts the point of visiting Al’s Journal?

Jim
February 17, 2010 7:03 pm

I don’t see in the article where it mentions computer models, just an ice breaker. Is there another link somewhere?

Russ Blake
February 17, 2010 7:03 pm

I have not read the post yet but it would appear to the untrained eye that old Algore is using Phil Jones office. He’s trying to “hide the Ice”. His organizational skills are not great either!!

NickB.
February 17, 2010 7:04 pm

$156m for “[Global warming just over that next hill]”
Wow! I feel like a cheap date now – all this time here and still no check from the Oil Companies

windriven
February 17, 2010 7:05 pm

Ummm… best have a look at the labeling of the Y axis in your graph. It shows Gore’s site kicking the stuffing out of WUWT. The original Alexa graph has it right.
REPLY: No, you have it backwards. In traffic ranks, the lower number the better, for example WUWT is shown in the top 10,000 website traffic rank on the web, compared to alogore.com in the 100,000 range. Also, note the Y axis is logarithmic, not linear -A

Dr. Bob
February 17, 2010 7:06 pm

Would you verify that the scale is correct? Looks up side down.

James Sexton
February 17, 2010 7:06 pm

Uhmm,…… is it me or are the numbers on the vertical axis inverted?

Van Grungy
February 17, 2010 7:08 pm

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/02/05/tech-climate-arctic-ice.html
In case you wanted the Pravda version of the original story…

John
February 17, 2010 7:09 pm

Are the numbers on the left of the graph reversed?
Regards

February 17, 2010 7:10 pm

This is quite interesting too:
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wattsupwiththat.com+realclimate.org
If you look at data for the trailing six months, you can see the climategate spike.

February 17, 2010 7:10 pm

Al Gore at work, a less complicated job… shovelling snow.
http://iowntheworld.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/igloo.jpg

neon
February 17, 2010 7:10 pm

Just an Idea why don’t you whack a trendline on those graphs it may be hard for some people to follow without a line up or down
/sarc off

James Sexton
February 17, 2010 7:11 pm

OIC…..nvm…

chris y
February 17, 2010 7:13 pm

“It was assumed the Arctic would be ice-free in the winter by 2100.”
That’s only possible if ocean currents can transport enough heat into the Arctic to counter the >100 W/m^2 net radiative cooling that occurs when liquid ocean surface is exposed to a clear Arctic winter sky of perpetual darkness.
In other words, that’s not possible on this world.

February 17, 2010 7:13 pm

I wrote to Prof. Barber to see if he had run his model to predict the Arctic Sea ice extent in September 2010, at minimum. I did not get a reply. Not that I was expecting one. After all, it is not a good idea to produce output from models that someone can actually check on to see if it correct.

Jim
February 17, 2010 7:14 pm

Looks like Barber went to the Arctic in a ship. I don’t see where the prediction came from a computer model. Is there more info on this somewhere?
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/arctic-ice-melt-alarms-scientists-83704042.html

TimiBoy
February 17, 2010 7:15 pm

Sorry Windriven, click the graph and check the source. The numbers reported above are a furfy, when you go to thelink it gives the percentage of hits, and WUWT is killing Big Al.
Oh, sorry. Greenies don’t check sources before spilling their guts, do they?

John Mackie
February 17, 2010 7:15 pm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1251881/Ministers-lavished-9m-climate-change-stunts–public-opinion-left-cold-global-warming-propaganda.html
Ministers lavished £9m on climate change stunts… but public opinion is left cold by global warming ‘propaganda’
A disastrous series of failed climate change publicity stunts cost taxpayers £ 9million, it emerged yesterday.
The projects paid for by the Government’s Climate Challenge Fund did next to nothing to change public opinion, a Whitehall report found.
A disastrous series of failed climate change publicity stunts cost taxpayers £ 9million, it emerged yesterday.
The projects paid for by the Government’s Climate Challenge Fund did next to nothing to change public opinion, a Whitehall report found.
We’re winning!

Florida
February 17, 2010 7:15 pm

I notice that too. According to the numbers listed on the left, his site is getting far more hits that WUWT. The lower the graph line, the higher the ranking.
REPLY: no, you have it backwards. See explanation I just added. – A

Pascvaks
February 17, 2010 7:15 pm

News?
ConocoPhillips, BP and Caterpillar quit USCAP
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/16/AR2010021605543.html

inversesquare
February 17, 2010 7:16 pm

Al oh Al ……… there
How I Bow to thee ……… there
You are a profit to me …….. there
Nobel Peace Prize for thee ….. there
I’m so happy we found Al Gore again!! I thought he may have disappeared in a snow drift somewhere! (yes warmists, weather is not climate…. this is just a poke at Al, although you might want to look here before you call me an idiot):
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Al is the gift that keeps giving, I reckon the warmist girls/guys may be starting to figure that out by now.
Considering the change in circumstances over the last few months, any rational AGW proponent will have come to the conclusion that Al’s propaganda is a weapon of mass destruction. His words constitute ‘friendly fire’.
Really, if you think about it….. it’s kind of pathetic and I almost feel sorry for him;)
NOT!!
(great success U S and A!!!)

Tom Judd
February 17, 2010 7:18 pm

May I recommend that Al Gore travel to the Arctic to popularize this melting of the ice, and as a former public servant, stop it. It seems that everytime Gore travels anywhere to pontificate about global warming his presence brings on a sudden cold snap. As a profligate user of personal jets this should be no inconvenience for him. Now I know this may cut into his carbon futures trading, but stopping that Arctic melt is truly the right thing to do.

Joe Public
February 17, 2010 7:18 pm

What the?? Does Al have a triple plasma (or lcd) setup?? Man that guy… I wanna…..

Florida
February 17, 2010 7:18 pm

Thanks for clearing that up. These are ranking numbers, not visitor numbers.
Jo Nova’s site also ranks very high: much higher than any of the pro-AGW sites.

joe
February 17, 2010 7:19 pm

“2) Canada Government paid $156-million to Barber et al for the study.”
I love how the gullible environmentalists love to claim skeptics are funded by special interests groups, and they(warmists) are fighting the corporations. Look at the gigantic funding for this rubbish paper.

Son of a Pig and a Monkey
February 17, 2010 7:20 pm

That graph sounds like global warming -the more it snows, the warmer it must be!

inversesquare
February 17, 2010 7:20 pm

Oh and an Explanation of my U S and A line…..

len
February 17, 2010 7:21 pm

Looks like Stephen Harper has some public servants to spank. It would be better to do the Bernanke thing and dump money out of helicopters than fund ignorance. Of course ignorance of Al Gore’s type, clumps and settles into a mucky sludge that contaminates everything unless its purged.

Dave Wendt
February 17, 2010 7:24 pm

Al seems a little slow on the uptake. The Barber study he’s pimping is the the famous “rotten ice” tripe that was dealt with here quite some time ago.

February 17, 2010 7:25 pm

Hell I was pretty proud to break 100K. Very nice.

February 17, 2010 7:26 pm

That $156 million looks imaginative. According to Barber’s CV, his total career grants (since 1993) come to $17.4 million.
REPLY: It’s likely 1.56 and missing a decimal point, may have happened in converting text, sometimes special characters don’t translate right into WP for some reason. Double checking with author. -A

aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES
February 17, 2010 7:28 pm

2) Canada Government paid $156-million to Barber et al for the study.
So it isn’t just the American government that is stupid with money.
Mr, Barber is a rich man. We went gr$$n.
Why does Chicken Little keep getting paid so much gr$$n??

aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES
February 17, 2010 7:31 pm

Jim (19:14:07) :
I don’t see where the prediction came from a computer model.
Did he do the calculation on paper then?
I think you could buy enough paper with $156 million. It would take a whole lot of time to write that whole thing out. But I suppose if you have $156 million you’ve got time to burn.

maz2
February 17, 2010 7:35 pm

More news:
“Xerox, Marsh Also Out Of USCAP Climate Alliance
Looks like there’s a stampede to exit the United States Climate Action Partnership. Copier king Xerox (XRX) and insurance broker Marsh (MMC) apparently are no longer in the business-green alliance supporting cap-and-trade legislation, or so says Tom Borelli, director of the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project. On Tuesday, energy giants BP (BP) and ConocoPhillips (COP), along with heavy equipment maker Caterpillar (CAT), said they were leaving the group.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.investors.com …”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2453693/posts

aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES
February 17, 2010 7:36 pm

Wait a second, wait a second…….there are people that actually think Al Gore’s web site gets more hits than WattsUpWithThat?
WattsUpWithThat!!
There are probably individual users that create more hits to WUWT than Al Gore gets in total to his.

H Hak
February 17, 2010 7:42 pm

Sorry Mark but did you read the article?
1 There was no mention of models. There was a comparison between the satellite data and observations from an ice breaker. These observations were made in the fall of 09 and have already been discussed in the media and on blogs. The satellites show indeed a modest recovery of the ice cover since 2007 but did not identify that the quality of the ice was different than that of multilayer solid ice . The term “rotten ice” was used which is a known composition of ice that is more brittle.
This inferior quality ice will melt faster in summer time. Any reader will be able to check this for him/herself this summer by checking the NSIDC
satellite pictures.
My question is : was this rotten ice formed because of a change in arctic ocean temperature/current, or a change in surface temperature/wind ? See also WUWT post 16/2 on Greenland glaciers.

K2
February 17, 2010 7:47 pm

Global Warming papers for sale. Hurry – only ten left. On any subject you want. Only $15.6 million each. Sorry guys – they’ve convinced me to switch sides !!

pat
February 17, 2010 7:47 pm

media coverage, some good, some hilarious…
2 pages: Forbes: Michael Fumento: Climate Change Of Pace
If medieval warming wasn’t manmade, then the recent warming may not be either.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/17/climate-change-skeptic-global-warming-opinions-contributors-michael-fumento.html?boxes=Homepagechannels
National Post, Canada: Lorne Gunter: They’re finally admitting the science isn’t settled
So Climategate also matters because if one of the most critical sources of climate data is suspect, then the conclusions in all the scores of studies based on that data are suspect, too.
The implications are huge and wide-ranging.
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/02/17/lorne-gunter-they-re-finally-admitting-the-science-isn-t-settled.aspx
Kansas City Star: Climate change science passes the test of time
By Andrew Gunther, Special to The Kansas City Star
COMMENT BY READER: From Mr. Gunther’s website…
Climate Change: Causes, Consequences, and Solutions ..
Mr. Andrew Gunther, CEMAR’s Executive Director, was trained by Ex-Vice President Al Gore and his team of scientists and educators at The Climate Project to give the presentation featured in the Academy Award-winning documentary film An Inconvenient Truth. Dr. Gunther is available to give this hour-long presentation to your organization free-of-charge.
http://voices.kansascity.com/node/7625
Sydney Morning Herald, Australia: Matt Wade: Climate chief says he won’t bow to pressure to resign
(Pachauri): ”The volume of peer-reviewed material of various aspects of climate change has gone up substantially in recent years, and therefore, while the total effort required for completion of AR5 [the next IPCC assessment report due in 2013-14] would be huge in relation to previous assessments, it is expected that some gaps in knowledge that exist currently would be filled up to a great degree in the AR5..
Dr Pachauri accused climate change sceptics of targeting him as a way of discrediting climate change science and the IPCC.
”Having found a phenomenal increase in awareness on the subject around the world, they have decided to target me in my position as chairman of the IPCC and have sunk extremely low in trying to attack me personally with lies and falsehoods,” he added.
Dr Pachauri said he had been ”humbled” by the support given by various governments, civil society groups and scientists from across the world in the wake of the controversy.
”They have all either publicly or privately expressed their strong support to the IPCC and to me personally,” he said.
The IPCC’s next assessment would include ”new dimensions” such as the role of aerosols, clouds and black carbon in climate change…
It would also have a stronger focus on the regional impacts of climate change.
”We are already ensuring that all authors of the [next] report perform their review and background checks with diligence,” he said.
”We remain strongly committed to ensuring a high level of performance in verification of the sources of information and underlying material that we use for IPCC reports … the AR5, I am determined, would be as good a report as is humanly possible.”
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-chief-says-he-wont-bow-to-pressure-to-resign-20100217-odzw.html
Matt Wade who did the pachauri interview: Bangladesh’s Global Warning, Matt Wade: journalist and former TEAR fieldworker. The Age
http://www.tear.org.au/resources/items/climate-of-change/
TEAR is a Christian group with projects all over the place.
from wade’s bangladesh article last october: “Increased temperatures in the Himalayas means a torrent of additional melt-water from glaciers is gushing down the great rivers of India — the Ganges and the Brahmaputra — into the Bangladesh delta country, causing savage erosion. At the same time the nation’s coastal areas are being gradually inundated by the rising sea. “

J. Bob
February 17, 2010 7:50 pm

Al Gore’s contribution to the Internet (Advanced Research Projects Administration (ARPA) Net at that time), was one of the “signers” on the funding.

the_Butcher
February 17, 2010 8:00 pm

They paid $156 million for what exactly?
I thought the science was settled shouldn’t they spend that amount of money to help the planet from heating up?
Whoever got an IQ at least bigger than 2 would find melting glaciers if they were going to be paid that much.
“No more snow in the European Alps”
Now I want a couple of millions.

Andrew30
February 17, 2010 8:10 pm

maz2 (19:35:30) :
““Xerox, Marsh Also Out Of USCAP Climate Alliance…”
As they unwind their carbon positions, they will leave.
The last ones out will be clutching the balloon, then pop!
Then the shareholders lawyers will pick up the balloon and dust it for prints.
It always ends the same.

derek
February 17, 2010 8:15 pm

Nice beatdown anthony.

Robert
February 17, 2010 8:15 pm

So the argument, in summary, goes like this:
1. Climate scientists have just completed a large, expensive study involving direct observation of the Arctic.
2. They have some things they they would like to tell us about what they found.
3. Al Gore thinks we should pay attention to those things.
4. Boy, is Al Gore stupid!
Not very impressive. I can only imagine the ecstasies the commenters here would be in if Barber et al had found the Arctic is better shape than feared. Or the rage they would be if a scientist bearing news they liked were dismissed with a similar syllogism:
1. Scientist has something to say about global warming.
2. WUWT thinks that what the scientist has to say is important.
3. Boy, is Anthony Watts stupid!

pwl
February 17, 2010 8:20 pm

Yeah, I’ve commented about David Barber here before.
Recently David Barber seems to be ignoring the increase the last few years in ice area in the most northern parts of the Great White North claiming that they are just “rotten ice” whatever that really means.
David Barber also seems to have no problem making those assessments using anecdotal evidence that the ship he took up through the ice didn’t meet any dense ice pack flows. Sorry but unless they did a grid pattern search of the entire Arctic Sea area I think we need to rely on satellites rather than word of mouth.
It’s not surprising that Al Gore would pick up on David Barber’s public comments. I wonder what took him so long though.
pwl
http://PathsToKnowledge.NET

philincalifornia
February 17, 2010 8:23 pm

Nick Stokes (19:26:06) :
That $156 million looks imaginative. According to Barber’s CV, his total career grants (since 1993) come to $17.4 million.

Careful Nick, you’re going to have posters on WUWT agreeing with you !!!
The $156 Million can’t be right. Although $156,000 sounds a bit low (if it’s that typo) – there’s no way anyone would get a grant of the $156 Million magnitude for that ….. errrmmmm … project.
REPLY: I’m betting its missing a decimal point 1.56 million. I’m checking with the author. -A

Daniel H
February 17, 2010 8:24 pm

I find this WUWT post to be extremely confusing (and it has nothing to do with the inverted graph scale on the Alexa chart, heh). Let me attempt to explain why it is so confusing using the following relevant excerpt from the original post:
________Begin Excerpt________
When you read the article, notice a few things:
1) The conclusions are ALL Based on CLIMATE MODELS.
2) Canada Government paid $156-million to Barber et al for the study.
3) The Inuit population are starting to chase the cash cow as well: “There’s also the need for economic development,” Hmmmmmm.
We have finally heard from the Great Climate Change Advocate Al Gore. On his obscure blog, Al says “Its worse than we thought.” Are you kidding me?
=====================
Obscure blog? Let’s look at the numbers for Al Gore -vs- WUWT and find out.
________End Excerpt________
This makes no sense. I mean, I was following fine until the end of the third observation on the melting Arctic paper. Then suddenly we veer off into a random pissing match about whose blog is more obscure: WUWT or the Al Gore family of blogs. Ummmm… Huh???
Considering the amount of content and graphics devoted to arguing this highly obscure point (pun intended), I naturally assumed that Al Gore had made a nasty crack about WUWT being an “obscure blog” and that this was an attempt to set the record straight. That scenario might make sense (although it does seem like an odd digression since everyone here knows that WUWT is NOT obscure).
In any case, I searched Gore’s blog high and low for the word “obscure” and found no such remark. I even used Google to search Al Gore’s entire site for the word obscure and there’s not a single hit. This is why I’m left feeling disoriented and confused. What was the point of digressing off into this bizarre pissing match? Have I’ve missed something? Could someone PLEASE provide context? I’m lost!
Furthermore, why is it that we have two links to the Al Gore blog, one link to Alexa, but no link to the actual article that is the focus of this story? Thankfully, the user “Van Grungy” supplied one in the comments section, otherwise I might be even more lost than I already am… If that’s possible 🙂
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/02/05/tech-climate-arctic-ice.html
REPLY: Sorry you are confused, but there are in fact TWO links to Al Gores blogs, the word “trumpets” in the first pargraph and the words “obscure blog” also contain a link. -A

Steve J
February 17, 2010 8:26 pm

I am really scared now!
The title to the graphic comparing algore.com and WUWT reads>
“Daily Traffic RANK Trend”
Notice the keyword > RANK.
For the sake of all of us I hope you are reading the data, instruments and your excel sheets much more carefully.
REPLY: I think it is you who have the reading problem with the graphs. -A

Lazarus Long
February 17, 2010 8:29 pm

“Robert (20:15:48) :
So the argument, in summary, goes like this:”
Ummmm, no, it doesn’t.

GAZ from Sydney
February 17, 2010 8:31 pm

Yeah, but Al Gore is riche than you, Anthony.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html
And when you think about the $156 million, Barber may be too…

Steve J
February 17, 2010 8:32 pm

Yes,
and if Barber had run grids on the arctic,
>systematically breaking up all the available Ice –
-he should be jailed for environmental destruction.
Maybe he is not so great a “scientist” – but he certainly qualifies for the TEAM.
And he is a hell of a negotiator – $ 156 Million!!!

jorgekafkazar
February 17, 2010 8:35 pm

chris y (19:13:04) : ” ‘It was assumed the Arctic would be ice-free in the winter by 2100.’ That’s only possible if ocean currents can transport enough heat into the Arctic to counter the >100 W/m^2 net radiative cooling that occurs when liquid ocean surface is exposed to a clear Arctic winter sky of perpetual darkness. In other words, that’s not possible on this world.”
The emittance of seawater is 0.993, very close to a perfect emitter (black body). The night black body temperature of the sky above the water is about 4°K. At high zenith angles (winter), the albedo of open seawater overlaps that of ice. Barber must be talking about his home planet.

Steve J
February 17, 2010 8:39 pm

Anthony,
The top ranked site would be number 1, the lowest ranked site would be something in the billions (or maybe greater now – not really sure how many sites there are currently).
And the RANK is earned by the activity of the site.
All of your earlier commenters were just assuming that the chart was a “hits” chart.
Steve J
REPLY: Yes you have it right, RANK not HITS. – A

Elizabeth (Canada)
February 17, 2010 8:42 pm

Firstly, the study is based on data collected only up to March of 2009.
Secondly, their model clearly does not work. (“We’re seeing it happen more quickly than what our models thought would happen,” Barber said.)
As for Al Gore, he predicted an ice free Arctic years ago, so he is hardly the authority.

stansvonhorch
February 17, 2010 8:44 pm

John Mackie (19:15:08) :

A disastrous series of failed climate change publicity stunts cost taxpayers £ 9million, it emerged yesterday.

We’re winning!
——-
funny how when the government steals 9 million of your pounds and fritters them away, you can still call that “winning”
strange times 😀

dp
February 17, 2010 8:52 pm

If you are ranked number 1 over the period of the graph yours will be a flat line at the top. You can go no higher than 1. As you go down in rank you can see the numbers amongst whom you share that rank. At the bottom you share the cellar with 10’s of thousands, and it is there we find AlGore’s site.
As for Gore – I wonder if he got his advocacy training in global alarmism at UEA like his peers:

Wait for 2:45

Martin Mason
February 17, 2010 8:52 pm

Robert
A challenge for you.
One piece of evidence that any warming seen in the last century (if there actually has been any non trivial warming) has been caused by anthropogenic CO2 rather than other reasons. Just one thing, anything, and I’ll accept that you’re correct.
Surely you must be exasperated over the amount of evidence now supporting the opposite and that the flat earth sceptics were probably right. It must have been very painful to see the UEA e-mails?

carrot eater
February 17, 2010 9:01 pm

This is a little weird.
Gore’s post is just a copy-paste of the first four paragraphs of the linked article in Time.
But, I don’t see the 2013-2030 statement from Barber in the post at Gore’s blog (which I’d never heard of, so obscure indeed). So where did it come from?
Googling it, it was reported in several Canadian newspapers. Apparently Barber was talking to some students, and he made that prediction. But if he’s published anything to back it up, I haven’t found it yet.
So without finding a paper, it’s hard to judge whether “1) The conclusions are ALL Based on CLIMATE MODELS.” is true or not. Barber’s most recent publication was purely based on observation with no such prediction included. His point is that observations are running ahead of models, so it’s unlikely that his statement is based on those models. But since I can’t find that prediction in an actual journal article, it’s hard to say.

Robert
February 17, 2010 9:02 pm

Martin Mason (20:52:51) : “One piece of evidence that any warming seen in the last century (if there actually has been any non trivial warming) has been caused by anthropogenic CO2 rather than other reasons.”
Which part of it would you like evidence for:
a) Increased CO2 causes warming
b) The observed CO2 is anthropogenic in orgin
You also seem to doubt warming has occurred. That’s three things. What’s your #1 priority?

Robert
February 17, 2010 9:03 pm

Should be: “the observed increase in CO2”

Elizabeth (Canada)
February 17, 2010 9:03 pm

Also, a note about funding for the study.
This study was a product of the International Polar Year research program, of which Canada did contribute $156 for participating during the 2007-2009 polar years.

bunny
February 17, 2010 9:06 pm

University of Manitoba Prof David Barber stated on June 20 2008 that,
“We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history].”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080620-north-pole.html
I don’t think his climate models are all that reliable.

Jeff Alberts
February 17, 2010 9:11 pm

Jeezus! look at those HUGE energy-sucking monitors and all those dead trees!

Robert
February 17, 2010 9:18 pm

Yes Robert, answer the question from Martin Manson.
Why did Global Warming hit the brakes? It certainly was not CO2 because that’s still rising like the scenario “Business as usual”

jorgekafkazar
February 17, 2010 9:23 pm

Here ya go, Al. This will help you read those monitors:
http://www.johnernst.com/sight_windows_p50.html

Henry chance
February 17, 2010 9:27 pm

Lake Erie is frozen. There may be a winter passage on Lake Erie by 2035
Tell algore to not act like he can walk on water.

JDS
February 17, 2010 9:44 pm

To a casual reader the ‘vertical Y’ axis is not meaningful. Someone should explain what axis means. I had to go to Alexa to better understand.

CodeTech
February 17, 2010 9:44 pm

I’m shocked, SHOCKED I tell you…
That any of these alarmists could POSSIBLY think any warming, melting, flooding, drought, doom, despair or whatever could POSSIBLY be happening any faster then they predicted.
As I recall, most of those predictions are of catastrophic bad mojo happening pretty much next Wednesday, if not sooner (unless there is grant money to be awarded to investigate such mojo, in which case said mojo will be found to be occurring next Monday).

JDS
February 17, 2010 9:45 pm

Oops… or I could have just keep on reading the explanation.

Manfred
February 17, 2010 9:57 pm

“It was assumed the Arctic would be ice-free in the winter by 2100. “We expect it will happen much faster than that, much earlier than that, somewhere between 2013 and 2030 are our estimates right now.”
ice free in 2013 in the WINTER…???
it is quite obvious, that they meant “summer” and wrote “winter”. however, these errors shouldn’t happen in million dollar studies.
the travesty is, that dummies like al gore preferably tend to believe the most absurd claims and so he trumpets ice free winter in 2013.

Pete B
February 17, 2010 10:05 pm

Gore
“Prediction of an ice-free Arctic”
Just another Gore snow job!!

Robert
February 17, 2010 10:08 pm

“Yes Robert, answer the question from Martin Manson.
Why did Global Warming hit the brakes? It certainly was not CO2 because that’s still rising like the scenario “Business as usual””
He actually asked a much more reasonable question then yours, which is silly. I’d like to know which issues he wants evidence for. Any of the three are quite doable.

SSam
February 17, 2010 10:12 pm

Jim (19:03:00) :
“I don’t see in the article where it mentions computer models, just an ice breaker. Is there another link somewhere?”
Icebreaker? Say…. what does an ice breaker do?
TFD: – “a vessel with a reinforced bow for breaking up the ice”
Now, why would anyone want to break up the ice… seeing as it’s so precious and fragile…

gerard
February 17, 2010 10:13 pm

I think the only thing that is heating up is Als brain with those 3 large screen monitors it is being fried!

Daniel H
February 17, 2010 10:15 pm


“REPLY: Sorry you are confused, but there are in fact TWO links to Al Gores blogs, the word “trumpets” in the first pargraph and the words “obscure blog” also contain a link. -A”
Thanks for the reply but it doesn’t answer my original question.
First, I never disputed that there were two links to Gore’s blog. In fact, my previous comment stated that “we have two links to the Al Gore blog…” which agrees with your rejoinder. Both the links you mentioned go to the same place ( http://blog.algore.com/ ), there’s no disagreement on that point.
Second, I’m still perplexed by the inexplicable transition from a discussion of Arctic icecap extent to a discussion of whose blog is more obscure. It’s like I’m missing a piece of vital context. Why doesn’t anyone else seem to be aware of this disconnect? There’s simply no indication that Gore ever made the claim that WUWT is an obscure blog. So what’s the point of digressing into a lengthy rebuttal of a non-existent claim?
I feel like I’m missing something really obvious. Like when I’m looking in the fridge for the milk and it’s right in front of me but I still can’t find it. Oh well… maybe I just need some more coffee.

carrot eater
February 17, 2010 10:22 pm

Manfred (21:57:23) :
“it is quite obvious, that they meant “summer” and wrote “winter”. however, these errors shouldn’t happen in million dollar studies.”
I agree that it should be summer, but that could have been the journalist’s mistake in writing it. The original source appears to be the Winnipeg Free Press, relating what Barber said at a seminar. Or maybe Barber misspoke. Who knows.
“the travesty is, that dummies like al gore preferably tend to believe the most absurd claims and so he trumpets ice free winter in 2013.”
I can’t find this claim on Gore’s webpage. Unless I’m missing it somewhere.

serik
February 17, 2010 10:24 pm

it should be spelled out publicly much more often, with much more emphasis & direct clarity that
pretending to be able to “predict” any long-term climate trend based on computer models is fraud, plain and simple fraud – –
no computer model exists, which can extract a deterministic solution from a set of chaotic differential equations – – which, to top it off, are stuffed with gobs of fudge factors – – any magazine publishing such drivel is participating in a fraudulent activity – –

February 17, 2010 10:27 pm

The chart looks sort of like a cricket bat, not a hockey stick. Need to run the data through the CRU de-truthifier to come up with a pretty graph.

February 17, 2010 10:34 pm

No winter Arctic ice in 2030? Are they both nuts?
Based on climate models, Northern hemisphere should warm by ~1C by next 20 years; however, winter temperatures are something like -30 to -40C there. Something does not add up.. :-/

Bill Parsons
February 17, 2010 10:36 pm

In the last few years, NSF shovelled out hundreds of millions of dollars in grants for research into / propaganda about global warming. (The link escapes my for the moment).
Some of the resultant studies may take a few years (how long can you nurse a million-dollar grant?) to manufacture some kind of results. The final shoe of this many-legged creature won’t hit the floor until all that funding is exhausted. By that time, who knows? Maybe sites like this one will have done the job of undermining the pseudo-science.
Meanwhile, PBS is making an all-out push to instill alarm in viewers at the vanishing ice. See Wednesday night’s “Extreme Ice”
http://video.pbs.org/video/1108763899/ or its companion, “Masters of the Ice”.
Both of these were well-wrought photojournalistic science / nature programs, but with the disappointing and monotonous raison d’etre – to funnel AGW hysteria into homes during prime time. (Try to count the number of references to global warming, and the number of crises it is creating.)
The goal seems to be to get legislation passed quickly before voters toss the present bunch of scoundrels out on their ears.

February 17, 2010 10:36 pm

Re: Anthony Watts (Feb 17 20:50),
Yes, it does say $156 million, however one of the commenter points out”
“And how many of those scientists are Canadian? Even if we pretend to be a global scientific player and somehow decided to fund our own and the rest of these scientists, the $156 million amounts to $520, 000 per scientist. Wouldn’t you think there’s a real news story in there somewhere like maybe what the hell do 300 scientists DO with a half million each in a year notwithstanding the same old predictions of melting ice, sick seals and maybe trouble with Orcas? ”
I guess we’ve got used to these kind of typos.
Big numbers sound scary.

February 17, 2010 10:42 pm

I decided for myself to determine whether or not carbon dioxide (CO2) and our carbon footprint is really to blame for climate change as claimed. I guess I felt a bit guilty after watching Al Gore’s movie. But I could not find anything definitive that would prove to me that CO2 is to blame. In fact, I found that there is untruth in Al Gore’s story. A lot of CO2 is dissolved in cold water and comes out if the oceans get warmer. Cause and effect, get it? Smoking causes cancer but cancer does not cause smoking. But Al made it look from the past that our CO2 output must be the problem. Did someone actually question him on that? I remember trying to get hold of him, but it seems not possible for a mere mortal man to discuss anything with him or to get a message through to him.

hengav
February 17, 2010 10:48 pm

Robert, please cite the link to the study of Dr.Barbers that you have read and have drawn your conclusions from. I haven’t been able to find it yet. His study is part of the International Polar Year work done with the Circumploar Flaw Lead team. They refitted an old Canadian coast guard ice breaker and have been studying the summer ice since 2007. The study apparently appears in this months Canadian Geographic
http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/magazine/jf10/default.asp
From the CFL websiteReport # 10 is as close as I can get.
http://www.ipy-cfl.ca/page1/page21/page21.html

Martin Mason
February 17, 2010 10:50 pm

Robert, I want one piece of proof that CO2 causes warming under real climatic conditions rather than in controlled laboratory conditions which can’t reproduce an atmosphere. This is given that historically there has never been a link between CO2 and surface temperature?
Why is there no tropospheric hotspot which AGW has to give?
Why is the Antarctic patently cooling (it can’t happen under AGW)?
How is the climate now cooling in terms of temperature and total heat content and has been for several years. Whatever the AGW industry says this can not happen (yes, even the Hockey Club can’t explain it)?
How did the MWP and LIA happen with no change in CO2 level and without any human influence if CO2 is the primary driver of climate?
No I do not believe that there has been any significant warming, certainly nothing out of the ordinary.
Now let’s have some answers. You can’t answer the first question so try the others.

February 17, 2010 10:56 pm

Sounds like $156M may have been Canada’s total IPY funding. Here’s an official page on that project, which is more in the $20-30M range. Only about $6M goes to research funding.

February 17, 2010 10:56 pm

Actually it is even sillier than I thought
“Barber and more than 300 scientists from around the globe spent last winter on the Canadian Coast Guard research ship Amundsen in the Arctic studying the impact of climate change”
If you dig into here http://www.amundsen.quebec-ocean.ulaval.ca/amundsenenglish.htm
You will see that the Amundsen has 46 science births
So that would be a total of six complete crew changes, presumably by helicopter.
Assuming a three month stay, 12 weeks, then that’s a new crew every TWO weeks.
Your average North Sea crew does a 4 week roster. And that’s a LOT closer to home than the Arctic.
No wonder it cost so much.

Gordon
February 17, 2010 10:59 pm

It seems that the “science” is fragile and the Arctic is robust.

John Hooper
February 17, 2010 11:09 pm

Incoherent article.
Note to editor: rewrite and resubmit.

Antonio San
February 17, 2010 11:16 pm

“Canwest Dec. 6 2008, Kevin Rollason: “Mr. Barber, who will present his preliminary findings at the International Arctic Change 2008 conference in Quebec City next week, was the scientist in charge of the Circumpolar Flaw Lead System Study (CFL), a $40-million Arctic research project.”
AND
“Chinta Puxley
Winnipeg — The Canadian Press Published on Friday, Nov. 27, 2009 10:22PM EST
“It caught us all by surprise because we were expecting there to be multiyear sea ice – the whole world thought it was multiyear sea ice,” said Dr. Barber, who just returned from an expedition to the Beaufort Sea.
“Unfortunately what we found was that the multiyear [ice] has all but disappeared. What’s left is this remnant, rotten ice.”
=====
Dr. David Barber expressed his surprise and dismay to the Canadian Press about his finding rotten ice in the South Beaufort Sea in September at the maximum melting point of the year. He staged his surprise very well since everyone was horrified and a peer reviewed paper followed the express lane.
Winnipeg is now a AGW hotbed enjoying an Environmental Science building paid for by a guilt Riddel uber-rich Calgary oilman… It seems these days a trendy occupation for retired billionaires of the Calgary Oil business to fund AGW institutes and their prima donnas like Dr Keith at U of C.
Either Dr. Barber is really ignorant in meteorology and that would be worrying but come on, this is unlikely or he knew very well that the meteorological conditions described in July by NSIDC could only yield the rotten ice outcome come September. Therefore his “surprise” may have impressed gullible journalists but can’t fool scientists who think Barber’s sudden celebrity status among the AGW politburo is a sign his “study” is likely the ad hoc outcome he needed to add complementary funding to the $40 million the project he lead received a while back.

Steve Goddard
February 17, 2010 11:22 pm

Temperatures in the Arctic have been minus 30 C for several months now. As Penn Hadow found out last year, that is very cold and everything including electronic equipment freezes solid. Al Gore should head up there this weekend to check the melt out for himself.

Squidly
February 17, 2010 11:34 pm

As for the “Winter” / “Summer” confusion topic. I don’t care if they meant summer, winter, fall, spring, autumn, night, day, solar eclipse, lunar lander, … it ain’t gonna happen in any way!

b.poli
February 18, 2010 12:17 am

What is this post about? I am totally confused.
Is it about Arctic ice and Mr. Barber? Is it about Al Gore copying and pasting a crap article about a Barber interview? Is it about comparison of blog traffic Al Gore vs WUWT? Where are the links between the three? Sorry, but this remids me of Mann’s starting with tree rings and ending with “real” temperature data.
Where are the computer models Mr. Barber uses – I did not find them in the provided links.

Baa Humbug
February 18, 2010 12:19 am

Re: John Hooper (Feb 17 23:09),

Incoherent article.
Note to editor: rewrite and resubmit.

Err not quite…
“Rejected. Does not add to clarity or brevity”. (Review editor)

Jimbo
February 18, 2010 12:23 am

“2) Canada Government paid $156-million to Barber et al for the study.”
Hell, if you paid me $1 million I will tell you the Arctic will be ice free in winter by 2013.
Notice they say between 2013 to 2030? :o) They will be well retired by then. People need to go straight to jail for fraud.

kadaka
February 18, 2010 12:29 am

Manfred (21:57:23) :
(…)
it is quite obvious, that they meant “summer” and wrote “winter”. however, these errors shouldn’t happen in million dollar studies.
(…)

It is more obvious that “winter” sounds much more alarmist than “summer” so that would be preferred for CAGW alarmism.
(…)
the travesty is, that dummies like al gore preferably tend to believe the most absurd claims and so he trumpets ice free winter in 2013.

Hey now, let’s give him some credit! It is far more likely he wisely knows he needs every last absurd alarmist but scientific-sounding “fact” he can get if he is going to scare the US and Australia into carbon trading. His carbon-swindling portfolio is going up in smoke faster than you can say “Pachauri!” (Gesundheit, btw.)
Bad enough he spent all those years gathering together companies to “do the right thing” and fight global warming on behalf of all those impoverished people of the world who would suffer in the hard times to come… And those companies got to see at Copenhagen that all those people wanted nothing less than to feed on their warm capitalist entrails. Global carbon trading agreement, yielding massive carbon-swindling profits, at Mexico City? Kind of a long shot right now, pity poor (and getting poorer) Al Gore.

mercurior
February 18, 2010 12:38 am

Isnt it amazing that surveys like this always find the exact thing they were looking for.
They go looking for the bad climate change, and wow they find it. (BTW how many months are left from gores prediction? the first one)

James Szabadics
February 18, 2010 12:46 am

Is ice “rotten-ness” something that has been or even can be measured? If so what is the degree of rot historically?
Surely we cannot say the Arctic is more or less rotten now than it has been in history if it has not been measured and recorded through history.
If ice “rotten-ness” can be quantified (?) what is the current level of rot? Barber must be implying with his anecdotal comment that 2010 minimum sea ice extent will be less than 2009 due to the ice quality?
If Barber is wrong about arctic mimimum sea ice extent trends is he obliged to return the money? Since 2007 the trend is increasing minimum sea ice extent but it has a long way to go to get back to the late 70s. I think we need to see a 40% increase to get back to late 70s minimum sea ice extent. ARGO data suggests the upper 700m of ocean is cooling slowly – that should help as should a slowly cooling atmosphere as long as the cooling trends continue.

CodeTech
February 18, 2010 12:54 am

Steve Goddard (23:22:07) :
Temperatures in the Arctic have been minus 30 C for several months now. As Penn Hadow found out last year, that is very cold and everything including electronic equipment freezes solid. Al Gore should head up there this weekend to check the melt out for himself.

Actually, -30C is liveable… I remember January ’96 we had over 30 days in a row where the high never exceeded -30C. At first it was horrid, but then we got used to it. In fact, I moved into a new apartment during that cold.
Now, -40C is where it starts to freeze up electronics, Automotive spec’d electronics are good from -40C to +85C. Dip below -40C and you start having really bad problems. Get below -50C and you find yourself doing weird things like lighting wood fires under your vehicle to keep the fuel liquid.
At -30C, batteries are a real issue. And solar panels don’t do much in a polar winter. And you can’t use solar panels to charge batteries that freeze. We need more portable nuclear power supplies.

b.poli
February 18, 2010 12:57 am

Al Gore belongs to the political part of the debate. So this important post by Richard North is not OT:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/02/diminishing-returns.html

PiperPaul
February 18, 2010 1:07 am

I don’t see how it’s possible to argue with a person that has at least 3 30″ monitors.

Gareth
February 18, 2010 1:43 am

RE: Al’s Office,
For a minute there I thought Al was perusing a large printout of the Jo Nova/Mohib Ebrahim Climategate timeline, but it’s three large iMacs next to each other isn’t it?

February 18, 2010 2:01 am

carrot eater (22:22:51) :
“the travesty is, that dummies like al gore preferably tend to believe the most absurd claims and so he trumpets ice free winter in 2013.”
I can’t find this claim on Gore’s webpage. Unless I’m missing it somewhere.

While testifying before a US Senate committee in late 2008 or early 2009, Gore was asked when he thought the Arctic would be ice-free. He replied, “In five years.” I think that’s were people are getting the 2013 figure for Gore. Begs the question why the Senators thought his opinion relevant in the first place. However, he said five years again when at Copenhagen, in December, but later retracted the statement when questioned more closely.

Gareth
February 18, 2010 2:12 am

b.poli (00:57:23) :
Al Gore belongs to the political part of the debate. So this important post by Richard North is not OT:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/02/diminishing-returns.html

Al Gore represents no electorate. He belongs to the advocacy part of the debate.

BraudRP
February 18, 2010 2:26 am

Unlike “Chance The Gardener” in the movie “Being There”, many people understand where former VP Al Gore’s statements on climate come from.

Little Britain
February 18, 2010 2:26 am

Sorry Anthony couldn’t work out how to let you know about this one from today’s Daily Mail in the UK. Scary stuff when the Govt is giving grants for “attitude modification” for those not buying the Climate Change line – not to mention the utter waste of £9million.
Our old friends at the CRU were beneficiaries of this too. We only noticed o a news bulletin the other night that the Dept of Energy’s name has been renamed the Deaprtment of Energy and Climate Change (more cost for logos, staionery etc).
George Orwell was out by approximately 20 years with his 1984 claims.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1251881/Ministers-lavished-9m-climate-change-stunts–public-opinion-left-cold-global-warming-propaganda.html
Interestingly the Conservatives latest pamphlet does not even give a mention to Climate Change – I wonder if an embarrassed but silent retreat is under way. We have a General Election looming and I somehow think this nonsense ain’t a vote winner.

February 18, 2010 2:31 am

I just noticed the category, where this article falls 😀
http://iowntheworld.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/igloo.jpg

richard verney
February 18, 2010 2:37 am

The Daily Mail newspaper article commenting on the waste of public money advertising the evils of AGW reveals the knowledge of the political class. £40,000 spent on dvds in which school children warn that, in the future, people will have to wear sun glasses all the time because the sun will be shinning more. This pesky CO2 is either a cloud destroyer or sure has a long reach.

jlc
February 18, 2010 2:51 am

There has to be a mistake somewhere.
there is no way the fairly responsible and fairly conservatine Canadian government would pay 156 million dollars for this stuff – 156 thousand maybe.
Of course, I the grants were made before 2004, the figure is not so implausible.

DirkH
February 18, 2010 2:57 am

Scientist compares reality with computer model. Finds a discrepancy. Cries wolf: “It’s worse than we thought” (because reality and model are not in sync).
I would conclude: Yes. Your computer model is even crappier than you thought. And you should really really really through it away now.

DirkH
February 18, 2010 2:58 am

Me: “And you should really really really through it away now.”
Make that a “throw”. 😉

DirkH
February 18, 2010 3:14 am

“Robert (21:02:31) :
[…]
Which part of it would you like evidence for:
a) Increased CO2 causes warming”
Not so fast, Robert, you do know that that’s a string assertion, do you, implying causality here? When there’s not even a correlation over the last decade.

DirkH
February 18, 2010 3:15 am

“Not so fast, Robert, you do know that that’s a string assertion, ”
a STRONG assertion… i quit posting now… It’s no use, it’s no use…

geronimo
February 18, 2010 3:19 am

Robert:”Which part of it would you like evidence for:
a) Increased CO2 causes warming
b) The observed increase in CO2 is anthropogenic in orgin
You also seem to doubt warming has occurred. That’s three things. What’s your #1 priority?”
That’s a good starting point to decide that CO2 coiuld be causing the warming, in fact it probably is causing some warming, but it’s still only an assertion:
1. More people get cold and flu in the winter than in the summer;
2. The winter is cold;
3. Cold must cause colds and flu.
They’re called false correlations and they abound. For there to be any evidence that CO2 density in the atmosphere is the sole/most important driver of global temperatures it needs either of two things:
1. A defined relationship between CO2 and temperature that allows for predictions, which are subsequently observed to be accurate;
2. Historical records that support temperature being driven by CO2 densities.
Clearly the first is a none starte as we’ve just had 15 years of statistically insignificant warming while CO2 has risen steadily;
There is no historical relationship between CO2 and temperature in the ice-core records. Moreover, we had a Mediaeval Warm Period and a Little Ice age in the last thousand years. Clearly the climate has it’s own agenda.
None of this means that it won’t be prudent to develop renewable energy sources, or reduce waste of energy. What it does mean is that we don’t need to start taxing our citizens to give money to third world dictators and third rate bureaucrats to tell us how to live our lives.

royfomr
February 18, 2010 3:23 am

Van Grungy (19:02:22) :
Gore doesn’t even have a comment section…
Watts the point of visiting Al’s Journal?
Good point. Wouldn’t it be fun if somebody mirrored his site. And allowed comments!!!!

FergalR
February 18, 2010 3:26 am

“Yvo de Boer, the UN’s top climate change official, says he will resign after nearly four years in the post.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8521821.stm

Veronica
February 18, 2010 3:28 am

I hope those people who say Al Gore invented the internet have their /Sarc switched on?
Sir Tim Berners-Lee has a sort of prior claim!

JMANON
February 18, 2010 3:30 am

Wow! $156million? For that sort of money you can get whatever answers you want.
I was thinking the £23million Phil Jones has aggregated in grants was going some, and look what he is alleged to have done in pursuit of that.
By the way, in the lead article, AL Gore talks about 100,000 jobs in the Midwest and how many billions will be invested in the economy (and I’d guess from what is said about his potential to be the first carbon billionaire that he will get a slice of the action)?
Put it another way, who is providing the money? the tax payer.
What does he get?
Higher energy bills.
Is there any other benefit? No.
And, what are these 100,000 jobs?
Job creation is a common claim.
Gordon Brown is not above this sort of claim either. But as often as not some of the jobs replace other jobs in the energy sector and, in the case of the UK’s windfarms, it seems that while the jobs lost in the rest of the energy centre will be UK jobs, most of the jobs created will be in China with some in Holland(or is it Denmark?).
China does very well out of this AGW scam, they are net beneficiaries of Carbon Credits and they get the manufacturing jobs. They get to buld economic coal fired power stations, they get to undercut the ROW industry and they get to acquire the technology through technology transfer just as is the case with Vesta.
Vesta, who are supplying turbines for one of the UK’s largest offshore wind farm, closed its two UK factories on the Isle of White and in Southampton so these wind turbines are not made in the UK.
In fact, despite its championing of the wind industry, all those (Dutch/Danish?) subsidies will not ultimately or fully benefit (Denmark/Holland) either.
The wind turbines are now manufactured in China. When a shipment arrived in Holland (it seems these wind turbines never actually see the UK, they get loaded up in Holland onto the ships and planted at sea) and welding was found to be substandard they sent home the UK welders brought out to fix the problem and flew in Chinese welders.
So, where are these 100,000 jobs Al Gore says are being created, and to do what? what jobs are they? are they jobs created in the midwest or in China?

JMANON
February 18, 2010 3:33 am

By the way, Al Gore isn’t strong on references. I read the article and clicked the link and gained another short paragraph for my trouble. He doesn’t have an obvious link to the research he refers to. This is probably deliberate because a link is too easy to follow, to have to Google and wade through all the subscription links that will turn up si not something a lot of people will do. So much easier to believe what that nice Mr Gore tells you.
Is there a link here on WUWT? I must now have a look.

Rhys Jaggar
February 18, 2010 3:42 am

Mr W
I wouldn’t use the argument ‘we get more traffic so we must be right!’ if I were you. Three years ago, you’d be a sitting duck to the warmistas.
You built your traffic by sticking to science and scientific arguments.
Don’t start descending into political mud-slinging at just that moment when the momentum is in your direction.
Friend.

JMANON
February 18, 2010 3:44 am

Oh, and by the way, the article starts out by looking at what Al Gore Says and it says the conclusions are all based on compute models but instead of analysing the data/ the models etc to see what value we can put on David Barber’s work, what we actually get is a P***ssing contest about web site traffic….. who cares?
It would be nice to look at the science.

Jimbo
February 18, 2010 3:54 am

And just to put things into perspective.
Lowest point summer sea ice extent is up every year since 2007
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
29 April 2009
“All in all, the ice was somewhat thicker than during the last years in the same regions, which leads to the conclusion that Arctic ice cover recovers temporarily.”
http://www.awi.de/en/news/press_releases/detail/item/research_aircraft_polar_5_finishes_arctic_expedition_unique_measurement_flights_in_the_central_arc/?cHash=e36036fcb4
NASA says at least 45% of melting since 1976 is due to aerosols
(they used models too :o)
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_aerosols_prt.htm

maz2
February 18, 2010 4:07 am

AGW rat overboard.
UNabomber Mao Stlong is silent.
(Mao’s nephew is Canadian “Liberal leader” Boob Rae.)
…-
“Top UN climate official resigns
Yvo de Boer, the UN’s top climate change official, says he will resign after nearly four years in the post.
His departure takes effect from 1 July, five months before 193 countries are due to reconvene in Mexico for another attempt at global deal on climate.
Nations failed to reach a binding deal at the Copenhagen meeting in December.
Mr de Boer told the Associated Press news agency he was announcing his departure now so that a successor could be found before the Mexico meeting.
The former Dutch civil servant and climate negotiator was widely credited with raising the profile of climate change issues.
But suspicions and distrust between developing and industrial countries barred the way to a binding accord at the UN’s climate change summit in Copenhagen in December.
He said the failure to secure a treaty at Copenhagen was unrelated to his decision to quit, and that he had begun looking for a new job last year, before the summit.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8521821.stm
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi

John Whitman
February 18, 2010 4:18 am

A disappointing aspect of the Noble Prize process is the (to me) obvious disconnect between the Nobel Prize committee’s assessment of Mr. Gore’s status in the American culture versus what his actual status is in our American culture. It is the Nobel Prize committee’s undoing. Do not tread lightly into assessment of American politics without multiple backup plans . . . Result is some significant loss of self esteem for the Nobel Prize committee.
John

February 18, 2010 4:30 am

From the article above:
————————————–
“It was assumed the Arctic would be ice-free in the winter by 2100.”
————————————–
How in the hell is 24 hour darkness and -70 degrees Celsius conducive to melting ice?
Even the idea that there is enough warmth long term to melt the remaining late summer four MILLION square kilometres of ice completely seems unlikely, but the suggestion that winter Arctic ice will disappear is loony tunes ridiculous.

Pete H
February 18, 2010 4:49 am

Steve Goddard (23:22:07) :
“Temperatures in the Arctic have been minus 30 C for several months now. As Penn Hadow found out last year, that is very cold and everything including electronic equipment freezes solid”
Steve…you are a tease!!!!!! Lets give Pen some slack! (I dare not write my next sentence or A will snip me!) 😉
Anyway, it really is time Al got out from behind his blog (he done any lectures in the last few weeks?) and did the debate Lord Monckton has challenged him to? I wil fly from Shanghai to see it! By the way, this post proves that someone a couple of article down is wrong, You can access WUWT from China if you know how Gores “Internet” works! Yep, we all know he was mis-quoted but….

Gareth
February 18, 2010 4:50 am

geronimo said: “There is no historical relationship between CO2 and temperature in the ice-core records. Moreover, we had a Mediaeval Warm Period and a Little Ice age in the last thousand years. Clearly the climate has it’s own agenda.”
Given the known multi-centuary lag between temps rising and CO2 increasing before man started putting CO2 in the atmosphere, I wonder if any conclusive work has been done to eliminate the medieval warm period from causing some or all of today’s rising CO2.
I say conclusive because, frankly, much of the stuff in the IPCC is so equivocal to be meaningless until you get to the summary for policymakers where all the negatives are highlighted.
For all we know (which isn’t much), the bisophere may be perfectly capable of coping with anthropogenic CO2 emissions and it is a natural process that has tipped the balance.

Pete H
February 18, 2010 4:52 am

will fly..oops, Chinese New Year celebrations..Will proof read from now one! By the way, anyone who knows how to make silent fireworks….please email so I can get a nights sleep!

Jack Simmons
February 18, 2010 4:59 am

H Hak (19:42:28) :

Sorry Mark but did you read the article?
1 There was no mention of models. There was a comparison between the satellite data and observations from an ice breaker. These observations were made in the fall of 09 and have already been discussed in the media and on blogs. The satellites show indeed a modest recovery of the ice cover since 2007 but did not identify that the quality of the ice was different than that of multilayer solid ice . The term “rotten ice” was used which is a known composition of ice that is more brittle.
This inferior quality ice will melt faster in summer time. Any reader will be able to check this for him/herself this summer by checking the NSIDC
satellite pictures.
My question is : was this rotten ice formed because of a change in arctic ocean temperature/current, or a change in surface temperature/wind ? See also WUWT post 16/2 on Greenland glaciers.

I know someone tried to explain away the increase in ice cap extent by saying the ice was ‘rotten’.
Just exactly what is the definition of ‘rotten’ ice?
I would like to see a physical description of rotten ice using consistent standards of measurement. Is is a question of ice density? Ice mixed with particulates? Purity of water in ice? Then I would like to see photographic comparisons of rotten versus unrotten ice.
Then I would like to see actual, on-site surveys of rotten versus unrotten ice down through the years, to confirm the alleged satellite surveys indicating an increase of rotten ice.
Then to the laboratory to compare melting times of rotten versus unrotten ice, to confirm the hypothesis of the ‘rotten ice is not the same as unrotten ice and we still have a problem with the icecap’.
All should then be published in a peer reviewed climate change journal.
That should keep someone busy for a few years.
Until then, I don’t believe in ‘rotten’ ice.

Steven Hill
February 18, 2010 5:25 am

Al Gore…….liar and fraud.

carrot eater
February 18, 2010 5:36 am

JLKrueger (02:01:39) :
Ah. I found this, about Gore at Copenhagen:
“”Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months will be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,” Gore said. His office later said he meant nearly ice-free, because ice would be expected to survive in island channels and other locations.”
http://cbs3.com/national/gore.arctic.ice.2.1369046.html
Some more links would have been helpful in this post. Not all of us pay attention to what Gore says.

February 18, 2010 6:10 am

News Flash–
(humor?hyperbole?)–
Dr. Reuben to switch from medical research to
AGW research publications with Mann et al
peer reviewing his work as a condition of his switch–
http://snardfarker.ning.com/profiles/blogs/big-pharma-researcher-admits

John from CA
February 18, 2010 6:55 am

Its been interesting watching The Cryosphere Today reports;
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
There’s approximately 3-4 more weeks of ice growth ahead and we’re currently -0.726 (million sq. km) from the 1979-2008 mean:
021710: -.757
021810: -.726
31,000 sq. km increase in 1 day is fragile?

Sharon
February 18, 2010 7:05 am

Three monitors, wow. Hasn’t Al Bore heard of tabs?
And with all this recent global non-warming, I wonder if he’ll grow another beard.

February 18, 2010 7:10 am

“H Hak (19:42:28) :
Sorry Mark but did you read the article?
1 There was no mention of models.”
RESPONSE: From the article: Dr. John Hanesiak says the earth’s extremes, warm & cold can be blamed on “human actions”: “There’s no question about that.” he says, “The models are telling us that now.”
The article wraps everything up in a neat tidy package using climate models.

Don Keiller
February 18, 2010 7:18 am

Surely a missprint “ice free in Winter”?!
Don’t they mean “Summer”- at least there is a remote chance.

carrot eater
February 18, 2010 7:24 am

Mark Johnson (07:10:10) :
First off, please update the post so that there is a link to the article in the Winnipeg Free Press. It should not be left to the reader to figure out that half the post is referencing Gore’s copy/paste of Time, and the other half is from an article in the Winnipeg Free Press. You tell us “When you read the article”, but without the link, it isn’t made easy to do so.
As for Hanesiak, I don’t think that particular statement had much to do with Barber’s prediction. So far as I can tell from the article, the article is merely giving a smattering of quotes from the several different speakers who addressed a student symposium.
From this source alone, it’s impossible to tell what the basis for Barber’s prediction is.

JonesII
February 18, 2010 7:27 am

This attitude claerly shows that he has become absolutely IDENTIFIED with Global Warming, HE IS now Global Warmimg HIMSELF!
It´s a well known psychological phenomenon. Really a disgraceful situation.

rw
February 18, 2010 8:04 am

How does RealClimate do on these rankings?
Any way to figure out why the Gore sites show these spikes?

P Wilson
February 18, 2010 8:46 am

Just one question:
Is it really necessary to draw attention to Al Gore? All he is intersted in thesedays the Arctic. It would be understandable if he wanted to live in such a freezing wilderness. Observations prove that he is more intersted in his luxury home and lifestyle. Like Prince Charles, and other such privileged men, these imaginary problems are for others to needlessly worry about and incur higher costs and incursions into our lifestyles and not for them to do so.
Shouldn’t people like them they really be living in Greenland to live and swear in what they invent and believe?

Antonio San
February 18, 2010 8:48 am

“Dr. John Hanesiak says the earth’s extremes, warm & cold can be blamed on “human actions”: “There’s no question about that.” he says, “The models are telling us that now.”
So THAT is an interesting piece of information and it starts to explain many things of the past and the present…

Syl
February 18, 2010 9:01 am

“They paid $156 million for what exactly?”
How much does an icebreaker go for these days?

Reed Coray
February 18, 2010 10:05 am

Al Gore: The dumbest Whack a Mole of the global warming alarmist community.

Vinny
February 18, 2010 10:32 am

Isn’t there a cell with this frauds name onit?

Robert
February 18, 2010 10:33 am

“For there to be any evidence that CO2 density in the atmosphere is the sole/most important driver of global temperatures it needs either of two things:”
No one thinks CO2 is the sole thing that affects global temperatures (this fallacy recurs in your thinking below). “Most important” is also an ambiguous framing. “The likely cause of recent warming and the potential source of significant (several degrees) warming in the future” might be another way to say it.
“1. A defined relationship between CO2 and temperature that allows for predictions, which are subsequently observed to be accurate;
2. Historical records that support temperature being driven by CO2 densities.
Clearly the first is a none starte as we’ve just had 15 years of statistically insignificant warming while CO2 has risen steadily;”
Both the facts and the logic of your statement are flawed. In fact, the last decade was the warmest on record, and the decade-on-decade trend is strongly positive and significant. While you can’t pull it out of a noisy signal using just fifteen years of data, we fortunately have more than 15 years of data, with which we can demonstrate a warming trend.
As for the logic: temperatures need to rise in lockstep with CO2 only if nothing else affects global temperatures. Since we know that is not the case, we shouldn’t expect a one-to-one correlation between rising CO2 and global temperatures. What we would expect is a positive long-term trend in temperatures, to accompany a positive long-term trend in CO2, which is exactly what we see.
“There is no historical relationship between CO2 and temperature in the ice-core records.”
You are absolutely wrong on that. See here: http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Storms/Storms_Fig.03.gif
There is an unmistakable relationship.
“Moreover, we had a Mediaeval Warm Period and a Little Ice age in the last thousand years. Clearly the climate has it’s own agenda.”
Because the climate responds to things other than anthropogenic forcings, it doesn’t follow that anthropogenic forces are insignificant. Everybody’s going to die of old age; that doesn’t mean I can’t kill them by hitting them with my car.

George Lawson
February 18, 2010 10:34 am

who in their right mind other than Al Gore could possibly believe that the Arctic and Anarctic will be free of ice in three to twenty years time? How much more of this unbelievable rubbish is going to be put out by Gore et al in their growing desperation to hold on to their beliefs, the foundations for which are crumbling at an ever increasing rate?

kadaka
February 18, 2010 11:20 am

George Lawson (10:34:01) :
who in their right mind other than Al Gore could possibly believe that the Arctic and Anarctic will be free of ice in three to twenty years time? (…)

Just about anything is possible with the right conditions. I believe both regions could be ice free within one week, just takes a large enough solar flare. Within one day, if the sun blows up.
You know, it really is a shame that we are not properly set up to observe and analyze such events. Perhaps we should do something about that, for the sake of the science.

aylamp
February 18, 2010 11:45 am

“Barber’s words, “full of holes, like Swiss cheese. We haven’t seen this sort of thing before.””
Well, that’s mibbe because they haven’t been there before at that time with millions to spend. They would have to see something they hadn’t seen before.

David Porter
February 18, 2010 11:46 am

Robert (10:33:07
“You are absolutely wrong on that. See here: http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Storms/Storms_Fig.03.gif
There is an unmistakable relationship.”
———————————————————–
Absolutely right Robert. CO2 lags temperature by about 800 years.
Now don’t come back at me with that fairy tale were CO2 takes over for the next 4000 years. Even Lewis Carroll couldn’t dream that up.

February 18, 2010 12:03 pm

Robert (10:33:07),
Arguments like that have been debunked repeatedly here in the past, and are just as easily debunked now:
Robert: No one thinks CO2 is the sole thing that affects global temperatures
The CO2=CAGW hypothesis states that an increase in CO2 – not a change in solar irradiance, or cosmic rays, or anything similar – will result in climate catastrophe. They have to say that.
Because if, as Robert implied, CO2 is not the cause of the predicted runaway global warming [which it is not, because runaway global warming is a baseless myth], then there is no reason to spend $trillions on mitigating CO2.
Since money is the real driver of the CO2 scare, alarmists have hung their collective hats on CO2 being the culprit. Now the alarmists are fence-sitting. But we know the score: CO2 must still be demonized, because there’s big, big money at stake.
The ‘temperatures increasing in lock-step’ argument appeared when it became clear that rising CO2 wasn’t causing rising temperatures, but was instead an effect of rising temperatures. Moving the goal posts like that is typical of the alarmist arguments.
There is no agreement that CO2 leads temperature: click [note the almost zero correlation; can’t get much lower than that].
Further, the CO2/temp relationship does not match empirical observations: click. The models are falsified.
Although beneficial CO2 is rising, there is no causal relationship with CO2: click1, click2, click3
“Because the climate responds to things other than anthropogenic forcings, it doesn’t follow that anthropogenic forces are insignificant.”
In fact, anthropogenic forcings are insignificant, and can therefore be disregarded. If CO2 was the strong driver of temperature that the CAGW fanatics want everyone to believe it is, then the steady rise in CO2 would have caused rapidly rising temperatures. The opposite has happened.
Finally, Robert’s single link is too small to show that rising temperatures are a cause of rising CO2 – not an effect. Here, let me help: click
As we can easily see in that chart, CO2 rises as an effect of rising temperatures; it is not a cause.
The demonization of CO2 has been repeatedly debunked here. This is just a short summary. The WUWT archives tell the whole story.

slr
February 18, 2010 12:11 pm

The $156 million is not a typo per se, but in fact, a misinterpretation by the author.
This amount represents the entire budget for Canada’s IPY Program (see: http://www.api-ipy.gc.ca/pg_IPYAPI_012-eng.html; the remaining $6 million came through NSERC funding) of which Dr. Barber’s study was but a fraction.

NickB.
February 18, 2010 12:14 pm

Did anyone else think of the Manbearpig Episode of South Park when they read this post?
I’m trying to warn everybody and nobody takes me cereal!!!!

carrot eater
February 18, 2010 12:27 pm

Smokey (12:03:22) :
“The CO2=CAGW hypothesis states that an increase in CO2 – not a change in solar irradiance, or cosmic rays, or anything similar – will result in climate catastrophe. They have to say that.”
That isn’t true at all, and they don’t say that. To a first approximation*, equal amounts of any forcing will have the same impact. If the solar forcing was +1 W/m^2 and the CO2 forcing was +0.1 W/m^2 over that time period, then the solar forcing would be considered much more important over that time period.
*There are subtleties here, see Hansen on ‘efficacy’. But equal amounts of TSI and CO2 forcing have nearly the same impact.
“If CO2 was the strong driver of temperature that the CAGW fanatics want everyone to believe it is, then the steady rise in CO2 would have caused rapidly rising temperatures. The opposite has happened.”
Also not true. For the current forcings, the models predict about a +0.2 C/decade rise in temperature, superimposed on the natural variability. If you look over time spans of 30+ years, you’ll see that trend emerge from the variability. If you look at a 10 year span, it will not be obvious.

Bart
February 18, 2010 12:27 pm

carrot eater (07:24:24) :
“From this source alone, it’s impossible to tell what the basis for Barber’s prediction is.”
So, you are saying that the prediction of an ice free arctic in 2030 is based on direct observation, and not an extrapolation from a model?
Unless you insist on admitting the possibility that they traveled through time, I think we have enough evidence to make a logical inference.

carrot eater
February 18, 2010 12:51 pm

Bart (12:27:51) :
It could be based on extrapolating the current observed trend, mixed with whatever feeling he got from looking at the current state of the Arctic on his trip. Sort of a guess, with no model in sight.
Until and unless he publishes the prediction within some paper, we won’t know.

JonesII
February 18, 2010 12:57 pm

Hmmmm….though thinking it deeply, it seems that the north pole decided to migrate south…
Just look through your window Al Baby!

peter_dtm
February 18, 2010 1:06 pm

Veronica (03:28:12) :
>I hope those people who say Al Gore invented the internet have their >/Sarc switched on?
>Sir Tim Berners-Lee has a sort of prior claim!
end quote
No – Sir Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Wait (html and made it ‘open source’).
Lots of people were involved in the growth of a few small networks into the original internet (pre WWW days). Most of the drive came from the US military & US academic work – with a fair amount of addition by UK academic sites.
The internet had been around a while before Sir Tim made it usable by the non-geek.
Given Gore’s apparent a-technical; a-scientific capabilities I very much doubt he could have managed to find anything on the pre WWW internet; and since Sir Tim & CERN have all the WWW stuff correctly attributed; then any claim by Gore to have anything to do with the Internet is clearly fraudulent ! Now what does that remind me of – something to do with the weather ? Ah yes some nonsense about it getting warm.

kwik
February 18, 2010 1:22 pm

Robert (10:33:07) :
Did you read Callion et.al. in Science?
No? Could be a good idea. Clearly shows that CO2 lags Temperature with 6-800 years in Vladivostoc ice-cores.
Now, how can something that lags with 6-800 years ,be the reason for the temperature to start changing in the first place?
You will need username and password;
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/299/5613/1728
Now, if you come up with that forcing argument….I have another dilemma for you;
How can temperature decrease, and CO2 decrease too, again 6-800 years lag? Think about THAT for a while……

Peter of Sydney
February 18, 2010 3:47 pm

Oh come on! In any other field or line of business, anyone who repeatedly makes false predictions as Al Gore would be either laughed at as a lunatic or put behind bars for fraud. Isn’t it time for someone with money to take him to court to try and prove he’s a fraud of the highest order and consequently put behind bars?

Martin Mason
February 18, 2010 3:57 pm

Robert, instead of waffling why don’t you either answer the questions or just admit that you don’t know. There have been plenty of data shown on here and other reputable sites that show no correlation between CO2 and temperature and you need look back no further than last century to see that this is the case. AGW is based only on a short period between 1979 and 1998 and the concept that the last decade was the warmest on record is absolute nonsense, it may have beeen the warmest since satellite records began only 3 decades (a meaningless statistic) ago and then only by distortions caused by “adjustment” of data and the very high spike in 1998. I’ve lived through 6 decades now and I can tell you that whatever the models and fiddled data say, the climate has seen no significant changes and there have been no rise in sea levels of any significance. We had a few abnormally warm years in the late 90s caused by a strong El Nino and that has distorted the averages.
How anybody from the extremist AGW camp can actually show their faces on public blogs since the climategate scandal broke is beyond me. Now be a good troll and go and learn something about climate change or lack of it.

February 18, 2010 4:12 pm

carrot eater (12:27:31),
OK, then let’s leave the demonization of a harmless and beneficial trace gas out of the equation. Let’s discuss it no further, since the natural warming trend from the LIA isn’t much different that what you claim for CO2 forcing [see my chart in the post above, showing the GCMs are spectacularly wrong regarding the effect of CO2].
When you say “equal amounts of any forcing will have the same impact,” what exactly are you saying? It seems you are saying that you can adjust any ‘forcing’ until it’s equal to CO2, a meaningless statement.
To cut to the chase: CO2 must be made the fall guy. This entire CO2 scare is driven by the insatiable greed for more tax money. How can the UN, and other governments, tax solar irradiance? How can they tax a a change in cosmic rays? Answer: they can’t. So they must tax CO2, because CO2 is a byproduct of modern civilization.
To make it clear: the sale of carbon credits/offsets by governments is simply a disguised tax. If an oil company must buy carbon credits at, say, $30 a ton for the oil they produce, that adds $4 to the price of every barrel of oil.
Furthermore, the proposed tax would be levied on refined oil products, like diesel, gasoline, plastics, fertilizer, etc., similar to a value added tax [VAT] that is tacked onto every stage of production in Europe.
With such a multiplier effect, the cost of necessities will skyrocket. Our pay won’t increase, but the cost of everything will escalate enormously. The added cost taken from consumers will go into government coffers, in the biggest tax increase in the history of civilization.
So it must be CO2 – “carbon” [to the scientifically illiterate] – that is made to be the scare. The purpose is simple and straightforward: an enormous tax increase that would never, ever pass if it were proposed as a straight tax increase. In other words, the CO2 scare is a grift, and taxpayers are the marks.
If you don’t see that, you’re blind. Eat more carrots.

Daniel H
February 18, 2010 4:21 pm

@rw
“How does RealClimate do on these rankings?
Any way to figure out why the Gore sites show these spikes?”
Here’s a comparison of wattsupwiththat.com, algore.com, realclimate.org, and climateaudit.org using Google trends. The scale is “Daily unique visitors” per day. Spikes in traffic volume are normally associated with noteworthy news events. For example, when the Climategate story broke in late November it caused a massive stepwise increase in traffic to all major climate blogs. That is clearly evident on the chart.
However, Gore’s blog does not even figure into the Google trends ranking because it doesn’t receive enough traffic to be meaningful or significant in any way whatsoever.
http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/8131/wuwtranking.gif

carrot eater
February 18, 2010 4:40 pm

Smokey (16:12:29) :
“When you say “equal amounts of any forcing will have the same impact,” what exactly are you saying? ”
I don’t see how the statement is unclear. If a change in TSI causes a radiative imbalance of 1 W/m^2, it will cause some warming. If a change in CO2 concentrations causes a radiative imbalance of 1 W/m^2, it will have pretty much the same effect as the 1 W/m^2 of solar.
However you put together the satellite records, there is no way to get a TSI forcing that’s as strong as CO2 over the last 30 years. If anything, there’s been a slight downward trend in TSI over much of that period. So cosmic rays can’t help you, either.
I will not respond to statements about economics or politics in this thread. We are discussing physics.
“[see my chart in the post above, showing the GCMs are spectacularly wrong regarding the effect of CO2].”
You appear to have missed my discussion of that. Over a ten year period, the variability of the climate system is strong enough that the warming trend will not be statistically significant or even apparent. This is true of any ten year period in the last 30 years. You need a full 20-30 years to really see the warming signal. This is true in the GCMs as well, if you’d look at the output of a single run. They are also noisy, with lots of wiggles. Look at a 10 year period within a single run, and you won’t necessarily see much obvious trend, either. So the models are run many times, and the results averaged together to provide a cleaner average projection. But the actual Earth will show as much variability as one of the individual runs, not the cleaner average.

DirkH
February 18, 2010 4:47 pm

“Smokey (16:12:29) :
[…]
Furthermore, the proposed tax would be levied on refined oil products, like diesel, gasoline, plastics, fertilizer, etc., similar to a value added tax [VAT] that is tacked onto every stage of production in Europe.”
To clarify: Effectively it’s tacked only onto the end customer price. A business that buys raw materials, refines them into a consumer product will have to pay VAT to its suppliers and get VAT from the end consumers; it will then effectively pay the difference to the local finance office.
For certain inter-EU regulation issues this gives room for so called VAT carousel fraud; the scheme is roughly this: you get VAT compensation from your local finance office because you tell them you had to pay for imported goods from a different EU country, paying VAT into the other country. You actually did import something from a company in the neighbouring country that works together with you but that company cashes in the money and disappears before the finance office of the neighbouring country can investigate the case.
This type of fraud is mostly done with immaterial goods, escpecially with carbon credits. 90 % of the carbon trade serves this VAT racket. The volume is billions of Euros per year.

DirkH
February 18, 2010 4:55 pm

“carrot eater (12:27:31) :
[…]
Also not true. For the current forcings, the models predict about a +0.2 C/decade rise in temperature, superimposed on the natural variability. ”
For this to work somewhere an enormous amount of energy must accumulate and hide to come back with a vengance after a period of cooling. If it would simply make off into space this would destroy the trend.
So where is it hiding, carrot eater? In the oceans? In that case, why doesn’t Argo find it?

February 18, 2010 5:21 pm

carroteater,
I wondered if that’s what you meant by “equal amounts of any forcing will have the same impact,” but I really couldn’t believe you would make that argument. It’s like saying “the energy in twenty thousand matches will push a car down the road as far as a gallon of gasoline will.” CO2 is a few matches by comparison to TSI. Prove it isn’t. I’ll sit back and watch.
Your proclamation that CO2 forcing is stronger than solar irradiance is simply an assumption, based on the always-too-high climate sensitivity estimates of CO2’s effect… s’cuse me, forcing, by alarmists.
Ever since Arrenhius, in his 1892 paper postulated a 6° climate sensitivity to CO2, the number has steadily and inexorably ratcheted downward. Even Arrenhius himself reduced it by two thirds in his 1906 paper, and Lindzen puts it at somewhere between 0.5 and 1 – in which case there is no need to worry about CO2 at all. The climate’s apparent lack of response to CO2 points to a sensitivity of 1.0; likely lower. You can read pal review papers. I’ll pay attention to what planet Earth is telling us.
And regarding your faith in computer models, it is not shared by other scientists: click

Martin Mason
February 18, 2010 5:30 pm

Carrot eater, please quantify the net “forcing” of CO2 over the last 10 years and the effect that it has had on surface temperatures. You use the word “strong” when temperatures have fallen which now surely nobody would dispute? The reality in my opinion is that while CO2 may be a GHG (of little real world significance) any effect it has had as CO2 levels have almost doubled is of no measurable significance. The reality is that we do not understand what is happening to climate and how we get the oscillation between glacial periods and warm periods. CO2 seemed the answer and one that could generate untold tax revenues but it patently isn’t (and that is proven by simple logic not models). The AGW juggernaut rolls on still though.

carrot eater
February 18, 2010 5:42 pm

Smokey (17:21:36) :
“CO2 is a few matches by comparison to TSI. Prove it isn’t. ”
It’s just physics. Roughly speaking, it does not matter what causes a radiation imbalance of 1 W/m^2. Like it or not, it will have the same effect. (There are some subtleties here, but not important for this discussion).
“Your proclamation that CO2 forcing is stronger than solar irradiance is simply an assumption, based on the always-too-high climate sensitivity estimates of CO2’s effect… s’cuse me, forcing, by alarmists….and Lindzen puts it at somewhere between 0.5 and 1 ”
You are confused between sensitivity and forcing. The calculated forcing does *not* include any positive or negative feedbacks. Those are taken care of within the sensitivity.
I don’t think Lindzen disagrees with the basic calculation of the forcing due to CO2 (how to translate from change in CO2 concentration to forcing, in W/m^2). I don’t think you’ll find any publishing scientist who does.
What Lindzen does is propose negative feedbacks which reduce the sensitivity. But that applies to any forcing. If the TSI forcing increased by 1 W/m^2, Lindzen would still claim that the models would overestimate the resulting temperature rise.
So appealing to Lindzen does not help you in the point you are trying to make.

Philemon
February 18, 2010 6:21 pm

Well, Al Gore got Teapot Dome, or whatever they’re calling it to distance it from the scandal under President Harding.
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0848032.html
And that’s without going into Armand Hammer or Occidental Petroleum (Oxy-Pete). Funny thing was, his father was know as the Senator from Oxy-Pete (Armand Hammer bragged that he had him in his back pocket, wallet). Al Gore, Jr., was known as the, original, Senator from Likud. (Some time before Lieberman became thus affiliated.)

Robert
February 18, 2010 10:51 pm

“You use the word “strong” when temperatures have fallen which now surely nobody would dispute?”
Virtually everybody would dispute that assertion. The Oughts were the warmest decade on record. This year (although it is early days yet) is on pace to break the all-time record: http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

Bart
February 18, 2010 11:43 pm

carrot eater (12:51:21) :
It could be based on extrapolating the current observed trend, mixed with whatever feeling he got from looking at the current state of the Arctic on his trip. Sort of a guess, with no model in sight.”
Sorry, no points awarded. To calculate a trend is to apply a 1st order polynomial model to the data set.

Martin Mason
February 18, 2010 11:53 pm

Robert, I’m still waiting for answers to my questions, don’t be shy now I won’t laugh too hard. I can’t open and use the link you sent me but it’s irrelevant anyway. Post ’98 is coming down from a strong El Nino inspired abnormal high and I’ve seen enough evidence now to be certain that temperatures are falling whatever the average is doing. Whatever, it is meaningless because the question is not whether there is warming or cooling but what is causing it. Whatever has happened there is not a shred of evidence that it was caused by Anthropogenic CO2. AGW, remember, is a hypothesis (it doesn’t make theory let alone law) and a weak one for which there is no observable verification.

carrot eater
February 19, 2010 4:13 am

Bart (23:43:13) :
“Sorry, no points awarded. To calculate a trend is to apply a 1st order polynomial model to the data set.”
Oh, please. While that is in some sense true, we all know that an extrapolation of a trend (with perhaps some gut feeling tossed in, who knows) is not exactly what is meant by “1) The conclusions are ALL Based on CLIMATE MODELS.”
It’s hard to even figure what all the conclusions are, given that all we have from the seminar is a handful of quotes.

carrot eater
February 19, 2010 4:22 am

Martin Mason (17:30:22) :
“Carrot eater, please quantify the net “forcing” of CO2 over the last 10 years and the effect that it has had on surface temperatures.”
You can get a decent estimate of the change in CO2 forcing over some period by using a simple formula; it has the form of 5.35*ln(current conc/previous conc).
As for short term trends: I have said it before. In the absence of any forcing, the surface temperature record would still show a lot of noise. When you add a forcing in, you superimpose some trend on that noise, but unless the forcing is very strong, the trend will not be apparent unless you look over a number of years. Given the current forcings, that number of years is 15-20 years. This is not inconsistent with the models; they show the same sort of behavior.

DirkH
February 19, 2010 4:48 am

“carrot eater (04:22:07) :
[…]
Given the current forcings, that number of years is 15-20 years. This is not inconsistent with the models; they show the same sort of behavior.”
And where do the models hide the accumulated energy in the meantime? I mean, it must be somewhere. Where?

DirkH
February 19, 2010 4:52 am

Oh i forgot i asked carrot the same question before and he doesn’t have an answer. I surely don’t want to intimidate anyone. I guess i’ll just have to take silence for the answer. Fine with me.

John from CA
February 19, 2010 6:32 am

Its been interesting watching The Cryosphere Today reports;
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
There’s approximately 3-4 more weeks of ice growth ahead and we’re currently -0.689 (million sq. km) of the 1979-2008 mean:
021710: -.757
021810: -.726
021910: -.689
31,000 sq. km increase in 1 day
68,000 sq. km increase in the past 2 days

P Wilson
February 19, 2010 9:18 am

Robert (10:33:07) :
At less than 0.04% of the atmosphere, an increase in c02 doesn’t affect the density of the atmosphere – atmospheric density is the sole argument of the air affecting temperatures, which has nothing to do with a “greenhouse effect”. Changes in density and air pressure are alas not human induced

February 19, 2010 10:52 am

carrot eater (04:22:07) :
Martin Mason (17:30:22) :
“Carrot eater, please quantify the net “forcing” of CO2 over the last 10 years and the effect that it has had on surface temperatures.”
carrot answers:
“…unless the forcing is very strong, the trend will not be apparent unless you look over a number of years. Given the current forcings, that number of years is 15-20 years.”
That’s not quantifying, but anyway, according to that answer CO2 forcing is not very strong. If it was significant, like a large volcano eruption, it would be easy to spot.
And since CO2 forcing is not very strong, there is no need to continue spending mountains of tax money on superfluous global warming “studies.” The AGW effect is insignificant, and every dollar spent on studying just how insignificant it is, is a dollar that could instead be spent on legitimate science that actually results in benefits for humanity — which AGW studies do not.
Scientists in other fields starved of funding should be up in arms over the profligate waste of grant money on CAGW, which has been debunked so often.

Bart
February 19, 2010 11:13 am

carrot eater (04:13:27) :
“While that is in some sense true,…”
You mean, in the sense of being precisely correct and valid?
…we all know that an extrapolation of a trend (with perhaps some gut feeling tossed in, who knows) is not exactly what is meant by “1) The conclusions are ALL Based on CLIMATE MODELS.”
With which part of “1st order polynomial model” do you have a problem? It is a model. If you seek to make a prediction from extrapolating it, you are basing your prognostication on a model, and one of the worst sorts of models from which to extrapolate behavior of a complex system, at that.
I, personally, would find a 30 year prediction based on complex climate models with a mediocre-at-best track record merely troublesome. A 30 year prediction based on linear trending, on the other hand, I would find preposterous.

carrot eater
February 19, 2010 4:57 pm

DirkH (04:48:08) :
Good grief. I’m sorry I don’t notice every comment headed my way.
It doesn’t have to ‘hide’ it anywhere. If you run a model with no forcing at all, a single run will not flatline. It’ll show El Nino-like bumps and dips. Put in a forcing, and you’ll get a trend superimposed on those bumps and dips.
Smokey (10:52:51) :
Just for you: Taking the 2009 CO2 conc as 387.4, and the 1999 as 368.1, you get 0.27 W/m^2. Not sure what you’d want to do with that number.
“according to that answer CO2 forcing is not very strong. If it was significant, like a large volcano eruption, it would be easy to spot.”
Yes, a large volcanic event like Pinatubo has a big enough forcing that you can easily see its effect, despite the underlying noise of ENSO, etc. Happily those events are sporadic, and the dust clears.
Otherwise, yes, the increase in total forcing (CO2+CH4+solar+aerosol+black carbon+etc, etc) is weak enough that you need to look at periods of at least 15 years in order to see a significant warming trend. You’re catching on.
“And since CO2 forcing is not very strong, there is no need to continue spending mountains of tax money on superfluous global warming “studies.””
How on earth does that follow? Yes, the trend in forcing is weak enough that you can’t necessarily see the impact in a ten year span, amidst ENSO and whatever else. But it’s strong enough that you’ll see it over 30 years, 100 years..
Bart (11:13:02) :
One could ask the author to speak for himself, but I would hazard a humble guess that by climate model, he meant something a bit more sophisticated than a linear extrapolation or guesstimate.

Bart
February 19, 2010 5:26 pm

carrot eater (16:57:23) :
“…he meant something a bit more sophisticated than a linear extrapolation or guesstimate.”
Like a model? Come on, just say it. You’re only digging a deeper hole.

Bart
February 19, 2010 5:31 pm

“… and the dust clears.”
Wow, you mean it’s temporary and not cumulative? Who’da thunk it? But, anthropogenic CO2 is magic CO2. Like the guest from hell, it never seems to know when its time to go home, and just lingers on and on.

P Wilson
February 19, 2010 6:24 pm

carrot eater (16:57:23)
these sprious relations based on unverifiable, yet result fixed computer models are just so absurd that they hardly deserve any comment.

Martin Mason
February 19, 2010 7:14 pm

Carrot eater, you forget the other dreadful possibility. CO2 forcing is in reality nowhere near as strong as the theory says and there’s actually nothing hiding it, it just isn’t there in any significance. That is what current and historical observations show in spades. Obviously actual observations are nothing compared to the output of simplistic models though and basing climate science on a single period of 20 years when ST and CO2 showed an apparent linkage. Possibly the only period on record.

John from CA
February 22, 2010 10:16 am

Its been interesting watching The Cryosphere Today reports for Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
Data provided by NSIDC: NASA SMMR and SSMI
17 February, 2010: There’s approximately 3-4 more weeks of ice growth ahead and we’re currently -0.757 (million sq. km) from the 1979-2008 mean. So I thought it would be interesting to see where we top in relation to past years.
M/D/Y Posted Value Comment
021710: -.757
021810: -.726 (31,000 sq. km increase)
021910: -.689 (37,000 sq. km increase)
022010: (no data available when I checked – 2010 daily readings aren’t posted)
022110: -.597 (92,000 sq. km increase in the past 2 days | 160,000 to-date)
022210: -.684 (87,000 sq. km decrease since yesterday)
From 02-17-2010 to the present:
31,000 sq. km increase in 1 day
68,000 sq. km increase in the past 2 days
(no data when I checked) ? sq. km increase in the past 3 days
160,000 sq. km increase in the past 4 days
73,000 sq. km increase in the past 5 days (87,000 sq. km decrease since yesterday – odd, the positive trend was accelerating for the last 4 days and this is double the trend in the opposite direction – did someone goof?)

John from CA
February 22, 2010 10:34 am

Admittedly, a visual 1 day timeframe is pretty silly use but this looks like ice growth.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=02&fd=21&fy=2010&sm=02&sd=22&sy=2010

%d bloggers like this: