From World Climate Report:
Another IPCC Error: Antarctic Sea Ice Increase Underestimated by 50%
Figure 1. Trend in Antarctic ice extent, November 1978 through December 2006 (source: Comiso and Nishio, 2008).
Several errors have been recently uncovered in the 4th Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These include problems with Himalayan glaciers, African agriculture, Amazon rainforests, Dutch geography, and attribution of damages from extreme weather events. More seem to turn up daily. Most of these errors stem from the IPCC’s reliance on non-peer reviewed sources.
The defenders of the IPCC have contended that most of these errors are minor in significance and are confined to the Working Group II Report (the one on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability) of the IPCC which was put together by representatives from various regional interests and that there was not as much hard science available to call upon as there was in the Working Group I report (“The Physical Science Basis”). The IPCC defenders argue that there have been no (or practically no) problems identified in the Working Group I (WGI) report on the science.
We humbly disagree.
In fact, the WGI report is built upon a process which, as revealed by the Climategate emails, is, by its very nature, designed not to produce an accurate view of the state of climate science, but instead to be an “assessment” of the state of climate science—an assessment largely driven by preconceived ideas of the IPCC design team and promulgated by various elite chapter authors. The end result of this “assessment” is to elevate evidence which supports the preconceived ideas and denigrate (or ignore) ideas that run counter to it.
These practices are clearly laid bare in several recent Petitions to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—petitions asking the EPA to reconsider its “Endangerment Finding” that anthropogenic greenhouse gases endanger our public health and welfare. The basis of the various petitions is that the process is so flawed that the IPCC cannot be considered a reliable provider of the true state of climate science, something that the EPA heavily relies on the IPCC to be. The most thorough of these petitions contains over 200 pages of descriptions of IPCC problems and it a true eye-opener into how bad things had become.
There is no doubt that the 200+ pages would continue to swell further had the submission deadline not been so tight. New material is being revealed daily.
Just last week, the IPCC’s (and thus EPA’s) primary assertion that “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG [greenhouse gas] concentrations” was shown to be wrong. This argument isn’t included in the Petition.
This adds yet another problem to the growing list of errors in the IPCC WGI report, this one concerns Antarctic sea ice trends.
While all the press is about the observed declines in Arctic sea ice extent in recent decades, little attention at all is paid to the fact that the sea ice extent in the Antarctic has been on the increase. No doubt the dearth of press coverage stems from the IPCC treatment of this topic.
In the IPCC AR4 the situation is described like this in Chapter 4, “Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice, and Frozen Ground” (p. 351):
As an example, an updated version of the analysis done by Comiso (2003), spanning the period from November 1978 through December 2005, is shown in Figure 4.8. The annual mean ice extent anomalies are shown. There is a significant decreasing trend in arctic sea ice extent of –33 ± 7.4 × 103 km2 yr–1 (equivalent to –2.7 ± 0.6% per decade), whereas the Antarctic results show a small positive trend of 5.6 ± 9.2 × 103 km2 yr–1 (0.47 ± 0.8% per decade), which is not statistically significant. The uncertainties represent the 90% confidence interval around the trend estimate and the percentages are based on the 1978 to 2005 mean.
Notice that the IPCC states that the Antarctic increase in sea ice extent from November 1979-December 2005 is “not statistically significant” which seems to give them good reason to play it down. For instance, in the Chapter 4, Executive Summary (p. 339), the sea ice bullet reads:
Satellite data indicate a continuation of the 2.7 ± 0.6% per decade decline in annual mean arctic sea ice extent since 1978. The decline for summer extent is larger than for winter, with the summer minimum declining at a rate of 7.4 ± 2.4% per decade since 1979. Other data indicate that the summer decline began around 1970. Similar observations in the Antarctic reveal larger interannual variability but no consistent trends.
Which in the AR4 Summary For Policymakers becomes two separate items:
Satellite data since 1978 show that annual average arctic sea ice extent has shrunk by 2.7 [2.1 to 3.3]% per decade, with larger decreases in summer of 7.4 [5.0 to 9.8]% per decade. These values are consistent with those reported in the TAR. {4.4}
and,
Antarctic sea ice extent continues to show interannual variability and localised changes but no statistically significant average trends, consistent with the lack of warming reflected in atmospheric temperatures averaged across the region. {3.2, 4.4}
“Continues to show…no statistically significant average trends”? Continues?
This is what the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), released in 2001, had to say about Antarctic sea ice trends (Chapter 3, p. 125):
Over the period 1979 to 1996, the Antarctic (Cavalieri et al., 1997; Parkinson et al., 1999) shows a weak increase of 1.3 ± 0.2%/decade.
By anyone’s reckoning, that is a statistically significant increase.
In the IPCC TAR Chapter 3 Executive Summary is this bullet point:
…Satellite data indicate that after a possible initial decrease in the mid-1970s, Antarctic sea-ice extent has stayed almost stable or even increased since 1978.
So, the IPCC AR4’s contention that sea ice trends in Antarctica “continues” to show “no statistically significant average trends” contrasts with what it had concluded in the TAR.
Interestingly, the AR4 did not include references to any previous study that showed that Antarctic sea ice trends were increasing in a statistically significant way. The AR4 did not include the TAR references of either Cavalieri et al., 1997, or Parkinson et al., 1999. Nor did the IPCC AR4 include a reference to Zwally et al., 2002, which found that:
The derived 20 year trend in sea ice extent from the monthly deviations is 11.18 ± 4.19 x 103 km2yr-1 or 0.98 ± 0.37% (decade)-1 for the entire Antarctic sea ice cover, which is significantly positive. [emphasis added]
and (also from Zwally et al. 2002),
Also, a recent analysis of Antarctic sea ice trends for 1978–1996 by Watkins and Simmonds [2000] found significant increases in both Antarctic sea ice extent and ice area, similar to the results in this paper. [emphasis added]
Watkins and Simmonds (2000) was also not cited by the AR4.
So just what did the IPCC AR4 authors cite in support of their “assessment” that Antarctic sea ice extent was not increasing in a statistically significant manner? The answer is “an updated version of the analysis done by Comiso (2003).” And just what is “Comiso (2003)”? A book chapter!
Comiso, J.C., 2003: Large scale characteristics and variability of the global sea ice cover. In: Sea Ice – An Introduction to its Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Geology [Thomas, D. and G.S. Dieckmann (eds.)]. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK, pp. 112–142.
And the IPCC didn’t actually even use what was in the book chapter, but instead “an updated version” of the “analysis” that was in the book chapter.
And from this “updated” analysis, the IPCC reported that the increase in Antarctic sea ice extent was an insignificant 5.6 ± 9.2 × 103 km2 yr–1 (0.47 ± 0.8% per decade)—a value that was only about one-half of the increase reported in the peer-reviewed literature.
There are a few more things worth considering.
1) Josefino Comiso (the author of the above mentioned book chapter) was a contributing author of the IPCC AR4 Chapter 4, so the coordinating lead authors probably just turned directly to Comiso to provide an unpeer-reviewed update. (how convenient)
and 2) Comiso published a subsequent paper (along with Fumihiko Nishio) in 2008 that added only one additional year to the IPCC analysis (i.e. through 2006 instead of 2005), and once again found a statistically significant increase in Antarctic sea ice extent, with a value very similar to the value reported in the old TAR, that is:
When updated to 2006, the trends in ice extent and area …in the Antarctic remains slight but positive at 0.9 ± 0.2 and 1.7 ± 0.3% per decade.
These trends are, again, by anyone’s reckoning, statistically significant.
Figure 1. Trend in Antarctic ice extent, November 1978 through December 2006 (source: Comiso and Nishio, 2008).
And just in case further evidence is needed, and recent 2009 paper by Turner et al. (on which Comiso was a co-author), concluded that:
Based on a new analysis of passive microwave satellite data, we demonstrate that the annual mean extent of Antarctic sea ice has increased at a statistically significant rate of 0.97% dec-1 since the late 1970s.
This rate of increase is nearly twice as great as the value given in the AR4 (from its non-peer-reviewed source).
So, the peer reviewed literature, both extant at the time of the AR4 as well as published since the release of the AR4, shows that there has been a significant increase in the extent of sea ice around Antarctica since the time of the first satellite observations observed in the late 1970s. And yet the AR4 somehow “assessed” the evidence and determined not only that the increase was only half the rate established in the peer-reviewed literature, but also that it was statistically insignificant as well. And thus, the increase in sea ice in the Antarctic was downplayed in preference to highlighting the observed decline in sea ice in the Arctic.
It is little wonder why, considering that the AR4 found that “Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic under all SRES scenarios.”
References:
Cavalieri, D. J., P. Gloersen, C. L. Parkinson, J. C. Comiso, and H. J. Zwally, 1997. Observed hemispheric asymmetry in global sea ice changes. Science, 278, 1104–1106.
Cavalieri, D. J., C. L. Parkinson, P. Gloersen, J. C. Comiso, and H. J. Zwally, 1999. Deriving long-term time series of sea ice cover from satellite passivemicrowave multisensor data sets. Journal of Geophysical Research, 104, 15803–15814.
Comiso, J. C., and F. Nishio, 2008. Trends in the sea ice cover using enhanced and compatible AMSR-E, SSM/I, and SMMR data. Journal of Geophysical Research, 113, C02S07, doi:10.1029/2007JC004257.
Parkinson, C. L., D. J. Cavalieri, P. Gloersen, H. J. Zwally, and J. C. Comiso, 1999. Arctic sea ice extents, areas, and trends, 1978– 1996. Journal of Geophysical Research, 104, 20837–20856.
Turner, J., J. C. Comiso, G. J. Marshall, T. A. Lachlan-Cope, T. Bracegirdle, T. Maksym, M. P. Meredith, Z. Wang, and A. Orr, 2009. Non-annular atmospheric circulation change induced by stratospheric ozone depletion and its role in the recent increase of Antarctic sea ice extent. Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L08502, doi:10.1029/2009GL037524.
Watkins, A. B., and I. Simmonds, Current trends in Antarctic sea ice: The 1990s impact on a short climatology, 2000. Journal of Climate, 13, 4441–4451.
Zwally, H.J., J. C. Comiso, C. L. Parkinson, D. J. Cavalieri, and P. Gloersen, 2002. Variability of Antarctic sea ice 1979-1998. Journal of Geophysical Research, 107, C53041.
Sponsored IT training links:
Complete set of 000-152 exam questions and NS0-154 dumps to help you get in detail knowledge and pass your 70-667 for the first time.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Superb post!
This is all far too complicated for the sleazy, conniving minds of our political masters to understand.
Their stance will remain: “Don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up”.
Their stance will only change when they realise it is going to start costing a serious number of votes.
To paraphrase one of history’s greatest men at the turning point in the long fight against a rotten evil doctrine: “This is not yet the beginning of the end, but it may be the end of the beginning.”
And in closing, I am currently down in southern Spain where it is unseasonably cold and we are experiencing the heaviest and most prolonged rains in recorded history – doubtless further proof for IPCC Version 5 that AGW is a proven fact.
John R. Judge (03:33:07) : “In spite of all the new revelations of massaged data and biased evaluations that just keep on coming, the alarmists, like Peter Liss of CRU, continue to insist that the “overwhelming science still supports AGW”. What “science” are they basing this claim on?”
Obviously, the science that no skeptic has taken a look at yet.
Well I can’t comment on the accuracy of those straight line “fits” to the raw data; since I don’t know what algorithm was used to obtain those lines.
BUT, my eyeball says that both of those graphs have a definite rising tendency.
In fact my eyeball would say that a somewhat steeper straight line would be an even better fit to the data.
Now I suppose somebody is going to tell me that this given straight line was derived from a least squares error calculation; that being at least one of the more obvious things to do.
I would agree with that, if there was some a priori knowledge that in fact the plotted function was known to actually be a straight line buried in Gaussian random noise.
Well I have spent hours staring in real time at true random Gaussian noise; and that ain’t it. I would say that the noisy plot here; which I presume is actually somewhat less “noisy” real data; that is true measured data, looks more like a 1/f noise signature; rather than Gaussian.
In that case, I would tend to discount the less frequent, but larger amplitude deviations from the straight line; as being the result of actual transient events; rather than noise.
So I would pay more attention to the smaller deviations; aqnd when my eye does that, it sees a somewhat greater slope than the straight line plotted on this data.
But I’m not going to make any claims; since I don’t have the raw data; nor the history to try and unravel what is really going on here.
But I would caustion about applying least square error methods to raw data, for which that might not be a valid method.
PaulM (10:17:54)
“Books are not peer reviewed.”
This is not necessarily true. I have recently reviewed a manuscript destined to be a book chapter.
Nor is it relevant. There is nothing in the IPCC guidelines that state that only peer-reviewed material can be used. Even if this particular analysis from Comiso’s is not peer reviewed, the method used almost certainly was.
MinB (08:23:49) :
At the top of this page, run a search on Svensmark, and enjoy.
“Breathing pure CO2 causes no harm whtever.
What kills you is the lack of oxygen.
What proportion of the atmosphere as CO2 would deprive us of enough oxygen to be perceptible ?
[Studies on submarines said around 9000ppm. R.T. – mod]”
It’s mostly a theoretical concern, but if you had an oxygen-rich gas that was high in CO2, you would in the medium term get into trouble with your acid/base balance. We blow off CO2 in part to maintain our body’s pH in a tight window. Exhaled gas is about 5% CO2. If your inhaled gas is >5% CO2, you’re eventually going to develop hypercapnea and a respiratory acidosis. Of course, if the additional CO2 is coming out of your budget of 21% atmospheric O2, you’re going to notice that before you notice this.
David Segesta (09:04:31) : we need to find out who and why
Try this for starters:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EDBLICKRANT.pdf
——————————————
If Antarctic SEA ICE is growing it will at some point in the future fracture and parts will float around, re-attach, or float away. The pieces will be flat and broad and the size of small countries. Be prepared for shouts of doom.
“”” Phil A (10:21:04) :
“So which incapacitates humans or mamals first; a lack of Oxygen, or an excess of CO2 ? ” – George E Smith
AIUI an excess of CO2 can cause asphyxiation even when there is still plenty of oxygen. Otherwise submariners would not be in nearly so much danger when things go wrong. Or indeed the astronauts in Apollo 13 who still had lots of oxygen in their tanks but had to fix the CO2 scrubbers to stay alive.
That said, the lethal concentration for CO2 (death in 30 minutes) is 10% (100,000 ppm). The “maximum safe level” is 3% (30,000 ppm). Our atmosphere is currently at about, what a bit under 400 ppm? So we have a fair amount of headroom on this one… “””
Well I’ll take your scary explanation, just as you put it. No point trying to argue with numbers and situations as you succinctly put it.
Thanks for the education; that’s why I asked the question.
As I recall, the extreme cave divers who use rebreathers were more concerned about what the scrubbers left in the gas mixture, rather than the amount of added oxygen.
“Richard Telford (10:37:58) :
PaulM (10:17:54)
“Books are not peer reviewed.”
This is not necessarily true. I have recently reviewed a manuscript destined to be a book chapter.
Nor is it relevant. There is nothing in the IPCC guidelines that state that only peer-reviewed material can be used. Even if this particular analysis from Comiso’s is not peer reviewed, the method used almost certainly was.”
Note also that, using improved measurements, Comiso has now been corrected by — Comiso. In other words, science moves forward, in a “scandal” of continued observation and revised hypothesis.
jorgekafkazar (10:23:03) :
John R. Judge (03:33:07) : “In spite of all the new revelations of massaged data and biased evaluations that just keep on coming, the alarmists, like Peter Liss of CRU, continue to insist that the “overwhelming science still supports AGW”. What “science” are they basing this claim on?”
Obviously, the science that no skeptic has taken a look at yet.
———-
Reply:
Are you saying all those points about “science” from the latest IPCC? Like these:
ClimateGate – This scandal began the latest round of revelations when thousands of leaked documents from Britain’s East Anglia Climate Research Unit showed systematic suppression and discrediting of climate skeptics’ views and discarding of temperature data, suggesting a bias for making the case for warming. Why do such a thing if, as global warming defenders contend, the “science is settled?”
FOIGate – The British government has since determined someone at East Anglia committed a crime by refusing to release global warming documents sought in 95 Freedom of Information Act requests. The CRU is one of three international agencies compiling global temperature data. If their stuff’s so solid, why the secrecy?
ChinaGate – An investigation by the U.K.’s left-leaning Guardian newspaper found evidence that Chinese weather station measurements not only were seriously flawed, but couldn’t be located. “Where exactly are 42 weather monitoring stations in remote parts of rural China?” the paper asked. The paper’s investigation also couldn’t find corroboration of what Chinese scientists turned over to American scientists, leaving unanswered, “how much of the warming seen in recent decades is due to the local effects of spreading cities, rather than global warming?” The Guardian contends that researchers covered up the missing data for years.
HimalayaGate – An Indian climate official admitted in January that, as lead author of the IPCC’s Asian report, he intentionally exaggerated when claiming Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 in order to prod governments into action. This fraudulent claim was not based on scientific research or peer-reviewed. Instead it was originally advanced by a researcher, since hired by a global warming research organization, who later admitted it was “speculation” lifted from a popular magazine. This political, not scientific, motivation at least got some researcher funded.
PachauriGate– Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman who accepted with Al Gore the Nobel Prize for scaring people witless, at first defended the Himalaya melting scenario. Critics, he said, practiced “voodoo science.” After the melting-scam perpetrator ‘fessed up, Pachauri admitted to making a mistake. But, he insisted, we still should trust him.
PachauriGate II – Pachauri also claimed he didn’t know before the 192-nation climate summit meeting in Copenhagen in December that the bogus Himalayan glacier claim was sheer speculation. But the London Times reported that a prominent science journalist said he had pointed out those errors in several e-mails and discussions to Pachauri, who “decided to overlook it.” Stonewalling? Cover up? Pachauri says he was “preoccupied.” Well, no sense spoiling the Copenhagen party, where countries like Pachauri’s India hoped to wrench billions from countries like the United States to combat global warming’s melting glaciers. Now there are calls for Pachauri’s resignation.
SternGate – One excuse for imposing worldwide climate crackdown has been the U.K.’s 2006 Stern Report, an economic doomsday prediction commissioned by the government. Now the U.K. Telegraph reports that quietly after publication “some of these predictions had been watered down because the scientific evidence on which they were based could not be verified.” Among original claims now deleted were that northwest Australia has had stronger typhoons in recent decades, and that southern Australia lost rainfall because of rising ocean temperatures. Exaggerated claims get headlines. Later, news reporters disclose the truth. Why is that?
SternGate II – A researcher now claims the Stern Report misquoted his work to suggest a firm link between global warming and more-frequent and severe floods and hurricanes. Robert Muir-Wood said his original research showed no such link. He accused Stern of “going far beyond what was an acceptable extrapolation of the evidence.” We’re shocked.
AmazonGate– The London Times exposed another shocker: the IPCC claim that global warming will wipe out rain forests was fraudulent, yet advanced as “peer-reveiwed” science. The Times said the assertion actually “was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise,” “authored by two green activists” and lifted from a report from the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group. The “research” was based on a popular science magazine report that didn’t bother to assess rainfall. Instead, it looked at the impact of logging and burning. The original report suggested “up to 40 percent” of Brazilian rain forest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall, but the IPCC expanded that to cover the entire Amazon, the Times reported.
PeerReviewGate – The U.K. Sunday Telegraph has documented at least 16 nonpeer-reviewed reports (so far) from the advocacy group World Wildlife Fund that were used in the IPCC’s climate change bible, which calls for capping manmade greenhouse gases.
RussiaGate – Even when global warming alarmists base claims on scientific measurements, they’ve often had their finger on the scale. Russian think tank investigators evaluated thousands of documents and e-mails leaked from the East Anglia research center and concluded readings from the coldest regions of their nation had been omitted, driving average temperatures up about half a degree.
Russia-Gate II – Speaking of Russia, a presentation last October to the Geological Society of America showed how tree-ring data from Russia indicated cooling after 1961, but was deceptively truncated and only artfully discussed in IPCC publications. Well, at least the tree-ring data made it into the IPCC report, albeit disguised and misrepresented.
U.S.Gate – If Brits can’t be trusted, are Yanks more reliable? The U.S. National Climate Data Center has been manipulating weather data too, say computer expert E. Michael Smith and meteorologist Joesph D’Aleo. Forty years ago there were 6,000 surface-temperature measuring stations, but only 1,500 by 1990, which coincides with what global warming alarmists say was a record temperature increase. Most of the deleted stations were in colder regions, just as in the Russian case, resulting in misleading higher average temperatures.
IceGate – Hardly a continent has escaped global warming skewing. The IPCC based its findings of reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and in Africa on a feature story of climbers’ anecdotes in a popular mountaineering magazine, and a dissertation by a Switzerland university student, quoting mountain guides. Peer-reviewed? Hype? Worse?
ResearchGate– The global warming camp is reeling so much lately it must have seemed like a major victory when a Penn State University inquiry into climate scientist Michael Mann found no misconduct regarding three accusations of climate research impropriety. But the university did find “further investigation is warranted” to determine whether Mann engaged in actions that “seriously deviated from accepted practices for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities.” Being investigated for only one fraud is a global warming victory these days.
ReefGate– Let’s not forget the alleged link between climate change and coral reef degradation. The IPCC cited not peer-reviewed literature, but advocacy articles by Greenpeace, the publicity-hungry advocacy group, as its sole source for this claim.
AfricaGate – The IPCC claim that rising temperatures could cut in half agricultural yields in African countries turns out to have come from a 2003 paper published by a Canadian environmental think tank – not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
DutchGate – The IPCC also claimed rising sea levels endanger the 55 percent of the Netherlands it says is below sea level. The portion of the Netherlands below sea level actually is 20 percent. The Dutch environment minister said she will no longer tolerate climate researchers’ errors.
AlaskaGate – Geologists for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography and their U.S. and Canadian colleagues say previous studies largely overestimated by 40 percent Alaskan glacier loss for 40 years. This flawed data are fed into those computers to predict future warming.
And since the above was compiled by Mark Landsbaum (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-234092–.html), There have been at least two more–Antacrctic-Sea-Ice-Gate and Hurricane-Gate.
It has just been flat difficult to keep up with all the errors the IPCC has been calling “science”.
RockyRoad (06:36:23) : “I can show you additional scripture that says Adam and Eve had multiple sons and multiple daughters, and that they married and had children, grandchildren, and so forth.”
Plus, this explanation of our origin is “consistent with” the current level of human intelligence. 🙂
Jeff Id (10:16:21) :
You said on your blog the lag r1 was 0.997 – 0.998.
A value so close to 1 makes the Quenouille (Santer) adjustment for autocorrelation, Q=(1-r1)/(1+r1) rather unstable. I’d be wary of using such an analysis for the confidence limits.
Indeed your plot of the trend looks peculiar, with a very constant value despite the large and strangely asymmetric bounds:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/sea-ice-copenhagen-update/
One of the reasons for all of these repeated ‘Gates’ is that the science was so overhyped. So there is the near omnipresence of exaggeration in every story.
========================================
The data doesn’t jive with information from NASA, the National Snow and Ice Data Center and people living on low islands around the world. Ask the people in Venice Italy if the oceans are on the rise.
Check the data at http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
The climate is warming. The only two questions are, is it actually caused by man and could we really do anything to reverse the trend. Regardless of the cause I thing there is very reasonalbe doubt to think we can do anything to reverse the trend. Any money spent on climate change should be invested in protecting coastal areas.
Jorgkafkazar 10:23:03:
“Obviously, the science that no skeptic has taken a look at yet.”
Make that “unable to examine”.
The very term Climate Scientist is pretty vague. What constitutes a Climate Scientist? Back in the day there were oceanic, atmospheric, geological scientists.
Are we to understand that a “climate scientist” holds all these credentials? I believe if you are claiming or tasked as a climate scientist, you should hold all of them because of the factor of interplay. Someone asked “Why did they think they could get away with it? I beleive this to be fairly simple.
Firstly, we live in a pretty apathetical age. Few people in the “free world” vote compared to generations past. Secondly, special interest, as a result, is a huge influence on government. Thirdly, we live in an age of instant communication/news, camera phones etc. Everything newsworthy or spectacular can be uploaded, and broadcast worldwide. Even 25 years ago we wer’nt nearly this tuned in to events. A hurricane could desimate a small island, kill thousands, but without the visual element of it’s force, or immediate aftermath, it’s just another unfortunate event.
Put it this way; If this horrible earthquake in Haiti had happened in say, 1975…..How much outpouring do you think would have gone to this battered nation compared to what we have seen worldwide today? I would like to think alot, but the reality is people on mass, probably would’nt have donated out of their pocket like they did recently.
So back to the topic of GW……It’s these reasons the people behind GW are able to cause fear and gain support. The real evil above all is this tax on carbon. Obviously too much of anything is not good no matter what, but carbon taxation and villafication is utterly condemnable. The fact is every living thing, and most objects on this planet either are made of or utilize carbon. It’s an essential building block.
The profit margines for this scam are imeasurable. I heard one conservative estimate from a carbon trader, that it has the potential within the next five years of being a seventeen trillion dollar industry a year worldwide. That’s a lot of coin no matter how you slice it.
So governments stand to eliminate deficeits, beaurocrats stand to get wealthy, and corporations signed on to the program…..well, let’s just say expect to see more huge bonuses.
For the record, I’m not anti business, or right or left wing. I’m in the middle. I think you have to be, but I must say I am truly frightened by the sheeplike religious cult bent, such a hashed together, rather quick consencus based on human worst case scenario provided computer modelling, has taken people and made them converts, and those that question….deemed as “deniars”. Frightening indeed!
What CO2 levels does the US Navy allow in its submarines?
jorgekafkazar (10:23:03) :
John R. Judge (03:33:07) : “In spite of all the new revelations of massaged data and biased evaluations that just keep on coming, the alarmists, like Peter Liss of CRU, continue to insist that the “overwhelming science still supports AGW”. What “science” are they basing this claim on?”
Obviously, the science that no skeptic has taken a look at yet.
————
Reply:
Remember, alarmism isn’t science. There are few “skeptics” here (I prefer to call us “realists”) who ignore or refute the SCIENCE. It is the unadulterated brainless HYSTERIA we’re not too fond of.
Such an approach belittles science and logical thought. It also makes “Warmists” look like kooks–those that would cheat at any endeavor to gain an advantage.
Some are calling Global Warmers “Weirdologists” now (bing Thomas Friedman). That’s pretty appropriate, since even the vast majority of scientists don’t believe the science is settled. Even Phil Jones agrees.
Herman L (09:58:32) :
“I am only addressing the fact that no one can call this a “gate” (as Anthony does in his title), or call this an “IPCC error” (as Cato has done) if to do so requires referencing research that was not available to the IPCC authors and reviewers at the time they were writing the IPCC report. We all know the IPCC process very well: there was a cut-off date for material, and two of the items in the Cato study fall AFTER that date.”
Your point seems mostly specious. The two post AR4 references are clearly delineated as such in the article and are offered to support the point that the putative source for the AR4’s assertion of statistically insignificant growth in Antarctic sea ice extent, in his subsequent work which showed statistically significant growth, offered no indication that this was break from what he had done in the past. To me this reinforces the notion that the error was not innocent.
Tom P. indicates that Comiso seemed “genuinely surprised” when this was brought to his attention. Since I have seen comments from others involved in the IPCC process that indicated that what appeared in the final product was not what they assumed had been agreed to, I am willing to suspend judgement on Comiso until he has time to respond. But, given his rather prominent role in the authorship process, he has a rather high hurdle to clear to get off the hook for this.
In regard to ice conditions in the Antarctic….I made a trip to Antarctica in 2008/2009 on board a Russian icebreaker, as part of the trip the vessel entered the Bay of Whales located off the Ross Ice Shelf. This was the location at which Roald Amundsen departed for the South Pole. Amundsen reached the “ice” in the Bay Whales at 78 deg 38 mins on October 19, 1911. Due to ice conditions the icebreaker Kapitan Khlebnikov on which I was travelling on in December 2008 could only reach 78 deg 36 mins south, which is 2 minutes north of Amundsen’s location, approx 4 kms farther north. So, almost 100 years later (and according to AGW supposedly that much warmer) there now appears to be more ice in the Bay of Whales. The icebreaker then traversed along the Ross Ice Shelf to Ross Island. The plan was to visit Shackleton’s Hut at Cape Royds, to celebrate the centenary of Shackelton’s attempt on the pole. However here again, due to the ice conditions, the icebreaker was forced to anchor in the ice some 35kms north of Cape Royds. However in 1909 the Nimrod (a wooden boat, not a 25,000 ton icebreaker) was able to sail right up to Cape Royds and unload supplies. Also the Adelie penguin colony at Cape Royds is under threat and is slowly dying out due to the extreme distance from the colony to open water. This is because there is now so much ice in McMurdo sound.
John Galt (11:32:30) :
RockyRoad (10:13:20) :
rbateman (08:20:04) :
C02 is NOT, I repeat NOT, a toxic gas in any amount.
——————–
Reply:
…
What CO2 levels does the US Navy allow in its submarines?
———
Reply:
Good question. I have a son serving as a “nuke” on a “boomer” in the Pacific and they’re currently in port; I’ll ask him what their equipment lets the CO2 levels get up to. I don’t think that’s classified info.
Cracks are forming in the climate coalitions: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704804204575069440096420212.html
…And one must wonder, what profit incentive has evaporated to cause it?
This is surely because legitimate dissension flourished on the internet. If not for this, we would have had no voice – the media having long ago abandoned their watch.
Thanks to Anthony, Steve, Mods, Mcintyre, and all the great contributors here, and around the net, and particularly in my mind, Monckton, for their tremendous work.
Imagine, Al Gore….. done in by the very internet he invented. 🙂
“So which incapacitates humans or mamals first; a lack of Oxygen, or an excess of CO2 ? ” – George E Smith
lol, I think now is an appropriate time to throw this in, given how this little conversation parallels, in many ways, the global discussion of CAGW.
I believe it is the resultant acidosis(excessive CO2 infers lack of O2 so it doesn’t matter how you form the question) that kills humans. Of course, it is a superfluous discussion. It has been shown, that too much of just about everything is harmful to mammals. And, we all know breathing pure O2 is just as toxic.(Alkalosis?) You see we’re really fragile organisms and………OMG!!!!! The sky could be falling!!!!!! We need studies on this stuff!!!!
Just something to chew on.
Dave Wendt —
read my follow up. In summary, if Cato can rewrite its article and reach the same conclusions without reference to post-FAR literature, then call it what you want. But as long as scientific literature not available to the IPCC at the time of writing FAR is needed to reach its conclusion, then this “gate” is bogus.
Veronica (09:56:14) :
Rocky Road?
The Q Word…?
Quisling?
Quarantine?
Quicksand?
Quidditch?
give me a clue!
Sorry, it was me that referenced the Q-word in reply to RockyRoad.
For me it’s a farcical super-bad word that one should never, ever, ever use. In short it’s a running joke that I make with my older kid… especially after she came home from school one day (Kindergarten I think) telling me how another kid was using “the S-word”… which at the time was a reference to “Stupid” and not that other S-word
Ever since we’ve had the joke around our house, which I have heard in other places too, of more or less “OMG so-and-so said the Q-word!!!!1!!!!11!ONE!!!!ELEVEN”
Outside my house, the Q-word seems to commonly refer to the word Quiet – as in NEVER EVER SAY “Wow, it’s really Quiet right now” because as soon as you do all hell will break loose. It’s an unwritten rule in many work-settings that you should never use the Q-word for that reason.