By Joe D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow
The pressure has been mounting. The public doubt about global warming has been increasing in the past year given Climategate, and how promises of warm snowless winters failed. After cold and snowy winters in 2007/08 and 2008/09, the winter of 2009/10 was the coldest ever in parts of the southeast, and in parts of Siberia and the coldest since 1977/78 or 1962/63 in many parts of the United States, Europe and Asia. This past December was the second coldest in the entire Central England Temperature record extending back to 1659.
It was the coldest ever December in diverse locations like Ireland, Sweden, and Florida. Reluctantly, alarmists changed their tune and the promise of warm and snowless winters as recent as 4 years ago morphed into global warming means cold and snowy winters.
…
NASA/NOAA homogenization process has been shown to significantly alter the trends in many stations where the siting and rural nature suggest the data is reliable. In fact, adjustments account for virtually all the trend in the data. Unadjusted data for the best sites/rural shows cyclical multi-decadal variations but no net long term trend as former NASA scientist Dr. Ed Long showed here (PDF). He showed however that after adjustment, the rural data trend was made consistent with the urban data set with an artificial warming introduced.
Steve McIntyre demonstrates what NASA GISS has been up to since their Y2K bug:
For the Full Report in PDF Form, please click here.
HEY ANTHONY,
Google search for the term “Watts up” used to return the home page of your blog at the top of the list. Now it is buried three pages down.
What’s up with that?
Snapple , Try this :
htpp://scienceandpublicpolicy.org
For some reason , the lnk didn’t work . But you can find it .
“”””” Mark T says:
January 18, 2011 at 10:02 am
After 26″ of new snow at Breckenridge in the last 24 hours, their total for the year is already 262″, a mere 38″ from their marketing average of 300″ per year, and it’s still January with two weeks till February (normally the 2nd snowiest month of the year, followed by March, the snowiest.) Suzy Chaffee and her global warming commercials about less snow seem rather silly now. “””””
Well a recent World Cup Ski event scheduled recently in Slovenia, had to be cancelled because of a lack of snow. And the events cancelled were ones where Lindsey Vonn normally cleans up; so she lost out on some points opportunities. Meanwhile there was plenty of snow in Switzerland around Wengen, where they got off some Slalom, downhill, and Super-G races. German Skier Maria Reisch has been killing them; with her skiing. So maybe Slovenia is not the place to go skiing.
Rational Debate says:
January 18, 2011 at 1:19 pm
Look at the GISS site, it’s all there. If not look through BoB Tisdale’s work, it’s excellent
Promises are a plenty indeed:
————–
June 4, 1999
“Warm Winters Result From Greenhouse Effect, Columbia Scientists Find, Using NASA Model”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/06/990604081638.htm
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6735/abs/399452a0.html
Nov. 17, 2010
“Global Warming Could Cool Down Northern Temperatures in Winter”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101117114028.htm
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2009JD013568
————–
“…(CO2) in the atmosphere will slow the Earth’s rotation.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1816860.stm
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002…/2001GL013672.shtml
“Global warming will make Earth spin faster”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11555
http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/staff/landererfelix/landerer_07_GRL.pdf
———–
“…much of the North Atlantic Ocean has become less salty…”
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050629_fresh_water.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5729/1772.abstract
“The surface waters of the North Atlantic are getting saltier,…”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12528
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL030126.shtml
———–
Avalanches may increase
http://www.taiga.net/nce/schools/lessonplans/snowstudy_impacts.html
Avalanches may reduce
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/agl/2001/00000032/00000001/art00029;jsessionid=27gjw6f50jw2.alice
———–
AGW is the only ‘science’ that can never and should never be falsifiable. It is morphing into a religion and has nothing to do with science.
_Jim says:
“January 18, 2011 at 11:23 am
Snapple says January 18, 2011 at 10:09 am :
SPPI is a fake “science” organization. Their Virginia address is only a P.O. box in a shopping center store.
Well look, an actual address ‘Snappy’:
Contact:
Robert Ferguson
SPPI
209 Pennsylvania Ave. SE
Suite 299
Washington, D.C. 20003
Email Address: bferguson[at]sppinstitute.org
Phone: (202) 288-5699
(From their website)”
Hard to reconcile this with Snapple’s self proclaimed above average smartness. Why it is even posted on his blog.
“When it comes to the complicated subject of global warming and climate change, it is hard for ordinary people and even journalists to sort out the scientific authorities from the confidence men. I am smarter than the average bear, but it took me a while.”
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2011/01/kooky-kent-clizbe-does-not-speak-for.html
With really truly smart guys like Snapple supporting catastrophic anthropogenic global warming what chance do skeptics have.
Pity though he couldn’t work out to click the contact link before engaging in anthropogenic global tom foolery. I gues you would have to be way way above average bear smartness to have thought of that.
A couple more predictions from the past worth smiling about:
http://thegwpf.org/best-of-blogs/2097-qthe-winters-of-our-youth-are-unlikely-to-returnq.html
and:
“Risk of summer drought is likely to increase in central Europe and in the Mediterranean area. The duration of the snow season is very likely to shorten, and snow depth is likely to decrease in most of Europe”…..
“Increased risk of drought in southern areas of Australia is likely.”
IPCC AR4 WG1 chapt 11
(replace “drought” with “flood” and they would have been right!)
Not to pile on to R Gates, but it bears mentioning that the MWP has been dismissed by alarmists based on the assertion that it was a regional phenomenon. There is paleoclimatological data to dispute that claim, but assuming it’s true, how do we now have catastrophic global warming when it’s evidenced primarily by polar amplification?
Cause and effect can be difficult. I found this funny story over at Real Science;
S.E.Hendriksen says:
January 15, 2011 at 7:53 pm
Red Indians MET-Story
It was autumn, and the Red Indians on the remote reservation asked their new Chief if the winter was going to be cold or mild.
Since he was a Red Indian Chief in a modern society, he had never been taught the old secrets, and when he looked at the sky, he couldn’t tell what the weather was going to be.
Nevertheless, to be on the safe side, he replied to his tribe that the winter was indeed going to be cold and that the members of the village should collect wood to be prepared.
But also being a practical leader, after several days he got an idea.
He went to the phone booth, called the National Weather Service and asked “Is the coming winter going to be cold?”
“It looks like this winter is going to be quite cold indeed,” the meteorologist at the weather service responded.
So the Chief went back to his people and told them to collect even more wood in order to be prepared. A week later, he called the National Weather Service again.
“Is it going to be a very cold winter?” “Yes,” the man at National Weather Service again replied,
“It’s definitely going to be a very cold winter.”
The Chief again went back to his people and ordered them to collect every scrap of wood they could find.
Two weeks later, he called the National Weather Service again.
“Are you absolutely sure that the winter is going to be very cold?” “Absolutely,” the man replied. “It’s going to be one of the coldest winters ever.”
“How can you be so sure?” the Chief asked.
The weatherman replied, “The Red Indians are collecting wood like crazy.”
Googlebot.
I just tried the terms “watts up” in google and this blog came top of the list.
WUWT indeed!
The most sensitive place on the planet to CO2 increases should be antarctica during winter. The reasons are twofold.
1/ The main CO2 absorption band corresponds to a temp of -60degC. The proportion of energy absorbed by CO2 in this band decreases as temp warms.
2/The other two bands overlap with water vapour and so only have an effect when water vapour is extremely low such as over antarctica during winter. During summer the CO2 absorbs less than half the energy as during winter due to the higher concentration of water vapour absorbing most of the energy in the CO2 spectrum.
Since the antarctic has been cooling for the last 30 years their is clearly a problem with the models!
In addition methane will have virtually no effect on climate as its absorption band corresponds to a water vapour band as well. The strength of the various greenhouse gasses is a joke as it was measured in a dry atmosphere and they never include water in their measurements!
The narcissistic crank Snapple sometimes deigns to make appearances elsewhere on the internet.
From this I can report the following fun fact: She is a teacher in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area. Yes, there are schoolchildren being exposed to her on a daily basis.
How ya doing Snapple? Still got Russia on the brain?
Wm T,
Now that’s funny. Not that she is teaching, but that one can run, but one can’t hide, from the internet.
There are skeptic teachers out there–my youngest told me at dinner that his math teacher “doesn’t believe in global warming.” No word on the science teacher, however.
R.Gates said:
This article in Popular Science clearly shows a diagram with the S. Pole warming faster than the N. Pole in each decade through 2050 according to Hansen 1989. I believe it is based on climate models? Note the BAU quote 🙂
http://tinyurl.com/258szux
He also predicted 225 mph hurricanes amongst other nonsense. In another 5-10 years once the AMO flips, climate
scientistsprogrammers will suddenly realize there isn’t much north of 90 deg. so will need to reconfigure their GCM’s and we’ll be told it’s worse than we thought; GHG are causing Arctic freezing.There is nothing unusual or particularly alarming about Arctic “polar amplification”.
Ok, I get that part, they have been leaving the UHI put for cities but just adding warmth to the rural stations so all rural station’s temperature now look like they are cities. How dishonest!
But I couldn’t find a singular date of occurrence. The amount seems ~0.16ºC and a guess at the date seems ~1999. Has anyone been able to find closer numbers?
We are being tricked by Nature.
The La Nina forced the warm waters of the El Nino closer to the poles. This is revealed by the anomaly 30 east of Japan and 60 east of Australia by :
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
The AO did the same and 10 east of Nova Scotia and 60 east of Southern Argentina.
These warm ocean spots are keeping the Arctic and the Antarctic waters warmer than normal. The Quiet Sun, for the last 5 years, has not replenished the oceans heat. When these warm ocean spots lose their stored heat, there will be no warm ocean to replace the heat.
So both the “Warmers” and Nature has conspired against the “Deniers”.
I’m buying heating oil ….. for July.
@Wm T Sherman says:
January 18, 2011 at 4:00 pm
“…The narcissistic crank Snapple…is a teacher in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area. Yes, there are schoolchildren being exposed to her on a daily basis….”
Well that helps ‘splain it. WDC Metro probably scores the lowest in the entire world on any kind of academic test. Unfortunately, there is no way to fire her or to correct that situation (witness the recent ousting of Michelle Rhee). Based on Snapple’s post above, she’s more than a narcissist, she’s completely paranoid and probably delusional.
But, just a reminder to Snapple: just because you’re paranoid, it doesn’t mean people aren’t out to get you. What do you think those CIA operatives are really doing?
Googlebot
“Watts up” in my google search had this blog at the top. In fact, the whole page consisted of Watts up With That entries.
Very nice Mr. D’Aleo!
🙂
The very climate/weather is the undoing of GISS/NOAA.
They have been so busy playing with adjustments that they forgot to keep an eye on what was going on outside.
Now, they are as lost as the GCM’s they lean on for support.
Like Little Bo Peep, they have been losing their sheep… faster than previously imagined.
Josh,
Glad to see WUWT back on page one. That stupid emeter had pushed WUWT down the list.
Regarding Google searches – the Google results depend entirely on what kind of history Google has compiled on you. Flush all your cookies and try again. It would be astonishing if the results don’t change dramatically.
Google is adaptive which means it applies a bias to results of a quere based on prior knowledge of the system providing the query. They are in the business of selling ad space, not unbiased search results.
Read Chill by Peter Taylor and much that is going on is explained. Climatologists are hypnotised by trends and ignore cycles. If you enter a cycle at a low point you get a warming trend which is assumed to continue. We all know that it does not and will overturn to become a low again. We are at the top of a cycle at the moment and the cooling will continue. The Argo data sets show cooling oceans and when they cool so does everything else since the oceans carry heat round the planet, not CO2!
wobble January 18, 2011 at 9:54 am
This is excellent work.
Given all of the aggressiveness of “adjustments” which have always been made and the obvious existence of the UHI, why do so many skeptics believe that the planet is actually warming?
I think some (not all) who appear to believe it actually only accept it for the sake of argument. The reason would be that there are skeptical arguments that work even if the planet is warming. In any difficult field, not only science, a great deal of argument uses premises accepted for the sake of argument. I’ve noticed that many people find this hard to understand. If you argue that way, they think you believe something which actually you either do not believe, or only believe might be true.