Photo Credit: NC State
From the New York Times:
West Antarctica has warmed much more than scientists had thought over the last half century, new research suggests, an ominous finding given that the huge ice sheet there may be vulnerable to long-term collapse, with potentially drastic effects on sea levels.
A paper released Sunday by the journal Nature Geoscience reports that the temperature at a research station in the middle of West Antarctica has warmed by 4.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1958. That is roughly twice as much as scientists previously thought and three times the overall rate of global warming, making central West Antarctica one of the fastest-warming regions on earth.
“The surprises keep coming,” said Andrew J. Monaghan, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who took part in the study. “When you see this type of warming, I think it’s alarming.”
…
To try to get to the bottom of the question, David H. Bromwich of Ohio State University pulled together a team that focused on a single temperature record. At a lonely outpost called Byrd Station, in central West Antarctica, people and automated equipment have been keeping track of temperature and other weather variables since the late 1950s.
It is by far the longest weather record in that region, but it had intermittent gaps and other problems that had made many researchers wary of it. The Bromwich group decided to try to salvage the Byrd record.
They retrieved one of the sensors and recalibrated at the University of Wisconsin. They discovered a software error that had introduced mistakes into the record and then used computerized analyses of the atmosphere to fill the gaps.
…
Much of the warming discovered in the new paper happened in the 1980s, around the same time the planet was beginning to warm briskly.
They can’t find any recent warming, so they took a broken sensor with “intermittent gaps and other problems”, “recalibrated” it, “used computerized analyses of the atmosphere to fill the gaps” and “discovered” warming that “happened in the 1980s”. If you believe that this is science, then I strongly suggest you prep your telescope, lest you miss out on a spectacular sleigh sighting…
“The surprises keep coming,” said Andrew J. Monaghan, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who took part in the study. “When you see this type of warming, I think it’s alarming.”
++++++++
Wait a minute… hold on just a second here. So Andrew J Monaghan “saw this result from a recalibration and was alarmed at what? A number derived from a model of sorts?
It is time this climate change research industry was brought to an abrupt end… not the scientific research… the politics. All government agencies, legislation and climate change policies that have been created as a consequence of IPCC AR4 to ‘halt’ climate change must be eliminated. Only then perhaps all this nonsense will end.
This AGW rubbish not only denigrates true science but costs humanity the future. We even have one deluded who claims that by ignoring AGW we commit millions of future peoples to death. The fact his delusions will cause millions to die today – no energy – does not concern him. As a left wing idealist – I assume – who no doubt supports Agenda 21 he is apparently unaware that the UN, in that document, says the population should be no more than half a billion.
Say what you will MvW but it is the warmists who waste our resources on politically motivated scaremongering so as to garner trillions of dollars for their friends and supporters. More CO2 and an increase in temperature from natural warming, would be a blessing; more food for the masses.
Scaremongering is a tactic to avoid proper examination of the facts. A proper examination that would likely show the errors in many, if not all, claims, made by misguided ‘warmists’ posing as scientists; who in their right mind would have given these people degrees? We are aware that records have been regularly falsified, adjusted, and ‘corrected’ to suit the findings of government funded spoofs. Claims of pending doom continue because the money still flows to those charged with keeping the ‘story’ going.
Now, how do we make a killing out of telling the truth abouth these misguided politically driven individuals? How do we make it so obvious that the public has been led up the garden path and fleeced that even the dumbest ‘warmist’ sees the light? On second thoughts forget the warmists, too far gone. Let us reveal the truth about where the taxpaters’ funds have been going in their trillions to support academia, alternate energy scams, and carbon heists to no environmental benefit. Only than the recipients of the largesse have gained while our children will suffer, no doubt.
“You have all the appearances of a troll and may well come to be considered as one in time.”
Clearly, I have hit a nerve. I am the only blogger here to get such an angry reaction, in bold, stuck onto mine. That’s because I am the only one who maintains the view that AGW is a likely threat. I am glad you did that because you have revealed your true colours. You are not interested in sound debate at all but rather to create a vehicle for like-minded climaphobes to vent their prejudices.
“This on the other hand is a content free post.”
The content of my post was totally on topic. The topic – the one you have established – is whether we should trust climate science in the light of dodgy readings in West Antarctica. The topic is not what scientific evidence is there to support AGW. My view is “yes” we should support the findings of the AR4. Issues such as you have reported above are rare and small in the context of the sound work done by many in the field.
“Perhaps you could provide references for your claims about “global outpourings”.”
The IPCC AR4 is a globally authored document and its vast research base is what I would regard as outpourings.
“Linking skepticism about man made climate change with tobacco and Columbus is very old hat here and it adds nothing to the argument at all.”
But it is very relevant, and you need to be reminded of it. With the spherical Earth idea, scepticism was based on the natural human tendency to measure new ideas against ones’ personal experience. New ideas are dismissed because to give them weight would be to challenge how they look at the familiar world around them. That’s what you and your other bloggers here are doing. With the unhealthy tobacco idea, there was active resistance to the idea because of the vested interests in maintaining the status quo. Perhaps this is how you think: you want your current lifestyle to continue and all your reasoning is tainted by that interest.
“Why not try and provide some content?”
I will be happy to provide my approach to the article in the NY Times. In essence, the article is saying that it is the adjustments to data following the discovery of faulty sensors that revealed temperature rises “three times the overall rate of global warming”. Your cynicism, in essence, is based on the fact that the data was adjusted. You then take the unreasonable leap to conclude that the adjustments render the data unreliable and misleading. You and other bloggers have not provided any evidence to prove this. So, my trust in science and the processes of scientists remains intact.
Many members of your club – yes, I like that term – have tried to suggest that the climate change industry is deliberately deceptive in order to obtain increased research funding. Climate change research receives funding because it is good science and because it is a serious issue. End of story. The funding mechanisms and funding priorities do not affect the research findings, otherwise we could not trust any research. The current economic structures are better served by not responding to AGW. Those structures are capable of funding their own scientific research to disprove AGW.
Happy blogging.
Martin Wright says:
December 27, 2012 at 2:46 am
——————————————————-
I notice that this post of yours adds nothing to your last post and doesn’t add anything further to the thread. Why do you think that referring to AR4 is impressive when so much of it has collapsed under scrutiny? Is AR4 a global outpouring of scientific knowledge such that you have nothing to add since 2007? That seems a bit poor by any standard as we are now 5 years further down the line.
I don’t think anybody here thinks that the earth is flat and I certainly do know that nobody in their right mind thinks that climatology is as proven as the spherical earth concept. In fact most of us here think that the man made catastrophic global warming nonsense is on a par with lysenkoism at best. Telling us that we don’t understand, or deny, that smoking is directly linked to increased lung cancer and heart disease is to underestimate us skeptics in the worst way.
Regarding the adjustments to the temperature record you would find, if you cared to, that this issue has been carefully dissected here and we are unconvinced as to the reasoning behind the adjustments as they almost always seem to advance the warming cause. Your faith in the science of these adjustments is quite endearing but faith is just that.
As for the funding, well, it is always provided to find the link to human activity and its effect on climate so yes we are a bit suspicious particularly when we see no funding for research that would look for proof that our burning stuff isn’t causing climate change.
“Clearly, I have hit a nerve. I am the only blogger here to get such an angry reaction, in bold, stuck onto mine. That’s because I am the only one who maintains the view that AGW is a likely threat.” Now this bit is the strangest part of your entire post. You have obviously not read other threads where there are many folk who have similar views as you. They all get to say their piece and then get to enjoy the rough and tumble with many, many, well informed and cogent thinkers here. You, Mr Wright , are not unique as your wooly arm waving shows. We know you and until you tighten up your act you will never be taken seriously. Folk here love a good argument based on facts, theories and character. You seem like a , and I mean this in the nicest possible way, young boy who has read a few bits and pieces without actually understanding them and then assumed we are a bunch of ignorant knuckle draggers who need to be told whats what. Wrong.
People here are highly informed and very well equipped to understand and critique the offerings of serious climatologists let alone a know nothing like you.
Hello Keith
I stand by everything in my previous post. Of the 130 posts so far in this thread, only Henry Clark and myself has ventured into the WUWT den to argue for AGW. That’s five postings (from two bloggers) arguing for AGW out of 130. And you still have not explained why I got the angry moderator’s comment. Your insulting comments, Keith, should be directed at, say, GrahamHK who makes the ridiculous assertion that the motivation behind AGW scientists is “to garner trillions of dollars for their friends and supporters”. Really? Trillions? The “rough and tumble” as you put it seems to be reserved for me. This thread does not represent a balanced debate at all.
The AR4 has not “collapsed under scrutiny”. You want to believe it has. Everyone would prefer the research to be wrong. It would be great if burning fossil fuels made no difference to atmospheric temperatures. Governments, even the conservative ones, accept the science. The USA has, despite the recession, been the shining light in sustainable energy investment in 2012. Is that government, with all of its advisors and access to all climate research, and with a population deeply devoted to the internal combustion engine and the pioneering spirit of drilling for oil… is that government really misguided? Developed economies around the world pursue sustainable energy options because the science is right.
All AGW research is anti-AGW research. All AGW research has the potential to prove that AGW is a myth. The research is conducted to get data we don’t have. The data speaks for itself. AGW is 90% likely.
My posts have been on-topic. The issue is about trusting science, not the science itself. It is not my job to know about science. But it is my moral duty to provide for my children, to behave and vote in a morally responsible way. I trust the collective findings of climate scientists.
I never stated that you believed that Earth was flat or that you deny that smoking is harmful. What I stated was that your response to AGW research findings is similar to sceptics in past eras. History will judge your scepticism in the same way.
By the way, the issue of data adjustment has not been “carefully dissected” in this thread. No post here has actually analysed how the adjustment was made.
I don’t think you are a “bunch of ignorant knuckle draggers who need to be told whats what”. I think you are very clever (except for punctuation). You are like Iago who seeks out Othello’s jealousy. Othello is no more jealous than any other man but if that is all you are looking for, then that is all that you will find. Scientific research in its totality is certain to have the odd anomaly, error or personal bias.
Your last line is a fine example of how sceptics who feel threatened react. You resort to insults. I don’t know much about climate science. I don’t need to. But I know much about how to select trustworthy sources on which to base my judgement.
Regards
Martin
I sincerely regret my last sentence Martin and I apologise for it. That is certainly not the me I have come to be. It was not, however, motivated by fear. I am strongly confident of my stance regarding CAGW and there is nothing in your response that has caused any doubt to arise in my understanding of the debate.
The issue here is linking man made CO2 to anything unnatural in the world’s climate. There is nothing, not a single thing, that I have read or been told that links the two. Just because we can measure atmospheric CO2 doesn’t mean that what is happening is a threat to mankind, or the planet at large.
When someone can show that firstly there are unnatural things happening to our climate and/or weather and that these things are as a result of our adding CO2 to the atmosphere then I will have to change my point of view. All we seem to have right now are , at best, weak inferred connections to things that are not unprecedented.
That is my position. Yours is different based on a belief in the abilities of a very small group of men to tease out this connection and its consequences. I do not have your faith hence I am a skeptic.
Martin Wright says:
“Is that government, with all of its advisors and access to all climate research, and with a population deeply devoted to the internal combustion engine and the pioneering spirit of drilling for oil… is that government really misguided?”
Yes. Completely.
The argument for AGW rests on radiative physics. But the effect of AGW, which undoubtedly exists, is vastly overstated. AGW is a minuscule, third order forcing that is swamped by order of magnitude higher second order forcings, which in turn are swamped by first order forcings. AGW is only a minor, bit player. It truly does not matter.
If AGW was an important forcing, it would be measurable. We would be able to quantify it in relation to other forcings. But it is not measurable. AGW is too small to measure; there are no empirical, testable measurements of AGW. None at all. It’s effect is only a conjecture, unsupported by any physical measurements.
There certainly is no catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. In fact, global warming has currently ceased. The only reasons for the endless discussion about AGW are money, and status. Take those away, and the AGW scare would promptly fizzle out, because there is really no scientific evidence supporting it. While a faint AGW effect may exist, it can, and should be, completely disregarded for all practical purposes. It is truly a non-event, kept alive only by the use of massive public funding.