The press release below is from Wiley, where they worry that the polar bear can’t find enough sea ice. Meanwhile, billboards proclaim the uptick in polar bear numbers thanks to conservation efforts and other factors. See below for 10 reasons to consider why we shouldn’t worry. – Anthony
For polar bears, it’s survival of the fattest
One of the most southerly populations of polar bears in the world – and the best studied – is struggling to cope with climate-induced changes to sea ice, new research reveals. Based on over 10 years’ data the study, published in the British Ecological Society’s Journal of Animal Ecology, sheds new light on how sea ice conditions drive polar bears’ annual migration on and off the ice.
Lead by Dr Seth Cherry of the University of Alberta, the team studied polar bears in western Hudson Bay, where sea ice melts completely each summer and typically re-freezes from late November to early December. “This poses an interesting challenge for a species that has evolved as a highly efficient predator of ice-associated seals,” he explains. “Because although polar bears are excellent swimmers compared with other bear species, they use the sea ice to travel, hunt, mate and rest.”
Polar bears have adapted to the annual loss of sea ice by migrating onto land each summer. While there, they cannot hunt seals and must rely on fat reserves to see them through until the ice returns.
Dr Cherry and colleagues wanted to discover how earlier thawing and later freezing of sea ice affects the bears’ migration. “At first glance, sea ice may look like a barren, uniform environment, but in reality, it’s remarkably complex and polar bears manage to cope, and even thrive, in a habitat that moves beneath their feet and even disappears for part of the year. This is an extraordinary biological feat and biologist still don’t fully understand it,” he says.
From 1991-97 and 2004-09, they monitored movements of 109 female polar bears fitted with satellite tracking collars. They tagged only females because males’ necks are wider than their heads, so they cannot wear a collar. During the same period, the team also monitored the position and concentration of sea ice using satellite images.
“Defining precisely what aspects of sea ice break-up and freeze-up affect polar bear migration, and when these conditions occur, is a vital part of monitoring how potential climate-induced changes to sea ice freeze-thaw cycles may affect the bears,” he says.
The results reveal the timing of polar bears’ migration can be predicted by how fast the sea ice melts and freezes, and by when specific sea ice concentrations occur within a given area of Hudson Bay.
According to Dr Cherry: “The data suggest that in recent years, polar bears are arriving on shore earlier in the summer and leaving later in the autumn. These are precisely the kind of changes one would expect to see as a result of a warming climate and may help explain some other studies that are showing declines in body condition and cub production.”
Recent estimates put the western Hudson Bay polar bear population at around 900 individuals. The population has declined since the 1990s, as has the bears’ body condition and the number of cubs surviving to adulthood.
Because polar bears’ main food source is seals, and these are hunted almost exclusively on sea ice, the longer bears spend on land, the longer they must go without energy-rich seals. “Climate-induced changes that cause sea ice to melt earlier, form later, or both, likely affect the overall health of polar bears in the area. Ultimately, for polar bears, it’s survival of the fattest,” says Dr Cherry.
He hopes the results will enable other scientists and wildlife managers to predict how potential climate-induced changes to sea ice freeze-thaw cycles will affect the ecology, particularly the migration patterns, of this iconic species.
Seth Cherry et al (2013). ‘Migration phenology and seasonal fidelity of an Arctic marine predator in relation to sea ice dynamics’, doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.12050, is published in the Journal of Animal Ecology on Wednesday 20 March 2013.
===============================================================
CFACT writes on their webpage:
The polar bear invasion
While many people believe that polar bears are in danger because of global warming, it might surprise them to learn that polar bear numbers have actually quadrupled in recent decades. Such news is no surprise to residents of Churchill, Manitoba, however, who are experiencing an invasion of polar bears in their town. According to reports, polar bears are commonly seen walking down Churchill’s main street, and people have learned to leave their cars unlocked so they can quickly duck inside if one approaches. It’s gotten so bad, in fact, that dogs are routinely being eaten, a polar bear hotline has been created, and kids cannot go out trick or treating without a parent packing a shotgun for protection.
================================================================
So in a sense, the Wiley article is correct, and polar bears are coming on land, due to Hudson Bay sea ice melt. But, hasn’t this always happened?
Jeff Condon did a post on Hudson Bay ice here and notes:
Since we know that this region definitely melts 100% (should hit zero every year) and we can see the same step pattern in the lower edge. This appears to be another indication of a definite bias in the sea ice satellite data. How this is handled by the pro’s is an unexplored matter but this data is the final published version from the NSIDC.
Biologist Susan Crockford gives us ten good reasons not to worry about polar bears:
1) Polar bears are a conservation success story. Their numbers have rebounded remarkably since 1973 and we can say for sure that there are more polar bears now than there were 40 years ago. Although we cannot state the precise amount that populations have increased (which is true for many species – counts are usually undertaken only after a major decline is noticeable), polar bears join a long list of other marine mammals whose populations rebounded spectacularly after unregulated hunting stopped: sea otters, all eight species of fur seals, walrus, both species of elephant seal, and whales of all kinds (including grey, right, bowhead, humpback, sei, fin, blue and sperm whales). Once surveys have been completed for the four subpopulations of polar bears whose numbers are currently listed as zero (how about funding that, WWF?), the total world population will almost certainly rise to well above the current official estimate of 20,000-25,000 (perhaps to 27,000-32,000?).
2) The only polar bear subpopulation that has had a statistically significant decline in recent years is the one in Western Hudson Bay (WH)(Fig. 1). A few others have been presumed to be decreasing, based on suspicions of over-harvesting, assumed repercussions of reduced sea ice and/or statistically insignificant declines in body condition (see 3, below) – not actual population declines.
Figure 1. A map of the 19 polar bear subpopulations (courtesy the Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG), with a few additional labels).
3) Polar bears in the US portion of the Chukchi Sea are in good condition and reproducing well, while sea ice in the Bering Sea has rebounded from record lows over the last ten years – good reasons not to be worried about polar bears in the Chukchi. The Chukchi subpopulation (which includes bears in the Bering Sea) was formerly assumed to be decreasing due to suspected over-harvesting and past declines in sea ice – even though no population survey had ever been done (see 2, above) – but preliminary reports about a recent survey suggest that Chukchi polar bears are doing very well. While there is still no official population estimate for the Chukchi (currently listed as zero), sea ice coverage in the Bering Sea has been higher than average over the last ten years and 2012 didn’t just break the satellite-era record set in 1999, it exceeded it by almost 100,000 square kilometers.
4) A survey by the Nunavut government in 2011 showed that polar bear numbers in Western Hudson Bay have not declined since 2004 as predicted and all available evidence indicates that Hudson Bay sea ice is not on a steadily precipitous decline – good reasons not to be worried about Hudson Bay bears. While polar bear biologists Ian Stirling and Andrew Derocher continue to insist that the modest decline in numbers of Western Hudson Bay polar bears recorded between 1998 and 2004 was due to earlier breakup of sea ice – and continues on that trend to this day – it turns out that much of the data used to support that claim is either unpublished, woefully out of date, or both. Although Stirling and colleagues have not yet published comparable dates of sea ice breakup since 2007 (they use a particular computation of satellite data), Canadian Ice Service data suggests that over the last 10 years we have not seen another very early breakup in Hudson Bay like the one that occurred in 2003. Surprisingly, 2009 was a late breakup year: the Port of Churchill experienced the latest breakup of sea ice since 1974 (three weeks later than average). All of which suggests that in Western Hudson Bay, some years have been good for polar bears and others have been not so good, but there has not been a relentless decline in sea ice breakup dates over the last thirty years.
5) Population decreases in polar bear numbers attributed to earlier sea ice breakup in Western Hudson Bay (see 4, above) have not been anywhere near as severe as the catastrophic decline that took place in 1974 in the eastern Beaufort Sea, which was associated with exceptionally thick sea ice. The modest decline in the Western Hudson Bay population that took place between 1998 and 2004 (down 22%) pales in comparison to the 1974 Beaufort event, when ringed seals numbers (i.e. polar bear food) dropped by 80% or more and numbers of polar bears plummeted. Similar events took place in 1984 and 1992, which means that three precipitous population declines due to heavy ice have taken place in this polar bear population over the last 40 years – but each time, numbers rebounded a few years later. In other words, due to entirely natural causes, polar bear numbers can fluctuate quite dramatically over relatively short periods because of the highly variable sea ice habitat they live in.
6) Polar bears need spring and early summer ice (March through June) for gorging on young, fat seals and documented declines in sea ice have rarely impinged on that critical feeding period (except for a few isolated years in Hudson Bay, see 4, above). A new study suggests that while some Western Hudson Bay bears will likely perish if the ice-free period extends to six months (from its current four-to-four+), many will survive because of their exceptional fat storage abilities.
7) There is no plausible evidence that regulated subsistence hunting is causing polar bear numbers to decline, despite suspicions harbored by the Polar Bear Specialist Group.
8) Global temperatures have not risen in a statistically-significant way in the last 16 years (see Fig. 2) – a standstill not predicted by climate models and a phenomenon even the chairman of the IPCC has acknowledged – which suggests that the record sea ice lows of the last few years are probably not primarily due to CO2-caused increases in global temperatures. Such changes in Arctic sea ice appear to be normal habitat variations that polar bears have survived before (see 9, below) and are likely due to a combination of natural and man-made processes we do not yet fully understand (including the effects of black carbon).[see footnote below]
Figure 2. LEFT – There has not been any statistically significant increase in global temperatures over the last 16 years (1997-2013), even though CO2 levels have continued to rise (Graph modified from David Evans, using Hadley UK Met Office data (HadCrut4). RIGHT – Sea ice extent in September (the yearly minimum) has declined quite a bit since 1997 – although nowhere near zero – while global temperatures have barely changed overall (Graph from NSIDC) Click to enlarge.
9) Survival of polar bears over a hundred thousand years (at least) of highly variable sea ice coverage indicates that those biologists who portend a doomed future for the polar bear have grossly underestimated its ability to survive vastly different conditions than those that existed in the late 1970s when Ian Stirling began his polar bear research. Sea ice has varied – countless dozens of times – over the short term (decades-long climate oscillations) and the long term (glacial-to-interglacial cycles of thousands of years). Over the last 100,000 years, there have been periods of much less ice than today, but also much, much more. Polar bear population numbers probably fluctuated up and down in conjunction with some of these sea ice changes but the polar bear as a species survived – and so did all of the Arctic seal species it depends on for food. Such survival indicates that these Arctic species, in an evolutionary sense, are very well-adapted to their highly-variable habitat.
10) Polar bears today are well distributed throughout their available territory, which is a recognized characteristic of a healthy species.
These are all good reasons to feel good about the current status of the polar bear. It is plain to see that these ice-dwelling bears are not currently threatened with extinction due to declining sea ice, despite the hue and cry from activist scientists and environmental organizations. Indeed, because the polar bear is doing so well, those who would like to see polar bears listed as “threatened” depend entirely upon dramatic declines in sea ice prophesied to occur decades from now to make their case.
Footnote: Updated Feb. 28, 2013. I have amended the last sentence of #8 to reflect the possibility that man-made influences (such as soot) may have contributed to recent sea ice declines.
Philip Shehan says:
March 24, 2013 at 2:15 am
The amount of energy added to the earth per ppm is known to a high degree of precision.
http://knowledgedrift.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/log1-co2.jpg
————————————————————————-
Philip, could you please elaborate on exactly what the data is we’re looking at here, and what you think this graph tells us regarding the earth’s climate.
I don’t doubt its accuracy.
Tell us in your own words, or cut and paste. Either way’s fine.
More years ago then I care to admit in what the English refer to as “at university” I took some statistics classes. During the opening class the professor, who I later learned was a world class statasian, said ” If your statiscal analysis leads to an absurd conclusion your method is either wrong or your math is.” Mr. Shehan’s initial post had a statsical analysis in it that postulated that some kind of 17 year series in which only one example of which confirmed global warming [out of a bunch of examples] somehow established some kind of trend that global warming was real. The conclusion is absurd! Enough said!
PS: I wish I could spell! My spell checker is asleep.
Just for the record I don’t “cut and paste”.
philincalifornia,
You will often hear it acknowledged by skeptics that while CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas which makes the earth warmer than it would otherwise be, further increases CO2 concentration cannot lead to any significant increase in temperature because the relationship between concentration and temperature is logarithmic. See the curves here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/
The units of watts per square metre are the measure of energy per surface area and are proportional to temperature.
The graphs presented there are quite correct but because of the vertical “squashing” in the presentation of the curves to cover an energy and/or CO2 range from zero to present concentrations they can give the impression that at current levels of CO2 concentration, addition of more CO2 will not make much difference to temperature.
The graph I provided covers the CO2 concentration from pre industrial revolution to the present – about 280 ppm to 390 ppm – and associated rise in energy (temperature) in the first horizontal division.
It shows that addition of another hundred, two hundred or three hundred ppm of CO2 will have a significant (though diminishing) effect on temperature.
The point I was making to Mr Stealy is that whereas the amount of extra energy directly added (or more accurately retained by preventing re-radiation) with addition of CO2 is known very precisely, it cannot directly be observed in terms of atmospheric temperature increase because there are many variables other than CO2 concentration contributing to atmospheric temperature.
I hope that answers your question.
Mr. Shehan you have the persistance of the fanatic or the zealot. There is no point in talking to you. Your mind is obviously closed.
so If we start planting bamboo which grows rapidly, gives off lots of O2 and uses large amounts of CO2 we can cool the earth without taxing the fool out of Americans
Philip Shehan says:
March 24, 2013 at 11:43 pm
——————————-
Yes, thank you, I understand.
You said “The point I was making to Mr Stealy is that whereas the amount of extra energy directly added (or more accurately retained by preventing re-radiation) with addition of CO2 is known very precisely, it cannot directly be observed in terms of atmospheric temperature increase because there are many variables other than CO2 concentration contributing to atmospheric temperature.”
I hardly think that you need to point that out to D.B. Stealey. Presenting that graph in isolation is just another rehash of the ludicrous “simple physics” theory of global warming, so I was wondering about you and your argument ??
Also, personally, I find the graphs that you linked to to be a better visual representation of what is going on in the simple Beer-Lambert Law world, but we all have our own opinions.
Mr Stealey writes:
‘Nature candidly admits:
“There are many ideas about what caused the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago, but a lack of data has hindered testing of hypotheses.”
He fails to acknowledge that this refers to the situation before the study under discussion. That study provides that data
‘by analysing data gathered from 80 locations around the world, Jeremy Shakun, a palaeoclimatologist at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and his colleagues have shown that at the global level, warming followed CO2 increases. The team used seven different records of past temperature, including ice cores, ancient pollen and the chemical composition of fossilized microscopic life.
“This is the first effort to get most of the data that’s out there together,” says Shakun. “It’s the first hard empirical proof that CO2 was a big driver of global warming out of the ice age.”’
Mr Stealey claims that because the amplification in temperature due to CO2, largely due to water vapour is not known with precision, and is currently a subject of intense research – the current values are between 2 and 4.5 C with the most likely value 3 C – that means that the warming due to CO2 is not understood. That is a nonsense argument.
Mr Stendara makes yet another personal remark without making any attempt whatsoever to engage the scientific argument. And he calls me a closed minded zealot and fanatic.
As for his claim that I have presented one data set to support my argument on the alleged stalling of temperature, how about actually tackling this data:
http://tinyurl.com/a35ttdu
philincalifornia.
I agree that the other graphs in the link provide a more complete representation of the logarithmic nature of the CO2 temperature relationship, but as I pointed out, that can lead to an erroneous conclusion regarding the effect of further CO2 on temperature at concentrations relevant to the global warming debate.
I agree that the graph in isolation is simple but that was the point I was making to Mr Stealey. He demands a precision in the observation of the effect on temperature which cannot be obtained as there are many factors other than CO2 concentration affecting atmospheric temperature, and it is my experience that many people overlook this fact in comments, claiming for instance that a failure of observed temperature to correlate precisely with CO2 concentration is a demonstration of the failure of the theory of AGW.
Philip Shehan says:
March 25, 2013 at 9:16 am
————————————
D. B. Stealey is perfectly capable of answering himself, but since I have the keyboard ……
……… I’ve never seen him dispute the fact that CO2 could cause some warming. Quite the opposite, in fact.
If, however, the CO2 temperature signal cannot be separated from natural variability or, as you say “many factors other than CO2”, then there can be no cAGW or dangerous AGW, right ?
Somehow this thread on Polar Bears has transformed. (I am not terribly worried about the bears as long as we don’t take away the food supply for seals, or Caribou, or Musk Ox or Reindeer. [Yes Martha, Polar Bears hunt on land as well but not as successfully.] They also eat whales, birds, birds eggs, rabbits, roots, berries and all sorts of other available foods as they are omnivores. The are quite adaptable.)
However the “Science” discussions going on in this thread between a few about temperature trends, projected temperatures, radiative values and such and the whole philosophy of science makes me think that some folks should read this:
http://arachnoid.com/theory/index.html
Makes me wonder if AGW is “Science”. Politics for sure, Philosophy perhaps; a hint of science -most likely; a “Great Machine” – undoubtedly.
I do like the last comment from Dr. Shehan:
“I agree that the graph in isolation is simple but that was the point I was making to Mr Stealey. He demands a precision in the observation of the effect on temperature which cannot be obtained as there are many factors other than CO2 concentration affecting atmospheric temperature, and it is my experience that many people overlook this fact in comments, claiming for instance that a failure of observed temperature to correlate precisely with CO2 concentration is a demonstration of the failure of the theory of AGW.”
So, it appears conclusive. AGW and CO2 effects on the earth as a whole is a “belief” since “…there are many factors other than CO2 concentration affecting atmospheric temperature…”
My opinion exactly. We don’t know. So why are we spending trillions on something we can’t attribute and measure?
Mr. Delbeke: Thank you for adding some sanity to this thread.
It is impossible not to notice in the article you so kindly gave a link to that the AGW crowd are not practicising science.
Wayne. You mistake my point. The effects of CO2 on global tmperature can be measured. Just not with the unrealistic degree of precision that Mr Stealey is demanding for a complicated system like climate.
But the accuracy of the theories is high enough to account for what has been observed to a very high degree, which gives confidence that predictions of what will happen to global temperatures in the future.
I note that your link is titled:
“Why Science Needs Theories – Theories set science apart from stamp collecting”
Exactly the point I have made repeatedly to “skeptics” who condemn “models”.
Model is another term for theory which long predates the computer age, as in the Bohr model of the atom. Sometimes the theory is actually what the layman understands a model to be – a material reconstruction as with Watson and Crick’s theory of the structure of DNA which they presented as a metal structure.
So it is with computer models of the climate. They are a mathematical representation of the current theoretical understanding of the many factors affecting climate.. When theories of global temperature are compared to the empirical data, they show a very good match with reality. Excluding what is understood to be the contribution from anthropogenic causes, principally CO2 does not match reality.
”Skeptics” who simply dismiss this evidence because it does not match their “beliefs” are being utterly unscientific.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-5.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20100322194954/http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/models-2/
‘Nuff said.
http://bigmedicine.ca/wordpress/2013/03/newfoundland-and-labrador-polar-bear-warning-issued-for-st-anthony/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2012/04/02/nl-bonavista-bear-402.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2012/05/07/nl-photos-polar-bear-nap-507.html
Philip Shehan makes presumed assertions regarding my position, but without cutting and pasting any of my comments. It is difficult debating a mind-reader, and it is certainly un-scientific.
Here is how Shehan should do it:
Shehan says: “The effects of CO2 on global temperature can be measured. Just not with the unrealistic degree of precision that Mr Stealey is demanding for a complicated system like climate.”
Shehan’s first sentence is easily deconstructed. The effects of CO2 cannot be measured. How many times do I have to explain that if the effect of CO2 could be measured, then there would be no question about the climate sensitivity number for 2xCO2? As it is, there is a wide range of guesstimates. But if we could empirically measure the effect of CO2, then there would be no dispute about the amount of warming from 2xCO2. As it is, there is no such empirical measurement available.
If the effect of CO2 on temperature could be measured, then Shehan could produce a graph just like this one, showing a cause and effect relationship between changes in CO2 and subsequent changes in temperature.
Shehan’s second sentence demands no more than equal “precision” to the WFT chart that I posted here. Shehan is just tap-dancing around the fact that he has no credible argument: there is no comparable chart showing measurements of the effect [if any] of CO2 on global temperature.
Certainly, if Shehan could produce such a chart, he would have by now. The reason that he cannot produce such a chart is because the effect of CO2 cannot be measured. It is either too small, or it is non-existent.
Thus, the entire AGW argument fails. Either the effect of CO2 is so minuscule that it can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes, or CO2 simply does not affect temperature at all. Take your pick. Either way, the “carbon” scare fails — based on science and reason. The alarmist crowd has decisively lost the argument, and they are now reduced to hand-waving.
Why should I routinely curt and paste Mr Stealy’s comments? I did above to demonstrate he was wrong, which hew has failed to acknowledge:
http://www.nature.com/news/how-carbon-dioxide-melted-the-world-1.10393
Mr Stealey writes:
‘Nature candidly admits:
“There are many ideas about what caused the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago, but a lack of data has hindered testing of hypotheses.”
He fails to acknowledge that this refers to the situation before the study under discussion. That study provides that data
‘by analysing data gathered from 80 locations around the world, Jeremy Shakun, a palaeoclimatologist at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and his colleagues have shown that at the global level, warming followed CO2 increases. The team used seven different records of past temperature, including ice cores, ancient pollen and the chemical composition of fossilized microscopic life.
“This is the first effort to get most of the data that’s out there together,” says Shakun. “It’s the first hard empirical proof that CO2 was a big driver of global warming out of the ice age.”’
Mr Stealey certainly has faith in CO2 and temperature measurements when he produces his graph, in which he has factored out the long term trend.
I have no argument whatsoever with the assertion that temperature can and does effect temperature.
Mr Stealey ignores the established fact that can also CO2 causes rises in temperature. This is simple physics, demonstrated in the laboratory.
He has no answer to the link I provided other than to fail to understand it or misrepresent it as I noted above when I corrected him.
Now for more cut and paste:
“Shehan’s first sentence is easily deconstructed. The effects of CO2 cannot be measured. How many times do I have to explain that if the effect of CO2 could be measured, then there would be no question about the climate sensitivity number for 2xCO2?”
This is simply nonsense. The precision with which the effect of CO2 on temperature is known is quite separate from the precision with which the amplification or reduction of this effect which causes the sensitivity:
http://www.image.ucar.edu/idag/Papers/PapersIDAGsubtask1.3/Knutti_nature08.pdf
S = T2CO2 the equilibrium climate sensitivity,
the equilibrium global average temperature change for a
doubling (usually relative to pre-industrial) of the atmospheric
CO2 concentration, which corresponds to a long-wave forcing
of about 3.7 W m−2 (ref. 7). The beauty of this simple conceptual
model of radiative forcing and climate sensitivity (equation (1))
is that the equilibrium warming is proportional to the radiative
forcing and is readily computed as a function of the current CO2
relative to the pre-industrial CO2: T = S ln(CO2/CO2(t=1750))/ln2.
The total forcing is assumed to be the sum of all individual
forcings. The sensitivity S can also be phrased as8–10
S = T0/(1 −f) (2)
where f is the feedback factor amplifying (if 0 < f < 1) or damping
the initial blackbody response of T0 = 1.2 °C for a CO2 doubling.
The total feedback can be phrased as the sum of all individual
feedbacks9 (see Fig. 2; examples of feedbacks are increases in
the greenhouse gas water vapour with warming; other feedbacks
are associated with changes in lapse rate, albedo and clouds). To
first order, the feedbacks are independent of T, yielding a climate
sensitivity that is constant over time and similar between many
forcings. The global temperature response from different forcings is
therefore approximately additive11.
But the observed global temperature is not simply due to the primary effect of CO2 and its secondary amplification/reduction because there are other “natural” forcings which contribute to global temperature.
Just how is one supposed to satisfy Mr Stealey’s requirement that we directly “measure” the effect the of CO2 on global temperature in isolation, keeping every other parameter constant? Science simply does not require that to come to valid scientific conclusions. Climate science is one of many disciplines, like evolution and cosmology which are too big and to complex to be reproduced in a laboratory and reductionist experiments can be carried out, but this does not preclude scientific measurements being carried out and theories developed.
The difficulties involved in separating and quantifying these effects notwithstanding, climate theory can calculate the effects of “natural” and man made forcings on temperature which match reality to a very high degree of accuracy. Once again I present this link:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-5.html
This is also a rebuttal to philincalifornia’s comment:
“If, however, the CO2 temperature signal cannot be separated from natural variability or, as you say “many factors other than CO2″, then there can be no cAGW or dangerous AGW, right ?”
Wrong.
philincalifornia also writes:
“D. B. Stealey is perfectly capable of answering himself, but since I have the keyboard ……
……… I’ve never seen him dispute the fact that CO2 could cause some warming. Quite the opposite, in fact.”
I would be delighted if Mr Stealey would explain his position on this.
Shehan says:
“I have no argument whatsoever with the assertion that temperature can and does effect temperature.”
Try making sense.
And:
“Why should I routinely curt [sic] and paste Mr Stealy’s comments?”
Answer: because without addressing my exact words, Shehan is erecting his own strawman, and arguing with that. If it were not for his failed strawman arguments, Shehan wouldn’t have much to say.
Next, Shehan asserts:
“Mr Stealey ignores the established fact that can also CO2 causes rises in temperature. This is simple physics, demonstrated in the laboratory.”
I didn’t “assert”; I proved it with empirical measurements — something that Shehan is incapable of proving regarding his failed assertions.
Shehan incapable of posting a chart like the CO2/T chart that I posted, but which shows that ∆CO2 is the measurable cause of ∆T. Why? Because Shehan has no such scientific evidence. He has no chart that shows empirically that changes in CO2 cause measurable changes in temperature. And Shehan’s ‘laboratory’ is completely different than the convection-controlled atmosphere, while a laboratory inhibits convection. Apples/Oranges.
Next, Shehan says: “Just how is one supposed to satisfy Mr Stealey’s requirement that we directly ‘measure’ the effect the of CO2 on global temperature in isolation, keeping every other parameter constant?”
Simple answer: In the exact same way that the relationship between T [the cause] and CO2 [the effect] was measured. But Shehan cannot produce any such measurements showing that CO2 causes T. Thus, his conjecture fails.
And by falsely asserting that catastrophic AGW exists, Shehan’s little remaining credibility is completely destroyed. There is NO empirical evidence supporting that baseless nonsense. CAGW is simply Shehan’s True Belief; it is his religion. That’s all.
Finally, philincalifornia is correct. My consistent, long-held position has always been that either
1) AGW exists, but it is too minuscule to measure; therefore it can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes, or
2) AGW does not exist.
I tend to go with #1, but take your pick. Either way, AGW does not matter at all.
Cut and paste:
‘Next, Shehan asserts:
“Mr Stealey ignores the established fact that can also CO2 causes rises in temperature. This is simple physics, demonstrated in the laboratory.”
I didn’t “assert”; I proved it with empirical measurements — something that Shehan is incapable of proving regarding his failed assertions.’
Pardon the failure of proof reading in my statement which was clearly meant to read CO2 can also cause rises in temperature, and my earlier statement was clearly meant to read that that I had no argument with the fact that temperature can and does cause changes in CO2 concentration.
Mr Stealey has not “proven” by any empiriical evidence whatsoever that the statement is correct – that CO2 can also cause reises in temperature- or incorrect.
He has simply produced a graph which shows variation on CO2 following temperature changes. Such a correlation is entirely unremarkable given the seasonal variation in CO2 concentration resulting from plant growth and decay.
“But Shehan cannot produce any such measurements showing that CO2 causes T.”
Mr Stealey demands evidence that CO2 causes temperature rises, but remains totally silent on his misrepresentation of the paper which presents such evidence:
“How carbon dioxide melted the world
Global data set shows that rising greenhouse-gas levels drove the end of the last ice age.”
http://www.nature.com/news/how-carbon-dioxide-melted-the-world-1.10393
He regards his simple graphical presentation of CO2 following temperature as “proof” that temperature cannot follow CO2 concentration (a logical nonsense), yet goes bananas every time if present two graphs showing the upswing in temperature following the upswing in CO2 concentration.
He cannot bear to look at the temperature graph because it shows something he cannot accept as it runs counter to his cherished belief, falsely describing it as the work of John Cook, a cartoon, hand drawn, without “provenance”, a lie decietful, mendacious, etc etc etc without being able to provide a skeric of evidence to support these claims.
CO2 concentrations strt to rise in the 1850s
http://tinyurl.com/aj2us99
Global temperatures start to rise in the 1880s:
http://tinyurl.com/aj2us99
Pardon me. The temperature graph is here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/AMTI.png
As usual, Shehan does a simple overlay of CO2/T, and then he claims that it shows that the rise in CO2 caused the rise in T. But of course, it shows no such thing. For a longer term trend, see here.
That chart covers the Holocene, and it shows that T is not the result of the entirely coincidental rise in CO2. Even the Economist now admits that the CO2 claim is foundering on the rocks of solid scientific evidence. And once again Shehan has posted his mendacious chart, purportedly showing an accelerating rise in temperature. Disagreement is one thing, but when Shehan resorts to lying about reality, we know that he has run out of honest facts. Werner Brozek and others have corrected Shehan for posting that dishonest chart, yet he continues to link to it. Disgraceful.
I provided a chart demonstrating conclusively that ∆CO2 is caused by ∆T. But Shehan does not like the fact that he is unable to produce a similar chart, showing that ∆CO2 causes ∆T. That is because his mind is made up, and closed tighter than a drum skin [it is also because there is no measurable evidence that ∆CO2 causes ∆T]. Science is certainly not Shehan’s strong point; his religious True Belief is. The unscientific belief in the repeatedly debunked CO2=CAGW conjecture is Shehan’s religion.
Like most here, I prefer the Scientific Method, testability, reproducibility, empirical evidence, and the climate Null Hypothesis — all of which refute Shehan’s religious belief in the “carbon” demon. The nice thing about religious faith is that you don’t have to think for yourself, so you can arbitrarily reject inconvenient facts that do not fit your dogma. That is the same religious attitude that kept witch doctors in business for millennia.
WHERE’s MY GLOBAL WARMING Shehan?
It is NOT Nice to fool with Mother Nature
Well, as predicted Mr Stealey goes into overdrive over this graph:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/AMTI.png
“And once again Shehan has posted his mendacious chart, purportedly showing an accelerating rise in temperature. Disagreement is one thing, but when Shehan resorts to lying about reality, we know that he has run out of honest facts. Werner Brozek and others have corrected Shehan for posting that dishonest chart, yet he continues to link to it. Disgraceful.”
Note again Mr Stealey’s appeal to “authority”- alleged posts from other skeptics who like Mr Stealey don’t like it either but can produce no evidence that it it in any way incorrect. (And I don’t believe Werner Brozak was one of those, but if he was, so what?)
Now in all the time he has been fulminating about this graph, he has never produced one iota of evidence that it is in any way incorrect. If you have such evidence Mr Stealey, produce it.
I previously provided links to the temperature data on which it is based, and the mathematical fit produces a curve with a very respectable correlation coefficient r2 of 0.8412. If Mr Stealey wishes to maintain that a linear fit of the data is superior he is entitled to his opinion, but that does not make the nonlinear fit in any way dishonest.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:2013/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:2013/trend
In line with Mr Stealey’s appeal to authority, I present the opinion of a skeptic who does not share Mr Stealey’s opinion regarding the quality of the fits:
Graham W says:
January 14, 2013 at 5:35 am
Philip Shehan: When drawing a straight line through the data from 1880 to 2007, compared to an exponential curve through the same data…Yes, the exponential curve fits the data better than the straight line.
Stealey hates it because it does not support his cherished beliefs on temperature dependence.
Gail Combs. Here is your global warming:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1945/to:2103/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1945/to:2103/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1996/trend
If you have noticed, extreme winter weather has followed extreme summer weather and increasing areas of open sea in the summer arctic for several years now. The warming arctic produces a southward movement of the jetstream bringing colder winds further south in the winter.
Shehan, your dishonest, fabricated graph is the kind of chart liars use to purvey their climate scare. There is no truth in it; it is unsourced nonsense emitted by a thinly-trafficked propaganda blog. Even the Economist now admits that global warming has stalled. You are the only purveyor of mendacious climate nonsense left who falsely claims that global warming is accelerating.
And of course I can prove that Shehan’s Pseudo-skeptical Pseudo-science chart is a lie made by a liar: it has no provenance. It is hand-made by a John Cook fanboi, and it misrepresents reality. This is a correct representation of reality, from a widely accepted database. Where is the acceleration in temperature? There is none. But Shehan posts lies about it; lies are all he’s got.
Shehan says: “Stealey hates it because it does not support his cherished beliefs…” That is pure psychological projection there. In fact, no one agrees with Shehan’s anti-science ‘accelerating temperature’ beliefs, which are purely religious beliefs.
It is a pleasure correcting Shehan’s deliberate misrepresentations where everyone can see them. SkS has very little traffic, and anyway they heavily censor comments from honest scientific skeptics. But here, on the internet’s “Best Science” site, Shehan’s alarmist lies can be easily exposed for everyone to see.
As predicted Mr Stealey continues his hysterical condemnation of temperature data graph from 1850 to the present without explainig where it is incorrect.
Mr Stealey presents a number of graphs, one showing temperature Hadcrut3 and 4 temperature data from 1003 to 2013. So what? Here are Hadcrut3 and 4 and data from 1859 to 2013:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:2013/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/to:2013/mean:12
Where is the acceleration in the graph showing (what) data from1980? I don’t know. What is the graph supposed to be showing?
Here is Had4 data for that period:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/to:2013/mean:12
What does the temperature plot from 1997 to the present have to do with the data from 1850, other than the obvious fact that it covers only the last 16 years of that period?
Why does the only temperature graph Stealey is willing to consider covering the period from 1850 so compress the data in the vertical axis that no trend can be discerned? (Rhetorical question – we all know the answer)
Why does he show superimposed temperature –Muana Loa CO2 concentration data only from 1996 instead of when Muana Loa data began in 1950? (Another rhetorical question)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1958/mean:12/normalise/offset:-0.05/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958/to:2013/normalise/scale:0.9/offset
But most of all, these arguments concerning other data sets are diversions from the fact that Mr Stealey cannot demonstrate where this graph is wrong.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/AMTI.png
All he can do is repeat the nonsense arguments:
It has “no provenance”. Meaning what? The temperature data sets have been provided.
“Hand made” Complete nonsense which has provided absolutely no evidence for.
Not only hand made, but “hand made by a John Cook fanboi”
Only Stealey could consider that a scientific argument.
His argument from authority- he puts up his plots and announces they and his opinions appear on the internet’s “Best Science” site.
Well so does this one:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/AMTI.png
Pardon the typos again.
Philip[ Shehan says:
“Pardon the typos again.”
Typos pardoned. Lying is not.
Shehan’s first chart above shows only a simple overlay. So does his third chart. Neither shows cause-and-effect, as this chart clearly does. In fact, Shehan is incapable of posting empirical evidence showing that ∆CO2 causes ∆temperature. Why? Because there is no such evidence. That’s why. If more CO2 caused a rise in temperature, that putative rise is simply too minuscule to measure. That is the reason there are no charts showing what Shehan baselessly asserts.
Shehan keeps trotting out completely irrelevant charts, hoping that no one will notice that he’s blowing smoke. But I am here to point out that he is being serially disingenuous: there has been no acceleration of global warming. None. No one except Shehan disputes that, and Shehan’s only “evidence” is his fabricated chart — which Shehan now feels he needs to post twice — as if that would make it legitimate.
Shehan’s second chart above shows nothing but the planet’s natural recovery from the LIA. It certainly shows no accelerated warming — flatly contradicting Shehan’s last chart above, which of course is an outright lie, as noted by several other commenters.
So, why does Shehan lie? It is not because Shehan must support his climate religion at all costs. It is not because Shehan has a credible argument to make, but lacks real world supporting facts. No. Shehan lies about ‘accelerating’ global warming for only one reason. Take a guess what it is.