They say more complete datasets are needed. They also fail to mention “the pause” of global temperature during the decade of study, using only bar graphs to illustrate temperatures instead of trend lines, while at the same time state that “A decade is the minimum possible timeframe for detecting temperature changes.” They also mention “it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change,” and they hint that “some may have occurred in a different way – or would not have occurred at all”, which is just political lip service, and no evidence is cited.
They also cite that expansion of socio-economic assets and infrastructure expanded in such a way to increase risk to lives and property.
The WMO now joins Nature magazine and IPCC SREX in saying extreme weather can’t yet be reliably linked to climate change. Links to the report follow. – Anthony
Press release:
GENEVA 3 July 2013 – The world experienced unprecedented high-impact climate extremes during the 2001-2010 decade, which was the warmest since the start of modern measurements in 1850 and continued an extended period of pronounced global warming. More national temperature records were reported broken than in any previous decade, according to a new report by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
The report, The Global Climate 2001-2010, A Decade of Climate Extremes, analysed global and regional temperatures and precipitation, as well as extreme events such as the heat waves in Europe and Russia, Hurricane Katrina in the United States of America, Tropical Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar, droughts in the Amazon Basin, Australia and East Africa and floods in Pakistan.
…
Impacts: During the decade 2001-2010, more than 370,000 people died as a result of extreme weather and climate conditions, including heat waves, cold spells, drought, storms and floods, according to the data provided by the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). This was 20% higher than 1991-2000. This increase is due mainly to the 2003 heat wave in Europe and the 2010 in Russia which contributed to an increase of more than 2000% in the global death toll from heat waves (from less than 6000 in 1991-2000 to 136 000 in 2001-2010).
On the other hand, there was a 16% decline in deaths due to storms and 43% decline in deaths from floods, thanks mainly to better early warning systems and increased preparedness and despite an increase in populations in disaster-prone areas.
According to the 2011 Global Assessment Report, the average population exposed to flooding every year increased by 114% globally between 1970 and 2010, a period in which the world’s population increased by 87% from 3.7 billion to 6.9 billion. The number of people exposed to severe storms almost tripled in cyclone-prone areas, increasing by 192%, in the same period.
Much research is being conducted into whether it is possible to attribute individual extreme events to climate change rather than natural variability. Scientists increasingly conclude that the likelihood of an event such as the 2003 European heat wave was probably substantially increased by rising global temperatures. It is therefore important to develop this research to strengthen climate science and to use it to improve climate services to help society adapt to climate change.
###
Full press release here: http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html
Excerpts from the report:
…the data do not demonstrate that the increase in observed
losses is caused by an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme events. Other factors come into play, notably the
increased exposure of people and property to climate extremes and the improved and increased reporting of disasters.
Nevertheless, it is worth noting the very large increase (more than 2 000 per cent) in the loss of life from heatwaves, particularly during the unprecedented extreme heat events that affected Europe in the summer of 2003 and the Russian Federation in the summer of 2010. On the other hand, there
were fewer deaths due to storms and floods in 2001–2010 compared to 1991–2000, with decreases of 16 per cent and 43 per cent, respectively, thanks, in good part, to better early warning systems and increased preparedness.
There were fewer deaths, even while exposure to extreme events increased as populations grew and more people were living in disaster-prone areas. According to the 2011 Global Assessment Report, the average population exposed to flooding every year increased by 114 per cent globally between 1970 and 2010, a period in which the world’s population increased by 87 per cent from 3.7 billion to 6.9 billion. The number of people exposed to severe storms almost tripled in cyclone-prone areas, increasing by 192 per cent, in the same period.
While the risk of death and injury from storms and floods declined, the vulnerability of property increased. This is because
the expansion of socio-economic and infrastructural assets led to an increase in the amount and value of property exposed
to weather and climate extremes.
…
No clear trend has been found in tropical cyclones and extra-tropical storms at the global level. More complete datasets will be needed in order to perform robust analyses of trends in the frequency and intensity of these hazards. Distinguishing between natural climate variability and human-induced climate change will also require datasets that are more complete and long-term. A decade is the minimum possible timeframe for detecting temperature changes.
The report is available here: http://library.wmo.int/opac/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=15110
Backup PDF here: wmo_1119_en
“Steve Goddard provides plenty of historical documentation showing that the current situation in the Arctic is nothing unusual. It has all happened before, repeatedly, and not very long ago. We are simply observing the ebb and flow of polar ice cycles.”
I know that. But that is not my question. My question is: “Has global sea ice cover decreased over the last 43 years or has it not?”
“Unfortunately, some in the climate alarmist crowd like to cherry-pick this particular instant in time, and then extrapolate the current temporary changes in order to frighten people. ”
I’m well aware of their tactics.
“But as we see, total global ice is unchanged.”
Please explain your basis for this statement. I show the linear least-squares trendline to have decreased by about 4.5%. Where 4.5% over 43 years falls within the margin of error is a different debate, and I make no claims about that. I’m just trying to get at a simple fact. Nobody on this board so far seems to want me to do so. How come?
The idea of Climate is a human construct based on statistics. Ergo, it is absurd to think of “Climate Extremes”, as outliers (ie noise) is generally filtered out. Weather is what “is”. That is, from a statistical point of view, it is “noise”. Therefore, it is absurd to talk of Climatic Extremes. There are absolute extremes, that is, weather extremes. Or more explicitly, a single point in time of a weather event.
Craig,
It may be because you are obviously capable of googling for info yourself. Do your own research.
Then tell us the simple fact. You would save yourself a lot of typing.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Global sea ice area is currently the same as it was in 1980.
Craig, a certain blog author who specializes in statistical analysis has links to the data pages you are looking for at Cryosphere today. Another well know climate blog has links to the same data sources plus many others. You might try those…
Billy Liar,
You are correct as usual. Craig can get the answer to his question by simply looking at the link you posted. Which I also posted for him — twice.
The red line is the global average ice cover, and the flat black line it straddles is the 30-year average. We can see that global ice cover is nothing to be concerned about; it is almost exactly at its long term average.
What I wonder about is this: why is Craig apparently not concerned at all about the very blatant cherry-picking of only Arctic ice, when the Antarctic has ten times more ice, and which has been gaining ice for decades? Why are some folks so unconcerned over the dishonest spin that others use to promote their false alarm?
dbstealey,
There seem to be an increasing number of people on climate skeptic blogs whose purpose appears to be to disrupt by asking questions they could easily answer themselves.
They might be trying to make blogs unappealing for regulars to frequent.
Norway Rat,
I and others have posted plenty of charts, graphs, and other documents, including those of Cryosphere Today, which you referenced; we’re way ahead of you. There are also more available, as I have offered. The information is out there, and it shows conclusively that there is no crisis whatever regarding Arctic ice cover. Arctic ice is a non-issue; the last desperate attempt to salvage a correct prediction out of reams of flat-out wrong climate alarmist predictions.
The Arctic has not warmed, as I showed in one of my many links above. Therefore, the cause of declining Arctic ice is due to shifting ocean currents, changes in precipitation, and similar events. Arctic temperature is not the cause of declining ice, which will anyway go through its current cycle in its own good time. The hand-waving over this natural event is nothing but Chicken Little histrionics. It is certainly not science.
Finally, this site has won the internet’s “Best Science & Technology” Weblog Award — for the third year running — for a very good reason: it does not censor skeptics’ comments like the un-named blogs you mentioned. With very few exceptions, alarmist blogs typically censor opposing points of view. They have to. If they did not, then the truth would emerge: that there is no global warming crisis. Nothing either unusual or unprecedented is occurring.
We are actually fortunate to be living in a “Goldilocks” climate. Only self-serving rent seekers keep the climate scare alive. That is reprehensible. But fortunately, there are sites like this one, which do not censor opposing points of view, thus the truth gets out. And as we see, the truth is winning. Your side is not.
@Craig
“””””….. Nobody on this board so far seems to want me to do so. How come?……”””””
Based on your post, and the inanity of your question; we don’t think you would be able to understand the answer.
After you learn how to serf, you will be able to find your answer out there somewhere.
craig;
Nobody on this board so far seems to want me to do so. How come?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How come people keep trying to help you and you keep whining that you aren’t getting what you asked for? Every graph on the sea ice page has a notation as to the source of the graph. All you need do is visit the source site to see their data. Here, I did the first one for you:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/SEAICE/
dbstealey said :
1) Winning a blog award is an indication of how many readers a blog has, and not of the scientific quality of the blog
2) WUWT often censors comments from people who support the professional, expert understanding of science rather than the pseudoscience that is favoured here.
3) Allowing the comments of sceptics who are very disproportionately uneducated, uninformed, and/or ideologically motivated is no recommendation.
4) In the past WUWT has censored whole threads by removing them when they have been demonstrated to be egregiously scientifically and/or analytically incorrect, and by failing to post promised followings-up of previous threads where the content has been demonstrated to be egregiously scientifically and/or analytically incorrect.
Just saying.
You people would do well to stop being so paranoid. Really. Billy Liar especially. Jesus.
The graph at this link http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg is the graph that caused me to ask for the actual data in the first place (which STILL no one has posted a link to). Because from the appearance of the graph, it *appears* (to me) that there is more red above the “trendline” (implied by the file name) at the left end of the graph than to the right. In fact, to me it doesn’t look like a trendline, but simply a horizontal line drawn at the 1979-2013 average. But as I said earlier, appearances can be deceiving. I just thought somebody on this board, which is ostensibly meant to educate idiots like me, could point me to the actual data, since I don’t spend my life on this topic. One would think if you really wanted to get your message out, you would just point me to the data, rather than say “do your own research”. Or concoct some silly conspiracy theory about making skeptic blogs “unappealing”.
Sheesh.
I posted seven observations above. Does anybody disagree with any of them?
Craig
Been there. Perhaps you should actually click on the links and see where they point. None of them give a time series of global sea ice extent.
Craig
George E Smith:
“Based on your post, and the inanity of your question; we don’t think you would be able to understand the answer.”
What is inane about my question? The fact that no one can answer it? I ask again:
Can anybody point me to the raw data that were used to make this graph? http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Or perhaps your are referring to one or more of my 7 observations listed above? Care to refute any of them? Anyone? Bueller??
“After you learn how to serf, you will be able to find your answer out there somewhere.”
I know how to “serf”. I simply thought somebody here might be able to find what I had no success at finding. At any rate, you clearly don’t know how to spell.
dbstealy,
You say
“The information is out there, and it shows conclusively that there is no crisis whatever regarding Arctic ice cover. Arctic ice is a non-issue; the last desperate attempt to salvage a correct prediction out of reams of flat-out wrong climate alarmist predictions.”
You go on to say basically the same thing in the ensuing paragraphs. And I don’t disagree with you. But in the original post, it is stated in unequivocal fashion that the increase in Antarctic ice since 1979 had “more than made up for” the decrease in Arctic ice. I am questioning that. My basic question is, “How has GLOBAL sea ice extent changed over the period 1979-2013?” The answer is out there somewhere, and it is a simple number. It’s not open to debate. But so far, for answers, I’ve been told to figure it out myself, to learn how to “serf”, that there is no crisis in the Arctic, insinuations that I’m an Alarmist in disguise, and most hilariously, that my question is a part of a larger conspiracy to make skeptic blogs “unappealing”. Which basically makes you guys no better than your opponents in the alarmist camp. Somebody earnestly asks a simple question that (I must assume) is inconvenient, and you run them out on a rail? Really? This is scientific dialog?
Again, based on the data I HAVE been able to find, I conclude that GLOBAL sea ice area has DECREASED by about 4.5% since 1979. Anybody got data to refute that? Anybody even got the balls to address my 7 observations above, and show me which one(s) is wrong?
So sorry if that is an inane question.
Craig
Bernard J.
You say: “4) In the past WUWT has censored whole threads by removing them when they have been demonstrated to be egregiously scientifically and/or analytically incorrect, and by failing to post promised followings-up of previous threads where the content has been demonstrated to be egregiously scientifically and/or analytically incorrect.”
Really? I would hate to think that. I’ve always respected this blog. Just the same, I have screen-captured the entire thread.
Craig, George pegged you and you don’t even get it. 8^D
You’ve got 30 years of data. Yawn.
Great that you screen-capped it. (boring and paranoid).
As of 2008, according to cryosphere:
Arctic: “Trend, 1979-2008 Significant decrease of 4.1% (~500,000 km2; 193,000 mi2) per decade”
Antarctic: “Small increase of 0.9% (~100,000 km2; 42,000 mi2) per decade”
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/difference.html
So as of 2008, the Antarctic had only “made up for” 1/5 of the ice lost in the Arctic.
Still looking for same data through 2013.
Craig
“You’ve got 30 years of data. Yawn”
Actually, 44 years according to the two graphs I posted links to above. But again, that is only graphical data. I can’t seem to find the raw data. And the time period that the discussion has been about from the very beginning is 1979-2013. I have been more than clear on that.
Here are the graphs on which I base my argument again, in context:
1) The graph at the first link above http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/screenhunter_146-mar-12-07-52.jpg only shows the Antarctic. But from the trendline I conclude that Antarctic ice cover has increased by about 500,000 km2 since 1979. Reasonable or no?
2) I just googled around and found this: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2013/07/Figure3.png. From the trendline of THAT graph I conclude that Arctic sea ice cover has decreased by about 1,500,000 km2 over the same time frame. Reasonable or no?
3) 1,500,000/500,000 = 3. Reasonable or no?
4) In area, Antarctic ice cover has increased by 1/3 the amount that Arctic ice cover has decreased over the period 1979 – present. Reasonable or no?
5) GLOBAL ice cover shows a net decrease of about 1,000,000 km2 over the period 1979-2013. Reasonable or no?
6) From this figure, http://www.climate4you.com/images/SeaIceNHandSHlastMonthSince1979.gif, the global mean over that time period is about 22,300,000 km2. Reasonable or no?
7) Therefore, global ice cover has decreased by about 4.5% over the period 1979-2013. Reasonable or no?
And the original statement that I am questioning is that since 1979, the Antarctic ice has gained more ice than the Arctic has lost.
Maybe I was snotty or something in my very first post? Here it is again:
“Actually, I don’t think that graph supports your claim that the Antarctic makes up for it. The global sea ice anomaly appears to me to trend down too, just not as much as the Arctic. I can’t seem to find the actual data that go into this graph, so I am only eyeballing. Can anyone provide a link so I can do my own analysis?”
Yep. Obviously a know-nothing, alarmist troll.
I note that my 7 observations continue to go unchallenged by the objective folks on this board. Will have to go elsewhere to find the answer I guess. Or perhaps the owner of this blog will weigh in. His objectivity has always seemed pretty good to me. I doubt he would take my questioning his assertion personally.
Craig
“Craig, George pegged you and you don’t even get it. 8^D”
David, George can’t even spell. 8^D.
Craig
Craig, he can but you missed his meaning.
Craig;
I just thought somebody on this board, which is ostensibly meant to educate idiots like me,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ah, I see the problem. Thanks for sharing. Sorry to hear that.
BTW, as of current reporting:
Arctic -877k
Antarctic +678K
Since you’ve been pointed at it many times in this thread, no value telling you where that comes from.
Craig.
Forget Screen captures unless you’re in moderation. Webcite is more efficient, and much easier to share.
Found it!!
Northern Hemisphere: ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/
Southern Hemisphere: ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/south/daily/data/
I used the “final” versions. They are daily measurements of NH and SH sea ice extent going back to 1979, through present.
I summed them, plotted them in Excel, and fit a least-squares line. The equation of the line is:
y = –0.0001105672x + 23.779
x = days, y = km2 x 1,000,000
Over the 10,855 days beginning on 10/26/1978, the linear least-squares fit has decreased by
(-0.0001105672) * (10855) = 1.200 * 1,000,000 km2 = 1,200,000 km2. That is pretty close to what I state up above:
“5) GLOBAL ice cover shows a net decrease of about 1,000,000 km2 over the period 1979-2013. Reasonable or no?”
The y-intercept is 23,770,000 km2, so a decrease of 1.200,000 km2 works out to be about 5%.
Again, from above:
“7) Therefore, global ice cover has decreased by about 4.5% over the period 1979-2013. Reasonable or no?”
So I was pretty darn close.
So — based on all of the data I can find, no thanks to anybody on this board, I think it is *not fair* to say that global sea ice extent has remained constant, or that Antarctic ice gains have “more than made up for” Arctic ice losses in the period 1979-2013. In fact, the data indicate that global sea ice extent has decreased by 5% over that time period.
Is that a crisis? Not in my opinion. At least not yet. And of course it depends on your point of view. But even if you’re a polar bear it doesn’t seem like a lot.
By 2050, assuming the rate stays the same, it would be down 12% from 1979. Is that a crisis? It’s sure no where near the projections of most of the alarmists.
By 2079, assuming the rate stays the same, it would be down 17%. Is a loss of 17% of the global sea ice over 100 years a crisis? I don’t know, but it’s a far cry from what the alarmists claim it will be. Then again, I am assuming zero non-linearities, the effects of which, in my opinion, are impossible to predict.
Anyway, I’m not here to debate what it might mean. All I wanted to know was the answer to my original question. And the answer is: -5%.
Craig
“BTW, as of current reporting:
Arctic -877k
Antarctic +678K”
Not over the 1979-2013 time frame, which is the time frame I made crystal clear that I was referring to.
David:
“Craig, he can but you missed his meaning”
Given that “surf” in this context is a verb, and “serf” is a noun, I doubt it.