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
Craig says:
July 3, 2013 at 11:21 pm
“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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Those are current anomalies calculated against the 1979 to 2008 average. So yes, right now today, the antarctic increase is almost what the arctic decrease is. A few weeks ago the antarctic increase actually exceeded the arctic decrease.
Also — you guys need to learn the difference between data and graphs. It has been stated many times that I have been repeatedly pointed to the data, but in most cases I was actually pointed to a *graph*, and in NO case did anyone point to the *data* that was in dbstealys graph, which I reproduce here: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Craig,
1) Are you calculating mere area of ice (re: your -5% result above)? What about the total volume of ice? Or is the volume irrelevant?
2) I read your comments above and the pompous, arrogant, demanding, tone was exceptionally shrill. Who are you to demand answers of anyone here?
You may or may not have proven anything useful about sea ice. You have, however, CLEARLY proven that you are jerk.
Glad for an opportunity to repeat myself!
Correction: “you are a jerk.”
davidmhoffer:
“Those are current anomalies calculated against the 1979 to 2008 average. So yes, right now today, the antarctic increase is almost what the arctic decrease is. A few weeks ago the antarctic increase actually exceeded the arctic decrease.”
Thanks. Well OK, but I don’t know that that is a fair comparison. You’re comparing an instantaneous value from a highly-volatile dataset with a 39-year average. Are you not?
It is equally true that since 1979, the trend of global sea ice extent is linear, and that linear trend line is 5% lower in 2013 than it was in 1979. In my *opinion*, that is a fairer and more accurate description of reality.
Again, dbstealy stated that Antarctic gains more than made up for Arctic losses, and he pointed to this graph as evidence: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
I *politely* took issue with that — the graph didn’t seem to support it. And being unable to find the raw data that went into the graph, and not wanting to base my conclusions on a picture, I *politely* asked if he could point me to it. And that’s when the shitstorm started. Why? Because I disagreed. Respectfully.
That’s not science guys. Those of you who have attacked me are no better than your alarmist counterparts that you disparage. And you’re certainly not helping your “cause”.
A little more disclosure for those who seem to think I’m an idiot. I have a BS (summa cum laude) in Geology from Bowling Green State University (85), and a MS in Geophysics from Purdue (87). I have worked as an exploration geophysicist for the last 26 years. I am VP of a small company of 100 employees in the Silicon Valley.
I practice science on a daily basis, and I’ve made a damn good living at it. I doubt most of my attackers can say that.
Craig, “I…. I…….. I………… I………… .”
And one more thing…. you have an arrogant, repulsive, personality.
Must be absolutely LOVELY working in a small company with an angry, paranoid, narcissist like you.
Hi Janice,
“1) Are you calculating mere area of ice (re: your -5% result above)? What about the total volume of ice? Or is the volume irrelevant?”
Of course the volume is *not* irrelevant in a general sense, but it is in *this* discussion. The graph that dbstealy pointed to to support his assertion was a graph of aerial extent, and that is what I have been questioning from the start. BTW, dbstealy is not one of the people who attacked me. Evidently, HE wasn’t threatened by my question.
“2) I read your comments above and the pompous, arrogant, demanding, tone was exceptionally shrill. Who are you to demand answers of anyone here?”
I suggest that you go back and read it objectively. And then look up “shrill”. An objective read will show that I asked a question in a very polite fashion and was immediately and rudely (and shrilly) attacked. And please point me to anywhere that I *demanded* anything.
Your can call me a jerk, I guess I could call you a nasty name back but I’m a gentleman, so I won’t. But what you, too, seemingly *can’t* do is address in any way a single aspect of my argument. All anybody seems to be able to do (with a couple of exceptions) is call me names, call me stupid, or set up straw-man arguments and knock them down. I can only take that to mean that you know you are wrong.
Enjoy your little groupthink circle jerk.you’ve got going here.
dbstealey said at July 3, 2013 at 3:46 pm
.
I’m curious about this claim of no Arctic warming. What is your explanation for reconciling the graph to which you link, with the GISS data for the same period?
Also, do you think that it is valid to compare Arctic sea ice with Antarctic sea ice, given that Arctic sea ice is surrounded by and floating on liquid water, where the Antarctic sea ice is protected by a very large continent called Antarctica (a land body that is not similarly found in the Arctic)?
Further, given that a lot of the Antarctic sea ice originates from land-based snow fall, and that the overall increased humidity of the planet’s atmosphere is resulting in increased snowfall over parts of the Antarctic, do you not think that altogether you are comparing apples and coconuts?
And to preempt any misunderstandings, more snow in a polar region does not indicate global cooling. Rather, it indicates increased atmospheric moisture resulting from lower latitudinal evaporation resulting from global warming: even if the polar region is itself warming it can still snow more heavily there, as long as its overall temperature is below the freezing point of water. Just in case anyone misunderstands…
[Snip. WUWT is…] “…a so-called science website…” ?
Take your insults elsewhere. We are not obligated to put up with them. — mod.
I’m with Craig on this one. Saying that the gain in the Anctartic “more than made up” for the loses in the Arctic is not just misleading, it is wrong. We can discuss about the significance of the fact of the ice loss, about whether it is unprecedented or not, whether the very small trend matters or not, and whether it is misleading or not to only show the arctic loss. But we cannot and should not pretend that sea ice is not being lost. It is.
Nylo,
If you have verifiable facts, post them here. But you are only emitting your personal opinion. This is the fifth time this chart has been posted. It is produced by the University of Illinois. We see that global ice cover is right at its long term average, no matter what you may personally believe. The Antarctic contains ten times the amount of ice in the Arctic. I have provided numerous charts showing that the Antarctic ice cover is growing. Neither you, nor Craig, nor anyone else disputes that fact. Your quibbles are an effort to support your belief system. That is not science, that is tantamount to religion.
Next, any and every chart from SkS is suspect. GISS is notorious for altering the temperature record. If you trust the government to tell you the truth, you are being credulous. Their primary interest is to alarm the populace, then present themselves as the savior of humanity… for a very stiff price: taxing the air we breathe, forever. But in reality, there is no crisis.
The climate Null Hypothesis has never been falsified. Until/unless it is, that means that there is nothing either unusual or unprecedented occurring. Nothing. What is observed today has happended repeatedly in the past, and to a much greater degree — and during times when CO2 was much lower than now. Thus, the whole manmade global warming argument fails.
If the alarmist crowd used rational thought, logic, and followed the Scientific Method instead of repeating wild-eyed scare stories, we would all be better off. Until then, the best we can do here is set the record straight.
Finally, I have tried to help Craig several times now. But all I get are claims of ignorance, from someone who toots his horn and claims to be smarter than the rest of us. The information Craig seeks is out there, and easily found. But his tactic of constantly asking, “But why…?” is juvenile and non-productive.
Craig needs to understand that the onus is entirely on those claiming there is a runaway global warming problem, to provide testable, verifiable scientific evidence of any claimed problem. But they have failed, so they try to put scientific skeptics into the position of essentially having to prove a negative. They need to go back and study the Scientific Method and its corollary, the Null Hypothesis. Otherwise, they are no different than the old time believers in witch doctors, praying to the moon [ie: paying more taxes] in order to stop the feared eclipse [non-existent runaway global warming].
Ignorance is hard to overcome, because it is based on emotion. But skeptics are trying. And amazingly, the public is beginning to see the light: the whole global warming scare is a trumped-up, grant fed scam.
dbstealey, my facts are extracted from the same chart that you link and the fact that the anomaly is, during the last 6 years of data, approximately 85% of the time negative, which means that total sea ice area is below average most of the time. Only sporadically it becomes positive. So perhaps today the anomaly is not negative, but this doesn’t invalidate the fact that total ice area has been going down, in the same way that today we may have below average temperatures but that doesn’t invalidate the fact that temperatures have been getting warmer in the last century and are therefore, most of the times, above the average, even if today in particular they happened to be below the average.
I think the discussion of the Arctic sea ice has gotten out of hand. I didn’t get the feeling that Craig was doing anything but looking for good data. I have a feeling that having to deal with people like Jai Mitchell have led some folks to being overly defensive.
It appears Craig has found the data and, like him, I accept that global sea ice has had a slight downward trend if you cherry pick the start date to the peak of the Arctic sea ice. Naturally this selection of dates is not all that informative to long term trends.
Finally, the key to Arctic sea ice loss is the AMO. It switched to warm mode in the mid 90s. After a lag of a few years the sea ice started to melt. The AMO is currently at its peak warm values which should continue for another 5-10 years. We are likely to see little change until that time although it might start heading down from this peak in a few years.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/24/tisdale-how-much-of-an-impact-does-the-atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation-have-on-arctic-sea-ice-extent/
Also keep in mind that the Antarctic sea ice that increased over the same time also correlates to the cooling of the Southern Ocean. It’s pretty clear to me that it is nearby ocean temperatures that control the amount of sea ice at both poles.
dbstealey, regarding your claim that
The Antarctic contains ten times the amount of ice in the Arctic
We are talking about sea ice here. Antarctic sea ice varies seasonally between a maximum of around 15 million km2 and a minimum of 2. Arctic sea ice varies seasonally between a maximum of around 14 million km2 and a minimum of 5 (or 3, more recently). Therefore could you please explain your claim that I have cited above? It certainly is not derived from the data published in Cryosphere Today.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/31/arctic-sea-ice-time-lapse-from-1978-to-2009-using-nsidc-data/
More here;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=Arctic+ice+loss
Or this one;
http://drtimball.com/2013/thinning-arctic-ice-more-al-gore-aided-and-abetted-misinformation/
Craig says “I’m a climate skeptic” then proceeds to reveal that to be a lie.
He also says, “I have read WUWT for a long time now” then proceeds to show that he is ignorant of sea ice information that is discussed over and over on this site.
Serial liar and useful “serf”. Hilarious.
Craig, can you tell me how often the Arctic has been ice free over the last 13 million years? Oh yeah, this time it’s different. Evidence please.
Craig says:
“…being unable to find the raw data that went into the graph, and not wanting to base my conclusions on a picture, I *politely* asked if he could point me to it.”
As I noted above, that graph was produced by the University of Illinois — something you could have determined as easily as I did. It took me all of about five seconds. And I am also being polite, but the hand-holding is getting to be a bit much. I suggest that you take a few months and read the WUWT archives, keyword: ice. You need to get up to speed yourself, instead of asking us to do your homework.
Hi Nylo:
During the Holocene the Arctic has been ice-free. This was at a time when CO2 was very low, and human activity was negligible.
Apparently you prefer to believe that the current fluctuation in Arctic ice is caused by human activity. If so, the onus is on you to prove it — or at least to provide solid, testable and measurable scientific evidence showing that your conjecture is valid.
But so far, neither you nor anyone else has been able to provide any such measurements that are testable per the Scientific Method. You are looking at a natural event that has happened many times before, and to a greater degree, and then making the assumption that human activity is the cause. That is not nearly good enough. If those are our standards, then we are back into witch doctor territory.
Either produce testable measurements showing that human activity is the reasoin for the current decline in Arctic ice, or accept the climate Null Hypothesis — which has never been falsified.
Hi dbstealey, with all due respect, you are obcecated and paranoid asuming ideas in other people that have not been said nor implied in anything they wrote. I see that I am no exception to this. Nowhere have I made any claim about who is to blame regarding the situation in the Arctic, in fact, I have specifically said that the significance of the event is perfectly debatable. Also I have not ever argued against the possibility that the Arctic has been ice free, probably several times in the Holocene before now. I have absolutely no need to show any proof that the current fluctuation in Arctic ice is caused by human activity, because I have not made nor implied such a thing. My only claim has been that the data shows, without a doubt, that ice has been lost in the Arctic during the satellite era, and that this loss, contrary to your assertion, has not been more than countered by an increase in the antarctic. It’s a plain assertion of a true fact which YOU DENIED, and I claim it without entering into which causes or consecuences the fact may have.
Yes, when looking at the fact that ice is being lost, I am looking at a probably natural event that has probably happened many times in the past. So I see no need to DENY this fact the way that you do. And I make no assumption that humans are the cause, that’s only in your imagination, it doesn’t exist in any of my posts in this or in other threads. And as I see you deny the simple true fact that ice is being lost, I accuse you of being misleading. What are you afraid of? If you are sure that the truth is on your side, why are you denying facts? Do you perhaps think that people cannot handle the facts without some convenient dressing of them? If so, then you are not very different from the warmistas, and your attitude weakens the position of true sceptics of CAGW like me.
The version is different in Brazil: http://translate.google.com.br/translate?sl=pt&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=pt-BR&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ecodebate.com.br%2F2013%2F07%2F04%2Fprimeira-decada-do-seculo-21-foi-a-mais-quente-desde-1850-afirma-relatorio-da-onu%2F
Nylo says:
“My only claim has been that the data shows, without a doubt, that ice has been lost in the Arctic during the satellite era, and that this loss, contrary to your assertion, has not been more than countered by an increase in the antarctic.”
If your position is that the decline in Arctic ice is not due to human activity, then my apologies, we are on the same page.
However, I posted data from the University of Illinois showing that Antarctic ice cover compensates for the loss of Arctic ice; global ice cover remains at its long term average.
Also, I regard selectively separating sea ice from total ice cover to be unreliable. There is no accurate way to determine total ice volume. Thus, the best we can do is to use satellite data to compare the poles. And that data shows that global ice cover is average.
Craig says:
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.
As would I. So I challenge Bernard J. to show us which threads have been “censored whole”. I am aware of a couple of threads over the years which have been terminated [“Comments Closed”] when they got down to a few diehards incessantly arguing and nitpicking over obscure, irrelevant points. But to the best of my knowledge, threads have not been completely removed or deleted — and never for the reasons given by Bernard J.
This site takes pride in promoting all points of view. That is a basic reason for its popularity. Readers can then decide for themselves the truth of the matter under discussion, and make up their own minds. Frank and open discussion is the best way to sift the wheat of truth from the chaff of climate propaganda. For that reason, many, if not most alarmist blogs censor inconvenient facts and skeptical comments.
Univ of Illinois data (via cryosphere today site) shows the global sea ice area very close to the 30 year average. The data table shows the approx global sea ice area since 1979 is about 20 million square kilometers. The last value for the anomoly is -0.35 so thats under 2 percent below the 30 year average. Just a couple months ago the anamoly was positive. The 30 year anomoly trend line looks completely flat.
That ignores the multi-decadal polar oscillations. Anecdotal ship observations suggest that arctic sea ice has been variable at multi-decadal time scales with the 1920s and 30s being similar to the current decades.
I’d agree with dbstealey, there is nothing unusual about global sea ice area in 2013, and nothing to suggest that the future global sea ice area will change in the 21st century.
This report has a graph on page 4 that shows a 0.21° temperature rise in the decade 2001-2010. Yet I understood that there had been no statistically significant increase in temperature for 14/15 years. Seems to be a bit of difference in the two positions, anyone know why?
Andy H says:
July 5, 2013 at 1:19 am
This will help;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/05/wmo-repeats-hottest-decade-ever-mantra/