Warning Signs: Hot Lies Disputed by Cold Facts
I have always found a stark contrast in the way the forecasts of meteorologists on television and radio are limited in accuracy to about a week and beyond that become more speculative while the claims about global warming are always stated in decades. For example, the polar ice caps were supposed to have all melted by now.The daily forecasts are formulated based on sophisticated meteorological satellites. The global warming claims are all based on computer models, not empirical observation and data.
…
The time is overdue for the American Meteorological Society to abandon any role in advancing a hoax that Mother Nature herself has exposed.
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2013/08/hot-lies-disputed-by-cold-facts.html
==================================================================
More Than Two Thirds Of The US Below Normal Temperature In 2013
==================================================================
Will global warming lead to more war? It’s not that simple.
“…the 2000s were the warmest decade on record, but they also managed to be “the least conflict-ridden decade since the 1970s.”
So clearly there are other things at work here”
==================================================================
Growing Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Breaking All Records
Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Breaking All Records
================================================================
From Nature Climate Change
UCSB study finds climate change is causing modifications to marine life behavior
Oceans cover 71 percent of the Earth’s surface, yet our knowledge of the impact of climate change on marine habitats is a mere drop in the proverbial ocean compared to terrestrial systems. An international team of scientists set out to change that by conducting a global meta-analysis of climate change impacts on marine systems.
================================================================
Mann whines about a letter to the editor, then pushes his book:
Climate change letter was personal attack
Editor, Times-Dispatch:
Charlie Battig did a grave disservice to your readers by spreading falsehoods about me personally and about climate science in general in his recent letter, “McAuliffe sways left and right on coal.” Battig parroted discredited denialist talking points, e.g., “the globe hasn’t warmed over the past 16 years” (the past decade, in fact, was the warmest recorded).
…
It is precisely these sorts of attacks by climate-change deniers that led me to write my recent book, “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars,” where I discuss my experiences as a reluctant figure in the climate-change debate.
http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor-for-august/article_833393bb-0d7e-5389-b90d-9edb451c2ddd.html
=================================================================
Warmist Retreat: Water shortage alarm from Himalayan melt called off
E&E reports:
One of the big unknowns of climate change predictions — and one that has led to considerable contention — lies in knowing the future of water runoff from the Himalayas. The snow- and ice-rich region supplies water for billions of people in Asia and is sometimes referred to as the Earth’s “Third Pole.”
For years, scientists struggled to understand how precipitation will change in these mountains (ClimateWire, Oct. 24, 2011). They have also had difficulty determining how much glacier melt from the mountains contributes to water supply.
Scientists climbing up the ice cliffs of the debris-covered tongue of the Lirung Glacier in the Himalayas. Photo courtesy of Evan Miles.
A study out yesterday in Nature Geoscience by Walter Immerzeel, a physical geographer at Utrecht University, suggests that, in at least two major Himalayan watersheds, river flows and runoff should rise until 2100.
More: http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059985593
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“the last decade being the warmest on record” comes from the UKMO and in respect is true. Using the CET (the longest temperature data set) from 1659 to 2012 the temperature has continuously although erratically risen. However the CET mean monthly temperature in 1659 was 8.83 Deg C and 2012 was 9.70 Deg C giving a rise of 0.87 Deg C in 353 years that equates to 0.246 per century or 0.025/decade.
Year Rank Hottest
2000 22
2001 52
2002 6
2003 10
2004 12
2005 16
2006 1
2007 13
2008 49
2009 30
2010 263
2011 2
2012 82
What they NEVER point out is in the same record the last 20 years have been cooling (albeit a very small amount) but their 10 hottest years on record is also a very small amount.
the hottest year was 10.82 in 2006 and the coldest 6.84 in 1740 a range of 3.98 which could be noted as natural variation within that record. The 14th warmest was 10.47 in 1733 (before the industrial revolution) Between the years 1739-1740-1741 the temperature went from 9.2 to 6.8 to 9.3 giving a cooling of equivalent to -23.6/decade and a warming of 24.6/decade (also before the industrial revolution).
My question is, what is all the fuss about?
AndyG55:
At
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/05/the-wuwt-hot-sheet-august-5th-2013/#comment-1382136
you say
Yes, that is a worry.
There is no evidence that the ‘hill’ of global warming was other than natural. And we have been ‘at the top for a while’.
If the future global cooling you suggest were to happen then it would be more problematic than postulated global warming, especially if the cooling returned the globe to its temperatures in the Little Ice Age.
Richard
jimmi_the_dalek says:
August 6, 2013 at 12:28 am
“I am surprised Anthony let that past. The weather forecasts do use satellites, and ground weather stations for data, but that data is then fed into – yes a computer model – to make the prediction. The main difference is that the starting data for a weather forecast is a lot more clearly defined.”
I guess that explains why the weather forecast beyond a couple of days is not to be taken seriously. Beyond a week forecasts are for entertainment only.
That’s a new one, isn’t it? Leak, hack, or whatever, I’d never before heard that “climategate” was industry funded.
Which particular industry was that then?
No Offense Anthony, but the Crimes Disgrace (as it is known to the locals) can hardly be called a source of news or even a valid newspaper. You only read the sports section to find out scores (and even then it is not always correct).
I am sure they ran to Mikey Mann for a rebuttal. And Mikey Mann was quick with his non sequiturs. He really must think everyone is an idiot. “Warmest decade on Record” has NOTHING to do with a warming pause of 16 years. If you bring a pot of water to boil, it will be the hottest it has ever been, but it also will not be getting any hotter.
Mann is distinguished by having a self-awarded Nobel prize. Quite an accomplishment.
“The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars,” where I discuss my experiences as a reluctant figure in the climate-change debate.
Mikey reluctantly accepting payment for the same.
@- AndyG55
“When you climb a NATURAL HILL, you are at the top for a while..
Then you come back down again.”
This hill is steeper and higher than any for the last ten thousand years as shown by Marcott et al and the PAGE- 2k results.
The evidence that it is an entirely natural hill is conspicuous by its absence. Apart from a small increase in solar energy in the first third of the last century there is NO natural explanation for the recent rise in temperature after several thousand years of falling global temperatures.
Meanwhile there is ample evidence the hill is not completely natural. The measured spectra of the downwelling and outgoing LW radiation has changed with the rising CO2 and unless you believe in ‘dragonslayers’ that is a clear and unequivocal cause of at least part of that hill.
Those industry funded climate change deniers, Tom-Dick-Harry, are a bunch of liars and charlatans that attack me personally…
On one hand, I sort of feel bad for Penn St. On the other hand, being a former Richmonder with Charlottesville ties, I’m quite happy MM didn’t ‘basically’ get Dr. Singer’s prior position at UVA.
richardscourtney says at August 6, 2013 at 3:43 am…
Well let’s not panic over things that may not happen. Normnl prudent adaptation is the way to go, regardless.
BTW, are you back from holiday now?
I promised some people, I would speak to you when you were.
Technically Mann is correct. It is different to say there was no warming vs. the trend is flat. We should be careful because that allows him to continue to push his propaganda. If you look closely at RSS data you can see there was a little warming at the beginning of the 16.6 year flat trend followed by the same amount of cooling at the end.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.9/to/plot/rss/from:1996.9/to/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.9/to:2005/trend/plot/rss/from:2005/trend
While Mann is clearly being intellectually dishonest, we give him that opportunity by not being precise.
No he is not. What is it with the dumbing down of America that people cannot understand the difference between an action and a state. It may be the WARMEST decade, but it has not been WARMING. Again, a pot of water is warming until it reaches boiling. Then it is the hottest it has ever been, but it is no longer WARMING.
@E&E on increased run off of Himalayan glaciers:
“On the other hand, Trent University’s Cogley noted, this finding, which will be welcome news to those in the region, could have a downside.
‘[There is] the risk that people, and particularly planners, will relax when in truth there is no cause for complacency,’ he said”
“findings”, from a Warming Model? Yup, “mainstream” Climate Science is still in its infancy….problem is it’s never going to grow up. As long as Matel keeps on making new Barbie Models, there’s no telling what she might do next.
steveta_uk says:
August 6, 2013 at 4:36 am
The Truth Industry, of which most of us are a part.
Nice thing about being truthful is that you automatically belong, and it doesn’t take any investment except being truthful.
(And Mann and his minions are obviously not members of that “industry”.)
M Courtney:
re your question to me at August 6, 2013 at 6:05 am. Yes, I am back from Indonesia.
I fully answered the points in the thread you directed me to which queried my absence. My response is at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/25/my-personal-path-to-catastrophic-agw-skepticism/#comment-1381748
Dad
I guess Mikey likes marching to the beat of his own Alarmist drum. When confronted with the fact of the 16+ -year halt in the warming, the usual mode is to either deny it, calling it a “cherry-pick” or to fly the somewhat-riskier anti-science of “hiding heat”. Instead, he goes for the non-sequiteur and Alarmist meme of “hottest decade ever”, an interesting choice since it is in actuality nothing but a big cherry-pick, if in fact even true (due to faulty and/or fudged data).
Neil Catto says:
August 6, 2013 at 3:39 am
.
.
.
My question is, what is all the fuss about?
___
The fuss is simply about Money and Control not temperature. Control of a centrally planned one world (not including the PRC of course) watermelon gov’t where everyone is told what to believe and how to behave unless of course you are one of the “leaders” or a member of the nomenklatura. Sounds like destitution for the masses (us) where every socialist economy ends up.
A week?? That’s being extremely generous. Anything beyond a day and a half is technically known as a Crap Shoot. If you look at a forecast 5 days out, take a screencap, and look at the same forecast for that day when it arrives, the two will most likely be pretty different.
I always find it puzzling and somewhat amusing to see the level of disparagement and vitriol directed at Michael Mann.
He may have been involved in the first paleoclimate reconstruction, but that was ages ago and many others have made better and more recent measurements of the past climate.
Paleoclimate is not even central to the AGW theory. It can help and inform estimates of climate sensitivity as the greater the extremes during the MWP and the LIA the greater climate sensitivity and therefore the greater the warming from the rising CO2.
But climate science is MUCH more than paleoclimate, which is really a small niche within a considerably bigger field where the main concern is how existing conditions act via physics and chemistry to alter the climate. If Mann had never done his study there would be no difference to the AGW theory.
The antipathy towards Mann when his contribution to the science of AGW is minor and peripheral just looks… bizzarre and disproportionate.
AGWers cannot afford to say the warming trend has stopped. And they will not say so till the current trend, which is flat, starts to decrease and then stays below the norm, in a flat or decreasing trend, for at least a decade or longer. And that’s a fact Jack.
CodeTech says:
August 5, 2013 at 10:26 pm
***
Is anyone really that dim?
Sadly, yes.
“The antipathy towards Mann when his contribution to the science of AGW is minor and peripheral just looks… bizzarre and disproportionate”
There’s no question thats true. MM is the poster child for the bad science of CAGW. He could of course just admit that he made mistake(s), and own up to taking an excessively partisan approach. We would then all forget him.
As the pensioners die from the cold, they can tear down their homes and use that wood for fuel. That will reduce the need for imported wood, eh?
Oops! I finally got caught on a wrong thread. I always wondered how that could happen. Was looking to post on Drax converting coal power to wood power. Ah well.
izen says:
August 6, 2013 at 7:32 am
Unless you realize that Mann acts like an activist and not a scientist.
He’s your typical post-normal poster child of a scientist–he comes to a politically-correct position and then bends his “science” to support it.
Those of us that are classical scientists find this approach to be both dangerous and criminal.
The fact that you can’t see it makes me question your integrity.