LA Times making frantic excuses
Eric Worrall writes: The LA Times has published an article which asks whether the faithful should worry about the rapid growth of Antarctic sea ice, an observation which sharply contradicts model predictions that the ice should all be melting away.
Naturally the article concludes that their readers should not be worried.
The prevailing theory amongst researchers interviewed by the Times, seems to be that global warming is strengthening circumpolar winds. They also suggest global warming is causing increased snowfall on the ice covered ocean.
Sharon Stammerjohn, a sea ice researcher at the University of Colorado; “It makes no sense to talk about a circumpolar average. There’s so much regional variability.”
According to Stammerjohn, it’s even possible that the current growth spurt is just a short upward wiggle in a larger downward trend. “Thirty years isn’t really that long,” Stammerjohn said.
Story: http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-antarctic-sea-ice-20140830-story.html
‘Thirty years isn’t really that long.’
That’s what we’ve been telling you nimrods for 30 years!
Good one!!
As long as their meme suits them. But darest not attempt to turn the tables!
So the LA Times message to their faithful readers is don’t worry, thermageddon is alive and well in the southern latitudes and we’re all going to die per the models. How do stories like that pass editorial muster?
It’s the editorial board that is dictaing the content. Latimes has had a problem with the separation of ‘news’ and opinion for years.
I believe they “can” any letter to editor that presents skeptical evidence
Just like the Seattle Times .
dp
You ask
They pass “editorial muster” because they are news and the LA Times is a newspaper.
‘Many experts say the plane flying from New York will arrive as scheduled’ is not news.
‘An expert says the plane flying from New York will crash’ is news.
Richard
Which kind of means that the decline over thirty years of Arctic ice is not a sign of AGW.
Inconvenient that.
Your comment is a sign of AGW. So is the central meaning of the word “inconvenient”.
I like that! I’m going to use it …
So, twenty years (from 1979 to 1999) is long enough to signal significant/alarming/catastrophic warming but “Thirty years isn’t really that long,” when it may signal cooling. Got it.
WELL SAID!
Has anyone projected forward that 30 years of (alleged) human generated CO2 rise (forgetting all natural sources of course, as that goes without saying) compared to the CO2 level in Jan 1998, in order to obtain the expected CO2 change that produces 30 years of anticipated colder global temperatures? As it would be enlightening to see just how much more CO2 forcing you need to make Earth colder for that long, and to make the 2014 record sea ice cover look a bit ordinary.
Can we please have a ‘paper’ and a model about that nasty negative-feedback side-effect of CO2 … too? … and precautionarily principled ‘n all that good stuff.
And may the farce be with you.
Global warming . . . it’s proven by cooling, it’s proven by warming and it’s proven by no change . . . is there anything it CAN’T do?
No.
I fail to understand why this overworked phrase “global warming” remains extant.
Firstly, it is not happening, not right now.
Secondly, it would appear from the last 17 years that our planet is cooling, on the outside at least.
Thirdly, why does the term “climate change” mitigate all the above?
I have always understood that changes in our world take time; not as we know it (most of us are not geologists), but in millennia. Records purporting to go back several hundred years are useful, maybe, but cannot possibly forecast climate change, per se.
It’s really quite simple.
Global warming is whats chiseled into the millstone they hung around their own collective necks.
Climate change was their first attempt to dump that millstone when the realization that it wasn’t warming hit home.
As a skeptic, one should not for a instance forget to remind them of that simple fact.
I personally, flatly refuse to let them get away with the name change.
In conversation with these “round earthians” I’ll continue to correct them if they refer to their fraud as climate change.
Try it.
Watching them trying to justify the name change is quite cringe worthy.
I agree with Leigh. Hold their feet to the fire: they picked the term to live or die with, and now they must pay the piper.
I also think the Climatistas efforts to change the terminology (Global Warming to Climate Change) reflects their attempt to move the goalposts, which they try to do by talking about storm frequency and severity, drought frequency and severity, warmth hiding in the ocean (= the theory is true, we just have to find the proof of it, and we’re now guessing “ocean”).
Though I may not remember correctly, I don’t recall them talking about any such markers or events back in 2000. Then, it was all about increases in SST, as projected by models.
“is there anything it CAN’T do?”
That’s why we call it hot/wet/dry/cold.
It can’t fool everyone all the time.
Touché!
ALSO WELL SAID!
Yes, there is something it can’t do. It can’t succumb to falsification. You can stab it in the heart and write its obituary, but on the first day of an extreme weather event, it will come back to life as healthy and active as it ever was.
Zombie like in nature climate science it is. Sewed up with many different parts, it terrorizes the public… IT’S ALIVE, It’s ALIVE!!! CAWG just keeps coming at you.
“Global warming . . . is there anything it CAN’T do?”
Can’t seem to match any of the predictions made by all those super smart climate modelers.
If more warming leads to more snow and ice, does the corollary work, i.e. cooling leads to less snow and less ice?
Perhaps we are returning to the next Ice age after all. I am sitting on the Salton Sea where yesterday my Jeep overheated in the 111F/43C temperatures. I hope the ice comes quickly.
And this is from the newspaper that openly refuses to print skeptic letters to the editor. One by one the alarmist claims are proven wrong yet people still listen……why?
Any science article with the phrase “Ice requires cold temperatures to form” immediately turns me off.
Leaves me cold too.
30 years isn’t very long, when the heck do we get to long?
Global warming causes ice to melt. Then when observations show that ice is growing in some places………it causes ice to grow.
Global warming causes less snow. Then when observations show that snow is increasing in some places, it causes more snow.
Global warming causes less cold. Then when extreme cold increases in some places, it causes more cold.
This is clearly just spinning the analysis/interpretation of the empirical data/observations to match up with the theory.
It’s the result of severe cognitive bias.
Bang on, Mike. AGW is more religious dogma than it is science, IMO. No observable empirical evidence refutes or falsifies AGW. As it evidently cannot be falsified, it therefore cannot fall within the realm of legitimate scientific inquiry.
It’s a good thing the LA Times published this article otherwise I’m sure a lot of people would be worried.
A basic tenet of AGW-idiocy is the constant need to reaffirm that AGW-alarmism is supported by all climate observations; an ice age would be indisputable confirmation of AGW. The psychopaths are running amuck; there’s no rational excuse for the belief that reality will impede them; control of the world’s financial assets and natural resources is bassed on political power, not credibility.
I,I,I,I,I,I I, (stammering)
am sure it is cooling from the top latitudes downward
Have these scientists get more information about subject resently? The abstract of their 2012, Oceanography 25(3):140–151 article says: “Yet, the failure of climate models to capture either the overall or regional behavior also reflects, in part, a poor understanding of sea ice processes.”
I think that total global sea ice area is better indicator of climate change than one of polar alone. And global sea ice area shows no big change.
We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia.
Emmanuel Goldstein = Al-Qaeda
What if Antarctic sea ice extent declined for the next 29 years? Would Stammerjohn still say: “Thirty years isn’t really that long,”? We had global warming from the late 1970s to the standstill (about 20 years) but really twenty years isn’t really that long. Slick oil salesman.
By the way THIRTY YEARS or more is what the IPCC and the WMO accept as climate for the purpose of its reports. If thirty years is not long enough, what is?
A propaganda campaign just long enough to force an unelected, world-wide dictatorship on the US, courtesy of the EPA and the Administration.
Eternity wouldn’t be long enough…
The length of whatever record is being discussed.
In the case of surface temps…since the late 1870s.
Back when climatology was in its infancy, it was acknowledged that the longer the record, the better. They ‘settled’ for 35 yrs, because that was what they had…then somewhere along the line, that was shortened to 30 yrs. Many of the old texts on the subject suggest that as the record lengthens, that should be deciding factor as to what is ‘climate’.
“Dramatic changes in temperature, sea level and extreme weather around the world are proof enough the planet is warming…”
No temperature change for 15+ years, no change in rate of sea level change and no evidence for extreme weather. Apart from that, spot on.
The laymen misunderstand. SCIENCE tells us mankind (a.k.a “business as usual) MUST be changing the climate, the ecosystem, the course of evolution and the way things have always been and always ought to be. The only question is, what do we do about it?
What we do about “it”, where “it” means “change”, has absolutely nothing to do with the specific physical properties of the change. Change could be cooler or warmer. Dryer or wetter. More fat, or more starches. Resistant to insecticide — if mosquitoes and roaches — or more sensistive to it — if songbirds, butterflies, or honeybees. More acidic or more base — whether rains or oyster beds or farm run-off. A surplus of phosphates, or a shortage. Rising sea level or lower. More earthquakes or fewer. Plutonium dioxide or carbon dioxide. More ice, less ice, thicker ice, thinner ice, ice near the freezing point, ice near the melting point, ice in phase nine that melts or freezes at some new and different point on the temperature scale. The point is that humans cause change, and the change must be ameliorated by wise and powerful policy makers — guided by scientific experts. And amelioration requires — science says so! — that the general public give up pursuing their own short term happiness and be directed by their betters: to pay more tax, enjoy fewer choices, stay where they are put, and above all stop breeding more of themselves. This is what we must “DO” to stop “IT”. All else is merely noise.
Let me emphasize that. The type of change and the symptoms thereof are irrelevant. THE WHOLE WORLD MUST “DO” SOMETHING TO STOP “IT”. All correctly educated people agree. We must put aside political, religious, policy and personal differences, align our efforts, surrender our luxuries, and fall to.
It is anathema to believe that dry regions should divert resources into local attempts to be wetter, or low places higher, or rough places smoother, or fat places thinner, or urban places more park-like, or wild places cultivated and tamed. ALL places must address the global crisis (du jour) and make sacrifices for the common good. We must all strive together, now, or all perish individually, and eventually, at some future point, the exact date or decade of which need not be specified.
What we see in this instance is just more proof that pollution from industry causes chaotic, unpredictable, conditions. THIS IS INTOLERABLE! How can the global policy makers direct our global economies if polluters keep on introduction variation into our otherwise perfect forecasts, models, and five-year-plans? Polluters, and financial speculators. Polluters, financial speculators, and the patriarchy. Polluters, speculators, the partriarchy, and the reactionary elements of the hereditary power class. And bicyclists … All these counter-scientific resistance groups must be apprehended, re-educated, and — if that fails — destroyed.
At least 97% of those in the consensus agree with the above. The rest of the reading public hope the above is intended satirically.
What consensus?
97% of burnt, drowned and hanged witches regret the moronic consensus that dictated their fate…
Termites appeared about 200 million years ago.
The weight of the total global termite population is somewhere in the order of a dozen times plus the combined weight of all of humanity.
Termites eat grass roots, most species of trees, some whilst still alive, some dead timber plus timber of every type, most / all of which other species such as Fungi and mosses and all sorts of critters of the animal kingdom need but termites destroy that food and shelter those other plants and biological life would use if the termites hadn’t destroyed it first.
Termites have altered the entire global ecosystem often to the disadvantage, sometimes to the severe disadvantage of an incredible array of other species and to their own benefit and to their own advantage.
Perhaps the termite’s activities have also led to the extinction of a number of species over those aeons of time, species which could not compete for sustenance against the predatory activities of the termites.
So considering all the damage termites have done and have continued to do for the last couple of hundreds of millions of years to the Earth’s bio-systems, what have the termites done to stop all this damage and when do they intend to do something to stop all the damage they are doing..
By the way the species Homo sapiens is also an entirely natural creation of Nature and the Earth’s biological systems just like those termites.
The LA Times goes on to say.
The following paper says otherwise.
—–
“Study Finds Antarctic Sea Ice Increases When It Gets Colder”
August 17, 2013
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/08/17/study-finds-antarctic-sea-ice-increases-when-it-gets-colder/
So, if both are true, the planet should have been covered with the ever-increasing Antarctic ice long ago, since nothing can apparently stop it.
Speculate is a required verb? Scientists speculate? That sounds obscene.
Of course, scientists speculate. The speculation may be perfectly fine and agree with all past observations, but it is the testing by future observation (or, where possible, experiment) that turns this speculation into real science. At this point, with a whole churchyard full of failed climate models, there is no reason to get excited about a new one that is still awaiting its falsification by reality.
reading the LA Times comments, it appears their readers can spot government sponsored propaganda when they read it.
AR5 Summary For Policymakers 2013.
These people are all over the place.
If governments select the scientists that are to receive grants, how does one prevent the grants from being used to advance a political agenda or belief system?
For example, how do the evaluators judge which grants are likely to generate real scientific value? For example, say for example 100 years ago someone applied for a grant to study how fungi can cure infections in humans.
Likely it would have been turned down, because it didn’t fit the accepted belief system of how to cure infections. How can contamination of a wound with a fungi cure an infection? Under the belief system of the day it should cause and infection.
Yet, penicillin is produced by fungi to protect itself from bacteria. So, if we fund science based on what we believe is likely to work, we end up limiting scientific discovery to what we already believe to be true, while ignoring the much larger body of discover, that which we don’t yet know.
There was a wonderful comment a couple of months back which explained the peer-grant system and how researchers protect themselves and starve out dissenters. Does anyone remember that post? Can it be reposted?
guys
we are cooling from the top latitudes downward
http://oi40.tinypic.com/2ql5zq8.jpg
antarctic ice is already increasing
From the link:
Those winds have intensified in recent years because of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the presence of the ozone hole.
Greenhouse gas and the ozone hole, a double whammy!
Sea ice … also keeps warm ocean waters trapped beneath a frozen lid, insulating the ice sheet from their destructive heat.
Say what?
Scientists think changes in the winds have altered ocean circulation, allowing warmer waters below the surface layer to sneak in closer to the shore.
Sneaks in on little cat feet no doubt.
Julia Rosen says scientists said that. I say Julia made that crap up.
Yes, Steve, I think a lot of things are being “made-up”- do 97% of the scientists that global warming causes stronger winds regionally? What I find disturbing is that the warmists seem to find it okay to average global temperatures to claim the world is warming, but then when that is inconvenient they say “It makes no sense to talk about a circumpolar average. There’s so much regional variability.” Which is it? Personally I’ve never understood why a “global” warming average is useful on any level anyway. it’s like trying to make sense of the average the temperature inside everyone’s homes. Each home is unique with it’s own set of variables(Like what the thermostat is set at! 🙂 Averaging a temperature globally, and then saying that THAT global average is causing stronger winds? seems to be the real “oversimplification”-
If anyone has a clue where to find the scientific papers that proves average global warming causes stronger winds on a regional basis, I’d love to hear how that has been proven.
…Does Antarctic sea ice growth negate climate change? Scientists say no…
Er… the alternative is that ‘scientists’ say: ” We’ve been lying to you all along in order to keep our grants…”
And that isn’t going to happen. At least, not yet…