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
Why don’t we select politicians for office the same way we select juries? At random. Imagine what would happen to justice if people ran for election to juries.
Imagine the corruption that would result. Having spend money to win a seat on a jury, the jurists would then need to find a way to make back their investment. Lawyers would end up wining and dining jurists to gain favorable decisions.
Oh wait a minute. Judges stand for election in the US don’t they? What could possibly go wrong. Play ball and we will donate big time to your reelection campaign.
If wind speed is up, the question is has that increased wind erosion (ablation) of the Antarctica ice sheets creating a spurious claim of Antarctica Ice Sheet loss?
Remember … when the AGW cult brings up wind to xplain more sea ice, we should bring up ablation.
“Accurate quantification of surface snow accumulation over Antarctica is a key constraint for estimates of the Antarctic mass balance, as well as climatic interpretations of ice-core records1, 2.
Over Antarctica, near-surface winds accelerate down relatively steep surface slopes, eroding and sublimating the snow. This wind scour results in numerous localized regions (≤200 km2) with reduced surface accumulation3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
Estimates of Antarctic surface mass balance rely on sparse point measurements or coarse atmospheric models that do not capture these local processes, and overestimate the net mass input in wind-scour zones3.
Here we combine airborne radar observations of unconformable stratigraphic layers with lidar-derived surface roughness measurements to identify extensive wind-scour zones over Dome A, in the interior of East Antarctica.
The scour zones are persistent because they are controlled by bedrock topography. On the basis of our Dome A observations, we develop an empirical model to predict wind-scour zones across the Antarctic continent and find that these zones are predominantly located in East Antarctica.
We estimate that ~ 2.7–6.6% of the surface area of Antarctica has persistent negative net accumulation due to wind scour, which suggests that, across the continent, the snow mass input is overestimated by 11–36.5 Gt yr−1 in present surface-mass-balance calculations.”
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1766.html
Soviet Propaganda with an Orwellian Double Speak. Such prose should be coming from the UK Government with blessings from the UN.
When you claim to be the answer to everything you in reality stand for nothing. Such is the inconvenient truth for the Global Warming Scammers.
It’s really simple. We know the answer is always going to be “AGW exists and it requires higher taxes and more government control to fix.” So we just work backwards in our reasoning until we get to the latest problem.
NO! AGW is the Black Knight of theories!
To quote Monty Python;
King Aurthur – Sir knight, you have no arms, no legs, and your bleeding out.
Black Night – Come over here I can still bite you.
King Aurthur – OK.! We’ll call it a draw.. (as he goes around the knight)
I would say this is pretty much the status of the AGW movement at the moment. Not quite dead yet, but close.
And the Black Knight’s reply was to tell King Arthur…”Come back here you coward!”….:-)
“Only a flesh wound!”
After deliberately fogging up the real story of the day, which is dramatic ARCTIC Sea Ice recovery, the L.A. Times concludes with its propaganda bottom line:
“Sea ice is a case in point, he said: ‘Ironically, one of the possible reasons to get more ice is warming’.”
We’ve gone from, “Your children will never see snow, the Arctic will be ice free by 2014, the polar bears are starving and the penguins are roasting alive” to “Ironically….”
The shameless mendacity of AGW propagandists is truly mind-boggling.
“Thirty years isn’t really that long,”
===============
True that.
Any other numbers you want to put out there ?
“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.””
Then it also makes no sense to talk about tiny changes in a global temperature average anomaly. There’s so much regional and daily variability.
Stammerjohn is a denier of averaging. Therefore she denies climate. Climate is the average of weather.
We have found the climate deniers, and it is the climate scientists.
“Thirty years isn’t really that long,” Stammerjohn said.
I do wish they could have told us that in the early 80s.
From the article:
“In fact, since scientists started making satellite observations in the late 1970s, they have watched winter sea ice around Antarctica swell slowly but indisputably, despite predictions that it should shrink.”
If the “scientific” predictions were wrong, why should we trust any explanations “scientists” now offer?
“But these critiques oversimplify the science of climate change, Maksym said.”
Hey, we’re the ones who always said climate is complicated. You’re the ones who said you could predict the future!
‘Sea ice is a case in point, he said: “Ironically, one of the possible reasons to get more ice is warming.”‘
And another reason is cooling, right? How would you tell the difference, other than wishful thinking?
You just can’t get anything through to these people.
As long as the Progressive’s are in control of the media, the “Alarmists” will have the upper hand. We all must continue to question, question, question. Once America and the world cycle back to common sense, a real debate will be enabled. Until then – Islam is a religion of peace, and the world is on fire (both physically and metaphorically).
“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 …”
===========================================
LOL, that news must be very reassuring.
What a relief, there’s no need to worry about not worrying.
Well, remember it is LA – worrying about worrying is de rigueur there.
‘Thirty years isn’t really that long.’
Which is of course what they have been saying all along in relation to the “death spiral” in the Arctic.
Next weeks article will be entitled:
“Does Arctic Sea Ice Growth Negate Global Warming Theory?”
“But these critiques oversimplify the science of climate change, Maksym said.”
That’s a good one. IPCC says “most” of the warming of the last 50y is due to CO2.
And we are over simplifying that situation by saying what, exactly?
Grunt…. Earth… um…. flat. Grunt.
Yes but, what about the tipping point? If we don’t act now , the results will be irreversible. Horrible events will occur in the next 10 years. (2004) So, now it’s being pushed out 30 years? I have the math straight from the source that is flawless in its projection. One of the statements invalidates the other. It’s hard to argue with the math, and even harder to argue with reality. You can spin it however. Looks like an article on spin.
Ms. Rosen, (Reporter – Los Angeles Times)
I just read your article. I realize you are “reporting” (or at least I hope so?).
This article however reads just like, “The Earth is Cooling, so it must be Global Warming”. It could easily have been the secondary headline.
“Climate is a complicated thing,” said Ted Maksym, an oceanographer at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in Massachusetts. “Understanding how these kinds of changes play out in different regions is tricky business” He’s right in saying this, so how can he come to any conclusions?
“Thirty years “isn’t a very long time”, per Ms. Stamerjohn – I agree. Then why was “thirty years from the late 1970’s till around 2000 enough time to have transpired to
create climate “alarmism”?
Why do not one of the climate “scientists” models work? None and I mean not one of their models work. They will even tell you this themselves if anyone would ask. Not one of them passes the test of telling us what occurred in the past. So were supposed to believe them about what will occur in the future?
Climate as Ms. Stamerjohn correctly implies is just too complex. Meteorologists only in the last 5 years have had any reasonable chance of telling us what the weather will be like in 5 days, climate?….not so much.
Did either of your interviewed scientists tell you that the world hasn’t warmed on average for the last 17 years and 10 months? Bet not. What happened to the unrelenting Hockey Stick of Dr. Michael Mann as shown in Vice President Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth”?
The Earth runs in natural cycles and no amount of incorrect experimental computer modeling will change that. The double speak of your interviewed scientists is astonishing.
They use the same nebulous language to defiantly inform the world of the impending doom of anthropogenic warming. Based on what?
Facts are indeed a most inconvenient truth. Ask former Vice President Gore about his absolute assertion that the Arctic Ice would all be gone by 2014. This year, it has increased by between 50-60 percent! All of this reeks of scientists want funding; Vice President Gore wants to make money on brokering “Cap and Trade”.
To get this funding, they must have a cause celeb or no one will listen to them. As I’m sure you’re aware, the public is very sound bite oriented.
The supposed climate scientists and alarmist politicians need to create a political constituency to keep the billions of dollars flowing into their “research grants” and other schemes.
According to the UN’s IPCC, “sea levels are rising!, the worlds glaciers are melting!”. Yes, in some places sea levels are rising and glaciers are melting. In other places the sea levels have fallen and the glaciers are growing! Yet another, “inconvenient truth”, but of course that one’s not mentioned in the sound bite world of the main stream media.
The UN is perhaps one of the most discredited organizations in the world as of this writing and the IPCC is all part of the scam.
I’m sure you’ve heard of “Climategate”? If not, may I suggest Andrew Montford’s book on the subject which can be found here:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Hockey-Stick-Illusion-Climategate/dp/1906768358
If you wish to truly be a balance reporter, I suggest you do a follow up interview with Tim Ball, Phd. (Canadian) http://drtimball.com or Roy Spencer, Phd. (University of Alabama) http://www.drroyspencer.com
Science is all about the constant questioning of a theory. If your data and your theory cannot be discredited, you become a scientific giant. See Newton or Einstein; both of whom freely shared their findings and methods for the scientific community to disprove if they could. If you refuse to share your data to have the scientific community evaluate it, you become a scientific buffoon. Ask self described “Nobel Laureate”, Dr. Timothy Mann why he won’t release his data and methods to have a true scientific discussion of his politically popular Hockey Stick? Yet another in the long line of inconvenient truths.
No one believes you when you only tell one side of a scientific story, most especially if you do not present opposing views. Today, the science of “plate tectonics” is the null hypothesis of the Earth’s geologic progression. In 1912, when Alfred Wegener proposed this theory, “97%” of the scientific communities “consensus” laughed at him. Guess what? The 97% today, are not remembered. Alfred Wegener is. He wasn’t afraid to layout his theory and show his evidence. That’s what a scientist is and what he or she does.
If you cannot see your way to follow up with the other side of the scientific community, it just makes the LA Times look like a politically self serving op-ed opinion rag. When a newspaper starts to smell of politics instead of reportage, it only adds to the evidence as to why circulation continues to dwindle.
Scott Stolnitz, D.D.S.
Santa Barbara, CA
Don’t look now, but antarctic sea ice has declined rather abruptly over the last few days. I delight in telling my friends that gloval sea ice is above average. Right at the moment, it isn’t true. Kust sayin’…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681829/Global-warming-latest-Amount-Antarctic-sea-ice-hits-new-record-high.html
Not that any “day to day” matters, but would you care to post the link?
By “dramatic changes”, I guess they must mean the halt in the warming these past 15-18 years, wherein the warming has dramatically and suddenly dove to the deep oceans where it can’t be measured. I’m not sure where the “drama” is in SLR observed to be rising at 0 to 3.2 mm/year, with zero evidence of any increased rate of SLR over the past 100 years, but I guess maybe drama is in the eye of the beholdren. The “extreme weather” changes is just laughably silly, since 1) there is no evidence of an increase of “extreme weather” of any sort; simply more widespread, instantaneous and breathlessly alarmist reporting of it by the mindless mainscream media, and 2) since no scientific connection has ever been made between the two.
So, as to the question of how these drama queens’ fantasized “dramatic changes” rippling through the climate system affect the Antarctic, well it can only affect it in their mind only. They will “see” whatever it is they want to see, in other words. More drama that way.
[snip -off topic, try leaving your tips in WUWT Tips and Notes where they belong rather than cluttering threads – thanks, -mod]
Frank: “Don’t look now, but antarctic sea ice has declined rather abruptly over the last few days.”
And recovered. It did the same thing in 2013 and recovered to set a record.
http://sunshinehours.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/antarctic_sea_ice_extent_zoomed_2014_day_242_1981-2010.png
Okay, thanks. I was looking at this:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png
Your fherries may be more up-to-date than my cherries. L(
Actually it would be funny if after all the excuses to explain the record ice, the sea ice returns to and stays at average levels for awhile. In 2007 the blamed the low levels of sea ice on Global warming and in 2013-2014 they blamed the record amount on climate change.
How will they blame global warming for sea ice at normal/average level? Where’s the change in climate change?
Though never under estimate the ability of the Liberals/Alarmist to make up what ever lie they need to delude themselves.
“Extreme slowdown of global climate change”
“Catastrophic lack of modeled warming”
“Increase of extreme climate model failure events”
“Increased variability of climate unpredictability (by our models)”
“Alarming difficulty of explaining current events”
“Increased difficulty of obtaining grant money”
No, the last one is a joke, obviously.
This drop is temporary and is due to dial-turning. Here’s a ridiculous statement: This short-term drop in Antarctic sea ice area is because the Arctic ice cap is re-freezing north of 80deg. Now here’s the justification:
Each satellite which measures ice area performs a global orbit which covers both Arctic and Antarctic regions. An ongoing issue with these satellite operations is calibration of the polarizing filters — if the calibration isn’t right, then surface ponds are mistaken for open sea, or the ice edge is wrongly placed, etc. The method of calibration is basically to take whichever setting yields the *smallest* global sea ice area. It’s quite a good method, actually, as it’s globally consistent and avoids runaways. The downside is that you get these silly-looking swings in ice area in which the Arctic area swings are opposite to the Antarctic area swings, a sort of hemispheric tango which is entirely created by the dial-turning.
So what’s happening is that the Arctic is re-freezing so suddenly there is far less variability in measuring the Arctic. Therefore the polarizer setting is turning to minimize the Antarctic ice more than it did so before. When the dial-turning is complete, the Antarctic sea ice area will resume its advance.
So having no global warming to worry about would be far more worrying than global warming itself?
“Dont worry because you can still worry. ”
Its the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine – worrying.
So – no worries, eh?