Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
Anthony Watts’s post Meh, same old ‘gloom and doom’ from the IPCC over new climate report at WattsUpWithThat prompted this one. I started to write a comment on that thread that began with, The IPCC is nothing more than a… and I went on from there, trying with some success to limit my word count. But I didn’t post it. I figured it would make for a great topic of discussion all by itself, with everyone adding their own continuation to that preface.
So to start the ball rolling, here’s what I came up with.
The IPCC is nothing more than a report-writing entity:
- that was created by politicians for use by politicians to achieve an political-agenda-driven goal
- that relies on politician-financed climate models that were designed, and continue to operate, with the single-minded intent of showing bad things will happen in the future if we continue to consume fossil fuels.
The IPCC and their reports provide no value to anyone other than the politicians who created that body.
That was a first attempt, pretty much rolled off the keyboard with a few tweaks.
So, if you would, please add your continuation of, The IPCC is nothing more than a…
And if you like, consider adding to another preface, If the politicians were truly interested in helping humanity and the planet…
I’m looking forward to reading what you have to say.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The IPCC is nothing more than an Ivory tower of the obsolete science of this age.
Previous ages enthusiastically enjoyed eugenics that also did in the poor.
Eugenics was also an idea of the Progressives, such as Woodrow Wilson who loved it and, the elites of the day. It was all based on “science”, you know. From these Progressives, especially those in California, Hitler got the idea of extermination of the undesirables. He even wrote them a letter thanking them. In the US, blacks were the most common target for being declared an undesirable. Hitler chose different groups, one in particular, as we know.
Hitler, Genocide, & the California Connection
Started by ForRizzle , Apr 25 2005 04:35 PM
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=39183
The Progressives have not changed much in all these years.
Right. Goebbels got his propaganda techniques from freely-available US university/government & Hollywood publications. The N*zi party was well aware that Germany had badly lost the propaganda “war” to the US & British during WW1 & meant to correct it.
If the politicians were truly interested in helping humanity and the planet… they would pay heed to their national scientific academies and advisers.
The IPCC is nothing more than a self-licking lollipop; existing only to produce reports at taxpayers’ expense justifying it’s own continue existence at taxpayers’ expense.
The IPCC is an organization promulgated by a corrupt organization run by unelected people looking for more power and more money.
HL Mencken : “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety), by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins , all of them imaginary.”
Yes, and the IPCC was created to scam up the biggest series of hobgoblins yet. They have been successful at their task.
Just had my comment censored on BBC …
I politely corrected someone who suggested that the the pause is in the imagination of the den****
So I suggested they look at UAH, RSS as these temperature records are based on the real world. This is obviously too much to handle for the poor old BBC.
The days of the Biased broadcasting company are clearly numbered.
When did the pause start in UAH?
UAH is the warmest of all the global data sets over the past 18 years.
Warming in UAH since 1998 is +0.10C/dec. That’s faster than the average rise recorded by surface stations over the 20th century.
How is that a ‘pause’ in warming?
Oh , I see.
The pause is a statistical measurement. Temp goes up and down all the time – is the trend significant?
According to the IPCC (AR5) – No. It is not.
Also, the more important issue is that the models predicted warming. Again, according to the IPCC they are statistically significantly wrong. So even if the warming begins again we can’t say we understand why. If the models explained the warming they wouldn’t be wrong.
But the pause is real. t is measured. Denial of observations is not scientific.
And the models are wrong. It is confirmed. Denial of a comparison between the models to observations is not scientific.
The IPCC is a bastard child of politics and science inheriting the worst problems of both and the virtues of neither.
+1!
The IPCC is the Nationalized,Pseudo scientific.political organization,created for the purpose of advancing their legalized conflict of interest agreements,among themselves.
The IPCC is
nothing more than a retarding element in mankinds proceedings.
If the
politicians were truly interested
in helping humanity and the
planet they’d recognice we’ve entered 21.st ctry ALREADY!
time to go!
The ipcc is JUST ANOTHER retarding
element in mankinds
proceedings.
If the
politicians were truly
interested
in helping humanity and the
planet they’d recognice we’ve
entered 21.st ctry ALREADY!
time to go!
The IPCC is nothing but an expensive mouthpiece for a cabal on internationalist grifters who plan to sting the world for $trillions.
The IPCC is nothing less than the envy of Hitler, Stalin, and Goebbels.
Clinking clanking collection of caliginous jawboning junk science-spewing nincompoops.
This feels like a comedy central roast. You guys can say what you want, 2014 is still tied for the hottest year to date on record. Arctic sea ice is disappearing, and Antarctic/Greenland land ice is melting and going into the sea. Convince me with data that those claims are false, and then we can talk about hoaxes.
If you aren’t convinced by now, I doubt anything anyone says will sway you from that.
Please, enlighten me. I’m open minded. Tell me why you’re so sure that despite the clear rise of surface temps over the post industrial period, that despite clear trends in ice melts, despite clear sea level rise, that it is absurd for me to think the earth is getting warmer.
In other news, smoking is actually good for you and leaded gasoline cures cancer.
in short:
retardet!
brg Hans
scienceinpolitics,
Please stop misdirecting the debate. Scientific skeptics [the only honest kind of scientists] know that the planet has been warming naturally since the LIA — not just sine the ‘post industrial period’, whatever that is. FYI: we are still in the industrial age. You just don’t like the [verifiable] fact that global warming has stopped, while industrial emissions are ramping up. That kinda destroys your belief, doesn’t it?
And who said the planet has not been warming since the LIA? Only Michael Mann and his acolytes, who preposterously believe that there was no warming until human emissions began [the long, straight shaft odf his hockey stick].
You can now be enlightened. But you won’t be. Because you have made up your mind, and all the facts in the world are not enough to change it. It would be ‘absurd’ to think so.
Any melted Arctic ice is more than made up by the expanding Antarctic ice.
Hottest year to date? Since when? The trend line of global temps has been slightly downward since 1998.
Its not, antarctic sea ice gain is 1/3 of arctic ice lost. But that misses the point. Anarctica is a continent. Continents have land. Antarctica has lost a shit ton of land ice that coal companies like to ignore.
In response to 1998, thats not how u draw a trend line. You dont draw it from a temperature spike. Take it over 30 years, 100 years. Look at temperatures over the last 1000 years. There is clearly anomalous warmingg.
And you still havent addressed sea level rise.
scienceinpolitics says:
…antarctic sea ice gain is 1/3 of arctic ice lost.
Every post of yours has been based on incorrect assertions like that. But the fact is that the Antarctic has ten times the ice volume of the Arctic, so your assertion is nonsense.
Next, keep the “coal companies” out of the debate. That only displays your political agenda.
Next, you are far from being up to speed on this subject. The trend lines are computer-drawn, typically by sites like WoodForTrees.
Finally, you obvioulsly don’t know about the Little Ice Age. Global temperature has been recovering from the LIA, which was one of the coldest episodes of the Holocene [past 10,700 years].
I suggest you spend a couple of months reading the archives here; keyword: sea ice, and CO2. You are truly a novice, parroting talking points that have been debunked long ago. Education would help you immensely. Right now, you just don’t understand, so it is very easy to counter all your baseless assertions.
@scienceinpolitics
Trend lines can be drawn from anywhere the researcher chooses. The warmists often choose 1979 since that year was a low point in global temperatures. Any warming afterwards would look massive and ominous.
Yes there is warming over the last 100 years. There is actually warming from after the “Little Ice Age” which ended around 1850. Nothing anomalous about it. The earth has been warming and cooling since earth first developed an atmosphere.
As the great meteorologist, Tex Antoine, was fond of saying, “If global warming is inevitable, just relax, lie back and enjoy it.”
The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) announced that the sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached its maximum extent—its widest halo around the continent—in 2014 on 22 September: more than 20 million square kilometers, which also set a record for the highest extent of sea ice around the continent since satellite measurements began in the late 1970s. Not a good stat for you grifter warmists.
scienceinpolitics,
You should change your screen name to something more accurate: politicsinscience.
Global warming stopped many years ago, so enough with the pointless arm-waving over ‘this year is the hottest’. By which particular data base? The one you cherry-picked?
Arctic sea ice is not disappering. That is a flat out lie. Where do you think you’re commenting? At Grist? Get real.
Arctic ice is fluctuating, as always. It declined for several years, but this year it is above it’s long term average. That is not “disappearing”.
Global ice cover [we’re discussing global warming, see?] is rising above it’s long term average, as seen here.
Arctic/Greenland ice is always melting and going into the sea. If you need something to be alarmied about, worry about asteroids or something. Polar ice is not worth worrying about.
You claim that you want data? No, you don’t:
Global ice is at it’s 30-year average [the red line].
While Arctic ice has declined, Antarctic ice — which has 10X the volume of the Arctic — is steadily rising.
Earlier in the current Holocene, the Arctic was likelyt ice-free — before human emissions were a factor.
You claim you can be convinced with data. But I think you will reject any and all data provided. Why? Because your mind is made up and closed tight.
Prove me wrong. If you do, you will be the first. Otherwise, keep politicizing science. You’re good at that.
Good point. Please ScienceinPolitics, consider the evidence that is presented by dbstealey.
And consider how much certainty we need before raising the cost of energy.
Higher costs kill the poor.
1) I base my claim that 2014 is tied for the hottest year to date on record from the NOAA’s same claim
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/9
But that’s not the point. It’s more important that this is the hottest decade on record. There’s a clear,anomalous warming trend over the last 100 years.
2) I actually am sad that our Southern Hemisphere asteroid observatory just closed. It’s a shame that we have no advantage over dinosaurs to spot asteroids in the southern hemisphere.
3) Only Antarctic sea ice has increased. And while it’s more massive, it’s still increased less than Arctic sea ice has declined. However, most importantly for you to realize, Antarctic land ice has significantly declined.
4) I admit that I didn’t know that 7000-8000 years ago the Arctic didn’t have as much ice. I’d like to know what the sea levels were like then, and what sort of economic impact that climate would’ve had on human activity. You’ve given me something to look into, thanks.
5) You still haven’t explained rising sea levels. Tell me why my sea levels are rising. I hope it’s due to solar energy farms, because they’re not as economical as coal in most places.
Looking for data? Try this piece written by an ex-NASA data using colleague – Roy Spencer, who I see briefly a few times during the year at one or another climate conference.
http://sppiblog.org/news/why-2014-wont-be-the-warmest-year-on-record#more-11879
He takes a very valid “pot shot” at some people taking advantage of their ability to “cherry pick” RSS data midway through the piece, so I’m sure you’d appreciate that!
Missing, however, is the observation that NOAA’s claimed and measured rising temperatures mask one of the real problems with the thermometer based data set. The problem is that the maximum highs are tracking consistently flat, while the maximum lows are still slowly rising (albeit measured in hundredths of degrees). The rise of the maximum lows is evidence of Urban Heat Island (UHI) effects, where pavements, buildings, etc. radiate and release residual heat during the night so that min-low just doesn’t drop, and the measured average, of necessity, must rise.
I like data. Thank you. I will look into the UHI thing. The trend of both methods, no matter the mechanism, still seems postive. I want to know what I can do to stop my seas from rising the way they are.
scienceinpolitics,
Good luck stopping your sea level rise. BTW, what color is the sky on your planet? It’s a nice cerulian blue here.
also, our sea level rise is not accelerating. It is rising no faster than it has since the LIA, and it likely is decelerating.
Warmest is not Warming. That’s Daffy Duck Logic.
It warmed, yes. We measured that.
Then it stopped warming – but the emissions didn’t stop. If the emissions were the main cause of the warming then the warming should have continued.
The warming should have accelerated after WW2 as the emissions grew. But look at the temperature graph. It has the same slope before 1950 as after. Man’s impact is negligible compared with the natural variation that ended the Little Ice Age.
Finally, consider this. If the evidence was there it would be publicised.
Have you ever seen a graph of Global Temperature vs man’s CO2 emissions (or all man’s greenhouse gas emissions). Of course not. It could prove the case against man’s emissions, if AGW was right.
But it doesn’t. That’s why you never see it.
This is the most logical argument on here ive seen. I hope youre right. I really do. But 2014 is tied for the hottest year to date ever recorded. This decade is the warmest ever recorded. Its not like temperatures have dipped at all since like 1940.
scienceinpolitics,
This year I am tied for the tallest ever recorded to date: 6’2″. At the rate I’m rising, I should be 8’9″ in twenty more years.
Well, give or take a decade around the 50s, that’s true – no argument.
But how long is significant? The temperature would be expected to go up for a few centuries and down for a few centuries unless the temperature is constant at a rate that is shorter than centuries. In geological time would that make sense?
No-one truly believes that the climate has such strong negative feedbacks that the global temperature reverts to the “right” level within a couple of decades. Can you imagine what they might be? I can’t. Nor can anyone else.
So how quickly would you expect the direction of a trend in ‘average global temperature’ to change
And why?
Where is this “warmest decade” rubbish coming from? Decade to 2011 was cooler than Dt2010. Dt2012 was cooler again. Dt2103 was cooler again. We had a graph just the other day showing both UAH and RSS temps nowhere near 1998, or even 2010. In fact RSS temps fell off a cliff in August. And anyone who claims sea ice is net falling is outright lying – there is no possible interpretation / opinion / data source issue here. Every data source shows a vast increase and a big uptrend in global sea ice. There’s a page with live updates on WUWT!
I am sorry guys, but how many have come to WUWT and spewed this same nonsense? Why should we be ones who have to support his alleged fixation for data. Should be the other way around. Next he will post some ridiculous graphs showing just enough of the truth to support his baseless arguments. We will post things to refute and they will be ignored. How many times do we have to go through the same old dance? Their theory has crashed and burned, yet they cling to the same old tired BS. Soooo boring.
I’ll graciously acknowledge Andrew catching me being lazy. He may be right about decade temps going down. I know that 2001-2010 was the hottest of any previous decade, but I can’t find the data since then.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/07/03/past-decade-hottest-on-record-marked-by-extremes-un/
Where Andrew is wrong is about global sea ice. It has remained steady, -1.43% per decade since 1978. Again, where there is no land all the sea ice is melting. Antarctic land ice is melting. Overall ice is being lost, and sea levels are rising.
scienceinpolitics, I could quibble over sea-ice for these reasons:
1) The Antarctic sea-ice extent is greater in the Antarctic winter than the summer so it can’t be caused by land-ice melting.
2) The sea-ice around Greenland is not growing so the warming cannot be causing the growth in sea-ice, in general.
3) Ice is just one parameter anyway. Why not Global Surface Temperature? That is what the catastrophic feedbacks are modelled to depend on. Why not the snow on Kilimanjaro, the Himalayan glaciers, the Caribbean hurricanes..? They have all been forgotten but were once the poster boys for disaster. If you bet on every horse you will always be winner; If you bet on every horse you will always be poor.
But I won’t so quibble. These time periods are too short to make any clear judgements.
And thinks to Lasse on another post, here is the graph:
It clearly shows the two warming trends – before 1950 and after – with the level offset for a side by side comparison. Yes, they latter one is warmer because it has warmed. But the warming is indistinguishable.
So how big an impact has man’s emissions made?
The temperatures have in essence and on average been tied for the hottest temperatures on record (over an archaeologically infinitesimal period) for close to 18 years – that’s what happens when the data reaches a plateau. What will you say if temperatures next drop like they did in the 1940s – 1950s after their increase in the first half of the century?
I would be happy, believe it or not. I want you to be right. You’re not drawing a trend line though with the 1998 thing. You’re picking a maximum, and drawing a horizontal line. You’ll agree that the trend since the industrial revolution has been clearly positive, right? So it’s not crazy to think the Earth is warming?
And please explain to me why sea levels are rising.
Sea levels have been rising since records began. That is since after the end of the last ice age. If the glaciers were returning then we would be re-entering an ice age so we can be quite grateful that sea levels are rising.
But how fast are they rising?
About a foot every 100 years in the last century (high estimate). And the rate hasn’t discernibly changed. So from a policy viewpoint we can cope.
The Dutch solved this problem in the 16th century.
@M Courtney.
..
You failed to answer the question.
Why are sea levels rising?
…
I don’t think it is because the Klingon warbirds are emptying their wastewater tanks into or oceans.
…
Care to offer a suggestion or two?
juan,
sea levels have been naturally rising since the LIA. That rise has not accelerated, although CO2 has recently increased by more than 25%. What does that tell you?
It tells me that the putative culprit, CO2, is not to blame for global warming.
In fact, global warming has stopped.
When the facts change, reasonable people change their minds. What do you do?
@dbstealey
..
“sea levels have been naturally rising since the LIA”
…
Yes, I agree with you that they have. but why?
juan,
Sea levels have been rising since the end of the last great stadial. See here. Also, SL rise has been decelerating; see the Nature link here. Sea levels follow temperature, right? Therefore, the MWP and the LIA are reflected in the sea level.
Nature also suggests that groundwater storage and other anthropiological effects have an impact. They don’t say it’s due to global warming.
Here is another view of sea level changes. I do not see anything to be alarmed about. Do you? For more info, see here.
For a funny chart, this one tells a good story.
I hate to be the one to tell you [not really], but the government “adjusts” its charts to scare people. Here is an example. More, isostatic adjustments.
According to satellite altimetry, the sea level has been rising naturally at about 1.3″/century — hardly something to be alarmed about. And Holgate shows that the sea level rise follows a natural, decelerating curve.
Conclusion: the “accelerating sea level” scare is just another debunked alarmist prediction. Like every other alarming prediction, it has failed.
So… when will you throw in the towel, and admit that the ‘carbon’ scare and all it’s manifestations are pseudo-scientific nonsense? Ever? The alarmist crowd has been wrong about everything. Not one of their scary predictions have come true.
When, if ever, will the scales fall from your eyes? When will you see that the entire global warming scare is a money-fed hoax? When will you be a scientist, and go by the facts, instead of listening to the IPCC and its ilk? It’s time, bro…
@Juan,
The graph you posted is from 2 October… a month old. Here is the latest.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current_new.png
Arctic Sea Ice in 2014 is doing what is should be doing… growing… fast….and that is what it most assuredly has done for thousands of years, and will do for many 1000’s, ne 10,000, ne 100,000, ne 1,000,000 of years hence It will always grow dramatically in the lengthening cold arctic night air, dumping countless KJ of heat to space as LWIR on cold clear nights.
Arctic ice is not disappearing!
Antarctic land ice is not melting and going into the sea, except in very narrow marginalized places on top of volcanoes. This can be checked very easily against ‘sea level rise’ which has slowed recently and even gone into sea level decline periodically.
You found the falsehood singers yourself and convinced yourself even with their lack of data. Now use the information sources themselves!
Prove that the arctic ice is in a death spiral…
Prove that water is draining anywhere from Antarctic interior ice into the sea except for a very short summer season.
Do you personally know anywhere on Earth that was at it’s hottest ever during 2014? Let alone for most of 2014?
You’ve made the claims, now prove any part of them and then prove the rest.
I think everyone here agrees arctic sea ice is receding. If we cant agree on that trend we wont agree on much. Sea level change is also a clear trend. Please point me to sea level data that shows a decline in sea levels.
Gee “science” …
1. I guess I agree that arctic sea ice is declining. (At least from 1979 through 2012.) Last few years it has actually been increasing since 2007’s low point, and has been within 2 standard deviation of the “normal” all year this year.
Which means that it really has not declined outside of normal at all, has it?
2. Oh, by the way, arctic summer temperatures at 80 north latitude – where the ice actually is when the sun is shining up in the Arctic – has been steady since 1959, declining just a bit since 2000.
3. oh, by the way, just what has Antarctic sea ice been doing sicne 1992? Been increasing the whole time, hasn’t it? Or are you ignoring a different Antarctic sea ice historical record than i have the past few years?
4. The Antarctic sea ice set an all-tim record HIGH this June with a 2.05 million square kilometers “excess” above normal. Now, just the “excess” Antarctic sea ice was the area the size of Greenland … Did you notice any headlines in your classes screaming that fact?
4. Show me the math that calculates any loss of Arctic sea ice from today’s levels anytime between August 22 and March 22 actually causes more heat to get in the exposed Arctic ocean.
@ur momisugly RACookPE1978
…
Here are a few facts to correct your perception of Arctic sea ice.
..
1) The “low point” was not 2007, it was 2012
2) Yes, the last two years have been higher than 2012, but remember, 2012 was a extreme year.
3) 2014 was less than 2013 (see link)
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2014/10/asina_N_stddev_timeseries.png
..
4) Yes, it has been within 2 standard deviations this year. It was last year. (see link). However, from a statistical point of view, if you look at the graph, the last time the Arctic sea ice extent was ***AT*** the 1981-2010 average (grey line in graph) was 2001. Now, assuming that the ice extent is randomly distributed, you would expect that half the time it would be above average, and half the time below. What is the probability of it being below the average 13 years in a row? (Hint: same probability as flipping a coin 13 times and getting heads all 13 times….. 0.00012%)
scienceinpolitics says:
Please point me to sea level data that shows a decline in sea levels.
Gad, you people are frustrating! WHO SAID sea levels are declining?? Name names, please. Name ONE person here who said that.
Instead of parroting the talking points you get from stupid alarmist blogs, try to pay attention to what people here are saying. It is not what you think we are saying.
If your reading comprehension is that bad, why don’t you just practice reading and not commenting for a few months. Then take the good advice of one of our published, peer reviewed scientists here, and if you comment, QUOTE OUR WORDS. Verbatim. Cut and paste whatever you are commenting on. Because the things you write make you sound like a lunatic.
Really, quote the words, verbatim. Cite sources. Pay attention. Please! You’re driving me to drink — and I don’t drink.
Correction 0.012%, the probability is 0.00012
Details worthy of note, thank you.
Now, for each month of the year, on the 22 of each month, please show me which is more important to the earth’s heat balance across the 24 hours of that day: The loss of 1,000 square kilometers of arctic sea ice, or the gain of 1,000 sq kilometers of Antarctic sea ice?
“Science” above claims that losing even a little arctic sea ice from today’s sea ice areas is much more important to the earth’s heat balance. He/she/it claims that “total sea ice area” is a symptom of a crisis that requires the deliberate killing of millions of innocent humans just so he/she/it can make a futile attempt to try to get the Arctic sea ice to recover to the 1979 values. Do you agree?
I’m the cause dbstealey; though not the perpetrator of the falsehood. Any detailed graph of actual sea level measurements show up/down movement with a long term upward movement. Sea levels are not static nor are they ever higher and higher; just to measure sea levels one enters a realm of constant up/down movement.
Within very recent history (new millennium basically) sea level rise stalled and even declined for short periods; that is, until the powers got together and decided that they were missing a steadily rising component of sea level, something NOAA and Colorado call adjustments. Which is what, something like 3mm a year?.
Oxymoron’s misstatement is deliberate though. As is Oxymoron’s continued avoidance of answering any pointed questions regarding their ‘proof’ coupled with absolute blindness towards learning ‘new to them’ science.
As with so many other trolls, their main determination is not to participate in discussion nor even argue points but to spew misinformation, distract from the thread’s main topic, spurn all offers of knowledge, ignore all informed questions and demean everyone that attempts to apply or keep to the scientific methods.
The 2012 Arctic low was at least partially caused by a cyclone. That is a weather event. Consider it an outlier.
Meteorologist Joe Bastardi: “Not Going To Have To Worry About The Arctic Ice”…Arctic Scare Melting Away! -See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2014/06/01/meteorologist-joe-bastardi-not-going-to-have-to-worry-
about-the-arctic-ice-arctic-scare-melting-away/#sthash.OS4lKN4D.dpufArctic sea ice up 60 percent in 2013
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/09/arctic-sea-ice-up-60-percent-in-2013/
I appreciate the fox news link that uses data. But per their same source, Arctic ice is going down 10.4% per decade.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/ice-seaice.shtml
Please explain to me why I should use one particular year to year change vs. a trend line over 30 years.
The AMO might account for a very small portion of the Arctic ice melting, yes. But not much. For one, the AMO graphs have been decoupled from global warming. From wikipedia: “The AMO signal is usually defined from the patterns of SST variability in the North Atlantic once any linear trend has been removed. This detrending is intended to remove the influence of greenhouse gas-induced global warming from the analysis.” Once you put that warming trend back in there, the amplitudes of the AMO signal are drowned out.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=288
Both DMI and GSS signals show a consistent .38 degree Celsius per decade increase in Arctic temperatures since 1958. Once again, tell me why my sea levels are rising, please.
Any statistician will tell you that 4 data points is not robust enough for a trend. By grouping the data into “decades”, you have effectively created 4 data points. Where is the data from the 70s, 60s, 50s? The Cherry picking is also on your own head and referencing the pretend N@z1 site of SS does not bolster your case.
It’s not four data points, it’s thousands. Would you rather me express the results in percent change per hour? Because Arctic sea ice is declining 1 ten thousandth of a percent per hour (if my mental math is correct). Over four decades that equates to 10.4% per decade, or over 40% every 40 years.
No SIP, it is not. You moved the goal posts from 40+ years to “decadal trends”. That is the only way you can get a straight line of decrease. If you use annual, you see more a sine wave. And if you use hourly, you get garbage. As everyone knows the earth has seasons.
So when YOU changed it to a “decadal” trend, you eliminated all statistical meaning, as you only have data for 4 of them. Data exists for more than 4, but you will not use it because then you would not get your nice decreasing line. And you will argue (truthfully) that other decades are not as comprehensive due to lack of global observations. That does not change the data, only our knowing what it is.
So “politics” is worried about losing Arctic sea ice?
Why?
Well, so am I for that matter. From today’s Arctic sea ice extents, for every day of the year between August 22 and March 22, losing additional Arctic sea ice means that even ore heat is lost from the newly-exposed Arctic ocean waters than is gained from the low angle arctic sun.
When sea ice is missing from the Arctic up at latitude 76, 77, and 80 north, heat losses from the open water by long wave radiation, evaporation, conduction and convection are all increased.
On the other hand, increasing sea ice around Antarctic between latitudes 58 south and 68 south EVERY day of the year means increased reflection losses of solar energy. And a colder earth.
And increasing and record-breaking snow on over millions of square kilometers of land at latitude 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 on the first weekend of November is an even greater heat loss!
You might want to consider this before you become too alarmed.
The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fisherman, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas about Spitzbergen and the eastern Arctic, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto underheard-of high temperatures in that part of the earth’s surface. The Norwegian Department of Commerce sent an expedition to Spitzbergen and Bear Island under the leadership of Dr. Adolf Hoel, lecturer on geology at the University of Christiania. Its purpose was to survey and chart the lands adjacent to the Norwegian mines on those islands, take soundings of the adjacent waters, and make other oceanographic investigations. Ice conditions were exceptional. In fact, so little ice has never before been noted. The expedition all but established a record, sailing as far north as 81° 29′ in ice-free water. This is the farthest north ever reached with modern oceanographic apparatus. The character of the waters of the great polar basic has heretofore been practically unknown. Dr. Hoel reports that he made a section of the Gulf Stream at 81° north latitude and took soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters. These show the Gulf Stream very warm, and it could be traced as a surface current till beyond the 81st parallel. The warmth of the waters makes it probable that the favorable ice conditions will continue for some time. In connection with Dr. Hoel’s report, it is of interest to note the unusually warm summer in Arctic Norway and the observations of Capt. Martin Ingebrigsten, who has sailed the eastern Arctic for 54 years past. He says that he first noted warmer conditions in 1918, that since that time it has steadily gotten warmer, and that to-day the Arctic of that region is not recognizable as the same region of 1868 to 1917. Many old landmarks are so changed as to be unrecognizable. Where formerly great masses of ice were found, there are now often moraines, accumulations of earth and stones. At many points where glaciers formerly extended far into the sea they have entirely disappeared. AP — Washington Post Nov 2, 1922
If I relied on anecdotal evidence from 1922, I would come to some weird conclusions. By the same logic, I would agree with the Federal Bureau of Narcotics that marijuana caused [….. cut it out .mod] (their words not mine), and thus should be deemed illegal. The point is that anecdotal evidence, especially from a long time ago, isn’t the same as satellite measurements or DMI observations.
Sometimes anecdotal is all there is. So you’re saying the lack of satellite temperature measurements disproves the fact that grapes grew in Greenland centuries ago? Often common sense is more valid than bogus theories.
Are you saying we got surface temperature measurements in 1890 by going around and asking people how warm they felt?
scienceinpolitics:
reports from the past should not be so despised. The reports of those who were familiar with the Arctic should be taken seriously, especially reports of the temperature of the Gulf Stream made by Dr. Hoel.
Your deprecatory remark in this regard reveals you as somewhat lacking as a scientist.
Adjusted or unadjusted year “on record”?
The Arctic and Antarctic ice disappearing?
It happens every year. It comes back latter. Depending on the season. Yes, “climate” changes annually. (The “Ozone Hole” does the same. The Sun seems to something to do with that.)
PS 2014 is only “tied” for the hottest year on record? The hype is that it is the hottest year on record.
PPS “Convince me with data” that CO2 that Man has expelled has anything to do with the unobserved “Global Warming”?
PPPS Didn’t somebody say the heat was missing?
1) Yes, and to your point- sea ice levels have remained stable. But Antarctic and Greenland land ice, over time, has diminished
2) What is the argument?
3) Basic chemistry tells us that doubling CO2 leads directly to 1 degree Celsius temp rise. That is indisputable. We have the highest greenhouse gas concentrations in 800,000 years. Greenhouse gases make us warmer for the same reason that Venus is hotter than Mercury. There are indirect effects of concentrated greenhouse gases as well, like the effect of CO2 concentration on water vapor concentration.
Global warming is observed. There’s been a clear trend over the past 100 years that is much different than any recent previous century.
4) There’s more heat in the upper ocean than we thought? That’s increased over time too, and the lower ocean has remained constant. Tell me why my sea levels are rising. Tell me why my oceans are getting more acidic. I feel like point #3 does a satisfactory job of explaining it, but I welcome your hypothesis.
Sorry SIP, that is just plain wrong. Venus is hotter for the same reason Jupiter is hotter. Atmospheric pressure.
Since Mars has the same concentration of CO2 in its atmosphere as does Venus, your assumption would dictate that Mars is hotter than earth. Yet it clearly is not.
Mars barely even has an atmosphere? Which is warmer, a thick blanket, or one that is paper thin? If we cant agree on why venus is hotter than mercury despite being 2x the distance from the sun, were not going to agree on earths climate change
DUH! And neither does Mercury! Venus has one, that is 90 times as dense as that of earth! And of course Jupiter has a mighty one! That is much more dense than earth, Venus, or any other planet! And hence why the surface temperature is 9700º C!
But the CONCENTRATION of CO2 in the Mars Atmosphere is IDENTICAL to Venus. Yet it is not hot. So CO2 is NOT the answer. It may be a very small part of it, but the facts say it is merely a bit player in the temperature of Venus.
As Thadeus said, I feel like I am playing with someone wearing ankle weights. Keep up SIP, Keep up.
Are you arguing CO2 isnt a well understood greenhouse gas?
LOL! You will do anything to get out of admitting you have no clue what you are talking about.
Re-read my posts if they are too complicated for a first reading understanding. I said what I meant.
That’s a simple yes or no question
No, it is a non sequitur since that is not the subject of my comment. Do you need me to repeat it in smaller words?
1) A “pause”? Wasn’t the Arctic supposed to be ice free by now?
2) What is the hype?
3) And the data than Man has much or anything to do with it? (Data, not theory.)
4) Still searching for the “missing heat”.
Hansen was wrong. Mann was wrong. But politics still clings to their “science” into politics.
@philjourdan
…
Jupiter does not have a surface temperature of 9700 C.
The surface of our sun is at 5600 C.
…
“With an average temperature of minus 234 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 145 degrees Celsius), Jupiter is frigid even in its warmest weather ”
..
http://www.space.com/18391-jupiter-temperature.html
If you lie Juan, you lie another:
http://www.universetoday.com/15097/temperature-of-jupiter/
I was not talking about the Sun. Are you?
@philjourdan
..
You posted: “the surface temperature is 9700º C!”
…
You can “descend” all you want, you were wrong to claim the surface was that hot. I suggest you get a dictionary and look up the word “surface”
From Miriam Webster: Surface – the exterior or upper boundary of an object or body
On Jupiter, that is the boundary between the gas and the water (kind of like 70% of earth).
Your problem is that I am quoting reputable sources. (see that linky thing) So you have no comeback except diversion. “get a dictionary”??? Please! Go back to grammar school if that is all you have.
@philjourdan
“The gaseous nature of the planet makes a solid surface impossible.”
.
and
.
” Scientists theorize that the center of Jupiter is a dense core of liquid metallic hydrogen ”
http://www.universetoday.com/22719/surface-of-jupiter/
…
So, technically, there is no “surface”
LOL! So Juan, there is no “surface” for 70% of the Earth? Where did you go to school?
Liquid has no surface. Now that is a real laugh riot!
……..is a committee with a solution (anthropgenic global warming) to a problem (how to prevent the extraction and combustion of hydrocarbon fuels). Remember which came first.
The UN IPCC are nothing more the socialists masquerading as environmentalists.
The IPCC is probably the worlds best funded lobbying body, designed to introduce legislation to governments around the world to make renewable technology compulsory. Don’t be fooled by their supposed scientific ignorance, there are some very clever and rich people behind the IPCC and its agenda.
Well lets keep our fingers crossed that you are all right in your ability to see into the future and that all those climate scientists are wrong.
Well, the IPCC (AR5 Box 9.2) says that the models are wrong.
You may think you know better than the scientists – the politicians who wrote the SFPM do too.
But I am not a politician.
They’ve been wrong about everything so far. I see a trend. But you still believe they forecasted correctly, don’t you, James?
The IPCC is… summed up pretty well in this little number
“The Intergovernmental Panel was founded –
Not a scientific body, please note –
Whose reports were a foregone conclusion
For which responsible nations could vote.
‘This gas must become a pollutant!’
The task for the Panel was clear:
‘Feed Apocalypse Now to your models
And print off the profile of Fear!’
This ploy has proved grossly successful
To give credit where credit is due:
Respectable, Earth-loving persons
Now feel bad about CO2.
Every heat-wave is proof of the pudding,
Every tidal-wave out on the sea;
Whether ice-sheets are waxing or waning,
We’re the cause of it all, you’ll agree.”
From the SPM, page 4: “On a global scale, the ocean warming is largest near the surface, and the upper 75 m warmed by 0.11 [0.09 to 0.13] °C per decade over the period 1971 to 2010.”
This is new to me. Does anyone know from where this claim was supposedly derived?
A reference to the report is provided for that comment (1.1.2, Figure 1.2). Did you check that?
The SPM has no hyperlinks. The long version has hyperlinks, but when I click on them, the following text pops up: “404 Error. File Not Found”
Since I hadn’t seen claims about the top 75m of the global ocean, this struck me as odd. The claim of four decades of continuous rise of 0.11 deg C / decade also would appear to contradict what earlier reports I’d seen (published one to two decades ago), which focused primarily on the incompleteness of the data gathering and on the broad spatial differences.
I’m wondering whether another non-rigorous, but conveniently fearsome claim has made it into an IPCC report, “despite best efforts…”
The IPCC is nothing more than a politburo that is saving the planet for themselves, while the rest of us live in caves.
The IPCC is nothing more than a PR campaign for socialists. It ranks along baked beans for gas emissions.
The IPCC is
Nothing other than a salacious bunch of nobodies falsely claiming to be guided by science about which they know virtually nothing.
Their claims about being concerned for the environment are not only baseles but nothing other than malicious. since they have done more damage to the environment via wind farm and solar panel farms than any other body in the history of mankind.
There is no way to combat them other than to coninue invoking a genjuine scntific approach that is based on actual observations and reproducibility.
Bob Tisdale,
ideas!
enlightens breathing.
Thx – Hans
The IPCC is the raison d’etre for the UN subsequent to thier failed World peace keeping role.
‘The IPCC is’ dead meat without AGW .
Like most UN bodies its parasitical in nature with no actual interest in ‘solving’ the issue , there by killing its host body , but with a great deal of interest in ‘its worst then we thought’ there bye increasing its power and budget. Now figure out the chances of them producing any report that does not support ‘the cause ‘ .