Global Warming Thread XV

[David Flick]

.
.
.The truth is out. The global warming movement has completely collapsed (except in the minds of the delusional proponents of AGW).

The Kyoto Process is Dead

.
.448

[KeithE]

.
.
.The truth is out. The global warming movement has completely collapsed (except in the minds of the delusional proponents of AGW).

The Kyoto Process is Dead

.
.448

More cheerleading to the denialist choir by Inhofe.

Truth is Kyoto is still signed and ratified by 191 countries and the first period remains in force until next year. Only the US, Afghanistan, Andorra and the new country South Sudan have not signed and ratified it. Kyoto Accords Details
It does appear Canada is pulling out to avid paying $14B in fines (due to its incipient tar sands operations).
Canada Pulling Out
About 60% of countries are meeting their goals and more have reduced their emissions.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Kyoto_Parties_with_first_period_%282008-2012%29_greenhouse_gas_emissions_limitations_targets_and_the_percentage_change_in_their_carbon_dioxide_emissions_from_fuel_combustion_between_1990_and_2009.png
But some of the largest CO2 emitters (China, India, Australia, Canada, and the US) are among those that have not been meeting their quotas. So Kyoto has not been as successful as planned due to belligerence of the larger emitters.

Still it is an exaggeration to say Kyoto is dead. Most countries remain committed to the Kyoto Second Period (2012- 2017).

OTOH, it is disappointing that Durban did not reach a better accord. US, Canada and India led the opposition.
Durban Accords

But two things are more sure than ever:

1) Global warming is continuing unabated. When natural variability (El Ninos/La Ninas, volcanoes, solar minor influences) is taken out, one sees a continual rise at about 0.16C/decade.Read about here and key result for surface air temps is given below:

and for ocean heat content:


2) Extreme Weather events are increasing unabated. Read about NOAA's Extreme Weather Research. Key Figure:


One reason could be the Arctic Sea Ice loss as discussed here.

Arctic sea ice loss may significantly affect the upper-level atmospheric circulation, slowing its winds and increasing its tendency to make contorted high-amplitude loops. High-amplitude loops in the upper level wind pattern (and associated jet stream) increases the probability of persistent weather patterns in the Northern Hemisphere, potentially leading to extreme weather due to longer-duration cold spells, snow events, heat waves, flooding events, and drought conditions.

Not trying to push you David into responding (since you say you are under some significant circumstances beyond your control). But I just have to set the record straight, because your sources are so off in telling the truth straightforwardly.

[David Flick]

.
.
.The truth is out. The global warming movement has completely collapsed (except in the minds of the delusional proponents of AGW).

The Kyoto Process is Dead

.
.448

More cheerleading to the denialist choir by Inhofe.

Actually, Inhofe is correct. Not "cheerleading" but speaking truth...

Truth is Kyoto is still signed and ratified by 191 countries and the first period remains in force until next year. Only the US, Afghanistan, Andorra and the new country South Sudan have not signed and ratified it. Kyoto Accords Details

True, there were 191 countries that ratified the Kyoto but it was a farce from day one. Nothing was ever accomplished by the treaty. Although it remains in in force until next year it's still dead in the water. As Inhofe said, the process is dead. Nothing will follow it.

It does appear Canada is pulling out to avid paying $14B in fines (due to its incipient tar sands operations).
Canada Pulling Out

Canada isn't pulling out to avoid paying a fine. Far from it. They're pulling out because of the ridiculous cost of reducing carbon emissions. To meet the targets under Kyoto for 2012, Canada would have to remove every car, truck, all-terrain vehicle, tractor, ambulance, police car and vehicle off every kind of Canadian road, which is virtually impossible. Source The notion that human generated carbon emissions drive global warming is a wild myth spun by the AGWers and radical environmentalists.

About 60% of countries are meeting their goals and more have reduced their emissions. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Kyoto_Parties_with_first_period_%282008-2012%29_greenhouse_gas_emissions_limitations_targets_and_the_percentage_change_in_their_carbon_dioxide_emissions_from_fuel_combustion_between_1990_and_2009.png
But some of the largest CO2 emitters (China, India, Australia, Canada, and the US) are among those that have not been meeting their quotas. So Kyoto has not been as successful as planned due to belligerence of the larger emitters.

It really doesn't matter who or how many of the countries jump at the whims of the dead Kyoto protocol, climate change is not driven by carbon emissions. Climate change is totally and completely natural. Human generated CO2 and ghgs do not drive chimate change. They never have and never will. All the propaganda in the world will not change the facts. Arrogant global warmists and AGW junk scientists live in a fantasy world. In the real world where real people and real climate scientists live, it is understood that man cannot control climate.

Still it is an exaggeration to say Kyoto is dead. Most countries remain committed to the Kyoto Second Period (2012- 2017).

No it's not. For all practical purposes, Kyoto is dead as a doornail. Oh, the alarmists may continue to meet year after year in remote parts of the globe, but the day is long past when the radical environmentalists and the Al Gore types can impose their will on others.

OTOH, it is disappointing that Durban did not reach a better accord. US, Canada and India led the opposition.
Durban Accords

It may be disappointing to you, but I'm happy that people of sanity are beginning to rise up in opposition to the wild and radical ideas of the alarmists.

But two things are more sure than ever:

You're wrong on both counts. I'll delineate each point below...

1) Global warming is continuing unabated. When natural variability (El Ninos/La Ninas, volcanoes, solar minor influences) is taken out, one sees a continual rise at about 0.16C/decade.Read about here and key result for surface air temps is given below:

Global warming is definitely not continuing unabated. That's occurring only in the minds and on the created (adjusted) graphs of global warming alarmists. Joe Romm and the Climate Progress blog are among the top purveyors of AGW propaganda. In the real world where credible climate scientists live, it's a known fact that there's been no global warming since 1998, which translates to 13 years of unabated non-global warming. The notion global warming is continuing unabated is false. Apparently you didn't notice that Romm's graph (below) has been adjusted. Nice work for the alarmists. They, like Michael Mann & his twice or thrice adjusted "Hockey Stick graph," are masters at adjusting data to fix their graphs to appear that global warming is continuing unabated. Here's the kicker: The data anomaly (rise in temperature) in the graph ranges only 0.6 of 1 degree C over a period of 30 years. Which amounts to an annual average rise of only 0.02C (2/100ths of a degree). There's nothing at all alarming about an insignificant temperature rise of that nature. It has been much warmer on numerous occasions in climate history. "Unabated" is hardly an adequate adjective to tag onto such an insignificant rise like that.

and for ocean heat content:

The graph below doesn't really say a thing about global climate change or what causes it. The source of your graph is the Skeptical Science blog, which is a blog not unlike Joe Romm's Climate Progress blog. Both are huge purveyors of AGW propaganda. Has it ever occurred to any of the alarmists that the sun, rather than human generated CO2 & ghgs, is the real reason for changes in ocean temperatures? Nevertheless, there isn't a thing in the graph to suggest that human caused CO2 is the cause of global warming or climate change.

2) Extreme Weather events are increasing unabated. Read about NOAA's Extreme Weather Research. Key Figure:

So what if extreme weather events have occurred in recent years? I didn't research what the extreme weather events were, but the only photo in the article was related to anything but what one might consider to be "global warming". It would be more nearly associated with global cooling than global warming. I suspect that the majority of the extreme weather events involved cold weather, tornadoes, and hurricanes. And global warming causes none of these events. Natural disasters have been occurring for centuries. Only a global warming alarmists would associate natural disasters with human caused global warming. Two points:
1. Hurricane frequency and global warming NOT the cause of increased destruction. The increase in costs of destruction is due to increased wealth, not because there are more hurricanes and natural disasters. Scientists have found that the economic damages from hurricanes have increased in the U.S. over time due to greater population, infrastructure, and wealth on the U.S. coastlines, and not to any spike in the number or intensity of hurricanes. (Source) The same, of course, would be true of tornados. Roy Spencer says that anyone who claims more tornadoes are caused by global warming is either misinformed, pandering, or delusional.
   
2. Nowhere in the NPR article was there a suggestion that global warming was the cause of the natural disasters. One would certainly expect NPR, which is solidly in the AGW camp, to make such a boast if they possibly could. But they couldn't. And didn't, to their credit.

One reason could be the Arctic Sea Ice loss as discussed here.

Arctic sea ice loss may significantly affect the upper-level atmospheric circulation, slowing its winds and increasing its tendency to make contorted high-amplitude loops. High-amplitude loops in the upper level wind pattern (and associated jet stream) increases the probability of persistent weather patterns in the Northern Hemisphere, potentially leading to extreme weather due to longer-duration cold spells, snow events, heat waves, flooding events, and drought conditions.

There is no loss in sea ice occurring. Over the past couple of years, alarmists have been on a roll trying to convince the general public that arctic regions are losing ice at rapid rates. The opposite is true, however. Check these data:
• Arctic Sea Ice Extent Update: still growing
  
• Arctic sea ice growing - Climate scientists confused
• Arctic Sea Ice Growing at Fastest Rate in Recorded History
• An Inconvenient Truth: The Ice Cap Is Growing
Bottom line, there is no loss of sea ice. Even if there were loss of sea ice occurring in the arctic regions, it wasn't caused by humans. Only the arrogant among us would believe such a thing. Man is totally incapable of causing the kind of climate change that would lead to the melting of sea ice.

Not trying to push you David into responding (since you say you are under some significant circumstances beyond your control). But I just have to set the record straight, because your sources are so off in telling the truth straightforwardly.

Sorry Keith, you're not setting the record straight. You're regurgitating the talking points of the alarmist propaganda.

458

[Gene Scarborough]

Brother Flick---

If you think strength of hurricanes and denuding the South American rain forests have nothing to do with one another, then you have never ridden in a small airplane at low altitude over a 4-lane highway or river----it bounces in the air currents.

In eastern NC the placement of NC 64 has definitely diverted rain to the north and they used to flow south as well as east before that highway was constructed = proven fact!

We are now having to raise our house by 10' after the rise of the Sound and River with Hurricane Irene. If you were footing the bill for such, you might pay more attention as well!

The man who uses "facts" to "prove" was he previously believed----is a fool----when his eyes and ears tell him different in his own PERSONAL experiences of dealing with this earth!!!! Rape and pillage the Great Plains where you live and you get the Dust Bowl that almost destroyed that vast wilderness. Have you not noticed how wind breaks and rotation cropping are now used to prevent such in the future?????

Florida drained much of the Everglades to build houses----and found out it was destroying water movememt in that great acquifer----it is now being restored. Lake Powell is filling with sediment from Hoover Daming and they are trying to restore that aspect to the Colorado River.

The list goes on far beyond your suppositions and we should learn from past mistakes, in my view.

HUH?????

[Ed Pettibone]

Brother Flick---

If you think strength of hurricanes and denuding the South American rain forests have nothing to do with one another, then you have never ridden in a small airplane at low altitude over a 4-lane highway or river----it bounces in the air currents.

Ed: So Gene lets dam up the rivers. BYW when you say low altitude how low are yo talking about. And gee when i took flying lessons 60 year ago the Piper we used bounced while flying across open fields.

G: In eastern NC the placement of NC 64 has definitely diverted rain to the north and they used to flow south as well as east before that highway was constructed = proven fact!

Ed: what flowed south and East and where do they flow now?

G. We are now having to raise our house by 10' after the rise of the Sound and River with Hurricane Irene. If you were footing the bill for such, you might pay more attention as well!

Ed: The price of having water front property keeps going up.

G The man who uses "facts" to "prove" was he previously believed----is a fool----when his eyes and ears tell him different in his own PERSONAL experiences of dealing with this earth!!!! Rape and pillage the Great Plains where you live and you get the Dust Bowl that almost destroyed that vast wilderness. Have you not noticed how wind breaks and rotation cropping are now used to prevent such in the future?????

Florida drained much of the Everglades to build houses----and found out it was destroying water movememt in that great acquifer----it is now being restored. Lake Powell is filling with sediment from Hoover Daming and they are trying to restore that aspect to the Colorado River.

The list goes on far beyond your suppositions and we should learn from past mistakes, in my view.

Ed: But who decides what the mistakes where?. And as to the Everglades when you say "Florida drained much of the Everglades to build houses----and found out it was destroying water movememt in that great acquifer----it is now being restored." But Gene, they are not tearing down the houses. And the restoration creates jobs. there are two sides to these stories.

[Gene Scarborough]

Ed: So Gene lets dam up the rivers. BYW when you say low altitude how low are yo talking about. And gee when i took flying lessons 60 year ago the Piper we used bounced while flying across open fields.

"Low" is CAP search altitude = about 400' on average. All things forest and field generate turbulence and interaction.

Ed: what flowed south and East and where do they flow now?

Rain clouds, silly, during the summer and snow clouds in winter!

Ed: But who decides what the mistakes where?. And as to the Everglades when you say "Florida drained much of the Everglades to build houses----and found out it was destroying water movememt in that great acquifer----it is now being restored." But Gene, they are not tearing down the houses. And the restoration creates jobs. there are two sides to these stories.

The decisions are made when it becomes obvious "somebody goofed" and didn't take into account all the factors involved in major work projects to alter the natural state of things---which change far more slowly under the hand of God. All decisions relative to our human wants have effects that are un-anticipated. Now the massive Three-Rivers Gorge daming has people conjecting the added weight of that massive reservoir "might" generate earthquakes in that fault zone due to the added significant stresses of such a big project = we will see!

I would NOT advise building along the shores there or in the US should a tsunami result!!!!!

[KeithE]

One reason (for the increase in extreme weather) could be the Arctic Sea Ice loss as discussed here.

Arctic sea ice loss may significantly affect the upper-level atmospheric circulation, slowing its winds and increasing its tendency to make contorted high-amplitude loops. High-amplitude loops in the upper level wind pattern (and associated jet stream) increases the probability of persistent weather patterns in the Northern Hemisphere, potentially leading to extreme weather due to longer-duration cold spells, snow events, heat waves, flooding events, and drought conditions.

There is no loss in sea ice occurring. Over the past couple of years, alarmists have been on a roll trying to convince the general public that arctic regions are losing ice at rapid rates. The opposite is true, however. Check these data:
• Arctic Sea Ice Extent Update: still growing
  
• Arctic sea ice growing - Climate scientists confused
• Arctic Sea Ice Growing at Fastest Rate in Recorded History
• An Inconvenient Truth: The Ice Cap Is Growing
Bottom line, there is no loss of sea ice. Even if there were loss of sea ice occurring in the arctic regions, it wasn't caused by humans. Only the arrogant among us would believe such a thing. Man is totally incapable of causing the kind of climate change that would lead to the melting of sea ice.

Not trying to push you David into responding (since you say you are under some significant circumstances beyond your control). But I just have to set the record straight, because your sources are so off in telling the truth straightforwardly.

Sorry Keith, you're not setting the record straight. You're regurgitating the talking points of the alarmist propaganda.

458

I'll focus in on your wild claim that the Arctic Sea Ice is growing instead of receding, repeating this morning's response:

You provide four articles saying incredibly that the Arctic Sea Ice is growing (all of which come from the denialist machine - like WattsUpWithThat, an Environmental Blog, IceAgeNow, and the Wash Times). Here is the best measure of Arctic Sea Ice - it's volume maintained by the University of Washington Applied Physics Lab.


Looking at the third article's claim

7 Nov 08 - An abnormally cool Arctic is seeing dramatic changes to ice levels. The total amount of ice, which set a record low last year, grew in October at the fastest pace since record-keeping began in 1979, bringing ice back to levels from the 1980s.

you'll see 2007 was a record low (at the time of the article) and if you look harder you will see that the month of October 2008 the DATA did climb perhaps faster than any other month ever (look at the slopes of the lines). But it certainly did not bring it back to the levels of the 80's (even at it's lowest portion 1982 with error bars considered). And more importantly, look at what has happened since 2008. The Arctic Sea Level has plummeted. Do yo see a retraction from the "IceAgeNow" website? No I've checked. It appears to be a source for many such isolated spot data (time and space) to cater to thoroughly duped denialists.

One must look at ALL of the DATA, and be truthful. Picking out a single month's apparent rise is dishonest. And to never have acknowledged the huge drop in 2009 - 2011 timeframe shows they have no credibility. They are shills for their ideology and/or Big Energy/Oil.

Need to get ready for church. But this propaganda that David promulgates is just typical. I may or may not have time to do more later.
--------------------

OK let's look at the Watts Up With That (WUWT) propaganda. It selects one data plot from the National Snow and Ice Data Center repeated here:

to claim its title: "Arctic Sea Ice Extent Update: still growing".

Well let's look at ALL of the DATA at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)
Now It may be true that on April 1, 2010 the Arctic Sea Extent reached the normal sea extent (normal being the average over the years 1979-2000) at that time of year. The plot that WUWT shows certainly looks genuinely from the NSIDC. But it is clear that by August 1, 2010 it was again well below the normal values (in fact below the -2 sigma values) as the plot below (from the NSIDC website linked above) shows (light purple line):


So once again an isolated data point that may temporarily cause one to think global warming has ended and sea ice is growing has been shown to be just an isolated point. To look at the trend for ALL the DATA taken, the NSIDC offers a plot of the Arctic Sea Ice extent in Novembers from 1979-2011:

And lest you think NSIDC is avoiding Aprils, look at this:


Both months (in fact all months) show a downward trend since the data collection started in 1979.

Does WUWT show those long duration plots? No. Does it retract their obvious wrong conclusion that David bought - that the Arctic Sea Ice is growing? NO. They are obviously very selective in what they show and have no shame about it. Typical of WUWT crapola.
---------------------
OK let's look at David's second article. It is an environmental blog (that in total is pretty good). But here it picks up on March 2010 NSIDC data (close to what WUTW chose to cherry pick) to say scientists are confused (never gives an example of that confusion and does not give any DATA or links to DATA). It does purport (w/o DATA) that "In fact, since the year 2001 there hasn't been so much recorded ice at Arctic" as that in March 2010. If it had bothered to look at the March DATA since 1979 it would have found:

There was more Sea Ice Extent in March 2001, 2002, 2003, 2008, 2009 than in March 2010. So much for this article.
-------------------
Last article is from the Washington Times (a conservative paper who sides with Big Business). Here is the sum of what they said:

A report from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado finds that Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007. But didn't we hear from the same Center that the North Pole was set to disappear by now? We all deserve apologies from the global warming fanatics who wanted to reshape the world in their image and called those who objected to their wild theories ignorant deniers. They were so convinced the world was ending and only they could save it, yet now they have been exposed as at best wildly idealistic and at worst frauds. They should have to do public penance for their hubris. I suggest they sit on blocks of melting ice and ponder their limitations. Either that or let the polar bears deal with them.

First note the sarcasm (indicative of no valid points and at any rate not appropriate for a newspaper). Then note that their link to the NSIDC was really a link to UK Daily Mail which gave no further DATA or link to DATA or to NSIDC. Follow it at David's link repeated here: An Inconvenient Truth: The Ice Cap Is Growing
So I went in search of news at the NSIDC of anything that said the ice level was up 409,000 sq miles and indeed I found the claim of a 409,000 sq mile increase in Sept 2009 at the NSIDC Archives. But again let's look at the long term trend for Septembers.

True enough there was a big increase from Sept 2007 to Sept 2009. But that only brought it up the negative trend line overall. Did the Wash Times report the 30% decrease from 2006 to 2007? Not sure but I doubt it. And importantly the Sept sea ice extent (the month with the lowest sea ice extents) has decreased substantially in 2010 and 2011. Again we have cherry picking and little eagerness to show ALL the DATA and the truth it shows - a long term trend of reducing Sea Ice Extent and Volume (especially in the last 2 years).

------------------

So I hope ya'll see how David believes a bunch of innovative but fundamentally dishonest data snoopers looking for any bit of isolated data that hints at their desired conclusion however temporary, but hides from view the whole DATA picture all of which shows negative trend in terms of Arctic sea ice extent and sea ice volume. BTW, the Antarctica shows little trend.

Go Cardinals.

[David Flick]

.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Global Warming Tidbits

Anchorage on track for snowiest winter on record

By Mark Thiessen and Rachel d'Oro, Associated Press
Posted: 01/12/2012 10:13:42 AM PST

ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- Weary Alaskans woke up to another big dump of snow on Thursday, adding to what already has been the snowiest period on record in Anchorage and causing more headaches in coastal areas struggling to dig out.

The snow started falling shortly before midnight, and meteorologists warned Anchorage residents the heaviest snowfall -- up to 16 inches -- could come later Thursday.

About 150 miles to the southeast, the Prince William Sound community of Cordova, which has already been buried under 172 inches of snow since November, could get another 7 inches Thursday, meteorologist Shaun Baines said. The picturesque fishing community has had so much snow, National Guard troops helping clear roads are running out of shovels.

"It's funny because, after the numbers of days we've had of snow, you actually get to a point where it almost becomes it's expected, that it's going to be snowing," said Teresa Benson, a Cordova resident and district manager for the National Forest Service.

In nearby Valdez, another coastal community that's seen 318 inches of snow, veterinarian Kathryn Hawkins said it's been difficult to keep up with the shoveling, and 8-foot walls of snow line either side of her driveway.

After snow fell off her roof, she can't see out either the front of back of her house.

"I look out and go, 'Oh my gosh, where can it all go?" Hawkins said.

"The scary part is, we still have three more months to go," she said.
Advertisement

The record snowfall is the result of two atmospheric patterns "that are conspiring to send an unending series of storms into Alaska," said Jeff Masters, a meteorologist who runs Weather Underground, a meteorology service that tracks strange and extreme weather.

For the second winter in a row, the Pacific weather phenomenon known as La Nina is affecting the weather. But instead of plentiful snow in the Lower 48, Alaska is getting slammed because of the second weather pattern.

That's called the Arctic Oscillation and it has been strong this year, changing air patterns to the south and keeping the coldest winter air locked up in the Arctic.

"Alaska is definitely getting the big dump," said Bill Patzert, a climate expert at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

In the ice-choked frozen waters of the Bering Sea, a Russian tanker loaded with 1.3 million gallons of fuel is inching toward the iced-in community of Nome, following in the path being painstakingly plowed by a Coast Guard icebreaker. Thick ice, wind and unfavorable ocean currents had the vessels making little progress, but conditions improved Wednesday and Coast Guard spokesman David Mosley says the tanker and the icebreaker are 78 miles from Nome

The city missed its final pre-winter delivery of fuel by barge when a big storm swept the region last fall. Without the delivery, Nome could run short of fuel before a barge delivery becomes possible in late spring.

The weather has put a strain on the state, which deployed the National guard to Cordova earlier this week. If it keeps up, Anchorage is on track to have the snowiest winter ever, surpassing the previous record of 132.8 inches in 1954-55, Baines said (Contionue reading...)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Big Trouble For Arctic Alarmists: "Not only is ice extent the highest in 7 years, but the ice is getting thicker and is positioned exactly where alarmists don't want it to be."

Big Trouble For Arctic Alarmists
Posted on January 13, 2012 by Steven Goddard



Not only is ice extent the highest in seven years, but the ice is getting thicker and is positioned exactly where alarmists don’t want it to be. The map above shows 1.5 metre+ ice vs the same date in 2011. The thick ice has shifted towards the west into the Chukchi Sea, where it will slow summer melt.

Combine that with sea surface temperatures in the Bering Sea which are far below normal, and our chicken little friends are looking at a very bad summer. (Source...)

[KeithE]

.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Global Warming Tidbits

Anchorage on track for snowiest winter on record

By Mark Thiessen and Rachel d'Oro, Associated Press
Posted: 01/12/2012 10:13:42 AM PST

ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- Weary Alaskans woke up to another big dump of snow on Thursday, adding to what already has been the snowiest period on record in Anchorage and causing more headaches in coastal areas struggling to dig out.

The snow started falling shortly before midnight, and meteorologists warned Anchorage residents the heaviest snowfall -- up to 16 inches -- could come later Thursday.

About 150 miles to the southeast, the Prince William Sound community of Cordova, which has already been buried under 172 inches of snow since November, could get another 7 inches Thursday, meteorologist Shaun Baines said. The picturesque fishing community has had so much snow, National Guard troops helping clear roads are running out of shovels.

"It's funny because, after the numbers of days we've had of snow, you actually get to a point where it almost becomes it's expected, that it's going to be snowing," said Teresa Benson, a Cordova resident and district manager for the National Forest Service.

In nearby Valdez, another coastal community that's seen 318 inches of snow, veterinarian Kathryn Hawkins said it's been difficult to keep up with the shoveling, and 8-foot walls of snow line either side of her driveway.

After snow fell off her roof, she can't see out either the front of back of her house.

"I look out and go, 'Oh my gosh, where can it all go?" Hawkins said.

"The scary part is, we still have three more months to go," she said.
Advertisement

The record snowfall is the result of two atmospheric patterns "that are conspiring to send an unending series of storms into Alaska," said Jeff Masters, a meteorologist who runs Weather Underground, a meteorology service that tracks strange and extreme weather.

For the second winter in a row, the Pacific weather phenomenon known as La Nina is affecting the weather. But instead of plentiful snow in the Lower 48, Alaska is getting slammed because of the second weather pattern.

That's called the Arctic Oscillation and it has been strong this year, changing air patterns to the south and keeping the coldest winter air locked up in the Arctic.

"Alaska is definitely getting the big dump," said Bill Patzert, a climate expert at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

In the ice-choked frozen waters of the Bering Sea, a Russian tanker loaded with 1.3 million gallons of fuel is inching toward the iced-in community of Nome, following in the path being painstakingly plowed by a Coast Guard icebreaker. Thick ice, wind and unfavorable ocean currents had the vessels making little progress, but conditions improved Wednesday and Coast Guard spokesman David Mosley says the tanker and the icebreaker are 78 miles from Nome

The city missed its final pre-winter delivery of fuel by barge when a big storm swept the region last fall. Without the delivery, Nome could run short of fuel before a barge delivery becomes possible in late spring.

The weather has put a strain on the state, which deployed the National guard to Cordova earlier this week. If it keeps up, Anchorage is on track to have the snowiest winter ever, surpassing the previous record of 132.8 inches in 1954-55, Baines said (Contionue reading...)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Big Trouble For Arctic Alarmists: "Not only is ice extent the highest in 7 years, but the ice is getting thicker and is positioned exactly where alarmists don't want it to be."

Big Trouble For Arctic Alarmists
Posted on January 13, 2012 by Steven Goddard



Not only is ice extent the highest in seven years, but the ice is getting thicker and is positioned exactly where alarmists don’t want it to be. The map above shows 1.5 metre+ ice vs the same date in 2011. The thick ice has shifted towards the west into the Chukchi Sea, where it will slow summer melt.

Combine that with sea surface temperatures in the Bering Sea which are far below normal, and our chicken little friends are looking at a very bad summer. (Source...)

As for high level of snow in parts of Alaska this year, this is a prediction of Global Warming in that high precipitation events is one such prediction. Now if the warming removed all possibility of weather being cold enough to snow (~~ 32F), then you would have a story. But it snows just as much at 20F as it does at 19F- the amount is due to the local accumulation of water vapor.

As for the sea ice volume/extent, one only has to look up one post (mine with all the DATA plots in it) to see the sea ice extent history is on a downward trend as is the sea ice volume. Not one of the months have sea ice extent higher in 2012 than in 2004 (7 years ago). To boot the trend over the 32 years is clear and dominant.

As for Steve Goddard analysis of snow read Goddard's snowjob

As for Steve Goddard's claim that the sea ice thickness is 1.5 m more this year than last year: (1) his animation does not demonstrate that and in fact is questionable since it is claiming a date ("20120118" as in 18 Jan 2012) that has not occurred yet! article having been written on 13 Jan 2012, (2) the official PIOMAS ice volume and NSIDC ice extent for last Dec have not yet been release , (3) Goddard has no credibility as shown in his snowjob above and (4) even if he has some data that shows ice thickness, or ice extent or ice volume were to go up one year that would not mean the 32 year trends have been reversed.

As for the SST Bering Sea being "far below normal", there is no data to assert that in David's "Source". None whatsoever.

Only in such anti-science blogs as WUWT or Real Science (or perhaps Fox News) would anything like this obviously shoddy analysis/unreferenced reporting be published.

[David Flick]

.
. Temperatures dropping as recorded by the satellite used by the University of Alabama at Huntsville.

• January 19, 2012 : Coldest Day Globally In At Least 10 Years
  
• NASA Satellite Shows That Global Temperatures Continue Their Plunge Into Record Cold

651

[David Flick]

.
. . . . . . . . . .

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about

• Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years

By David Rose

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997. Continue reading...

682

[KeithE]

.
. . . . . . . . . .

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about

• Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years

By David Rose

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997. Continue reading...

682

David, you have again truncated the total record. You only show the Hadley/CRU annual DATA since 1997 when they have data since 1850. Truth is when we consider the whole range of measured DATA, we have been stuck on high in the 2000s as shown below:

and plotted showing uncertainties (there is no doubt that every decade since 1970 has gone up):

When you consider the GISS DATA we see growth in the 2000s (as seen in the bottom plot pinkish annual data). Note also the global distribution with the Arctic having 4C increases from the 1961-1990 baseline.


True, temperature growth in the Hadley/CRU data has been essentially level since 1997. And 2011 saw a deceased temperature from the high 2010. But when you take out known transient effects like volcanoes, El Nino/La Nina interchanges with ocean/air, and solar, one ends up with growth in the 2000's as well (purple line in the below). 4 different data sets since 1979 all tell the same story including the sattelite DATA from UAH.


So David, try to show ALL the DATA and tell the whole truth.

[KeithE]

WSJ Publishes denialist letter, refuses to publish scientists letter

Wall Street Journal chooses publish a letter from 16 denialist scientists (mostly retired, some ExxonMobile execs) while refusing to publish letter signed by 255 scientists (all members of the National Academies of Scientists).

I wonder why?

[Ed Pettibone]

WSJ Publishes denialist letter, refuses to publish scientists letter

Wall Street Journal chooses publish a letter from 16 denialist scientists (mostly retired, some ExxonMobile execs) while refusing to publish letter signed by 255 scientists (all members of the National Academies of Scientists).

I wonder why?

Could be the editors of the WSJ believe the 225 represent entities as biased or more so than Exxon Mobile execs.

[KeithE]

WSJ Publishes denialist letter, refuses to publish scientists letter

Wall Street Journal chooses publish a letter from 16 denialist scientists (mostly retired, some ExxonMobile execs) while refusing to publish letter signed by 255 scientists (all members of the National Academies of Scientists).

I wonder why?

Could be the editors of the WSJ believe the 225 represent entities as biased or more so than Exxon Mobile execs.

Could it be Rupert Murdoch or the WSJ Editorial Chief selectively censures letters towards being business friendly and away from anything they fear might cause a slow down in the Big Oil gravy train.

And it is 255 scientists all of whom are members of the NAS but were not speaking on the NAS's behalf.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Yes 255, but I didn't want to suggest that all where under the thumb of their employer, some simply seem to ride the tide. But Keith, what is the total membership of NAS?

[KeithE]

Ed: Yes 255, but I didn't want to suggest that all where under the thumb of their employer, some simply seem to ride the tide. But Keith, what is the total membership of NAS?

That I do not know. How many ex-professor scientists and Oil Executives are there?

Ed, this is not a serious poll about belief in AGW. It is an indication of how many care enough about AGW to choose to put their name on a letter both for and against. And I'd say the NAS letter has a higher level of scientific skill than the denialist letter.

Real scientists are not the type that "ride the tide", the public does that under the wave action of the media.

When real polls of scientists are made about AGW, the more a person is directly involved in GW studies, the more they believe in AGW (Anthropogenic [Man-caused] Global Warming).

Dorn/Zimmerman Abstract

The most involved are 97% (75 out of 77 published climatologists) according to the Dorn/Zimmerman poll (2009). When considering all "earth scientists", 77% believe in AGW.
The general public had it as 58% in a 2008 Gallup poll (probably less than that now under the influence of the RW).

The Dorn/Zimmerman poll is confirmed by the Anderegg/Schneider (Stanford Univ) poll in 2010 which got 97-98% of 1372 climate researchers believe in ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change)
Anderegg/Schneider Abstract

The more knowledgeable people are in GW science, the more strongly they believe in AGW. Period. The public is being duped by an onslaught of well funded (Koch Brothers, Murdoch, etc.) denialist machine from which we get a sampling of truncated/biased/polemic mis-information from David.

Meanwhile the oceans continue to heat (showing some indication of slowing down since 2004) but remaining at dangerous high levels that have killed 40% of the photoplankton since 1950 and have bleached 90 % of coral reefs in the Indian Ocean and diseased corals worldwide.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Keith when you say:

Real scientists are not the type that "ride the tide", the public does that under the wave action of the media.
&
When real polls of scientists are made about AGW, the more a person is directly involved in GW studies, the more they believe in AGW (Anthropogenic [Man-caused] Global Warming).

I am inclined to believe you may have an over glorified opinion of "Real scientist" and real pollsters. Like wise when you say "the more a person is directly involved in GW studies, the more they believe in AGW (Anthropogenic [Man-caused] Global Warming)." I will ask in reality which come first the study and then belief or belief and then study and if it is the latter is the order not more subject to bias?

Even though you can not give us a the number in NAS, can you at least tell us the criteria for membership.

I have long had some problem with many of the charts that you present in that the visual image is far too dramatic for the rather small percentages of change that are shown. To me that shouts Bias and Hype. It is beyond me to explain the process but I have seen some very convincing demonstrations in academic settings of how statistical based charts can be and are manipulated to present false impressions of facts.

[KeithE]

Ed: Keith when you say:

Real scientists are not the type that "ride the tide", the public does that under the wave action of the media.
&
When real polls of scientists are made about AGW, the more a person is directly involved in GW studies, the more they believe in AGW (Anthropogenic [Man-caused] Global Warming).

I am inclined to believe you may have an over glorified opinion of "Real scientist" and real pollsters. Like wise when you say "the more a person is directly involved in GW studies, the more they believe in AGW (Anthropogenic [Man-caused] Global Warming)." I will ask in reality which come first the study and then belief or belief and then study and if it is the latter is the order not more subject to bias?

Even though you can not give us a the number in NAS, can you at least tell us the criteria for membership.

I have long had some problem with many of the charts that you present in that the visual image is far too dramatic for the rather small percentages of change that are shown. To me that shouts Bias and Hype. It is beyond me to explain the process but I have seen some very convincing demonstrations in academic settings of how statistical based charts can be and are manipulated to present false impressions of facts.

Yes chartsmanship can magnify or demagnify the impact of DATA. For instance if I were to plot HAD/CRU surface air temp (1850-2011) on an absolute temperature basis (in Kelvin=Centigrade + 273.1) the plot would slope upwards but only slightly from 286 to 287 Kelvin.

But the effects are what is important. Read about Extreme weather costs here from NOAA, as an example of just one bad effect. Most salient graph:

Looking at this histogram the number of $1B disasters are:
the 80's -12
the 90's - 42
the 00's - 47
the 10's - 80 projected (16 in just 2 years)

Likewise that is why I linked the story about how the ocean's rising heat content has caused a 40% loss in photoplankton and the 90% bleaching of corals in Indian Ocean and increase in diseased corals worldwide that GW has caused.

Working Group II of the IPCC list thousands of bad effects. Read about some in its Summary for Policymakers(SPM) given here. Most salient figure:

Read the SPM to understand the chart above and which of the global 29,436 observed changes (over 90% consistent with GW) are deleterious.

As far as NAS criteria for membership, read http://www.nasonline.org/about-nas/membership/

Members are elected to the National Academy of Sciences in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research. Membership is a widely accepted mark of excellence in science and is considered one of the highest honors that a scientist can receive.

Because membership is achieved by election, there is no membership application process. Although many names are suggested informally, only Academy members may submit formal nominations. Consideration of a candidate begins with his or her nomination, followed by an extensive and careful vetting process that results in a final ballot at the Academy's annual meeting in April each year. Currently, a maximum of 84 members may be elected annually. Members must be U.S. citizens; non-citizens are elected as foreign associates, with a maximum of 21 elected annually.

The NAS membership totals approximately 2,200 members and 400 foreign associates, of whom approximately 200 have received Nobel prizes.

Granted, most are not climate specialists, but they are impressive. More so than the 16 denialists. Here is a follow-on article about the WSJ debacle. It seems among the 16 denialists there are a medical doctor, engineers, oil execs, mining execs, astrophysicist. Only Lindzen has a significant GW background and he is retired and still thinks tobacco products are not harmful.

Now, only a day or 2 later, 38 real practicing climate scientists have signed a letter to WSJ rebuking the denialists article.

Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition? In science, as in any area, reputations are based on knowledge and expertise in a field and on published, peer-reviewed work. If you need surgery, you want a highly experienced expert in the field who has done a large number of the proposed operations.

You published “No Need to Panic About Global Warming” (op-ed, Jan. 27) on climate change by the climate-science equivalent of dentists practicing cardiology. While accomplished in their own fields, most of these authors have no expertise in climate science. The few authors who have such expertise are known to have extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert. This happens in nearly every field of science. For example, there is a retrovirus expert who does not accept that HIV causes AIDS. And it is instructive to recall that a few scientists continued to state that smoking did not cause cancer, long after that was settled science.

Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade. In fact, it was the warmest decade on record. Observations show unequivocally that our planet is getting hotter. And computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean. Such periods are a relatively common climate phenomenon, are consistent with our physical understanding of how the climate system works, and certainly do not invalidate our understanding of human-induced warming or the models used to simulate that warming.

Thus, climate experts also know what one of us, Kevin Trenberth, actually meant by the out-of-context, misrepresented quote used in the op-ed. Mr. Trenberth was lamenting the inadequacy of observing systems to fully monitor warming trends in the deep ocean and other aspects of the short-term variations that always occur, together with the long-term human-induced warming trend.

The National Academy of Sciences of the U.S. (set up by President Abraham Lincoln to advise on scientific issues), as well as major national academies of science around the world and every other authoritative body of scientists active in climate research have stated that the science is clear: The world is heating up and humans are primarily responsible. Impacts are already apparent and will increase. Reducing future impacts will require significant reductions in emissions of heat-trapping gases.

Research shows that more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change is real and human caused. It would be an act of recklessness for any political leader to disregard the weight of evidence and ignore the enormous risks that climate change clearly poses. In addition, there is very clear evidence that investing in the transition to a low-carbon economy will not only allow the world to avoid the worst risks of climate change, but could also drive decades of economic growth. Just what the doctor ordered.

Kevin Trenberth, Sc.D, Distinguished Senior Scientist, Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Richard Somerville, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego
Katharine Hayhoe, Ph.D., Director, Climate Science Center, Texas Tech University
Rasmus Benestad, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, The Norwegian Meteorological Institute
Gerald Meehl, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D., Professor of Geosciences; Director, Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy, Princeton University
Peter Gleick, Ph.D., co-founder and president, Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security
Michael C. MacCracken, Ph.D., Chief Scientist, Climate Institute, Washington
Michael Mann, Ph.D., Director, Earth System Science Center, Pennsylvania State University
Steven Running, Ph.D., Professor, Director, Numerical Terradynamic Simulation Group, University of Montana
Robert Corell, Ph.D., Chair, Arctic Climate Impact Assessment; Principal, Global Environment Technology Foundation
Dennis Ojima, Ph.D., Professor, Senior Research Scientist, and Head of the Dept. of Interior’s Climate Science Center at Colorado State University
Josh Willis, Ph.D., Climate Scientist, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Matthew England, Ph.D., Professor, Joint Director of the Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Australia
Ken Caldeira, Ph.D., Atmospheric Scientist, Dept. of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution
Warren Washington, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Terry L. Root, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University
David Karoly, Ph.D., ARC Federation Fellow and Professor, University of Melbourne, Australia
Jeffrey Kiehl, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Donald Wuebbles, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois
Camille Parmesan, Ph.D., Professor of Biology, University of Texas; Professor of Global Change Biology, Marine Institute, University of Plymouth, UK
Simon Donner, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, Canada
Barrett N. Rock, Ph.D., Professor, Complex Systems Research Center and Department of Natural Resources, University of New Hampshire
David Griggs, Ph.D., Professor and Director, Monash Sustainability Institute, Monash University, Australia
Roger N. Jones, Ph.D., Professor, Professorial Research Fellow, Centre for Strategic Economic Studies, Victoria University, Australia
William L. Chameides, Ph.D., Dean and Professor, School of the Environment, Duke University
Gary Yohe, Ph.D., Professor, Economics and Environmental Studies, Wesleyan University, CT
Robert Watson, Ph.D., Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Chair of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Steven Sherwood, Ph.D., Director, Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
Chris Rapley, Ph.D., Professor of Climate Science, University College London, UK
Joan Kleypas, Ph.D., Scientist, Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research
James J. McCarthy, Ph.D., Professor of Biological Oceanography, Harvard University
Stefan Rahmstorf, Ph.D., Professor of Physics of the Oceans, Potsdam University, Germany
Julia Cole, Ph.D., Professor, Geosciences and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona
William H. Schlesinger, Ph.D., President, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies
Jonathan Overpeck, Ph.D., Professor of Geosciences and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona
Eric Rignot, Ph.D., Senior Research Scientist, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory; Professor of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine
Wolfgang Cramer, Professor of Global Ecology, Mediterranean Institute for Biodiversity and Ecology, CNRS, Aix-en-Provence, France

Red highlighting is mine.

[David Flick]

.
. . . . . . . . . .

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about

• Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years

By David Rose

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997. Continue reading...

David, you have again truncated the total record. You only show the Hadley/CRU annual DATA since 1997 when they have data since 1850. Truth is when we consider the whole range of measured DATA, we have been stuck on high in the 2000s as shown below:

As usual, Keith, your fertile imagination and susceptibility to alarmist propaganda hath led you to a completely false conclusion. I truncated nothing in my original post. Absolutely nothing. In fact, I didn't write a single word. I simply posted an article by David Rose which appeared in the UK Daily Mail Online website. It's ludicrous for you to suggest that I somehow "truncated" data when I didn't write a single word. I posted the article for the the salient points which David Rose made in the article. I suppose it would be beneficial for me to point out the the salient points of the article:


1. The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years. The so-called 97% consensus on AGW is a myth pure and simple. Yet the alarmist persist in perpetuating the myth. I've already addressed this myth numerous times but will address it again in another post when I can find the time to do so.
   
2. Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997. There has been no global warming at all in the past 15 years. None. Even the Met Office --one of your favorite sources, BTW-- acknowledges this fact.
3. Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.
4. ... since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific.
5. We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk.

As for your graphs and images purporting to delineate the data I supposedly truncated, they are false. The graph (below) was created by that alarmists at the Think Progress blog. Joe Romm and friends are hopelessly out of touch with reality. It's virtually impossible for there to have been continual warming when global warming completely ceased 15 years ago. It's an established fact among credible climate scientists that there has been no global warming over the last decade and a half. As the article delineated, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree.

and plotted showing uncertainties (there is no doubt that every decade since 1970 has gone up):

This graph is bogus. A cursory glance at the graph at the top --which, BTW, was published by the Met Office-- clearly shows that the over the last decade and a half since 1997, temperatures have fallen. Furthermore, they are continuing to fall. As I noted above, it's impossible for there to have been "continual warming" when the data clearly shows that temperatures are falling. Here is an accurate graph created from data from the Hadley CRU. It clearly shows that over the the last full decade, global temperatures have fallen. You can deny the veracity of the graph as you wish, but it's based on accurate data. The alarmists are in panic mode. They are coming out of the woodwork in a feeble attempt to discredit the 16 scientists who wrote the original article in the WJS. I see where they finally managed to get the WJS to publish their propaganda which includes signatures from few notable alarmists, e.g. Kevin Trenberth, Katharine Hayhoe, Michael Oppenheimer, Michael Mann, a well as a slew of other unknown scientists.

When you consider the GISS DATA we see growth in the 2000s (as seen in the bottom plot pinkish annual data). Note also the global distribution with the Arctic having 4C increases from the 1961-1990 baseline.

The article I cited didn't relate to GISS data. It's not germane to the point I made when posting the article.

True, temperature growth in the Hadley/CRU data has been essentially level since 1997. And 2011 saw a deceased temperature from the high 2010. But when you take out known transient effects like volcanoes, El Nino/La Nina interchanges with ocean/air, and solar, one ends up with growth in the 2000's as well (purple line in the below). 4 different data sets since 1979 all tell the same story including the sattelite DATA from UAH.


So David, try to show ALL the DATA and tell the whole truth.

I do show all the Data, Keith. I consistently tell the whole truth and have done so since the beginning of this debate. I will continue to tell the truth. There is no catastrophic threat to mankind from a mythical so-called man-made global warming. None whatsoever...

[KeithE]

.
. . . . . . . . . .

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about

• Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years

By David Rose

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997. Continue reading...

David, you have again truncated the total record. You only show the Hadley/CRU annual DATA since 1997 when they have data since 1850. Truth is when we consider the whole range of measured DATA, we have been stuck on high in the 2000s as shown below:

As usual, Keith, your fertile imagination and susceptibility to alarmist propaganda hath led you to a completely false conclusion. I truncated nothing in my original post. Absolutely nothing. In fact, I didn't write a single word. I simply posted an article by David Rose which appeared in the UK Daily Mail Online website. It's ludicrous for you to suggest that I somehow "truncated" data when I didn't write a single word. I posted the article for the the salient points which David Rose made in the article. I suppose it would be beneficial for me to point out the the salient points of the article:


1. The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years. The so-called 97% consensus on AGW is a myth pure and simple. Yet the alarmist persist in perpetuating the myth. I've already addressed this myth numerous times but will address it again in another post when I can find the time to do so.
   
2. Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997. There has been no global warming at all in the past 15 years. None. Even the Met Office --one of your favorite sources, BTW-- acknowledges this fact.
3. Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.
4. ... since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific.
5. We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk.

As for your graphs and images purporting to delineate the data I supposedly truncated, they are false. The graph (below) was created by that alarmists at the Think Progress blog. Joe Romm and friends are hopelessly out of touch with reality. It's virtually impossible for there to have been continual warming when global warming completely ceased 15 years ago. It's an established fact among credible climate scientists that there has been no global warming over the last decade and a half. As the article delineated, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree.

and plotted showing uncertainties (there is no doubt that every decade since 1970 has gone up):

This graph is bogus. A cursory glance at the graph at the top --which, BTW, was published by the Met Office-- clearly shows that the over the last decade and a half since 1997, temperatures have fallen. Furthermore, they are continuing to fall. As I noted above, it's impossible for there to have been "continual warming" when the data clearly shows that temperatures are falling. Here is an accurate graph created from data from the Hadley CRU. It clearly shows that over the the last full decade, global temperatures have fallen. You can deny the veracity of the graph as you wish, but it's based on accurate data. The alarmists are in panic mode. They are coming out of the woodwork in a feeble attempt to discredit the 16 scientists who wrote the original article in the WJS. I see where they finally managed to get the WJS to publish their propaganda which includes signatures from few notable alarmists, e.g. Kevin Trenberth, Katharine Hayhoe, Michael Oppenheimer, Michael Mann, a well as a slew of other unknown scientists.

When you consider the GISS DATA we see growth in the 2000s (as seen in the bottom plot pinkish annual data). Note also the global distribution with the Arctic having 4C increases from the 1961-1990 baseline.

The article I cited didn't relate to GISS data. It's not germane to the point I made when posting the article.

True, temperature growth in the Hadley/CRU data has been essentially level since 1997. And 2011 saw a deceased temperature from the high 2010. But when you take out known transient effects like volcanoes, El Nino/La Nina interchanges with ocean/air, and solar, one ends up with growth in the 2000's as well (purple line in the below). 4 different data sets since 1979 all tell the same story including the sattelite DATA from UAH.


So David, try to show ALL the DATA and tell the whole truth.

I do show all the Data, Keith. I consistently tell the whole truth and have done so since the beginning of this debate. I will continue to tell the truth. There is no catastrophic threat to mankind from a mythical so-called man-made global warming. None whatsoever...

David if you think you show all the DATA when you only show 1997 - 2011 when 1850 to 2011 is available, you need help, serious help. That is only (2011-1997)/(2011-1850) = 8.7% of the DATA.

[David Flick]

.
.Explanation to lurkers who may be following this thread.

In this post I created a link to to an article by David Rose, a writer for the UK Mail Online. I wrote no commentary to the article, preferring to allow the article to speak for itself. The article, based on data from the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, emphasized at least 5 points about global warming over the past 15 years. Lifted from the article, the points are as follows:

1. The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
   
2. Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
3. Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.
4. ... since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific.
5. We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk.

In this post, Keith suggested that I had truncated data:

David, you have again truncated the total record. You only show the Hadley/CRU annual DATA since 1997 when they have data since 1850. Truth is when we consider the whole range of measured DATA, we have been stuck on high in the 2000s as shown below:

There is no truth to Keith's claim that I truncated data. In the first place, I wrote not a single word of commentary to the article. Secondly, the article didn't focus on a long term range of measured data. The article focused only on the past decade and a half. Thirdly, global temperatures have not been stuck on high in the 2000. Not by any stretch of the imagination. This graph, produced by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, clearly shows that temperatures have declined since 1997. There are two other graphs, one produced from data from the Hadley CRU, and the other from data from the RSS satellite, that show declines in global temperature. To say that global temperatures are "stuck on high" is false.

At the end of this post, Keith wrote the the following:

So David, try to show ALL the DATA and tell the whole truth.

I do show all the Data, Keith. I consistently tell the whole truth and have done so since the beginning of this debate. I will continue to tell the truth. There is no catastrophic threat to mankind from a mythical so-called man-made global warming. None whatsoever...

At the end of this post,

David if you think you show all the DATA when you only show 1997 - 2011 when 1850 to 2011 is available, you need help, serious help. That is only (2011-1997)/(2011-1850) = 8.7% of the DATA.

The points of the article and the points I emphasized had nothing to do with data reaching back to 1850. The point of the article is that there has been no global warming at all in the last 15 years. The claim consistently made by the alarmists is that global warming is continuing. It is completely false to declare that global warming is continuing. I'd say that you are in need of serious help if you think that global temperatures are "stuck on high" and continuing to warm when the data clearly shows otherwise.

[David Flick]

.
.James Hansen, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), has been at the forefront of the alarmist wing of climate scientists regarding the human influence on global climate from 1988 until today. He is the original AGW alarmist. Other than Al Gore, he is the world's best known AGW activist. Wikipedia paints him as something of a hero. Although the alarmists vehemently deny it, Hansen is well known for manipulating temperature data to push his agenda. Here is an article that delineates how he corrupted global temperature data.

• GISS Temperature Trend Is Complete Garbage

[KeithE]

.
.Explanation to lurkers who may be following this thread.

In this post I created a link to to an article by David Rose, a writer for the UK Mail Online. I wrote no commentary to the article, preferring to allow the article to speak for itself. The article, based on data from the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, emphasized at least 5 points about global warming over the past 15 years. Lifted from the article, the points are as follows:

1. The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
   
2. Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
3. Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.
4. ... since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific.
5. We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk.

In this post, Keith suggested that I had truncated data:

David, you have again truncated the total record. You only show the Hadley/CRU annual DATA since 1997 when they have data since 1850. Truth is when we consider the whole range of measured DATA, we have been stuck on high in the 2000s as shown below:

There is no truth to Keith's claim that I truncated data. In the first place, I wrote not a single word of commentary to the article. Secondly, the article didn't focus on a long term range of measured data. The article focused only on the past decade and a half. Thirdly, global temperatures have not been stuck on high in the 2000. Not by any stretch of the imagination. This graph, produced by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, clearly shows that temperatures have declined since 1997. There are two other graphs, one produced from data from the Hadley CRU, and the other from data from the RSS satellite, that show declines in global temperature. To say that global temperatures are "stuck on high" is false.

At the end of this post, Keith wrote the the following:

So David, try to show ALL the DATA and tell the whole truth.

I do show all the Data, Keith. I consistently tell the whole truth and have done so since the beginning of this debate. I will continue to tell the truth. There is no catastrophic threat to mankind from a mythical so-called man-made global warming. None whatsoever...

At the end of this post,

David if you think you show all the DATA when you only show 1997 - 2011 when 1850 to 2011 is available, you need help, serious help. That is only (2011-1997)/(2011-1850) = 8.7% of the DATA.

The points of the article and the points I emphasized had nothing to do with data reaching back to 1850. The point of the article is that there has been no global warming at all in the last 15 years. The claim consistently made by the alarmists is that global warming is continuing. It is completely false to declare that global warming is continuing. I'd say that you are in need of serious help if you think that global temperatures are "stuck on high" and continuing to warm when the data clearly shows otherwise.

David, you may not have truncated data from the tabloid* article with the graph below, but that graph is truncated big time (>90% removed) to show what David Rose (and you) want to show.

Sure the temperature growth has slowed but it is "stuck on high" and real scientists strongly suspect it is a temporary reprise. I hope they are wrong for humanity's sake, but doubt it. Certainly no going to advocate for ignoring the problem which is what David wants to do.

* The DailyMail appears to be the National Enquirer of the UK with a conservative bias.

Furthermore David claims that graph comes from the Met Office when he said:

This graph, produced by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, clearly shows that temperatures have declined since 1997.

First note it does not show a decline (as David hopes), it shows an essentially level temperature for that period. David might be claiming the small almost unreadable difference between 1997 and 2011 amounts to a "decline", he certainly should acknowledge the far greater increases since 1850 (that he truncates away).

Also "That Graph" did not come from the Met Office; it used truncated data from the Met Office, but it did not come from the Met Office as is. In fact here is The Met Office response to the David Rose/DalyMail article:

Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose entitled “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about”.
This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.
Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997.
For clarity I have included our full response to David Rose below:
A spokesman for the Met Office said: “The ten year projection remains groundbreaking science. The complete period for the original projection is not over yet and these projections are regularly updated to take account of the most recent data.
“The projections are probabilistic in nature, and no individual forecast should be taken in isolation. Instead, several decades of data will be needed to assess the robustness of the projections.
“However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3.”
Furthermore despite criticism of a paper published by the Met Office he chose not to ask us to respond to his misconceptions. The study in question, supported by many others, provides an insight into the sensitivity of our climate to changes in the output of the sun.
It confirmed that although solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years this will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases. The study found that the expected decrease in solar activity would only most likely cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the IPCC’s B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions). In addition the study also showed that if solar output reduced below that seen in the Maunder Minimum – a period between 1645 and 1715 when solar activity was at its lowest observed level – the global temperature reduction would be 0.13C.

Here is the decadal summary of the DATA with the Met Office insignia

And here is their latest annual data:

and the comparable data from the GISS:

It is true that the temperature rise has mediate in the 2000's (in fact the Met Office data has lowering a bit since 2005; but the GISS data reduction shows continued but slowed growth). Satellite data taken since 1979 confirms these trends.

At the very least, this temperature rise over the recorded timeperiod deserves the characterization of "stuck on high".

But truth is that when taking out the known transient effects that leveling off disappears as previously shown and repeated here with remarkable agreement between land measurements (GISS,NCDC,CRU) and satellite measurements (RSS, UAH).

Scientific/data analyst literates can read the details here. I have read it, and it makes sense to remove transient effects. When that is done the 2000's show a consistent temp rise as the 80'a and 90's. But I noted (and have told them so - no response yet) that it does not account for the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)**, which when it swings to being high, will accelerate the warming as it did about 1977 (look above).

** Spencer says the PDO accounts for the leveling off on the temperatures in the 1940-1977 timeframe, but fails to add the clear consequence when the PDO becomes positive.

Temperature trends react slowly (due to multiple exchanges with the ocean) to inputs like increases in ghgs and we have not yet had the consequences of the dramatic rise in CO2 we have been doing to ourselves. The projections by the best scientists do not paint a pretty picture

Note that even with substantial ghg controls (47% reduction) the temp anomaly will be somewhere in the range 2.1-2.8C and we have already seen bad effects with the 0.9C we have experienced so far.

David may attempt to comfort himself with the hope that our temps will reduce, but that is reckless to say the least.

Time to get ready for church.

[Gene Scarborough]

I think it would be safe to say: Humans have an effect on their environment / earth is complex and big enough to let us by for a while, but as human population increases and the technology to make drastic changes to the environment----we are asking for it if we whistle Dixie as we pollute the atmosphere!

Long term farming depends on soil conservation and cooperation with the dirt and water. He who does not give back and continues to take will be ploughing a desert after enough years of taking.