Today I’m coming out a day early and declaring July 2010 as the slowest melting July since the AMSR-E satellite record has been kept. The once ballyhooed “death spiral” is dead.
Reminds me of that line in Tarantino’s cult film Pulp Fiction:
“Zed? Zed is dead.”
At the end of June I recall seeing lots of headlines in the newspapers about a record Arctic sea ice melt occurring. Words like “alarming” and “unprecedented” were used liberally. The reports were splashed with pictures of polar bears for added effect.
One month later the media are completely silent. As the following graphic shows, this July’s Arctic sea ice melt was the slowest since this dataset has been kept. Click Here.
Here are the numbers for the amount of July-melt in million square kilometers: Year 6/30 to 7/30 2003 2.25
2009 2.81 2010 1.85
It was the first time that July failed to reach 2 million sq. km. Now 2010 is on track to reach last year’s low. So far the Arctic has been cold this summer, one of the coldest summers north of 80°N on record, Click Here.
What’s the forecast?
Meteorologist Joe Bastardi projects a significant Arctic sea ice recovery in the couple of years ahead, flying in the face of predictions made by climate “scientists”. Bastardi’s claim is in line with the latest NOAA seasonal forecasts.
La Nina is strengthening and global temps, dare I say, are beginning a death-spiral of their own.
The July Arctic sea ice outlook for September is out. Click here.
Here’s a graphic of the prediction made by 16 different institutes this month, now that they are all 30 days wiser.
Now compare this to the projections made 30 days ago, late June.
Then again, some are incapable of learning anything. Anyway, at least five now concede that we may not even reach last year’s low. Strangely, after July’s slow melt, some have grown even more pessimistic.
Then again, optimism has never been a trait one finds in climate “science”. Who do you think will grab the headlines?
Anew temperature reconstructioncarried out by a team of German/Russian scientists has yielded interesting results. It finds no correlation over the last 400 years between atmospheric CO2 and the temperature in the Arctic regions studied.
Yuri Kononov of the Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow and Michael Friedrich of the Institute of Botany, University of Hohenheim collect tree samples of Scots pine in the Khibiny Low Mountains of the Kola Peninsula in Arctic Russia
Recall that CO2 concentrations have been rising steadily since the start of the Industrial Revolution, 1870, yet the press release starts with:
Parts of the Arctic have cooled clearly over the past [20th]century, but temperatures have been rising steeply there since 1990.
Rising since 1990? That’s more than 100 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution. The press release continues:
The reconstructed summer temperature on Kola in the months of July and August has varied between 10.4°C (1709) and [peaking at] 14.7°C (1957), with a mean of 12.2°C. Afterwards, after a cooling phase, an ongoing warming can be observed from 1990 onwards.
The temperature fluctuated between 10.4°C and a peak of 14.7°C in 1957 , and then cooled until 1990. The scientists say it correlated very well with solar activity until 1990. Then beginning in 1990, the temperatures started to rise rapidly again. Does anyone see a CO2 correlation there? I don’t.
The only time we have a correlation between CO2 concentrations and temperature is from 1990 until…? Unfortunately the press release does not even mention that. Until today? 2005? 2000? It really is annoying that they didn’t specify the end of the time scale. If the reconstruction was only up to 2000, then we are only speaking about a 10-year period – a completely meaningless time period. Even 20 years would be highly dubious.
I called UFZ early this afternoon here in Germany to try to find out, but the secretary said that all scientists had already left for the weekend.
UPDATE! The German press release now has the following graphic. The dataset ended 2001! The press spokesman just told me on the phone. So there was warming from 1990 until 2001! As you see, the graphic iteself is misleading. It almost looks as if the curve goes until 2010.
Interestingly, also, the graphic shows warming since 1650.
What stands out in the data from the Kola Peninsula is that the highest temperatures were found in the period around 1935 and 1955, and that by 1990 the curve had fallen to the 1870 level, which corresponds to the start of the Industrial Age.
The temperature fell to 1870-levels by 1990? Wait a minute – the CO2 theory say it’s supposed to go up, and not down.
The team compared their Kola region data to Swedish Lapland and the Yamal and Tamimyr Penninsula temperature reconstructions: Here’s what they found:
The reconstructed summer temperatures of the last four centuries from Lapland and the Kola and Taimyr Peninsulas are similar in that all three data series display a temperature peak in the middle of the twentieth century, followed by a cooling of one or two degrees.
Cooling from the middle of the twentieth century until 1990. Cooling!
Concerning Yamal, it is no surprise that it’s out of the ballpark because that dataset was not handled scientifically, see Yamal-gate
(Keith Briffa cherrypicks tree rings to get the temperature reconstruction he wants to see).
So if it’s not CO2, then what could be driving temperature? The press release goes on:
What is conspicuous about the new data is that the reconstructed minimum temperatures coincide exactly with times of low solar activity. The researchers therefore assume that in the past, solar activity was a significant factor contributing to summer temperature fluctuations in the Arctic.
The only mystery left is why was there was a sudden increase in warming from 1990 until 2001? The scientists believe it has to do with local factors. Clearly it isn’t CO2.
Next week on August 3, I’ll be releasing my latest list of climate scandals, a gate-update (see Current list of climate scandals). This is a month earlier than originally planned.
The list that’s posted now is visited on average about 100 times a day. Clearly it has become some sort of resource.
Unsurprisingly, the new list coming out has grown, and it will continue to grow. This is assured because of the way climate science is operated, funded, rewarded and politicised.
The disease is hopelessly chronic and there is no treatment in sight. The system is designed, built and programmed to keep producing many more scandals. Already I see dozens of new gates in incubation.
“Climate science” even has its own immune system that works to keep out the deadly virus called “truth”. The reality of that immune system became clear with the Muir Russell, Oxburgh and Penn State enquiries.
Soon I will have to break the climate-gate list into Volumes 1 and 2. I have no doubts about this.
The real threat, unfortunately, is that “climate science” risks becoming a malignant cancer that will threaten to spread to other fields of science and to our public institutions. In some cases it already has. Because of “climate science”, the public is losing trust in science and the civic institutions that are supposed to police it. As mistrust of climate science reaches ever higher levels, so will the public mistrust in other fields.
Scientists in these other fields need to take notice.
Reading the German online daily news this morning, today’s scare-de-jour is the “shocking” reduction of phytoplankton now underway, all due of course to manmade climate change. The “news” is based on a report just published in Nature by scientists Daniel Boyce and Marlon Lewis of the Dalhousie University (Halifax) and Boris Worm of the German Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (think Schellnhuber and Rahmstorf).
When reading about such stories, it’s a very good idea to first read the following:
The cause of the phytoplankton decrease is “warming of the oceans”, Nature reports. Satellite measurements since the end of the 1970s have shown fluctuation in oceanic plankton levels, but have not delivered a clear picture.
That’s why the researchers went back and looked at data of ocean chlorophyll content. The team analysed almost 450,000 measurements from the period 1899 to 2008. The result, according to Die Welt:
In eight of ten oceanic regions, phytoplankton has decreased during the 20th century. Content dropped with increasing sea surface temperature, especially in the tropics and subtopics regions. It is suspected that as a consequence of warming, a more pronounced layering of water occurred.
Süddeutsche Zeitung writes that phytoplankton concentrations in the oceans have declined by two thirds since 1899.
What do I think?
The study involves the Potsdam Institute For Climate Impact Research, directed by Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, visionary of The Great Transformation , and Stefan Rahmstorf, who predicts sea levels will rise 1.7 meters in the next 90 years, but refuses to even bet on a 60 cm rise. This is an institute that is well well-known for activist science and fear-mongering, with the clear agenda of reorganizing how people live. A dangerous social engineering experiment.
I’m sure the findings of this study will turn out to be more plankton-crap.
UPDATE: Beware of science authority. Above I mentioned the Science Turns Authoritarian story, which looked at how often certain authoritarian phrases are used in the media. Click on the following graphic:
Be wary, be very wary, of media claims on climate science.
It kind of surprises me (and yet it doesn’t) that she doesn’t even mention water vapour as a greenhouse gas. She neglects to mention the PDO as well, looking only at the small timescale El Ninos and La Ninas.
She also completely ignores clouds as a factor effecting the temperature of the earth.
I guess the models are getting simpler and simpler (I mean the climate models).
Okay, it appears this video is not complete, and so I’ll hold back judgement.
Climate journalism is like being at a third-world bazar where the media behave like merchants all shouting, pitching their catastrophe stories.Die Welt’s recent piece From Proud Jordan River, To A Smelly Trickle (roughly translated) features the crisis of water consumption and the injustice of water’s uneven distribution. Now water needs to be redistributed, along with wealth and misery.
Although the article is mainly a rant against Israeli water policy, its other objective is to admonish western societies for their profligate use of water.
This is a theme that’s steadily gaining traction on the environmental front here in Europe – along with biodiversity, ocean acidification, manmade microscopic aerosols and climate change. It’s the latest hot-seller catastrophe joining the enviro-bazar.
Die Welt doesn’t hold back citing environmental and activist groups for its reliable, “unbiased” and shocking information. At first the story focusses on Israeli water management and how it’s unfair to neighboring countries.
Die Welt writes:
According to Amnesty International, the average Israeli consumes 300 liters of water daily, while a Palestinian consumes only 70 liters. In poor regions a mere 20 liters is available daily for each person.
At the end of the story, Die Welt admonishes western lifestyles and its excessive use of water.
The story concludes with a photo gallery that informs readers how much water consumption is needed to manufacture some basic daily products we enjoy in our daily lives. Examples:
1 hamburger: 2400 litres
1 hardboiled egg for breakfast: 135 litres
1 slice of bread: 40 litres
10 grams of cheese: 50 litres
1 cup of coffee: 140 liters
1 German breakfast: 365 liters
200 grams of potato chips: 185 liters
2-gram computer chip: 32 liters
1 sheet of paper: 10 liters
1 cotton T-shirt: 4100 liters!
1 pair of cowhide shoes: 8000 liters
1 new car: 450,000 liters
The idea is to tell us consumers that we are simply consuming too much water and that it’s having catastrophic impacts on the environment and poor people. It’s unfair and it has to be regulated. We need to feel guilty about it.
Wikipedia lists the potential manifestations of excessive water consumption:
There are several principal manifestations of the water crisis.
– Inadequate access to water for sanitation and waste disposal for 2.5 billion people
– Groundwater over drafting (excessive use) leading to diminished agricultural yields
– Overuse and pollution of water resources harming biodiversity
– Regional conflicts over scarce water resources sometimes resulting in warfare.
Expect the water crisis to get worse (not in reality, but in the media and political world). Get ready to hear a lot more about this in the future. Water-saving devices will be joining energy-saving devices soon in the government’s force-the-people-to-buy-list.
John Kerry is a co-sponsor of the latest Cap & Trade bill, which thank God has been put off indefinitely. The bill, should it become law, God forbid, would force all working Americans to pay more for energy and to live more humbly.
But living humbly and paying more taxes to the government applies only to the little guys. For the rich, elite and privileged, like Kerry, they’d continue to fly around in private jets, be chauffeured in limousines and frolic the seas in big yachts. Watch Kerry’s reaction when confronted about skirting Massachusetts taxes by birthing his new 76 foot $7 million yacht in Rhode Island:
By berthing the yacht in Rhode Island, Kerry skirts paying nearly $450,000 in sales tax and a yearly $70,000 excise tax bill to his own home state. Look at how pissy he gets when confronted by the media.
Worse, Kerry, who claims to be fighting for American jobs, had the yacht built in New Zealand. The same yacht could have been built at a yard in his own state of Massachusetts. So much for American jobs. And what about environmental friendliness?
What does a 76-foot yacht include?
According to the Boston Herald, Kerry’s yacht has two cabins, a pilot house fitted with a wet bar and cold wine storage.
I wasn’t able to get further specific information on Kerry’s yacht, but looking at other typical 76-foot yachts on the market, we find that they are far from spartan. Take this 76-foot Monte Fino for only $2,450,000 – a real bargain when compared to Kerry’s $7 million cruiser. The Monte Fino includes a 10,000 liter diesel fuel tank, 1500 hp twin engines and is filled with high-tech electronic doo-dads.
God knows what Kerry got for his $7 million.
Kerry spokesman David Wade said Friday the boat is being kept at Newport Shipyard not to evade taxes, but “for long-term maintenance, upkeep and charter purposes.”
John Kerry is married to Theresa Heinz, who is millionaire heiress to the Heinz ketchup fortune, and is a philanthropist and environmentalist.
When you’re rich, you can do things like this. It’s okay. But these rich people should not be making it much harder for the rest of us to make ends meet.
When confronted by the media in the above clip, Kerry defends berthing the floating palace in tax-haven Rhode island, claiming he is paying his taxes. Then he scuttles away – not on a bicycle or in a hybrid car – but in a chauffeured SUV.
“Can I get outa here please!”, he orders his chauffeur.
Manmade emissions of CO2 are thought to be partly absorbed by the oceans, which in turn would acidify and pose a huge threat to calcareous organisms like corals and plankton. This is the horror story that has been widely circulating in the media for the last couple of years, and with ever-growing alarmism, at a time the dangers of global warming are turning out to be wildly exaggerated.
Italian and Swiss scientists have found answers by looking at 120 million year old sediment deposits. The team directed by Elisabetti Erba of the University of Milan describes new findings in the latest issue of Science.
It is not unusual for CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere to surge after large volcanic eruptions. This has happened often in the past.
They examined microscopic fossils and nannoplankton from a time period just after large volcanic eruptions 120 million years ago, when the air’s CO2 content rose to about twice today’s level. Their studies contradicted their expectations. Die Welt writes:
Contrary to what was expected, no large-scale die-offs occurred among the organisms when acidification increased. The species simply adapted: They formed smaller shells and remained small.
They endured the changes far better than first thought.
Heinemann writes that the study also delivered yet another surprise:
Apparently, the oceans acidify with a delay. After the volcanoes erupted and the surface water pH value began to sink, it took 25,000 to 30,000 years longer for the CO2 effect to reach the sea bottom.
These new findings deal a massive blow to those hoping to exploit ocean acidification as the next disaster scenario to replace the discredited catastrophic AGW story. Expect the MSM to bury or spin the story.
Update/Note: Keep in mind that the plankton and coral studied were from 120 million years ago, meaning the species has since survived climate extremes and changes that were off the charts when compared to today’s mild natural changes. They’ve handled much colder and much warmer conditions with widely varying ocean chemistry.
Update 2: The Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany [Read here] is planning years of research on acidification, costing millions of euros, to study a bogus non-problem. They’ve teamed up with neutral Greenpeace, and so you can be sure they’ll come up with “catastrophic” findings and demand more money for reasearch. Whatever it takes to bilk the taxpayer out of money.
19 dead and up to 400 injured, many seriously.These are the latest gruesome numbers from yesterday’s Duisburg Love Parade, crowd-control disaster. It’s a classic case of what can go wrong when warnings are ignored or played down. City officials were warned that the location was seriously inadequate, but nobody wanted to be a party-pooper.
Germany’s techno-music Love Parade first started in 1989. Most have been held in Berlin, until the city got tired of the chaos and filth they left behind, and the event had lost money anyway.
Yet, everybody hates to see a good party end, and so other places were sought to host the million-plus visitor event. This year’s choice proved to be a disaster.
The catastrophe occurred at a tunnel under a street that served as the main entrance to the event. The following video vividly shows the catastrophe in motion. Especially interesting is the 0:31 mark of the clip. there you see the fully packed ramp leading down to the tunnel.
Just the shear physics of the situation alone are staggering.
If you estimate 100,000 people on that sloped ramp, each with an average weight of 70 kg, you have a total weight of 7000 tons trying to move forward. If the ramp has a slope of 3°, then sine 3° times 7000 tones yields a gravity force vector of 366 tons pressing down against the wall. Not a good place to be. Granted that’s just a real rough calculation, but it gives you an idea.
A sure sign that the old rail yard location, where the event took place, was not going to work was its relatively small size. It had an area of 2.2 million square feet, meaning that the place was going to be overly packed with just half a million people. Organisers expected 1 million, 1.4 million showed up. 1.5 sq ft per person. Experts say the area was suitable for a maximum of only 300,000.
Throw in youth, alcohol and drugs and you have all the ingredients for a crowd control disaster.
The police had warned city officials that the risks were too high and had advised against approving the event. But reports say no top city official wanted to be the party-pooper. The Love Parade got the green light.
Now, after the catastrophe, with the nation and continent in shock, officials are scrambling and the finger-pointing has begun. According to German newspaper Bild:
Duisburg mayor Adolf Sauerland defended the safety concept of the Love Parade against criticism.
In his view the reasons for the tragedy were not due to a poor safety concept, but rather very likely had more to do with individual weak points.
Tell that to the prosecuting attorneys Herr Burgermeister.
The State’s Attorney has announced that an investigation for negligent homicide will be conducted, and all city and official documents relating to permitting and organisation of the event have been confiscated by police.
The Love Parade organisation has announced today that there will not be any more Love Parades in the future.
How is it that a settled science keeps finding things never expected?
For example, the HIAPER Pole-to-Pole Observations (HIPPO) mission was launched in January 2009 and will make a series of five flights over three years covering more than 24,000 miles to sample the atmosphere in some of the most inaccessible regions of the world. Read HIPPO background here.
The goal of the mission is the first-ever, global, real-time sampling of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases across a wide range of altitudes in the atmosphere, from pole-to-pole.
Professor Mark Zondlo of Princeton University has taken measurements of water vapour in the atmosphere, from 14 km high to just above the sea ice, using a vertical cavity surface mini laser hydrometer.
Here are some of Professor Zondlo’s observations so far:
We don’t really know how clouds are formed. Water vapour impacts the climate more than any other gas.
What we are finding is surprising. Large plumes of water vapour exist in areas we never expected to find them.
Learning how this fits into the puzzle is crucial for predicting climate and making smart policy decisions.
What does that mean? It means the climate models used so far were nothing more than junk, thus the same applies for their predictions. They completely neglected the water vapour factor (and who knows what other factors).
Climate forecasting is best left to real forecasters, and not tainted modelers.
Environmental protection in Switzerland, like much of Europe, has fallen into the hands of envirozealots. European ministries of environment are increasingly becoming armies of white-gloved snoopers in search of single molecules of contaminants. And the envirowacko journalists are chiming in, of course.
In Switzerland the latest environmental catastrophe are airborne microscopic aerosols ( now joining biodiversity, ocean acidification, water consumption and climate change). It’s gotten so bad that now even environmental groups are now getting annoyed.
For example since 1988 it has been a tradition for environmental awareness group Alps Initiative to light a bonfire every August to remind people to protect the Alps from air pollution. This year, however, the event has been banned by the local environmental authorities. The reason, reports Reichmuth:
The bonfire would harm the climate and pollute the air with microscopic aerosols.
The Alps Initiative reacted:
This is making a mountain out of a molehill.
Indeed it is. But modern environmentalism has always been about making molehills into mountains, hasn’t it? Just look how life-giving CO2 has been made the culprit for the coming global Armageddon.
Reichmuth serves up more ad absurdum cases.
Another example: residents in small villages in Graubünden and in Tessin have been discovered to be suffering from microscopic aerosols emitted by homes burning wood in fireplaces in the wintertime. Yes, it’s about time to close up them romantic fireplaces in Swiss chalets.
Even street sweepers are now deemed a microscopic-aerosol producing problem. A local newspaper wrote:
When sucking up dirt, dangerous fine particles are emitted into the air by the sweeper’s air exhaust. And depending on the manufacturer, at alarming rates!
Wait, it gets worse! That beautiful flooring you have in the rooms in your home? It may be emitting fine aerosols that are dangerous to your health too. Reichmuth writes:
Anyone with wood or wood laminate floors is living dangerously. According to a German study, rooms with smooth floors produce concentrations of microscopic aerosols that are considerably higher than rooms with carpeting. Concentrations on average were even higher than Swiss daily limits. Taking into account all the victims who have died as a result of the aerosols, then we have to call manufacturers of natural wood floors and wood laminate mass murderers.
Sounds loony, but let it be a warning of what can happen if you don’t stand up and push this movement back. Although Cap & Trade is in a coma in the US, waiting to wake up after the November elections, the EPA is waiting to swoop down and run every aspect of your lives.
Calamitologist Stefan Rahmstorf once defended his alarmist sea level rise scenarios by saying:
I can’t help it. It’s simply the laws of physics.
The question is: Whose physics?
No science has rewritten the laws of physics like climate science. In climate science, it works like this:
1. Develop a model that shows heating in the future.
2. Then compare the model projections with reality. If there’s a discrepancy:
3. Don’t change the models, instead go and change the measured data so that they agree with the models.
Another way is to modify your measurement methods and systems so that they put out only data that agree with the models. This involves closing down certain weather stations and then using data from urban-heat-island stations for filling in. GISS has done that too.
You may be able to fool the public this way, but you can’t fool the ice.
Joe Bastardi reports in his latest clip Ice Ice Baby how the Arctic ice simply refuses to melt, although we are told it’s getting warmer and warmer and warmer. Indeed look at total sea ice, north and south pole, here.
There we see a sea ice anomaly of ZERO! Global sea ice is right at normal.
Indeed the ice has been recovering over the last three years – even though we are told that it is getting hotter. This can mean only one thing. When it gets warmer, you get more ice.
We can’t help it, it’s simply the laws of climate physics.
Last week I asked readers to submit their own essays: Wanted! Readers As Guest Writers. Well, I’m happy to present the first one! Ed Caryl observes that skeptics tend to have more training and real life experience in the art of forecasting than warmists do. So who should we believe? Yeah, it’s a tough question.
Chicken Little Was A Calamitologist
By Ed Caryl
Many writers have been unsatisfied with the terms used to classify the two sides of the climate debate. Warmist and skeptic seem unsatisfying for the first, and demeaning for the second. The warmist label is also a bit narrow, in that those on that side also preach ocean rise and acidification, severe storms, floods and droughts (on alternate days), and other disasters. Many of these predictions take on a “the sky is falling” tone. The warmists call themselves climatologists, but that term is a job description, not a degree. A better description would be calamitologist – one who envisions climate calamities. Let’s look at a few resumes of some famous calamitologists.
Dr. Michael Mann: received his Doctorate from Yale, the Department of Geology and Geophysics in 1998. His undergraduate degrees are in Physics and Math. Dr. Phil Jones: holds a BA degree in Environmental Sciences from the University of Lancaster, and a Masters and PhD from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. Dr. James Hansen: holds a BA degree in Physics and Mathematics, an MS in Astronomy, and a PhD in Physics, all from the University of Iowa. Early in his career he spent almost 20 years studying Venus. His calamitologist creds are based on that work. Dr. R. K. Pachauri: studied at North Carolina State University, where he obtained an MS in Industrial Engineering in 1972, a PhD in Industrial Engineering and a PhD in Economics, a native of India. Dr. Gavin Schmidt: BA (Hons) in Mathematics at Jesus College, Oxford University, PhD in Applied Mathematics at University College London.
The calamitologists, we notice, tend not to be trained and experienced in the actual science of forecasting. Just the seasonal forecast track record of the Met Office says it all.
What about the other side, the skeptics?
Many among the “skeptics” are meteorologists who, unlike most calamitologists, are formally trained in forecasting and have gathered years of experience doing so. Some examples:
Dr. Roy Spencer: B.S. in Atmospheric Sciences from the University of Michigan; M.S. and Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Joe Bastardi: BS in Meteorology from Penn State University, a practicing meteorologist with AccuWeather. Anthony Watts: practicing meteorologist, AMS Seal holder. Joe D’Aleo: Weather Channel founder, practicing meteorologist. Dr. Richard S. Lindzen: Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. A.B in Physics, S.M. in Applied Mathematics, Ph.D. in Applied Mathematics at Harvard
These are just a few of the names known in this controversy, but can you see the trend? Although the calamitologists have advanced degrees, usually in natural sciences, they lack training and experience in forecasting. That’s probably the reason why they often forecast long-shot calamity scenarios.
On the other hand, the meteorologists are real forecasters, and their success depends on the accuracy of their forecasts. Every time they make a forecast, they put their reputations on the line. Sure, some will argue, weather forecasting is not the same. But if you can’t forecast a week or two ahead, can you reliably forecast 50 or 100 years ahead? Be honest.
Indeed the more a person is trained in the science of forecasting, the more skeptical they appear to become of the AGW hypothesis and the ability for models to predict longterm climate. Real forecasters seriously doubt CAGW.
Perhaps in the future we ought to refer to the two sides as calamitologists and real forecasters.
Scientists often say that if you want to see the climate change signal, then look at the poles, especially the Arctic. How often have we seen the following red-coloured graphic, or similar, and thought: Oh my God!
Well don’t panic. Even with all the “hottest-ever-first-6 months” in 2010 belly-aching, temperatures are about to take a dive. I’m not talking about because of fall and winter are approaching, I’m talking temperature anomalies over the winter. They are projected to be far below normal.
The NOAA models predict a major cooling for the Arctic this coming winter. Indeed they show a significant cooling globally. These models have been converging on an Arctic deep freeze for a few weeks now. Already the mercury north of 80° latitude has taken a dip back down to the freezing point, see DMI chart:
Now lets look at the NOAA Arctic seasonal forecast for the period Aug/Sep/Oct 2010:
In the above chart, you can see that the Arctic above Scandinavia, Russia, Siberia has cooled to a slight negative anomaly. The Canadian Arctic is still on the warm side. But almost everything above the 80°N line is blue, meaning colder than normal.
Now take a look at the next NOAA graphic which shows the global temperature anomalies for the period Jan/Feb/Mar 2011 – the dead of winter (entire NOAA graphic series here):
Look at all the deep blue up in the Arctic indicating well below normal temperatures! Some readers may say: “Well, it’s only 1 or 2°C below normal, what’s the big deal?” It is a big deal. Today warmists are screeching about global temperature anomalies of +0.5°C. So 2.0°C in the Arctic is huge. The Pacific and the Antarctic coast are also frigid.
Keep in mind this this post was written just by looking at the leading Climatic Indicators I have listed on my homepage. Anyone can go there and take a look at the charts. The data are there, take a look at them yourself and draw your own conclusions. Do your own thinking.
How long will the cold last? That depends on the developing La Nina. Again the big climate institutes point to a good-sized La Nina.
So, to summarise, expect Arctic sea ice to get pretty low this year, and to hear lots of headlines about it, but then watch the ice recover next year. Joe Bastardi thinks it could reach near record highs. This of course depends on how reliable the NOAA seasonal forecasts are.
I know the other uptown climate sceptic blogs don’t want to get anywhere near this red-hot potato of a topic, as the details are explosive, too sketchy and the sources are to some extent dubious. Caution has to be exercised in drawing conclusions. It’s far too early for that.
But where there’s smoke, there’s fire. I committed myself to keep people posted on the story. I’m not just going to sit here and “suck it up”. My hunch tells me it’s going to boil over. I may be wrong, but two more big puffs of smoke have just billowed up.
The National Enquirer, yes, a yellow journal, has reported that two more lady masseurs have come forward, claiming Al Gore behaved very inappropriately, read NY Post report.
In the first case that came to light late June, masseur Molly Hagerty said in a 2009 police report that she felt Gore had done this many times before, meaning other women had probably endured the same. If Hagerty was just a fraud, then no other women would come forward.
Now 2 more women are reported coming forward and claiming abuse by Gore.
One incident took place at a Beverly Hills luxury hotel when Gore attended the Oscars in 2007. The second allegedly occurred a year later at a Tokyo hotel. This would confirm Hagerty’s suspicions.
I read the entire police report made by Hagerty, and it seemed to me implausible that someone would make up such an elaborate story.
And although tabloids like the National Enquirer are known for untrustworthy stories, would they go after someone like Gore without having real substance? You can screw up a story on a Hollywood diva, but wouldn’t you make damn sure you have your facts straight if you go after the former VP of the United States, Nobel Peace Prize, Oscar winner, a figure with that kind of influential muscle?
The New York Post writes:
The probe threatens to engulf Gore deeper into a sex scandal once thought unthinkable for the Nobel prize winner who built up an image as a doting husband and family man who fell in love with his wife at the high school prom and lived happily ever after.
Another reason I think the story has substance is because of what Gore has said and done in the past. AIT was carefully crafted to deceive, and so it says a lot. His words say a lot. This is not a man playing with a full deck, in my view.
After a very cold winter, a heat wave has gripped Germany. All signs point to July being the hottest month ever since records have been kept. The heat wave hit us just as surprisingly as the past extreme winter. So far there have not been any reliable instruments for predicting extremes. The Climate Service Center of the GKSS ResearchCentre in Geesthacht recommends improving forecast models.
I’ve been living in Germany since 1990, and to me this has not been a really hot summer. We’ve had some hot days, but with cool weather in between over the last 4 weeks – whoopie. It’s being hyped and milked for all it’s worth.
But that is not what surprises me. What surprises me is the claim there are no reliable instruments for predicting heat waves and cold waves. The press release states:
Currently it is not possible to make reliable seasonal forecasts for Europe, and to sort of predict extremely hot summers or heat waves. This is urgently needed in order to be able to implement the necessary adaptive measures and thus reduce the negative impacts on man and environment.
I think that’s crap. There are number of organisations that have had pretty good track records in making seasonal forecasts. So where could the notion that there are no reliable forecasts come from?
The press release amply cites the NOAA.
Voila! There’s your answer. If you rely on dubious institutions for your information, then you can only reach the “no-reliable-forecasts” conclusion. And we also know that the Met Office, with their super computers, failed miserably in their seasonal forecasts, so much so that they became a laughing stock and have since given it up.
But to say there no reliable forecasts available for Europe is false. There are. For example, how is it that Joe Bastardi of Accuweather has consistently called them right? Joe not only predicted the hot summer back in February/March (early warning enough I’d say), but also forecast the cold winter back last fall. Contact him. Maybe his data sources and models are better – less corrupt.
I called Rüdiger Braun, GKSS press spokesman, and he was kind enough to explain that the target is to simply build upon the existing system and to improve it.
Sounds reasonable. My suggestion then is that they start by separating the bad forecast models from the good ones, and to take it from there.
Finally, it’s peculiar how climate scientists insist their 20, 50 and 100-year projections are spot on, while other scientists fret about the lack of reliable 3-month forecasts.
Thanks to Tom Nelson for posting this. Thomas L. Friedman has earned a spot in my category: Lifestyles of the Rich and Alarmists. Normally I avoid riding on the coattails of other blogs, but this time I’ll make an exception.If Thomas Friedman walked around barefoot preaching his gospel like Kung Fu did, then I’d have a lot more respect for the guy. Now I have zero respect. Like most environmental hypocrites, it’s: “do as I say, and not as I do”. But hey, they’re entitled to live like kings for all the important work they do in rescuing man and the planet.
The rest of us? Well we don’t really do anything important. All we do is impact the environment, and thus we ought to be relegated back to the mud and rice fields.
It never fails. Take almost any Hollywood star or elite left-winger, and you’ll see their environmental activism is invariably proportional to their wealth, A = kW. The same equation applies for their hypocrisy: H=kW, where k > 10.
Let’s take a look at some of the eco-features of his spread.
1. The pool looks to be about 30′ x 70′, no solar heating for it.
2. The asphalt 2-lane driveway is large and wide enough for a stretch limo to easily curve around.
3. No solar panels on the roof. The place is a virtual heat sink.
4. Judging from the angle of the sun and season, the house faces southwest, yet does nothing to take advantage of that. The south-facing windows are even modest in size.
5. Lots of carbon-storing trees were cleared away.
6. I count 3 chimneys – lots of heating.
7. There’s got to be at least 8 bathrooms in the place, who knows how many heated jacuzzis.
8. Even the white car parked outside doesn’t look like a hybrid.
It certainly tops Al Gore’s mansion (the one in Tennessee). But who knows, maybe he takes the hybrid once a week.
When the temperature sinks far below normal and people freeze to death, you hardly hear a peep from the media anymore.But as soon as the temperature rises a few degrees over normal for a day or more, the media explodes with headlines of “HEAT WAVE!” and “SCORCHING HEAT!”.
Thanks to the internet and a few media outlets, few and far in between, the inconvenient news of a devastating, protracted cold snap gripping much of south America is coming out. Read news24.com/World/News.
Here are some grisly statistics:
1. 175 dead in 6 countries 2. 112 people had died of hypothermia and flu in Peru.
3. 16 people froze to death and 11 died of carbon monoxide poisoning due to faulty heaters.
4. Thousands of cattle also froze to death on their pastures in Paraguay and Brazil.
5. In Bolivia, 18 people died, in Paraguay five and two each in Chile and Uruguay. Nine people died of the cold in southern Brazil.
How cold is it? Take a look at this post I put up three days ago. return-to-1970s-cold/, showing the 7 day outlook.
You’d think when they’re not too busy covering Zsa Zsa Gabor, the media would cover this.
In Germany, it seems the major news magazines are finding space and time to report the cold – along with the reports of the warm weather we’re having here, which will end in about 36 hours.
But Germany’s ARD Teklevsion has NOTHING. Same goes for ZDF television. Hmmm.
I couldn’t find much at the major US news services either. CBS – nothing. At CNN there’s a report that’s a day old with 17 deaths. Nothing at the right wing Fox either. Maybe others are better at finding big news.
The Max Planck Institute has an interesting article (in German) here When Man Engineers Climate concerning the international legal aspects of employing technical means to engineer climate change. Personally, I think there isn’t much man could do, unless all resources were focussed in doing so. But others think it’s possible and even feasible.Scientists are developing processes to counteract the alleged negative impacts of climate change. But employing these untested processes could very well lead to unexpected results instead. Do these technical processes – should they function at all – comply with international norms?
There are several techniques that may be used to influence climate on earth, or what some call climate engineering, or geo-engineering or climate therapy. But the impacts of climate engineering would be completely unpredictable, and could cause more harm than good for a region. Who would be liable for damages? Think of the technical legal complications in proving in an international court that a negative impact was caused, or could be caused.
There are basically two general technical methods to counter global warming:
1. Reducing solar radiation by using reflective aerosols.
2. Removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
No. 2 for example, uses iron fertilisation to promote the growth of algae. The algae then absorbs CO2, which would disappear at the seabed when the algae dies off. The Alfred Wegener Institute even conducted a controversial experiment to see how well that would work: The Lohafex Experiment. The scientists dumped iron sulphate over 300 sq km in the South Pacific. But things did not go as hoped. The fertiliser did indeed promote the growth of algae, but swarms of small crabs descended and torpedoed the project with their large appetites. No extra CO2 was absorbed in the end.
No.1 can be achieved by cloud-making, which reflects sunlight back into space. This can be done through salt crystals or using sulfuric acid. Mt Pinatubo showed that this works as it spewed 10 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, which scientists say caused global temps to drop 0.5°C.
Engineering climate (doing climate-therapy) would likely lead to unpredictable consequences. According to legal researcher David Reichwein:
Nobody knows what consequences such experiments could have on the global climate and how these consequences would impact different regions in different ways.
A large-scale attempt to remove CO2 using iron sulphate to promote algae growth could have considerable negative impacts on ecological balance.
Climate therapy by using reflective aerosols could also lead to nasty side effects. For example a study based on a model conducted by Patricia Heckendorn of the Atmospheric and Climate Sciences Institute of the ETH Zurich showed that using sulfur aerosols in the stratosphere would likely lead to a considerable degradation of the ozone layer.
In Pinatubo’s aftermath, shifts in precipitation were observed. So a large-scale application by man could lead to devastating results, and thus would certainly be challenged legally.
The problem is that the impacts of climate therapy processes cannot be contained to a specific area. The threat of uncontrolled adverse impacts entail international law and human rights issues. Says Reichwein:
Geo Engineering up to now has yet to find a foothold in human rights treaties.
Employing geo-engineering processes will lead to the opening up of a whole new can of worms legally, let alone questions of technical feasibility.
In the meantime, hoards of companies, all with promises of delivering successful climate therapy, are lining up at the feeding troughs, which are filled by crooked politicians.