The media and NOAA have been obsessed with the arctic minimum for the satelite era set with the help of the continuing warm Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and a major arctic storm that compressed broken ice.
The ice is recovering on schedule as winter approaches. Meanwhile the Antarctic set a new record high for sea ice extent. Don’t expect to see this in the major mainstream media.
Every year, sea ice forms and melts in the Arctic. The summer melt covers a wide area, and the minimum area occurs sometime during September. From now on, freezing takes place increasingly rapidly as the days shorten and temperatures drop. Looked at over extended periods, there will be trends towards more or less summer melting. So it has always been, and so it always will be. But since 1979 the extent of Arctic ice has been measured and recorded and the current trend is for greater melting. Indeed, by most reckoning, this year has seen a record low for sea ice extent. The question is, how worried should we be?
There is, of course, no simple answer. Believers in the likelihood of dangerous global warming in decades to come say we should be very worried and predict that the Arctic will be ice-free in summer before long. But there are others who see this as part of a longer-term cycle, about which we can do little and which will have at worst only modest consequences. Indeed, some point out that the Earth is overdue for a return to an Ice Age, which would have an enormous negative impact on our species as well as many others.
Greater loss of ice in summer is also not simply caused by higher average temperatures as a direct effect of higher carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. For a start, there has been no increase in average temperature this century, despite ever-rising CO2 levels. Although the Arctic appears to be warming faster than average, as the enhanced greenhouse hypothesis predicts, other expected effects are not apparent. In particular, the projected warming of the upper troposphere in the tropics has not really materialised, and the Antarctic ice cap has largely continued to grow.
Another factor which has often been cited is black carbon (soot) deposited on the ice, leading to greater absorption of solar radiation and more melting. Some scientists have suggested that this accounts for a large part of the observed melting and overall warming. But weather patterns also have their part to play. Changes in wind direction and the strength or temperature of ocean currents can make a large difference.
The consequences of loss of summer ice are not clear cut, either. Because all Arctic ice is sea ice, its loss makes no difference to sea level, unlike melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps, which are on land. But shrinking Arctic ice cover also affects the Earth’s albedo, allowing more heat to be absorbed and contributing to further warming (in the summer only, with ice inevitably reforming during the long polar winter).
Whatever the impacts, what is still not clear is the extent to which this melting is unprecedented. We should remember that satellite measurement only started in 1979, just 33 years ago. Before that, we only have memory, diaries and records of other local observations. It is undeniable that the summer melt is greater than seen by most people in their lifetimes, but there is no direct measurement of the situation much before that.
To set this in context, what we do know is that the world has seen an irregular rise in temperature since the late 19th Century, as it emerged from what is known as the Little Ice Age. It is highly likely that Arctic summer ice was more extensive at this time, but we also know that considerable warming occurred during the early part of the 20th Century, with the 1930s being a particularly warm decade, followed by a gradual drop in temperature until the most recent warming trend started in the mid-1970s. Satellite observation now makes it possible to plot the extent of ice quite accurately, but before that no-one knew for sure.
Going further back, the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods are well documented. It was during the MWP that Vikings established viable colonies on the coast of Greenland and reached the east coast of North America. The prevailing view is that their settlements were abandoned or wiped out when the warm period ended and the downward trend of temperatures began, leading to the Little Ice Age. It seems almost certain that Arctic sea ice would have melted to a greater extent than normal during the warmer times, but we simply can’t quantify this.
What we also don’t know is what drove the climatic variation between these warmer and cooler periods. It was clearly neither large scale use of fossil fuels nor changes in agricultural practice. Solar cycles almost certainly played some role, with observers having recorded the correlation between weather patterns and sunspots over many years.
Whatever the causes, the same drivers are most certainly still at work today, making it virtually impossible to quantify the contribution of increased CO2 with any confidence. We know that, all else being equal, higher levels in the atmosphere should lead to higher average temperatures, but the whole highly polarised and largely unconstructive debate is about the extent of this change. Is there simply the modest impact calculated by spectroscopists or is there a positive feedback as the warmer air carries more water vapour?
We may not know the answer, but for more than a decade the warming effect of carbon dioxide has been cancelled out by other factors, possibly including the negative feedback of increased cloud formation (itself perhaps boosted by greater penetration of cosmic rays into the atmosphere in times of low solar activity, according to the Svensmark hypothesis). Arctic sea ice is melting (and the Antarctic ice cap growing) over a period when there is no trend in average temperatures.
If the ice-free Arctic summers come to pass soon, as some are predicting, the fact is that we will have to live with them, because there really is nothing we can reliably do in the short to medium term to alter the trend, particularly as climate is still so poorly understood. For all practical purposes, adaptation rather than mitigation must be the primary focus of policy.
From NOAA’s Storm Prediction Center (SPC) Facebook page, a silver lining to the heat wave/drought of 2012:
Check out these 2012 numbers from NOAA SPC, showing only 757 confirmed tornadoes as of September 21. That compares to an annual average of 1,300 tornadoes, and 1,692 that touched down last year as of late September.
SPC writes:
:After a busy start, tornado events in the U.S. in 2012 have dropped well below the expected normal. The preliminary total of 757 tornadoes is about 400 tornadoes below what might be expected in a typical year. This chart shows that in late 2011, the annual running total was over 400 tornadoes above normal. This depicts the dramatic variability that can occur in tornado numbers from one year to the next.”
I’d call this an “inconvenient truth” when compared to Al Gore’s latest pay for play bloviation:
Al Gore hopes to show links between climate change and the effects of extreme weather worldwide with an online and social media-fueled event built around the idea of “dirty weather.”
Gore’s advocacy group, the Climate Reality Project, announced Sunday that its second multimedia “24 Hours of Reality” event will occur Nov. 14-15 and bear the title “The Dirty Weather Report.”
Gore still hasn’t fessed up to the “24 hours of reality” lie he foisted on the public last year with his Climate101 video where he faked the results of a CO2 experiment in post production because it couldn’t possibly ever work on its own.
I located all the exact same props and replicated his experiment, and proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the end result of that experiment presented to the viewer was faked.
1. Extreme events, like the recent U.S. drought, will continue to occur, with or without human causation. These recent U.S. “extremes” were exceeded in previous decades.
2. The average warming rate of 38 CMIP5 IPCC models is greater than observations, suggesting models over-react to CO2. Policy based on observations will likely be far more effective than if based on speculative models, no matter what the future climate does. Regarding Arctic sea ice loss, the average model response to CO2 engenders little confidence because the models’ output fails when applied to Antarctic sea ice conditions.
3. New discoveries explain part of the warming found in popular surface temperature datasets which is unrelated to the accumulation of heat due to the extra greenhouse gases, but related to human development around the stations. This means popular surface datasets are limited as proxies for greenhouse warming.
4. Widely publicized consensus reports by “thousands” of scientists rarely represent the range of scientific opinion that attends our murky field of climate research. Funding resources are recommended for “Red Teams” of credentialed investigators, who study low climate sensitivity and the role of natural variability. Policymakers need to be aware of the full range of scientific views, especially when it appears that one-sided-science is the basis for policies which, for example, lead to increased energy costs for citizens.
5. Atmospheric CO2 is food for plants which means it is food for people and animals. More CO2 generally means more food for all. Today, affordable carbon-based energy is a key component for lifting people out of crippling poverty. So, rising CO2 emissions are one indication of poverty-reduction which gives hope for those now living in a marginal existence without basic needs brought by electrification, transportation and industry. Additionally, modern, carbon-based energy reduces the need for deforestation and alleviates other environmental problems such as water and deadly indoor-air pollution. Until affordable and reliable energy is developed from non-carbon sources, the world will continue to use carbon as the main energy source.
The Senate has words on the Administration’s War on Coal here.
Inhofe Applauds House Passage of “Stop the War on Coal Act”
Washington, D.C. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, welcomed the passage today in the House of Representatives of the “Stop the War on Coal Act.” The bill was approved by a bipartisan vote of 233 - 175.
“I applaud the bipartisan House passage of the “Stop the War on Coal Act,"” Senator Inhofe said. “Over the past four years we have witnessed an unrelenting attack by the Obama administration on American energy production one that has resulted in lost jobs, higher energy prices, and lessened energy security.
“Today’s decisive achievement in the House stands in stark contrast to the stalling and inaction of the Senate. Many of my Senate colleagues have talked at length about unleashing American energy production and reining in the Obama-EPA, but when the opportunity arises to do so they hide behind cover votes. As these Senators head home to hit the campaign trail, their record is clear and excuses only go so far: thanks to many of them, the far-left polices of the Obama-EPA remain unchecked and will go forward harming American families with higher energy prices and lost jobs."”
NOAA and their useful idiots have been filling the airwaves with claims that 2012 is the hottest year in US history. They accomplish this by massive cheating. The raw maximum temperature data shows that 2012 (so far) has been the seventh warmest year - with 1934, 1921 and 1925 being the three hottest years
The Galileo Movement is disappointed that the fabricated smear originating from the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) that The Galileo Movement is anti-Semitic is still being reported as fact. To prevent this ridiculous, vile claim being spread further, we’d like to highlight a few facts and expose the techniques and the dishonest tactics used by people too lazy to do real research, who wish to silence us by calling us anti-Semitic.
Firstly, the claims are preposterous. Both Directors of the Galileo Movement have a strong Jewish heritage, including John’s wife who is a Holocaust survivor and Case’s mother, most of whose family were murdered for being Jewish.
Secondly, the Galileo Movement has never spoken or published anything that is anti-Semitic. The non-profit group of unpaid volunteers have a single, publicly stated purpose - to remove the unnecessary and damaging ‘Carbon Dioxide Tax’, its derivatives and the means by which such negative, economic and socially destructive legislation may be reintroduced.
The Galileo Movement promotes science and the scientific method. Yet in order to distract people from these inconvenient facts which they obviously have no answer to, some people attack the messenger, rather than discuss the science. The method of censor through denigration is further discussed here.
The process of trying to discredit us began with Sydney Morning Herald reporter Ben Cubby, who contacted us to ask our opinion of the Muller et al (alarmist) and Watts et al (sceptic) papers which were released the day before. The recording of the interview with our Project Leader Malcolm Roberts, presents a clear and precise scientific explanation of the problems with Muller’s paper. Additionally, he spoke at length outlining the motives of those supporting AGW including, academics feeding off taxpayer grants, politicians seeking political benefit and bankers harvesting carbon credits. Of the 48 minute interview, Cubby strangely chose to virtually ignore almost all of the science and facts (plus mention of the Watts et al paper) and instead chose to highlight the banking industries comment.
The smear was created when Mike Carlton, also from the SMH, with no proof or without contacting us, linked a discussion on banks making profits from Carbon Trading to “In Rightspeak, understand, that’s code for the Great Jewish Conspiracy”. Afterwards, others began repeating this fabricated connection as if it were a proven, undoubtedly hoping to stop others listening to our science based critique.
Malcolm Roberts, our Project Leader, used the term ‘banking families’ during the interview to describe the major banking institutions that plan to profit from the trading and financing of CO2 abatement.
Neither Malcolm, nor ourselves, were aware that using the term ‘family’, when referring to banks, could in any context be anti-Semitic. We submit that any reasonable person would take the meaning at face value. Finding non-existent meanings and hidden codes are the tricks our opponents use. They revert to these tired and transparent techniques to desperately avoid discussing the science.
How could Mike Carlton’s ill-informed opinion find its way into a mainstream Australian newspaper? Why did a reporter like Ben Cubby ignore basic science? Is it bias or groupthink?
We have a few ideas for the Sydney Morning Herald that they might to report on. It’s readers will find these both interesting and also puzzling as to why they have not heard such facts previously. Let’s start with:
- Why not request your reporters to ask scientists to provide empirical evidence that an increase in human CO2 production caused the slight increase in atmospheric temperature, a warming trend that ended in 1998 and explain why global temperatures have not risen since despite increasing human CO2 production?
- Why not also ask scientists to explain why computer models supposedly simulating Earth’s future temperature to warm with projected increased CO2 concentrations, can’t explain why the atmospheric temperature has not warmed since 1998?
- Could you ask your reporters to explain how spending $257 billion on renewable energy to produce only 3% of the world electricity is economically sustainable when only $302 billion was spent on fossil fuels and nuclear energy to produce the remaining 97%?
- Is the SMH aware that the August, 2010 report by the world’s peak scientific academic body, the Inter Academy Council revealed fundamentally that none of the UN IPCC’s 800 statements of certainty could be trusted? Is the SMH aware that CSIRO lacks empirical scientific evidence for the claim that human CO2 caused global warming and climate change and that CSIRO’s core climate claims contradict empirical scientific evidence. Why has the SMH failed to hold both these bodies accountable for their unfounded, unscientific and false claims about human CO2?
The Galileo Movement will continue to hold to account those in science, economics and politics who continue to promote unscientific, dishonest and unfounded claims of man-made global warming. We will continue to stand by fellow sceptics who find themselves being falsely smeared by their opponents.
