Biologist and polar researcher Bernard Stonehouse works out of Cambridge when he’s not giving talks on wildlife and environment on cruise ships sailing in Antarctic waters. He tells Narayani Ganesh that Antarctica is probably the most unspoiled continent on Earth, despite its growing popularity among tourists:

The evidence present in ice cores does suggest that there have been wide changes in temperatures. So while in the peninsular region there has been increase in daily temperatures, this has not been the case in the plateaus. I expect temperatures in Antarctica to be more resistant to warming effects than those of tropical regions because there is so much accumulated cold here. The Antarctic is much colder than the Arctic, for instance. So the Antarctic is not the first place to look for evidence of global warming.

[Q] What do you think of climate change naysayers? (note Bernard apparently understood alarmists)

Well, it is easy to frighten people, especially when alarmist stories are widely reported in the media. The other thing is that scientists who are desperate for research funds might find that generating fear is a good way to generate funds for further research in these areas. I would say that even if there is no definite evidence of accelerating climate change, it is beneficial to be cautious and take care of the environment. I have no evidence of the impact of climate change on species, of whether plant growth is increasing or penguins are moving to other areas.

Icecap Note: Reminds me of my 8th grade teacher

In the 60 years I’ve worked in the Antarctic, I have found that some stocks of penguin have disappeared from particular places, only to increase in numbers elsewhere. The USA’s Palmer science station found that sea ice is declining and sea ice is the nursery for krill, the creatures that the Adelie penguins and other sea animals feed on. The depletion in krill numbers in some areas might force penguins and other animals to migrate to other areas.
See more here.

Sirs, you say: “And perhaps some scientists are coming out against the idea that humankind has warmed the planet and continues to spew increasing pollutants into our atmosphere. If so, they are awful quiet about their challenge. Perhaps they should post their arguments here and let NRDC’s real climate experts take them on.”

Well, I am an Expert Peer Reviewer for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); i.e. I am one of the often touted “thousands of UN Climate Scientists”. I and thousands of others speak, publish and sign petitions in attempt to get the media to tell the truth of man made global climate change. And in response to your invitation I post that truth below.

The AGW-hypothesis asserts that increased greenhouse gases (GHGs) - notably carbon dioxide - in the atmosphere will cause the globe to warm (global warming: GW), and that anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide are increasing the carbon dioxide in the air with resulting anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW).

I think a clear distinction needs to be made between (a) the science of AGW, and (b) the perception of AGW - and the use of AGW - by non-scientists.
The present empirical evidence strongly indicates that the AGW-hypothesis is wrong; i.e.

1. There is no correlation between the anthropogenic emissions of GHGs and global temperature.

2. Change to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is observed to follow change to global temperature at all time scales.

3. Recent rise in global temperature has not been induced by rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. The global temperature fell from 1940 to 1970, rose from 1970 to 1998, and fell from 1998 to the present (i.e. mid-2008). This is 40 years of cooling and 28 years of warming, and global temperature is now similar to that of 1940. But atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased at a near-constant rate and by more than 30% since 1940.

4. Rise in global temperature has not been induced by increase to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide. More than 80% of the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide has been since 1940, and the increase to the emissions has been at a compound rate of ~0.4% p.a. throughout that time. But that time has exhibited 40 years of cooling with only 28 years of warming, and global temperature is now similar to that of 1940.

5. The pattern of atmospheric warming predicted by the AGW hypothesis is absent.The AGW hypothesis predicts most warming of the atmosphere at altitude distant from polar regions. Radiosonde measurements from weather balloons show slight cooling at altitude distant from polar regions.

The above list provides a complete refutation of the AGW-hypothesis according to the normal rules of science: i.e. Nothing the hypothesis predicts is observed in the empirical data, and the opposite of the hypothesis’ predictions is observed in the empirical data.

But politicians and advocates adhere to the hypothesis. They have a variety of motives (i.e. personal financial gain, protection of their career histories and futures, political opportunism, etc.). But support of science cannot be one such motive because science denies the hypothesis. Hence, additional scientific information cannot displace the AGW-hypothesis and cannot silence its advocates (e.g. Hansen). And those advocates are not scientists despite some of them claiming that they are. Read blog here.

Icecap Note: In numerous stories here on Icecap, we have dicussed the importance of the PDO and AMO in decadal scale climate changes. We have noted how the recent warm PDO and AMO led to the warming attributed by the opportunists at the UN, in the universities and professional societies to anthropogenic greenhouse fording. in this excellent summary submitted to a newspaper by Matt Vooro of Scotland, we see clear evidence for the PDO and AMO’s role in climate in the US, Canada and globally. It was in response to the article by Vicky Pope of the UKMO entitled “SCIENTISTS MUST REIN IN MISLEADING CLIMATE CLAIMS”. 

I totally agree that scientists should refrain from making misleading climate change claims. I think the whole issue that climate change is primarily caused by manmade greenhouse gases is misleading . Natural earth/ocean climate cycles like PDO and AMO are not even talked about by these same alarmists. IPCC climate models are strangely silent on them too. Now I wonder why? How can one trust any climate models that omit the key climate drivers.

The Pacific and Atlantic Ocean temperature oscillations as measured by the PDO and AMO indices are prime drivers of our climate. The droughts, hot spells, rainy weather and cold spell all have their origins in the temperature oscillations of these ocean climate makers that have existed for thousand of years and explain the natural variability of the global climate. The paper here well illustrates this point.

With the PDO now negative[since 2007] and AMO still positive, we are today where we were about 1945 -1950[ PDO went negative then in 1944] and heading for possible 30 years of cooler weather. Yes, there will be some warm years too, but the overall trend of the period will be cool. Yet why are the climatologists all over the world predicting unprecedented global warming, while the weather is actually cooling and has done so for many years now. Here are just a few examples of how PDO and AMO affect our climate. At least 52% of all the droughts in the US are attributable to PDO and AMO effects and not to global warming at all.

UNITED STATES
PDO and AMO both positive [like 1925-1945] and [1995 -2007]
Record warm and rising temperatures and droughts in the northern and central high plains US, California, and Southeast. The very hot spell and dust bowl of the 1930’s. Also explains the so called rapid global warming period of 1976-2007 [not caused by CO2 at all].

PDO negative, AMO positive [like 1945-1965] and [near term future for us now]
Cold temperatures in the northwest, Canada. Droughts in southwest. Pattern is like the 1950 drought with major issues in the Midwest, southwest, California, Rocky Mountain area. A repeat of this period may have already started in 2007

PDO and AMO both negative [like 1965 -1975] and again [1915-1925]
Record Cold temperatures. Lot of snow and precipitation.Very few droughts, restricted to central plains. This could be the pattern in a few years and the latter part of the next 30 years.

PDO positive, AMO negative [like 1895-1925 and again [1975-1995]
Warming. Restricted drought to Pacific NW and Northeast

Icecap Note: this is the PDO+AMO versus US annual temperature graph. See a larger image here.

Here is how AMO and PDO seem to affect the rest of the world:

CANADA
AMO seems to affect the east coast more. Ten of the coldest temperatures for the Atlantic Canada between 1948 -2008 happened when the AMO was negative. PDO affects the rest of CANADA more but especially the west coast. Nine of the 10 coldest years between 1948-2008 happened when PDO was negative [like now]. The average for all of Canada is 8 of the coldest 10 years between 1948 and 2008 were when the PDO was negative and 8 of the warmest were when the PDO was positive. So the PDO is one of the main weather makers for Canada as a whole except for perhaps Quebec and the Maritimes.

GLOBAL
Global record temperatures were set during 2005 and the 1997/1998 periods when both the AMO and PDO were positive and at record levels: In 2005, PDO peaked at 1.86 AMO peaked at 0.503 [13th highest] and in 1997/1998, the PDO peaked at 2.82 and AMO was 0.562 [6th highest ever].  The 2003 hot spell in Europe which was perhaps wrongly blamed on CO2 global warming can now be explained by one of the top dozen positive AMOs at 0.504. See this paper. Here is what the authors of the paper concluded:

Overall, our results provide strong evidence that during the 20th century the AMO had an important role in modulating boreal summer climate on multidecadal time scales. We have focused here on time mean anomalies, but some of the most important impacts are likely to be associated with changes in the frequency of extreme events. There is evidence that the frequency of U.S. droughts and the frequency of European heat waves are both sensitive to Atlantic SSTs.

The so called unprecedented global warming from 1976 -2007 can be explained by the extra warming resulting from the simultaneous occurrence of positive PDO and positive AMO during the last 30 year period especially 1995 -2007. A similar period occurred during about 1915-1945 and especially 1925 -1944 when almost an identical warming took place. CO2 seems to have very little to do with these naturally occurring climate cycles as they were happening well before manmade CO2 began to rise.

Yet strangely PDO and AMO are not even covered in the IPCC climate models. Now I wonder why? Could it explain why their predictions to date are so far off and so soon after only 1-2 years after the release of their last report? See Matt’s PDF here.

Just about every major outlet has jumped on the news: Antarctica is warming up. Most previous science had indicated that, despite a warming of global temperatures, readings from Antarctica were either staying the same or even going down.

The problem with Antarctic temperature measurement is that all but three longstanding weather stations are on or very near the coast. Antarctica is a big place, about one-and-a-half times the size of the US. Imagine trying to infer our national temperature only with stations along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, plus three others in the interior.

Eric Steig, from University of Washington, filled in the huge blanks by correlating satellite-measured temperatures with the largely coastal Antarctic network and then creating inland temperatures based upon the relationship between the satellite and the sparse observations. The result was a slight warming trend, but mainly at the beginning of the record in the 1950s and 1960s. One would expect greenhouse effect warming from carbon dioxide to be more pronounced in recent years, which it is not. There’s actually very little that is new here. Antarctic temperatures do show a warming trend if you begin your study between 1957, when the International Geophysical Year deployed the first network of thermometers there, and the mid-1960s. Studies that start after then find either cooling or no change.

The reaction to this study by Steig and his co-authors is more enlightening than its results. When Antarctica was cooling, some climate scientists said that was consistent with computer models for global warming. When a new study, such as Steig’s, says it’s warming, well that’s just fine with the models, too. That’s right: people glibly relate both warming and cooling of the frigid continent to human-induced climate change. Perhaps the most prominent place to see how climatologists mix their science with their opinions is a blog called RealClimate.org, primarily run by Gavin Schmidt, one of the computer jockeys for Nasa’s James Hansen, the world’s loudest climate alarmist.

When studies were published showing a net cooling in recent decades, RealClimate had no problem. A 12 February 2008 post noted: “We often hear people remarking that parts of Antarctica are getting colder, and indeed the ice pack in the southern ocean around Antarctica has actually been getting bigger. Doesn’t this contradict the calculations that greenhouse gases are warming the globe? Not at all, because a cold Antarctica is just what calculations predict and have predicted for the past quarter century.” A co-author of Steig’s paper (and frequent blogger on RealClimate), Penn State’s Michael Mann, turned a 180 on Antarctic cooling. He told Associated Press: “Now we can say: No, it’s not true. [Antarctica] is not bucking the trend.” So, Antarctic cooling and warming are both now consistent with computer models of dreaded global warming caused by humans.

In reality, the warming is largely at the beginning of the record – before there should have been much human-induced climate change. New claims that both warming and cooling of the same place are consistent with forecasts isn’t going to help the credibility of climate science, and, or reduce the fatigue of Americans regarding global warming. Have climate alarmists beaten global warming to death? The Pew Res earch Centre recently asked over 1,500 people to rank 20 issues in order of priority. Global warming came in dead last. We can never run the experiment to see if indeed it is the constant hyping of this issue that has sent it to the bottom of the priority ladder. But, as long as scientists blog on that both warming and cooling of the coldest place on earth is consistent with their computer models, why should anyone believe them? See full story here.

Abstract:
Policymakers need to know whether prediction is possible and if so whether any proposed forecasting method will provide forecasts that are substantively more accurate than those from the relevant benchmark method. Inspection of global temperature data suggests that it is subject to irregular cycles on all relevant time scales and that variations during the late1900s were not unusual. In such a situation, a “no change” extrapolation is an appropriate benchmark forecasting method.

We used the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre’s annual average thermometer data from 1850 through 2007 to examine the performance of the benchmark method. The accuracy of forecasts from the benchmark is such that even perfect forecasts would be unlikely to help policymakers. For example, mean absolute errors for 20- and 50-year horizons were 0.18C and 0.24C.

We nevertheless demonstrate the use of benchmarking with the example of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 1992 linear projection of long-term warming at a rate of 0.03C-per-year. The small sample of errors from ex ante projections at 0.03C-per-year for 1992 through 2008 was practically indistinguishable from the benchmark errors. Validation for long-term forecasting, however, requires a much longer horizon. Again using the IPCC warming rate for our demonstration, we projected the rate successively over a period analogous to that envisaged in their scenario of exponential CO2 growth - the years 1851 to 1975. The errors from the projections were more than seven times greater than the errors from the benchmark method.  Relative errors were larger for longer forecast horizons. Our validation exercise illustrates the importance of determining whether it is possible to obtain forecasts that are more useful than those from a simple benchmark before making expensive policy decisions.

Conclusions:
Global mean temperatures were found to be remarkably stable over policy-relevant horizons. The benchmark forecast is that the global mean temperature for each year for the rest of this century will be within 0.5C of the 2008 figure. There is little room for improving the accuracy of forecasts from our benchmark model. In fact, it is questionable whether practical benefits could be gained by obtaining perfect forecasts. While the Hadley temperature data shown in Exhibit 2 shows an upwards drift over the last century or so, the longer series in Exhibit 1 shows that such trends can occur naturally over long periods before reversing.

Moreover there is some concern that the upward trend observed over the last century and half might be at least in part an artifact of measurement errors rather than a genuine global warming (McKitrick and Michaels 2007). Even if one puts these reservations aside, our analysis shows that errors from the benchmark forecasts would have been so small that they would not have been of concern to decision makers who relied on them. Read full paper here.

See evidence that the warming in the global data bases is biased as the authors state here.