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.

It’s official - Edinburgh is in the midst of one of the coldest Februarys on record, and the icy conditions are set to stay with us for up to a month. Weather experts say that with temperatures as low as -7C, and daily averages fluctuating between 2C and -3C, the city is in line to record its first sub-zero average February in more than a decade.

Yet while forecasters predict the mercury will struggle to climb above freezing for weeks to come, it is nowhere near Edinburgh’s worst winter. Records show that back in 1947, the average temperature for the area over February was a frosty -3C.  The closest the Capital has come to a February that severe since then was back in 1986, when the temperatures dropped to an average -1.9C for the month.In recent years the trend has been for milder winters, making the current cold snap all the more unexpected.

Edinburgh was again covered with a blanket of snow yesterday, with forecasters predicting the wintry weather and snow showers would continue for the rest of the month.

A spokesman for the Met Office said: “Certainly in recent years we have seen the average temperature of January and February rise, so we are getting used to milder months at the start of the year. ‘As a result, there has been almost no lying snow around this time of year, which is why this is a bit unusual, and more of a shock. “The last two years have been especially mild. There is no sign of the cold weather front moving on anywhere for at least a few weeks, so it looks like the low temperatures could continue, which means the average temperature could be even lower.”

As the UK is gripped by one of the coldest months in recent memory, on the other side of the world Australia is recording temperatures of up to 46C, something which has not been seen there in almost a century. (which means it was very warm a century ago) In addition, the more tropical parts of the continent are suffering major floods as a result of relentless downpours.

This kind of extreme weather, with colder winters and hotter summers seen around the world, is, the Met Office says, in line with some climate change predictions the met office spokesman said reading off cue cards.

Dr Chris Merchant, a senior lecturer in meteorology at the University of Edinburgh, said that while recent cold weather in the UK may seem severe, it was not , on the far broader scale of the world climate, an extreme. “We are not having ‘extreme’ weather here in the UK, although it would be fair to say that it is a little unusual, as the winters in Scotland have been getting steadily milder over the past three decades,” he said. “There are so many different factors that can affect the weather though. For example, a lot can depend on the ocean being colder or warmer than usual in different places. Goode for you Dr. Merchant! “The weather over a month really is just weather though - climate is something that is measured over a 30-year period - so we can’t read too much into this.” See story here.

See also here how the cold and snow has killed off most of the early flowers typical of the climate of southwest Britain.

Report: Climate change to wallop state

Washington’s energy system is in for a double whammy from global warming, as rising demand for power-sucking air conditioners couples with a significant loss of summertime production from the region’s hydroelectric dams, according to a new University of Washington study.

The network of dams along Northwest rivers is a linchpin of the region’s economy, providing relatively cheap, abundant power that, as a bonus, doesn’t emit the greenhouse gases blamed for climate change. But that system is in for a shock as rising temperatures in the 21st century diminish winter snowpacks that provide water to turn power turbines in summer.

Summer production from the Columbia River hydropower system could drop by 16 percent by the 2040s, according to the new report by the UW’s Climate Impacts Group. Over the same time, demand to run air conditioners could increase in Washington, driven by rising temperatures and population growth, according to the report. “The losses of capacity are likely to cause a lot of problems,” said UW hydrologist Alan Hamlet, who wrote the sections of the report about energy. “It could even be made worse by the summertime increases in load.”

Those are just some of the potential problems ahead for the state, according to the report, which represents the most detailed attempt yet to forecast what climate change means for Washington. The report was funded by the Legislature in 2007.

Past climate reports have predicted some of the same impacts to the state, but none has been as comprehensive, said UW researcher and Washington State Climatologist Phil Mote, who worked on the study.

The analysis was based primarily on computer models used to forecast how the globe’s climate is likely to change in the future as greenhouse gases trap heat close to the Earth’s surface. These models predict a 3.5-degree Fahrenheit rise in average annual temperatures by the 2040s and 5.9 degrees by the 2080s, compared with average temperatures from 1970 to 1999.

The report comes as Gov. Chris Gregoire lobbies the Legislature to create new regulations forcing Washington industries to cut greenhouse-gas emissions.
The proposal has met with strong opposition from business groups and some lawmakers, who warn it could hurt industries struggling in the recession. Read more here.

The Governor, the Seattle Times and Phil Mote are all endangering their state and their already uncertain future. See how Mote was caught cherry picking the data here. See the real story that the changes are caused by the natural PDO and have nothing at all to do with greenhouse gases here. See how this cold PDO and its snow and cold has caught the state unprepared here.

We can only hope for the sake of the good people of Washington State that the Governor and the state climatologist get replaced and the plan discarded soon. The Seattle Times continued decline will take of that other problem before long. 

The political consensus surrounding climate policy is collapsing. If you are not aware of this fact you will be very soon. The collapse is not due to the cold winter in places you may live or see on the news. It is not due to years without an increase in global temperature. It is not due to the overturning of the scientific consensus on the role of human activity in the global climate system.

It is due to the fact that policy makers and their political advisors (some trained as scientists) can no longer avoid the reality that targets for stabilization such as 450 ppm (or even less realistic targets) are simply not achievable with the approach to climate change that has been at the focus of policy for over a decade. Policies that are obviously fictional and fantasy are frequently subject to a rapid collapse.

The current shrillness that has been observed by many politically-active climate scientists and the feeding-frenzy among their skeptical political opposition can be explained as a result of this looming collapse, though many will confuse the shrillness and feeding-frenzy as a cause of the collapse. Let me explain.
If you think that the current consensus on climate politics rests on a foundation called the scientific consensus, you might see signs of weakening in the political consensus as prima facie evidence that the scientific consensus must be itself weakening, or if you’d prefer, that people are making it look to be weakening, regardless of the reality. Thus, like the apocryphal Hans Brinker (pictured above), the politically active climate scientists are actively trying to plug holes in the dike, as the skeptics try to poke more holes. The climate scientists (and their willing allies) have taken their battle to the arenas of politics, waging a scorched earth campaign of bullying, name calling, threats, and obnoxiously absurd appeals to authority. The skeptics participate in similar fashion, and the result is an all out brawl that we see escalating still before our eyes. The skeptics think they are unraveling a mythical scientific consensus imposed by an evil elite, while the climate scientists think they are waging an all out battle of righteousness against know-nothing hordes. They are both wrong.

Climate politics is collapsing because of political realities, and not real or perceived changes in how people see the science. As I have often argued, in the ongoing battle between climate scientists and skeptics there will be disproportionate carnage, because the climate scientists have so much more to lose, and not just as individuals, but also for the broader field, which includes many people simply on the sidelines.

The collapse of the political consensus surrounding climate could well be an opportunity to recast decarbonization of the global economy and adaptation to climate impacts in a manner that is much more consistent with progress toward policy goals. If climate science can be saved from itself, that would be a bonus. However, for climate science I fully expect things to get worse before they get better, simply because the most vocal, politically active climate scientists have shown no skill at operating in the political arena. The skeptics could not wish for a more convenient set of opponents. Read more here.