[Daniel1960]

hrothgar, on 2013-July-22, 14:14, said:

Maybe the authors assumed that the audience had a basic familiarity with the topic and didn't need to provide the standard boilerplate?

The small sample of both temperature and model predictions for Antarctica are insufficient to make broad statements regarding any climatic changes there. Using the Antarctica peninsula as an example of Antarctic temperature changes is akin to using Florida as a proxy for the entire United States. The slight cooling trend and ice expansion for the continent as a whole is not scientifically significant (due to lack of data and small magnitude). The previous post about melting of the entire Antarctic ice sheet fails to account for this and the extremely cold temperatures that persist. At an average temperature of about -50C, it would take considerable warming to melt a significant portion of the ice. By that time, we would have experienced much worse in the way of climate change than the rising sea level.

[hrothgar]

Daniel1960, on 2013-July-23, 05:30, said:

The small sample of both temperature and model predictions for Antarctica are insufficient to make broad statements regarding any climatic changes there.

So, its inappropriate to make comments like "Funny how most readings show a decreasing temperature in Antarctica over the past 30 or 50 years" without providing additional context?

[Daniel1960]

hrothgar, on 2013-July-23, 05:42, said:

So, its inappropriate to make comments like "Funny how most readings show a decreasing temperature in Antarctica over the past 30 or 50 years" without providing additional context?

Not really. Especially considering how your post agrees with my statement. If want additional context, I can provide it.

[Al_U_Card]

An interesting take on the current state of affairs in Britain concerning controversy and consensus...

BBC and the policy wonks

Andrew Neil’s interview with Ed Davey on the Sunday Politics show last week caused an eruption of comment. For sceptics, it was a refreshing change of scenery: a journalist at the BBC, a stronghold of environmental orthodoxy, challenging the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, an office which is rarely held to account. But perhaps because of this, it upset many of a greener hue.

[Al_U_Card]

And from the Antipodes...

The Zeitgiest is shifting. The unthinkable is now thought, and in public.

Politicians go cold as global warming debate loses spark
From: The Times July 23, 2013 12:00AM, Reprinted in The Australian

Soon will come the time when everyone says “I always knew it was wrong”.

Tim Montgomerie notes the great backdown of Kevin Rudd on the carbon tax and lays out the global carnage in the climate meme:

Throughout the world green politicians are presiding over similar climbdowns. From Washington to London, shale gas rather than any renewable technology is seen as the future. Even nations such as Germany and Spain, which led the march to green energy, are slashing unaffordable subsidies to the renewables industry. British Conservative Nigel Lawson has claimed that the average share price of companies in the renewable sector has fallen by 80 per cent over five years. “One renewable company after another is going bankrupt,” he declared. The heavy cost of green energy policies might have been justifiable if they had delivered results, but they haven’t. Since the Kyoto treaty on climate change, global emissions have continued to rise. Since 1990 they have increased by about 50 per cent. China’s increase in emissions has been 25 times greater than the reduction by the EU’s core nations. In so far as Europe has actually met its environmental obligations, it has only done so by exporting industrial capacity (and jobs). Once the environmental impact of imported goods has been added to its carbon footprint, Europe has clearly failed to keep its environmental promises.

One commentator, Bjorn Lomborg, spelt out the futility of Europe’s unilateral environmentalism. Germany’s efforts to combat climate change might, he calculated, just possibly delay a rise in global temperatures by 37 hours, but that delay will have cost German taxpayers and consumers more than $US100 billion in the form of renewable subsidies and higher electricity costs. That’s about $US3bn an hour.

[Daniel1960]

The following graph shows the average temperature in Antarctica during both the summer and winter as created by William Connolley at EGMWF.

http://commons.wikim...temperature.png

The following graphic showing temperatures changes across Anarctica during the period of greatest global warming:

http://www.unis.no/3...ge1960-1998.gif

The largest warming occurred in the 1960s, while the largest cooling occurred in the 1990s. The following shows UCAR data for Antarctica over the past 50 years:

http://www.ucar.edu/...temp_trends.jpg

[PassedOut]

From BBC: Arctic methane 'time bomb' could have huge economic costs

Quote

The authors say a release of methane on this scale could bring forward the date when global temperatures increase by 2C by between 15 and 35 years.

"We are looking at a big effect," said Prof Peter Wadhams from the University of Cambridge, "a possibly catastrophic effect on global climate that's a consequence of this extremely fast sea ice retreat that's been happening in recent years."

Although methane remains in the atmosphere for a relatively short period, its temporary warming effect is considerable.

[Al_U_Card]

PassedOut, on 2013-July-24, 16:13, said:

From BBC: Arctic methane 'time bomb' could have huge economic costs


Although methane remains in the atmosphere for a relatively short period, its temporary warming effect is considerable.

I wonder what the climate scientists at RealClimate might have to say about this? Oh.... Gavin, you tweeted what?

Wadhams' statements on summer ice disappearance: http://www.guardian....omy-catastrophe … based on extrapolation: http://www.realclima...-extrapolation/ … Consensus imaginary.

[Al_U_Card]

And more from the mainstream concerning the "nonsensus"

Dr. Tol says...

among other things...

Update on data (22 July): John Cook has now been asked (once, around July 7) by the director of the Global Change Institute, University of Queensland, and (three times, first around June 20) by the editor of Environmental Research Letters to release all of his data. I asked him 5 times now (first on May 31). Cook has released only a little bit more data: The author ratings. The actual data confirm what is in the paper: Paper ratings and abstract ratings strongly disagree with each other.

Not to mention the various and nefarious "approaches" to promoting their study's conclusions BEFORE they did the "research"

Dana:
Another co-author, Dana Nuccitelli of Skeptical Science, said she (sic) was encouraging scientists to stress the consensus "at every opportunity, particularly in media interviews".

Cook:
"There is a strong scientific agreement about the cause of climate change, despite public perceptions to the contrary," said John Cook of the University of Queensland in Australia, who led the study in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

"There is a gaping chasm between the actual consensus and the public perception," he said in a statement. "When people understand that scientists agree on global warming, they're more likely to support policies that take action on it."

As well as Dr. Mike Hulme:

The prominent climatologist Mike Hulme has slammed the Cook et al 97% "nonsensus" paper in a comment at the Nottingham University Making Science Public blog.

The “97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it. It offers a similar depiction of the world into categories of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to that adopted in Anderegg et al.’s 2010 equally poor study in PNAS: dividing publishing climate scientists into ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’. It seems to me that these people are still living (or wishing to live) in the pre-2009 world of climate change discourse. Haven’t they noticed that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on?

[PassedOut]

Sea Level Rise ‘Locking In’ Quickly, Cities Threatened by Ben Strauss

Quote

We have two sea levels: the sea level of today, and the far higher sea level that is already being locked in for some distant tomorrow.

In a new paper published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), I analyze the growth of the locked-in amount of sea level rise and other implications of Levermann and colleagues’ work. This article and its interactive map are based on this new PNAS paper, and they include extended results.

To begin with, it appears that the amount of carbon pollution to date has already locked in more than 4 feet of sea level rise past today’s levels. That is enough, at high tide, to submerge more than half of today’s population in 316 coastal cities and towns (home to 3.6 million) in the lower 48 states.

By the end of this century, if global climate emissions continue to increase, that may lock in 23 feet of sea level rise, and threaten 1,429 municipalities that would be mostly submerged at high tide. Those cities have a total population of 18 million. But under a very low emissions scenario, our sea level rise commitment might be limited to about 7.5 feet, which would threaten 555 coastal municipalities: some 900 fewer communities than in the higher-emissions scenario.

It's probably time to put your Hilton Head and Tybee Island properties on the market...

[Al_U_Card]

PassedOut, on 2013-August-01, 08:21, said:

Sea Level Rise ‘Locking In’ Quickly, Cities Threatened by Ben Strauss


It's probably time to put your Hilton Head and Tybee Island properties on the market...

Yes, I hear that Al Gore has a hankering for more shoreline purchases....

In the meantime, better haul-ass because it looks like [CO2] reduction may not be of any help...

Polynomial cointegration tests of anthropogenic impact on global warming

M. Beenstock1, Y. Reingewertz1, and N. Paldor2
1Department of Economics, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus Campus, Jerusalem, Israel
2Fredy and Nadine Institute of Earth Sciences, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Edmond J. Safra campus, Givat Ram, Jerusalem, Israel

Abstract. We use statistical methods for nonstationary time series to test the anthropogenic interpretation of global warming (AGW), according to which an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations raised global temperature in the 20th century. Specifically, the methodology of polynomial cointegration is used to test AGW since during the observation period (1880–2007) global temperature and solar irradiance are stationary in 1st differences whereas greenhouse gases and aerosol forcings are stationary in 2nd differences. We show that although these anthropogenic forcings share a common stochastic trend, this trend is empirically independent of the stochastic trend in temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, greenhouse gas forcing, aerosols, solar irradiance and global temperature are not polynomially cointegrated. This implies that recent global warming is not statistically significantly related to anthropogenic forcing. On the other hand, we find that greenhouse gas forcing might have had a temporary effect on global temperature.

And, subsequent to review:

N. de Noblet (Editor)
nathalie.de-noblet@lsce.ipsl.fr
Received and published: 30 October 2012
I expect this paper will be thoroughly discussed and maybe criticized a bit. But I must
say all reviewer’s comments were excellent and such challenging work is needed in our
field of work. I’m therefore pleased to accept the manuscript in its final form.

Maybe we can appease the climate "gods" by sacrificing some worthy environmentalists instead?

[Daniel1960]

PassedOut, on 2013-August-01, 08:21, said:

Sea Level Rise ‘Locking In’ Quickly, Cities Threatened by Ben Strauss


It's probably time to put your Hilton Head and Tybee Island properties on the market...

I wouldn't rush to sell any ocean front property. Ben Strauss' paper is based on the findings of Anders Levermann, which state that "for every degree of warming above pre-industrial, sea-level will rise by about 2.3m within a period of 2000 years."

http://www.pik-potsd...s/SeaLevel.html

[Al_U_Card]

Daniel1960, on 2013-August-01, 12:16, said:

I wouldn't rush to sell any ocean front property. Ben Strauss' paper is based on the findings of Anders Levermann, which state that "for every degree of warming above pre-industrial, sea-level will rise by about 2.3m within a period of 2000 years."

http://www.pik-potsd...s/SeaLevel.html

To put that into further perspective (à la IPCC):

If all the industrialized countries reduced their CO2 emissions by 100% by 2050, then according to the IPCC last published climate sensitivity of 3C, we would avert by 2100 a temperature rise of 0.28C.

See a calculator here:

What does the IPCC say?

So, perhaps the real zealots should stop exhaling?

[PassedOut]

Of course climate change affects not just humans: Starved polar bear perished due to record sea-ice melt, says expert

Quote

Attributing a single incident to climate change can be controversial, but Douglas Richardson, head of living collections at the Highland Wildlife Park near Kingussie, said: "It's not just one bear though. There are an increasing number of bears in this condition: they are just not putting down enough fat to survive their summer fast. This particular polar bear is the latest bit of evidence of the impact of climate change."

Ice loss due to climate change is "absolutely, categorically and without question" the cause of falling polar bear populations, said Richardson, who cares for the UK's only publicly kept polar bears. He said 16 years was not particularly old for a wild male polar bear, which usually live into their early 20s. "There may have been some underlying disease, but I would be surprised if this was anything other than starvation," he said. "Once polar bears reach adulthood they are normally nigh on indestructible, they are hard as nails."

Jeff Flocken, at the International Fund for Animal Welfare, said: "While it is difficult to ascribe a single death or act to climate change it couldn't be clearer that drastic and long-term changes in their Arctic habitat threaten the survival of the polar bear. The threat of habitat loss from climate change, exacerbated by unsustainable killing for commercial trade in Canada, could lead to the demise of one of the world's most iconic animals, and this would be a true tragedy."

But we all know that. The problem is that doing something about it might produce minor inconveniences for some folks.

[Daniel1960]

PassedOut, on 2013-August-07, 07:01, said:

Of course climate change affects not just humans: Starved polar bear perished due to record sea-ice melt, says expert


But we all know that. The problem is that doing something about it might produce minor inconveniences for some folks.

I guess that is what happens when a species grows beyond the carrying capacity of their environment. Too many polar bears; not enough food. It is the expected result. Here in Michigan, a similar result occurs when the deer population expands too rapidly. Overall, it appears that the polar bear has reached a stable population, after many decades of overhunting, following by a recovery after the international ban.

[Al_U_Card]

Daniel1960, on 2013-August-07, 08:24, said:

I guess that is what happens when a species grows beyond the carrying capacity of their environment. Too many polar bears; not enough food. It is the expected result. Here in Michigan, a similar result occurs when the deer population expands too rapidly. Overall, it appears that the polar bear has reached a stable population, after many decades of overhunting, following by a recovery after the international ban.

But surely that over-hunting must have been due to climate change?

The hunters had a longer hunting season perhaps?

The excess CO2 made more greenery that the hunters could hide behind?

Or, perhaps with less on-shore pack ice, the chubby polar bears were gorged on the other sea-life that they hunt and couldn't run away?

Perhaps night-vision goggles? (Not due to climate change but just another shot-in-the-dark, like [CO2]...

[Al_U_Card]

Or then, you could have a discussion about the nature of the beast...

models vs reality

The bear was found 150 miles from where they have seen it in previous years and the Guardian says this represents "an unusual movement away from its normal range". However, given that polar bears normally range over hundreds of miles, this doesn't quite seem to stack up.

[Al_U_Card]

Dr. Judith Curry's thought-provoking presentation of Dr. Mike Hulme's ruminations about the implications of Climategate and its after-math.

Including:

One of the interesting responses from the academic community since Climategate has been a new interest in studying and understanding the various manifestations of climate change scepticism. The populist notion that all climate sceptics are either in the pay of oil barons or are right-wing ideologues, as is suggested for example by studies such as Oreskes and Conway (2011), cannot be sustained.

And Dr. Curry comments:

Mike Hulme describes the lessons that we should have learned from Climategate, and it seems that many in the UK have learned these lessons. I am not at all sure that the IPCC has learned many (or even any) of these lessons,

and

even senior scientists are intimidated by the ‘consensus police’ and don’t want to be subjected to what I have had to put up with (a number of scientists have told me this)

[PassedOut]

The Economist has an interesting article on China's progress and challenges in combating the causes of climate change: The East is grey

Quote

In three weeks from the middle of June, the government unveiled a series of reforms to restrict air pollution. It started the country’s first carbon market, made prosecuting environmental crimes easier and made local officials more accountable for air-quality problems in their areas. It also said China—meaning companies as well as government—would spend $275 billion over the next five years cleaning up the air. Even by Chinese standards that is serious money, equivalent to Hong Kong’s GDP or twice the size of the annual defence budget.

We know that serious efforts must be made by all industrial nations and that we certainly can't succeed without action by the Chinese. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, as it seems that they face some of the same obstructionist forces that we do in the US.

[Daniel1960]

PassedOut, on 2013-August-13, 09:52, said:

The Economist has an interesting article on China's progress and challenges in combating the causes of climate change: The East is grey


We know that serious efforts must be made by all industrial nations and that we certainly can't succeed without action by the Chinese. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, as it seems that they face some of the same obstructionist forces that we do in the US.

As the article states, China is just starting to realize what the West foudn out decades ago; that with industrialization comes environmental issues. While the West has combatted may of these issues, they went unchecked in China, and are currently approaching a critical point. Hopefully, they will follow in the footsteps of the Western world (rather than the former Soviet Union), and enact pollution controls to reign in their air and water pollution problems. Climate change appears to be an afterthought in the article, as the main concern is pollution. The only obstructionist force mentioned appears to be the Chinese government.