Sunday
Sep082013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Rose on the Arctic sea ice
Sep 8, 2013 Climate: Surface David Rose has another climate piece in the Mail on Sunday this morning, looking at this year's expansion of Arctic sea ice. There are lots of familiar names quoted - Ed Hawkins is one, and there is also this quote from Judith Curry:
US climate expert Professor Judith Curry said last night: ‘In fact, the uncertainty is getting bigger. It’s now clear the models are way too sensitive to carbon dioxide. I cannot see any basis for the IPCC increasing its confidence level.’
Reader Comments (45)
Will tthis article by Rose cause the warmists as much distress as his piece last October on the "pause"?
No doubt the BBC will give these data considerable coverage.
Ward's gone ballistic on a Sunday morning. It's tough for him to earn his salary but somebody's got to do it.
I'm pleased to be able to add a comment to this subject.
On Irish Radio (R.T.E) news this morning just after 9.00a.m. the following comment was read: "Contrary to reports of Arctic ice disappearing, the ice sheet has increased and Global Warming has paused".
An amazing report from another news organisation dedicated to the Warming myth.
I like the reference to the model prediction that the Arctic could be ice-free in the summer of 2013.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7139797.stm
Climate scientists really should learn not to make testable claims
The story of the yachts trapped by the ice is reminiscent of last years pathetic failure to 'Row to the Pole', which ended up more akin to 'pin the tail on the donkey'.
The 2012, 2013 NASA imagery is quite something.
The highest rated post in the comments:
"As many of us suspected, there is a natural cycle of warming and cooling. Man-made climate change is a load of green crap.
- shamski, Poole, 8/9/2013 3:16"
Good epitaph in a way. What if it turns out the warming is just a multi-decadel variability, eh? That doubt has certainly crossed the minds of climate scientists in private, as we know. They are going to wish they had been more careful in their pronouncements.
And Rose didn't even mention the latest papers on low climate sensitivity or ENSO possibly contributing substantially to the warming. Of the eighties and nineties.
Will the BBC ever report on something that challenges global warming? If this goes on, they are going to have to eventually.
P M Walsh:
That is really encouraging PM. And I think you're right to make a link with what people like David Rose are writing in London. For, however much some people in Dublin and elsewhere may dislike the idea, London still has terrific reach on whether certain ideas are acceptable or not. Be that as it may, reality is dawning in many places at the same time.
I can see the establishment/alarmist message changing:
"Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Just as you open the window of a greenhouse to let the heat escape and cool the greenhouse, so carbon dioxide acts just like a greenhouse window. Carbon dioxide radiates heat away to space and so keeps the earth from overheating. The more carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere, the more open is the greenhouse window. We must reduce human emissions of carbon dioxide
to prevent the earth coolingto prevent climate change."Well done David Rose. As I have said before, one of the heroes of the revolution. I will forward your piece to Nick Clegg. Not that it will make any difference but I just don't want him to say he did not know when he stands before the public enquiry.
An excellent article by David Rose!
The climate modellers have a lot to answer for.
I agree with the point made by Judith Curry since it is a point I made when reports first surfaced suggesting the IPCC were concluding that AGW was even more certain than ever before.
If the IPCC is essentially going to acknowledge that currently there is a pause in the warming and if it is going to state that the reason for this pause is presently not known or understood and/or cannot presently be explained, it is impossible to then go on and honestly state that the certainty level in AGW is now greater than ever.
Back when AR4 was published, Climate Scientists were of the view that they could explain everything in the temperature record, and CO2 was dominant over natural variation. Now there is something major that cannot be explained (ie., the pause) and it is clear that the prieviously held view that CO2 dominates natural variation cannot be true, and at most CO2 can only be equal to natural variation, not dominant over it. Given this, it is clear that Climate Scientists have less understanding of the way in which the climate works, and hence the level of certainty must be less than that expressed in AR4.
Should the IPCC seek to claim a greater degree of certainty than that expressed in AR4, frankly they will appear ridiculous. It will also provide any journalist (who is interested in getting to the truth) with an easy shot at the IPCC and their cronies.
The IPCC really need to consider carefully before they publish the final version of AR5 whether it will turn out to be a PR disaster to up the certainty level.
The Emperor is heading for his wardrobe.
Richard Verney wrote ...
I might have spotted a flaw in your argument.
The article is a good article.
However, I consider that he should have raised CET. As most readers here will know, since 2000 the winter month period in CET shows a drop of nearly 1.5degC. This of course is lamost double the 0.8degC figure that he gave for the warming.
Whilst global temperatures may have stalled (paused however one wisheds to describe it), CET suggests that the Northern Hemisphere is already in a period of cooling. Since 2000, CET has fallen by about 0.5degC, and, as noted above, for the three winter months by nearly 1.5degC.
I doubt that the British public know what CET says. For sure they are aware that the past few winters have been cold and harsh but they probably do not know what the official temperature record says. Interestingly, the MET Ofiice whilst they must obviously know what it is saying, appear to be oblivious to its implications and are certainly not advising the UK government on the basis of the message being spelt out by CET.
Judith Curry, the Bishop and Richard Verney (amongst so many) are absolutely on the money shot - that of the IPCC increasing it's confidence levels of human-caused warming to 95%.
It is quite plainly exposed as being both a logical failure and a marketing PR stunt. If they cannot explain how or why there's a pause then that literally contradicts their claims of 'increased certainty to 95%', and thus reveals them to be more interested in the message than the truth. In turn that reveals them to be the charlatans so many have suspected.
Drive this point home relentlessly, for any right-minded person can see it is a flawed position. It could well be their final undoing.
It does feel like the end game Cheshirered. It might also be worth pausing to think how helpful it is in September 2013 that Arctic ice is at such a high and that globally averaged temperature anomaly has stalled since 1995. Given it's a chaotic system this need not have been what happened. Personally I suspect Someone has been helping us out and making the IPCC look extremely foolish on publication of AR5. Others I'm sure could not possibly comment. :)
ThinkingScientist
If you want to know what the Met Office experts think about the possibility of a multi decadal cycle cast your vote Here
Pushing aside all the fluff about setting an example to the rest of the world and making our contribution to reducing global warming (about 0.000001C if I remember right though I may have miscounted the zeroes) we can then shine a light on what ought to be the British Government's number one priority — the interests of the British people.
An average reduction of 1.5C over the winter months may not be relevant in the overall global scheme of things but the last time I looked Cameron, Clegg et al weren't responsible for the "overall global scheme of things" just for one wee archipelago off the coast of continental Europe.
I kinda sense there is something in the air... could it be a frantic strategy discussion between some climate scientists that formerly used to communicate by e-mail?
Yet Time is still on the True Believers meme:
"Speaking at a conference in St. Lucia this week, scientists and officials cautioned that fresh water sources could be tainted by rising sea levels. Dry spells caused by changing climate patterns could also leave reservoir levels low, they said."
and HERE
"Pests and pathogens are weather-dependent, and many thrive in hotter, wetter climates — which is exactly the sort of change that global warming is predicted to create over the coming decades"
Nothing like looking on the bright side ;¬)
When are the climate scientists going to admit that the science is not settled? Perhaps some of the older ones are hoping that they can make it to retirement before having to eat humble pie.
What about young climate scientists who are just beginning their careers and therefore have no publications with embarrassing claims? They could make their reputations by disproving the claims of their predecessors, but I suppose they want to wait until they have got tenure first rather than risk their careers by breaking with the consensus too soon.
The Telegraph online version has now picked up on Rose's Sunday Mail story and run with a potted version of it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html
Nicholas Hallam
If you contact Jonathon Amos at the BBC regarding that story he'll tell you like he told me that those scientists changed that prediction to much later and possibly.
Personally I think they (the scientists) realised as soon as Me Amos published the story that they were on a hiding to nothing.
Curious. About a year ago, the BBC reported the “record-breaking” decrease (“the lowest since records began!” – conveniently omitting to mention that the records in question only began in 1979) in Arctic ice. They also failed to report on the follow-up from NASA – that the decrease was due to the wind pattern, not melting. Awaiting the BBC report on this “record-breaking” increase in Arctic ice, I am deafened by their silence.
So good to see such a rich thread of healthy cynicism in the comments on the DM site.
Oh dear!
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/07/3-stranded-in-iced-helicopter-on-remote-alaska-volcano/
Yes SandyS
You definitely don't want to predict something within your own career lifetime when you are on the consensus side of the science.
Maybe the time is right to attack the BBC Trust (again) over "28gate".
"Speaking at a conference in St. Lucia this week, ...'
Ah. They're still jet-setting off to exotic places then I see? Obviously the fraudsters are not worried about their "carbon footprints" then...
:-)
V
This caught the eye of more than a couple of readers:
"
Richard Verney wrote ...
"... it is impossible to then go on and honestly state that the certainty level in AGW is now greater than ever."
I might have spotted a flaw in your argument.
Sep 8, 2013 at 11:31 AM | Unregistered CommenterJake Haye
Jake pegged it: Since when have pesky issues like "honesty" held back an AGW promoter with a point to make?
Richard vernet mentioned CET. Here it is showing the decade long climate shift which has brought us to below the temperatures we experienced in the 1730's
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
Tonyb
This is conclusive proof that climate science is complete and utter bollocks. It is so dramatic and the arctic was such a poster boy for the team. It involves a mechanism the liars don't know about, never mind understand.
Dana has his reponse... quite a guy...
Arctic sea ice delusions strike the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph
When ice extent grows it is short term noise, when recedes..."THINK OF THE POLAR BEARS!!!"
It has been said that the MET Office cannot explain the pause. Isn’t it much more likely that it will not – ‘will’ in the sense of ‘don’t want to, so there!’ Wilfully closed minds.
Are the method developers still under the influence of Sir John Mason? His recent apparently irrational but certainly highly agitated reaction to Svensmark was somewhat revealing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ [See 26 to 29 min.]
Sir John is regarded as a superstar:
http://www.iop.org/about/awards/hon_fellowship/hon_fellows/page_38737.html
and it must be really galling for the world’s first professor in cloud physics to be told that one of the most fundamental discoveries of his life’s work is thought to be wrong, an understandable but unscientific reaction.
In 1994, almost 20 years ago, Sir John gave a very good summary of current beliefs, explaining how the calculations are done, although leaving out many of the technical details of interest to commenters here, and he was quite open about the many uncertainties, at a time when the political greenhouse effect was a bit less important for the models. In that talk he estimated 1 deg C increase for a doubling of CO2, saw no case for closing down industry and considered that if global warming did occur as the models were predicting at that time, adaption would be quite sufficient.
http://www.big-lies.org/global-climate-change/global-warming.html#greenhouse
What has happened to the state of scientific knowledge at the MET since then?
----
PS: I suspect that different computers get different adverts. The machine I use to access BH gets lots of dating site offers, which I find extremely annoying. Is there any way to block them? [Windows XP + Firefox.]
Jimmy Haigh - 'Jetting off to exotic places..' 'Speaking at a conference in St Lucia this week..' etc, etc...
I'm reminded of a cartoon many years ago in one of my trade journals - it depicted two guys in the offices of the Acme Central Heating Co, looking at a map showing The Bahamas; one guy is saying to the other: 'Yes, its a tough market to crack - which is why we have to send all our top salesmen there...'
The 'warmists' are SOOOO like those salesmen....!
David Rose writes a “technically true” article in The Mail which millions of voters will read, and become less alarmed and more dubious about the spectre of “global warming” as a consequence….Nuccitelli writes a bitter and twisted faux-rebuttal in the obscure sections of the loss-making Guardian….
I will settle for that!
Nuticelli's argument about regression to the mean might be true for a stationary process, but they have been arguing for years for a declining arctic sea ice model, ie with a trend (non-stationary) If the slope on the trend exceeds the detrended annual residual variance, his statement is false.
He's effectively trying to muster up a quasi-statistical argument by having his cake and eating it. No doubt the pseudo-intellectual Grauniad readers with arts degrees will lap it up uncritically and regurgitate it later.
Ye gods, Mark Well (Sep 9, 2013 at 12:41 PM)! Sir John’s mind is tightly shut, bolted – even welded closed! How scientific! One thing that so many seem to forget is that scientists are humans, and, being human, are prone to all the faults that are human – vanity, pride, stupidity, bias, prejudice. Sir John displays all of those in that short section of the video.
However, the term “cosmic rays” does sound somewhat science fiction, and the idea may be hard to sell to the generally scientifically-illiterate general population (or does that make me sound patronising and prejudiced?).
Mark Well wrote:
"PS: I suspect that different computers get different adverts. The machine I use to access BH gets lots of dating site offers, which I find extremely annoying. Is there any way to block them? [Windows XP + Firefox.]"
Go to "Add Ons" in your browser, search for "AdBlock Plus" and install that.
Sep 10, 2013 at 3:55 AM | Jan Stunnenberg
Many thanks for your advice. I have only just seen it and will do as you suggest.
@ Mark Well
No thankies at all!
I just do hope the Bish gets his money from google and we don't have to see these adds at the same time.
I believe it works that way, 'cause they've been send. Only you aren't seeing them.
Good deal! The send adds will just not load and being shown at your end. That also speeds up your browser.
After a while getting acquainted with the options in there, you will be seeing no ads in your browser at all.
Never ever at any website. And surprise: Bish' own adds, they just stay.
You will then also receive less spam in your email. In time till almost none.