Monday, 21 April 2014

Arctic Temperatures highest on 44,000 years...er make that 5,000 years...er..or Spruce made a Goose!

Headline of an article written for Yahoo News by Douglas Main:

Arctic Temperatures Highest in at Least 44,000 Years

Plenty of studies have shown that the Arctic is warming and that the ice caps are melting, but how does it compare to the past, and how serious is it? 
New research shows that average summer temperatures in the Canadian Arctic over the last century are the highest in the last 44,000 years, and perhaps the highest in 120,000 years. (Unprecedented recent warmth in Arctic Canada)
"The key piece here is just how unprecedented the warming of Arctic Canada is," Gifford Miller, a researcher at the University of Colorado, Boulder, said in a joint statement from the school and the publisher of the journal Geophysical Researcher Letters, in which the study by Miller and his colleagues was published online this week. "This study really says the warming we are seeing is outside any kind of known natural variability, and it has to be due to increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."
Part of the abstract says: (link)
Reconstructed changes in snowline elevation suggest that summers cooled ~2.7°C over the past 5000 years,
Courtesy of Dr Tim Ball (link) (written in March 2012 before the above story)

Sensationalist And Distorted Climate Stories Increase As Climate Science Failures Exposed 
However, if you are unconvinced by the ice core data, it is supported by physical evidence. Professor Ritchie (University of Toronto) identified and photographed a picea glauca (white spruce) stump on the Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula in tundra some 100km north of the current treeline (Figure 2). Radiocarbon date was 4940 ±140 years Before Present (BP). It was featured in Hubert Lamb’s classic work Climate, Present, Past and Future.
Tim says, of the above photo, 
(It) is a photo of a White Spruce radiocarbon dated at 5000 years old located 100 km north of the current tree line. Temperatures had to be 2-3°C warmer than at present for this to happen. 
Warmer 5,000 years ago? So much for Miller et al's "peer-reviewed"unprecedented warmth.

Dr Judith Curry on her blog Climate etc. also wrote:
Miller et al. assume that the Baffin Island melting is attributable to AGW.  Maybe it is.  In the Chasing Ice post, I noted that the peak glacier discharge from West Greenland occurred in the 1930′s. The Ellesmere ice shelves also saw a melt back earlier in the 20th century circa the 1930′s.  The Miller et al. paper does not remark on any evidence of warming in the 1930′s, or the LIA or MWP for that matter, but note only a cooling over the past 5000 years, with marked warming in the past 100 years.  The reasoning behind the Miller et al. conclusions is rather complex, with a number of assumptions, I’m not sure what to make of their arguments. 
In any event, how representative of the Arctic is their findings from Baffin Island?  Well, it doesn’t even seem to be too representative even of Ellesmere Island and West Greenland.
After discussion of a somewhat conflicting(peer-reviewed) paper by Opel et al, Dr Curry concludes:
The natural internal variability in the Arctic seems to be an exceedingly complex dance between atmospheric circulations, sea ice, ocean circulations and ice sheet dynamics, on a range of timescales.  We have some hints about how all this interacts, but much is unknown.  In light of this, simplistic inferences about global warming in the Arctic seem unjustified. 

Alarmists Amazing Arfulness

As the falsification of the Catastrophic Man-made Global Warming (CAGW) hoax become more and more evident, the Global Warming Nazis become shriller and shriller with their artful alarmism.


The Collins English Dictionary defines statesman (ˈsteɪtsmən) as a political leader whose wisdom, integrity, etc, win great respect. Curiously the publication StatesmanJournal.com, with the publication of a letter below accompanied by a John Cole cartoon shows no wisdom, no integrity etc and certainly didn't win this blogs respect with the falsities contained in the letter and cartoon.



I’m frustrated by the media’s misrepresentation of climate change.
Ask the people in New Jersey and Louisiana who witnessed Hurricanes Sandy and Katrina firsthand. Ask the people in the town of Newtok, Alaska, why they’re moving their whole town away from the coast. Ask the people near Austin, Texas, about their wildfires.
I defend others’ opinions to deny climate change, as well as to imply that we who do believe in climate change are wrong. However, in the interest of honest, open dialogue, criticizing us without offering/promoting/supporting/comparing your and our beliefs with clarifying evidence seems fruitless.
Did you know that a bigger threat than carbon dioxide is the methane that will be released from a warming ocean?
Earth Day is around the corner. We have as much right to use petitions to garner attention to our concerns as others do with their opinions. Remember, the consequences of doing nothing if we’re correct are far greater than if you are correct.
Roberta Cade
Salem


Well, Roberta, I also am frustrated by the media's misrepresentation of climate change. I am also appalled by your misrepresentations of climate change.

You use natural disasters as "evidence" that climate change is catastrophic. Most scientists, including the IPCC,  agreed that natural disasters are NOT caused by climate change.


You say: "I defend others’ opinions to deny climate change.." but Roberta, we don't deny climate change, we KNOW that climate has changed since time began. We also know that the late twentieth century warming  has stopped and that there has been no global warming this century.

You say: "criticizing us without offering/promoting/supporting/comparing your and our beliefs" .....
Roberta, you must have had your eyes and ears closed and are not interested in learning the truth. The NIPCC report: Climate Change Reconsidered II (pdf) offers more science than the IPCC's AR5 and has references to peer-reviewed papers. Unlike the IPCC's AR5, the CCR-II has no papers from advocacy groups.

Moving on to John Cole's cheating cartoon. He tries to depict a weight of "evidence" against one man with snow on his roof.





Even Mr Cole must KNOW that this is wrong! ONE ROOF - John? Make that most of the Northern Hemisphere, make it the Middle East....etc. See these news reports. But there are the thousands of scientist who signed the petition project, there are thousands of papers that opposed the falsified global warming hoax (see also), there are the NIPCC's CCR-II reports.

Mr Cole, your cartoon was unbalanced.


His LH side should be joined by more truth:




UPDATE:
Response Letter by Astrophysicist Dr Gordon Fulks:

Roberta,

Patrick Tobin is correct below that you need not be a scientist to "smell a rat." In fact, non-scientists are probably better at spotting the disingenuous, because we scientists traditionally trust the work of other scientists.

But that is changing as we discover that our fellow scientists are subject to conflicts of interest problems as much as the average person. We have observed far too many instances where scientists are perfectly willing to go along with the prevailing paradigm, just because that's where the money is.

As to "the evidence," both you and the accompanying cartoon are FAR WRONG. This is where it helps to be a scientist. I'm an astrophysicist with a background very similar to the Great Global Warming Guru James Hansen.

While there is a vast collection of circumstantial evidence purporting to link man's burning of fossil fuels to a catastrophic warming of the earth's climate, it is all best characterized as nonsense. You should be able to understand that hurricanes like Sandy and Katrina were not unusual events as hurricanes go. We know of many, many such storms in the past that caused vast destruction. They have actually been less prevalent in recent decades than in prior ones.

As to "clarifying evidence," we have done so for the US Supreme Court in this amicus available here:


We show that the government's case against carbon dioxide is easily found to be fatally flawed, by refuting the EPA's "Three Lines of Evidence." There has been no "unusual warming" since 1950. The EPA does not understand the physical basis of the slight warming that has occurred (mostly north of 20 N), because the 'Hot Spot' necessary in the tropical mid-troposphere is completely missing. And the climate models that are supposed to be sooo good have been unable to explain the lack of net warming since 1998 and are erroneous by a factor of as much as 3.5 in the temperature trend.

We do as all scientists are supposed to do. We check theories against the most robust data we have, in this case high quality satellite measurements (available since 1979) and radiosonde measurements in the tropics.

Lastly, you assert that we should go along with clearly falsified science, because you believe that the consequences are far greater if we continue to insist that science be objective.

The real consequences that you should consider are those that result from blindly following false science that is really just politics and religion.

Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA



Dueling climate reports – this one is worth sharing on your own blog

Guest essay by Dr. Craig D. Idso


Increased CO2 Greening the Planet
NOTE: This op-ed is apparently too hot for some editors to handle. Late last week it was accepted and posted on politix.topix.com only to be abruptly removed some two hours later. After several hours of attempting to determine why it was removed, I was informed the topix.com editor had permanently taken it down because of a strong negative reaction to it and because of “conflicting views from the scientific community” over factual assertions in the piece.
Fortunately, some media outlets recognize a vigorous scientific debate persists over humanity’s influence on climate and those outlets refuse outside efforts to silence viewpoints that run counter to prevailing climate alarmism. My original piece follows below.- Craig Idso

The release of a United Nations (UN) climate change report last week energized various politicians and environmental activists, who issued a new round of calls to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Some of the most fiery language in this regard came from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who called upon Congress to “wake up and do everything in its power to reduce dangerous carbon pollution,” while Secretary of State John Kerry expressed similar sentiments in a State Department release, claiming that “unless we act dramatically and quickly, science tells us our climate and our way of life are literally in jeopardy.” 
Really? Is Earth’s climate so fragile that both it and our way of life are in jeopardy because of rising carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions?
In a word, no! The human impact on global climate is small; and any warming that may occur as a result of anthropogenic CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions is likely to have little effect on either Earth’s climate or biosphere, according to the recently-released contrasting report Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts, which was produced by the independent Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).
This alternative assessment reviews literally thousands of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that do not support and often contradict the findings of the UN report. Whether the subject is the effects of warming and rising CO2 on plants, animals, or humans, the UN report invariably highlights the studies and models that paint global warming in the darkest possible hue, ignoring or downplaying those that don’t.
To borrow a telling phrase from their report, the UN sees nothing but “death, injury, and disrupted livelihoods” everywhere it looks—as do Senator Boxer, Secretary Kerry, and others. Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts demonstrates that life on Earth is not suffering from rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels. Citing reams of real-world data, it offers solid scientific evidence that most plants actually flourish when exposed to both higher temperatures and greater CO2 concentrations. In fact, it demonstrates that the planet’s terrestrial biosphere is undergoing a great greening, which is causing deserts to shrink and forests to expand, thereby enlarging and enhancing habitat for wildlife. And much the same story can be told of global warming and atmospheric CO2 enrichment’s impacts on terrestrial animals, aquatic life, and human health.
Why are these research findings and this positive perspective missing from the UN climate reports? Although the UN claims to be unbiased and to have based its assessments on the best available science, such is obviously not the case. And it is most fortunate, therefore, that the NIPCC report provides tangible evidence that the CO2-induced global warming and ocean acidification debate remains unsettled on multiple levels; for there are literally thousands of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that do not support a catastrophic, or even problematic, view of atmospheric CO2 enrichment.
Unfortunately, climate alarmism has become the modus operandi of the UN assessment reports. This fact is sad, indeed, because in compiling these reports, the UN either was purposely blind to views that ran counter to the materials they utilized, or its authors did not invest the amount of time, energy, and resources needed to fully investigate an issue that has profound significance for all life on Earth. And as a result, the UN has seriously exaggerated many dire conclusions, distorted relevant facts, and omitted or ignored key scientific findings. Yet in spite of these failings, various politicians, governments, and institutions continue to rally around the UN climate reports and to utilize their contentions as justification to legislate reductions in CO2 emissions, such as epitomized by the remarks of Senator Boxer and Secretary Kerry.
Citing only studies that promote climate catastrophism as a basis for such regulation, while ignoring studies that suggest just the opposite, is simply wrong. Citizens of every nation deserve much better scientific scrutiny of this issue by their governments; and they should demand greater accountability from their elected officials as they attempt to provide it.
There it is, that’s my op-ed. It’s what some people apparently do not want you to read. While the over 3,000 peer-reviewed scientific references cited in Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts are likely more than sufficient to establish scientific fact in a court of law, they are not sufficient to engage the real climate deniers in any debate. The rise in atmospheric CO2 is not having, nor will it have, a dangerous influence on the climate and biosphere. But don’t take my word for it, download and read the report for yourself (available at http://www.nipccreport.org). Compare it with the UN report. You be the judge!
Dr. Craig D. Idso is the lead editor and scientist for the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).