Death knell for AGW

[beaker]

Definitely not definitive. For example there is the fact that 7, or 8? of the warmest ten years on record have happened during the last ten years. And those records hold true for the entire planet, not just for Europe, which means that if central Europe had cold spells it must have been because of declining ice in the Arctic. The sun affects the whole planet, not just Europe, so that even during one of the lowest solar activity spells we've had recently the average temps were higher enough everywhere else to make up for the colder temps in the EU.

edited to include the best line from what I could find of the report.

"This relationship still holds today, however the average winter temperatures have been rising during the last decades. " despite lowest minima lately. Watt makes meaningless noise, like his comment about the sun may affect the earths temperature, when noone argues with him on it. Maybe he thinks it gives the rest of the stuff credibility, but it is just meaningless filler.

 

[Locutus]

Antarctic Sea Ice Sets Another Record

Antarctic sea ice set another record this past week, with the most amount of ice ever recorded on day 256 of the calendar year (September 12 of this leap year). Please, nobody tell the mainstream media or they might have to retract some stories and admit they are misrepresenting scientific data.
​

(h/t North of 60)

Antarctic Sea Ice Sets Another Record - Forbes

via small dead animals: Y2Kyoto: I'll Miss The Polar Ice Caps

 

[skookumchuck]

Antarctic Sea Ice Sets Another Record

Antarctic sea ice set another record this past week, with the most amount of ice ever recorded on day 256 of the calendar year (September 12 of this leap year). Please, nobody tell the mainstream media or they might have to retract some stories and admit they are misrepresenting scientific data.
​

(h/t North of 60)

Antarctic Sea Ice Sets Another Record - Forbes

via small dead animals: Y2Kyoto: I'll Miss The Polar Ice Caps

Haven't the usual suspects already explained why this is happening and how it ties into AGW? Oh wait, they will;-)

 

[Tonington]

Warning:

Science context ahead

So, as anyone can plainly see, the net global sea ice is down...

The last 5 years of Arctic melt is equal to the last 30 years of Antarctic growth.

 

[skookumchuck]

Do 30 years of satellite data give enough evidence to say the sky is falling?
Extracting sea-ice data from aging records :: Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences

 

[Tonington]

Do 30 years of satellite data give enough evidence to say the sky is falling?
Extracting sea-ice data from aging records :: Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences

30+ years of sea ice data is plenty of evidence about the trajectory of those climates. As for the sky falling, the satellites are measuring that too:
http://www.ufa.cas.cz/html/climaero/topics/global_change_science.pdf

 

[Locutus]

Dr. John Christy’s testimony before congress –



Hot on the heels of Nature’s editorial about not linking Global Warming to extreme weather, we have this testimony today from Dr. John Christy.


‘Extreme events, like the recent U.S. drought, will continue to occur, with or without human causation’

‘These recent U.S. ‘extremes’ were exceeded in previous decades’ — ‘The expression of ‘worse than we thought’ climate change as documented in [James] Hansen’s OpEd does not stand up to scrutiny’


​

Excerpts of his testimony follow. h/t to Marc Morano of Climate Depot.




Dr. John Christy’s testimony before congress – | Watts Up With That?




Nature editorial dashes alarmist hopes of linking extreme weather events to global warming | Watts Up With That?​

 

[Locutus]

NASA's Rubber Ruler

Randall Hoven

A funny thing happened on the way to determining how hot 2012 has been on a global basis: temperatures changed in 1880.

We've been hearing that 2012 has been the "hottest on record." I had written earlier that those claims were based on the contiguous United States only, or 1.5% of the earth's surface. The "global temperature" in 2012 through June was only the 10th hottest on record. In fact, every single month of 1998 was warmer than the corresponding month of 2012.

I thought I'd update that analysis to include July's and August's temperatures. To my surprise, NASA's entire temperature record, going back to January 1880, changed between NASA's June update and its August update. I could not just add two more numbers to my spreadsheet. The entire spreadsheet needed to be updated.

I knew NASA would occasionally update its estimates, even its historical estimates. I found that unsettling when I first heard about it. But I thought such re-estimates were rare, and transparent. There is absolutely no transparency here. If I had not kept a copy of the data taken off NASA's web site two months ago, I would not have known it had changed. NASA does not make available previous versions of its temperature record (to my knowledge).

NASA does summarize its "updates to analysis," but the last update it describes was in February. The data I looked at changed sometime after early July.

In short, the data that NASA makes available to the public, temperatures over the last 130 years, can change at any time, without warning and without explanation. Yes, the global temperature of January 1880 changed some time between July and September 2012.

Surprise of surprise, the change had the effect of making the long-term temperature record support conclusions of faster warming. The biggest changes were mostly pre-1963 temperatures; they were generally adjusted down. That would make the warming trend steeper, since post-1963 temperatures were adjusted slightly upward, on average. Generally, the older the data, the more adjustment.


more win



Blog: NASA's Rubber Ruler

 

[darkbeaver]

30+ years of sea ice data is plenty of evidence about the trajectory of those climates. As for the sky falling, the satellites are measuring that too:

Isn't thirty years too small a slice fer any serious climate forecasting?

 

[Tonington]

Isn't thirty years too small a slice fer any serious climate forecasting?

Thirty years is the smallest period for defining climate. Here's an exercise for you. Take 30 years of climate data, say 1970 to 1999. Compute the trend plus a 95% confidence interval for your projection of that trend, and extend the line 12 years. Then plot the next 12.75 years of data, and see if it passes or fails.

Obviously the more data you have to forecast with the better. But 30 years is plenty to document the evolution or rather devolution of Arctic sea ice.

 

[Walter]

Don't forget the record amount of ice in the Antarctic as I post this. An inconvenient truth that I know will be explained as part of the model of a warmer Earth. So very predictable.

 

[L Gilbert]

Dr. John Christy’s testimony before congress –



Hot on the heels of Nature’s editorial about not linking Global Warming to extreme weather, we have this testimony today from Dr. John Christy.


‘Extreme events, like the recent U.S. drought, will continue to occur, with or without human causation’

‘These recent U.S. ‘extremes’ were exceeded in previous decades’ — ‘The expression of ‘worse than we thought’ climate change as documented in [James] Hansen’s OpEd does not stand up to scrutiny’​

Excerpts of his testimony follow. h/t to Marc Morano of Climate Depot.​

Dr. John Christy’s testimony before congress – | Watts Up With That?​

Yep. Lots of editorialising going around.​

Nature editorial dashes alarmist hopes of linking extreme weather events to global warming | Watts Up With That?

The Nature editorial simply states that not all extreme weather conditions are attributable to climate change. It's full of "maybes". Extreme weather : Nature News & Comment

At any rate, editorials are opinions. What matters is what those opinions are based upon.

 

[Tonington]

Don't forget the record amount of ice in the Antarctic as I post this.

And global sea ice:

Context, get some Walter.

 

[Walter]

And global sea ice:

Context, get some Walter.

Right on cue.

 

[Tonington]

Right on cue.

Yes, people can always count on me to give them the context you don't.

 

[L Gilbert]

NASA's Rubber Ruler

Randall Hoven

A funny thing happened on the way to determining how hot 2012 has been on a global basis: temperatures changed in 1880.

We've been hearing that 2012 has been the "hottest on record." I had written earlier that those claims were based on the contiguous United States only, or 1.5% of the earth's surface. The "global temperature" in 2012 through June was only the 10th hottest on record. In fact, every single month of 1998 was warmer than the corresponding month of 2012.

I thought I'd update that analysis to include July's and August's temperatures. To my surprise, NASA's entire temperature record, going back to January 1880, changed between NASA's June update and its August update. I could not just add two more numbers to my spreadsheet. The entire spreadsheet needed to be updated.

I knew NASA would occasionally update its estimates, even its historical estimates. I found that unsettling when I first heard about it. But I thought such re-estimates were rare, and transparent. There is absolutely no transparency here. If I had not kept a copy of the data taken off NASA's web site two months ago, I would not have known it had changed. NASA does not make available previous versions of its temperature record (to my knowledge).

NASA does summarize its "updates to analysis," but the last update it describes was in February. The data I looked at changed sometime after early July.

In short, the data that NASA makes available to the public, temperatures over the last 130 years, can change at any time, without warning and without explanation. Yes, the global temperature of January 1880 changed some time between July and September 2012.

Surprise of surprise, the change had the effect of making the long-term temperature record support conclusions of faster warming. The biggest changes were mostly pre-1963 temperatures; they were generally adjusted down. That would make the warming trend steeper, since post-1963 temperatures were adjusted slightly upward, on average. Generally, the older the data, the more adjustment.


more win



Blog: NASA's Rubber Ruler

Let me see; someone posts news that scientists are going back over old data and getting more accurate info out of them and then this blogger is surprised that data changes? lol

Right on cue.

So were you. What relevance does being on cue have to anything in the discussion?

 

[Walter]

So were you. What relevance does being on cue have to anything in the discussion?

Shall I slow things down for you?

 

[L Gilbert]

A little about the VOLUME (not area) of Arctic sea ice

http://nsidc.org/news/press/2012_seaiceminimum.html

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL053268.shtml

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2012/08/

Shall I slow things down for you?

Nope, just explain what being on cue has to do with the discussion.

 

[Locutus]

According to NOAA data, all time Antarctic sea ice extent record was set on Sept 22nd, 2012

At the blog “sunshine hours” it seems the Antarctic has set a new record. He writes:


As you may know, I have been using Cryosphere’s Antarctic Sea Ice Area data to show the record levels of Antarctic Sea Ice.


But I just found another data set, NOAA’s Sea Ice Extent here. (thanks to commenter HaroldW at the Blackboard)


And it turns out day 265 set an all time record, and then day 266 (Sept 22nd) broke that record. Days 265 through 270 are now the 6 highest Antarctic Sea Ice Extent’s of all time (in the satellite record)!



11 of the top 15 extents are now in 2012.


Anyone wonder why NOAA isn’t making a fuss about this?




According to NOAA data, all time Antarctic sea ice extent record was set on Sept 22nd, 2012 | Watts Up With That?


h/t sda

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

Still as stupid as a sack full of rocks I see.

Record-High Antarctic Sea Ice Levels Don't Disprove Global Warming | Ice Cap Melting | LifesLittleMysteries.com

But if anyone had asked an actual scientist, they would have learned that a good year for sea ice in the Antarctic in no way nullifies the precipitous drop in Arctic sea-ice levels year after year — or the mounds of other evidence indicating global warming is really happening.

"Antarctic sea ice hasn't seen these big reductions we've seen in the Arctic. This is not a surprise to us," said climate scientist Mark Serreze, director of the NSIDC. "Some of the skeptics say 'Well, everything is OK because the big changes in the Arctic are essentially balanced by what's happening in the Antarctic.' This is simply not true." [Former Global Warming Skeptic Makes a 'Total Turnaround']

You've got a land mass surrounded by circular ocean currents that act to isolate it from the rest of the planet and capped by miles thick ice that creates it's own weather, and because there's been recent increases in something as variable as sea ice then we're supposed to throw all the years of hard evidence supporting Anthropogenic climate change out the window, this is complete garbage, and so are the "people" peddling this crap.