Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) predictions based upon the output of their climate models have a poor record for accuracy. Examples of zombies would be those that say Arctic sea ice will melt away completely by such and such date. The date came, it didn’t happen. But like a zombie, it comes back to life when another expert tells us the Arctic sea ice will melt away completely by some new date.
This posting will high light a few of the failed predictions.
Posted in AGW, Al Gore, Climate Alarmism, ClimateGate, CO2, Drought, Environment, Famine, glaciers, Global Temperatures, Ice Melt, IPCC, Sea Ice, Sea Level
The Hugo Awards are presented annually to the best science fiction. Science fiction is defined by Wiki as: a genre of fiction dealing with imaginative content such as futuristic settings, futuristic science and technology, space travel, time travel, parallel universes and extraterrestrial life. Their September 2013 issue featuring “Rising Seas” would probably qualify for the Hugo.
The NG cover illustration of the Statue of Liberty waist deep in water resulting from sea level rise was a major, imaginative exaggeration. The statue’s waist is more than 200 feet above sea level at present. Using the actual rate of sea level rise at Battery, NY since 1850 to calculate how long it would take to match the waist water level, resulted in a figure of about 23,500 years or so. (See the calculation by clicking here.)
A recent study “Rapid Accumulation of Committed Sea-level Rise from Global Warming” asserts that some 1700 US cities and towns will be below sea level by 2100. The study was authored by Benjamin H Strauss for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The study is behind a paywall. Dr Don J Easterbrook has reviewed the claim and he has spelled out his thinking in a Climate Depot posting. (Those views will constitute the body of this posting.) Easterbrook says:
‘The accelerated rise is based on postulated accelerated warming but there has been no warming in the past 15 years and, in fact, the climate has cooled during that time. So no climatic warming means no accelerated sea level rise as postulated by Strauss…the huge rise of sea level rates proposed by Strauss are absurd and that the maximum sea level rise by 2100 will be less than one foot.”
There are several theories for the cause of glacial periods–Cycles of glaciers followed by interglacial warm periods and then repeating that cycle. Of those theories, the Milankovitch Cycles theory seems to have a broad base of adherents who believe it to have the best answer that question. The Milankovitch theory has some weaknesses. So this posting remains skeptical, however, it appears that there are good reasons why it is probably the most accepted theory. That Richard Lindzen is a supporter of the theory is one of the good reasons.
The Milankovitch theory says that moving in and out of glacial periods is a result of variation in the Earth’s orbit and orientation. Three parameters—Earth’s eccentric orbit around the Sun, the planet’s axial tilt and the procession of its axis are the basis of the theory. These parameters are pretty well defined. The coincidence with certain combinations of the three parameters and the paleohistory of glacial periods is reasonably close. A posting by Doug Hoffman on his blog, the Resilient Earth “Confirmed! Orbital Cycles Control Ice Ages” is very good. I could not say it as well, so this posting will lift much from his.
From Hoffman’s posting:
Earth’s orbit goes from measurably elliptical to nearly circular in a cycle that takes around 100,000 years. Presently, Earth is in a period of low eccentricity, about 3%. This causes a seasonal change in solar energy of 7%. The difference between summer and winter is a 7% difference in the energy a hemisphere receives from the Sun. When Earth’s orbital eccentricity is at its peak (~9%), seasonal variation reaches 20-30%. Additionally, a more eccentric orbit will change the length of seasons in each hemisphere by changing the length of time between the vernal and autumnal equinoxes. (Click on the Chart to enlarge.)
Variation in Axial Obliquity, Orbital Eccentricity, and Polar Precession.NOAA.
Climate cycles are continuously happening on Earth since its beginning estimated to be some 4.5 billion years ago. Detailing the earliest climate cycles can only be done by painting with the broadest of brushes. In more recent times, proxies, such as ice cores and oxygen isotope measurements are available for use in reconstructing these cycles. The globe has experienced glaciers in relatively recent times and in the not too distant future will surely experience glaciers again. The profound changes that take place resulting in glacial periods are of great interest.
Greenland Glacier–NOAA
Posted in AGW, CO2, Drought, glaciers, Global Temperatures, Hurricanes, IPCC, Media Bias, Sea Ice, Sea Level, Storms/hurricanes
Lubos Motl’s skeptical website, The Reference Frame, is widely read and cited. Motl counters John Cook’s assertions about man-made global warming. Motl provides background science that will serve skeptics in any discussion and/or debate. Motl introduces his material as follows:
John Cook, a former student of physics in Australia, has constructed an interesting website trying to attack the opinions of climate skeptics.
It’s been in my climate bookmarks for quite some time but no one really cared about it so I didn’t want to respond. However, his talking counter-points were recently adopted by an iPhone application. Moreover, Andrew Revkin promoted the website, too. So let us look at his points and counter-points.
Motl matches the headings from Cook’s listing of “myths” and Motl adds his view illustrating what the real story is. Below are two of the 104 topics so you can get a flavor of what is included. To read to all of Motl’s work click here.
On his (Cook) website, you can currently see 102 observations by the skeptics (or some skeptics); 2 of them were added by March 29th and I can’t constantly update this web page so that he’s likely to surpass his 104 points sometime in the future. Each of the “slogans” is accompanied by a short attempted rebuttal by John Cook. And if you click it, you get to a long rebuttal. So let’s look at them:
1. It’s the sun: I agree with Richard Lindzen that it’s silly to try to find “one reason behind all climate change”, because the climate is pretty complex and clearly has lots of drivers, and this applies to the opinion that “everything is in the Sun”, too. Cook shows that the solar irradiance is too small and largely uncorrelated to the observed changes of temperatures. I agree with that: a typical 0.1% change of the output is enough for a 0.025% change of the temperature in Kelvins which is less than 0.1 °C and unlikely to matter much. But I find it embarrassing for a student of solar physics such as himself to be so narrow-minded. The Sun influences the Earth’s atmosphere not only directly by the output but also indirectly, by its magnetic field and its impact on the cosmic rays (via solar wind etc.) and other things. He has completely ignored all these things. Of course, I am actually not certain that these effects are very important for the climate but the evidence – including peer-reviewed articles – is as diverse as the evidence supporting CO2 as an important driver.
104. Southern sea ice is increasing: Cook agrees but says that it surely has nothing to do with warming or global climate change. It must be due to “complex phenomena” such as changes of the winds and circulation. Note that such comments would be unthinkable if he tried to discuss the Northern sea ice. As we have noticed, all “warming” observations are about the climate, important signals that you should appreciate, worship, extrapolate, and be afraid of. On the other hand, all “cooling” observations are just an irrelevant weather that you should dismiss, humiliate, and spit on. With such a biased attitude, it shouldn’t be shocking that Mr Cook ends up with an irrational orthodoxy based on 104 largely obscure misinterpretations, misunderstandings, and myths – and that his opinions about the most important questions are upside down.
Go through all of them, you will might learn something that you didn’t know.
cbdakota
Posted in AGW, Climate Models, CO2, Environment, glaciers, IPCC, Sea Ice, Solar Activity, sun and climate, United Nations
Last year the Warmers were defending the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report’s conclusion that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. Oops, they then said, we meant 2350. Even so, we are being told that the glaciers were melting and so quickly that the people in Asia would be in big trouble when there was no more melt water. They believed that melting of Himalayan glacial ice was equivalent to 50 billion tons of water every year. But now a study ( lead scientist John Wahr and team) published in Nature tells that the Himalayan glaciers have lost no ice over the last decade. The measurements of global ice for this study were done using satellites. According to the report:
The reason for the radical reappraisal of ice melting in Asia is the different ways in which the current and previous studies were conducted. Until now, estimates of melt water loss for all the world’s 200,000 glaciers were based on extrapolations of data from a few hundred monitored on the ground. Those glaciers at lower altitudes are much easier for scientists to get to and so were more frequently included, but they were also more prone to melting.
The bias was particularly strong in Asia, said Wahr:
“Their extrapolation is really tough as only a handful of lower-altitude glaciers are monitored and there are thousands there very high up.”
Satellite data for the rest of the world’s glaciers were also measured and the team reported no changes in the melt rate.
Glaciers have been melting for the last 10,000 years. The question is really— is the present rate particularly unusual? This study certainly puts into question the warmers previous assertion that it is. Isn’t this just one more indication that there has been no statistically significant global warming over the past decade.
But whenever a study comes out like this, it is required to say—- nothing has changed, CO2 is still the problem. Prof Jonathan Bamber, the director of the Bristol Glaciology Centre said:
“The new data does not mean that concerns about climate change are overblown in any way. It means there is a much larger uncertainty in high mountain Asia than we thought. Taken globally all the observations of the Earth’s ice – permafrost, Arctic sea ice, snow cover and glaciers – are going in the same direction.
NOT OVERBLOWN????? (Just more uncertainty!!)
Professor Bamber also participated in an online Q and A session. He responded to a question from “On Earth” as follows:
OnEarth. For Antarctica and Greenland the results from this study are in very good agreement with most recent previous estimates of mass loss from the ice sheets so it doesn’t change our view of what these are doing.
I have always had a lot of respect for “most recent previous estimates..” what ever they are.
Are we to assume that much stress is being felt in Asian lands where the Himalayan ice melt is so important according to the IPCC? If there is no net change in total ice as the study tells us, does that mean there is a vastly reduced melt water flow? By the way, there are many studies that say the monsoons are the principal source of the water these Asian countries rely upon.
To read more click here and here.
cbdakota
Posted in AGW, Climate Models, CO2, Environment, glaciers, Global Temperatures, IPCC, Sea Ice
Climate Change Sanity 