Colorado’s Big Flood: Arctic Oscillation (5)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 4:36 AM GMT on September 17, 2013

Share this Blog
26
+

Colorado’s Big Flood: Arctic Oscillation (5)

I am going to continue with my series on the Arctic Oscillation, but I am going to take a diversion. That’s why this one is labeled number 5 – numbers 3 and 4 will be forthcoming. The first two in the series have definitions of terms and references to more materials (link to number 1 and link to number 2). I will, ultimately, bring this flood back to climate change and the Arctic Oscillation discussion – I think with plausibility.

I am writing this at the time of a historic flood in Colorado (Denver Post Photos). This flood has been labeled a 100 year flood in Boulder (Boulder Creek) and a 500 year flood in Longmont (St. Vrain River). The geographical reach of the flood is large, reaching from Colorado Springs in the south to Fort Collins in the north, about 130 miles. This geographical span also distinguishes this flood as compared to, for example, the Big Thompson River flood of 1976. Chris Burt wrote a blog about the history of flash floods in Boulder. The last flood that rivals the 2013 flood was in 1894.

I live in Colorado and I have a sizable garden that leads me to doing all sorts of things in the ground. Once digging a hole three feet deep to find an old pipe, at about 18 inches, I ran across a layer of rounded, smooth rocks. A local, who I tend to believe, told me that this was the wash from the 1894 flood. That put me in mind of Death Valley where there are massive alluvial fans of similar rounded rocks at the mouth of every canyon. You walk in these rocks and there are times they have an almost fluid character; you sink into them a few inches. Death Valley is dry and it does not hold soil. So these deep accumulations of rocks are visible. If you think about the flash floods and the years needed to build the piles it is staggering. After running across this likely layer of the 1894 flood, I looked around, and indeed, one does see the same form of alluvial fans in Colorado, only they are covered with soil and plants.

The normal flow for Boulder Creek is around 200 cubic feet per second, and in the 2013 flood numbers closer to 5000 cubic feet per second were measured. In the town of Boulder, the most obvious damage was on the western side of town on the steep slopes of the Foothills. Further up into the mountains, where there is great devastation, are the scars of many forest fires of the past few years – again, extending from Colorado Springs to Fort Collins. In these places the ground, which is a combination of soil and plant and those smooth rocks, liquefies. The ground first saturates with water, then turns into a mixture of dirt, rock and water. This slurry turns into slides and gushers of heavy suffocating material. The ground under houses essentially melts, and houses join in the flow. Roads crumble, join the fluid along with cars. There is danger from being overwhelmed from above and undercut from below. People die.

As these slides of water, rock, and detritus of the forests and the city move down stream, the heavier material drops out and flotsam, dirt and water flows into the channels of the gullies, creeks and ditches. In places, like the city of Boulder, flood-control fortifications channel the flood, and then it spews and spreads as it gets to more open land in the plains.

Most people who come to Boulder and the cities and towns of the Front Range think of mountains. However, most of the people and buildings sit away from the mountains. Traveling east from the mountains there are first mesas, and it is not far before one is in the high plains. Towns such as Longmont view Long’s Peak; they don’t sit on Long’s Peak. Longmont, Loveland and many others are more of the plains than of the mountains. If you drive north and south just five miles from Boulder, the straight roads go up and down the mesas, no more than about 100 feet in elevation. Between the mesas are the wide valleys of Boulder Creek, Left Hand Creek and the St. Vrain River. These valleys are the historical flood plains, and in a flood like the 2013 flood, they fill up. In 2013 they are also full of farms and houses and towns. The creek channels and ditches are engineered to carry water where it is wanted, but in a flood like this, the type of flood that made this wide valley, the water and the suspended soil and the rolling rocks fill up the valley like it has for thousands of years.

As I write this most of the water has moved down to the South Platte River and a diminishing flood is pulsing north towards Nebraska and Omaha and the Missouri River. The Front Range of Colorado is wet and wounded. The air and ground feel and smell like the aftermath of a hurricane. There is a surge of rot as late summer fields start of compost. Today I found crushed crayfish a hundred yards from what I presume is their home in an irrigation ditch, giving a coastal fishy smell. There are clumps of sodden pink insulation. Plastic bags of rotting garbage.

Climate: With the Pakistan flood in 2010 I started climate case studies. From a weather point of view, there are some similarities with Pakistan. There is moist air coming from a warm southern ocean, there are high mountains, and there are high and low pressure systems steering a river of that moist air, warm over cold, up the mountains. As the air rises it rains. Because these weather patterns are stuck, persistent, the rain is relentless. From a point of view of scale, the geographical expanse, the Colorado flood is much smaller than the Pakistani flood. From a preparedness and infrastructure point of view, there is no comparison. The resilience of Boulder, Longmont, Estes Park and Lyons will prove much more robust than that of Peshawar. As a climate case study, this mix of geography, weather, built environment and resilience are all part of the mix.

But what of climate change? It is reasonable to pose that climate change is playing into the Colorado flood and its impacts in at least two ways. The first is a change of the land surface. There has been change in the forest due to drought. There has been change due to destruction of forest by pine beetles. A large amount of land has burned in the past few years. The fire season has been long, the fires intense.

The second possible impact of climate change is in the weather pattern that has caused the flood. Let’s step back a few months. In March of this year much of the region that has been flooded was in extreme and extended drought. Then in April, in quite a localized region, there was every week a record snowstorm, providing four feet of snow. The monsoonal rain was pretty regular during the summer, but we came into September below average precipitation by quite a bit. Tuesday a week ago, the predicted rain was said to be enough that we might get up to average. A little later that week it was the largest rain event ever. The one day total passed the previous record by a factor of two. A couple of days later we have the wettest year ever.

This pattern of rain is hard to ignore. Persistent patterns of weather, with weather systems moving from east to west. This is where I will make the link to climate change and the Arctic Oscillation.

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 132 - 82

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12Blog Index

Quoting 126. MisterPerfect:

Dr. Roy Spencer, a former NASA scientist and author of Climate Confusion, argues in his influential blog the UN report shows scientists are being forced to "recognise reality".

He said: "blah blah blah blah..."

FYI, Roy Spencer is a crank with a major persecution complex...

Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
From The Guardian:

IPCC chairman dismisses climate report spoiler campaign

Rajendra K Pachauri says 'rational people' will be convinced by the science of the forthcoming blockbuster climate report.

he chairman of the United Nations' climate panel has dismissed a contrarian spoiler campaign targeting next week's blockbuster report, saying "rational people" will be convinced by the science.

In his first public comments on the organised effort to discredit the major climate change report ahead of its release on 27 September, Rajendra K Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said he was confident the high standards of the science in the report would make the case for climate action.

"There will be enough information provided so that rational people across the globe will see that action is needed on climate change," Pachauri told a conference call.

"I really wouldn't want to say anything about any perceived effort for a pushback," he went on. "We are doing our job and we are reasonably confident that rational people in government and all over the world will see the merit of the work that has been done."

Pachauri spoke to a small group of reporters on a conference call organised by the Natural Resources Defence Council ahead of a visit to the US by India's prime minister, Manmohan Singh.

Organisations that dismiss the science behind climate change and oppose curbs on greenhouse gas pollution have made a big push to cloud the release of the IPCC report, the result of six years of work by hundreds of scientists.

Those efforts this week extended to promoting the fiction of a recovery in the decline of Arctic sea ice.

The IPCC assessments, produced every six or seven years, are seen as the definitive report on climate change, incorporating the key findings from some 9,000 articles published in scientific journals.

But an error slipped into the 900-plus pages of the last such report in 2007 – the false claim the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035. That small mistake turned into a public relations disaster for the IPCC.

Pachauri also came under a barrage of personal criticism for his handling of the mistake.

The IPCC chairman suggested climate contrarians and those who oppose action on climate change deliberately exaggerated the significance of that error to try to damage the work of the IPCC – and so hurt the case for climate action.

He pointed out that the single error "was buried somewhere in the middle" and had never made its way to the summary for policymakers – prepared to guide government officials preparing for future climate change – or other areas of the report.

"It doesn't in any way retract from the reality that glaciers in the Himalayas are melting. They are receding," he said. "This is an error that should have been seen in a balanced way and should not have been made so much of."

Even so, the controversy over the last assessment, and the political polarisation in America and other countries around climate science and the need for climate action, have created an additional layer of scrutiny around next week's report.

Leaked drafts of the report suggest the teams of scientists, while re-affirming that humans are the drivers of climate change, may have couched some of their language.

Some scientists involved in the IPCC effort have asked whether such huge undertakings are still relevant, now that the science is now so certain, and asked whether it might not be a better use of resources to focus on specific regions or extreme weather events.

Pachauri said the IPCC would discuss those suggestions at a meeting in Batumi, Georgia, next month. But he said the final decision on the IPCC's mission, and the future of the blockbuster climate reports, would rest with governments.

"We are an intergovernmental body and we do what the governments of the world want us to do," he said. "If the governments decide we should do things differently and come up with a vastly different set of products we would be at their beck and call."

For this assessment, however, in the wake of the 2007 backlash from
climate doubters Pachauri said IPCC had taken additional measures
throughout the long process of compiling the report, to ensure it was
accurate and faithful to the science.

"We have done everything humanly possible to ensure that every stage
of drafting, every stage of comments and expert reviews carried out,
that we look for any potential error or any source of information that
might not carry the highest levels of credibility," he said. "We have
done everything possible but this is a human endeavour and we just
hope for the best."
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3342
From The Carbon Brief:

Poll appears to show growth in climate skepticism - but what kind is it?

Humans are complicated beings. Nowhere is this more obvious than when examining polling results, and sometimes pollsters' questions don't bring out the most coherent answers.

This morning, the Times declared that the UK public is becoming increasingly climate skeptic. So what insights does the polling offer?

Climate skepticism quadrupling

The Times reports the results of a new poll from the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC), and suggests the proportion of people in the UK who don't think the world's climate is changing has more than quadrupled since 2005.

The figure comes from this table:



When asked the question, 19 per cent of 2013's respondents said they don't think the climate is changing, compared to four per cent in 2005. In fact, that's closer to a quintupling of climate skeptics since 2005 - not just a quadrupling. It's also an eight per cent increase on last year.

Look further down UKERC's poll, however, and you find something puzzling. When people are asked what they think the causes of climate change are, only two per cent agree there is "no such thing" as climate change - as this table shows:



This is the same group of people answering. And in the latter question, 91 per cent of the respondents believe climate change is happening, with varying opinions as to what degree it is natural or manmade.

So how can there be such variation between questions? It's all down to how the question is asked, and what people are skeptical about, the poll's authors say.

Climate skepticism types

The lead author of the UKERC study, Cardiff University's Dr Wouter Poortinga, suggests there are different types of climate skeptics - and different questions prompt different kinds of responses.

'Trend' skeptics are those who when asked a straight questions about whether climate change is occurring, will say no (as featured in the Times headline). 'Attribution' skeptics are those who, when asked what the cause of climate change is, maintain that the question is irrelevant because it isn't happening. This is the smaller two per cent of the second question.

Poortinga says questions that address climate trends - such as the one the Times highlights - tend to get more negative responses than questions that address causes or impacts. This may be because people's views on climatic trends are partly based on their direct experience. This is a problem when trying to gauge opinion on whether climate change is happening or not, as rarely is it immediately obvious one way or the other.

In contrast, questions about the causes and seriousness of climate change tend to get fewer people doubting its existence. When people are asked about climate change causes, the vast majority say they think it is caused by human activity, natural processes, or a combination of both.

In fact, the two per cent that continue to say climate change isn't happening at all when asked about causes in the UKERC poll is actually less than other polls: for example, four per cent in a government poll, compared to seven per cent in polling Carbon Brief carried out in August (as the graph below shows). This variation in itself may be to do with the way some of the poll's other questions influenced responses.



Likewise, UKERC's poll found that fewer people said they are completely unconcerned about the impacts of climate change than other polls - seven per cent. That's compared to 10 per cent in the government's poll and 16 per cent in our polling.

So while UKERC's poll does indicate a growth in climate skepticism - as the Times reports - understanding who is skeptical and about precisely what is more complicated, the authors suggest.

Communicating skepticism


That aside, UKERC's poll does identify a growing number of climate skeptics in all of these categories compared to a year ago.

Poortinga says media coverage is partially responsible, with stories questioning the causes, impacts and existence of climate change eroding public opinion. A book launched yesterday by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism said the reporting of scientific uncertainty, for example, can create the impression of ignorance rather than a range of possibilities.

UKERC's poll suggests there's an opportunity for climate communicators to bridge the gap in understanding between scientists, the media, and public - helping people make sense of the wide variety of information they receive on climate change.
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Quoting 126. MisterPerfect:


Nobody cares. Not everyone's opinions are worth the same. One credible climate scientist's is worth more than all of those buffoons who will change their opinions in a year or two when the ice reaches a new record low.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 126. MisterPerfect:
[snip]
Nearly every single thing Bennett wrote that isn't a direct quote from someone who knows more than he is incorrect, has been debunked and disproved, is an outright lie, or is based on a lethal combination of profound ignorance and deeply-rooted idiocy.

So what else you got?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13549
Look at all the hopeless recoveries on the hopeless death spiral....


Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
What climate change? Fewer people than EVER believe the world is really warming up

CLIMATE change scepticism is rapidly increasing in the UK with a FIFTH of people now unconvinced the world's temperature is changing.

By: Owen Bennett
Published: Thu, September 19, 2013 DailyExpress

A report from the UK Energy Research Centre also shows the number of those who resolutely do not believe in climate change has more than quadrupled since 2005.

The Government funded report shows 19 per cent of people are climate change disbelievers - up from just four per cent in 2005 - while nine per cent did not know.

The number of people who do not believe climate change is real has increased by 400% since 2005

The report comes as climate change scientists working on a landmark UN report on climate change are struggling to explain why global warming appears to have slowed down in the past 15 years even though greenhouse gas emissions keep rising.

Dr. Roy Spencer, a former NASA scientist and author of Climate Confusion, argues in his influential blog the UN report shows scientists are being forced to "recognise reality".

He said: "We are now at the point in the age of global warming hysteria where the IPCC global warming theory has crashed into the hard reality of observations."

Green Party leader Natalie Bennett blamed the Government for the increase in climate change doubters.

She said: "When the government is so clearly failing to act on climate change, or take seriously its obligations under the Climate Change Act, it's not surprising that the level of doubt about climate change has risen.

"Of course, however, the 72 per cent of the public who acknowledge the climate is changing are backed overwhelmingly by the scientific evidence.

"The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concluded that half of last year's extreme weather events around the world were in part caused by climate change.

"With massive floods in Colorado and Mexico in the grip of flood disaster, we're reminded that the forces of nature have huge force that we must not continue to magnify."



The report comes as climate change scientists working on a landmark U.N. report on climate change are struggling to explain why global warming appears to have slowed down in the past 15 years even though greenhouse gas emissions keep rising.

Leaked documents obtained by The Associated Press show there are deep concerns among governments over how to address the issue ahead of next week's meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Climate skeptics have used the lull in surface warming since 1998 to cast doubt on the scientific consensus that humans are warming the planet by burning fossil fuels and cutting down CO2-absorbing forests.

The IPCC report is expected to affirm the human link with greater certainty than ever, but the panel is under pressure to also address the recent lower rate of warming, which scientists say is likely due to heat going deep into the ocean and natural climate fluctuations.

The U.S. also urged the authors to include the "leading hypothesis" that the reduction in warming is linked to more heat being transferred to the deep ocean.

Stefan Rahmstorf, a German climate scientist, said it was possible that the report's authors were feeling pressured to address the warming slowdown because it's received so much attention recently.

"I think a lot of the interest in this topic in the science community has been triggered by the public debate about it," said Mr Rahmstorf, who was a reviewer for the report's chapter on sea levels.

Jonathan Lynn, a spokesman for the IPCC, declined to comment on the content of the report because it hasn't been finalised, but said it would provide "a comprehensive picture of all the science relevant to climate change, including the thousands of pieces of scientific research published since the last report in 2007 up to earlier this year."

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/430649/What-clim ate-change-Fewer-people-than-EVER-believe-the-worl d-is-really-warming-up
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Now something from The Telegraph:

You genuinely have to be an idiot to think that Arctic sea ice is recovering
By Tom Chivers Science Last updated: September 20th, 2013
276 Comments Comment on this article
There are serious debates to be had about climate change, and what we should do about it. Whether or not the Arctic ice is retreating is not one of them.
This is going to be a brief post, because other people %u2013 notably Phil Plait, the "Bad Astronomy" science blogger, and Martin Robbins, at Vice %u2013 have written about it at length, pointing out the fundamental nonsense of the "sea ice is recovering" brigade, and doing it better than I can. I just thought it was worth making it clear here, as well.
But here, in one graph, is why it's utter testicles:

The bit in red is the "recovery" of this year. If you think that means that things are getting better, you genuinely must be an idiot. It's not. The overwhelming long-term trend is still towards much less ice.
And yet reportedly intelligent people believe otherwise, including Members of Parliament. This is exactly the same as thinking a mild day in November means that winter has been averted. These people are either stupid or duplicitous.
But it's a common trick. The same thing goes on with the "no warming since 1997" business: it's true, 1998 was a record year, and it has stayed around that level since then. But the graph since 1880 puts that into context:

There is an ongoing debate over whether climate sensitivity is genuinely less than previously thought, or whether the slowing since 1998 is purely random. There is genuine debate to be had over whether adaptation might be more sensible in many cases than mitigation. But there is no serious debate over whether or not the world is warming, and will continue to warm, and whether people are causing it. And there is certainly no sensible way you can claim that Arctic sea ice is on the mend, without being an idiot.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3342
Warm ocean rapidly melting Antarctic ice shelf from below-Video

After trying for five years, scientific instruments were finally installed on Pine Island Glacier ice shelf in Dec. 2012. Their first scientific results, determining the rate at which warm sea water is eating away the ice from underneath the floating portion of the glacier, were published today.

Warm ocean rapidly melting Antarctic ice shelf from below
submit to reddit
1
September 12, 2013

After trying for five years, scientific instruments were finally installed on Pine Island Glacier ice shelf in Dec. 2012. Their first scientific results, determining the rate at which warm sea water is eating away the ice from underneath the floating portion of the glacier, were published today.
By Maria-José Viñas
NASA's Earth Science News Team

For five years, a scientific expedition tried reaching Pine Island Glacier ice shelf in a remote, wind-ridden corner of Antarctica. The obstacles to get to the ice shelf were extreme, but the science goal was simple: to measure how fast the sea was melting the 37-mile long ice tongue from underneath by drilling through the ice shelf.

The international team, led by NASA's emeritus glaciologist Robert Bindschadler and funded by the National Science Foundation and NASA, had to abort their mission in 2007 due to logistical challenges after becoming the first people to ever land on the ice shelf. On their next try, in 2011, bad weather prevented the scientists from reaching the ice shelf until it was too late in the field season to carry out their science. It wasn't until December 2012 that the team was finally able to install scientific instruments.

Those measurements taken on and below the Pine Island Glacier ice shelf have yielded their first scientific results, determining the rate at which warm sea water is eating away the ice from underneath the floating portion of the glacier.

In a paper published in the journal Science on Sept. 13, the team describes how at one of their study sites, halfway down the ice shelf, the melt rate was as high as 2.36 inches (6 centimeters) per day.

"This is the first observation of the actual melt rate underneath the ice shelf," said Timothy Stanton, an oceanographer at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., and lead author of the paper. "We have observations using remote sensing of various kinds, but these are actual in situ measurements."

Drilling station and remote field camp on the Pine Island Glacier in 2012. Image Credit: Salvatore Consalvi Drilling station and remote field camp on the Pine Island Glacier in 2012. Image Credit: Salvatore Consalvi The measurements also detected differences in melt rates across the channel system that runs underneath the ice shelf, Stanton said. Such features are important for adjusting models so they can accurately predict ice melt and its contribution to sea level rise.
“Our direct measurements are consistent with the larger scale averages that remote sensing data have provided, but our data capture an enormous fine scale variability of the basal melting rate that remote sensing can't resolve,” Bindschadler said. “Using only the average melt rates would not lead to a correct understanding of the actual ocean-ice interaction processes taking place in the boundary layer.”

Ice shelves buttress seaward glaciers, slowing the speed at which these rivers of ice dump their contents into the sea. If an ice shelf is weakened at its grounding line, the point where the glacier loses its grip on the land and starts floating, it allows the ice to flow faster, which impacts sea level. Pine Island Glacier and its neighbor, Thwaites Glacier, drain a large fraction of the West Antarctic ice shelf and are of great importance to its stability.

Research shows that melting of the underside of Antarctic ice shelves is ultimately driven by changes in the southernmost atmospheric circulation. Strong westerly winds push the frigid top water layer of the Southern Ocean away from land, which allows deeper, warmer water to raise and spill over the border of the Antarctic continental shelf. Since the weight of land ice tilts the continental shelf inland, streams of warm water can travel all the way to the ice shelf's grounding line, where they melt the ice. The resulting warm, fresh melt water rises against the underside of the ice shelf along the length of the ice shelf and carves melt channels that look like inverted river valleys.

To study the melt rates within these channels and observe the ocean cavity beneath the ice shelf, the team set up three study sites on the ice shelf during December 2012 and January 2013. All three camps, named Drill A, B and C, were in the middle of the ice shelf, to avoid the sides and the grounding line — all of them heavily crevassed areas.

At the three campsites, the researchers used a hot-water drill to penetrate the 1,460-foot (450-meter) thick ice shelf. They then lowered through the holes a suite of oceanographic instruments, developed by Stanton, to measure the physical properties of the seawater beneath. At each drill site, a rigid pole allowed to refreeze in the lower ice shelf suspended a set of instruments about 6 feet (2 meters) below the ice-shelf base. The team also deployed at each site profiling instruments and a deep temperature and salinity instrument designed to repeatedly scan the deeper waters, although mechanical and hydraulic problems greatly limited data yield from the profilers.

Researchers use the data from these two instrument packages under the ice shelf to measure the basal melt in two different ways. First, an upward-facing altimeter records the retreat of the ice from the instrument. Second, an ocean turbulence instrument measures very small fluctuations in temperature, salinity and vertical current right below the ice. Researchers then use these three parameters to study changes in the vertical transport in the water column due to melt, which in turn lets them calculate the local ice melt rate.

On the ice shelf, scientists left high-resolution radars at different sites for 24 hours, and measured how the sea-ice interface, or the point where water touches the ice shelf's underbelly, moved as the ice melted.

The radar and oceanographic measurements translated into very similar melt rates: 2.36 inches (6 centimeters) per day, or about 72 feet (22 meters) per year in the middle of the channels, and almost non-existent at their flanks. The authors calculate that melting at the grounding line possibly doubles that higher rate. This would agree with previous estimates of basal melt made by a team led by Eric Rignot, jointly of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., and the University of California, Irvine. In 2002, Rignot's group used satellite radar data and calculated that the warm marine waters were melting Pine Island Glacier's ice shelf at around 144 feet (44 meters) per year at its grounding line.

For decades, Pine Island Glacier was considered too dangerous and remote to explore, despite its scientific interest. But a careful study of satellite imagery by Bindschadler identified an area where planes could land safely.

"The success of this project shows the strength of marrying satellite data with field data," Bindschadler said. "The satellite data told us where to go, helped guide us and it told us in broad brush strokes that this part of West Antarctica was changing a lot. But field work was the only way to get these measurements underneath the ice shelf; satellites couldn't do that for us."

"In my 35 years doing fairly large oceanographic projects, the Pine Island Glacier one tops it in terms of its complexity and challenge," Stanton said. "But it's clear that it's very important to understand how these massive ice shelves are influenced by changes in the ocean. These observations will provide the basis for improving global climate models."

Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3342
From Facebook - Michael E. Mann:

There is an amusing and rather well-coordinated untruth being circulated & promoted in climate change denial circles & right wing media that promote their propaganda that the IPCC has "trashed" the hockey stick in the latest, to be released 5th assessment report, to be released next week. In fact, what the IPCC states in a HIGHLIGHTED BOX in the Working Group 1 Summary For Policy Makers (pending any changes in the final draft) is (my emphasis)

"Analyses of paleoclimate archives indicate that in the Northern Hemisphere, the period 1983–2012 was VERY LIKELY THE WARMEST 30-year period LAST 800 YEARS (high confidence) and LIKELY THE WARMEST 30-year period of the LAST 1400 YEARS (medium confidence). 6 {2.4, 5.3}"

That is in fact a STRENGTHENING of the original Hockey Stick (and Third Assessment Report) conclusion that recent warmth was LIKELY unprecedented for the PAST 1000 YEARS.

In the intellectually bankrupt world of #climatechange denial, apparently the strengthening of our original findings somehow passes for rejection of them
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
From Climate Progress:

Colorado House Republicans Unanimously Support Flood Relief, Unanimously Opposed Sandy Aid

By Josh Israel



As historic floods of “biblical” proportions continue to ravage Colorado, President Obama signed an emergency declaration on Sunday — a move that was encouraged by a bipartisan letter last week from the state’s nine-member Congressional delegation. But the four Republican Congressmen who are now supporting disaster relief for their own state were among those voting earlier this year against the emergency aid funding for Superstorm Sandy victims on the East Coast.

Colorado Republican Reps. Mike Coffman, Cory Gardner, Doug Lamborn, and Scott Tipton joined their delegation in asking the president to send emergency funds to help their constituents combat and recover from the more than 14 inches of rain that have flooded Colorado this month.

All four also signed onto a July 10, 2013 letter from the entire delegation to President Obama asking him for a federal major disaster declaration for summer wildfires. Their request noted that such a declaration would “provide urgently needed resources and support to the state, communities, and especially the families who have been uprooted by these wildfires.”

But back in January, a vote in the House of Representatives provided $50 billion in Sandy relief, yet among those voting against the bill were Coffman, Gardner, Lamborn, and Tipton. Their opposition stemmed, in part, because they we unable to steer some of the Sandy aid to their own state. Though he had himself sought disaster aid after damages from Colorado wildfires in June 2012, Lamborn even voted against a smaller $9 billion emergency Sandy relief bill 11 days earlier.

Though scientists have noted that climate is a key cause of these Colorado floods, Coffman, Gardner, Lamborn, and Tipton are all deniers of climate science.

---

Lou Grinzo:

[...] I hope the people of Colorado and everyone else in the US finally come to their senses and vote out such miserable excuses for elected representatives.
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Tony Abbot Abolishes Australia's Climate Commission

Tony Abbott, who once famously said that climate change is "crap," has abolished Australia's Climate Commission.

The Australian prime minister has been branded a "climate criminal" after he sensationally pushed ahead with his plan to scrap government bodies associated with Labor's carbon pricing scheme and climate change policy.

The commission was set up by former prime minister Julia Gillard in February 2011 as an independent body "to provide reliable and authoritative" information on climate change.

The now former chief commissioner, Professor Tim Flannery told ABC news the Government will have to find another way to keep the public informed about climate change.

Speaking in Melbourne, Professor Flannery said: "I believe Australians have a right to know, a right to authoritative, independent and accurate information on climate change.

But the Coalition Government also wants to dump the Climate Change Authority, which was set up in 2012 to provide independent advice to the government on the carbon price and emissions reductions targets.

Environment Minister Greg Hunt yesterday instructed his department to begin drafting repeal legislation to abolish the authority.

The Labor leadership contender Anthony Albanese said in a speech on Thursday the move to scrap the commission was "shameful".

huffingtonpost.co.uk
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Why debunk climate change deniers? - By Phil Plait

I recently posted yet another debunking of a climate change denial post. The claims made by the writer, David Rose, were not just flatly wrong, but actually ridiculous. He quoted scientist Myles Allen grossly out of context (confirmed by Allen himself), making it seems as if Allen were saying something he wasn't. He compared two measurements that were not at all comparable, making it seem like other scientists didn't know what they were doing. And he made a pile of other easily disproven statements that didn't come within a glancing blow of reality.

I'll admit: It's no fun writing about this kind of thing. I hate it. I hate having to do it. I'd much rather be writing about galaxies and Saturn and supernovae, and it's depressing to wake up in the morning and see yet another nonsensical article that I know will get repeated endlessly in the deny-o-sphere echo chamber.

But that's precisely why I have to slog through it. The more people who can show these claims for what they are - wrong, willfully or otherwise - the better.

Why? Because, sadly, the people who deny the reality around them have a very large megaphone, and in some cases have a lot of motivation to use it. Money, power, riling up the electorate, or, perhaps worst of all, pure zealotry. Nothing is as impenetrable as an armor wrought from fervent ideology.

It's also upsetting to know that we have the facts, the science, the scientists, and really all of reality on our side,...



more at Grist.org
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Delaying climate action will triple costs

If the world puts off cooperative efforts to fight climate change until 2030, they will be more than three times as expensive as they would be in 2015.

That’s according to a study led by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, published Wednesday in the journal Environmental Research Letters. A team of researchers modeled the economic impacts of possible international climate agreements and found that if the world starts in 2015 to take the difficult but necessary steps to limit global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius, then international economic growth would be crimped by 2 percent. But delaying those steps until 2030 would mean growth is curtailed by about 7 percent. (Those figures refer to the effect of climate policies during the first decade, not sustained impacts.)

In the following graph from the paper, the y-axis shows the reduction in worldwide economic growth, while the x-axis shows temperature rise. The bars on the right reference four scenarios: one in which the world starts taking action today to reduce emissions under a meaningful global agreement, and others in which action doesn’t start until 2015, 2020, or 2030.




more at Grist.org
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Female Leaders to Push for Climate Change Action

Female scientists and leaders from more than 35 countries will descend on the small town of Suffern, N.Y., this weekend to discuss issues at the intersection of climate policy and women's empowerment.

The first International Women's Earth and Climate Initiative summit will include panel discussions on topics ranging from food security and the health of fresh water and the oceans to fossil fuels and transitioning to clean-energy alternatives, all within the framework of climate policy and women's rights.

The four-day conference, which begins Friday (Sept. 20), is designed to draw attention to an overlooked part of the climate change debate, said Osprey Orielle Lake, the group's co-founder.

more at LiveScience.com
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Science: It's Not About the Money

When denialists spout drivel about how scientists have faked global warming data to make big bucks in a multibillion-dollar worldwide conspiracy, it's one of the worst and most poorly-researched lies in the entire Manufactured Doubt Industry.

Those who believe that scientists get paid more than engineers and information technologists, don't know the facts. These wildly inaccurate claims are filled with such deception and deceit, it's a wonder intelligent people would even believe it. The truth is, scientists such as biologists and chemists (feeder disciplines to climate science) are paid more on par with English literature graduates than the rest of the STEM disciplines. As we move into this new century, scientists are getting paid far less for their contributions to society, while science literacy and critical thinking skills continue to decline:

Study: Not all STEM grads go on to make big bucks

Lynn O'Shaughnessy | CBS News MoneyWatch | September 19, 2013

If you are a parent, you may well hope that your children choose to major in a so-called STEM -- science, technology, engineering, math -- field when they head off to college. Politicians, policy makers, editorial page writers and many others also are loudly urging young people to enter these professions, which are widely believed to lead to bigger salaries than what, say, lowly art history or sociology major can command.

But research suggests that isn't always the case. A new study by College Measures, a non-profit firm that helps state governments gather and disseminate salary data on new college graduates, shows that not all students who major in these rigorous disciplines end up making the big bucks.

Although students majoring in the "TEM" fields tend to go on to earn larger salaries, science students often wind up making significantly less. In fact, the pay of science graduates is no higher than what English literature majors earn. 

According to College Measures, graduates with degrees in engineering and computer/information sciences enjoy the greatest earnings at the bachelor's and master's degree level, followed by grads with degrees in mathematics. In contrast, people with degrees in biology, the most popular science degree, earn no more than students who major in non-STEM fields. Those with chemistry degrees earn only slightly more than grads in sociology, psychology and English. The researchers drew these conclusions after looking at actual first-year salary figures provided by state governments in Texas, Colorado and Virginia. As the following chart of salaries for college graduates in Texas earning associate, bachelor's and master's degrees in different fields makes clear, biology majors made significantly less than those majoring in sociology, psychology and English literature.

Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 857
Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Stoat has a new post out where he gives his pithy views on a several subjects including MOOCs, real sciene, rowing, Judith Curry's understanding of climate and drivel from the NIPCC. Below are the last two:

Judith Curry’s understanding of climate is not helped much by climate models

Or so she says. Personally, I find that my understanding of the deeper aspects of General Relativity isn’t helped by me not taking the time to concentrate on the maths. But at least I’m able to realise that’s a flaw in me, not GR.

Mind you, Curry’s comment does help explain why some of her papers are crap – if you write a paper in which “the model simulations … were the main source of data used in the analysis” and yet you don’t think the models help, you’re not really going to write anything sane.

Tell me something I didn’t know

The NIPCC is drivel. Oh, that wasn’t news? Never mind. Like everyone else, I’ll read a little bit (thanks to Sou there’s a copy here) then get bored. I got to:

IPCC Claim #1: A doubling of atmospheric CO2 would cause warming between 3°C and 6°C.


and thought “that doesn’t sound right”. Then I looked about – because the report, you see, is all sciencey, its got references and everything, its like a dog walking on its hind legs – and thought “hold on, Shirely you’ve referenced that” because otherwise all your stuff is just voodoo. But no, they haven’t. So much so that its not even possible to know what they mean by this – do the mean the climate sensitivity? The equilibrium one? Anyway, rather than trying to interpret denialist junk you’re better off reading the IPCC AR4 which says:

The equilibrium climate sensitivity is a measure of the climate system response to sustained radiative forcing. It is not a projection but is defined as the global average surface warming following a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations. It is likely to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values. Water vapour changes represent the largest feedback affecting climate sensitivity and are now better understood than in the TAR. Cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty. {8.6, 9.6, Box 10.2}


So its pretty hard to avoid the conclusion that the NIPCC is simply and blatantly lying. Can you think of a way to avoid this conclusion, other than by not thinking?
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3342
Quoting 112. JohnLonergan:
Humiliating mistakes by 'The Mail on Sunday'



‘The Mail on Sunday’ is facing humiliation after two articles published earlier this month which attacked the evidence for climate change were revealed this week to contain embarrassing errors.

The two stories on Arctic sea ice and the forthcoming report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were written by David Rose, who has been assigned by the newspaper’s editor and deputy editor, Geordie Greig and Gerard Greaves, to undermine the science of climate change through a campaign called ‘The Great Green Con’.

But the campaign is now is disarray as the newspaper has been forced to admit that Rose’s Arctic ice story was based on a typographic error, and the other article contained major mistakes and misrepresentations.

On 8 September, ‘The Mail on Sunday’ published an article by Rose on page 13 under the headline ‘Record return of arctic ice cap as top scientists warn of global COOLING’.

The opening paragraph stated: “A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent”.

The story was quickly copied by other newspapers in the UK, such as ‘The Daily Telegraph’ as well as other media abroad. Meanwhile, climate change ‘sceptics’, such as Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation, eagerly reproduced the article on their blogs and websites as evidence that global warming has stopped.

Rose told me by e-mail that the source of his claim that the ice extent was 60 per cent higher this year was an announcement posted on the website of the United States National Snow and Ice Data Center on 4 September: “August 2013 ice extent was 2.38 million square kilometers (919,000 square miles) above the record low August extent in 2012. The monthly trend is –10.6% per decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 average.”

Elsewhere on its website, the NSIDC indicated that the average Arctic sea ice extent in August 2012 was a record low figure of 1.82 million square miles. This should have led Rose to claim that the Arctic sea ice was 50.5 per cent higher last month, but further faulty reasoning led him to conclude the difference was 60 per cent.

However, the NSIDC confirmed to me yesterday that the main figure used by Rose for his article was mistyped and that the mistake was corrected on 10 September, showing that Arctic sea extent in August 2013 was only 29 per cent higher than was recorded for the same month last year.

In an email to me yesterday, Natasha Vizcarra, the media liaison for NSIDC, stated:

“When we published the report, it contained a typographical error in the difference between the August 2013 monthly ice extent and the record low August extent in 2012 (and the corresponding square mile conversions). If you subtract the August 2012 extent of 4.72 million square kilometres from the August 2013 extent of 6.09 million square kilometers, you get 1.38 million square kilometers, not 2.38 million square kilometers. Our readers noticed the error and we corrected the typographical error on September 10. There are no plans to make a statement on the change because it was not an error in the data.”

Although Rose obviously did not realise that the NSIDC figures were in error, other parts of his article were deliberately misleading.

For instance, he failed to point out that the August 2013 average sea ice extent was the sixth lowest figure for that month since satellite records began in 1979, and lower than any August before 2007.

And nowhere did he admit that the August 2013 average extent of 2.35 million square miles was almost 70 per cent less than the 30-year average between 1981 and 2010 of 7.2 million square miles, and consistent with the measured rate of decline of more than 10 per cent per decade.

So even allowing for his unfortunate blunder in using a typographic error as the main source for his story, it was completely misleading for Rose to create the impression that the Arctic sea ice extent is at a record high, rather than close to record low levels.

In addition, Rose wrongly implied that annual global average surface temperature shows cooling over the past 15 years. In fact, the Met Office’s data shows that the linear trend between 1997 and 2012 was a warming of 0.05 centigrade degrees per decade. And the trend in global surface temperature does not, in any case, explain why Arctic sea ice extent was lower in August 2012 than last month.

Furthermore, it was completely false for Rose to suggest that a previous article in ‘The Mail on Sunday’ had “forced the UN’s climate change body to hold a crisis meeting”. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change pointed out in a statement on 11 September, the only meetings it is due to hold have been scheduled for many years.

Rather predictably, Rose also included an attack on the BBC, but this again amounted to a misrepresentation of the truth. Although the BBC website did feature an article in December 2007 in which Professor Wieslaw Maslowski suggested that Arctic sea ice in the summer may disappear by 2013, Rose failed to mention that the BBC also published an article in April 2011 in which Professor Maslowski updated his projection to suggest the ice could be gone by 2016.

I wrote a letter to the editor of the newspaper last week to point out these inaccuracies, but instead of publishing my correspondence, he commissioned an article for last Sunday’s edition about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in which I was criticised for describing Rose’s previous work as “error-strewn”.

Rose’s new article focused on a leaked copy of the draft summary of the new IPCC report on the physical science basis for climate change, which is due to be published in Stockholm on 27 September.

The newspaper devoted two-page spread to it on pages 12 and 13, under the headline ‘World’s top climate scientists confess global warming is HALF what we said’.

The article claimed that the last IPCC assessment report, published in 2007, “said that the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade”, whereas the leaked draft “says that the true figure since 1951 has been only 0.12C per decade”.

This was an outright misrepresentation. The draft summary of the new report does state that the linear trend in warming between 1951 and 2012 has been 0.12°C per decade. But the 2007 report indicated that the linear trend in global surface temperature over the 50-year period between 1956 and 2005 was a warming of 0.13°C per decade.

However, that was not the only falsehood in Rose’s article. He claimed that “a forecast in the 2007 report that hurricanes would become more intense has simply been dropped without mention”. In fact, the 2007 report stated that it was likely that, for a range of scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions, an increase in intense tropical cyclone (including hurricane) intensity activity would increase during the 21st century. The draft summary explicitly states that this increase would be more likely than not in some ocean basins in the last 21st century.

Rose also suggested that “IPCC scientists accept their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures”, but the draft summary states that there is very high confidence that models are able to reproduce the rapid warming that was recorded during the second half of the 20th century.

The summary does indicate that the models generally do not reproduce the slowdown in warming since 1998, during which the rate of increase in global surface temperature has been 0.05°C per decade. This may be due to unpredictable natural variability in the world’s climate, and because some models have overestimated the impact of rising greenhouse gas concentrations.

So by cherry-picking from his leaked draft and misrepresenting its content, Rose’s article provided a thoroughly misleading impression of it.

Yet Rose went even further by providing a false picture of the scientists who prepared the report. He suggested that Professor Myles Allen of the University of Oxford “said this should be the last IPCC assessment”. But Professor Allen told the fact-checkers at Carbon Brief: “I did not say this should be the last IPCC report."

Last night Rose and his editors admitted partial defeat by retracting the online version of article and publishing an amended version under the headline ‘World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong'.

While the headline error in the original article were removed, the others remained.

These are not the first articles that Rose has written for ‘The Mail on Sunday’ campaign on ‘The Great Green Con’ which have been shown to contain shocking mistakes.

On 16 March he produced another error-strewn article which attacked mainstream climate science, including a box headed ‘1977 - THE YEAR WE WERE TOLD TO FEAR TERROR OF...GLOBAL COOLING’.

But as Greenpeace pointed out, the newspaper illustrated the box with a fake cover of ‘Time’ magazine that it had download from the web.

However, these latest howlers are likely to cause most embarassment, not just for Rose, but also for Geordie Greig and Gerard Greaves.

And it should also provide a sobering lesson for other editors and reporters who have been treating the ‘The Mail on Sunday’ is a credible source of ‘sceptical’ stories about climate change.


Lol, this needs to go to Dr. m's blog although it will probably cause a riot.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3436
Humiliating mistakes by 'The Mail on Sunday'



‘The Mail on Sunday’ is facing humiliation after two articles published earlier this month which attacked the evidence for climate change were revealed this week to contain embarrassing errors.

The two stories on Arctic sea ice and the forthcoming report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were written by David Rose, who has been assigned by the newspaper’s editor and deputy editor, Geordie Greig and Gerard Greaves, to undermine the science of climate change through a campaign called ‘The Great Green Con’.

But the campaign is now is disarray as the newspaper has been forced to admit that Rose’s Arctic ice story was based on a typographic error, and the other article contained major mistakes and misrepresentations.

On 8 September, ‘The Mail on Sunday’ published an article by Rose on page 13 under the headline ‘Record return of arctic ice cap as top scientists warn of global COOLING’.

The opening paragraph stated: “A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent”.

The story was quickly copied by other newspapers in the UK, such as ‘The Daily Telegraph’ as well as other media abroad. Meanwhile, climate change ‘sceptics’, such as Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation, eagerly reproduced the article on their blogs and websites as evidence that global warming has stopped.

Rose told me by e-mail that the source of his claim that the ice extent was 60 per cent higher this year was an announcement posted on the website of the United States National Snow and Ice Data Center on 4 September: “August 2013 ice extent was 2.38 million square kilometers (919,000 square miles) above the record low August extent in 2012. The monthly trend is –10.6% per decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 average.”

Elsewhere on its website, the NSIDC indicated that the average Arctic sea ice extent in August 2012 was a record low figure of 1.82 million square miles. This should have led Rose to claim that the Arctic sea ice was 50.5 per cent higher last month, but further faulty reasoning led him to conclude the difference was 60 per cent.

However, the NSIDC confirmed to me yesterday that the main figure used by Rose for his article was mistyped and that the mistake was corrected on 10 September, showing that Arctic sea extent in August 2013 was only 29 per cent higher than was recorded for the same month last year.

In an email to me yesterday, Natasha Vizcarra, the media liaison for NSIDC, stated:

“When we published the report, it contained a typographical error in the difference between the August 2013 monthly ice extent and the record low August extent in 2012 (and the corresponding square mile conversions). If you subtract the August 2012 extent of 4.72 million square kilometres from the August 2013 extent of 6.09 million square kilometers, you get 1.38 million square kilometers, not 2.38 million square kilometers. Our readers noticed the error and we corrected the typographical error on September 10. There are no plans to make a statement on the change because it was not an error in the data.”

Although Rose obviously did not realise that the NSIDC figures were in error, other parts of his article were deliberately misleading.

For instance, he failed to point out that the August 2013 average sea ice extent was the sixth lowest figure for that month since satellite records began in 1979, and lower than any August before 2007.

And nowhere did he admit that the August 2013 average extent of 2.35 million square miles was almost 70 per cent less than the 30-year average between 1981 and 2010 of 7.2 million square miles, and consistent with the measured rate of decline of more than 10 per cent per decade.

So even allowing for his unfortunate blunder in using a typographic error as the main source for his story, it was completely misleading for Rose to create the impression that the Arctic sea ice extent is at a record high, rather than close to record low levels.

In addition, Rose wrongly implied that annual global average surface temperature shows cooling over the past 15 years. In fact, the Met Office’s data shows that the linear trend between 1997 and 2012 was a warming of 0.05 centigrade degrees per decade. And the trend in global surface temperature does not, in any case, explain why Arctic sea ice extent was lower in August 2012 than last month.

Furthermore, it was completely false for Rose to suggest that a previous article in ‘The Mail on Sunday’ had “forced the UN’s climate change body to hold a crisis meeting”. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change pointed out in a statement on 11 September, the only meetings it is due to hold have been scheduled for many years.

Rather predictably, Rose also included an attack on the BBC, but this again amounted to a misrepresentation of the truth. Although the BBC website did feature an article in December 2007 in which Professor Wieslaw Maslowski suggested that Arctic sea ice in the summer may disappear by 2013, Rose failed to mention that the BBC also published an article in April 2011 in which Professor Maslowski updated his projection to suggest the ice could be gone by 2016.

I wrote a letter to the editor of the newspaper last week to point out these inaccuracies, but instead of publishing my correspondence, he commissioned an article for last Sunday’s edition about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in which I was criticised for describing Rose’s previous work as “error-strewn”.

Rose’s new article focused on a leaked copy of the draft summary of the new IPCC report on the physical science basis for climate change, which is due to be published in Stockholm on 27 September.

The newspaper devoted two-page spread to it on pages 12 and 13, under the headline ‘World’s top climate scientists confess global warming is HALF what we said’.

The article claimed that the last IPCC assessment report, published in 2007, “said that the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade”, whereas the leaked draft “says that the true figure since 1951 has been only 0.12C per decade”.

This was an outright misrepresentation. The draft summary of the new report does state that the linear trend in warming between 1951 and 2012 has been 0.12°C per decade. But the 2007 report indicated that the linear trend in global surface temperature over the 50-year period between 1956 and 2005 was a warming of 0.13°C per decade.

However, that was not the only falsehood in Rose’s article. He claimed that “a forecast in the 2007 report that hurricanes would become more intense has simply been dropped without mention”. In fact, the 2007 report stated that it was likely that, for a range of scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions, an increase in intense tropical cyclone (including hurricane) intensity activity would increase during the 21st century. The draft summary explicitly states that this increase would be more likely than not in some ocean basins in the last 21st century.

Rose also suggested that “IPCC scientists accept their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures”, but the draft summary states that there is very high confidence that models are able to reproduce the rapid warming that was recorded during the second half of the 20th century.

The summary does indicate that the models generally do not reproduce the slowdown in warming since 1998, during which the rate of increase in global surface temperature has been 0.05°C per decade. This may be due to unpredictable natural variability in the world’s climate, and because some models have overestimated the impact of rising greenhouse gas concentrations.

So by cherry-picking from his leaked draft and misrepresenting its content, Rose’s article provided a thoroughly misleading impression of it.

Yet Rose went even further by providing a false picture of the scientists who prepared the report. He suggested that Professor Myles Allen of the University of Oxford “said this should be the last IPCC assessment”. But Professor Allen told the fact-checkers at Carbon Brief: “I did not say this should be the last IPCC report."

Last night Rose and his editors admitted partial defeat by retracting the online version of article and publishing an amended version under the headline ‘World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong'.

While the headline error in the original article were removed, the others remained.

These are not the first articles that Rose has written for ‘The Mail on Sunday’ campaign on ‘The Great Green Con’ which have been shown to contain shocking mistakes.

On 16 March he produced another error-strewn article which attacked mainstream climate science, including a box headed ‘1977 - THE YEAR WE WERE TOLD TO FEAR TERROR OF...GLOBAL COOLING’.

But as Greenpeace pointed out, the newspaper illustrated the box with a fake cover of ‘Time’ magazine that it had download from the web.

However, these latest howlers are likely to cause most embarassment, not just for Rose, but also for Geordie Greig and Gerard Greaves.

And it should also provide a sobering lesson for other editors and reporters who have been treating the ‘The Mail on Sunday’ is a credible source of ‘sceptical’ stories about climate change.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3342
Quoting 107. FLwolverine:
I thought maybe it was, and that perhaps you intended it as sarcasm. I would have meant it that way!


More irony, than sarcasm
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3342
Solar Panel Costs Drop 60% In US Since Early 2011

SMI-Q2-2013-Infographic
more at CostOfSolar.com
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3342
Quoting 1. ColoradoBob1:
The last the 90 days -
A 500 year flood in Europe.
A 1,000 year flood in Russia.
A 1,00 year flood in Colorado.

Add that that to your observed events .


Colorado Bob (and anyone else that hates the bastards with a gun to our grandchildrens head):

Remember when Michael Bennet voted for the Keystone XL pipeline?

Link
Link

Well, if you call his office right now, his mouthpiece will swear that the vote never happened, and that it was all a mistake. "He never cast that vote in favor of KXL, it was a budget thing, ... heck, he wasnt even on the planet at the time. He's never heard of the pipeline and has no position on it. (If you've had a 5 year old in the house, that kind of lie sounds familiar.)

I call that a lie.

You?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 104. JohnLonergan:


Sorry I didn't make it clear,

"Something I found interesting was how little discussion was given to the “plateau” in warming over the last decade." is my own observation.
I thought maybe it was, and that perhaps you intended it as sarcasm. I would have meant it that way!
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2382
Published Rebuttal of Akasofu Paper “On the Present Halting of Global Warming”

Comment on: Akasofu, S.-I. On the Present Halting of Global Warming. Climate 2013, 1, 4–11

Dana A. Nuccitelli, John P. Abraham, Rasmus E. Benestad and Scott A. Mandia

Abstract: A recent article which has set forth new interpretations of Earth’s recent climate history has included some questions of authentic scientific inquiry, particularly related to the impact of ocean oscillations on atmospheric temperatures. In fact, this very issue is currently being investigated by multiple research groups. On the other hand, the claim that a two-century linear temperature increase is a recovery from a recent cool period is not supported by the data. Furthermore, this thermal recovery hypothesis is not connected to any physical phenomenon; rather it is a result of a simplistic and incorrect curve-fitting operation. Other errors in the article are: the claim that the heating of the Earth has halted, misunderstanding of the relationship between carbon dioxide concentration and the resultant radiative forcing, and a failure to account for forcings other than carbon dioxide (such as other greenhouse gases, atmospheric aerosols, land use changes, etc.). Each of these errors brings serious question to the conclusions drawn in the referenced article. The simultaneous occurrence of all of these errors in a single study guarantees that its conclusions cannot be supported and, in fact, are demonstrably incorrect.

Full text available
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3342
From Climate Progress:

The Five Craziest Arguments At Yesterday’s Climate Hearing

By Ryan Koronowski

On Wednesday, EPA administrator Gina McCarthy and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz testified before a subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee about the impact of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan. The Republican side of the dais argued against doing anything about carbon pollution, but they also spent much of their time focused on inaccuracies and misconceptions about climate change.

McCarthy and Moniz, central to the president’s climate plan, did their best to explain it to the assembled members. Ranking member Henry Waxman (D-CA) said this was “first time in a long time that this committee is holding a hearing on climate change” and instead of addressing the urgency of action, GOP members wasted time complaining about how many cabinet-level officials showed up, for example.

Here are the five oddest things Administrator McCarthy and Secretary Moniz heard from House Republicans at Wednesday’s hearing.

1. Humans Are So Small And The World’s So Big

Chairman Ed Whitfield began the hearing by arguing that human carbon emissions are insignificant, saying “3.75 percent of all worldwide emissions come from human activity.” This statement, kicking off a hearing about the government’s response to climate change, exposes a shocking lack of understanding for the Chair of the Energy and Power subcommittee.

What Whitfield’s referring to is natural carbon dioxide emissions from animals, plants, and oceans. What he did not say is those natural carbon dioxide emissions are balanced by natural absorption of carbon dioxide by plants and oceans. This equilibrium existed for millennia, until humans started burning much of the world’s forests and extracting hydrocarbons that had been buried for millions of years. Forests are carbon sinks, and so are oil, coal, and gas deposits.

So even if, as Rep. Whitfield says, humans “only” emit 30 gigatons of the 800 gigatons of CO2 released into the atmosphere every year, the problem is that human emissions don’t have the same counterbalance that natural emissions do. The Keeling Curve that tracks global carbon dioxide levels makes it clear that our emissions knocked that equilibrium out of balance. Humans also have found ways to emit artificial “super pollutants” that are much more potent greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide.

2. The Earth Isn’t Warming

Rep. David McKinley (R-WV) told McCarthy and Moniz, “here is the reality of temperature changes over the last 40 years — actually we can say over 40 years there has been almost no increase in temperature.”

40 years ago was 1973. This graph, from NOAA, plots how global temperatures each year are different from the average, and the steady increase in temperature is plain:



The upcoming IPCC report will also forecast that the globe will continue to warm, alarmingly so, unless we slow and reverse the current pace of global carbon emissions.

McKinley brought this report as well, saying that most experts think that the benefits of climate change will outweigh the harm. However America’s most prescient climate scientist, James Hansen, has a new paper out saying that warming levels will be catastrophic if emissions continue as-is.

3. Coal Can’t Be Clean, So Let’s Burn More

Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) is skeptical that coal plants can be built that do not spew unregulated carbon pollution. He questioned both witnesses about the upcoming Clean Air Act regulations to address emissions from new power plants, which will likely require carbon capture and storage (CCS) systems. Shimkus, despite taking over $250,000 from the mining industry, doubts that carbon capture and sequestration technology is economically or technologically feasible, even though nearly a century of ads from the coal industry have promised “clean coal.”

While there are many reasons to be skeptical about clean coal, one thing is certain: the coal power industry has not made coal clean on its own. If it’s possible to do so, federal rules might be the only way to do it. Regulations allowed coal plants to find a way to install scrubbers that reined in acidic gases like sulfur dioxide. Technology to scrub mercury from coal plant emissions has been implemented only as states (and, slowly, the federal government) start to implement mercury air toxics rules.

4. They Received A ‘Red Badge of Courage’

Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) spent most of his question time wondering why the 11 other agency heads weren’t in the room, saying “we’re being stonewalled, which means the American people’s being stonewalled.” After awarding Administrator McCarthy and Secretary Moniz a “red badge of courage” for attending, he read aloud, one after another, each question in a questionnaire that he wanted them to answer. After Barton had talked for most of his five minutes, Secretary Moniz started to answer but Barton’s time had expired.

Rep. Waxman noted dryly that “it’s exceptional to have two cabinet-level officials appear before a subcommittee.”

Barton also must have missed that another House Energy and Commerce subcommittee will hear from representatives from the NASA and NOAA on Thursday.

5. ‘Is Anything You Are Doing Any Good?’

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) wanted to know if the purpose of the upcoming rules was to “impact” the 26 indicators of climate change on EPA’s website. McCarthy said the Clean Air Act regulations were “part of an overall strategy that is positioning the U.S. for leadership and international discussion because climate change requires a global effort.”

Pompeo then said he wanted to know “how many heat-related deaths have been eliminated as a result” of the improved fuel economy standards unveiled in 2010. McCarthy responded with reason, saying no one can “make those direct connections.” The climate is complex and the amount of work yet to do to decrease emissions is immense. The CAFE standards were a first step. Rep. Pompeo then tried to conclude that making cars more efficient and burning less gasoline will not do anything for climate change, asking “Is anything you are doing doing any good?”

The economic benefits of EPA regulations “massively outweigh” the economic costs. The agency is tasked with protecting the nation’s air and water, and though it has made serious progress in doing so, there is much more to do, particularly on climate. The main obstacles are intransigence from Congress and industry.
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Quoting 103. Xulonn:
This is a significant statement, and we should all remember it.

However, this statement is really bad form. I'm surprised that the "Nature" organization would report it this way. (Edit: John paraphrased it from the editorial) It's not a "plateau" in [global} warming, it's a current decrease in the rate of surface temperature rise, coupled with an increase in deep-ocean warming, and with no slowdown evident in the rate of change in the many other "lines of evidence" in the AGW/CC trend.


Sorry I didn't make it clear,

"Something I found interesting was how little discussion was given to the “plateau” in warming over the last decade." is my own observation.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3342
Quoting 100 - from the "Nature" editorial:

The IPCC process remains a human endeavour and, as such, is subject to human error; the silly mistake in the previous report that Himalayan glaciers would melt completely by 2035 demonstrates this. But the rarity of such errors shows what a solid job the organization has done. Critics went through the rest of the more-than-900-page report with a fine-tooth comb but found little else of significance to crow about.
This is a significant statement, and we should all remember it.

Quoting 100. from the "Nature" editorial:

Something I found interesting was how little discussion was given to the "plateau" in warming over the last decade.
However, this statement is really bad form. I'm surprised that the "Nature" organization would report it this way. (Edit: John paraphrased it from the editorial) It's not a "plateau" in [global} warming, it's a current decrease in the rate of surface temperature rise, coupled with an increase in deep-ocean warming, and with no slowdown evident in the rate of change in the many other "lines of evidence" in the AGW/CC trend.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1456
Quoting 101. Pipejazz:
SAD news. Austrailia gives science minister job to the industry lobby. The pale blue dot may not stay blue in the future? Link
Of note: According to New Scientist, “Australia is to abolish its emissions trading scheme, disband a climate advisory body and institute a carbon reduction policy that experts say will fail to meet its meagre target.” The Guardian added: “Australia’s Prime Minister elect Tony Abbott has just taken the climate change ball and locked it in a cupboard at the back of the official residence.

What is it that they say... elections have consequences?
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3198
SAD news. Austrailia gives science minister job to the industry lobby. The pale blue dot may not stay blue in the future? Link
Of note: According to New Scientist, “Australia is to abolish its emissions trading scheme, disband a climate advisory body and institute a carbon reduction policy that experts say will fail to meet its meagre target.” The Guardian added: “Australia’s Prime Minister elect Tony Abbott has just taken the climate change ball and locked it in a cupboard at the back of the official residence.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
There’s an editorial in Nature this week about the upcoming report – The final assessment

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has provided invaluable evidence for policy-makers, but giant reports should give way to nimbler, more relevant research.

The first working group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will deliver its assessment of the science of global warming at a meeting in Stockholm next week. This will be the fifth time that the IPCC has delivered such an assessment; some 23 years have passed since the first effort. Many things have changed in that time; others have not. Regardless, it is time to rethink the IPCC. The organization deserves thanks and respect from all who care about the principle of evidence-based policy-making, but the current report should be its last mega-assessment.

For more than two decades, the depth and breadth of the IPCC’s regular reports have expanded exponentially and in parallel with a truly breathtaking array of data. More climate models are running increasingly sophisticated calculations, and coordinated experiments are bolstering our understanding of the results. Most importantly, the panel has increased its confidence in the underlying message — that greenhouse gases are altering Earth’s climate. No serious politician on the planet can now dispute that.

Unfortunately, one thing that has not changed is that scientists cannot say with any certainty what rate of warming might be expected, or what effects humanity might want to prepare for, hedge against or avoid at all costs. In particular, the temperature range of the warming that would result from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels is expected to be judged as 1.5–4.5 °C in next week’s report — wider than in the last assessment and exactly what it was in the report of 1990. The governments of the world, to whom the IPCC reports, have made precious little headway in reducing emissions. And they appear in little hurry to do so. For all of these reasons, it would seem that a little reform is in order.

After the first working group publishes its findings next week, attention will turn to the second and third groups, which focus on impacts and mitigation, respectively, and are scheduled to deliver their results next year. The result of this process will be a kind of consensus document that scientists, non-governmental organizations, bureaucrats and elected officials around the world can turn to as they discuss — at times it can seem endlessly — how to confront the most complex environmental issue of our time.

Old news

The IPCC process remains a human endeavour and, as such, is subject to human error; the silly mistake in the previous report that Himalayan glaciers would melt completely by 2035 demonstrates this. But the rarity of such errors shows what a solid job the organization has done. Critics went through the rest of the more-than-900-page report with a fine-tooth comb but found little else of significance to crow about.

True, ‘consensus’ does not necessarily mean that everybody is entirely happy with judgements about how the science is framed. Many researchers felt that the fourth assessment underplayed the potential for rapid sea-level rise, for instance, and this time around, some fear that the IPCC is putting too much weight on a series of studies suggesting that the climate may be less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought. In the end, however, it is abundantly clear that the IPCC has done its job and is delivering what international policy-makers need to do theirs. Yes, greenhouse gases are changing the climate. Yes, we are already seeing substantial impacts, and more are on the way. And yes, this adds up to a problem for society that is significant and warrants immediate attention.

But none of this is news, and that is the problem. The IPCC’s fifth assessment will provide a comprehensive analysis of policy options and the scientific basis for the next round of climate negotiations, which are scheduled to come to a head in 2015. What is missing from these talks is not science but political ambition, which is ultimately a reflection of public support. The IPCC has a crucial role in this process and must remain the central authority on global warming. It is not clear, however, that to immediately launch into yet another comprehensive assessment — which would consume immeasurable time and energy, and would probably come to the same bottom-line conclusions — represents the best use of our scientific resources.


Instead, climate scientists should focus on smaller and more rapid assessments of more pressing questions that have a particular political interest and for which science is evolving quickly. These reports could look more like the panel’s recent special report on extreme weather; longer and more detailed assessments could be performed as needed, when there is sufficient interest from the governments that the IPCC serves.

Such a structure might also help to avoid an unfortunate consequence of the current framework, which ensures that the IPCC’s mega-assessments are out of date by the time they hit the streets. For the latest document, some 20 international teams participated in coordinated modelling experiments, providing the core climate projections that the global community will use in the coming years; this is one area in which the IPCC has clearly driven the science forward. However, owing to logistics and deadlines, scientists barely had time to conduct a preliminary analysis for the current assessment, and as a result it lacks the more detailed analyses and most of the new science being published in journals today.

Absent from next week’s report, for instance, is recent and ongoing research on the rate of warming and what is — or is not — behind the plateau in average global temperatures that the world has experienced during the past 15 years. These questions have important policy implications, and the IPCC is the right body to answer them. But it need not wait six years to do so.

Nature 501, 281 (19 September 2013) doi:10.1038/501281a

Something I found interesting was how little discussion was given to the “plateau” in warming over the last decade.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3342
From DeSmogBlog:

Whether Approved Or Not, Keystone XL Has Been A Victory For Lobbyists

For the past six years, lobbyists in Washington have made a killing shilling either for or against the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. And with no clear end in sight, the folks on K Street will continue to see a flurry of cash headed in their direction.

During last year’s heated presidential race, groups spent close to $16 million directly related to the Keystone XL pipeline, with most of that money coming from industry and other proponents of the pipeline. While opponents of the pipeline spent a few million last year – with at least one million pledged this year to fight against KXL – the lion’s share of the money spent on lobbying comes from the dirty energy industry.

Bloomberg reported the following on how intense the lobbying showdown has been in recent years:

In all, lobbyists representing more than 50 groups are engaged on the issue and about $1 million has been spent in television ads in 2013 alone, following expenditures of almost $16 million during last year’s election season…

The swarm of lobbyists are targeting a small group of policy makers at the U.S. State Department -- and ultimately President Barack Obama, who will make the decision in the coming months…

At the end of June, 54 companies and interest groups reported lobbying on the project, including TransCanada, Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM), the League of Conservation Voters and Laborers’ International Union of North America, according to disclosure reports filed with the U.S. Senate. That’s up slightly from 50 at the end of March.


Keystone opponents have stuck mostly to online ads and in-person protests and events, but Bloomberg says that the heavy hitters – the American Petroleum Institute and TransCanada – have been able to buy television ads in areas all over the country to tout the many “benefits” of the pipeline.

The lobbying blitz has had a noticeable impact on public opinion, as approval for the project hit as high as 70% earlier this year. But the support can be attributed to the fact that Americans are being inundated with misinformation about the pipeline.

As we’ve reported numerous times, the Keystone XL pipeline will feature a dangerously inadequate monitoring system; it will not lower U.S. energy prices – it will actually cause them to rise; and it will create only 35 permanent jobs for this country. But corporate lobbying money has been more than effective at keeping those facts hidden from the public.

The ugly truth about the pipeline has been buried under millions of dollars worth of industry lobbying and advertising money. And no matter what the final decision is from Washington, there’s no denying that the lobbyists have already won this battle, and they’re laughing all the way to the bank.
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Thank goodness we have Rupert Murdoch. Without him, we wouldn't be able to have such epic science rebuttals summed up into 129 twitter characters.
Why do we even need science journals at all?
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3198
Quoting 94. Xandra:




I saw a response on Twitter to Rupert Murdock yesterday,
I should have saved it but the gist of it was:

"Same as your circulation figures,steadily down, w rare spike"
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3342
Stefan Rahmstorf discusses the The Known Knowns of Climate Change.

POTSDAM – The philosopher Daniel Dennett once compared science to the construction of a huge pyramid. Its base comprises the mass of well-established knowledge – no longer controversial and seldom discussed outside academia. More recent research is piled toward the top of the pyramid, where most public debate takes place. It is an apt metaphor for climate-change research, and one worth bearing in mind with the publication of the latest report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The IPCC’s fifth report, the product of several years of work by hundreds of climate scientists around the world, reviews our established understanding of climate change and explains more recent findings. The media understandably tend to focus on the latter – like the much higher sea-level rise predictions compared to the previous IPCC report of 2007. But let us step back from the news cycle to look at the solid knowledge base of our pyramid.

Climate research dates back at least two centuries, to Joseph Fourier’s discovery of the effects of greenhouse gases on planetary climates; in 1859, John Tyndall demonstrated in his laboratory which gases cause this effect. Detailed radiation measurements on the ground and from satellites have since proved the greenhouse effect’s existence.


Read more
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3342


Arctic sea ice "recovers" to its 6th-lowest extent in millennia

As Suzanne Goldenberg reported in The Guardian yesterday, Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its annual minimum extent, at approximately 5.1 million square kilometers. This is the 6th-lowest extent since the satellite record began in 1979.

But in fact, scientists have also reconstructed Arctic sea ice extent data much further into the past. For example, Walsh & Chapman from the University of Illinois have estimated sea ice extent as far back as the year 1870 using a vast array of data (for example, records kept by the Danish Meteorological Institute and Norwegian Polar Institute, and reports made from ocean vessels). While climate contrarians will sometimes try to argue that Arctic sea ice extent may have reached similar lows to today's in the 1920s or 1930s–1940s, the data compiled by Walsh & Chapman tell a very different story.



Average July through September Arctic sea ice extent 1870–2008 from the University of Illinois (Walsh & Chapman 2001 updated to 2008) and observational data from NSIDC for 2009–2013.

Average July through September Arctic sea ice extent 1870–2008 from the University of Illinois (Walsh & Chapman 2001 updated to 2008) and observational data from NSIDC for 2009–2013.

Going back even further in time, a study published in the journal Nature in 2011 used a combination of Arctic ice core, tree ring, and lake sediment data to reconstruct Arctic conditions going back 1,450 years. The result is shown below.

Read more...
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3342
From Mother Jones:

Why Bother Debunking Climate Change Deniers?

The people who deny climate change have a very large megaphone, and a lot of motivation to use it.

By Phil Plait


Rupert Murdoch Zhang Jun/ZUMA

I recently posted yet another debunking of a climate change denial post. The claims made by the writer, David Rose, were not just flatly wrong, but actually ridiculous. He quoted scientist Myles Allen grossly out of context (confirmed by Allen himself), making it seems as if Allen were saying something he wasn't. He compared two measurements that were not at all comparable, making it seem like other scientists didn't know what they were doing. And he made a pile of other easily disproven statements that didn't come within a glancing blow of reality.

I'll admit: It's no fun writing about this kind of thing. I hate it. I hate having to do it. I'd much rather be writing about galaxies and Saturn and supernovae, and it's depressing to wake up in the morning and see yet another nonsensical article that I know will get repeated endlessly in the deny-o-sphere echo chamber.

But that's precisely why I have to slog through it. The more people who can show these claims for what they are—wrong, willfully or otherwise—the better.

Why? Because, sadly, the people who deny the reality around them have a very large megaphone, and in some cases have a lot of motivation to use it. Money, power, riling up the electorate, or, perhaps worst of all, pure zealotry. Nothing is as impenetrable as an armor wrought from fervent ideology.

It's also upsetting to know that we have the facts, the science, the scientists, and really all of reality on our side. But human nature is a contrary beast, and doubt is a seed that grows lushly in dark places.

It is also easily fed and nurtured, needing only a handful of voices to grow. These voices are legion.

As a first example, take Rupert Murdoch, the billionaire owner of News Corp, Fox, and many newspapers. This bastion of far-right thinkery recently tweeted this:



It says, "Al Gore. Pls explain record increase in Arctic ice. Other greenies crippling US growth in opposing safe tracking [sic] for natural gas."

I assume he meant to write "fracking" and not "tracking". Either way, though, what he's saying is pure fertilizer. As I have explained, September of last year saw historically low levels of Arctic sea ice. This year, the amount of sea ice was far, far below normal, but the extent was more than the devastatingly low amount of last year's record. Murdoch calling that a record increase, like it's a good thing, is garbage. It's like getting pneumonia a month after a nearly fatal heart attack, and having someone tell you your health is great now.

Rupert Murdoch has a half million followers on Twitter, incidentally, and obviously his opinions can reach far more people through his media holdings. He may spew nonsense, but it's nonsense that gets spread far and wide.

[...]

I'll add one bonus example. There are many to choose from, including the Koch Brothers, various think tanks, and other politicians. But there's one fish in this barrel that exemplifies what I mean by "the echo chamber".

It hardly needs saying that Rush Limbaugh is an endless source of misinformation. But I want to point out a specific example. On Sep. 8, 2013, The Mail on Sunday posted the error-laden article by David Rose talking about Arctic sea ice recovering from last year's record low. The very next day, on his radio show, Limbaugh was talking about the Syrian civil war. He talked about the claim that the war is in part due to severe drought in that area caused by global warming:

[The claim is that the Syrian civil war] wouldn't be happening at all and there would have been the use of chemical weapons if it weren't for global warming. The only problem with that is that the Arctic Ice Sheet is at a record size for this time of year. They told us the ice was melting in the Arctic Ice Sheet. It's not. There's a record amount of ice, in the modern era, for this time of year.

[Emphasis mine.]

Limbaugh took Rose's misleading claims about Arctic sea ice, and then made them even wronger by saying the ice was at record size for this time of year. That is complete and utter bilge. The extent of sea ice for September 2013 was far lower than the 1981-2010 average, by two standard deviations (think of a standard deviation like a letter grade; if the average is a C, then this year's ice level is an F). The actual sea ice "death spiral" is dramatic, scary, and all too real.

And that is precisely why we must keep being vocal, keep fighting this kind of nonsense. Because it's bad enough all by itself, but it gets self-amplified by the deniers until it no longer resembles anything close to reality. Yet their audience will still listen. And their audience is vast.

Still. They may be louder, but we are greater in number. We do have the facts, but facts cannot speak for themselves. They need an advocate, and it's up to all of us to speak for them.

[...]

Complete article here
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Harry Reid: Climate Change is Here

US Senate Majority leader Harry Reid on Colorado, Climate Change, and the Congress' failure to act.

Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281

Where is the recovery?

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting 89. Doxienan:


I was just reading how the Republicans in Congress will attach a provision for approval of the Keystone XL pipeline to the bill to raise the debt limit. It's going to get
even uglier in Washington Dc this Fall. Link

Don't forget. This Saturday, in a community near you. 350.org has a day of protest against the KXL. Go to 350.org to find a protest near you.


My pipelines are better..
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting 87. JohnLonergan:


OK, but don't be such a stranger, ya had some good stuff.


Thanks for the compliment John.. :)
Been in the minus health-wise..
I'll make it a point to make a pertinent/appropriate post here soon..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 88. Skyepony:
Great grandma arrested protesting the pipeline.



This CREDO Action member and great-grandmother was one of 13 brave activists arrested at TransCanada headquarters in Houston this morning. Despite being threatened with 180 days in jail or a $1,000 fine, she did not move. She is just one of the more than 75,000 people who have signed the NoKXL Pledge of Resistance.


I was just reading how the Republicans in Congress will attach a provision for approval of the Keystone XL pipeline to the bill to raise the debt limit. It's going to get
even uglier in Washington Dc this Fall. Link

Don't forget. This Saturday, in a community near you. 350.org has a day of protest against the KXL. Go to 350.org to find a protest near you.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
88. Skyepony (Mod)
Great grandma arrested protesting the pipeline.



This CREDO Action member and great-grandmother was one of 13 brave activists arrested at TransCanada headquarters in Houston this morning. Despite being threatened with 180 days in jail or a $1,000 fine, she did not move. She is just one of the more than 75,000 people who have signed the NoKXL Pledge of Resistance.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 85. pcola57:




Aww..
Thanks yoboi,Steve,Marty,John,Birthmark and all.. :)
I try to post interesting stuff..
The news article was decent..
It had some fodder for discussion in it..
But thats for another day..


OK, but don't be such a stranger, ya had some good stuff.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3342
#84 - ooooh, maybe if I hurry I can post this before CE and iceagecoming ---

Look at that Antarctic sea ice! Rebound for sure!

/snark

But seriously, folks.... Thanks for the info, JohnL.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2382
Quoting 82. SteveDa1:


You posted it in an old blog. Your posts are welcome here. Well, to me anyway.


Quoting 83. indianrivguy:


Me too messy Marvin!


Aww..
Thanks yoboi,Steve,Marty,John,Birthmark and all.. :)
I try to post interesting stuff..
The news article was decent..
It had some fodder for discussion in it..
But thats for another day..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
State of the Climate

Global Summary Information - August 2013


August 2013 global temperature ties for fourth highest on record

August global ocean temperature ties for record highest


The globally-averaged temperature for August 2013 tied with 2005 as the fourth warmest August since record keeping began in 1880. August 2013 also marks the 35th consecutive August and 342nd consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average.

Many areas of the world experienced higher-than-average monthly temperatures, including New Zealand, Australia, northern South America, western North America, Europe, much of eastern Asia, and most of the global ocean regions. Far eastern China, part of northeastern South America, part of the Barents Sea, sections of the western Pacific Ocean, and part of the south central Indian Ocean were record warm. Meanwhile, the southeastern United States, Far East Russia, northern South Africa, Paraguay, Bolivia, and the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean were cooler than average. No regions of the globe were record cold.


Global temperature highlights: August
%u2022The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces during August tied with 2005 as the fourth highest on record for August, at 61.22F (16.22C) or 1.12F (0.62C) above the 20th century average. The margin of error associated with this temperature is 0.22F (0.12C).


August 2013 Blended Land and Sea Surface
Temperature Percentiles August 2013 Blended Land & Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies in C
%u2022August marked the 35th consecutive August and 342nd consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last below-average temperature for August was August 1978 and the last below-average temperature for any month was February 1985.
%u2022 The global land temperature was the 11th warmest August on record, at 1.39F (0.77C) above the 20th century average. The margin of error is 0.41F (0.23C).
%u2022 Some national highlights are included below:
%u2022New Zealand observed its warmest August since national records began in 1909, at 3.4F (1.9C) above the 1971%u20132000 monthly average.
%u2022Australia reported its second highest nationally-averaged August temperature since records began in 1910, at 2.88F (1.60C) above the 1961%u20131990 average. With the exception of the southernmost island state of Tasmania, all states and territories had average temperatures that were among their 10 highest for August.
%u2022For the ocean, the August global sea surface temperature was 1.03F (0.57C), above the 20th century average, tying with 1998, 2003, 2005, and 2009 as the record highest for August. The margin of error is 0.09F (0.05C).
%u2022 Neither El Nio nor La Nia conditions were present across the central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean during August, with sea surface temperatures below average in the eastern equatorial Pacific. According to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center, neutral conditions are favored through the Northern Hemisphere winter 2013/14.



Precipitation highlights: August
%u2022Record wetness was observed over part of the central United States and far eastern India. Record dryness was scattered across different parts of the globe, including parts of the north central United States, northern Chile, small sections of Africa and eastern Europe, along with regions in both western and eastern Australia.
%u2022During the Asian Southwest Monsoon season, which occurs annually during June%u2013September, India as a whole received 110 percent of the 1951%u20132000 average rainfall from June 1st through August 31st. Among the four main geographical regions, Central India received 128 percent of average rainfall, while Northeast India received just 72 percent of average rainfall during this period.
%u2022Very heavy rainfall during August 1st%u201312th brought 12 inches (300 mm) of rainfall to Far East Russia near the China border, leading to the worst flooding in more than a century in that region.

Polar ice highlights: August and Seasonal



Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent, from the August 2013 Global Snow & Ice Report
%u2022According to data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the average August Arctic sea ice extent was 2.35 million square miles, 440,000 square miles (15.65 percent) below the 1981%u20132010 average of 2.79 million square miles. This was the sixth smallest August Arctic sea ice extent since satellite records began in 1979. Arctic sea ice extent during August 2013 was 533,000 square miles larger than the record low August extent of 2012.
%u2022The August Antarctic sea ice extent of 7.31 million square miles was 320,000 square miles (4.47 percent) above the 1981%u20132010 average of 6.99 million square miles. This was the largest August Antarctic sea ice extent on record, surpassing August 2010 when the sea ice extent was 7.28 million square miles.
%u2022The globally combined Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent during August was 9.66 million square miles, 120,000 square miles (1.26 percent) below the 1981%u20132010 average of 9.78 million square miles. This marked the 13th smallest August global sea ice extent in the 45-year period of record.









Global temperature highlights: June%u2013August

%u2022The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for June%u2013August tied with 2009 as the fifth highest on record for this period, at 1.12F (0.62C) above the 20th century average of 60.1F (15.6C). The margin of error associated with this temperature is 0.20F (0.11C).
%u2022The global land temperature was the seventh highest for June%u2013August on record, at 1.53F (0.85C) above the 20th century average of 56.9F (13.8C). The margin of error is 0.36F (0.20C).
%u2022The fourth warmest July and a record warm August contributed to the warmest winter (June%u2013August) on record for New Zealand, with a temperature 2.2F (1.2C) higher than the 1971%u20132000 average for the period.
%u2022Austria observed its sixth warmest summer (June%u2013August) since national records began in 1767, at 2.2F (1.2C) above the 1981%u20132010 average for the period.
%u2022For the ocean, the June%u2013August global sea surface temperature was 0.95F (0.53C), above the 20th century average of 61.5F (16.4C), the fifth highest for June%u2013August on record. The margin of error is 0.09F (0.05C).

Global temperature highlights: Year-to-date
%u2022The first eight months of 2013 tied with 2003 as the sixth warmest such period on record, with a combined global land and ocean average surface temperature of 1.06F (0.59C) above the 20th century average of 57.3F (14.0C). The margin of error is 0.20F (0.11C).
%u2022The January%u2013August worldwide land surface temperature was 1.67F (0.93C) above the 20th century average, marking the seventh warmest such period on record. The margin of error is 0.40F (0.22C).
%u2022The global ocean surface temperature for the year-to-date was 0.85F (0.47C) above average, making it the eighth warmest such period on record. The margin of error is 0.09F (0.05C).






Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3342
Quoting 82. SteveDa1:


You posted it in an old blog. Your posts are welcome here. Well, to me anyway.


Me too messy Marvin!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 80. pcola57:
To Dr. Rood and patron bloggers..
I may have posted here a news statement that was meant for my personal blog..
I was in a hurry for a Dr.s appointment and had multiple windows open..
After checking back I don't see it posted to my blog or here..
Hopefully it got kicked out..
As it was rather long..
My apologizes to all..


You posted it in an old blog. Your posts are welcome here. Well, to me anyway.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 132 - 82

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.