In The News

[4wd]

Judith Curry has just posted on the sea level issue

http://judithcurry.com/2012/12/20/20th-century-mean-global-sea-level-rise/#more-10631

JC summary: The IPCC should ask the authors of Ch 13 to take a look at the sea level rise part of Ch 3, they seem to have a much better handle on the complexity of the issue. It looks to me that the evidence for accelerating anthropogenic sea level rise is pretty weak, and lost in the noise of natural variability

[BornFromTheVoid]

As I've mentioned before, always check a few other sources on these issues. See where the science, evidence and possible bias is. Have a look at some of the papers mentioned and whether they passed peer review, and, if you can get it, have a look at the raw data or related data and make up your own mind.

Plenty of stuff already posted about sea level rise here and there's much more on the web.

[Methuselah]

There's always one thing upon which we can rest assured, though: if this year does turn out to be the warmest so-far, it'll be the start of the sceptics' next cooling trend! When did the current 'episode' start by-the-way? Was it 1998 or 2010, or at the end of the Mediaeval Warm Period?

Indeed, keeping up with so many ongoing attempts at obfuscation gets a trifle confusing at times, methinks...

[laserguy]

Meanwhile,parts of Russia are having their coldest winter for 70 years with temps up to 15C below the seasonal norm. But it's just weather to the warmists and of no significance while they whoop and wail about an alleged nought-point something rise of global temps over xxx years, and mutter incoherantly about how one place must get colder as another one warms,ying and yang blah blah. It's cobblers.

[BornFromTheVoid]

You certainly disproved the the Russian December 2012 warming theory LG, bravo.

Last 30 Days

Last 7 Days

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/clim/glbcir.shtml

[BornFromTheVoid]

Another example of big industries having too strong a hold on government?

http://investigative...rt-highlightin/

White House stalls critical EPA report highlighting chemical dangers to children

A landmark Environmental Protection Agency report concluding that children exposed to toxic substances can develop learning disabilities, asthma and other health problems has been sidetracked indefinitely amid fierce opposition from the chemical industry.

America’s Children and the Environment, Third Edition, is a sobering analysis of the way in which pollutants build up in children’s developing bodies and the damage they can inflict.

The report is unpublished, but was posted on EPA’s website in draft form in March 2011, marked “Do not Quote or Cite.†The report, which is fiercely contested by the chemical industry, was referred to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), where it still languishes.

For the first time since the ACE series began in 2000, the draft cites extensive research linking common chemical pollutants to brain damage and nervous system disorders in fetuses and children. It also raises troubling questions about the degree to which children are exposed to hazardous chemicals in air, drinking water and food, as well exposures in their indoor environments — including schools and day-care centers — and through contaminated lands.

In the making since 2008, the ACE report is based on peer-reviewed research and databases from federal agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration, Housing and Urban Development and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Public health officials view it as a source of one-stop shopping for the best information on what children and women of childbearing age are exposed to, how much of it remains in their bodies and what the health effects might be. Among the “health outcomes†listed as related to environmental exposures are childhood cancer, obesity, neurological disorders, respiratory problems and low birth weight.

[Methuselah]

Meanwhile,parts of Russia are having their coldest winter for 70 years with temps up to 15C below the seasonal norm. But it's just weather to the warmists and of no significance while they whoop and wail about an alleged nought-point something rise of global temps over xxx years, and mutter incoherantly about how one place must get colder as another one warms,ying and yang blah blah. It's cobblers.

Russia's had a cold spell ergo AGW theory is crap? Even you can do better than that, barrie!

[keithlucky]

Global cooling is taking place

[keithlucky]

More evidence

[knocker]

I have absolutely no idea why these articles get through a peer review. Perhaps they consider more than three years.

Good job we are in a cooling period!

Study shows rapid warming on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet

COLUMBUS, Ohio—In a discovery that raises further concerns about the future contribution of Antarctica to sea level rise, a new study finds that the western part of the ice sheet is experiencing nearly twice as much warming as previously thought.

The temperature record from Byrd Station, a scientific outpost in the center of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS), demonstrates a marked increase of 4.3 degrees Fahrenheit (2.4 degrees Celsius) in average annual temperature since 1958—that is, three times faster than the average temperature rise around the globe.

This temperature increase is nearly double what previous research has suggested, and reveals—for the first time—warming trends during the summer months of the Southern Hemisphere (December through February), said David Bromwich, professor of geography at Ohio State University and senior research scientist at the Byrd Polar Research Center.

The findings were published online this week in the journal Nature Geoscience.

"Our record suggests that continued summer warming in West Antarctica could upset the surface mass balance of the ice sheet, so that the region could make an even bigger contribution to sea level rise than it already does," said Bromwich.

http://www.eurekaler...u-ssr122012.php

Edited December 24, 2012 by knocker

[4wd]

It's a bit vague about how previously studies saw no significant trend but now by using 'modelling' to decide how warm the past was, suddenly there is a warming trend.

It sounds like adjusting things to get the 'expected' result.

Why is it in only one area smeared with red while the rest marked blue - are the blue areas cooling?

[UV-RAY]

It's a bit vague about how previously studies saw no significant trend but now by using 'modelling' to decide how warm the past was, suddenly there is a warming trend.

It sounds like adjusting things to get the 'expected' result.

Why is it in only one area smeared with red while the rest marked blue - are the blue areas cooling?

It's magic four, now you see it, now you don't.

[Methuselah]

More evidence

So the Sceptics Universal Cooling Calendar has been recalibrated to 2010...

[Gray-Wolf]

So the Sceptics Universal Cooling Calendar has been recalibrated to 2010...

It's the 'Nino' that knocked 98' off it's perch is it not?

No mention that the last 2 Nina's have been the warmest on record though.....odd that?

Though probably better suited to the Antarctic thread how many temp stations did we have in Antarctica in the 1950's to obtain an accurate picture of temps there?

Now we have modelling to mimic the sat period temps fairly accurately why not push it back to see what we missed back then?

[pottyprof]

Now we have modelling to mimic the sat period temps fairly accurately why not push it back to see what we missed back then?

So we can have something else that mimics data that is questionable regarding accuracy?

It's good to hear that they are able to get a model to be accurate for that period. It's all known data though and some of that has been manipulated to remove some of the 'errors'. It'll be wide of the mark.

[Gray-Wolf]

Well then we also have issues with the mass loss measures also? How can we loss such an amount of ice (as monitored from space) without it melting?? Were it not warm then ice would be remain ice surely?

[pottyprof]

Were it not warm then ice would be remain ice surely?

True. Glad you're taking notice. We're going to melt out a lot more yet. I'd say about a third of the Greenland sheet. What does that equate to in sea level rise?

Is that about right to see a return to the Vale of York bogs, wetlands and salt marshes? Perhaps we should try and find out exactly what the authorities are planning for when this happens?

[Polar Maritime]

[knocker]

From unprecedented heat waves that shattered "Dust Bowl" era records from the 1930s, to Hurricane Sandy, which devastated coastal New Jersey and New York, 2012 was the year Mother Nature had it out for the U.S. No country on Earth rivaled the U.S. in 2012 in terms of extreme weather and climate events, as one rare episode after another rocked the country.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/hurricane-sandy-tops-list-of-2012-extreme-weather-and-climate-events-15405

[Gray-Wolf]

I believe that the ice loss dominated alterations in the jet (and positioning of the southern Greenland H.P.) will again dominated in 2013 extending the drought and bringing a similar sweep to the extremes across the U.S.

With so many on the East Coast now accepting the scale of AGW's impacts another year of the same or worse will only consolidate this awareness across the nation.

Will we face more of the same? I think the deepening of the downstream positioning might favour us over time extending the european drought to our shores (esp. the SE/SW) leaving the far north to take the brubt of stuck rainfall patterns? (I WANT A SUNNY SUMMER!!!)

[4wd]

With so many on the East Coast now accepting the scale of AGW's impacts another year of the same or worse will only consolidate this awareness across the nation.

A more rational analysis of the lessons which should be learned from Hurricane Sandy - not clouded by eco mumbo jumbo.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/29/the-political-superstorm-that-devastated-new-york/

North America’s northeastern coast has been battered by hurricanes and other major storms throughout history. A 1775 hurricane killed 4,000 people in Newfoundland; an 1873 monster left 600 dead in Nova Scotia; others pummeled Canada’s Maritime Provinces in 1866, 1886, 1893, 1939, 1959, 1963 and 2003.

Manhattan got pounded in 1667 and by the Great Storm of 1693. They were followed bymore behemoths in 1788, 1821, 1893, 1944, 1954 and 1992. Other “confluences of severe weather events†brought killer storms like the four-day Great Blizzard of 1888. The 1893 storm largely eradicated Hog Island, and the 1938 “Long Island Express†hit LI as a category 3 hurricane with wind gusts up to 180 mph.

[knocker]

Here we go again. The fact that he mentions Monkton says it all. And he's well qualified of course. I'm sorry is this total rubbish.

Paul Driessen

Credentials

• BA in geology and field ecology from Lawrence University.
  
• JD from the University of Denver College of Law.
  
• Accreditation in Public Relations from the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA).
  

Source: [1]

Background

Paul Driessen is associated with numerous right-wing think tanks and organizations skeptical of man-made climate change. He is best known for his first book, Eco-Imperialism: Green Power Black Death where he discusses what he considers negative aspects of the environmental movement.

According to his biographical note, "he abandoned their cause when he recognized that the environmental movement had become intolerant in its views, inflexible in its demands, unwilling to recognize our tremendous strides in protecting the environment, and insensitive to the needs of billions of people who lack the food, electricity, safe water, healthcare and other basic necessities that we take for granted." [2]

Stance on Climate Change

"[Christopher] Monckton would have focused on the science. But it is morality that truly requires serious debate. Climate Armageddon claims are being used to justify malignant policies that have no rational basis.

"Global average temperatures peaked in 1998 and since have cooled slightly, despite steadily rising CO2 levels. Except in its Western Peninsula, Antarctica is gaining ice, and Antarctic sea ice reached an all-time high in 2007. Arctic ice is seasonably normal, and in 2008 the Northern Hemisphere was covered by more snow than ever before

As for the last statement.

Edited December 30, 2012 by pottyprof
Is there any need for names?

[laserguy]

With so many on the East Coast now accepting the scale of AGW's impacts............. (I WANT A SUNNY SUMMER!!!)

How do you know they're "accepting" it? Maybe they're accepting that they are having a poor run of it at the moment and normal service will be resumed in due course - as it will. I do hope you're right about our summer tho' - I'd love it to hammer it down from start to finish, but whatever we get it won't be caused by your beloved AGW,that's for sure.

[Gray-Wolf]

Sorry LG but there were a number of polls and there had been a marked jump in folk accepting climate change was tied to man's pollutions?

Yup! the U.S. had a pretty bad year so what happens if next year trumps it? I'm sure the christmas tornado's had a few folk again wonder when this year would end? Drought regions had been ongoing for a number of years now if if soil dryness helps the H.P. position over the region then why will the anomalous S.Greenland H.P. not extend into that region once the sun again warms the land in March?

I think they are in for another bad one due to the 'new' climate shift influenced synoptics. With high solar and ENSO neutral will it not turn into a warmer year globaly in 2013?(as MetO suggests) and won't all that energy just go into fueling more Extremes across our planet?

And Russia and Asia? Both gripped with cold H.P. systems fueled by dry air? Come summer we will see the return of Hot H.P.'s filled with dry air (record fire year again in Russia esp. tundra redions?)

We have changed. Expect changes.

EDIT; have your chips gone up yet?

Edited December 30, 2012 by Gray-Wolf

[keithlucky]

Well more absolute tosh from global alarmist last year drought worse ever, droughts 10 yrs ago and the 1950"s were far worse