Obama and his ilk fervently believe the South Pole is melting, soon to drown America's coast lines with a rising sea level...or, maybe Democrats are just pathological liars determined to scare Americans into voting for even bigger government...regardless, both the scientists and satellites document how wrong the liberal-left-greens are.....
(click on graph to enlarge)
Science is based on research and empirical evidence, not on speculative guesses or those "likely" predictions from computer simulations.
Over the last few decades, the IPCC and its computer climate models have speculated that Antarctica was melting due to all the human CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere.
CO2 emissions that were producing accelerating and dangerous global warming that was being "amplified" across the South Pole.
Democrats, the mainstream media and green progressives have continuously repeated these flimsy, fear-mongering predictions as science "truth," representing the mythical "consensus." Yet, they conveniently ignore the actual hard empirical evidence and real scientific research that the American public has paid for.
Case in point:The South Pole
A brand new peer-reviewed research study conducted by MIT scientists confirm what NASA's satellites have documented (see adjacent chart) - Antarctica is cooling. Ahem...those inconvenient stubborn facts just hurt, no?
"By contrast, the eastern Antarctic and Antarctic plateau have cooled, primarily in summer, with warming over the Antarctic Peninsula [C3 Ed: approximately 4% of Antarctica land mass]...Moreover, sea-ice extent around Antarctica has modestly increased.....In other words, the authors find that most of the Antarctic continent has cooled, rather than just the Southern Ocean..."
Note: Chart plots and trends produced using Excel. South Pole temperature anomaly dataset source (since inception date used). CO2 dataset source.
The IPCC's climate science has long claimed that human CO2 emissions are producing an accelerated global warming, with a "runaway" warming trend, which is then being amplified in the north and south polar extremes. This dangerous warming is, of course, causing the ice sheets to melt, unleashing catastrophic sea level rise, and thus swamping coastal regions and low-lying islands, as we speak!
Hmmm.....despite over 845 billion tons of human CO2 emissions being added to the biosphere since 1978, that predicted dangerous warming, and associated catastrophes, have yet to materialize.
A BIG-TIME FAIL, no? As many are now saying, a rather robust and very significant embarrassment for all of the "consensus" involved: including the IPCC, the United Nations' science "experts," the governing elites and bureaucrats.
This huge fail is amplified because the South Pole region that includes Antarctica has done the opposite - literally a cooling temperature trend over the last 35 years.
NASA's satellites have now been measuring global temperatures for a full 35 years (420 months through November 2013), including the Antarctic. The above chart documents the measured southern polar region temperatures.
As can be seen, there has been a cooling trend - granted, a very tiny -0.04°C/century, but it remains far removed from the IPCC's unicorn science of "amplified" and dangerous polar warming.
And not only has it not warmed, the Antarctic sea ice has grown to a record amount.
Well, you might now be wondering if that imminent, catastrophic Antarctica ice sheets melting and collapse are still imminent...as predicted. Nope. Eating a huge amount of that cooling crow, the IPCC has recently labeled that outcome as "extremely unlikely".....Ooops!!
In summary, those stubborn facts that are the archenemy of climate change alarmists are without mercy - after 35 years of high tech measurements, the South Pole region has nada, zilch, goose egg, naught, aught, nil, nix, nothing, null, zero, zip and zippo warming. Nuff said.
Simply put, the IPCC's climate models and experts are unable to predict cloud formation and coverage, which makes accurately predicting climate conditions an impossible task.
As a result, the models have huge problems with predicting actual polar sea ice coverage and albedo characteristics - a continuing major fail that shreds the IPCC's creditability as a reliable source for climate fearmongering prognostications.
This latest study confirms that the state-of-the-art climate models have proven to be no better at predicting Arctic clouds and sea ice than their grossly inaccurate predecessors.
And as these plots (source) of polar sea ice indicate, the global sea ice area and extent exhibit an increasing trend that is the polar opposite of the IPCC's those fabled "expert" predictions.(bad pun intended)
As widely documented and reported, global warming has disappeared over the last 15+ years.
While there is no longer any doubt about the lack of global warming, there continue to be attempts by global warming alarmists to prove regional warming in the Arctic continues. Essentially, their attempts are solely based on fabricated guesstimates of Arctic temps with further "enhancement" via suspect statistical techniques.
But as this new, legit scientific study confirms, an analysis of temperature observations establishes that the Arctic climate is no longer warming, and may actually be in a cooling phase since 1998.
The laughably named 'Skeptical Science' site (a climate/warming doomsday site) provides a a handy trend calculator, which confirms whether a linear temperature trend is actually 'real' - or in statistical parlance, is the trend 'statistically significant' or not, using the widely accepted 95% confidence interval test (2 sigma).
For example, by entering '1989.58' for August 1989 and '2013.5' for July 2013, the calculator determines the temperature/century trend (purple circle) and the 'uncertainty' (green circle) associated with that trend.
To be statistically significant or 'real', per the Skeptical Science experts, the trend (purple) has to be larger than the uncertainty (green). As can be seen, for the period chosen in this example, the 24 years (288 months) ending July 2013, the "global warming" trend is not statistically significant.
That means, because of the large uncertainty amount, the 'real' warming trend could actually be much smaller, even '0'.
So, in a nutshell, the pro-Alarmist site that constantly proclaims AGW-doomsday confirms that for 24 years the reported "global warming" may be a statistical fluke - not 'real'.
Note: This example uses the RSS dataset, which is the global temperature anomalies for the lower atmosphere. For a complete analysis of other temperature dataset trends, go here.
The bogus "unprecedented" modern warming claims by the IPCC and catastrophic global warming 'hystericals' takes another body blow - newly released Arctic region empirical evidence (from Svalbard) confirms that Medieval Period was robustly warmer than the world-ending, hypothetical CO2-induced modern warming feared by alarmists
The Climate Audit blog has another article regarding the amazing "scientific" attitudes/methods of paleo-climate "scientists" who embrace the IPCC's left-green-alarmist propaganda.
The 'CA' article includes the adjacent temperature reconstruction chart of an Arctic region, spanning the time period of 800AD to 1997AD.
Clearly, the Medieval Period was significantly warmer than the recent modern warming. The MWP climate warmth took place during an era of low atmospheric CO2 levels and minuscule human CO2 emissions. The evidence reveals the extended, unprecedented polar temperatures experienced prior to the Little Ice Age cooling.
Over recent years, the Arctic has warmed much like it did during the natural Medieval Warming Period - during prior warm phases, mother nature melted the Northwest Passage sea ice completely, but not yet in the modern era
Read here. Canadian Arctic experts have conclusively determined that the Arctic's Northwest Passage has frequently been devoid of sea ice during summer months.
This lack of sea ice was the result of natural warming that produced excessive temperatures. They conclude that temperatures during the Medieval Period, and multiple earlier periods, were significantly warmer than modern temperatures - from 1 to 3 degrees warmer.
"Numerous sites have been surveyed along the length of the Northwest Passage. The eastern and western approaches have become reliably ice-free in summer under historical climatic conditions, whereas in the central part summer sea ice has been persistent. The radiocarbon-dated bowhead whale remains indicate that the whales were able to range along the length of the Passage during two intervals (centered on 9000 years ago and 1000 years ago) and that they were able to access the central part from the east about 4000 years ago. During the first of these intervals (9000 before present) ice cores indicate that summer temperatures were about 3°C warmer than mid 20th Century. Therefore, a warming of 3°C exceeds the opening threshold. Medieval Warm Period temperatures were probably about 1°C warmer than mid-20th Century, which is likely close to threshold conditions for an opening of the passage."
When compared to the historical and ancient past, the modern Arctic warming and subsequent summer sea ice melt is not unusual, and is likely the result of the same natural climatic patterns and oscillations that produced such conditions in the past.
As revealed in the adjacent series of images, the modern sea melt (image3 at the bottom) still has not freed the Northwest Passage of summer ice as the experts believe the earlier warming periods easily did (image1 and image2).
Conclusions: Modern Arctic warming is not unusual versus the Medieval Warming. Current Arctic and Northwest Passage sea ice melt is less than what occurred in the past, per the empirical evidence. Since both modern and historical Arctic warming, and sea ice melting, are similar, one can surmise that natural warming is the principal cause of today's Arctic conditions. Plus, anthropogenic black soot and greenhouse gases may have exacerbated the current sea ice melting.
Almost all of the climate doomsday scientists have predicted that coastal areas, such as New York City, would soon be submerged by the rising sea levels - obviously, these hysterical IPCC climate model and "expert" predictions have failed and the Greenland researchers now know why
Read here. The IPCC was long ago charged with the objective of "proving" that greenhouse gases were the cause of global warming. The IPPC also took the lead in the well financed campaign to frighten the world's populace with scary disaster scenarios due to CO2-induced warming.
One such climate calamity that the IPCC (and multiple other doomsday alarmists) promulgate is that the coastal regions of the world would be swamped by the melting polar ice sheets.
However, like all other doomsday predictions, the seas rapidly and relentlessly rising and then submerging areas such as New York City has not happened, and is not even close to happening as the adjacent chart indicates. So, why have the sea level predictions failed so spectacularly?
The experts on Greenland's ice sheet have now discovered that the climate models are entirely wrong about the whole concept of ice sheet melting:
"Danish researchers are calling for the models used it [to] forecast sea level rise to be changed after their research shows that Greenland’s ice-cap is not melting more quickly, but rather in bursts...The group’s research, which has been published this week in the Science magazine, shows that the speed at which Greenland’s ice-cap melts, rises and falls in different periods...Up to now scientists have believed that Greenland’s ice was melting faster and have used the hypothesis in developing many of the climate models that are now used to calculate future sea-water levels.“The bottom line is that it’s not going to happen as quickly as people have feared...”"
A new study by climate doomsday scientists came to the conclusion that the penguins would become extinct because climate models predicted warmer temperatures and less ice in Antarctica - however, the actual empirical evidence finds climate models to be wrong
Read here and here. The IPCC's global and regional climate models are based on a high climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 levels. As a result, the models predict a warmer Antarctica with a loss of sea ice.
Using the IPCC models' output as input, another computer model thus predicted the extinction of Antarctica's penguins. Essentially, to be blunt, this is crappy science based on the familiar data processing concept known as 'GIGO'.
To the surprise of no one, with the exception of most lame stream science reporters, the GIGO penguin study has now been harpooned by actual empirical evidence and Antarctica climate reality.
"Twenty-year-old models which have suggested serious ice loss in the eastern Antarctic have been compared with reality for the first time - and found to be wrong, so much so that it now appears that no ice is being lost at all..."Previous ocean models ... have predicted temperatures and melt rates that are too high, suggesting a significant mass loss in this region that is actually not taking place,"...The team’s results show that water temperatures are far lower than computer models predicted ...
"According to a statement from the American Geophysical Union, announcing the new research: "It turns out that past studies, which were based on computer models without any direct data for comparison or guidance, overestimate the water temperatures and extent of melting beneath the Fimbul Ice Shelf. This has led to the misconception...that the ice shelf is losing mass at a faster rate than it is gaining mass, leading to an overall loss of mass."
Conclusions: Incredibly crappy penguin study based solely on GIGO computer simulations dies on the harpoon of actual empirical evidence. Antarctica and the surrounding seas are not appreciably warming from human CO2 emissions as predicted by the IPCC's climate models.
Read here. That the anti-science and anti-empirical evidence bias runs rampant in the mainstream media is now taken for fact. Whether it's the UK, US or Australia, the left-liberal dominated media fear-mongering on climate change and global warming, tossing empirical evidence out the window, leaves lots to be desired.
The latest example is the Guardian, which reports that Arctic sea ice has declined by 75% over the last few decades - a very scary sounding decline. And they can get away with this because their readers are incredibly susceptible to most types of anti-science propaganda, such as the recent claims that vaccines cause autism.
In the Arctic sea ice case though, a 75% decline would be represented by the red line in the adjacent chart - sea ice has never reached that level no matter what the mainstream press "reports." Instead, recent sea ice decline is represented by the blue curve, which by early spring 2012 had recovered to its 30-year average.
"The Guardian managed to outdo itself in it’s latest foray into global warming, claiming that Arctic sea ice has declined by three quarters in the last three decades. In a series of “factoids” following an interview with pop celebrity and latest Greenpeace spokesperson for the Arctic ice, Jarvis Cocker, Lucy Seigle, the Guardian’s environment reporter, informed readers that: "Of the Arctic sea ice, 75% has been lost over the past 30 years. Last year saw sea-ice levels plummet to the second-lowest since records began. It is estimated that the North Pole could be ice-free in the summer within the next 10-20 years.""
Conclusions for mainstream media bias: Climate change reporting by large media outlets is totally untrustworthy. The left-liberal-progressive political agenda prevents an accurate reporting of global warming empirical evidence. Instead of receiving objective journalism, readers and viewers are constantly subjected to fear-mongering, anti-science opinions.
The catastrophic prediction that the world's major glaciers, including those of the Himalayas, were melting to nothingness turns out to be spectacularly wrong - global warming scientists & MSM press literally stunned by real world facts
Read here and here. During a week where honest scientists and the gullible mainstream press were again whacked in the head by the infamous 2x4 of global warming alarmist corruption, new research based on empirical evidence continues to reveal that the IPCC's alarmist predictions are bogus, if not terminally corrupt.
New satellite evidence shows that the Himalayan glaciers have lost zero ice for the last 10 years, which is the exact opposite of what the IPCC, Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Federation and U.S. climate scientists have predicted, and claimed to actually be happening.
As one of the world's major 'Big Green' propaganda alarmist tools, the UK's Guardian had to be stunned itself to write this about the Himalayan glaciers and the related 'stunned' climate scientists.
"The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows"..."The world's greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas...have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows...The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall."
As the sordid fakery and fabrications of a major global warming alarmist scientist, Peter Gleick, continues to embarrassingly unravel, the mainstream press also has to cope with real world climate facts - the world is not dangerously warming and causing all the exaggerated global warming catastrophes they previously reported (predicted).
Climate change alarmists said melting of Greenland's glaciers was solely due to CO2-based global warming - scientists now say that "consensus" is wrong
(click to enlarge image)
Read here. It is a well established fact that tax-payer funded, professional alarmists blame any known worldly change/condition on anthropogenic global warming. This has certainly been true regarding the global retreat of glaciers since the Little Ice Age end.
Based on the latest research though, scientists are now concluding that natural oscillations and cycles play a much greater role in glacier retreat/melt and advancement. In fact, new research has determined that Greenland's Helheim Glacier had a similarly very high natural melt during the 1930's versus the more recent melt that alarmists solely (wrongly) blame human CO2 emissions for.
"...the researchers [Andresen et al] were able to construct a continuous history going back 120 years. By studying the debris and silt deposited in the fjord, estimations can be made about the rate of iceberg calving, and hence ice loss from the flowing ice of the glacier...the researchers were able to create a history of ice loss for Helheim [Glacier]...Two pronounced calving maxima are observed: one during the past 10 years, the other in the late 1930s/early 1940s. The long-term calving increase is probably due to a shift from the Little Ice Age conditions, which were characterized by low air temperatures and strong polar-water influence..."Our analysis indicates that the recent increase in calving activity observed at Helheim Glacier is not unique but that a similarly large event occurred in the late 1930s/early 1940s. These two episodes occurred at times when the temperature of the Atlantic-water source was high (positive/warm Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation phase) and the polar-water export was at a record low (even if fluctuating)."..."“Our study provides evidence that Helheim Glacier responds to changes in [natural] atmosphere–ocean variability on timescales as short as a few years.”" [Camilla S. Andresen, Fiammetta Straneo, Mads Hvid Ribergaard, Anders A. Bjørk, Thorbjørn J. Andersen,Antoon Kuijpers, Niels Nørgaard-Pedersen, Kurt H. Kjær, Frands Schjøth, Kaarina Weckström, Andreas P. Ahlstrøm 2012: Nature Geoscience]
Scientists from Jet Propulsion Lab and Univ. of Washington determine that fresh water from Russia's rivers and the Arctic Oscillation are major factors for Arctic sea ice melt
Read here. The 'Big Green' controlled IPCC and the typical Climategate scientist have publicly claimed that the recent Arctic sea ice melt is entirely due to human CO2 emissions. The majority of climate scientists don't agree with this IPCC stance, knowing full well that other natural and human influences are at work in the Arctic.
New research, by scientists from the University of Washington and NASA's Jet propulsion Lab, have now discovered that freshwater from several large Russian rivers is being relocated to certain regions in the Arctic that allows other regions to be more vulnerable to increased sea ice melt. The force that is redirecting freshwater is not human CO2 but instead nature's own Arctic Oscillation.
This latest research confirms that any speculation of human CO2 emissions being the major cause of sea ice melting is likely very wrong. (image source)
"A hemisphere-wide phenomenon – and not just regional forces – has caused record-breaking amounts of freshwater to accumulate in the Arctic’s Beaufort Sea"..."Frigid freshwater flowing into the Arctic Ocean from three of Russia’s mighty rivers was diverted hundreds of miles to a completely different part of the ocean in response to a decades-long shift in atmospheric pressure associated with the phenomenon called the Arctic Oscillation"..."In the Eurasian Basin, the change means less freshwater enters the layer known as the cold halocline and could be contributing to declines in ice in that part of the Arctic...The cold halocline normally sits like a barrier between ice and warm water that comes into the Arctic from the Atlantic Ocean. Without salt the icy cold freshwater is lighter, which is why it is able to float over the warm water...In the Beaufort Sea, the water is the freshest it’s been in 50 years of record keeping, he said. The new findings show that only a tiny fraction is from melting ice and the vast majority is Eurasian river water."
New Antarctica evidence conclusively refutes IPCC global warming scientists' speculation that modern temperatures are "unprecedented" and "accelerating" higher
Read here. The UN's IPCC attempted to convince the public and policymakers that there was a scientific "consensus" that the last 150 years have witnessed "accelerating" global warming that is "unprecedented."
Instead, the evidence now points to the IPCC and its Climategate scientists conspiring to mislead. Thankfully, the vast majority of the world's scientists do not believe in the IPCC's climate political-science proclamations and thus continue performing/producing empirical research to determine the science truth.
The non-IPCC research team of Thamban et al is an example of this and the adjacent chart (click to enlarge) is a product of their research: Antarctica's modern temperatures are not unusual, nor are they rapidly warming versus what has occurred naturally in the historical past. As the evidence clearly shows, a natural warming has been taking place over the last 400+ years.
"Working with an ice core (IND-22/B4) that had been extracted during the austral summer of 2003 from the coastal region of Dronning Maud Land, East Antarctica... -- the authors developed 470-year histories of δ18O and δD that "showed similar down core fluctuations with [an] excellent positive relationship (R2 = 0.9; n = 216) between the two."..."the estimated surface air temperature at the core site revealed a significant warming of 2.7°C with a warming of ~0.6°C per century for the past 470 years."..."...Thamban et al.'s results clearly indicate that all three of these climate-alarmist claims are false in regard to this portion of the planet's southern polar region." [Meloth Thamban, C. M. Laluraj, Sushant S. Naik and Arun Chaturvedi 2011: Journal of the Geological Society of India]
All the facts, research and evidence establish the true Antarctica reality - the IPCC's "global warming" is not warming and melting the ice sheets
The IPCC and its Climategate maladjusted scientists have long claimed that Antarctica was dangerously warming and predicted its ice sheets were close to catastrophic melting. The only problem with that characterization was its being totally wrong, big-time.
In two previous postings, we discussed how both satellite and thermometer measurements document the extremely cold regions of Antarctic that are covered by ice sheets, and the fact that for the lost 30 years those areas have experienced a slight cooling.
Read here. Adding to the known empirical evidence is the experiences of one of the world's topmost polar scientists, Heinrich Miller. This man is not a climate-model or computer-simulation jock; he is a field scientist who conducts his research in the polar extremes. What does he say about Antarctica?
"Here almost nothing has changed. At least not near the surface. The average annual temperatures have remained the same. There are of course large fluctuations from year to year. If anything over the last 30 years we have a slight cooling trend. And this flies in the face of what is always immediately claimed: ‘The climate is warming and the Antarctic is melting’.”
Read here. The alarmists at the IPCC and 'Big Green' like to point to the gigantic icebergs produced by Antarctica as proof that global warming is directly melting the polar continent with high temperatures. Unfortunately for the alarmists though, research by polar experts have determined the iceberg calving to be a normal condition, happening with regular frequency. Whether its deep warm ocean currents melting floating ice shelfs or the remnants of a far away tsunami, huge icebergs are a natural result.
"Despite what many alarmists will say, humans had nothing to do with the PIG's latest iceberg extravaganza. The events about to unfold on the bottom of the world are, in fact, all natural and have happened countless times before. You see, NASA researchers say this latest iceberg is part of a natural cycle seen every 10 years or so on this particular glacier..."ocean measurements near Antarctica’s Pine Island Glacier showed that the ice shelf buttressing the glacier was melting rapidly. This melting was attributed to the presence of relatively warm, deep water on the Amundsen Sea continental shelf."...Satellite photos show huge icebergs were created when the remains of the Japanese tsunami hit the Sulzberger Ice Shelf..."The impact of the tsunami and its train of following dispersed waves... in combination with the ice-shelf and sea-ice conditions provided the fracture mechanism needed to trigger the first calving event from the ice shelf in 46 years,”"
Read here. Finally, climate scientist Eric Steig and his research team have determined that the natural conditions and phases of tropical Pacific waters are the real cause of Antarctica's coastal glaciers' melting.
"He [Steig] noted that sea-surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific last showed significant warming in the 1940s, and the impact in the Amundsen Sea area then was probably comparable to what has been observed recently. That suggests that the 1940s tropical warming could have started the changes in the Amundsen Sea ice shelves that are being observed now...He emphasized that natural variations in tropical sea-surface temperatures associated with the El Niño Southern Oscillation play a significant role."
Despite all the research, the recognized experts and empirical evidence though, the IPCC and Climategate's Josefino Comiso are already attempting to smother the facts and truth about Antarctica in the next IPCC report, AR5. Will this level of UN sponsored climate science misinformation eventually rise to the moniker of PolarGate?
IPCC science on Antarctica can't withstand scrutiny of experts and technology - Antarctica's polar ice caps are not melting and can't
Recently, we wrote of the bogus science by Josefino Comiso, an IPCC lead author, that attempted to fabricate warming across the Antarctica continent. Either due to extremely sloppy science, or massive stupidity or science corruption, Comiso and his cohorts "found" Antarctica warming and that its polar ice caps were at risk to melting.
Fortunately for the world, the study by the IPCC's Comiso was thoroughly trashed by experts within the peer-reviewed community. That study has now joined Al Gore's discredited climate science in the ash heap of history.
With that said, what is the actual temperature situation across the Antarctica continent? Well, the above map provides some insight to actual temperatures. (click on image to enlarge)
The Antarctica area between the two green circles represents the polar area measured by the state-of-the-art NASA satellite. Since 1978, that entire area has been slightly cooling, not warming, as shown in this previous chart. (The satellite is unable to take measurements for the area within the inner green circle - the doughnut hole area.)
There indeed has been some slight warming in the area of the Antarctica Peninsula but the huge mass of ice sheets actually reside in East and West Antarctica, which measurements show to be cooling.
As can be seen, the temperatures (listed by each red circle) during both the warmest and coldest months (January and July) are well below freezing temperatures. The major ice sheets exist in an interior environment where melting can't occur presently; and, even a future warming of 10 degrees won't cause any melting.
Simply stated, West and East Antarctica are just too freaking cold for any melting to happen, with the exception of coastal areas that already are affected by moderate maritime temperatures.
Despite this actual empirical evidence, the fraud-centric IPCC and its associated scientists still make claims that Antarctica is warming and its gigantic ice caps will soon melt, thus flooding the world. These are flat-out false claims designed to only promote hysteria.
Note: The red circles on the map represent either manned research stations or automatic weather stations. The three temperatures listed for each circle include the average January, the average July and the average annual temperature. For links to average temperature data for each site, go to: Download Antarctica Stations Temps
IPCC 'lead author' Josefino Comiso suppresses peer-reviewed research that completely discredited his previous "Antarctica is warming" study
Read here and here. The IPCC is continuing its tradition of fraudulent bogus climate science for the 2013 climate report by utilizing Climategate-style scientists that excel in global warming fabrication and suppressing research that challenges the blatant fabrication.
As the recent Climategate2.0 emails reveal, research conspiracy, science fraud bogosity and science process malfeasance is alive and flourishing within the IPCC community.
How about this interesting example?
Josefino Comiso is a co-author of the infamous Steig et al. research that attempted to take real warming in the Antarctica Peninsula area and then magically spread it to the rest of Antarctica using rather bizarre techniques. A team of statistical and mathematics experts closely analyzed Comiso's work and found the expanded warming of Antarctica to be entirely bogus based solely on the work's bad math and bad statistical methodology.
"Jeff Id has an excellent post on IPCC AR5 use of the highly flawed Steig et al 2009. Despite Steig’s efforts to block the publication of O’Donnell et al 2010, O2010 shows clearly that whatever is new in Steig et al 2009 is not only incorrect, but an artifact of flawed math and whatever is valid was already known."
The team of math/stats experts, O'Donnell et al., published peer-research that establishes, without any scientific doubt, that Steig et al. was literally garbage science, and that warming for the majority of Antarctica was irrelevant to nil.
"When S09 came out, the Authors tried to discuss the Western continent warming only at Real Climate – the continental plot was entirely red though. Crack cocaine for advocates. A huge media blitz ensued proclaiming the warming of the entire continent. Questions arose in the Real Climate thread about the warming pole right away and were dismissed as not important. Objective people knew the now blindingly obvious truth that the red continent had to be an artifact of flawed math. No scientist can accept that plot without question and our initial skepticism was proven out in a prominent journal. True to climategate form, as the IPCC chapters continue to be leaked out, we can see the widespread attempt to ignore O[Donnell et al.]10 and use the incorrect warming caused by math errors of S09 to claim that the Antarctic is in danger of melting – even though it is not."
In fact, the gold-standard and leading edge technology in temperature measurement, satellites, has Antarctica very slightly cooling since 1978, as the above chart depicts. (click on to enlarge)
Antarctica is not warming, nor is it melting. And note that atmospheric CO2 emissions (black dots in chart) have had absolutely no impact on the regional temperatures of Antarctica.
Despite the overwhelming empirical evidence and the complete peer-reviewed refutation of Comiso's Antarctica research, the IPCC chose to put him in charge of the chapter dealing with the Antarctica analysis for the next IPCC report. And the result?
Comiso appears to be suppressing the the peer-reviewed research that refutes his god-awful science, the actual satellite empirical evidence, and ignoring 99.9% of all scientists who know that CO2 is not causing warming/melting in Antarctica.
99.9% ??? The vast majority of scientists look at the above chart and instantly know that the Antarctica warming scare pushed by Comiso is a fabrication - like much of the IPCC "science" the public and policymakers are now identifying as a fabrication. Other than a handful of alarmist Climategate related scientists, no reputable scientist rejects the real Antarctica empirical evidence of 30+ years of slight cooling.
Read here. IPCC Climategate scientists and professional global warming alarmists have long dedicated themselves to provoking hysteria in politicians and the public. A favorite tactic has been their pushing the propaganda that current Arctic temperatures and sea ice extent are "unprecedented".
In contrast, the skeptics have believed that today's Arctic temperatures and sea ice extent are not that unusual, and are likely not the result of humans. Now comes a sea ice model that confirms the skeptics' hypothesis, while devastating the alarmists' position.
Read here. The IPCC's climate models and its Climategate experts have long predicted that Greenland would lose ice mass due to CO2-induced global warming. Although satellites confirm that Greenland's glaciers in total have dumped massive amounts of ice into surrounding seas during recent years, these same satellites also confirm that generic global warming is probably not the cause.
In actuality, if Greenland was a casualty of unprecedented global warming, then its glaciers would be losing huge ice mass in unison, as predicted by the IPCC. Instead, as the new Chen et al. study finds, there is huge variability of ice loss among Greenland's glaciers, which can't be explained by AGW.
For example, using the advanced technology of the GRACE satellites, scientists determined over the most recent years that:
Greenland's northwestern glaciers' ice loss increased by: 100Gt/yr
Greenland's southeastern glaciers' ice loss decreased by: 109Gt/yr
This study's scientists suggest that the gigantic variability (that wasn't predicted) is likely to be a function of regional climate/weather conditions resulting from normal interannual variability.
"A paper published...in the Journal of Geophysical Research finds "the loss rate in southeast Greenland for the more recent period has become almost negligible, down from 109 ± 28 Gt/yr of just a few years ago. The rapid change in the nature of the regional ice mass in southeast and northwest Greenland, in the course of only several years, further reinforces the idea that the Greenland ice sheet mass balance is very vulnerable to regional climate conditions." Global warming allegedly due to greenhouse gases would not be expected to cause such regional interannual variability in Greenland ice loss, thus pointing to shifts in weather instead." [J. L. Chen, C. R. Wilson, B. D. Tapley 2011: Journal of Geophysical Research]
Read here. Map source here. The infamous "expert consensus" that has been proven wrong on so many occasions has another climate prediction fail.
Climate scientists had claimed that sea ice coverage in the Bering Sea would shrink due to global warming and that the warmer waters would be less productive for marine life. Research by Brown et al. finds both predictions to be wrong.
"Regarded as one of the world's most productive marine environments, the Bering Sea is widely thought to be rapidly warming and losing sea ice...Results show that, rather than declining, mean annual sea ice extent in the Bering Sea has exhibited no significant change over the satellite sea ice record (1979–2009). Furthermore, significant warming during the satellite sea surface temperature record (1982–2009) is mainly limited to the summer months...we speculate that Bering Sea primary productivity is likely to rise under conditions of future warming and sea ice loss." [Zachary W. Brown, Gert L. van Dijken, Kevin R. Arrigo 2011:Journal of Geophysical Research]
Read here. Empirical-based scientists conducted real-world field research and determined that summer Arctic ice has been less than 50% than that during most modern summers. This clearly indicates that summers were definitely warmer in the recent past, despite the low levels of CO2.
BTW, this means polar bears survived this extreme ice shrinkage in the past and will do so again.
It also conclusively proves that the infamous disappearing sea ice "tipping point" that IPCC climate alarmist scientists claim is lurking in the next heat wave is likely non-existent - just like the scary boogieman living underneath the bed of children.
From the peer-reviewed study by Funder et al.:
"For several thousand years, there was much less sea ice in The Arctic Ocean – probably less than half of current amounts. This is indicated by new findings by the Danish National Research Foundation for Geogenetics at the University of Copenhagen...when the temperatures were somewhat warmer than today, there was significantly less sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, probably less than 50% of the summer 2007 coverage, which was absolutely lowest on record...The good news is that even with a reduction to less than 50% of the current amount of sea ice the ice will not reach a point of no return: a level where the ice no longer can regenerate itself even if the climate was to return to cooler temperatures. Finally, our studies show that the changes to a large degree are caused by the effect that temperature has on the prevailing wind systems. This has not been sufficiently taken into account when forecasting the imminent disappearance of the ice, as often portrayed in the media,”" [Svend Funder, Hugues Goosse, Hans Jepsen, Eigil Kaas, Kurt H. Kjær, Niels J. Korsgaard, Nicolaj K. Larsen, Hans Linderson, Astrid Lyså, Per Möller, Jesper Olsen, Eske Willerslev 201: Science]
Read here. The UN's IPCC is a political agency with the sole objective of producing anti-CO2, pseudo-science reports regarding global warming and climate change. It achieves this not by conducting its own experiments or research, but by collecting 3rd party alarmist research and advocacy papers from Climategate-type of scientists and green activist groups that favor the anti-CO2 agenda report.
This approach to a political "science" report has often ended up producing latrine-level science, such as the discredited 'hockey-stick' temperature chart and now infamous Himalayagate affair.
The IPCC's reporting on glaciers, in general, has been robustly wrong and a major factor has been an assessment based on a simple, yet spectacularly wrong, glacier hypothesis. Simply stated, the IPCC assumed that warmer temperatures would cause greater glacier ice melt, thus causing a positive self-lubrication feedback that results in a consistent, accelerated glacier movement towards open water. Sounds good except for the reality part - it doesn't work that way.
Previous glacier research had determined that Greenland's glacier flow exhibited a long-term decrease over 17 years of warming and increased melting. Sundal et al., using satellite technology, analyzed glacier movement to determine why the IPCC glacier hypothesis did not agree with the obviously contradictory empirical evidence.
"The six scientists determined that "although peak rates of ice speed-up are positively correlated with the degree of melting, mean summer flow rates are not, because glacier slow-down occurs, on average, when a critical run-off threshold of about 1.4 centimeters a day is exceeded." Thus, and "in contrast to the first half of summer, when flow is similar in all years," they found that "speed-up during the latter half is 62% (± 16%) less in warmer years," so that "in warmer years, the period of fast ice flow is three times shorter and, overall, summer ice flow is slower...conclude that "simulations of the Greenland ice-sheet flow under climate warming scenarios should account for the dynamic evolution of subglacial drainage," because "a simple model of basal lubrication alone misses key aspects of the ice sheet's response to climate warming,"" [Aud Venke Sundal, Andrew Shepherd, Peter Nienow, Edward Hanna, Steven Palmer, Philippe Huybrechts 2011: Nature]
Read here. Radical green, left-wing organizations such as Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Environmental Defense Fund and the National Resource Defense Council have consistently been pushing the hysteria agenda of polar ice sheet melting and subsequent catastrophic sea level rises. Unfortunately for these fringe outfits, peer reviewed science and empirical evidence exposes the hysteria for what it is - pure B.S. bogosity.
"The Antarctic ice sheet is one of the two polar ice packs of the Earth. It covers about 98% of the Antarctic continent and is the largest single mass of ice on Earth. It covers an area of almost 14 million square km and contains 30 million cubic km of ice.
Ok, so the glaciers in question are allegedly melting at 10 cubic km per year, which is 1/3,000,000 of the Antarctic ice. That means it would take 30 years to melt 1/100,000 of the Antarctic ice, or 300 cubic km. So the ice is melting at a rate equivalent to a human losing 1 of his/her 100,000 hairs every 30 years.
Approximately how many hairs are on a human head? Obviously, the number varies from person to person, but in general the answer is that the human head has about 100,000 strands of hair."
Read here (h/t Steve Goddard). Gullible (and/or deceptive) reporters and leftie/lib/progressive politicians have gleefully relied on the exaggerated climate model predictions in attempt to lend credence to their claims of accelerating sea level rises. The climate models projected that human CO2 increases would cause a definitive ice sheet melt, thus the seas had to rise accordingly to new, scary heights. As usual, though, the climate models were wrong.
As reported by the AAAS Science journal, two NASA researchers closely re-analyzed the data from the East Antarctica ice sheet and found that previous ice sheet loss estimates were significantly higher than reality. The actual science:
"A new reanalysis by two NASA scientists of the three standard ice-monitoring techniques slashes the estimated loss from East Antarctica, challenging the large, headline-grabbing losses reported lately for the continent as a whole...Understanding the role of East Antarctica is one key to figuring out what the ice sheets, and thus sea level, will be doing by century's end."
Combine this study's results with recent Greenland ice sheet research and it becomes very evident why the empirical evidence (satellites and tide gauges) does not conform to the wild predictions of climate models; nor does the real world science conform to baseless, exaggerated "journalism" spoon-fed by the green climate activists.
Sea level increase through May 2011. (image source - click on to enlarge)
Read here. Both China and India pump a lot of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere but that's not the principal cause for the Himalaya glaciers/snow melting. The real culprit is soot (black carbon), a huge and deadly air pollutant.
Instead of focusing on the atmospheric levels of the tiny, trace gas CO2, the U.S. should be helping the Asian countries with technology and science to conquer the soot menace.
"Kopacz et al. used a global chemical transport model to identify the location from which the BC arriving at a variety of locations in the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau originates, after which they calculated its direct and snow-albedo radiative forcings...they say that observations of black carbon (BC) content in snow "show a rapidly increasing trend,"..."emissions from northern India and central China contribute the majority of BC to the Himalayas," and that "the Tibetan Plateau receives most BC from western and central China, as well as from India, Nepal, the Middle East, Pakistan and other countries."" [Kopacz, M., Mauzerall, D.L., Wang, J., Leibensperger, E.M., Henze, D.K. and Singh, K. 2011: Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics]
Read here. The IPCC and its Climategate scientists have predicted CO2-caused global warming for decades, which would cause the Greenland area to warm, leading to a gigantic ice melt, thus flooding coastal regions around the globe. Commonsense, anecdotal evidence, and tidal gauge and satellite data makes for convincing case that the IPCC and fellow alarmists have hilariously exaggerated this predicted catastrophe. Now comes further Greenland research that confirms the IPCC "science" failure.
Daniault et al. studied the East Greenland Current (EGC) for indications that the "melting" ice cap was injecting huge amount of fresh water melt into the current. They discovered that over the last two decades there is no increase in the EGC trend, which essentially demolishes the exaggerated IPCC predicted "tipping point" outcome.
The proverbial canary of Greenland fails to emit a peep: (click to enlarge, image source)
"The East Greenland–Irminger Current (EGIC), which flows southwestward along the eastern coast of Greenland, is important because variability in the EGIC likely influences convection in the Labrador and Irminger Seas, and could affect the global meridional overturning circulation...They find that the EGIC transport was close to average from 1992 to 1996, decreased between 1997 and 2005, and has increased since 2006. Beyond this decadal variability, the researchers find no significant trend in the 1992-2009 EGIC transport time series, confirming that EGIC transport variability has not changed significantly over the past two decades." [N. Daniault, H. Mercier, P. Lherminier 2011: Geophysical Research Letters]
Read here (h/t: The Hockey Schtick ). The latest research coming out of Antarctica reveals that scientists have been caught completely unaware of the substantial ice growth occurring below Antarctica, in addition to the obvious massive cumulative ice growth on the surface.
This new evidence casts severe doubt on the "consensus" Antarctica climate science pushed by the IPCC that the southern polar ice sheet is at risk. Couple this with the new revelation that an ozone hole is now forming over the Arctic, much to the chagrin of IPCC polar experts, it is safe to conclude that nature is in definite control, not the UN's IPCC Climategate CO2-based science.
Per the new Antarctica research:
""There was water moving around underneath the ice sheet and it had frozen back onto the bottom of the ice sheet." Ice in Antarctica isn't supposed to form that way — it's supposed to fall from the sky as snow, and form from the top down.....Bell says scientists have known for over a decade that liquid water forms under Antarctica, and that it flows from one place to another, "but now this is showing that the water can actually change the overlying ice sheet.".....That discovery changes the way scientists think about the processes that shape Antarctica. It could also complicate plans to study the Earth's past climate. Scientists drill down through the layers of ice to study the air bubbles, from ancient air, that's trapped inside the ice....."You think of each layer in the ice sheet being a history book and telling us what was going on on the planet at that time," Bell says. But that record is destroyed when the ice melts and refreezes, so "unfortunately, these books have been erased.""
Read here. A new analysis of Greenland ice cores conclusively identifies the extremes of both the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age, represented by a 50-year average temperature measurement. This same measurement identifies the 1950's as a modern peak for the 50-year average, with a subsequent cooling through the mid-1990's.
This peer-reviewed analysis, by Kobashi et al., clearly shows that temperatures and climate exhibit a wide variation, regardless of atmospheric CO2 levels. In fact, these scientists state categorically that there are natural, decadal and century-long oscillations that are driving Arctic regional temperature changes over the past, the present and foreseeable future. These decadal/century periodicity events significantly pre-date human CO2 emission influence. (click on image to enlarge)
"Here, we reconstruct the last 1,000 years of central Greenland surface temperature from isotopes of N2 and Ar in air bubbles in an ice core. This technique provides constraints on decadal to centennial temperature fluctuations. We found that northern hemisphere temperature and Greenland temperature changed synchronously at periods of ∼20 years and 40–100 years. This quasi-periodic multi-decadal temperature fluctuation persisted throughout the last millennium, and is likely to continue into the future.....The data show clear evidence of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age in agreement with documentary evidence." [Takuro Kobashi · Jeffrey P. Severinghaus · Jean-Marc Barnola · Kenji Kawamura · Tara Carter · Tosiyuki Nakaegawa 2010: Climatic Change]
Read here and here. A team of 22 scientists, Willerslev et al., analyzed ice cores from southern Greenland and found that the southern Greenland ice sheet survived temperatures that were 9°F warmer than current temps. Even in this much warmer climate, the ice sheet remained at least 1,000 meters thick, which debunks the alarmist's claims of future ice sheet "tipping points."
Based on this analysis, the scientists concluded that the ice sheet's long-term stability is contrary to previous estimates of ice melt rapidity, such as those utilized by the IPCC climate models. The analysis also discovered that prior to ice sheet coverage, southern Greenland was a lush forest some 450,000 years ago, which is a 2 million year difference from previous expert estimates.
""What we've learned is that this part of the world was significantly warmer than most people thought,"....."If our data is correct, then this means that the southern Greenland ice cap is more stable than previously thought,"..."This may have implications for how the ice sheets respond to global warming." DNA extracted from ice cores shows that moths and butterflies were living in forests of spruce and pine in the area between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago.....The discovery pushes forward the date when the last forests were known to exist in Greenland by nearly two million years." [Eske Willerslev, Enrico Cappellini, Wouter Boomsma, Rasmus Nielsen, Martin B. Hebsgaard, Tina B. Brand, Michael Hofreiter, Michael Bunce, Hendrik N. Poinar, Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Sigfus Johnsen, Jørgen Peder Steffensen, Ole Bennike, Jean-Luc Schwenninger, Roger Nathan, Simon Armitage, Cees-Jan de Hoog, Vasily Alfimov, Marcus Christl, Juerg Beer, Raimund Muscheler, Joel Barker 2007: Science]
First, from the Danish Institute Centre for Ocean and Ice dataset of the region north of 80°, it's obvious that the Arctic polar area has not been exceptionally warm the past year versus previous periods. Indeed, as the 2010 graph reveals, the 2010 polar summer was one of the coldest compared to the long-term average (green curve) - see top of 2010 curve that has temperatures below the average summer period, close to the blue melt line. (click on images to enlarge)
Second, as the below Rutger's dataset reveals, the northern hemisphere snow coverage through the end of January 2011 is not exceptional. The 37-month average confirms that the alarmist idea that recent atmospheric "warm" conditions are holding loads of moisture ready to blanket the northern hemisphere is a bunch of bunk. Nothing extraordinary here, move along Mr./Ms. alarmist.
Finally, a graph of the precipitation rate for the northern hemisphere, generated from NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Prediction reanalysisdataset, shows a slow decline of precipitation rates over an extended period. It certainly does not indicate that recent year's winter precipitation was exceptionally high. As the matter of fact, the below graph suggests that the AGW hypothesis of a warming atmosphere holding more moisture that in turn causes more precipitation is suspect.
Although there have been specific regions in the northern hemisphere that have experienced large snowstorms the past few months, these exceptions happen every year in some part of the world during winter months. Based on the Arctic polar temperatures, and the level of snow coverage and trend of precipitation rates though, the alarmist claim that global warming in the Arctic is causing more snow and cold for more southern latitudes just does not hold any water, per the empirical data.
One other eye-opening graph comes from the good folks at www.climate4you.com. This graph plots the relative humidity at different atmospheric heights, which clearly shows that "global warming" is not causing relative humidity to increase as the AGW theory requires. (Hmmm...,or is this a graph of alarmist humility as their beloved theory disintegrates with every new data point?)
Update: Confirmed via email with Gorm of the Danish Institute Centre for Ocean and Ice that their Arctic temperatures are not extrapolated from regions outside of the Arctic area - unlike NASA, which extrapolates (calculates) temperatures from weather stations located 1,200 kilometers south of the Arctic. To put the NASA methodology in geographical context, they would calculate Toronto, Canada temperatures based on Myrtle Beach, South Carolina weather information, which is 1,200 km south of Toronto. Of the major world climate agencies, only NASA is dumb enough to perform this ludicrous 1,200 km extrapolation. It's the primary reason their Arctic temperatures are so off-the-wall bizarre.
Read here. IPCC Climategate scientists and AGW alarmists have long predicted that human CO2-emissions will cause the Arctic to become "ice-free" - a "tipping point" to runaway warming. As with almost all AGW alarmists' predictions, new EU climate research by Tietsche et al. shows the ice-free Arctic tipping point prediction to also be bogus.
"First off, a flood of new research has hit the library shelves concerning the rates of ice flow of Greenland’s glaciers indicating that many of the proposed mechanisms for large and rapid ice loss there do not work the way they have been postulated to. And, new findings into how they do work indicate a much less drastic response to a warming climate.....Now, a team of scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, in Hamburg, Germany, led by Steffen Tietsche, examine whether or not there is indeed a “tipping point” when it comes to Arctic sea ice coverage....."[W]e [ find that even dramatic perturbations of summer sea-ice cover in the Arctic are reversible on very short time scales of typically two years. This suggests that a so-called tipping point, which would describe the sudden irreversible loss of Arctic summer sea ice during warming conditions, is unlikely to exist."" [S. Tietsche, D. Notz, J. H. Jungclaus, J. Marotzke 2011: Geophysical Research Letters]
Read here. There was a period during early 21st century when Greenland's ice mass reduction was happening due to its southeastern outlet glaciers melting and retreating. Most IPCC related alarmists claimed this was evidence of the infamous climate "tipping point" and predicted imminent catastrophic sea level rises would result.
Around 2006 the glacier retreats came to a screeching halt, thus stabilizing the ice sheet mass wastage and putting a lid on the typical alarmist's refrain that the Greenland ice sheet was disappearing. What stopped the glaciers melting? It was a natural, climatic negative feedback that took place (not the alarmist predicted, positive feedback induced tipping point).
A 2010 peer-reviewed study [Murray, T. et al. 2010] found that warm waters from the Atlantic were causing the melting of the glaciers; the melt waters from the glaciers decreased the temperatures of the surrounding waters thus the glaciers were no longer in contact with warm waters and the melting stopped.
"Murray et al. (eleven researchers) present evidence that suggests that the original ice wastage speedup "was the result of warm ocean waters coming into contact with the glaciers," and that this speedup "was probably terminated in part by increased discharge from the glaciers themselves, which increased ice sheet runoff and iceberg calving" that in turn "introduced additional cold water strengthening the East Greenland Coastal Current," which slowed glacier melting until warmer water again began to dominate the Current's waters.....write that their findings are suggestive of "a negative feedback that currently mitigates against continued very fast loss of ice from the ice sheet in a warming climate," and they thus conclude that "we should expect similar speedup and slowdown events of these glaciers in the future, which will make it difficult to elucidate any underlying trend in mass loss resulting from changes in this sector of the ice sheet." [Murray, T., Scharrer, K., James, T.D., Dye, S.R., Hanna, E., Booth, A.D., Selmes, N., Luckman, A., Hughes, A.L.C., Cook, S. and Huybrechts, P. 2010]
Read here. Other than the typical lamebrain MSM reporters (scroll down to Arctic temps "reported" by George Monbiot), just about everyone else knows that NASA completely fabricates modern hot Arctic temperatures from wishful alarmist thinking.
NASA's blatantly, bogus temperatures (lies?) are an attempt to scare the public into thinking the ice sheets of Greenland are quickly melting away because of unprecedented "high" temperatures, including those maximum high temperatures forecasted for the ice sheet this week: an average of a -35°F (yes, minus) for the daily high temps. Obviously, the northern ice sheets are safe despite the bogus NASA and Monbiot Arctic alarmism.
While NASA's computer jocks spend their time and our money on fabricating fake temperatures, real scientists continue to conduct expert scientific research on the Arctic. Their latest peer-reviewed findings confirm a previous study that the Medieval Period experienced Arctic temperatures some 2-3°C higher than modern Arctic temps. Map source here.
"We have generated a ~5,000 year long, decadally-resolved record of summer water temperature from the annually-laminated sediments of Lower Murray Lake on Ellesmere Island in the Canadian High Arctic. The varved sediments of Lower Murray Lake allowed high-resolution sampling and excellent chronologic control of the sedimentary record.....Most strikingly, the alkenone record reveals warm lake water temperatures beginning ~800 AD and persisting until ~1200 AD, with temperatures up to 2-3 deg C warmer than the mean temperature for the past 100 years. This dramatic medieval warm period on Ellesmere Island interrupted a distinct (neoglacial) cooling trend that had begun approximately 2000 years earlier." [D'Andrea, W. J.; Bradley, R. S. 2010]
Read here and here. Gotta love that headline. Amateurs taking it to the "experts" and then winning - very cool, in a non-temperature sort of way.
A group of interested individuals (amateur climate enthusiasts) took serious issue with the mathematical/statistical techniques used by climate-scientists to reconstruct Antarctic temperatures in a 2009 peer-reviewed study. As it turns out, this group of amateurs were better versed in proper mathematical/statistical analysis than the experts, and they brought that specific expertise to bear on the 2009 temperature reconstruction study. Objectively, even AGW alarmists are praising their work!
The result of this new peer-reviewed study? The Antarctic climate is not this monolithic warming environment that the IPCC Climategate "experts" attempted to portray to the politicians and taxpayers in the 2009 study. Instead, like all other large regions of the globe, Antarctica exhibits areas of warming, cooling and temperature stability. [Ryan O’Donnell, Nicholas Lewis, Steve McIntyre, Jeff Condon (2010)]
Based on this new analysis (O’Donnell et al.), modern temperature trends are no threat to the continent-sized ice sheets. Antarctica is soooo cold, a half-degree per decade, either way, is of zero significance.
The image on the left indicates the corrected decadal temperature trends, which are miniscule: from -0.5 degrees to +0.5 degrees per decade. The image on the right is from the 2009 study, designed to show significant Antarctic warming across the entire continent. (click on image to enlarge)
Read here. James Hansen, Al Gore and other global warming alarmists base frightening climate calamities (20 to 80-foot sea level increases) on the hypothesis that human CO2 emissions will cause an "amplified" increase in polar temperatures. Actual scientific researchers decided to investigate the validity of the polar-amplification hypothesis.
The nine researchers [White et al. 2010] examined all the evidence and research related to Arctic temperatures and determined that current Arctic temperatures are well within natural variability and no CO2-induced "polar-amplification" is to be found.
"In comparing the vast array of past climate changes in the Arctic with what climate alarmists claim to be the "unprecedented" anthropogenic-induced warming of the past several decades, White et al. conclude that "thus far, human influence does not stand out relative to other, natural causes of climate change." In fact, they state that the data "clearly show" that "strong natural variability has been characteristic of the Arctic at all time scales considered," and they reiterate that the data suggest "that the human influence on rate and size of climate change thus far does not stand out strongly from other causes of climate change."" [White, J.W.C., Alley,R.B., Brigham-Grette, J., Fitzpatrick, J.J., Jennings, A.E., Johnsen, S.J., Miller, G.H., Nerem, R.S. and Polyak, L. 2010.]
Read here. Over recent decades, it has been noted that Hudson Bay sea ice has been breaking up earlier in the summer season. These are anecdotal recollections/observations that scientists decided to investigate, using an array of advanced technology.
This new peer-reviewed research regarding the Hudson Bay sea ice issue indicates there is actually no trend of earlier sea ice breakup in the area. The data analysis does show, though, a one-time shift to an earlier breakup date during late 1980's, but no trend prior or post to that event that can be attributed to AGW causes.
"Working with passive microwave data obtained from the Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer onboard the Nimbus 7 satellite, plus three Special Sensor Microwave/Imager instruments onboard Defense Meteorological Satellite Program satellites -- as well as Canadian Ice Service sea-ice charts that are considered to be "more accurate than passive microwave data for estimates of ice concentration, particularly in the presence of surface melt,".....the two researchers from the British Antarctic Survey found that "there has clearly not been a continuous trend in the [time of sea-ice breakup] data, and the change is best described by a step to 12 days earlier breakup occurring between 1988 and 1989, with no significant trend before or after this date." ....."Clearly, the science pertaining to this matter is still not wholly settled; and, therefore, humanity cannot yet be blamed for what the world's climate alarmists consider to be the "bad behavior" of western Hudson Bay in regard to the temporal advancement of the yearly date of sea-ice breakup caused by the one-time adjustment in this parameter that occurred in the late 1980s." [Scott, J.B.T. and Marshall, G.J. 2010.]
Read here. Since the Climategate revelations, the IPCC has literally become the laughingstock of the science community. And more recently, they soiled their reputation even further by pre-announcing what they plan to tell policymakers in 2014. (Objective science? Fuh'get about it!)
Unfortunately for the IPCC, the real science research continues, and much of the new research finds the 2007 IPCC report to be wrong in its assessments and claims.
The latest IPCC "settled science" to become unsettled is the condition of the Antarctic peninsula. It's that piece of slender geography jutting out into the polar ocean that IPCC scientists and Hollywood celebrities tout as the "unprecedented" AGW canary. Ironically, because the climate has changed recently in that area, it's now allowed scientists to conduct more research on the past Antarctic conditions. And the result of those efforts? They've now discovered the canary has had multiple lives there, including during the Medieval Warming Period some 1,000 years ago, before industrial-sized human emissions.
"Hall et al. conclude that "ice was at or behind its present position at ca. 700-970 cal. yr B.P. [Medieval Warming Period] and during at least two earlier times, represented by the dates of shells, in the mid-to-late Holocene," which means, in their words, that "the present state of reduced ice on the western Antarctic Peninsula is not unprecedented,".....This finding thus prompted the U.S. scientists to ask another important question: "How widespread is the event at 700-970 cal yr B.P.?" Starting first with the Antarctic Peninsula itself, they write that (1) "Khim et al. (2002) noted a pronounced high-productivity (warm) event between 500 and 1000 cal. yr B.P. in magnetic susceptibility records from Bransfield Basin," that (2) "dates of moss adjacent to the present ice front in the South Shetland Islands (Hall, 2007) indicate that ice there was no more extensive between ca. 650 and 825 cal. yr B.P. than it is now," and that (3) "Bentley et al. (2009) reported that evidence for warming at this time seems restricted to the Western Antarctic Peninsula and is seen best in some (although not all) marine cores (i.e., Domack et al., 2003)," all of which observations suggest, in their words, that "at least in the western and northern Antarctic Peninsula area," the warmth they discovered "is not an anomalous event."" [Hall, B.L., Koffman, T. and Denton, G.H. 2010]
Read here. The IPCC's Climategate scientists and Goreian alarmists have claimed that Greenland is in process of substantial and irreversible change due to the global warming over the past few decades. Putting aside the hysterical hyperbole, what is the current condition of the Greenland ice sheet? Is it experiencing unprecedented change?
Recent peer-reviewed research examined the the status of the ice sheet and found that any recent change was not exceptional in the context of the past 140 years.
"In an effort to answer this important question, Wake et al., as they describe it, reconstructed the 1866-2005 surface mass-balance (SMB) history of the Greenland ice sheet on a 5 x 5 km grid "using a runoff-retention model based on the positive degree-day method,.....This they did, in their words, in order to compare "the response of the ice sheet to a recent period of warming and a similar warm period during the 1920s to examine how exceptional the recent changes are within a longer time context.".....The six scientists determined, in their words, that present-day SMB changes "are not exceptional within the last 140 years." In fact, they found that the SMB decline over the decade 1995-2005 was no different from that of the decade 1923-1933.....recent changes that have been monitored extensively (Krabill et al., 2004; Luthcke et al., 2006; Thomas et al., 2006) are representative of natural sub-decadal fluctuations in the mass balance of the ice sheet and are not necessarily the result of anthropogenic-related warming." [Wake, L.M., Huybrechts, P., Box, J.E., Hanna, E., Janssens, I. and Milne, G.A. 2009]
Read here. Utilizing 85 years of actual scientific data and analysis, scientists from the Russian Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute (AARI) published a book, Climate Change in Eurasian Arctic Shelf Seas, that explains how the Arctic temperature and sea ice conditions are driven by natural forces, not human CO2 emissions. The authors also mock the CO2-based climate models that the IPCC Climategate scientists solely rely on:
"They state “where data do exist, we should prefer data to computer models”; they believe model projections of future ice area fluctuations are unreliable. Actually, they have some deliciously scathing remarks about climate models.
“The models neglect natural fluctuations because they have no means of incorporating them, and put the entire blame for climate changes since the 19th century on human activity.”"
Read here. Hysterical global warming alarmists keep claiming that polar sea ice melt is due to increasing human CO2 emissions. This is extreme wishful thinking on their part since recent research finds black soot as being the major factor for polar sea ice loss. h/t: Steve Goddard
"Belching from smokestacks, tailpipes and even forest fires, soot—or black carbon—can quickly sully any snow on which it happens to land.....But on snow—even at concentrations below five parts per billion—such dark carbon triggers melting, and may be responsible for as much as 94 percent of Arctic warming....."A surprisingly large temperature response is caused by a surprisingly small amount of impurities in snow in polar regions."....."When soot is there it heats the snow. It acts like a little toaster oven."....."Black carbon in snow causes about three times the temperature change as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere," Zender says. "The climate is more responsive to this than [to] anything else we know.""
Read here. McKay et al. research PDF download. Peer-reviewed study analyzing 9,000 years of sediment core data (two different types of sediment cores) from the west Arctic Ocean area confirms what was learned from the Greenland ice cores: the Medieval and Roman periods experienced higher temperatures than the world's present climate. See top chart, Fig. A. (click on image to enlarge)
[Note: Blue bars on y-axis of both figures indicate range of modern measurements. The open and closed markers for both figures represent the results from the two sediment cores. The red-shaded areas represent warming periods as found within the sediment cores. The authors contend the red-shaded areas are associated with an evident 2,500 year period of oscillation that naturally occurs.]
Ice-core charts and other historical temperature charts here. Additional climate history postings.
In addition, this study was able to determine the approximate sea ice coverage (see bottom chart, Fig. B) over the last 9,000 years. As one would expect, and the bottom chart data reveals, the actual sea ice coverage would be less over the term of a calendar year when the sea-surface temperatures were higher.
Obviously, the "death spiral" of Arctic sea ice that big-government paid scientists like to frighten MSM reporters with (about the current Arctic conditions) has happened multiple times before. These "death spirals" are solely due to natural climate variation - literally, humans don't cause these sea-ice death spirals and humans can do nothing to stop them from happening.
The final conclusion of authors: Modern surface temperatures of west Arctic are well below historical/ancient temperatures. Modern sea-ice coverage is well above the 9,000 year average of the past. Neither modern measurement is "unprecedented" as claimed by global warming alarmists.
The readers can also conclude the following from both this new evidence and the previous Greenland ice core data: Polar bears and walruses are not at risk since both species survived much warmer temperatures and significantly less ice in the past.
Read here. As AGW alarmist after AGW alarmist predicted, and as gullible reporter after gullible reporter dutifully reported, the Arctic is warming and will soon be nothing but a pond of tepid water. Of course if these predictions were true, this would mean the Arctic melt season would have lengthened - every year the melt season would be longer. Or stated another way, every year the Arctic melt season would start earlier and end later.
Guess what? The Arctic melt season has not experienced the predicted expansion trend over the last 3 decades. Instead it shows considerable variation due to natural weather/climate oscillation patterns. And based on the most current data, the 2010 melt season was the shortest in recent memory. (click on image to enlarge)
Read here. Well....it's another week and another new peer-reviewed study finds that ice sheet melting at Greenland and Antarctica is significantly below what the IPCC's Climategate scientists have claimed. Scientists from the Jet Propulsion Lab and Delft University reviewed the data and determined ice melt is half the previous speculative estimates, which means sea level rises are, in essence, about half of previous predicted levels.
"Researchers from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena (US), TU Delft and SRON Netherlands Institute for Space Research have now succeeded in carrying out that correction far more accurately. They did so using combined data from the GRACE mission, GPS measurements on land and sea floor pressure measurements. These reveal that the sea floor under Greenland is falling more rapidly than was first thought. One of the researchers, Dr Bert Vermeersen of TU Delft, explains: 'The corrections for deformations of the Earth’s crust have a considerable effect on the amount of ice that is estimated to be melting each year. We have concluded that the Greenland and West Antarctica ice caps are melting at approximately half the speed originally predicted.' The average rise in sea levels as a result of the melting ice caps is also lower."
Read here. Al Gore and other prominent alarmists have relied on computer model predictions, which allowed them to make incredible claims of sea level rise due to major ice sheets melting. A new peer-reviewed study finds that the ice sheet models significantly overestimated ice-mass loss, and as a result, the projected maximum IPCC sea level predicted rise is no longer credible.
It's another case of prediction failure by computer models:
"Assessments of the glacial isostatic adjustment typically rely on deglaciation models—which simulate the evolution of the ice sheets since the Last Glacial Maximum—together with assumptions about the viscosity profile of the mantle. Much is still unknown regarding the history of the ice sheets, and even less is known about the behaviour of the mantle in response to loading and unloading."
"Bottom line on the new work is that ice-mass loss has been overestimated by previous studies. “These findings confirm the ongoing shrinkage of the polar ice sheets,” state Bromwich and Nicolas. “However, and most importantly, the newly estimated ice-sheet mass losses represent less than half of other recent GRACE-based estimates for the same time interval: −230 ± 33 Gt yr−1 for Greenland2 and −132 ± 26 Gt yr−1 for West Antarctica.” According to Wu et al. “We conclude that a significant revision of the present estimates of glacial isostatic adjustments and land–ocean water exchange is required.”.....So, when the more exact measurement separation methodology of Wu et al. is applied to the GRACE geoid data, ice sheet shrinkage, which has been systematically overestimated, is cut in half. “The differences between the work by Wu and colleagues and earlier studies may reflect errors in present deglaciation models with respect to the ice-load history and response of the Earth's mantle,” conclude Bromwich and Nicolas. According to Wu et al. “significant revision” is required. The general result—the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets will be with us for a long time to come."
Read here (and if there's time, read the enlightening comments also). Climate science's plunge into the toilet continues. Would it not be appropriate for a scientist attempting to prove a hypothesis that the waters around Antarctica are warming (and will warm even more!) would at least check the real observed data? Guess not. (Update: Further analysis of this study's bogosity.) (click on image to enlarge)
And, of course, the peer-review journal's editors who published this
study were either too stupid or too lazy to look at the basic data
Read here. Recently, a large tongue of glacier ice that was floating on the sea broke off. This 9-mile wide river of ice had gradually pushed itself some 40 miles into the waters over recent years. As every individual with an interest in science would have predicted, the weight of this ice beast would eventually cause a break-off somewhere along its 40-mile length. And on August 3, 2010, it did just that as captured by satellite.
Of course, it didn't take long for the moronic left to claim that a huge river of ice that's been growing since 2002 to be a victim of global warming. The fact that the glacier tongue break was not due to warming but instead to its growing too much is irrelevant science to the liberal/left/progressive AGW fanatics. To get a sense of how moronic the U.S. Democrats sound to the world about science issues, just read this EU scientist's take on our version of "liberal" politicians. The constant science stupidity that Democrats reveal is mind-numbing and dangerous.
Read here. The British ship, HMS Investigator, sailed the Arctic area in the 1850's. The ship was abandoned and then sunk. After 150+ years the sea ice finally retreated enough to allow researchers to find the HMS Investigator, on the bottom of the Arctic Ocean.
Sooooo.....during the 1850's, well before the huge spike in human CO2 emissions, the area north of the Arctic Circle was so free of ice that a wooden ship with sails could easily traverse the area. Simply put, this is irrefutable historical evidence about large scale sea ice melt, which proves that the Arctic has 'been there, done that.'
"Interesting that the ship was lost in 1853, right at the end of the Little Ice Age, and coincidentally just 3 years after the start of the HADCRU global temperature record, from which we are led to believe the earth has warmed about 0.7C. If we are seeing "unprecedented" global temperatures and changes in Arctic sea ice, how did the HMS Investigator get this far north at the end of the Little Ice Age?"
Read here. Researchers from Cryospheric Processes Laboratory and the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) monitor various attributes of the S. Hemisphere/Antarctica and have documented that recently the snow melt index for the southern continent has reached its lowest point ever. Their research indicates the snow melt index is likely driven by the major ocean and atmosphere oscillations for that area of the world - in other words, Antarctica melting/warming has nothing to do with human CO2 emissions over the last 30 years.
We've superimposed the linear-like growth of CO2 levels for the past 30 years on the chart below. Clearly, the Antarctica climate is not warming due to the rapid growth of human CO2 emissions. Nor does it even appear to be influenced by CO2 levels. The alarmist AGW prediction that Antarctica was going to melt due to CO2 was (and is) absolute rubbish. (click on image to enlarge)
"Tedesco and Monaghan begin by noting “Melting over Antarctica has been monitored since 1979 using spaceborne passive microwave observations. The sign of the melting trends over Antarctica is variable at regional scales, depending on the period analyzed and on the indices used, with the continent-averaged trend being negligible.”.....observed that snowmelt was at a record low for the 30-year period between 1979 and 2009. Specifically, the Antarctic snowmelt index (the number of days on which melt occurs multiplied by the area subject to melting) in 2008–2009 set a new historical minimum.” They explain further “Negative melting anomalies indicate that melting occurred fewer days than the average over the past 30 years.”.....with only one small exception, the entire coastline of Antarctica experienced a low amount of melting – this was widespread and not regionally confined. Claims that Antarctica is melting are simply not consistent with the facts!"
Read here. The new technology that GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellite measurements represent appears to have major biases and is error-prone. Unfortunately, climate scientists who advocate climate alarmism misuse the GRACE findings to support their views without stating the critical GRACE short-comings. (Update: new GRACE article from WUWT.)
"In an effort designed to provide some of that "detailed understanding" of GRACE's "errors and biases," Quinn and Ponte conducted what they describe as "a detailed analysis of processing and post-processing factors affecting GRACE estimates of ocean mass trends," by "comparing results from different data centers...".....The two researchers report that the mean ocean mass trends they calculated "vary quite dramatically depending on which GRACE product is used, which adjustments are applied, and how the data are processed.".....In light of the fact that Quinn and Ponte indicate that "over the last century, the rate of sea level rise has been only 1.7 ± 0.5 mm/year, based on tide gauge reconstructions (Church and White, 2006)," it seems a bit strange that one would ever question that result on the basis of a GRACE-derived assessment, with its many and potentially very large "errors and biases.".....Clearly, the GRACE approach to evaluating ocean mass and sea level trends still has a long way to go -- and must develop a long history of data acquisition -- before it can ever be considered a reliable means of providing assessments of ocean mass and sea level change"