PUP PITFALLS: Climate change is reducing Arctic sea ice and making it harder for baby harp seals to survive.
Image: Flickr/. i i e e e .
Warming in the North Atlantic Ocean has decreased winter sea ice and increased the death rate for baby harp seals over the past three decades, according to a new study.
Winter sea ice cover in harp seal breeding grounds has decreased up to 6 percent per decade since 1979, when satellite observations of sea ice began, found the research, published yesterday in the journal PLoS Biology.
That's made it tougher for harp seals to breed and rear their young to adulthood, said the lead author, Duke University marine ecologist Daniel Johnston.
"These animals give birth to pups and nurse all within a very short period of time," he said, noting that the average harp seal nursing period is just 12 days. "These animals have evolved to take advantage of this ephemeral ice cover."
But his research suggests they're having a hard time dealing with the changing climate, which is accelerating the start of the spring ice melt, reducing the area covered by ice during February and March -- months when female seals use thick sea ice as a platform to birth and nurse their young.
"We expect there will be good ice years and bad ice years, but if things go the way they are going, the number of good ice years will continue to decline," Johnston said.
The scientist and colleagues at Duke and the International Fund for Animal Welfare based their findings on satellite observations of sea ice cover, recorded strandings of dead baby harp seals, weather records and computer models.
They found that in years when a natural climate cycle called the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) was in its negative phase during February and March, sea ice cover was lighter and the death rate for baby harp seals was higher. In years when the NAO was positive, ice cover was heavier and the death rate for baby seals was lower.
Long-term warming among the suspects
The scientists believe the NAO is a strong influence on year-to-year variability in sea ice cover and seal death -- and that their hypothesis could help explain why seal populations dropped on Canada's eastern coast between 1950 and 1972, and why those populations rebounded between 1973 and 2000.
But their analysis suggests that a longer-term warming trend is also playing a role, decreasing sea ice cover up to 6 percent per decade since 1979 in each of four harp seal breeding grounds in the North Atlantic Ocean.
With that warming trend expected to continue in coming decades, "the question now is whether there is enough flexibility in the reproductive capability of these animals to find and use habitats that are resilient to these changes," Johnston said.
Johnston also said scientists aren't sure how to explain reports last spring of harp seals venturing well beyond their normal habitat. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported in March that harp seals had been observed as far south as North Carolina -- not far from Johnston's lab at Duke.
"Last year, a number of harp seals showed up here looking kind of uncomfortable," he said.
It's not the first time seals have been spotted far south of their traditional spring breeding grounds in Newfoundland and the Gulf of St. Lawrence. But NOAA reported last spring that harp seals do seem to be venturing far south of their usual habitat more frequently.
Johnston said the seals might be searching for more favorable breeding grounds, if conditions in their usual habitat aren't to their liking. Another possibility is that sea ice is melting faster or earlier in the season than the animals expect, depriving them of the environmental cues that guide their northward migration.
The scientist believes that the study of harp seals and their changing habitat offers an opportunity for biologists to study the relationship between the animals and the ice -- and act to help keep seal populations healthy as the climate changes.
"Harp seals aren't endangered," Johnston said. "So often, we wait until a population is depleted to do anything, and it's often too late. Here, we have a possibility of getting in front of it and predicting what might happen."
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500.
See what we're tweeting about
45 Comments
Add CommentThere are a lot of ocean current oscillations appearing in warmist theory, nowadays. Does the NAO cancel out the ENSO effect. Why do either have any net effect on global mean temperature?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt doesn't matter; you merely have to put up pictures of cute little seal and polar bear cubs. That is the SYMBOL that strikes at the emotions of the average man or woman. That makes it easier to swallow their tripe about what might happen thirty years hence in the arctic, even though there's no proof of future events.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith DDT it was the Bald eagle and lesser raptors. With the fight against the Tennessee Valley Authority it was the Snail Darter. With ALAR it was Merrill Streep weeping magnificently before congress about the damage we were doing to our Children by feeding them poion apples and apple juice. With the old growth forests in the Northwest it was the spotted owl. Now it's the cute Polar bears and the adorable seals.
So, if the animals are cute, we should ignore it? Does that mean the ice is expanding and nothing is wrong? Cuz, gosh, if the ice were to shrink and nothing was threatened, wouldn't that be a reason to ignore it as well?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJDEY Says: There are a lot of ocean current oscillations appearing in warmist theory, nowadays.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Say: The mark of true ideologue is one who can not say the word "scientist" and must substitute such nouns with epithets as "warmist".
JDEY Says: Does the NAO cancel out the ENSO effect.
Trent Says: How would it and how does it relate to the article?
JDEY Says: Why do either have any net effect on global mean temperature?
Trent Says: Yes, but they are called oscillations for a reason. When it comes to global warming it is the TREND that matters.
Timbo Says: doesn't matter; you merely have to put up pictures of cute little seal and polar bear cubs. That is the SYMBOL that strikes at the emotions of the average man or woman. That makes it easier to swallow their tripe about what might happen thirty years hence in the arctic, even though there's no proof of future events.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDid not read the article did you? If you had then you would have read such observed facts as:
"Winter sea ice cover in harp seal breeding grounds has decreased up to 6 percent per decade since 1979, when satellite observations of sea ice began, found the research, published yesterday in the journal."
And:
"They found that in years when a natural climate cycle called the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) was in its negative phase during February and March, sea ice cover was lighter and the death rate for baby harp seals was higher. In years when the NAO was positive, ice cover was heavier and the death rate for baby seals was lower."
But then again maybe you feel really comfortable in that coat of ignorance you like to parade around in.
The article was published in PLOS one:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Effects of Climate Change on Harp Seals (Pagophilus groenlandicus)
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0029158
Lets see, you're talking about climate deniers, right?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Takes as an article of faith that their preconceived notions are true and do not have to be proven: "Well, climate warmists [scientists] are wrong because...well...because they're WRONG...because...dirty effing hippies like baby seals and THOSE GUYS are ALWAYS wrong, am I right? (because I'm definitely NOT a dirty effing hippie)"
2. Ignores any evidence that is contrary to their preconceived notion: "CO2 doesn't trap heat! Wait, those actual measurements showing that it does? That's just the lab equipment trying to get grant money! Oh, and all those extra CO2 molecules building up in the atmosphere? They're all in on the conspiracy to make us a bunch of Socialists living in huts! Don't even get me started on the melting glaciers! They all have stock options in "green energy" companies!
3. With their pre-determined conclusions based on emotion rather than logic, they use forceful and negative emotion to attack their opponents: "The UN is just using Climate Change as an excuse to form a "One World Government"! Never mind the fact that they can't even keep relatively weak countries from killing their own people...Yep, those silent helicopters and reeducation camps will start popping up any day now!"
4. Cults are lead by the words of charismatic leaders: Limbaugh: Global Warming "Is A Hoax ... I Get Blue In The Face Repeating This Over And Over Again."
Limbaugh: "I Don't Need Scientific Proof" To Know It's A Lie"
LIMBAUGH: How did I know global warming is a hoax? 'Cause of who's behind pushing it. Liberals. They lie.
Limbaugh: The National Academy Of Sciences Has "Lost All Credibility" Because Climate Change Is "Bogus."
Limbaugh: God Would Not Create Humans "In Such A Way That We Would Destroy ... Our Own Planet And Environment."
Limbaugh reaches 14 million viewers. The rest of the right-wing radio denialsphere probably pushes the number of people being misinformed over 20 million. Faux "News" probably pushes the number of unique listeners getting fed this nonsense over 30 million.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/22/374434/fox-news-viewers-misinformed-study-jon-stewart/
By the way, you ONLY need about 60 million votes to win a presidential election in the U.S. while senators from states holding 30 million people total (or 15.1M anti-science voters) can halt ANY legislation indefinitely.
Excellent post Trent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcellent post, candide, Carlyle, tombo555, priddseren, jdey123, or whoever you feel like posting as today! Do the dirty energy companies pay you by the post AND the account you create?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat are you on about? Why would I post as anyone else? I have even debated against most of those you accuse me of being. I believe Trent's post is very good, since when did having an opinion warrant such accusations?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy bad, I thought you were saying I was Trent!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBrovo!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSault, bit of science for you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAccording to the CRU dataset (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt) - right hand columns show average over number of months recorded for each year.
2011 was the 12th warmest year. The 11th warmest year was way back in 1997 (i.e. 14 years previous). The solar irradiance cycle started it's upswing in 2009, so should have had a positive effect on global warming, and then we have the billions of tonnes of CO2 that mankind has apparantly added to the atmosphere since 1997. The moderate La Nina event could not have suppressed all of that warming, so what made 2011 cooler than 1997?
Jdey Says: The moderate La Nina event could not have suppressed all of that warming, so what made 2011 cooler than 1997?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHold it. Instead of looking at the TREND you are looking at two points and concluding their is no signal? Try this. The 80's were warmer than the 70,s, the 90's were warmer than the 80's, and the 00's were warmer than the 90's. See what I did there? I looked at larger data set and saw a signal.
But speaking of CRU here is what they say:
"The period 2001-2010 (0.44°C above 1961-90 mean) was 0.20°C warmer than the 1991-2000 decade (0.24°C above 1961-90 mean). The warmest year of the entire series has been 1998, with a temperature of 0.55°C above the 1961-90 mean. After 1998, the next nine warmest years in the series are all in the decade 2001-2010. During this decade, only 2008 is not in the ten warmest years. Even though 2008 was the coldest year of the 21st century it was still the 12th warmest year of the whole record."
Global Temperature Record:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
They have some nice graphs go take a look.
@Trent1492. Ok, so if 2011 doesn't have to be warmer than 1997 (14 years previous), then on that logic 2025 can be colder than this year, 2039 etc. etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour science isn't working for me. You claim that the accumulation of greenhouse gases produced by man will warm the earth, but that it has no effect for a period of 14 years and counting.
The natural forcing agents which climate scientists often claim can cool the earth for short periods are:-
i) solar irradiance cycles (the entire cycle lasts 11 years and has only a moderate effect on global temperatures).
ii) Volcanoes (not been a major eruption since 1997).
iii) ENSO (Pacific Ocean current changes). Only have an effect in terms of months and not years. They are both warming and cooling and net off over a 14 year period.
There are clearly other forcing agents which are thus far undiscovered and/or climate scientists don't understand the interaction between the identified forcing agents and planet earth. Either way, the models that have been created based on current anthropogenic warming hypothesis don't work.
If you want to look at decadal trends, 1970s were cooler than 1960s which were cooler than 1950s which were cooler than 1940s, which were cooler than 1930s, which were warmer than 1920s which were warmer than 1910s. Not sure that decadal trends make much difference which is why climate scientists prefer 30 year trends, starting at 1978, to demonstrate global warming.
Man's been adding CO2 to the atmosphere since we learnt how to make fire. It apparantly took until 1978 until the carbon cycle couldn't cope any more, according to AGW theory.
Jdey Says: Ok, so if 2011 doesn't have to be warmer than 1997 (14 years previous), then on that logic 2025 can be colder than this year, 2039 etc. etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: That is right, because two data points does not a TREND make.
Jdey: Your science isn't working for me.
Trent Says: That is OK we all have our own competency levels and yours just happens to be below the basement.
Jdey Says: You claim that the accumulation of greenhouse gases produced by man will warm the earth, but that it has no effect for a period of 14 years and counting.
Trent Says: Which part of the 00's are warmer than the 90's do you not understand? Help me here.
Jdey Says: There are clearly other forcing agents which are thus far undiscovered...
Jdey Translated: Their other forcing agents that I can not name or make predictions from but I know they exist.
Trent Says: Logic not your strong point, eh?
Jdey: and/or climate scientists don't understand the interaction between the identified forcing agents and planet earth.
Trent Says: Perhaps it has more to do with your incompetence?
Jdey Says: Either way, the models that have been created based on current anthropogenic warming hypothesis don't work.
Trent Says: The peer reviewed literature says differently:
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm
And:
http://liveweb.archive.org/http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/ar4mods.jpg
Who should I believe the geophysicists or some anonymous clown who thinks two data points make a trend?
Usual resorting to personal abuse, when the science lets you down.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe question is simple, how can 14 years of manmade pollution (alleged warming agent) end up with a cooler earth. As a scientist, you need to explain which natural or manmade cooling agents have managed this. Clearly solar activity (rising), La Nina (short term cooling effect measured in months) and Volcanic eruptions (haven't been any significant ones) cannot overcome the strong forcing agent which anthropogenic global warming theory asserts that CO2 is.
I'm not a scientist, I'm an analyst. By varying the start and end date and baseline period, you can make anything look like a trend.
If climate science was a serious branch of science, the first thing that you would do is agree to only publish data with a consistent time period and using consistent smoothing functions. Climate science has never done this because it would immediately expose the inconsistency of the arguments.
Climate science myth:
Ever increasing levels of CO2 are being added to the atmosphere by mankind each year. CO2 absorbs radiation. Hence CO2 causes a warm up in the planet. The warm up is not linear and you need at least a 30 year trend to filter out "climate noise".
What the science says:
CO2 has been added to the atmosphere by volcanoes and forest fires for millions of years. It's subtracted from the atmosphere by getting dissolved in rain and absorbed by trees and plants. This cyclical process is known as the carbon cycle. CO2 accounts for 0.036% of the atmosphere and is a trace gas. Climate scientists claim that you need a 30 year trend, only because the current period of global warming started 30 years ago. When the anthropogenic global warming theory was proposed in the late 80s, the global warming period was only 10 years old. If you'd taken a 30 year trend then, the trend would have shown a cooling planet, so clearly, the 30 year trend wasn't such a popular concept back then. The length of time that climate noise is supposed to overcome climate signal has increased year on year, to ensure that the trend starts in 1980. Climate noise is clearly not a scientific term and refers to forcing agents (warming or cooling influences) that the global warming model can not account for. The global warming model was created by identifying a limited number of forcing agents (manmade and natural) and applying weighting factors to each variable so that a model could be produced which fitted known data. The model has failed to predict the future.
Jdey Says: Usual resorting to personal abuse, when the science lets you down.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: You have earned the derision. You presume facts that are not in evidence. Fact: The 2000's are the warmest decades on the instrument record. Your denial of this scientific fact earns you the sobriquet of denier.
Jdey Says: The question is simple, how can 14 years of manmade pollution (alleged warming agent) end up with a cooler earth.
Trent Says: Fact: The 2000's are the warmest decade on the instrument record. I have provided links to that fact go to peer reviewed literature.
Jdey Says: I'm not a scientist, I'm an analyst. By varying the start and end date and baseline period, you can make anything look like a trend.
Trent Says: Which is why climate scientist say that to parse signal from noise you need at least 20 years of data for the global temperature. That is why the have baselines of 30 years. Why is it you are so utterly ignorant of these basics?
Jdey Says: If climate science was a serious branch of science, the first thing that you would do is agree to only publish data with a consistent time period and using consistent smoothing functions.
Trent Says: It has been done. Matter of fact CRU uses a 1960-1990 baseline while NASA uses a 1950-1980 base line. Again, why are ignorant of these basics?
Jdey Says: CO2 accounts for 0.036% of the atmosphere and is a trace gas.
Trent Says: So? You just made an Argument from Incredulity.
Jedy Says: Climate scientists claim that you need a 30 year trend, only because the current period of global warming started 30 years ago.
Trent Says: Wrong. Climate is defined as a 30 year; that filters signal from noise. Again, why are you so willfully ignorant?
Jdey Says: When the anthropogenic global warming theory was proposed in the late 80s, the global warming period was only 10 years old.
Trent Says: Utter ignorance. Global Warming theory dates back to the late 19th century. Perhaps it is time you got yourself acquainted with Svante Arrhenius?
On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground 1896:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf
Their is plenty of climate research before the 1980's predicting a rise in global temperatures. It just that your ideological blinkers prevent you from acknowledging this historical fact.
Since Jdey seems determined to deny the existence of human Induced climate change theory existing prior to the 1980's I think it is appropriate to provide a few more example of peer reviewed science that predicted it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Artificial Production of Carbon Dioxide and Its Influence on Temperature
G. S Callendar
Quarterly Journal Royal Meteorological Society vol. 64, pgs. 223–240; 1938
http://nsdl.org/sites/classic_articles/Article6.htm
The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change
Gilbert N. Plass
Tellus, 1956
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x/abstract
Note the use of the phrase "climate change" in 1956.
Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?
Wallace S. Broecker
Science, New Series, Vol. 189, No. 4201 (Aug. 8, 1975), pp. 460-463
http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/files/2009/10/broeckerglobalwarming75.pdf
Anyone want to bet that Jdey is going to ignore the historical evidence and keep on plowing this particular furrow of self imposed ignorance?
Another good post for jdey123 to consider. My previous short reply was simply because I was replying from my mobile.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut you let him off rather lightly on the 'trace gas' nonsense. It only takes a trace of arsenic and many other poisons to kill so their logic would deem those fatal levels are safe.
But this 'trace gas' is apparently plant food and of course almost all flora could not exist without it so it sounds a pretty important thing to be messing with to me.
As you correctly say, CO2 is plant food, not a poison. When CO2 levels were much higher than today, plants flourished. It's also what we breathe out. CO2 is added to the atmosphere not only by mankind but by volcanic eruptions and forest fires.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat don't you understand, that CO2 traps heat or that we're causing it to build up in the atmosphere? If you don't accept these FACTS, there's no point in having a debate. Trying to prove reality to those that are wrapped up in a fantasy is an exercise in futility.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you accept these facts, then what do your sources say is the most likely figure for Climate Sensitivity? I'm prepared to show a MOUNTAIN of scientific evidence that shows it is likely to be 3C in responce to ANY forcing equal to doubling CO2 over pre-industrial levels. If you argue for a significantly lower climate sensitivity, please reference appropriate scientific paper(s) or there is again, no point in debating.
I also have a MOUNTAIN of evidence showing that Ocean Acidification is another HUGE ISSUE associated with humanity's CO2 emissions, just so you can't go around claiming it's plant food.
So yeah, let me know if you want to debate this issue scientifically, or if you just want to keep spreading a bunch of non-scientific falsehoods like you have up till now.
sault,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHansen presented 3 scenarios in his seminal paper of 1988:-
a) CO2 rises exponentially
b) CO2 rises linearly
c) CO2 emissions were curtailed in 2000.
CO2 emissions match scenario B.
Hansen's 2006 paper is latest update.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
The 3 scenarios are present in the graph in that paper, the black line showing global mean land and ocean temperatures mirrors what was presented in the 1988 paper. As it was already looking at that point that the global mean temperature looked more like Scenario C than B path, Hansen introduces another measure based purely on land mean temperatures and suggests the true temperature should be between these, conveniently making it look like we were still on course for scenario B. So the 2006 paper only includes data up until 2005. Looking at the dataset behind the graph, the global mean temperature in 2005 was 0.55C. The graph in the 2006 paper appears to show it as more like 0.62C which is somewhat curious. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.txt
Ok, so how are we doing in 2012? Well, GISS haven't produced the figure for 2011 yet, so we'll have to go to 2010. Scenario B predicts an anomaly of 0.87C for 2010 from the baseline period for 1951-1980, which is the one Hansen & GISS use. Scenario C predicts an anomaly of 0.64C. What was the temperature anomaly for 2010? According to the GISS dataset, it was 0.63C, which is slightly less than the scenario had we cut all fossil fuel emissions by 2000, which clearly we haven't.
As Hansen's 1988 model on which global warming theory hit the headlines clearly doesn't work, the theory doesn't hold. We can't have had linear increases in CO2 and yet no global warming.
In case, I'm accused of cherry picking just 1 year, if you look at the GISS dataset, 2006, 2007,2008 and 2009 are also at or below the temperature anomalies predicted for scenario C (no CO2 emissions) and miles away from those predicted by scenario B.
Finally, in case you think that 2011 may get us back on target, although GISS has yet to be updated, the other 2 main datasets computed are CRU
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
and NOAA
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/
which rank 2011 as the 12th and 11th warmest year on record. Unfortunately, as they use different baseline periods, they have lower anomalies than GISS. However, once the GISS dataset is updated in the next week or so, it will be clear that 2011 is well below 2010's temperature and even scenario C's. CO2 is not the cause.
sault, the only people who resort to personal abuse are the warmists. Whenever you're presented with compelling evidence as above, you resort to calling me ignorant, a denier, a troll, a skeptic etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe facts are that Hansen predicted in 1988 that CO2 was the cause of global warming and that the global mean temperature would increase most likely in line with scenario B. The trend is actually below that of scenario C (no CO2 emissions post 2000). So have climate scientists acknowledged this? No. They continue to extend the period of time that we should look for a trend. In 1988, Hansen said 10 years was long enough, in 2007, IPCC suggested 25 years, now, warmists are talking about 30 years. What science is behind this desire to increase the trends? Are any of the natural forcing agents capable of masking the effects of manmade greenhouse gases over such a lengthy period? No. Solar irradiance peaks and troughs over an 11 year cycle, we've had no major volcanic eruptions since the 1990s and oceanic oscillations which warm and cool the pacific ocean mainly only effect the global mean temperature in periods of months, not 30 years, and obviously are more likely to be an effect of temperature change than a cause. The only reason why the trend period keeps increasing is because it keeps the start of the trend period at 1980, which is roughly the start of the period in which the globe started warming most recently. Climate scientists have summarily failed to explain why the globe is not warming in line with Hansen's 1988 predictions putting the failure down to something unscientifically referred to as "climate noise".
What I do find disturbing is that the evidence that CO2 was not responsible for global warming looked fairly compelling in 2007 (the date of the IPCC 4th report), but was crystal clear by 2010. Although, not officially sanctioned by the IPCC, here is the report that was presented to the Copenhagen conference by climate scientists:-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhagen/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_LOW.pdf
Firstly, there are lots of emotional images showing floods, a polar bear looking lonely on a melting ice floe etc.
There is little in the way of citations anywhere in the paper.
For example "Every year this century (2001-2008) has been among the top 10 warmest years since
instrumental records began, despite solar irradiance being relatively weak over the past few
years.". Hansen in his 2006 paper says that solar irradiance has little effect on global mean temperature but the authors are suggesting that this may be an explanation for the flattening of the temperature range. The fact that 2000s were warmer than 1990s is irrelevant. The scientists need to explain why the world didn't increase by the predicted 0.2C during that decade, by specifying which natural forcing agents caused the suppression.
Their fuller explanation is here:-
"For example, in 2008 a La Niña occurred, a climate pattern which naturally causes a temporary dip in the average global temperature. At the same time, solar output was also at its lowest level of the satellite era, another temporary cooling influence. Without anthropogenic warming these two factors should have resulted in the 2008 temperature being among
the coolest in the instrumental era, while in fact 2008 was the 9th warmest on record"
So, if we ignore Hansen and accept that solar irradiance could suppress manmade warming through the 2000s, why's it had no such effect during previous cycles, and as solar irradiance has been increasing since 2009, why is 2011 cooler than 1997? The ENSO conditions can't be a source for global warming or cooling, unless you believe that the earth is maintaining it's own temperature. Oceans don't warm or cool by magic.
Figure 3 shows a 25 year average, which completely masks the flattening over the last 10 years.
"If one looks at periods of ten years or shorter, such short-term variations can more than outweigh the anthropogenic global warming trend. For example, El Niño events typically come with global-mean temperature changes of up to 0.2 °C over a few years, and the solar cycle with warming or cooling of 0.1 °C over five years (Lean and Rind 2008). However, neither El Niño,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisnor solar activity or volcanic eruptions make a significant contribution to longer-term climate trends. For good reason the IPCC has chosen 25 years as the shortest trend line...".
The above makes no sense at all. They've identified 2 natural forcing agents, the maximum of which they acknowledge has a cooling effect over just a few years, but say that 25 years is the shortest trend line to use. Why?
They contradict themselves as to the effects of solar irradiance within the same paper. Later on, when the suggestion that solar activity is responsible for warming rather than man, we have:-
"Can solar activity or other natural processes explain global warming?
No. The incoming solar radiation has been almost constant over the past 50 years, apart from the well-known 11-year solar cycle (Figure 5). In fact it has slightly decreased over this period. In addition, over the past three years the brightness of the sun has reached an all-time low since the beginning of satellite measurements in the 1970s (Lockwood and Fröhlich 2007,2008). But this natural cooling effect was more than a factor of ten smaller than the effect of increasing greenhouse gases, so
it has not noticeably slowed down global warming"
"In the NASA global temperature data, the past ten 10-year trends (i.e. 1990-1999, 1991-2000
and so on) have all been between 0.17 and 0.34 °C warming per decade, close to or above the expected anthropogenic trend, with the most recent one (1999-2008) equal to 0.19 °C per decade. The Hadley Center data most recently show smaller warming trends (0.11 °C per decade for 1999-2008) primarily due to the fact that this data set is not fully global but leaves out the Arctic, which has warmed particularly strongly in recent years."
Here the scientists wish to ignore 1 of the 3 primary datasets that scientists have made available to them, and have cherry picked years which still show a close to 0.2C per decade rise. The interesting thing about the Arctic is that there are no weather stations there, so all 3 dataset producers use different techniques. NASA GISS's to be to use readings taken from weather stations outside of the Arctic and extrapolate the results.
The Copenhagen Diagnosis report also says
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Other natural factors, like volcanic eruptions or El Niño events, have only caused short-term temperature variations over time spans of a few years, but cannot explain any longer-term climatic trends (e.g., Lean and Rind 2008).". So if they only last a few years, why does the IPCC suggest 25 years is the minimum period of time to establish a trend?
The usual, switching between datasets which have varying, and therefore confusing, baseline periods, changing the time period under observation in each graph, changing the temperature scale and having an unbalanced temperature scale, using extended mean periods, all are statistical tricks to persuade the reader that global warming is occurring.
To have any credibility, climate scientists need to agree a consistent set of timescales, temperature scales, means, baseline periods etc. and only use those that are agreed in scientific papers.
Still dodging the question! What don't you understand, that CO2 traps heat or that we've caused it to build up in the atmosphere? What's your stated value for the Earth's climate sensitivity? Why can't you understand that your cherry-picked time windows mean nothing? Do you know how silly you sound when exactly ZERO professional scientific organizations doubt the veracity of human-induced climate disruption? Do you even wonder why you're labeled a "denier"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFossil Fuels get 250 DIFFERENT kinds of subsidies:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.oecd.org/document/15/0,3746,en_21571361_44315115_48804623_1_1_1_1,00.html
Energy efficiency retrofits and new installations usually pay for themselves in 12 - 18 months and generate cash flow after that.
Coal power destroys $2 for every $1 it provides in electricity sales by saddling us with poorer health, lower productivity and property damage:
http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.101.5.1649
All this is going on while the cost of clean energy has been plummeting like a rock! And how is it that some in the US Congress want to stunt the growth of the most promising industries in our current economy by cutting their paltry support? Especially in light of the unfair support that dirty energy receives? Must be all that campaign cash the dirty energy companies dole out...
So, why don't we get rid of these distorting subsidies and make dirty energy pay for the damage it causes to society? A modest carbon tax could be used to cut the Payroll Tax and fund energy efficiency / clean energy deployment. Even if this doesn't save the harp seals, we'll have cleaner air and water and we'll get to tell OPEC where to shove their imported oil. What's so wrong about saving energy and cleaning up the environment?
If I'm wrong, then we'll only have to wait 6 months for world GDP to reach the level it would have been with no action to clean up our act. If the deniers are wrong, then we would have prevented climate catastrophe for CHEAP!
Just to clarify, EVERY professional scientific body and 98% of the world's climate scientists agree that the deniers are sadly mistaken. The 2% of scientists that disagree are mostly funded by fossil fuel companies:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Willie_Soon
So, which side has more credibility? Which side is proposing the riskier option? Why is it so hard to remove fossil fuel subsidies in this era of "austerity"?
CO2 traps heat but is in minute quantities in the atmosphere. Water vapour also traps heat and is in much larger quantities. Both CO2 and water vapour are natural elements that are emitted and absorbed in cycles. Should we get rid of the rain as well?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've provided scientific links to papers written by the Father of Global Warming - James E Hansen, as well as links to the 3 major temperature data sets to demonstrate that Hansen's 1988 prediction is wrong. Science isn't a popularity vote. Do you regularly poll these national science bodies to see if they still believe in the hypothesis or does it just make you feel more comfortable than having to continue arguing that black is white.
You've provided no scientific explanation to any of my points but continue with personal abuse. Is that the way scientists act?
For the record, although you appear to gain comfort from the fact that all major national science bodies support the climate change hypothesis, the words that certainly my national science body - the Royal Society - are a lot more hedged than the "science is settled" mantra.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2010/climate-change-summary-science/
"CO2 traps heat but is in minute quantities in the atmosphere."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow come you NEVER respond to my 390 ppm Cyanide in the air you breathe or 390 ppm arsenic in the water you drink analogy? If you think 390 ppm doesn't mean anything in a mixture that is over 99% TRANSPARENT to longwave radiation, then go ahead and tell me you'd be fine breathing in all that wonderful cyanide.
"Water vapour also traps heat and is in much larger quantities."
You've got to be kidding me...Do you know NOTHING about absorption spectra? Do you know that CO2 and H2O's absorption bands are almost totally separate?
"Both CO2 and water vapour are natural elements that are emitted and absorbed in cycles."
Agreed, but WE ALSO EMIT CO2! So I guess you don't accept the FACT that CO2 concentrations have gone up %40 in the past 150 years. No wonder people like you are called deniers!
"Should we get rid of the rain as well?"
Eh, the STRAW MAN called, he wants his argument back! But it looks like he won't be getting any brains from you...
"I've provided scientific links to papers written by the Father of Global Warming - James E Hansen..."
So what, the link you provided on the other thread TOTALLY OBLITERATED YOUR OWN POINT! How about this for more reading material:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/A-detailed-look-at-Hansens-1988-projections.html
"You've provided no scientific explanation to any of my points but continue with personal abuse. Is that the way scientists act?"
I've provided plenty, you just don't want to look. You provide garbage and nonsense while expecting me to respond to every single little piece of trash in your pile. I don't have to poll the "national science bodies" because exactly ZERO have changed their stance on Anthropogenic Climate Change Theory. When you argue against the consensus, you must realize you're in the company of hucksters that think HIV doesn't cause AIDS and CFCs don't eat the ozone layer. If you don't want to listen to ACTUAL science, maybe you really do enjoy those strange bedfellows.
Wow...just...wow...You truly don't even read the INTRODUCTION to your own sources:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation. The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty. Nevertheless, the risks associated with some of these changes are substantial."
I bet you jump over that word "uncertainty". Climate scientists have already accounted for uncertainty in their models and predictions, regardless of your knee-jerk conspiracy theories. This results in predictions ranging from immensely troubling to downright catastrophic.
"This document draws upon recent evidence and builds on the Fourth Assessment Report of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in 2007, which is the most comprehensive source of climate science and its uncertainties."
So, the IPCC is legitimate now? Great, so how many "Stop Climate Change Now!" bumperstickers do you need?
"Evidence from ice cores indicates an active role for CO2 in the climate system. This is because the amount of carbon held in oceans, soils and plants depends on temperature and other conditions. In other words, changes in CO2 can lead to climate change and
climate change can also alter the concentrations of CO2."
So, there goes the whole "The climate has changed before" hypothesis the deniers like to trot out all the time!
"Climate models indicate that the overall climate
sensitivity (for a hypothetical doubling of CO2
in the atmosphere) is likely to lie in the range 2C to 4.5C; this range is mainly due to the difficulties in simulating the overall effect of the response of clouds to climate change mentioned earlier."
So, now you accept 2C as the lower bound for climate sensitivity! Time to insulate your house and change out all your incandescent lightbulbs! What color do you want your Nissan Leaf to be?
"When only natural climate forcings are put into climate models, the models are incapable of reproducing the size of the observed increase in global-average surface temperatures over the past 50 years. However, when the models include estimates of forcings resulting from human activity, they can reproduce the increase."
Oh snap! Ready to "friend" Al Gore on facebook yet?
Thanks for the link to http://www.skepticalscience.com/A-detailed-look-at-Hansens-1988-projections.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFigure 3 brings Hansen's 1988 prediction up to date. The lines in pink and red, show actual readings, and Scenario C (i.e. the scenario in which we cut all CO2 emissions by 2000) is shown in grey.
As can clearly be seen, to even a casual observer, the actual readings are below those of even scenario C. Scenario B (the one in black) is the one that Hansen suggested was most likely (CO2 emissions to linearly increase). Scenario B predicted that the global mean temperature would be 0.85C in 2009, and it was actually 0.57C. i.e. the actual temperature was only 2/3 of that predicted by Hansen. If you tossed a coin and consistently called heads, you'd only be 50% out, so the model is clearly useless in predicting the future. The divergence between the actual and predicted trendlines is clearly shown, and the divergence will increase further once the 2011 figures are published.
The argument then goes that the model is only broken because the amount of gas emissions was slightly (only 5% less) over the period in question than scenario B. It's hard to see how the actual readings have ended up less than scenario C (which assumed that there would be no CO2 emission increases after 2000).
If Hansen's 1988 predictions are 1/3 less than actuality, in the space of only 21 years, how can we have any faith in IPCC predictions for 2100.
Look, you're being misled on climate change by News Corp. Here in the USA, Faux News viewers are the most misled on climate issues:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/22/374434/fox-news-viewers-misinformed-study-jon-stewart/
I would expect that the UK would be no different. Rupert Murdoch has an agenda. It involves punching hippies, okay? Just because he has to illegally wiretap people and lie to his viewers to do it doesn't bother him. The ends justify the means.
"In anticipation of US midterm elections, News Corp. donated $1 million to the Republican Governors Association in June 2010. The move was criticized by Democrats who said this was evidence of News Corp's media outlets conservative leanings (see Fox News Channel controversies)...Around the same time, News Corp. also donated $1 million to the United States Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber aggressively supported the Republican effort to retake Congress in 2010."
Lying to you is necessary and sufficient for Mr. Murdoch to continue his hippie punching. If you read the following papers, you're subject to being manipulated by that agenda:
UK and Ireland newspapers, published by subsidiaries of News International Ltd.
News Group Newspapers Ltd.
The Sun (published in Scotland as The Scottish Sun and in Ireland as The Irish Sun)
News of the World (ended publication 10 July 2011)
Times Newspapers Ltd.
The Sunday Times
The Times
The Times Literary Supplement
The Wall St. Journal
Also, there's this:
"British Sky Broadcasting, United Kingdom & Ireland (39.1% holding). In practice, a controlling interest."
If you don't think the company is biased, look at this:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/12/15/207201/leaked-email-fox-news-sammon-cast-doubt-on-climate-science/
Lay off the right wing dribble and ACTUALLY READ the scientific sources you post for a change, okay?
If you read to the bottom of the page, you'd have found out that Hansen ALSO put his climate sensitivity too high by 0.8C. When a climate sensitivity of 3.4C is used instead of 4.2C (in agreement with the most recent developments in climate science), Scenario B is right on the money! Funny how that whole actually looking at scientific proof thing works, right?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBTW, 3.4C is HIGHER than the IPCC's most likely estimate of 3C, which explains why glaciers/ice pack and permafrost are melting faster than the models predicted and climate zones are moving much faster than predicted as well.
sault, I have never watched Fox News and read the Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, The Guardian and the Independent in the UK. I don't read the Times (Murdoch paper) as it's behind a paywall.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe links that I've referenced in my various posts are all to Hansen papers, original dataset providers (CRU, GISS, NOAA) and in my last post to a website promoting global warming as provided by yourself.
I don't think that being 33% out within the space of 21 years is reliable, which for me calls in to question the entire hypothesis. At the very least, I'd expect climate scientists to acknowledge that this raises a credibility issue and that it's in their interests to try to filter out "climate noise" in the near term. Instead I just get subjected to personal abuse, which makes me assume that something fishy is going on.
1 more thing, the Earth's LONG TERM climate sensitivity is probably 4.2C, but on the time frame of a century, 3.4C is the best estimate when forecasting global temperature anomalies for 2100.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs Hansen going to retract all the papers that he's written based on his model. I thought that once you discovered that you made an error, you're supposed to retract it. Getting one of your weighting factors wrong which leads to a 33% divergence from reality seems like a very bad mistake.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course a couple more years like 2011, and Hansen will be 50% out, meaning his prediction will actually be no better than tossing a coin. Given that there was a warming trend when he made his prediction, to be as far out as he is, is quite incredible. The average stock market pundit isn't typically this wrong.
Baby Harp seals? Oh my bejeezus. A blast from the past.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are a pathetic, quivering blob of uselessness.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou Warmists try so hard, and passionately so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour emotional pleas betray your inner doubt.
WOW, what a debunking of my overall viewpoint. An endless rant on Rush Limbaugh and a bunch of wing-nuts does wonders to prove a scientific argument. One thing I do admire however is the religious fervor you use to promote your argument. Maybe you can go somewhere with that, become a Catholic priest and beat anyone who does not concede a flat earth or just change the subject and ignore the lack of scientific evidence for your cult's position.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissault, I've written to the Royal Society cc'ing my local MP today, to ask them if they will re-examine their position on global warming given the wide divergence from Hansen's 1988 predictions since 2006, and that the hypothesis is based on this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've not read every national science body's comment on global warming but the Royal Society's current stance is to endorse the statements that global warming has occurred and is very likely due to mankind. They make it clear, however, that they only base their stance on the fact that no climate scientist has been able to produce a model which emulates the climate without introducing manmade forcing agents, they also make it clear that they do not consider the science to be settled. It appears from their wording that they are minded to back the hypothesis because had it been proved true and science didn't back it until it was too late, the consequences on mankind would be substantial.
So, I can understand their point, but it does seem that they are reacting to the alarmist stories put out by warmists, of which there is now demonstrably no proof.
I'm surprised that the Royal Society failed to ask themselves some pretty obvious questions when they backed this hypothesis:-
i) Industrial revolution kicked off in the UK in 1780s. UK had already been superceded by Germany and US as the top economic power by 1870, thus proving that it wasn't just the UK that was heavily industrialised at this point. Yet up until 1910, the records show the world getting cooler.
ii) From 1910 to 1940, whilst industrial production continued to ramp up, we had a warming phase. So, if manmade pollution was the cause of global warming, you'd expect the tipping point to be 1910.
iii) From 1940 to 1980, we had a flattening trend. The suggestion for this from warmists is that sulphates (which had obviously been pumped out since the start of the industrial revolution) only started to have an impact during this phase. This seems highly suspect. Although, western Europe will have re-industrialised substantially in the late 40s and 1950s, the rest of the world didn't have to play catchup. The records show sulphate pollution rising linearly throughout.
iv) It's then suggested that the cooling impact of sulphates was not sufficient to hold back the warming aspects of manmade greenhouse gases because:-
a) Substantial measures were made to reduce sulphate emissions (true of developed countries but pollution moved east as a visit to China today would confirm).
b) We reached a 2nd tipping point.
Interesting article from a guy whose followed the same line of inquiry as me, previously in 2009. i.e. why is Hansen's 1988 model so out, and yet the global warming hypothesis not been retracted? The divergence from Hansen's prediction and the real data is even more glaring now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://climateaudit.org/2008/01/16/thoughts-on-hansen-et-al-1988/