Global warming in the Great City

2014 in review

Compared to recent years, sea ice conditions observed throughout 2014 were largely unremarkable. Throughout the year, extent for the Arctic as a whole remained below average, but generally within two standard deviations of the average. The maximum extent observed on March 21 of 14.91 million square kilometers (5.76 million square miles) was the fifth lowest in the satellite record, with the minimum extent observed on September 17 of 5.02 million square kilometers (1.94 million square miles) being the sixth lowest on record. One event of note was in the Laptev Sea, where during August, open water was observed to extend to about 85 degrees latitude, less than 560 kilometers (350 miles) from the North Pole.

So the deniers are on thin ICE....tell that to NASA the global warming alarmist. Even they have admitted ice is at record levels in Antarctica. They are having trouble "explaining it"....poor chaps.

In fact all we have is a 1.3 degree centigrade rise in temps over the time of the industrial revolution, of which as much as half is due to the fact that the sun is hotter now than it was at the start of the measurement period.

 The point is that the first doom and gloom predictions were made round about 1990 and we are now in a position to compare with true data how well these cataclysmic predictions turned out and everyone must agree that the situation is less severe as was predicted.

I am 100% in favour of switching over to AFFORDABLE alternative, but sustainable energy sources, i.e. if I want to make myself a cup of coffee at midnight, the energy source should be available instantaneously. The Green brigade can not guarantee this.

Photovoltaics is a non starter - it works only when the sun shines and it cost an arm and a leg. I don't even want to mention the cost and lifetime of batteries that come with solar cells. 

As far as I know, municipalities will not allow home owners to erect a large enough turbine on your property to supply your house. On top of this, it will also cost a small fortune to install and maintain. The cherry on top is that you must shut it down during strong wind while in areas with high snow fall during winter the chance of snow building up on its blades and throw the whole unit out of balance is a limitation.

So, I don't want to save the planet, but I am all in favour to reduce my electricity bill. The tree huggers don't offer me any feasible alternative. My feeling is that all these billions spent on renewables should rather be focussed on the development of processes to remove the nasties produced by coal power stations - nasties like mercury, sulphur gasses (SOx) and nitrogen gasses (NOx) and possibly convert CO2 to carbon and oxygen. However, before any serious money is granted to look into this, I would rather like to see a similar vigour to reduce family sizes which I am sure will have a beneficial effect on the environment.   

 And then there's this Blikkies. I have many friends who travel internationally by plane all the time, but are big Global Warming groupies.  They potter around town in Minis or, better yet, the Prius....weapon of choice for a tree hugger, while ignoring the real source of their carbon footprint. Many are called, few are willing to make anything but a token sacrifice:

"For many people reading this, air travel is their most serious environmental sin. One round-trip flight from New York to Europe or to San Francisco creates a warming effect equivalent to 2 or 3 tons of carbon dioxide per person. The average American generates about 19 tons of carbon dioxide a year; the average European, 10.

So if you take five long flights a year, they may well account for three-quarters of the emissions you create. “For many people in New York City, who don’t drive much and live in apartments, this is probably going to be by far the largest part of their carbon footprint,” says Anja Kollmuss, a Zurich-based environmental consultant.

It is for me. And for people like Al Gore or Richard Branson who crisscross the world, often by private jet, proclaiming their devotion to the environment."

My guess is for an executive jet you multiply those numbers by 10.

As I said, I tolerate all religions, and respect other self beliefs.  It's the un-christian aspects of Beeno and Clean Cut that most have seen on here that constantly gives christians the horrible reputation they have, and why people like me respond in a bad way because it gets too much.

I too tolerate all religions but dont agree they are correct . Horrible reputation!!! Hahahhahahahaha thsi from a ranting atheist who represnt some 2% of humanioty as manking thinks so highly of them!! Bwahahahhahahahaha

As soon as nobody believes in the same thing you do, they are then a non entity and the s[removed] of the earth, who deserve nothing but the worst in their lives until they convert to what you believe in, and then and only then, will you be civil and decent to them.

Oh no ou DA has blown a fuse. Nobody wishes anybody the worst things possible in their lives. Man youare sounding dafter than a hatter! Go and take a good look at your self as well.

Da please grwo up and try and address the facts. You are in a complete state and its all emotions and rants. 

Thanks

• Thin ice......bwaaaaaaahahahahahaha
  

• Ice is covering 16m sq km, more than 2.1m unusual for time of year
• UN computer models say Antarctic ice should be in decline, not increasing

By David Rose for The Mail on Sunday

Published: 16:01 EST, 5 July 2014 | Updated: 03:58 EST, 28 July 2014

View
comments

The levels of Antarctic sea-ice last week hit an all-time high – confounding climate change computer models which say it should be in decline. 

America’s National Snow And Ice Data Center, which is funded by Nasa, revealed that ice around the southern continent covers about 16million sq km, more than 2.1?million more than is usual for the time of year.

It is by far the highest level since satellite observations on which the figures depend began in 1979.
In statistical terms, the extent of the ice cover is hugely significant.

Scroll down for video

• SHARE PICTURE

Copy link to paste in your message

The Gerlache Strait separating the Palmer Archipelago from the Antarctic Peninsular off Anvers Island

It represents the latest stage in a trend that started ten years ago, and means that an area the size of Greenland, which would normally be open water, is now frozen.

The Antarctic surge is so big that overall, although Arctic ice has decreased, the frozen area around both poles is one million square kilometres more than the long-term average.

RELATED ARTICLES

• Previous
• 1
• Next

• Fourth of July in a galaxy far, far away: The incredible...Were aliens the source of UFOs spotted above Norway in the...

Share this article

In its authoritative Fifth Assessment Report released last year, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admitted that the computer models on which scientists base their projections say Antarctic ice should be in decline, not increasing.

The report said: ‘There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979, due to… incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change.’

• SHARE PICTURE

Copy link to paste in your message

An adult chinstrap penguin jumps out of the sea at Port Lockroy, Antarctica

• SHARE PICTURE

Copy link to paste in your message

A Crabeater seal on an iceberg in Paradise Bay, Antarctica. Crabeater seals are the most common large mammal on the planet after humans, with an estimated population of 15 million

Some scientists have suggested the Antarctic ice increase may itself be caused by global warming. But Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said the arguments were not convincing.

She added: ‘We do not have a quantitative, predictive understanding of the rise in Antarctic sea ice extent.’

She said it was becoming increasingly apparent that long-term cycles in ocean temperatures were responsible for a significant proportion of the ice decline in the Arctic – a process that may be starting to reverse. 

Prof Curry also revealed that because of the ‘pause’, in which world average temperatures have not risen for more than 16 years, the Arctic ice decline has been ‘touted’ by many as the most important evidence for continued global warming.

But in her view, climate scientists have to consider evidence from  both Poles.

She added: ‘Convincing arguments regarding the causes of sea-ice  variations require understanding and ability to model both the Arctic and Antarctic.’

• SHARE PICTURE

Copy link to paste in your message+4

The Gerlache Strait separating the Palmer Archipelago from the Antarctic Peninsular off Anvers Island

IT'S POLITICS, NOT SCIENCE, DRIVING CLIMATE CHANGE MANIA

For years, computer simulations have predicted that sea ice should be disappearing from the Poles. 

Now, with the news that Antarctic sea-ice levels have hit new highs, comes yet another mishap to tarnish the credibility of climate science. 

Climatologists base their doom-laden predictions of the Earth’s climate on computer simulations.

But these have long been the subject of ridicule because of their stunning failure to predict the pause in warming – nearly 18 years long on some measures – since the turn of the last century.

It’s the same with sea ice. We hear a great deal about the decline in Arctic sea ice, in line with or even ahead of predictions. 

But why are environmentalists and scientists so much less keen to discuss the long-term increase in the southern hemisphere?

In fact, across the globe, there are about one million square kilometres more sea ice than  35 years ago, which is when satellite measurements began.

It’s fair to say that this has been something of an embarrassment for climate modellers. But it doesn’t stop there.

In recent days a new scandal over the integrity of temperature data has emerged, this time in America, where it has been revealed as much as 40 per cent  of temperature data there are not real thermometer readings.

Many temperature stations have closed, but rather than stop recording data from these posts, the authorities have taken the remarkable step of ‘estimating’ temperatures based on the records of surrounding stations.

So vast swathes of the data are actually from ‘zombie’ stations that have long since disappeared.

This is bad enough, but it has also been discovered that the  US’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is using estimates even when perfectly good raw data is available to it – and that it has adjusted historical records.

Why should it do this?

Many have noted that the effect of all these changes is to produce a warmer present and a colder past, with the net result being  the impression of much faster warming. They draw their conclusions accordingly.

Naturally, if the US temperature records are indeed found to have been manipulated, this is unlikely to greatly affect our overall picture of rising temperatures at the end of the last century and  a standstill thereafter.

The US is, after all, only a  small proportion of the globe.

Similarly, climatologists’ difficulties with the sea ice may be of little scientific significance in the greater scheme of things.

We have only a few decades of data, and in climate terms this is probably too short to demonstrate that either the Antarctic increase or the Arctic decrease is anything other than natural variability. 

But the relentless focus by activist scientists on the Arctic decline does suggest a political imperative rather than a scientific one – and when put together with the story of the US temperature records, it’s hard to avoid the impression that what the public is being told is less than the unvarnished truth. 

As their credulity is stretched more and more, the public will – quite rightly – treat demands for action with increasing caution…

Andrew

 "ONE million square miles more of ice across the globe, than 35 years ago when satellite measurements began."  No doubt the fanatics at Sceptical  Scientist will find some petty fault with this. But the Antarctic story is real.

Feeling a bit stupid about your thin ice comment again RooiAAS? Don't be a lemming, manipulated by politicians, the climate scientists who want grants and the do good army. Have some guts and think for yourself.

As the year drew to a close, sea ice extent again reached record high levels for the date by declining far more slowly than usual. Extent anomalies are particularly large in the Ross Sea and Amundsen Sea regions, and in the northern Weddell Sea—areas that have been anomalously high for most of the calendar year. However, sea ice concentration in both these regions is now quite low, that is, the sea ice pack is loose and open. This is characteristic of dispersal of the ice by storms, and indeed strong low pressure anomalies were present in the eastern Ross Sea and northern Weddell Sea in the second half of December. The extent of this loose sea ice pack far to the north makes it likely that a rapid decline will occur as warmer summer weather arrives."

And bye, bye, Im going to enjoy my weekend

On thin ice again RooiAAS?  You still haven't taken on one point have you? All you can do is rely on the opinions of others without any ideas of your own....a lemming, a sheep.

ABASQUE here's  a three day old update on  Antarctic Ice....still at record levels, but of course  "poised to decline". These guys should be embarrassed:

Antarctic daily images

Antarctic Daily Images

Arctic sea ice extent remained about a standard deviation below average for the month of December. Compared to recent years, 2014 as a whole was rather unremarkable. The bigger story was the record high extents observed in the Antarctic through more than half of the year. At year’s end, Antarctic sea ice extent was again at a record high, but poised for a rapid decline as the austral summer wears on.

So I repeat.....these are the facts.

1) The irradiation graph shows the sun activity was much higher in 2000 than 1900, even off it's peak.....that would unequivocally produce a higher temperature.

2) The temperatures have risen 1.3 centigrade degrees over the period....but part of that has to be due to sun activity. Scafetta and West in a peer reviewed paper for the Journal of Geophysical research, estimate half of the effect is due to the sun. This is a  respectable journal in it's field and it means temp increases not sun based are about 0.65 degrees over the whole industrial revolution.

3) The models which incorporate all the best thinking of the Climate Scientists are giving predictions way higher than those which have occurred. Global Warming supporters like the Economist have noted this and called for a rethink of the numbers.

4) Record lows are still being set all over the World. If the probability distribution of temperatures had shifted dramatically.....we wouldn't be producing new record lows.

5) The growth of Antarctic ice is predictably written off as thin. But the top layers represent most recent ice formation.....so in recent years we have been producing more ice. And the total area occupied by the ice increase since Satellites measured things.....is bigger than South Africa.

Against all these points we have had warnings about severe weather.....the USA has had almost no hurricanes in 5 years. Rises in sea level.....nobody can find. Hell they blamed the rise of terrorism on global warming.....and it's a fact that results have been doctored.

I don't know if man made global warming is a big part of the 0.65 degree temp increase in 115 years, or whether it might be more in future. I also don't know if warming is bad....mankind has suffered most in the Little Ice Ages.

But I do know the effort from the Climate Scientists so far has been woefully off the mark, intolerant of other opinions and linked to political agendas. It's an interesting topic, it's a pity we can't pursue it in the true spirit of scientific discovery.

What the hell is going on here - the end is near because he earth's temperature increased by 0.8 degrees over a period of  122 years.   Too much of the rubbish we are subjected to from the Biden Administration is based on kickbacks to politicians  and insider trading already exposed in the case of Pelosi and others.    

The result is that  inflation is rising rapidly and the ordinary people are paying a real price for the situation - eg the  price of transport is rising in particular as well - while the billionaires  are getting richer.   

Kinda stupid thinking we can prevent drastic changes...I'm strongly opposed to all pollution, but the overreaction to CO2 and methane is profit driven ...profit for the super rich elite...models should atleast be close at predicting trends...it's anything but accurate ATM...fearmongering. 

Man always needs religion….it’s the new religion. And ‘scientists ’ are the new priests. But it’s certainly not science. If it was,  all the experts would be careful to point out half of the 1.2 degree increase occurred before CO2 had increased enough to make a difference….and everybody would worry a lot more about how the data has been filtrated.

Then even if we conclude it’s a problem, we would be behaving very differently. If global warming is an existential problem why would we continue to shut down atomic power….the second lowest CO2 source of energy and the only solution we can scale at will.

The whole thing is rife with dishonesty, bad logic and transferred intentions.

I do enjoy driving my Tesla Plaid though….the thing is a rocket. But I wouldn’t drive it 200 miles without access to a charging station. And I have separately posted on the huge challenges to scale up electric vehicles. 

We have  almost 8 billion people on this planet all reliant on the energy, food and transportation largely supplied by fossil fuels. We shouldn’t be destroying that industry until we can prove we have a viable alternative, 

"The whole thing is rife with dishonesty, bad logic and transferred intentions."

Typical salesmanship...keep the plebs in line...

LMAO!

All these years later and while Moffie still hasn't admitted how much egg he got all over his fat face on this thread, the deceitful, pompous and manipulative old fool has since snuck back and edited out his embarrassing and humiliating comments . . . except he's too dumb to realise I quoted him on this very thread so it's all still there.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaha!

Just for context, Moffie was calling Stav "unworldly" on a much more recent Climate thread and I was going to ask him if there's a better example of "unworldly" than his sucking up the drivel put up by a Young Earth Creationist and his pal the local radio ham on this thread . . . when I noticed he'd edited his post and taken out the more embarrassing bits hoping no-one would remember.

So Moffie tell us, when did you edit your post and if you're man enough to admit you did (use your imagination here) why did you remove some of your text?

Here is the text Moffie removed in case anyone is wondering:

" Well you see Shark the trouble lies in how you ask the question. Asking the question, framing it right, is half the battle. And if you have studied as many of these macro statistical efforts as I have, as a doctoral student, consultant and executive you conclude that researchers frame the question to get the results they want.

Just when I thought Mrs Searle and her crew couldn't look more incompetent I read this. The mind boggles that such people exist, but exist they certainly do. 

The Alpha-Gimp comes to the rescue literally within 10 minutes.

Doos XL, let your Master answer the question . . . did he edit his post and why? You can make him feel better by kissing his arse when he's done.

It is a mind boggling thread of blindly accepting what you have been told to believe….even though what you were told to believe in 1990 is proven wrong. Fifty years ago these warmer types were religious zealots….now they are scientific zealots….the need to blindly believe is deeply rooted in the human make up.

Ummm . . . so why did you edit your post, Moffie?

The one thing Moz has been right about has been the man made climate change hoax. 

Rooitwit I hope by now you have realised how gullible you were to suck up all this nonsense.  Also why do you think Moz changed his posts?

What text did I remove? Humour me.

"What text did I remove? Humour me."

Scroll up, you drunken oild fool . . . and look for the bit where I said this: "Here is the text Moffie removed in case anyone is wondering:"

I mean, really, is it too hard for you, Moffie?

When you're done, do me the courtesy of actually answering the question . . . Mr I-never-lie.

LMAO!

This is what you are going on about…..this!!

‘

"Well you see Shark the trouble lies in how you ask the question. Asking the question, framing it right, is half the battle. And if you have studied as many of these macro statistical efforts as I have, as a doctoral student, consultant and executive you conclude that researchers frame the question to get the results they want.

But don’t take it from me, here is a good description:

‘ Yes, selecting the wrong null hypothesis can lead to invalid results in statistical hypothesis testing.

In hypothesis testing, the null hypothesis represents the default position that there is no significant difference between two groups or variables. The alternative hypothesis, on the other hand, is the opposite of the null hypothesis and represents the position that there is a significant difference between the two groups or variables.

Selecting the wrong null hypothesis can lead to different results depending on the specific scenario. For example, if the null hypothesis is too broad and does not reflect the true nature of the research question, then it may be difficult to reject the null hypothesis even if there is a true difference between the two groups. This can lead to a false negative result, where the researcher incorrectly concludes that there is no significant difference when there actually is.’

We've seen Mrs Searle play this card before. Trying to make a person out to be a liar with an unprovable position. However, she has been caught out a few times doing this. It's interesting to note that those who support climate change, who support abortion, who support every leftist/globalist ideology, they all have the common trait of viewing others as objects. They gravitate to ideologies that demand submission and humiliation of those they hate, or anyone who happens to be the fall guy for the cause. Pride, power, domination and the glorification of self. Note how they are always the same people who tell those they cannot debate with that they are stupid. Attack the person, and provide nothing to the discussion. Ende.

It’s remarkable really…..they line up dutifully on every position their media demands.