Arctic Ice
Image by U.S. Geological Survey via Flickr

“Barring an about face by nature or adjustments, it appears that for the first time since 2001, Arctic Sea ice will hit the “normal” line as defined by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) for this time of year.” –Steven Goddard and Anthony Watts

Read the full article here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/31/arctic-sea-ice-about-to-hit-normal-what-will-the-news-say/

Goddard and Watts’ article explores the science behind this GOOD development.

Save me!
Image by Ian’s Shutter Habit via Flickr

And for a classic Global Warmist response to the GOOD news… light on discussion of the science, heavy on the fretting that this might lead people to doubt their (the Warmist’s)  dubious claims:

“Only two months ago, it looked as if the Arctic sea ice extent was trending so far below normal that it might set a new record… But, lo and behold, so much new ice froze in March that the overall extent for this winter will end up nearly normal, as compared to the long-term average… Still, if the Arctic does indeed have one good year among many bad ones, it could further erode public opinion of climate science at a time when the Senate is on the verge of debating sweeping energy and climate legislation. Given the long-term trend, it should not.” –Dan Shapley

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

David Adam reports in the Guardian.co.uk, “Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall.)

Suspicion of IPCC report rises...and the seas? Apparently, not so much.

The authors of the research article retracted from science journal, Nature Geoscience, say, “One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes.”

So we see another piece of the sloppy science that forms the foundation of Global Warming claims, especially as promoted by the IPCC, fall by the wayside…

And, still, I do not hear a sigh of relief from Global Warmists, that maybe the science wasn’t settled, maybe the earth hasn’t been victimized by man beyond redemption, maybe the future will not see a climate-caused apocalypse. I suppose these scenarios would clash with the narrative they enjoy discussing at their grossly polluting conferences…

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

February 13, 2010 – IPCC admits another error in its 2007 report – almost doubling the amount of the Netherlands that is below sea-level…read full story here.

February 14, 2010 – Phil Jones, infamous for his key role in the ClimateGate scandal, “conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.”

Glacier Grey, Chile
Image by * hiro008 via Flickr

“And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.”

And, then there’s John Christy, former lead author on the IPCC: “The story is the same for each one…the popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”
Read the full Times Online story here.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Rajendra K. Pachauri, the chair of the Intergo...
Image via WikipediaIPCC’s statement of principles: “to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy.”1

“The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

“Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

“In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.”1

Read the full Daily Mail article by David Rose here. This is a great piece that also explores the WWF research cited by Dr. Lal and company which included outrageous errors that yet again, somehow by chance, tilted the report’s findings in the direction of proving Global Warming beyond debate.

A question repeatedly asked on http://www.globalclimatestability.com is: “Why do the errors that occur in Climate Change research always seem to support Global Warming?” Every time it is asked, the answer becomes more obvious.

1. Rose, David. Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn’t been verified, Daily Mail, January 24, 2010. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz0dbvYPd3e.)

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Himalayan Glaciers Melting // So Sad
Image by 666isMONEY ☮ ♥ & ☠ via Flickr

How the United Nation‘s IPCC culls scientific data, which it then reports to the world demanding action for which it will take the lead to save planet earth:

1999 – Syed Hasnain, a “little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi,” does a phone interview with New Scientist. He makes unsupportable claims that the Himalaya’s glaciers could melt away to non-existence by 2035. He subsequently called his suggestion speculation.1

2007 – “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.”1

So, the “research” the IPCC relied on was primarily this 1999 interview, the claims of which were never supported by actual scientific research, nor reported on in “peer-reviewed journals” – the same “peer-reviewed” journals that the climatologists of East Anglia University admittedly politicize in attempts to keep out views and findings with which they disagree, the same “peer-reviewed journals” that all of the settled science of the Global Warming movement relies on for its proof that we all must give them more power and money to combat this problem.

I think it’s past time that the Global Warming catchphrase “the science is settled” be retired. Admittedly, the one that will replace it – “the phone conversation is settled” – is not as powerful, but it would at least reflect the truth – something the IPCC might want to consider tapping into.

1. Jonathan Leake and Chris Hastings, World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown, Times Online, January 17, 2010 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece).

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

“The global data bases have serious problems that render them useless for determining accurate long term temperature trends. Especially since most of the issues produce a warm bias in the data.”1

A thermometer showing −17°C.
Image via Wikipedia

Read Joseph D’Aleo’s full report here.

Read Mr. D’Aleo’s bio here.

1. D’Aleo, Joseph, Climategate: Leaked Emails Inspired Data Analyses Show Claimed Warming Greatly Exaggerated and NOAA not CRU is Ground Zero, http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Meet Professor Mojib Latif, member of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):  “The extreme retreats that we have seen in glaciers and sea ice will come to a halt. For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling.”

Pompenburg with Hofpoort in winter (Rotterdam)
Image via Wikipedia

But what about the computer models?

Why didn’t they see this coming?

Meet Prof Anastasios Tsonis, head of the University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sciences Group. On multi-decadal oscillations (MDOs): “They amount to massive rearrangements in the dominant patterns of the weather, and their shifts explain all the major changes in world temperatures during the 20th and 21st Centuries…we have such a change now and can therefore expect 20 or 30 years of cooler temperatures.”

“Prof Tsonis said that the period from 1915 to 1940 saw a strong warm mode, reflected in rising temperatures. But from 1940 until the late Seventies, the last MDO cold-mode era, the world cooled, despite the fact that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere continued to rise.”1

Read the full Daily Mail story that explores the impact of multi-decadal oscillations (MDOs) on warming and cooling trends here.

1. Rose, David. “The mini ice age starts here,” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html, January 10, 2010.

Blue Marble (Planet Earth)
Image by woodleywonderworks via Flickr

“In contradiction to some recent studies, he [Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol] finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

The research is published in Geophysical Research Letters.”

Quote source: author unknown, Science Daily, December 31, 2009.

Read the full Science Daily article here.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]



snowmen-rally.jpg

“Idea adapted from: Is it Getting Warmer? blog. Image originally posted on looku.com. Author unknown.”

(Quote Source: Washington Post, date unknown.)

View Washington Post blog here.

Special thanks to my dear friend, T. Sawyer, for forwarding this wonderful holiday photo to me.

“Climatism is an ideology. Climatologists are scientists. Climatists are social or political organizers who abuse climatology in the service of ideologues. Climatology was and still is an investigation of nature. Climatism is the exploitation of the fear of nature to gain power, wealth and social esteem.”

(Quote & Graphic Source: Climatology versus Climatism; Science & Public Policy Institute; Vinod K. Dar; August 6, 2008.)

Read Vinod K. Dar’s full piece exploring the current battle between ideology and science in the global warming movement here.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Check back for frequent updates on the Climate Change movement - the debate is not over.

Enter your email address to subscribe to Global Climate Stability and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 3 other followers