Month: June 2018

Record Slow Arctic Melt Continues

Arctic sea ice volume is highest for the date in 13 years, and the 30 day melt rate is the smallest on record.

Climate dimwits like to make graphs like this one, predicting the Arctic will be ice-free by 2045 based on September sea ice volume.

Spreadsheet    Data

But if they actually looked at the data they would realize that this can’t happen, because the Arctic gains large amounts of ice every September.

In order to get an ice-free Arctic there would have to be almost no ice left at the end of July, because very little volume melt occurs after July 31. Climate experts have only six weeks of blowtorching to achieve their goal.

Ice volume is still near the peak, above average, and melting at the slowest rate on record.

FullSize_CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20180614.png (1337×1113)

Mainstream climate science is toast. As I have been predicting since I started writing about this topic ten years ago.

The Argus-Press – Google News Archive Search

via The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

https://ift.tt/2ydFUwN

June 15, 2018 at 07:38AM

The Obama Administration Official Who Would Have Led the Red Team/Blue Team EPA Debates…

Featured image from Retro Thing

Guest commentary by David Middleton

From the American Association for the Advancement of Science of America

Obama official would have led EPA’s climate science debate—if all agencies took part

By Robin Bravender, E&E NewsJun. 13, 2018 , 4:05 PM

Originally published by E&E News

Scott Pruitt’s top aide wanted to use special authority to hire a former Obama administration official to scrutinize climate science.

The EPA administrator’s chief of staff, Ryan Jackson, suggested last year that Steven Koonin, a theoretical physicist and an Obama Energy Department appointee, could quickly get on EPA’s payroll. Pruitt and his staff have drawn criticism for using special authority to expedite the hires of political appointees, and EPA’s internal watchdog has launched a probe into the matter.

Pruitt’s team was planning to hire Koonin to convene a military-style “red-team” climate exercise aimed at questioning prevailing climate science.

[…]

Koonin never took the job, he told E&E News yesterday in an interview, and he doesn’t expect the Trump team to launch a red team.

[…]

But Koonin said yesterday that he only wanted to sign on to such an initiative if it were a governmentwide effort. “If one is going to do a good red-team exercise, it needs to involve those agencies that have strong equities in climate science, and EPA is not that,” he said.

[…]

“Instead of taking briefings from and respecting the knowledge of EPA scientists or NASA’s and NOAA’s scientists who are among the world’s experts on climate change, Pruitt wants to bring in a bunch of right-wing nuts to run an alternate facts process,” said David Doniger, senior strategic director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s climate and clean energy program.

Koonin said, “I don’t think I’m being crazy.” He added, “Why wouldn’t you want to make sure that the government is properly representing the science?”

And although he said he’s not concentrating his energy on the executive branch or the government at this point, he’s still pursuing the red-team idea.

“It’s something I’m thinking about a lot. Stay tuned.”

Science… As in She Blinded Me With…

Warmunist: “Instead of taking briefings from and respecting the knowledge of EPA scientists or NASA’s and NOAA’s scientists who are among the world’s experts on climate change, Pruitt wants to bring in a bunch of right-wing nuts to run an alternate facts process.” — Don’t question the informed wisdom (AKA the Warmunist agenda) of government climate explainers.

Scientist: “I don’t think I’m being crazy.  Why wouldn’t you want to make sure that the government is properly representing the science?” — Don’t blindly accept the Warmunist agenda.

(If anyone wishes to take issue with my use of the word “Warmunist,” save yourself some time by Googling “hyperbole.“)

Steve Koonin deserves a great deal of credit for perseverance.   Four years ago, he attempted something similar with the American Physical Association…

APS reviews its Climate Change Statement

Posted on February 19, 2014 by curryja
by Judith Curry

The American Physical Society (APS) is in the process of reviewing its 2007 Climate Change Statement. The process itself is remarkable, and I’ve been privileged to participate in the process.

[…]

Context

The text of the 2007 APS Climate Change statement is found [here].

This statement resulted in the public resignations from the APS of several high profile physicists (this was followed closely at WUWT).  These resignations prompted additional commentary to be appended to the statement, with some clarifications and mentions of uncertainty.

The charge to the POPA Subcommittee considering the statement can be found [here].

Workshop

I was one of the experts invited to attend the January 8 Workshop.  The other invitees were  Bill Collins, Ben Santer, Isaac Held, Richard Lindzen, and John Christy.  [link] for biosketches.

Several weeks before the Workshop, we received a framing document that posed a series of questions that had arisen from their reading of the IPCC AR5 WG1 Report.  Not only did they carefully read the AR5 Report (they picked up some things that I hadn’t spotted), but their analysis and questions reflected a good skeptical perspective.  None of the Subcommittee Members have any apparent expertise in climate science; rather they viewed the AR5 report through the eyes of physicists.

Each Workshop participant was invited to select questions to respond to in a 30 minute presentation.  The Workshop format allowed for extensive questioning and discussion.   My presentation can be found here [JC APS].

The APS produced a complete transcript of the workshop [link], with ppt slides embedded within.  This is a remarkable document — more than anything else that I’ve seen, it provides in my opinion what is the most accurate portrayal of  the scientific debates surrounding climate change.  There was some fascinating (and new to me) science that was presented. In a future post i will discuss the scientific presentations. But one general reaction is that while the 6 of us agreed on the primary scientific evidence (apart from some tiffs between Santer and Christy on the satellite-derived tropospheric temperature trends), we each had a unique perspective on how to reason about the evidence.

[…]

Climate Etc.

Steve Koonin was the chair of the Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) subcommittee.  After the very productive workshop, there was a great deal of hope that the APS would heed at least some of the recommendations and revise the APS’ position statement on climate change.

Instead Steve Koonin and Robert Rosner were booted off the committee and the workshop’s results were not only ignored, they were bastardized…

JC reflections

Well, their paragraph on Climate Science is a rather astonishing take on the APS Workshop.  Their paragraph on Climate Change seems to come from the Guardian.  Their statement on Climate Action reiterates their rather crazy statement in 2007

Apart from the issue that no one on the POPA seems to understand any of these issues beyond a superficial level (after Koonin and Rosner departed from the POPA), and that their statements are naive and unprofessional, here is my real problem with this.  This is an egregious misuse of the expertise of the APS.  Their alleged understanding of issues like spectroscopy and fluid dynamics are not of any direct relevance to the issues they write about in this statement.  The statement is an embarrassment to the APS.

Note: Steve Koonin was the Chair of the Subcommittee and organized the Workshop.  Steve is quite knowledgeable about climate physics and the debate about climate change, as evidenced by his WSJ editorial Climate Science is Not Settled.

Some additional minor insights on the process.  The APS has a Topical Group on the Physics of Climate, of which I am a Member and have been elected to the Executive Committee.  The Topical Group was not invited to participate in this in any way, other than to suggest individuals to participate in the Workshop.  So the population of APS physicists who actually know something about the physics of climate were not invited to participate in this process (other than myself and maybe one or two other Workshop participants who were actually APS members).  Another note: of the 6 experts invited to the APS Workshop, I think only 2 of us are APS members; i.e. apparently there is not sufficient expertise within the APS to summon 6 APS member experts.

Well, it will be interesting to see how the APS membership responds.  Lets see how this plays out, I will decide whether I renew my APS membership.  The Topical Group on the Physics of Climate is developing into something worthwhile, but the POPA obviously doesn’t want any ‘interference’ with its policy agenda.

JC message to APS POPA:  no one cares about your political preferences in the climate change debate.  You have demonstrated that you bring nothing intellectually to the table (once Koonin and Rosner left).   You simply have no business issuing a policy statement on climate change. You have embarrassed the APS membership.

Climate Etc.

The fact that Steve Koonin is still willing to try is worthy of a great deal of respect.

 

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/2LRTVSv

June 15, 2018 at 07:35AM

Kate hates debate

Kate Marvel is one of the new brand of climate evangelists, preaching a message of politics, emotion and rhetoric, who are helping to destroy the credibility of the field. She climbed aboard the climate gravy train from another field only about five years ago, but despite her lack of experience she’s frequently given high-profile platforms … Continue reading "Kate hates debate"

via Climate Scepticism

https://ift.tt/2lcAdpg

June 15, 2018 at 06:42AM

Ice Loss? Maybe

The headlines say “Antarctica loses three trillion tonnes of ice in 25 years.” They add that it’s shedding ice at an accelerating rate. Sounds a lot, perhaps it will be gone soon? Actually it amounts to only 0.011 percent of total Antarctic ice. If that is, anything is being lost at all.

 

An analysis published in the journal Nature looks at satellite observations of the continent. They began in the early 90s and measure the height of the ice and its motion. Some satellites can measure the change in gravity as they pass over the ice and infer its mass.

The papers abstract reads: The Antarctic Ice Sheet is an important indicator of climate change and driver of sea-level rise. Here we combine satellite observations of its changing volume, flow and gravitational attraction with modeling of its surface mass balance to show that it lost 2,720 ± 1,390 billion tonnes of ice between 1992 and 2017, which corresponds to an increase in mean sea level of 7.6 ± 3.9 millimetres (errors are one standard deviation). Over this period, ocean-driven melting has caused rates of ice loss from West Antarctica to increase from 53 ± 29 billion to 159 ± 26 billion tonnes per year; ice-shelf collapse has increased the rate of ice loss from the Antarctic Peninsula from 7 ± 13 billion to 33 ± 16 billion tonnes per year. We find large variations in and among model estimates of surface mass balance and glacial isostatic adjustment for East Antarctica, with its average rate of mass gain over the period 1992–2017 (5 ± 46 billion tonnes per year) being the least certain.

The main loss of ice is from west Antarctica which is the largest and densest volcanic region on Earth with over 100 volcanoes under the ice.

The first worrying thing about the paper are the error bars. In scientific literature it is normal to use errors of two standard deviations and not one. Even two sigma errors are in my opinion not enough but one certainly isn’t. It’s often used in cases where to quote two sigma errors would make the measurement look unconvincing. The paper states that 2720 +/- 1390 billion tonnes of ice were lost between 1992 -2017. Using two sigma errors changes that to a loss of 2720 +/- 2780 billion tonnes, which gives an entirely different impression. In fact the hypothesis that there has been any ice loss at all is not warranted by such errors.

If you accept the figures then the ice loss has been contributing 0.3 mm per year to sea level rise, or just over ten percent of the observed rise since the 19th century.

Another talking point about these observations is that they contradict other studies. In particular a NASA study of a few years ago which indicates Antarctica is gaining ice.

With only 25 years of observations it is not possible to tell if this is part of cyclic behaviour. As the authors of the paper admit the ice loss in west Antarctica is due to the intrusion of warmer water, and nothing at all to do with global warming. It is likely that such changes have happened before.

Feedback: david.whitehouse@thegwpf.com

 

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

https://ift.tt/2HPWnqq

June 15, 2018 at 06:39AM