Let’s start with the perfect headline for belief in AGW (note: the site is not a climate alarmist one)
Climate change causes an increase and a decrease in San Francisco fog
How can that be?
A story in today’s Daily Telegraph proclaims, “Fog over San Francisco thins by a third due to climate change.â€
A quick Google search found that another California prof, Robert Bornstein of San Jose University, published research only last year in the Journal of Climate, which claimed that global warming was heating the interior of California, but not the coast, leading to an INCREASE in the amount of coastal fog. (see )
Man made global warming can do everything! Roger Pielke, Jr. confirms this with his own story and asks “I wonder if the same amount of fog is also “consistent with” such predictions? I bet so.”
Then there is Wildfiregate, via the Air Vent
In the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment report, section 14.2.7 Tourism and recreation of WGII, they make the following claim (emphasis mine):
“Climate variability affects many segments of this growing economic sector [Tourism]. For example, wildfires in Colorado (2002) and British Columbia (2003) caused tens of millions of dollars in tourism losses by reducing visitation and destroying infrastructure (Associated Press, 2002; Butler, 2002; BC Stats, 2003).â€
And those sources?
- Associated Press, 2002: Rough year for rafters. September 3, 2002.
- Butler, A., 2002: Tourism burned: visits to parks down drastically, even away from flames. Rocky Mountain News. July 15, 2002.
- BC Stats, 2003: Tourism Sector Monitor – November 2003, British Columbia Ministry of Management Services, Victoria, 11 pp. [Accessed 09.02.07: http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/pubs/tour/tsm0311.pdf]
Scientific! “That’s two newspaper articles and one tourism statistics newsletter.” Read the rest as the Air Vent further destroys the wildfire claim.
Finally, Antarctic Ice. Perhaps it was just a typo, as the latest True Believer talking point seems to be. There is quite a bit of back and forth, showing the problems with an IPCC claim, which, again, I would recommend reading the whole thing, so, let’s jump to the end
So, the peer reviewed literature, both extant at the time of the AR4 as well as published since the release of the AR4, shows that there has been a significant increase in the extent of sea ice around Antarctica since the time of the first satellite observations observed in the late 1970s. And yet the AR4 somehow “assessed†the evidence and determined not only that the increase was only half the rate established in the peer-reviewed literature, but also that it was statistically insignificant as well. And thus, the increase in sea ice in the Antarctic was downplayed in preference to highlighting the observed decline in sea ice in the Arctic.
The UN was wrong? I wonder who the True Believers will deny this? They are nowhere close to getting beyond either the denial or anger of the 5 stages of grief.
Oh, before I forgot, there is a consensus that global warming is mostly natural. You climate alarmists believe in consensus as science, right?
Okay, there are two very important points that you and the author at the World Climate Report need to get straight:
1. First of all, you seem to be confused about the term “statistically significant”. Scientifically, this term refers to whether a trend can be pulled from the noise in a data set. As Wikipedia says: “The use of the word significance in statistics is different from the standard one, which suggests that something is important or meaningful.” So, you can’t just say, as the WCR author did:
“Anyone’s reckoning” means squat in science. The supposed trend must be compared to the noise, or short-term variations, in the data. If the trend is small, compared to the noise (outside of a 95% significance level), it is considered not to be “statistically significant”.
2. Secondly, you think you’re comparing apples to apples by talking about “sea ice extent” in both the Arctic and the Antarctic, but you’re not. The Arctic is made up entirely of sea ice. However, the Antarctic is made up of small amounts of sea ice (floating icebergs, etc.), and a our planet’s largest ice SHEET (a sheet of ice, over a mile thick, resting on a mass of land). So, to look at the entire picture in the Antarctic, one must also consider the ice sheet, which by nearly all accounts is receding.
You see, in science, it’s important to look at the all of the facts.
“You see, in science, it’s important to look at the all of the facts.”
Something we can agree on.
So now tell this to the IPCC, they seem to accept all manner of evidence, no matter the reliability!
Antarctic ice cap GROWING, NOT SHRINKING:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/revealed-antarctic-ice-growing/story-e6frg6no-1225700046908
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/17/revealed-antarctic-ice-growing-not-shrinking/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517035,00.html
But let’s not let FACTS get in the way of hysteria.
Otter,
First of all, those three links are the same story. So, you have one source, which is the result of one scientist’s work in one location on the ice sheet. Many different studies have been done, some even using satellite altimetry, and the overall picture for Antarctica has been one of a reduction. Don’t just turn to a single source that runs counter to the entire body of scientific evidence, and claim you have found the truth. That’s just plain foolish.
Secondly, it is true that some recent studies have found some increases in mass further inland at Antarctica, but this has been largely attributed to increased snowfall, which is a consequence of warming.
Many studies have been performed on this subject. If you truly want to get into it, I’d be glad to hash it out with you. I’ve been down that road with other deniers before, so I’ll just have to get out all of my old links to the relevant papers.
By the way, why do you use the word “hysteria”? Have I acted hysterically?
Every time you comment here, realsick.
And I knew they were all the same story- just as I know they are all truth.
Otter,
How do you know that this one source is the truth? What makes you believe that this one scientist’s ice cores in one location in Antarctica have given the best picture of the status of the Antarctic ice sheet?
Could you provide any quotes that have qualified, in your mind, as hysterical? I don’t recall ever saying “We’re all gonna DIE!”, or “Stop flying and driving cars!”.
How do you know that your sources are correct?
No one source is correct, and that’s my point. I’ve seen many, and they each come up with different values, based on their methods, location, and extent of the study. Some use ice cores, while others use data from planes, and still others use satellite data. All of this information must be considered and studied in order to make a good determination of the whole picture.
Otter has presented ONE source, which relies on ONE scientist’s results from ONE ice core. That’s hardly a comprehensive look at the state of the Antarctic ice sheet.
At the very LEAST, you all should read through the section in the IPCC report on ice sheets. Then, if you want, you can consult the various papers that are cited in that section. For extra credit, you can search for more recent works on the subject that have been published after the IPCC review process.
If you haven’t done ANY of that, don’t pretend to tell me that you know the first thing about the “truth”. That’s all I’m saying.
Well, true, the IPCC has relied on more than one source. Unfortunately, they tend to be newspaper stories, unverified high school reports, reports that would never pass peer review, press releases from sources with vested interests in promoting AGW, etc and so on. Oh, and let’s not forget the 3 trees used for that one report. Missing data, deleted data, improper data.
Meanwhile, if you investigate yourself, you will find source after source regarding the Antarctic that shows that the warming is simply part of the natural process.
And those who believe it is all Mankind’s fault still cannot prove their assertion.
This kind of misinformation hurts your credibility on the subject. The vast majority of the sources used for the IPCC reports are scientific studies. There is a strict policy on the use of grey literature for certain topics. Problems were found with one or two. Now, you think the entire report is filled with junk? Use your brain, Teach. At least try to come up with an argument that is remotely based on the facts. If your argument is blatantly bogus, you look like a fool, and your point is fodder for anyone with a critical mind.
No, I have investigated myself, and that is not true. If you have any evidence to support YOUR claim that they exist, feel free to supply it. Don’t just make a claim and then expect me to take on the task of proving it for you.
It has been proven in the IPCC report. It is not completely, but mostly man’s fault. Check out this chart:
http://www.jaxa.jp/article/special/eco/img/kimura_photo04_be.jpg
Anthropogenic versus natural forcings. Response?