Cloudy
48°
Cloudy
Hi 52° | Lo 35°

Letter: What climate change looks like

Your recent article on Lake Sunapee (Monitor front page, Aug. 11) notes how “in the late 19th century . . . wealthy families would arrive by train and be ferried to one of a handful of remote waterfront resorts.”

This reliance on navigable water, in the absence of roads around the lake, led to close attention to “ice out” – “when a boat can navigate from George’s Mills in the north to Newbury Harbor at the southern point of Lake Sunapee.” I’m quoting from the website of the Lake Sunapee Protective Association, which was founded back in 1898.

In addition to its other activities, the LSPA maintains an ice-out data set that goes back to 1869. And in these heated debates about climate change, one thing that is lacking is data. Not fancy data derived from ice cores, tree rings or the ratio of different foraminifera species. Just when did the ice melt.

The LSPA website presents this data as a graph of the day in the year when the ice went over the last 145 years, and a superimposed line-of-best-fit or trend line. It’s down – from around the 120th day (April 30) to 108 – April 18. We’ve lost almost 2 weeks of winter.

To look at the data another way, in the first 20 years (1869-1888), the ice lasted until May 1 or later 13 times. In the past 20 years (1994-2013), it lasted into May once, in 2001. This is not random variation. This is climate change in New Hampshire.

TOM CHASE

Northwood

Legacy Comments140

insanity of democrats - Democrats are more afraid of globull warming than the threat posed by the Islamic State terrorists, or nuclear threats from Iran & N. Korea or Ebola virus outbreak. Pew Research Center poll. Now you know all you need to know about these rabid religious alarmist democrats.

For whatever reason, Mr. Chase opted not to mention Al Gore's weight: the former Vice President has gotten a little chubby since leaving office. Nor did he mention the size of Al's house: it's big. Mr Chase didn't even mention the fact that it snowed a lot around here last winter.

Al Gore's weight? Yes, look in the mirror Timothy. I think his weight gain is from rich eating, not shuttle bus driving.

That's OK. my feelings aren't hurt. You don't know me, and you don't even know what my life history is. And why should you bother to look into my background when you are certain you already know what it is?

Politicians are open to scrutiny. Everything from finance to educational background. Moreover, when your resume is online and it opens any politician to questions. Those who can't do enter politics. 22 jobs in 23 years is not a great track record.

Timothy, just a heads up as a piece of advice. You should take this page down or make it invisible. It is unflattering.

Now that Bruce has totally disparaged Sail, GWTW, RabbitNH and myself, we might ask Bruce what he wants to do about climate change. Of course the answer is obvious, he wants us to take Draconian steps, ruining the prosperity of the country and controlling behaviors, how we live, what we heat with, what we drive, how we grow our crops, basically control of all of our behaviors etc. Make no mistake folks like Boscawen Elementary Bruce would love to control everyone so that they meet the high minded, snobbish beliefs of folks like George,

Bruce is a foaming at the mouth rabid globull warming religion alarmist and a self admitted Socialist. For anyone to take his screeds with more than a grain of salt is an LIDV for sure. Headline : 52 % of democrats think favorably of Socialism - now you know what kind of radicals we are dealing with

Religion relies on faith--sometimes in defiance of the facts. You're the one with the religious faith--in this case misplaced, because you rely on sources that have a vested interest in distorting the truth, and which you delight in repeating. In the larger picture, you've turned your faith in laissez-faire capitalism into your religion, and regard it as trumping everything else--Christianity and the other world religions,and our Constitution--which you seem to regard as little more than a brief for unregulated capitalism. For someone who claims a prep-school and Ivy League education, most of your rants could have been written by a blind simpleton.

Nope, no name calling here (blind simpleton) and definitely no straw man tactic (religion, Christianity). Hey education is not all that it is trumped up to be. Many educators are "educated" and still are ideological simpletons.

First, I think you need to look up 'straw man', since you clearly don't understand it. Second, at some point, repeated rants excoriating one political party for everything but original sin, deserve to labelled for what they are. As does an inveterate aversion to the truth: at some point it deserves to be called what it is: "lying". That's not name-calling. It's the truth. Any thread on climate change is filled with such examples from sail/BPR.

When your "factual" posts are nothing but a string of misleading, distorted, and often outright false claims, and you repeatedly post the same nonsense--then it's fair to call it "lying". Follow nearly any thread on this site, but especially those devoted to climate change, and the same false and misleading claims appear. And when you or Sail/BPR are called on it, instead of backing up your claims--because there is NO factual support for them, you resort to personal attacks designed to intimidate.The fact you resort to personal attacks that are McCarthy-like, shows you have nothing better to do than snoop into the private lives of others. It demonstrates yet again how woefully inadequate you feel in this forum, because your "facts" are shown to be inaccurate, and your opinions are shown to be small-minded and often hateful. How one behaves while hiding behind a screen name speaks volumes about one's true character, as you demonstrate anew with nearly every post. Get a life.

Some people are so silly. How can we know what the ice out dates are for the last 15,000 years when the world is only 10,000 years old?

I wonder what the ice out dates would look like over the past..oh say, 15,000 years???

Hyperbole, rhetoric, alarmism, hoaxterism, over reaction.

This may be true, but the late 1700's were the height of the little ice age - hence the extremely cold winters during the revolution. We are still coming out of the ice age, and there would be some warming without human influence. It's a lot more difficult to determine how much warming is a result of human action, in particular since the climate alarmists blame CO2, and it doesn't seem to be the cause, since we have had periods of much higher CO2 when it was cooler.

You're only half right . The period you're referring to, when CO2 levels may have exceeded 3000 ppm,was also a time when the sun was dimmer. The relationship between CO2 and temperature for at least the last 600,000 years, and likely much longer, clearly shows that increased CO2 is first a feedback response to warming initiated by changes in earth's orbit and tilt, and then becomes a driver of further warming.

BTW,following up on the mention of the Little Ice Age, a compelling case has been made by Wm. Ruddiman that the LIA was a direct consequence of the reforestation of Europe that took place after the Black Death had depopulated that continent. It may also be plausible that the Medieval Warming Period which preceded the LIA was a response to deforestation and more widespread agriculture and human settlement.

Yep, warmer winters brought more ticks, fungus, free staters and Scott Brown.

Hi, Tillie! Deer populations are up, so it is no surprise if deer tick populations are up.

Presumably Tillie was referring to wood ticks. Q: How are ticks altering their distribution in response to climate change? A: The effect of a changing climate on tick survival and distribution varies according to the species. Ixodes spp ticks are thought to have expanded their range northward into areas previously too cold to maintain their populations.7,8 Additionally, tick mortality in the west is often regulated by hot, dry summers and death due to desiccation3,4,9; areas that become significantly wetter allow a longer tick-feeding season and potentially higher tick densities. The climatic factors that have expanded tick species' distributions have changed the types of tick species encountered by clinicians. The most likely change is the northward movement of species normally encountered in southern latitudes, including aggressive biters such as Amblyomma spp from Central America and the southern United States as well as Hyalomma spp from the Caribbean.10,11 https://www.vetlearn.com/_preview?_cms.fe.previewId=99e70a60-737c-11e1-9159-005056ad4736&WT.mc_id=lgFB%3Bparasites100ticks

More selective copy and paste.

You should feel free to research the issue and get back to us with your findings. But then, that would mean dealing with reality, wouldn't it?

Maybe Tillie was referring to wood ticks, but I don't think she specified one way or another. The ticks you commonly see on dogs are dog ticks, but they go for all sorts of hosts, and I think people here in NH call dog ticks wood ticks- they are about the size of a watermelon seed. Deer ticks are about the size of a poppy seed when they're nymphs, sesame seed size as adults. I just brought up some electron microscope photos of their mouthparts, which look like rasps. As everybody knows, I hope, when you pull 'em out, don't squeeze their bodies, cause it may push their stomach contents into the wound, so grasp with tweezers or forceps as close as you can to the skin and firmly grab at the mouthparts, and pull them out really steady so you don't break the mouthparts off in the wound. I am sure people know this already. Also, doing tick checks really helps in avoiding Lyme disease. It usually takes a couple hours of attachment for the tick to transmit the disease agent. The CDC site has a bar graph showing the incidence of Lyme disease from 2003 until 2012 in the U.S. Though confirmed cases went up in about 2008-2009 or so, the number of confirmed cases in 2012 was almost exactly the same as 2003.

jdodson why don't you tell us all here in NH how to snow blow out our driveways. We can always use advice from out of staters.. Don't know how we were able to get along before till you all starting showing up.

I do not rule out information from a source based on a person's geographic origin. I am happy to get advice on snow blowers. I included "As everybody knows" and " I am sure people know this already" because I have seen people here in New Hampshire grab ticks and squeeze their bodies when removing them, therefore pushing the gut contents of the tick into the wound, as I have seen in Maryland, which seems to have more ticks than here.

You have no conception of sarcasm at all, do you?

When it is from you I never notice, because you are so friendly.

Ah, I guess you do have a small smidgin of understanding sarcasm.

Copy and paste.

Absolutely, the warmer winters are not killing off the deer, but the ticks they bring are killing off the moose. Glad you agree, if only it would get cold again so Scott Brown would go back home.

Two different ticks,Tillie. Three, if you count Scott Brown.

The last two winters here in NH have not been particularly warm. .

More antidote observations used by alarmists to push their HOAX. Anybody that knows lakes can easily cite the amazing changes around the shores from then to now. Paving all around, McMansions, runoff from roads covered in salt, more parking lot runoff being diverted to streams that feed the lakes etc etc etc Anyone that is not a LIDV alarmist knows that the earth has not warmed in 17 years 10 months and ice in the Great Lakes and both the Artic and Antarctic see robust ice production

So, BPR, do you think the "antidote" for warmer winters would be? Maybe less use of fossil fuels?

what warmer winters?

The ones that show up in the climate records kept over the past century and a half. The ones that necessitated moving USDA climate zones northward. The ones making maple sugaring season a little earlier and less.predictable. The ones making last frost of the spring generally earlier, and first frost of fall later.

dare you to tell us how many lake front properties are on Lake Sunapee and how many boathouses have winter circulators that eliminate any ice buildup. Don't think there were to many of those in 1895. Liberals ......sheeeeeesh all 100% LIDV's

Earlier ice outs are occurring on lakes and ponds all over the northeast, with and without winter circulatory.

Extraordinarily late ice outs on the Great Lakes, if it matters.

One swallow does not a summer make, and one anomalous winter--the causes for which are directly tied to a warming arctic--does not reverse the long term warming trend documented in the temperature record. 30 years is usually regarded as the minimum interval for a climate trend to become clear.

The UN IPCC in 2007 predicted there "was likely to be a decline in frequency of cold air outbreaks..."in (N. Hemisphere) winter in most areas". I just went back to watch the 2 minute explanation of the circumpolar vortex by John Holdren, the White House science advisor- the poor guy looks like a deer caught in the headlights. I hope he doesn't have ticks.

And there hasn't been a decline? Don't confuse the weather in the northeast and midwest, which might account for less than 1% of the planet's land mass--with the Northern Hemisphere. Your logic is that of: "because it's cold in my backyard, it's cold everywhere."

The cold air outbreaks involved much of the northern hemisphere. A record of -90.4 degrees Celsius from 1933 in Oymyakon, Siberia broken Feb. 19th. The new record is -96.1 degrees Celsius. Not in our backyards.

The new record was set on Feb. 19, 2013.

And how do you square your claims with the data, which you claim to rely on? Short answer: you can't. Your claims make no sense. Unless and until you dismiss the data as "fraudulent". Which you apparently do, since you ignore it. “Despite the frigid temperatures that kept those in the eastern United States shivering all winter, the period from December 2013 to February 2014 was the 8th warmest on record globally, the U.S. National Climatic Data Center reported Wednesday. That warmth early in the year could set the stage for another record or near-record warm year, one NCDC scientist said. And February, which was the 21st warmest globally since record keeping began in 1880, was the 348th consecutive month where temperatures were higher than the global average; the last month with below-average temperatures was exactly 29 years ago, in February 1985, when Ronald Reagan was just beginning his second term as president. Despite the frigid temperatures that kept those in the eastern United States shivering all winter, the period from December 2013 to February 2014 was the 8th warmest on record globally, the U.S. National Climatic Data Center reported Wednesday. That warmth early in the year could set the stage for another record or near-record warm year, one NCDC scientist said. And February, which was the 21st warmest globally since record keeping began in 1880, was the 348th consecutive month where temperatures were higher than the global average; the last month with below-average temperatures was exactly 29 years ago, in February 1985, when Ronald Reagan was just beginning his second term as president.” http://www.climatecentral.org/news/a-cold-u.s.-winter-for-sure-but-8th-warmest-globally-17196

It is important to examine data carefully. Some appears good, but some does not, and the reasons can vary. Data can be bad without being fraudulent.

And why would scientists be interested in using "data that can be bad"? That claim flies in the face of what scientists do, and what they rely on.

Thank you for the question- it is a good one. I need to track down some examples. We are diving into the history of science here, I think. There are definitely examples. I need to do some work, but I'll be back.

Are scientists lying more than ever? Study of retracted papers shows huge jump in fraud since 2007 http://www.itworld.com/software/300872/are-scientists-lying-more-ever Fake Cancer Study Spotlights Bogus Science Journals http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131003-bohannon-science-spoof-open-access-peer-review-cancer/ Why Scientists Lie- And What To Do About It http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/why_scientists_lie_and_what_to.html Why does anyone in any profession use information that can be bad? Why does any human being? Do you recall the utter certainty about information on Iraq- so compelling that it was necessary to attack? That information turned out to be bad. You seem to be putting scientists in a special category, one with beings that have wings and halos. While most scientists are honest, so are most lawyers, doctors, priests, accountants, but there are notable exceptions- same with scientists. Scientists are human beings, and some are not as ethical as we would like them to be. It is obvious that from the start, the IPCC and associated scientists had political pressure- just like political pressures exerted in the example I just mentioned. As you know, the estimated costs to “address” global warming are in the trillions of dollars (or yen, marks, francs, whatever- it is a global fraud). The power and money involved with climate change is a corrupting influence. Grant money can be corrupting.

BP believes that climate change is an important long-term issue that justifies global action http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/the-energy-future/climate-change.html Climate Change ….All energy sources will be needed, with fossil fuels meeting the bulk of demand. At the same time CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change. To manage CO2, governments and industry must work together. Government action is needed and we support an international framework that puts a price on CO2, encouraging the use of all CO2-reducing technologies…. http://www.shell.com/global/environment-society/environment/climate-change.html Climate Change Climate change is an issue that concerns the entire world. Increasing temperatures, rising sea levels, the frequent occurrence of extreme weather and disasters, and the extinction of species caused by climate change are seriously threatening the natural ecological system and people's living environment. CNPC has always attached great importance to the control and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. We actively support China's National Climate Change Program and shall continue to take effective measures to reduce emissions, sequestrate carbon and tackle global climate change. China National Petroleum Corporation http://classic.cnpc.com.cn/en/environmentsociety/environment/climate/ As a global corporate citizen, we have a role to play in addressing greenhouse gas emissions. Our approach focuses on carbon management challenges and encourages innovative technological solutions. In 2012, we avoided 1.0 million tons of CO2 emissions. We also piloted a polymer-free fracturing fluid technology, made significant progress on our first carbon capture and injection project, and further reduced flaring in our upstream facilities. http://www.saudiaramco.com/en/home/citizenship/environment.html At Chevron, we recognize and share the concerns of governments and the public about climate change. The use of fossil fuels to meet the world's energy needs is a contributor to an increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs)—mainly carbon dioxide (CO2 )—in the Earth's atmosphere. http://www.chevron.com/globalissues/climatechange/

Above is a very an incomplete list of oil companies that have seen the light, and are now "on board" with global warming. They are playing along with the fraud.

Be careful if you challenge Bruce on the role of fossil fuel, jdodson, he hates the oil companies. Driving a Prius is no more friendly to the environment, the parts come from sources that use more energy to produce than the car can ever save. Then again, pickup trucks, even say, a Toyota is not efficient on gas. But progressives don't care about their own hypocrisy, they care about telling others what to do. Great posts jdodson, it drives the brainwashed mouthpieces of leftist ideology absolutely crazy.

Your claims regarding the Prius are inaccurate and untrue. You looked for any information that confirmed your own bias--as usual. Try researching the issue of Prius efficiency using some critical thinking--for a change.

Here you go Bruce, the last part of this explains things and refers to your pretentiousness. "Through a study by CNW Marketing called “Dust to Dust,” the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles – the expected lifespan of the Hybrid. The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it. So, if you are an environmentalist – ditch the Prius. Instead, buy one of the most economical cars available – a Toyota Scion xB. The Scion only costs a paltry $0.48 per mile to put on the road. If you are still obsessed over gas mileage – buy a Chevy Aveo and fix that lead foot. The Toyota Prius has become the flagship car for those in our society so environmentally conscious that they are willing to spend a premium to show the world how much they care. Unfortunately for them, their ultimate green car donation is the source of some of the worst pollution in North America; it takes more combined energy per Prius to produce than a Hummer"

Oh and Bruce, please don't bring up the Pacific Institutes rebuttal of this report. Their analysis was set out to prove that Dust to Dust was improperly presented without peer to peer review. Unfortunately, they have an agenda while accusing CNW from having one. This is the kind of issue where Leftists trot out a rebuttal and then refuse to consider any of the facts (like those from CNW) to prove that we need to stay the course with just hybrid cars.

Simply pathetic. Your claims are fraudulent--there are no "contrary" facts regarding the energy efficiency of the Prius: you're just wrong. You rely on dodgy websites that can't even own up to their origin, and yet have the chutzpah to attack ONE of my links, all the while ignoring the fact that the energy-saving benefits of hybrid technology have been endorsed by the likes of MIT, Carnegie Mellon, and the Argonne National Laboratory. Give it up. Those "facts" you rely on were demolished in the sources I cited--such as the 100,000 mile life span of the Prius battery: wrong, and their reliance on the lifespan of a Hummer being 375,000 miles. Those 2 facts alone are enough to render their conclusions suspect in the real world--but not in the one you inhabit, evidently.

I challenge all of your links as you have a decided agenda, a decided ideology and you will go to the ends of the earth to prove that ONLY YOU hold the truth. "Chutzpah"? Look who's talking. I drove a hybrid Honda Civic for two years. Horrible in the snow, wore through tires quickly as the car was so low profile, the battery needed to be replaced at 120,000 and it got 28 MPG. I had an accident, a fender bender which almost totaled it. Now your Toyota pickup truck negates any gains that your Prius supposedly impacts the environment. You love to post stats.........but they don't tell the whole story and in many cases an inaccurate one. Grants and big money go to extreme enviro groups like the Pacific Institute. They make their living pushing the global warming agenda and other environment extreme causes. It is big business for them, they are all in bed together......you have simply sucked in the propaganda and you are bound and determined to believe what you want to read.......I do feel terrible for the children you teach. Young minds of mush being indoctrinated by a Leftist. Have you no shame?

Yet another resort to a personal attack and irrelevant and outlandish claims when a post--this one on hybrid technology--is shown to be false. Have YOU no shame? Your posts often inhabit a world composed of falsehoods and half-truths; you're entitled to your opinions--it would be nice if they were based on the facts once in a while. The instant your claims are shown to be inaccurate--by facts from the real world, you resort to the usual ad hom attacks, straw man diversions, and conspiratorial claims--lathered with the usual personal attacks. Try sticking to the facts on a topic for a change--if you can. Though that might mean admitting you're wrong more often than not--whether the topic is climate change, hybrid technology, or a host of other topics on which you opine.

People who live in glass (cape style) houses should not throw stones. Have YOU no shame. No one on this site brands and name calls more than you do, Bruce. No one. The issue is that you NEVER back down from your cherry picked facts and you never discuss, simply accuse others and name call. The issue is that you don't like anyone challenging your absolute (chosen statistic based) truth. There is no hope, we just need to identify you as an enemy of the Constitution, individual liberty and this country. UnAmerican and Nouveau (Neo) American. Dangerous, determined, propagandized zealot Hell bent on 'fundamental change' for some reason that only you are aware of from your upbringing and childhood. It is not difficult to spot someone who is definitely contributing to the decline of our prosperity out of some Quixotic quest to change the world. A bit wrapped up in yourself. I have read the reviews from students and parents alike and they are definitely not flattering.

Do you ever read what you post? Your posts have been replete with what you accuse others of doing for as long as I've been posting here. When anyone challenges your grasp of the facts--which is often given your proclivity to bend the facts to suit your ideology--you don't respond with a defense of your facts. Instead, you immediately attack the motives and impugn those with whom you disagree. This thread provides numerous examples. One after another of my posts (or Walter's) on climate science is denigrated by either you or Sail, but without one iota of fact to back up your claims. As I think most readers on here would agree, you and sail/BPR are the two who provide the nasty edge to this forum, with your personal attacks, as exemplified by the post above.

Give it a rest George. https://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=AwrB8pjYoA9UGncA9t6JzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTIzYmluaXVqBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1nBG9pZANiYzJiNTM5NTk5Mjc2MmJlNjIyZGE2NWZkN2Q4YjYyMQRncG9zAzU0BGl0A2Jpbmc-?back=https%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fyhs%2Fsearch%3F_adv_prop%3Dimage%26va%3Dcry%2Bbaby%26fr%3Dyhs-avast-001%26hsimp%3Dyhs-001%26hspart%3Davast%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D54&w=479&h=600&imgurl=www.sc.saynetwork.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F10%2FScreaming-Cry-baby-by-Ngo-Okafor.jpeg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sc.saynetwork.com%2Fthe-holy-spirit-his-divinity-redemptive-work%2F&size=52.0KB&name=Screaming-%3Cb%3ECry-baby%3C%2Fb%3E-by-Ngo-Okafor&p=cry-baby&oid=bc2b5395992762be622da65fd7d8b621&fr2=&fr=yhs-avast-001&rw=cry-baby&tt=Screaming-%3Cb%3ECry-baby%3C%2Fb%3E-by-Ngo-Okafor&b=0&ni=128&no=54&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=12afgig0n&sigb=1448696ms&sigi=12mgtktug&sigt=1178gjg6c&sign=1178gjg6c&.crumb=kwADbFUsxps&fr=yhs-avast-001&hsimp=yhs-001&hspart=avast

Don't you have anything better to do than demonstrate your adolescent and possibly pathological obsession yet again?

If the shoe fits, by george, wear it. You can dish it out but you can't take it, you also can't accept any opinion on globull warming if it at all contradicts any copy and paste science that you come up with. You are agenda centric with a hard Left, Left of Lenin political bent. I can't at all respect that kind of anti-American or Chicken Little hysteria.

For a change, try challenging the facts presented in those links, which in turn lead to other links with "agendas"--like Carnegie Mellon, MIT, Argonne National Labs. The only agenda that should be on display here is an adherence to the facts and truthfulness. Your claims on the Prius were demonstrably false. If you wish to dispute the facts--go ahead, feel free to try. But spare us the claims about "agendas", it's an excuse that's well past its sell-by date. The facts on global warming continue to mount--such as recent news on the dramatic warming of the Gulf of Maine. Or is that a malleable "fact" too?

You are truly obsessed. Here is a link about that warming. Try to read it with an open mind, not a programmed mind: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/03/baseless-alarmism-global-warmings-impact-on-gulf-of-maine-driving-away-lobsters-and-fish/

Tisdale cherry-picks the start and stop dates for his graph to make a factual claim for the short term that is not true for the long term, nor for more recent years. You can see for yourself at the same site he uses. Choosing the dates 1995-2012 = 0.20 C ; 2000-2012= 0.08 C; 2004-2012= 0.0 C; 1990-2012= 0.35 C. In any system as complex as climate, the temp record shows a great deal of year to year variability, which enables some, like Tisdale, to conveniently overlook the longer term trend--like the 22 year trend of 0.35 C. Elsewhere, Tisdale claims that the oceans are responsible for warming and cooling, while never asking what is warming the oceans. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1212&year1=1990&year2=2012&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=rob

Well, there are thousands of under water volcanoes and they certainly are warming the oceans.

And another one Bruce. I am using your example of copying and pasting what I believe. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html

Before becoming active in climate science denialism, Singer was an active denier for industry regarding ozone-depleting chemicals. He was wrong on that one. Then he worked for Phillip Morris, denying there was a link between second-hand smoke and illness. Wrong there too. He makes a number of claims in this interview (late 1990's?) that are inaccurate, and that can easily be fact-checked by the less credulous among us. At what point does such a man lose all credibility, and be recognized for what he is--an industry shill, a shameless huckster, a gun for hire? Not to you however--it might offend what you "believe".

The question to ask is whether the facts presented by Pacific Institute are accurate. Was there any "peer review" of "Dust to Dust"? It's either a yes or no question. Did they fully disclose their methodology? Again, it's either a yes or no. You can post crap from the internet all day long, and it won't alter the answer to those two questions. Garbage in = garbage out. Some people just have an affinity for garbage.

And....one more link from a green site: http://greenliving.lovetoknow.com/Hybrid_Vehicles_Negative_Environmental_Impact

Your post simply confirms your bias. And demonstrates your gullibility and the absence of critical thought. You must also be sending money to that Nigerian prince who promises great rewards. Had you bothered to fact-check, you'd have found that the "study" you quoted was: never peer-reviewed, its methodology was never released; it relied on skewed assumptions to arrive at its predetermined conclusions--much like most of the stuff you cite in defense of your opinions. And the numerous Google links to your claim all go back to the same single study--a telling demonstration of the confirmation bias of such opinionators as George Will.:"If it's on the net, and I agree with it, it must be true." Which is idiotic. The study is directly refuted by MIT, Argonne National Laboratory, Carnegie Mellon University, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. You can look it up. The links below can be used as starters to take you back to the real world, where the Hummer is an out-dated energy pig, and technological advances like hybrids are leading the way to a low-carbon future. “The reality is hybrids can significantly cut global-warming pollution, reduce energy use, and save drivers thousands at the pump." http://www.kentlaw.edu/faculty/fbosselman/classes/energyF09/Coursedocs/HollebJasonHybridPresentation.pdf http://www.pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2013/02/hummer_vs_prius3.pdf http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_green_lantern/2008/03/tank_vs_hybrid.2.html http://www.betterworldclub.com/articles/hummer-not-more-efficient.cfm

Just a suggestion Bruce. All of the novellas about climate change are not changing anyone's mind and in fact are probably driving people away from a belief in global warming. I am not quite sure what you are trying to accomplish here but you sure are wasting a lot of bandwidth and your personal down time. You could change the oil in the Prius or wash the gas guzzling pick up truck. You could take the wife out to eat or mow the grass or upgrade the cape. All of that would accomplish more because your rants and attacks and hyper hysteria is not changing anyone's mind and make you look like the extremist that you obvious are.

WHEN BRUCIE TELLS YOU ABOUT DATA REMEMBER THIS Headline" Australian Bureau of Meteorology accused of Criminally Adjusted Global Warming" ... This is a global problem. .... similarly dishonest adjustments had been made to temperature records by NASA and NOAA. Similarly implicated are the UK temperature records of the Met Office Hadley Centre and at Phil "Climategate" Jones's disgraced Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. 2) headline: " NOAA Reinstates July 1936 As The Hottest Month On Record. they were caught read handed with adjusted the data - Honestly how can anyone believe or trust this lying bunch of alarmists

BPR- you are right about some of the data being no good. More is being revealed all the time. Luling Texas data for months and months is just estimated. Same is appearing for other stations.

The claim by Sail/BPR regarding the Australian Bureau of Meteorology allegedly falsifying data is untrue. Like so much that he posts, it is derived from a non-science website/blog, and makes claims that are not supported by the facts. All raw data from the Bureau is posted online, and when adjustments are made, they are clearly explained: “Professor Neville Nicholls, of Monash University, worked at BoM for more than 30 years and from 1990 until he left in 2005 had led efforts to analyse rainfall and temperature readings from across the country. He told me: ‘The original raw data is all still there – it has not been corrupted. Anyone can go and get that original data. Pre-1910 there was not much of a spread but also there was more uncertainty about how the temperatures were being measured. By 1910, most temperatures were being measured in a Stevenson Screen. A lot of measurements were taken at Post Offices but in many cases these were moved out to airports around the middle of the 20th century. That produces artificial cooling in the data. Towns for example in coastal New South Wales originally had temperatures taken near the ocean because that’s where the town was. But as the town grew the observations would move inland and that is enough to affect temperature and rainfall. Are we supposed to just ignore that? A scientist can’t ignore those effects. It’s not science to just go ahead and plot that raw data.’ Nicholls said if people didn’t trust the way the BoM was presenting the data they could look elsewhere, such as a major project known as Berkeley Earth undertaken by former sceptic Professor Richard Muller which also used BoM data from as early as 1852 to mid-2013… Dr Lisa Alexander, the chief investigator at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, explained that in Australia it was not uncommon for temperature stations to be moved, often away from urban environments. She said that, for example, sites moved only a kilometre or so to more exposed areas such as airports would tend to record lower temperatures. That then creates a jump in the time series that’s not related to a jump in the climate. The bureau is altering the temperature data to remove those non-climatic effects that are due to changes like new instrumentation or site movements. Is the bureau fiddling the figures to fit with a global warming conspiracy? No! Are they amending the records to make them consistent through time? Yes.” http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/ It needs to be pointed out that the "scientist" making this claim has received repeated funding from denier sources; and that instead of submitting her findings for peer review and publication is a science journal, she sent them to denier sources for maximum hype BEFORE her claims could be addressed by the Bureau. The intended result is posts such as the one by Sail/BPR, who adopts the chimpanzee strategy of flinging poo whenever he can. Fortunately for the rest of us, most of it winds up on him.

Hans Von Storch, coauthor of "Statistical Analysis in Climate Research" and a former IPCC author, left the IPCC and is now a critic of if, largely because of deficiencies in data handling at the IPCC.

The problem is BPR that they always pull out rebuttal reports and then go right back to their false talking points.

This is still more copy and paste. It is doubtful that you have the intellect to completely understand what you copy and paste.

There are a few researchers studying the circumpolar vortex, and it looks like some dispute Holdren's opinion on this. Elizabeth Barnes of Colorado State, among them. Being these are weather events, saying they are directly tied to global warming of the climate is way too early to say. You say yourself- 30 years. We only need about 12 years to go, since we're close to 18 years into the" pause". But it may even be more than a pause- it could be a plateau which could be followed by a decline.

A "plateau followed by a decline?" Unlikely. Look at the record of the past hundred years. Separate noise from signal, and signal that emerges--despite "plateaus" and dips, is a gradual upward trend--however much you want to quibble with it. The trend is there--the 'pause' is an artifact of the El Nino year of 1998. When you use that extraordinary year as your start date, what comes after can, depending on the data set used, look nearly flat. Those who claim we're going to see cooling have no evidence to explain that "cooling". Any claim that warming or cooling is due exclusively to ocean currents like the PDO is nonsense. The physics of the greenhouse effect is firmly established. Alternative explanations are wishful thinking that have the Koch Brothers and others laughing, while driving the science community to despair at the stupidity of some and the cupidity of others.

100 years is very short term, one reason why so many geologists see the global warming hypothesis for what it is- unproven. I don't think the pause, or plateau, fits well with the models at all. It's why there is now a search to find the "missing heat", which is now supposedly hiding out like a criminal gang in the depths of the Atlantic Ocean. The Pacific was once suspected, but now they are sure it's the Atlantic. It sounds like the Indian Ocean was snubbed completely.

Your post is more pipe-dreaming from the deniers. CO2's effect on climate is not a "hypothesis"--it's a theory, backed by decades of research and supported by multiple avenues of evidence--from the present day, from paleo-climate, from the climate models. The only way anyone can make your claim with a straight face is by ignoring the science--and being in the employ of the fossil fuels industry--as Bob Carter, the chief proponent of some of your claims, is. The ocean heat is there--no scientist doing the research claims otherwise. Deniers use every question or puzzlement researchers find to make claims that are false. See Carl Wunsch's response to one of England's professional deniers/ alleged journalists who distorted the research, on the long thread. It's standard M.O. by deniers--and parroted here, on these electronic pages. And watch Richard Alley explain it here.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g

Yes, the greenhouse gas effect is real, but the Earth is not a greenhouse. There is no barrier, glass or otherwise, to keep heat from going upwards. Atmospheric heat will follow the path of least resistance, and that is up. Almost all of the heat would have gone up, and it is long gone, if it was ever there in the first place. There is real resistance to heat going down, especially down through the interface with the surface of water, ocean water, There is heat down deep in the ocean, and it is geothermal. ARGO measures down to depths of about 2,000 meters, but the oceans are a lot deeper, average depth being about three times deeper than ARGO. They may be seeing heat, but it is geothermal heat., heat that started way deep and has worked its way upwards. Did the researchers take into account geothermal heat? No. The crust or lithosphere under the oceans is thinner than under the continents, and is closer to the mantle of the Earth. There are a lot of undersea vents, volcanic processes, and volcanoes and other volcanic features do not have to be in full eruption to still be producing heat. The heat from down low goes up and sideways. It should never be forgotten that the greatest mass of the Earth, the core and mantle, are very hot, and the heat comes up and through the crust constantly. That is why Iceland can get so much of its energy from geothermal, and why the nations located in the Pacific "Ring of Fire" like the Phillipines are developing more geothermal. The designs of experiments involving heat in the oceans need to address the huge variable that is geothermal. You again employ name calling, ad hominem attacks. I receive not one sliver of a penny from the fossil fuel industry. I am not now, nor have I ever been employed by the fossil fuel industry. The name I use in these posts, jdodson, is derived from my real name. I have never questioned the sincerity of your beliefs. You use the term deniers 4 times in the one post above. That is a propaganda term, derived from Holocaust denial. It is not a term used to promote accuracy or reason, but one designed to promote emotions- hatred. There is a lot of government grant money worldwide promoting global warming, which is transparently self-serving. Government funding in no way guarantees good science. In fact, historically, a lot of government funded science has been way off. The science obtained from these numerous and hefty government grants is going to benefit enormous expansions of governments, and will benefit corporations working in partnership with governments. There is a general call by a lot of proponents of global warming to put all fossil fuel companies out of business. Therefore, in a real sense, you would think the fossil fuel industry is itself facing an existential crisis. But it appears to be spending a relative pittance on anti- CAGW research, and instead is lobbying for carbon markets. Large fossil fuel corporations are diversifying like evil Enron did, and nuclear is expanding. Radioactive waste is real trouble, Fukushima continues. Some CAGW adherents now want more fission reactors, something that ought to be a red flag. Anyway if the fossil fuel industry was in a fight for its existence, it would be fighting harder than it does. Maurice Strong, an oil man, is sort of godfather to the U.N. IPCC. He apparently makes a fair amount of money in carbon trading markets, He has for years been spending a lot of his time in China, a huge developing market and producer of fossil fuels that has shown no interest in abiding by anti-carbon dioxide protocols. CAGW hypothesis/theory can be seen as a hoax, but I do not believe it is an intentional hoax for many involved with it. CAGW science has produced a lot of dubious work, but has a lot of passionate adherents who truly believe they are saving the world.

They are not saving the world.

Where are you getting your information? Claiming there is "no barrier" to going upward is inaccurate. While a greenhouse is a far from perfect analogy, the greenhouse effect traps enough warmth from the sun to raise the surface temperature by some 45 --50 degrees F.. Your claim that geothermal heat is responsible for enhanced warmth in the oceans or air is not remotely plausible. The energy falling on the planet over the course of a day is many times greater than the daily heat derived from geologic sources. Physicists have calculated the heat inputs from various sources--due diligence on your part would show the relative inputs. And what do you think would happen if there were no sun, and the planet relied solely on geothermal heat for it's warmth?

Yes, daytime temperatures can rise 45-50 degrees F, and then drop about the same amount at night, particularly on clear nights. Cloud cover tends to hold the heat in. I am not questioning the role of the Sun in heating the Earth. Far from it. It is the most important heating source we have, and this world would be a dead rock without it. But geothermal heat exists and is a variable that seems to be forgotten in this "search for missing heat" in the Atlantic. And now, its just the Atlantic-why?

No, you misunderstand. Greenhouse gases absorb energy in the infrared both night and day. Absent an atmosphere, our planet's average temperature would be about 0 degrees F. Greenhouse gases absorb and emit infrared to trap heat energy in the troposphere longer, raising the average temp. to the 50's. You're confusing the greenhouse effect with radiational cooling: when the sun goes down, and the night is clear and still, less of earth's re-radiated warmth is trapped by cloud cover (water vapor--the principal greenhouse gas) and is instead radiated back into space. And again: you seem not to be relying on science sources: geothermal sources are not responsible for the warming oceans--nor are any climate scientists who work in the field claiming that the heat is "missing"--that 's a denier claim based on twisting the findings of climate science research.

Yes, they do absorb IR night and day. But the IR wanes over hours of night. The greenhouse effect slows the cooling, it does not stop the cooling. Entropy happens. I think we are saying the same things here. There are apparently whole ecosystems in deep ocean water that depend on geothermal heat- I will find some sources that confirm that, because I know I have read that. I am having some trouble finding papers that confirm his statements about CAGW changing the polar vortex. I found a paper that finds an association between the LIA Little ice age and polar circulation. I need to keep looking, anyway here is this one- sorry. but it is not what you are looking for since it does not link the circumpolar vortex to CAGW: Science 29 August 1997: Vol. 277 no. 5330 pp. 1294-1296 DOI: 10.1126/science.277.5330.1294 REPORT Bipolar Changes in Atmospheric Circulation During the Little Ice Age K. J. Kreutz*, P. A. Mayewski, L. D. Meeker, M. S. Twickler, S. I. Whitlow, I. I. Pittalwala Author Affiliations K. J. Kreutz and P. A. Mayewski, Climate Change Research Center, Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space and Department of Earth Sciences, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824, USA. L. D. Meeker, Climate Change Research Center, Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space, and Department of Mathematics, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824, USA. M. S. Twickler, S. I. Whitlow, I. I. Pittalwala, Climate Change Research Center, Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824, USA. ABSTRACT Annually dated ice cores from Siple Dome, West Antarctica, and central Greenland indicate that meridional atmospheric circulation intensity increased in the polar South Pacific and North Atlantic at the beginning (∼1400 A.D.) of the most recent Holocene rapid climate change event, the Little Ice Age (LIA). As deduced from chemical concentrations at these core sites, the LIA was characterized by substantial meridional circulation strength variability, and this variability persists today despite strong evidence for an end to LIA cooling. Thus, increased late 20th century storm variability may be in part a result of the continuation of these climatic fluctuations.

The climate models predicted increased warming at night from enhanced GHW. Guess what? That's exactly what the data show--all over the world.

The IR generally diminishes between sunset and sunrise. Depending on data sets used and the time frame you look at, there may be warming, or may appear to be warming, but it is generally less than the climate models, which generally overstate warming.

Once again, you're repeating denier myths: In fact, the climate models have made and continue to make accurate predictions about future trends in ocean warming, stratospheric cooling, warming in the troposphere, Arctic ice decline. The linked study was one of several that looked at the accuracy of the models, and found that a number of them are better than even the IPCC thought at modeling relatively short term changes: "The question of how climate model projections have tracked the actual evolution of global mean surface air temperature is important in establishing the credibility of their projections. Some studies and the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report suggest that the recent 15-year period (1998–2012) provides evidence that models are overestimating current temperature evolution. Such comparisons are not evidence against model trends because they represent only one realization where the decadal natural variability component of the model climate is generally not in phase with observations. We present a more appropriate test of models where only those models with natural variability (represented by El Niño/Southern Oscillation) largely in phase with observations are selected from multi-model ensembles for comparison with observations. These tests show that climate models have provided good estimates of 15-year trends, including for recent periods and for Pacific spatial trend patterns." http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n9/full/nclimate2310.html Computer models predicted increases in minimum nighttime temps long some time ago. That's exactly what the data show: "Seasonal and annual indices for the period 1951–2003 were gridded. Trends in the gridded fields were computed and tested for statistical significance. Results showed widespread significant changes in temperature extremes associated with warming, especially for those indices derived from daily minimum temperature. Over 70% of the global land area sampled showed a significant decrease in the annual occurrence of cold nights and a significant increase in the annual occurrence of warm nights." http://www.knmi.nl/publications/showAbstract.php?id=706

"denier, denier, denier".

"enhanced warmth in the oceans " More absolute HOCKUM from the alarmists. every expert says they would need 20 years of data for any scientifically statistically significant data to be available. and preliminary 0.04 degrees at 6500 feet is the Hockum Brucie pushes

" Your claim that geothermal heat is responsible for enhanced warmth in the oceans or air is not remotely plausible". Please see below http://www.seasky.org/deep-sea/hydrothermal-vents.html Deep sea vents found in Pacific Ocean near Galapagos Islands, in the late 1970s. These vents are about 8,000 feet below the surface. http://www.livescience.com/29737-new-deep-sea-vents-discovered-atlantic-ocean.html Deep sea vents found in mid-Atlantic Ocean 2010 http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/news/west-mata-submarine-volcano-vin?source=relatedvideo Submarine eruption near Samoa May 2009 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2528892/Volcanic-island-coast-Japan-TRIPLES-IN-SIZE-fresh-undersea-eruptions.html 2013 http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-21520404 venting of geothermal heat from vents deep in the Caribbean Sea http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/havre-eruption-leads-scientists-to-biggest-undersea-volcano-20140509-zr7dw.html Enormous under sea volcanic eruption north of New Zealand

Incoming solar radiation: 341.3 Watts/m squared; Increase in forcing from solar since the start of the Industrial Revolution: 1.6 W/m squared; Energy flow from Earth's interior: 0.09W/m squared; World energy production: 0.03W/m squared; Tidal energy: 0.007W/m squared.

Where is energy flow from Earth's interior, the 0.09 W/m squared derived from? Is it derived from a multitude of sites, or just a few? Where are the data gathering stations located? It would seem to vary a lot from place to place.

The figures you have here are averages. One can be parboiled in a ocean with an "average" temp. of 10 degrees Celsius, you can drown in a river that is an "average" of six inches deep. I am not arguing that geothermal sources of heat are larger than solar. Of course solar is far stronger. What I am saying is that it would be easy to mistakenly attribute the heat obviously seen deep in the ocean for the supposedly atmospheric heat the climatologists are looking for. It is amazing how often scientists find exactly what they are looking for- easy to do when they do not account for all variables. They do not appear to have even recognized that there are sources of geothermal heat in the oceans. If they see heat- and they do, because it is really there- they immediately assume it is the atmospheric heat that seems missing from their equations. There is considerable geothermal (also called hydrothermal) heat in all of the oceans of the world. This is not a rare type of mistake. If you looked at any of the sites I listed above, you would have seen that there are some very hot spots in our oceans. I could have listed a lot, lot more, but would get carpal tunnel syndrome if I tried. .Overall, the oceans are very cold of course. This idea that atmospheric heat is sequestered deep in the Atlantic Ocean- at specific points, no less- then is somehow maintained there like it's in a thermos bottle. I am not sure if the differential salinity of the currents can offset the mixing to achieve an equilibrium- what you normally see in nature.

Another "yes, but" from your denier sources. The oceans are a heat sink. Claims that geothermal sources are responsible for the ocean warming are nuts--there just isn't enough heat to account for the warming that has taken place. If you would spend some time reading the science you would confirm this. To even pretend to think that climate scientists would overlook such a source is laughable. It's classic denier strategy--rely on misleading but seemingly plausible claims to raise doubts about the science. The overall temp. increase for the global ocean for the second half of the 20th century is "only" 0.06 degrees C.--much smaller than the 0.7 degree C. increase in surface temp. But the energy required to raise the ocean temp this much is over 10 times the amount of energy stored in the atmosphere. In case you missed it--the geological heat of the planet has been diminishing for about 4.6 billion years. The measured energy imbalance between energy in and infra-red out has to be accounted for: most of it is going into the oceans.That's why they call it a heat "sink".

"To even pretend to think that climate scientists would overlook such a source is laughable". So, where exactly do climate scientists address deep sea ocean sources of heat? Have they thoroughly surveyed it? Real observations of real oceans note heat from real geothermal sources. If any sensing device is near any warm currents generating from those very warm (often at first over 300 degrees Celsius, but quickly mixing with the cold ocean water) and numerous rifts, fissures, vents, etc., they could register heat that has nothing to do with the atmosphere at all. In the latest paper on the submerging of heat deep in the Atlantic, is there even a single note addressing that? Also, I am still puzzled by the thermodynamics of submerging heat from the atmosphere into cold water, over a mile deep. That process should be examined more closely. Meanwhile, I am putting some steaming hot brownies into the freezer to keep them toasty warm.

And with the next batch of brownies, I think I''ll add some walnuts.

I think there's one other ingredient in your brownies that you neglected to mention.

How right you are - I'm sure you are referring to that ever important splash of real vanilla extract.

The critical question to ask is whether any of these papers or their authors make the claim that geothermal heat is responsible for the 0.35 C increase in temp of the world's oceans over the last 25 years?

When people ignore the facts, make things up, distort and lie about the science and scientists--it's aptly descriptive and therefore fair to call their behavior denial, and label them for what they are: deniers. I doubt history will be any kinder to them than it has been to Holocaust deniers. You have ignored most of the factual responses to the issues you've raised--issues that have been shown in the responses to be grossly exaggerated and inconsequential, red herrings, or distortions if not outright fabrications. The facts on climate change are readily available from many reputable sources--Columbia, Yale, MIT, UNH, Scripps, WHO, NASA/GISS, NOAA, and on and on.The sources you seem to rely on, besides having funding sources with a vested interest in lying about the science, cherry-pick from science papers to produce breathless headlines: each one they cite is "The One" that "disproves" global warming. Except...they never do.

It looks like I was probably wrong about "some" researchers disputing Holdren. It looks like most dispute Holdren on this. No wonder he looks really nervous in his circumpolar vortex two minute sound bite. He is expressing his opinion, but it is not backed up well.

Why not do a Google search on the number of papers that support Holdren's position. And while you're at it, why not check to see whether those 4 papers cited by Anthony Watts endorse all the claims made by Watts et al?

100% of priests believe in God - your research blahter is pure Hockum

Not a bad suggestion. I found one of the papers Watts mentioned- here is the preview. I will try to find more, but only if I don't have to pull out a credit card. Below is a preview of one paper. NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | LETTER Print Email Share/bookmark Arctic amplification decreases temperature variance in northern mid- to high-latitudes James A. Screen Nature Climate Change 4, 577–582 (2014) doi:10.1038/nclimate2268 Received 21 March 2014 Accepted 06 May 2014 Published online 15 June 2014 Article tools Citation Reprints Rights & permissions Article metrics Changes in climate variability are arguably more important for society and ecosystems than changes in mean climate, especially if they translate into altered extremes1, 2, 3. There is a common perception and growing concern that human-induced climate change will lead to more volatile and extreme weather4. Certain types of extreme weather have increased in frequency and/or severity5, 6, 7, in part because of a shift in mean climate but also because of changing variability1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10. In spite of mean climate warming, an ostensibly large number of high-impact cold extremes have occurred in the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes over the past decade11. One explanation is that Arctic amplification—the greater warming of the Arctic compared with lower latitudes12 associated with diminishing sea ice and snow cover—is altering the polar jet stream and increasing temperature variability13, 14, 15, 16. This study shows, however, that subseasonal cold-season temperature variability has significantly decreased over the mid- to high-latitude Northern Hemisphere in recent decades. This is partly because northerly winds and associated cold days are warming more rapidly than southerly winds and warm days, and so Arctic amplification acts to reduce subseasonal temperature variance. Previous hypotheses linking Arctic amplification to increased weather extremes invoke dynamical changes in atmospheric circulation11, 13, 14, 15, 16, which are hard to detect in present observations17, 18 and highly uncertain in the future19, 20. In contrast, decreases in subseasonal cold-season temperature variability, in accordance with the mechanism proposed here, are detectable in the observational record and are highly robust in twenty-first-century climate model simulations.

Do you read what you post? What does the phrase "In spite of mean climate warming" mean to you? Hint: It doesn't mean the planet is cooling.

I read what little there is, and posted it as is. There are some uncertainties expressed here. I would like to read the papers in their entirety instead of just the previews.

Evidence? Sources?

The below list contains three scientific papers, plus some sources from the popular press- The Washington Post, not a peer-reviewed journal. I have not read them yet. We the Geeks: “Polar Vortex” and Extreme Weather , Posted by Becky Fried on January 8, 2014 at 5:37 PM EDT (containing this exact language in the text of the blog post), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/01/08/we-geeks-polar-vortex-and-extreme-weather; OSTP Blog, http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/blog?page=13. 8 See, e.g., Elizabeth A. Barnes, Etienne Dunn-Sigouin, Giacomo Masato, and Tim Woollings Exploring recent trends in Northern Hemisphere blocking , Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 41, pp. 638-644, doi:10.1002/2013GL058745 (Jan. 2014); Masato, G., T. Woollings, and B.J. Hoskins, 2014. Structure and impact of atmospheric blocking over the Euro-Atlantic region in present day and future simulations . Geophysical Research Letters , Vol. 41, pp. 1051-58, doi:10.1002/2013GL058570 (published, Feb. 6, 2014); Elizabeth A. Barnes, Revisiting the Evidence Linking Arctic Amplification to Extreme Weather in Midlatitudes , Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 40, pp. 4734–4739, doi:10.1002/grl.50880 (Sept. 4, 2013); see also Jason Samenow, Scientists: Don’t make “extreme cold” centerpiece of global warming argument , Washington Post, Feb. 20, 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/02/20/scientists-dont-make-extreme-cold-centerpiece-of-global-warming-discussions/

None of the papers make YOUR claim--that Holdren and the many others who link the very cold winter we in the northeast experienced in 2013-14 to a warming Arctic, are wrong. All they're saying is "It's more complicated." None of them are saying that Arctic ice is not in a long term and worrisome decline. None are saying the climate is cooling, or event that there has been a 'pause' in the warming. You're relying on cherry-picking studies, then making claims the authors themselves CAN'T make and DON'T make, since there is support for such claims. Barnes herself, in one of the papers you cite, says this: "The Arctic is CHANGING RAPIDLY, and these changes will likely have PROFOUND effects on the Northern Hemisphere".

Holdren expressed certainties. He is like an accountant who only reveals one side of the balance sheet. Yes, this is complex, and it is his duty to express uncertainties when it is merited.

OK- I looked at the Holdren video again. Yeah, he does express some uncertainties. Either way, we are left with earlier predictions from the IPCC that failed. Warm, snowless winters were predicted to become a thing of the past. The mantra of "this happening now, now, now" was repeated- something you always do with propaganda. The predicted upswing in temperatures has veered sideways- the stick no longer conforms to NHL standards.

Woops- the IPCC predicted in 2007 that winters would become warm and snowless. In hindsight they have added the extremely cold, snowy winters, to cover things either way.

From the third IPCC report, 2007: While many factors continue to influence climate, scientists have determined that human activities have become a dominant force, and are responsible for most of the warming observed over the past 50 years. Human-caused climate change has resulted primarily from changes in the amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but also from changes in small particles (aerosols), as well as from changes in land use, for example. As climate changes, the probabilities of certain types of weather events are affected. For example, as Earth’s average temperature has increased, some weather phenomena have become more frequent and intense (e.g., heat waves and heavy downpours), while others have become less frequent and intense (e.g., extreme cold events).

Or a big "dose" of solar power? Or a "bitter pill" of all electric cars? When I saw this letter, I thought "oh no, BPR," .Didn't think I would get a laugh out of it.

BestPres once again is either ignorant or intentionally deceptive when he cites polar ice and fails to differentiate area and volume, a mistake 10th graders stop making by the end of first semester.

statistics even a 10th grader can understand ( except LIDV's) . 1) ice cover on the Great Lakes is now the most widespread in 35 years, and nearing an all-time record.According to an analysis by NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (NOAA/GLERL), 2) According to US Navy PIPS2 maps, the area of thick Arctic ice has more than doubled, and the volume of Arctic ice has increased by 26% – since 2008 3)Antarctic sea ice has expanded to record levels for April, increasing by more than 110,000sq km a day last month to nine million square kilometres. The National Snow and Ice Data Centre said the rapid expansion had continued into May and the seasonal cover was now bigger than the record “by a significant margin’’. “This exceeds the past record for the satellite era by about 320,000sq km, which was set in April 2008,’’ the center said..

More repetition of the area not volume statements which makes it meaningless in any scientific sence. As to Arctic ice thickness, This year's daily average ice thickness there has been a very slight 3-year annual increase (low single-digit percent increase per year) still 40% below 1980 and below every other year in between. As to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, they report ice "extent" - once more area not volume.

110,000sq km a day last month - you are such a LIDV

Let's play "Whack a [Denier]Mole" again. Note that "denier" rhymes with "liar". Coincidence? We report, you decide. As usual, this poster deliberately misleads; which is why he never supplies direct links to any of his claims. Anyone who fact checks the 2nd claim would see that it's not a current claim, but one from a 2010 column by WUWT, based on an increase in ice extent and volume from a very low 2008 ice extent. The fact there was some rebound should not be a surprise. The same thing happened in 2013--a rebound from an even lower ice extent and volume than in 2008. The real trend in arctic ice extent can be seen here: http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png

"denier, liar, tea bagger, extremist, right wingnut, etc", As usual ignorant, But boy, you can sure copy and paste, those fingers must be tired. Look in the 'Mir"ror, you Led people believe that you are not an extremist or hypocrite.

You mean misuse of statistics even a 10th grader skilled in critical thinking can uncover.

This report from reportingclimatescience.com dated 05.02.2014 supports what BPR is saying. : Arctic Ice Volume Has Increased: Satellite data shows that Arctic sea ice was 50 per cent thicker in Autumn 2013 than it was in Autumn 2012, according to the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). Data from the European Space Agency's (ESA's) CryoSat satellite which is equipped to measure the thickness of sea ice using radars shows that Arctic sea ice volumes grew by 50 per cent last year. This is due to an increase in ice thickness, since sea ice extent declined by around 3 per cent. In a statement issued on 5 February, the NSIDC said: “Preliminary measurements from the CryoSat show that the volume of Arctic sea ice in autumn 2013 was about 50% higher than in the autumn of 2012. In October 2013, CryoSat measured approximately 9,000 cubic kilometers (approximately 2,200 cubic miles) of sea ice compared to 6,000 cubic kilometers (approximately 1,400 cubic miles) in October 2012.”

It's called regression to the mean. 2012 was a record low year for ice extent and volume. The fact that the ice extent was greater in 2013 than in 2012 DOES NOT negate the overall trend--downward. No climate scientist has ever claimed that warming or its effects would follow a straight line. Earth's systems are too complex. But the longer the time frame one uses, the more clearly a signal emerges from the noise of year to year variability. And the warming signal is clear to ANYONE able to look objectively at the data.

HOAX supreme - since data has only been available since 1978 - Brucie is filling your mind with scientifically statistically insignificant blather as usual. That is what is know as a juvenile science

You made a good points regarding salt. Salt melts ice, and salt added to water lowers the freezing point.

I thought that was a clever suggestion, so did some Google research and simple math. I couldn't find any data on salinity of Lake Sunapee, but did find averages for fresh water thanks to wikipedia. The salt content of sea water is about 35 grams/liter (3500mg/liter), compared to the salt content of fresh water in the northeast that ranging from 75 to 150 mg/liter. Even if we double this number--to 300mg/liter, fresh water is still about 100 times less salty than sea water. Sea water freezes at about 28 degrees F. While I'm not sure salt content alone explains the lower freezing point, if we assume it does, than a straightforward assumption that 1/100 the amount of salt should equal about 1/100 the difference between 32 degrees F and 28 degrees F. 1/100 of 4 degrees is 0.04 degrees. So if we assume Lake Sunapee has a salinity double that of most freshwater (300mg/liter), that might be enough to lower its freezing point 0.04 degrees. New Hampshire's climate has warmed about 1.7 degrees since 1895-- a number far higher than the 0.04 degrees lower freezing point that a "salty" lake Sunapee might have. So my back of the envelope figures suggest that salt water runoff is unlikely to play a significant role in the earlier ice outs that NH lakes are experiencing.

Oops--basic math error--that's what I get for late night work. It's actually 10 times less salty--making for 0.4 degrees--call it half a degree lower. That seems significant, but still can't make up for the 1.7 degrees of warming since 1895--it might explain 1/4 of the earlier ice out, if we assume the high end figure of 300mg/ liter, and 1/8 of the ice out if we assume average salinity.

Ahhhhhh...........late night stuffing flyers into the Monitor, loading newspaper trucks at the palace on the Merrimack.

EVEN A CASUAL OBSERVER SEES THAT THE 1ST PLACE THE ICE MELTS IS WHERE SHORE RUNNOFF HITS THE WATER - duhhh!!! add that to the 1000's of circulators that prevent winter freezing around the lake front properties. You are a massive joke - keep coming back. PS you can see the open water while skiing at Mt.Sunapee.

There is now a natural underwater spring between Grand Island and Burkhaven that was not there years ago and that has made that area unsafe anytime during the winter - but the Brucie excusie #6987832 will tell you there is only 1 source for his alarmism. That spring and the bubblers and salt runoff evidently don't count in the extreme alarmism world.

OK, Bruce_Currie, your assumptions may make sense, I will concede that. You could probably even make a wicked awesome clever computer model based on those assumptions, and that model might look just great. But raw, real, data trumps the best models based on the best assumptions.

And why would that "raw, real data" NOT include ice out data collected over more than a century from lakes and ponds all over the Northeast? Note that the data is NOT at odds with, but correlates very nicely with, the corresponding temperature data--which you and others keep looking at in every way possible to disparage (and deny) as valid.

seeing how it has not warmed in 17 years 10 months then the ponds and lakes should have not changed ice out dates during that time

I never said to not use the ice out data. But you have no specific salinity data for Lake Sunapee, and salinity can vary quite a lot. I do not disparage good data.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.