-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
A recent article in the Daily Mail, and picked up by other media, claims an increase in Arctic ice foretells a cooling trend. The article boasts of a 60% increase in sea ice over the minimum that occurred in 2012. While the actual numbers from IARC-JAXA Information System (IJIS) show, as of yesterday, only a 50% increase, this is still a significant expansion.
Professor Judith Curry, climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, referred to the title as melodramatic and said of the content of the article: “the ‘cooling’ aspect has been overplayed.” Last year, University of Reading climate scientist Ed Hawkins predicted that “there would be MORE Arctic sea-ice in 2013, compared to 2012.”
An important tool used in analyzing random data is the statistical phenomenon known as reversion to the mean, or regression to the mean. The extent of sea ice at the end of the annual melt, mid to late September, set a extreme minimum in 2012. Using reversion to the mean, it is more likely that the the extent in 2013 will be larger. Exactly what happened. The following graph indicates the variability of sea ice extent and the clear downward trend.
Cherry picking short-term results while ignoring long-term trends is a hallmark of misleading climate reporting. Long-term data needs to be analyzed to average out cyclical dependencies. There is a strong natural variability in sea ice extent and separating the natural from the greenhouse gases requires decades long timescales.
Climate science is an undertaking fraught with complex interactions and unknown cycles with unknown effects. It will take time and money to improve our understanding. However, improvement is mandatory if we are to be responsible conservators of our world.
Climate scientists estimate the amount of sea ice loss due to greenhouse gasses is between 50-70%.
H/T: Dana Nuccitelli, Steven Novella, Climate Dialogue, Alexis Sobel Fitts, Phil Plait.
bigfatmike:
this is the 21st century, we have the ability to ship food, to make deserts produce. To live in Phoenix, Arizona.
Do you think, really, the developed nations are going to have a problem if the weather warms a degree or even 2 celsius? And the third world countries are already depending on the developed countries for food.
@Bron:
If you actually check your cite “The Splendid Table” you will find the article continues:
“LRK: But instead you ended up producing 40 tons of food a year from those 3 acres…….
WA: You could quantify it in a number of different ways. We grow enough food there to feed about 10,000 people in a very intense and integrated food system. We grow about 150 different crops in an unusual way. …..”
It is not clear to me exactly what the actual claim is in regard to how many people can be fed from three acres. A little later they also claim to have 200 acres under cultivation in several different areas.
However, 40 tons of food at 2,000 lbs per ton distributed to 10,000 people yields 8 pounds of food a year.
The achievements of this group are impressive. I am sure they grow an impressive amount of food on each acre. I am sure they feed many people. The efficiency they achieve in feeding people may be impressive.
But they do not seem to be claiming to provide the complete nutritional requirements of 10,000 individuals from only 3 acres, which is what I understood you to be claiming.
Perhaps I misunderstood the nature of your claim.
“this is the 21st century, we have the ability to ship food, to make deserts produce. To live in Phoenix, Arizona.”
Numerous people have already pointed out that the energy intensive organization of society common to western developed nations will be impossible to scale and replicate for the rest of the 9 billion people (let alone 36 billion) of the world. We have already seen how the growing middle class of China is distorting our energy prices.
The energy use that allows us a very nice life style in Phoenix is not a model for solutions to the kind of problems that may occur in the warmer climates as global warming continues to increase.
“Do you think, really, the developed nations are going to have a problem if the weather warms a degree or even 2 celsius? ”
I am not sure how many degrees of increase modern industrial society can adapt. But I think it likely that the people I read would be wild, waving their arms, jumping in the air excited if temperature increases could be held to one or two degrees over the next century.
The point I am making is that the threat of global warming is not limited to an increase of one or two degrees, although that might be on the low side of estimates for the next one hundred years.
It would be an interesting discussion if someone could summarize for us the expected disruption resulting from each degree of increase.
Bob Kauten:
I cannot find the article but 3 acres of land can feed 10,000 people according to the spledid table link below. So:
[36 billion/10k]*(3) = 10.8 million acres required
1 square mile = 640 acres (5280^2/43,560)
10.8 million acres/640 acres/sq mile = 16,875 square miles
Size of Kansas = 82,277 sq miles which is 4.87567 times as much area as needed to feed 36 billion people.
The rest[waste management, housing, water] is just a matter of technology.
http://www.splendidtable.org/story/how-to-feed-10000-people-from-food-grown-on-3-acres-in-the-city
Maybe you are Malthusian? They have been wrong early and often.
Ayn Rand would probably say the more the better.
To recap, one state 20% of the size of Kansas can feed 36 billion people if the entire land area is dedicated to food production.
We could decrease that to 10 people per acre and we are looking at:
5, 625,000 square miles or 50% of the size of Africa.
total arable land = 1,365,069,800 hectares
1 hectare = 2.47 acres
Total arable land in square miles = 5,268,316 sq. mi. So I am off a little bit but I am sure yield per acre could be increased.
So right now, with currently available, arable land, the earth could feed 36 billion people.
You can check my numbers, I am pretty sure I did the math right.
Malthusian much?
In my opinion, the day of reckoning has arrived. The modellers and the IPCC have willingly ignored the evidence for low climate sensitivity for many years, despite the fact that some of us have shown that simply confusing cause and effect when examining cloud and temperature variations can totally mislead you on cloud feedbacks (e.g. Spencer & Braswell, 2010). The discrepancy between models and observations is not a new issue…just one that is becoming more glaring over time.
It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out in the coming years. I frankly don’t see how the IPCC can keep claiming that the models are “not inconsistent with” the observations. Any sane person can see otherwise.
Dr Roy Spencer
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/
“… use the video below to enjoy a free class lecture at a very well respected American university, or, read the history here.
Key times in the video (Note: GW = global warming; GG = greenhouse gas, CC = climate change):
00:40 – Schwarzenegger: no debate, GW is happening.
06:20 – Proper amount of GG is good, keeps us warm.
07:00 – Too much GG is a bad thing.
07:09 – Tyndall in mid 1800’s began research into GG.
07:45 – Arrhenius did first degree calculations re: CO2 content.
08:25 – Callendar discovered GG increases in 1930’s.
09:02 – Hulburt accord in 1930’s.
09:43 – Depression / war stopped GG research.
10:00 – Gilbert N. Plass developed CO2 atmospheric calculations.
10:49 – Suess & Revelle do paper in 1957 warning of GW dangers.
12:30 – Dr. Revelle warned of polar ice cap melt in TIME interview.
13:25 – CO2 levels discovered to be high.
16:30 – Lyndon Johnson in 1965 says fossil fuels causing GW.
17:00 – GW, CC not political originally.
18:20 – White of NOAA, 1978, warns of GW dangers.
20:52 – Polar Areas to be impacted 4 times more than other areas.
24:20 – IPCC formed in 1979 with consensus on GW.
26:00 – Bush I signed GW treaty.
26:45 – Denial of GW begins.
27:40 – Luntz injects GW denial propaganda into political debate.
28:25 – Oil baron Cheney propagates GW denial.
29:00 – Oil companies do massive scale denial propaganda.
29:30 – Marshall Institute
30:30 – Marshall Institute formed to support Reagan SDI (star wars)
32:50 – Marshall Institute “cigarettes not related to cancer”.
36:50 – Marshall Institute does GW denial campaign.
42:54 – Marshall member Seitz worked for big tobacco.
47:20 – Singer of Marshall Institute politically attacks GW.
53:35 – “Cigarette smoking is ok” rhetoric applied to GW science.” (Exceptional American Denial).
What’s Ayn Rand think about it?
Is there a correlation between extreme libertarianism and science denial?
Vote early and often!
Bron,
“If you are worried about population, the UN says the earth can sustain 36 billion people so it is probably double or triple that number.”
Please cite a source for the UN saying that the earth can sustain 36 billion people. No sane person believes that.
Bruce,
“Bob I guess you would rather have another ice age”
Life isn’t binary. If I don’t want rising sea levels, more drought, mass extinctions, and more extreme weather, it doesn’t mean I want another ice age.
Mostly, I’d like mankind to grow a brain. Not happening.
Greed and deliberate ignorance (caused by the greed) is all we got.
Those who use increased snowfalls or cooler areas as “proof” the globe is not warming are missing one simple fact of physics. Melting ice creates ice water. Colder water cools the air above it, so the cool air is misleading.
Cold fresh water mixing with sea water interferes with ocean currents, both wind driven and thermohaline. Massive amounts of fresh water also affects salinity of the sea, which can be destructive to marine life. Having owned home aquariums, I know about the need for water to be just right in order for fish to survive.
Data just released from a scientific drilling expedition discovered the Pine Island Glacier in Antarctica is melting far more rapidly than previously thought. Pine Island is important because it is acting as a plug to keep a large part of the ice cap from dislodging.
For anyone who says warming is cyclical, so what. Is there any reason–other than greed and egocentricity–for us to not do what we can to slow it down? A sea level rise of only two feet could have catastrophic effects on coastal areas, especially places like south Louisiana and Florida. Remember, I pointed out in my story about the Bayou Corne sinkhole disaster that areas of Assumption Parish are only one foot above sea level.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNc0LEENL14
Source, Live Science:
http://www.livescience.com/39606-melting-ice-pine-island-glacier.html
@Bron “Longer growing seasons are a bad thing? Using less energy to heat homes is bad?”
I am no expert. But I think it is a bit more complex than that. Isn’t it true that longer growing seasons in temperate climates will also be accompanied by changes in other warmer climates. Aren’t there forecasts that some areas might have trouble meeting food production requirements. Isn’t it true that problems with food production might lead to forced migration, civil unrest, regional clashes.
What about cooling and energy needs in warmer climates. The change that makes your area more comfortable might also make other areas nearly uninhabitable. Wasn’t there a warm summer Europe a few years ago that lead to many heat related deaths in Paris?
It is not clear to me what happens to large areas in warmer climates in terms of habitability. Food production has already been identified as a potential problem.
Even the rise in water level, which you have previously dismissed with a quip regarding water front property, might have far more serious consequences in many areas.
And, there is the possibility that some changes may have positive feedback effects. For example loss of ice reduces reflective surface, leading to further warming effects.
We many not clearly understand the many negative effects. But that should not give us confidence. It ought to drive our curiosity to demand answers.
I would also agree with Smith and support a ‘prudent man’ approach that would give weight to actions to forestall the worst possible effects.
There is no real downside to conservation and improved efficiency. There could be devastating consequences to not adopting such policies.
Bron,
With all due respect you are hiding your head in the sand. Yes, the radon that naturally occurs is merely vented from the homes, once it is discovered. The cost to the homeowner for the mediation is $1-3,000 depending on the size of the home. But, if you do not go through the radon mediation process you will continue to breathe in deadly naturally occurring gas that could be avoided. And if you do not believe in science, why would you even do a radon inspection?
Do you also deny science when you go to the doctor?
You stated that your head hurt from the idea that green technology is the answer. You also stated that if corporations don’t spend R&D to adjust to a green energy technology it will never happen. (paraphrase) You also discuss a reduced tax base so the government and allege that the government cannot afford it. First of all, you would probably be the first to cry foul if the government spent the money to push those slow corporations into going green. Secondly, the government does have the money but deniers like yourself try to claim that shorter winters are good for farmers. You would also be the first to deny the government the ability to tax the wealthy to make sure that they are paying their fair share.
Exxon/Mobil and other energy companies are spending very little of their budgets on alternative energy because the government is not pushing them to spend more by the way of tax credits and incentives. We are giving Billions to the energy companies to further kill our planet.
Finally, in your response at 11:16 am you state at one point that the whole climate change discussion is merely social engineering at its worst. Of course, to believe that would require you to ignore the vast amount of peer reviewed science that informs us that you are wrong, not to mention the continuing severe weather events that anyone whose head is not in the sand can obviously see and understand. I guess Salk and the polio vaccine was merely social engineering to you too.
bron: you’ve never put stock in anything the UN has ever said before. Why start now?
Nick: Al Gore’s name has become a code word for Fox Snoozers who want to dismiss the notion of global warming out of hand and personal attacks on his character have amounted to what many climate deniers call a debate response. The rationale behind using Gore in an argument usually range from accusing him of trying to make a profit by fomenting fear to claiming that he never turns the lights out in any of his homes. It’s unfortunate that he’s become a lightning rod in this debate, but he deserves credit for raising the issue to a national level among the public.
Bron: No one wants to shut down industry, just operate cleaner and more responsibly. Like requiring cab drivers to brake for pedestrians isn’t the same as revoking their license.
Otteray: Thanks for the update on Dr. Mann. His book, “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars”, is a great overview of climate research, the politics, and the dirty tactics employed by the denial industry. Speaking of which, here come Joe Blowjob with his blanket of denial, sponsored by Koch Industries. I think you guys have discovered a great way of boosting the hit count for this blog.
bigfatmike:
what problems are going to be created? The land bridge between Asia and North America being covered by water? If the temperature rises a few more tenths of a degree it will be as hot as it was at Rome’s apex. Did the world go to h*ll?
Longer growing seasons are a bad thing? Using less energy to heat homes is bad? My winter utility bills are more than my summer bills and I live in Virginia.
Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’
“Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,” the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.
“So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.”
In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm
in fact, last winter, the northern hemisphere had its largest extent of snow cover measure.”
Monday 20 March 2000
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
Bob I guess you would rather have another ice age
rafflaw:
buy a fan and a vent, it is as simple as that to take care of Radon.
what is wrong with a little extra warmth? What would you have said if you were alive at the end of the last ice age? The land bridge from Asia to North America vanished and the sea level increased as did world wide temperatures.
I read this stuff and my head hurts, Industry is the cause, but green technology is the answer. How are you going to have renewable energy without companies spending on R&D? The government? How are they going to afford that with a diminished tax base? Do you honestly believe Exxon Mobil isnt working on alternative forms of energy? At this point, hydrocarbon fuel is going to be replaced by something else. A smart man once said that oil is too valuable to burn.
But lets put the skids on industrial development so we can, maybe, slow or stop global warming which is a natural earth cycle. And if it isnt, then how are we going to afford the technology to replace hydrocarbons?
Personally, I think we need to figure out a way to shut the sun down so we dont have global warming, yeah that would definitely stop earth from warming.
Global Warming is an attempt at social engineering on a world wide scale, nothing more, nothing less.
People thrive when it is warmer, longer growing seasons, less disease, population increase. One wonders if warmers just dont hate human beings.
If you are worried about population, the UN says the earth can sustain 36 billion people so it is probably double or triple that number. Why not try to make countries properous? Those countries usually have fewer children.
Prosperous countries are also cleaner than poor countries. We should be encouraging industry and our most able and talented people so all of society benefits. Instead we put roadblock after roadblock in their paths so they have to expend time, energy and money overcoming many ridiculous government regulations. Assets which could have gone into production and research and development. Assets which would have produced a return to society and to the individual.
recent arguments to support global warming have focused on “extreme weather” events. So now every natural disaster has become evidence of man-made climate change, regardless of temperatures.
“Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, floods – all are now more frequent and more intense,” President Barack Obama said during his State of the Union speech last February. “We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science – and act before it’s too late.”
However, the staff at the Earth Systems Science Center has tracked all the activity of hurricanes, tornadoes and extreme temperatures and found little change during recent decades.
“You can see that hurricanes are not increasing,” Christy told Al.com in June, “tornadoes are not increasing, droughts and floods are not increasing, snow cover is still around – in fact, last winter, the northern hemisphere had its largest extent of snow cover measure.”
http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/09/global_warming_advocates_may_b.html
Worldwide, there was a drop in the average temperatures in the lower stratosphere for 2012, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It reported that last year was “nearly the coldest on record in the lower stratosphere since records began.”
The Daily Mail reported this month that a cool summer in the Arctic Circle has left more than a million square miles of additional ice than last year – an increase of 60-percent. The newspaper noted that the increase happened six-years after the BBC predicted that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2013.
http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/09/global_warming_advocates_may_b.html
@Bron “I’ll take your bet if we change the wager to say that it has to beat the worst warming trend in the last 100,000 years. ….The earth warms, the earth cools. It has been doing so for its entire existence, or at least since climate formed.”
No one denies the earth has warmed and cooled. Isn’t the relevant question whether there is reasonable belief that the warming trend right now is related to human activity?
Why would our concern be warranted only if the current trend were the worst in 100,000 years.
Shouldn’t we be concerned if there is reasonable belief the warming trend will cause significant problems that can be avoided?