Jan 1, 2020 at 11:46 AM Phil Clarke

If Hockey Teamsters wanted to avoid controversy, they should have rejected Mann's Sacred Idol twenty years ago, and stuck with evidence based science.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7139797.stm

Page last updated at 10:40 GMT, Wednesday, 12 December 2007

Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'
By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco

"Arctic summer melting in 2007 set new records
Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.
Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years."

Climate Modelling has not advanced very much in the last 13 years. The ice has. Trenberth's search for the missing heat goes on.

A single outlier study, which actually said Autumn could become near ice free between 2011 and 2016.
Elsewhere, the mainstream IPCC model projections for the Arctic Ice turned out to be an underestimate.

Projection: The IPCC has always confidently projected that the Arctic ice sheet was safe at least until 2050 or well beyond 2100.
Reality: Summer ice is thinning faster than every climate projection, and today scientists predict an ice-free Arctic in years, not decades. Last summer, Arctic sea ice extent plummeted to 1.32 million square miles, the lowest level ever recorded – 50 percent below the long-term 1979 to 2000 average. 

From <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-ipcc-underestimated-climate-change/>

See also Strove et al 2007 Arctic sea ice decline: Faster than forecast

Jan 1, 2020 at 2:29 PM Phil Clarke

More rubbish.

Dec 31, 2019 at 1:36 PM Phil Clarke

“Also, 'Jamal' ignores the huge amount of corroborating observations: carbon in the CO2 from burning fossil fuels and forests has a different isotropic fingerprint to naturally-sourced carbon (the Suess Effect) and the ratio has been changing exactly in line with the extra CO2 being manmade. Also, burning fossils emits CO2 and also removes oxygen from the atmosphere and atmospheric O2 has indeed been falling at exactly the amount expected if the CO2 increase is manmade, a natural source of CO2 would not show these signatures.”

I love the use of the word "exactly" here; demonstrably false in both cases. The atmospheric δ13C decline rate reflects the additional atmospheric CO2 having a δ13C of -13 per mil, much higher than -28 per mil expected for fossil fuels. The O2:CO2 ratio should decline at circa 1.4 if due to burning fossil fuels, but is actually declining at 2.1 mol/mol. Models, not observations, are used to try to explain these discrepancies, but Keeling et al 2017 still can’t get their model to match the δ13C data!

Of course, this could all so easily be explained by accepting that there is no such thing as “greenhouse effect”!
Jan 1, 2020 at 9:29 PM Radical Rodent

But all their predictions must be based on something scientific, not just scaremongering and guess work?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/01/glacier-national-park-quietly-removed-gone-by-2020-signs-in-2019-update/

"Throughout Glacier National Park, visitors were met with signs, brochures and messages proclaiming that all of the Park’s glaciers were expected to melt away by 2020.

But by 2019 NOT EVEN ONE of the glaciers had disappeared.

During the winter of 2018-2019–while the St. Mary Visitor Center was closed to the public–the government quietly altered the ‘Gone by 2020’ signs.

And they would have gotten away with it if not for Roger Roots of Lysander Spooner University."

Phil Clarke:

Where's all that arctic ice? Is it still there?

Liar.

( You don't even make much money out of this, do you, Clarke? )

What a maroon.

The atmospheric δ13C decline rate reflects the additional atmospheric CO2 having a δ13C of -13 per mil, much higher than -28 per mil expected for fossil fuels.

Source? The δ13C per mill of at Mauna Loa, for example has declined from -7.5 to around -8.2, so I'm wondering where those numbers came from?

The earlier model -observation discrepency was due to changes in plant respiration caused by rising CO2.

The O2:CO2 ratio should decline at circa 1.4 if due to burning fossil fuels, but is actually declining at 2.1 mol/mol. 

Not sure I understand this. 1.4 mol of O2 is consumed when 1 mol of CO2 are emitted, true, but you can't just ignore other sources of O2 decline.

The four main processes [for removing atmospheric O2] including fossil fuel combustion, human and land livestock respiration, and fires, are presented in Fig. 1. From 2000 to 2013, these four main processes removed approximately 41.82 Gt O2 from the atmosphere per year. Up to 73.05% of this O2 was removed by fossil fuel combustion (30.55 Gt), with high values observed in Eastern Asia, Europe and North America, which is still growing rapidly.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S209592731830375X#b0045

I think if you say something is 'demonstrably false', you have to do a bit more in the way of demonstration than just stating its wrong.

I think if you say something is 'demonstrably false', you have to do a bit more in the way of demonstration than just stating its wrong.

Jan 2, 2020 at 1:26 AM Phil Clarke

If Climate Science Peer Review was competent, and Climate Science could admit and correct its own mistakes, you would not have to keep lying, being dishonest and lying about your own dishonesty.

Over-zealous park keepers and a series of unusually snowy winters. The ice in the park is down by a third over 50 years and 10 of the 39 glaciers have shrunk by 50% or more.

 Roger Roots of Lysander Spooner University

Um, Roger Roots is 'Lysander Spooner University' and Lysander University is Roger Roots. Little more than a website.

Click

Where's all that arctic ice? Is it still there?

There's still a little left, yes.

https://youtu.be/j9kltK1R9gc

Jan 2, 2020 at 11:11 AM Phil Clarke

He is right, Climate Science Experts with all their Government Funding are wrong.

Why should Taxpayers have to pay incompetents?

1.

In Glacier National Park (GNP) some effects of climate change are strikingly clear. Glaciers are melting, and many glaciers have already disappeared. The rapid retreat of these small alpine glaciers reflects changes in recent climate as glaciers respond to altered temperature and precipitation. It has been estimated that there were approximately 150 glaciers present in 1850, around the end of the Little Ice Age and most glaciers were still present in 1910 when the park was established. In 2015, measurements of glacier area indicate that there were 26 remaining glaciers larger than 25 acres, the size criteria used by USGS researchers to define a glacier.

(Hint: 26 is not 'all' of 150)

2.

The myth gets even more strange. A fake “university” claims to have sent a “delegation” of volunteers to check up on the glaciers and see for themselves.

The so-called university reported that in 2018 “it quickly became clear that the glaciers have grown substantially in recent years.” Various blog posts make claims of the expansion of the Grinnell and Jackson glaciers by 25 or 30 percent or more since 2009. The evidence presented is a single, blurry photograph snapped from an overlook along a popular park road, and a video that compares a cell phone photo to an image of Grinnell Glacier on a park recycling bin.

When asked if these assertions are true, Florentine (Caitlyn Florentine, a glaciologist with the U.S. Geological Survey’s Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center) was resolute: “No,” she said, shaking her head. “That’s why we turn to science.” Florentine described the work of the USGS as “systematic and reproducible,” a far cry from snapping a photo from the side of the road.

The site that made these claims turns out to be mostly that of a single person who writes a blog espousing libertarian themes, while crediting himself as “the only research institution challenging the government’s Glacier Park climate hysteria.”

3.

I'd never heard of Lysander Spooner University, so I looked it up. It's not a real university, it's a website. The "About" page goes to a link called "sample-page" and the "university" has a gmail address!

If you were expecting courses in humanities, sciences or economics you'll be disappointed. The courses offered are a bit strange, and include "Government Myths and Lies about Climate Change". They are mostly miscellaneous political talks that couldn't even be classed as short courses.

As for academic staff, there are none. The best that you'll get is an "instructor" or two. One calls himself "Roger Roots" and the other "Right on John". I'm serious.

So, a lone nutter who set up his own fake 'university' website to spread lies and disinformation. Good enough, nay, perfect for Anthony Watts.

Source 1
Source 2
Source 3

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-2.1/broecker.htm

Jan 2, 2020 at 1:26 AM Phil Clarke

“I think if you say something is 'demonstrably false', you have to do a bit more in the way of demonstration than just stating its wrong.”

Nope, you were the one who used the word “exactly”. You should have confirmed that your view was consistent with observations. You obviously failed to do this.

As I am in a good mood today, I shall help you to do the checking that you should have done yourself before making your erroneous claims. All atmospheric CO2 and δ13C data (for multiple observatories) can be downloaded from the Scripps CO2 Program website. Both sets of monthly data are available and include data that have had the annual cycle removed. Using this avoids the longer term trend being partially masked by the annual variations, which primarily reflect photosynthesis/respiration at around -26 per mil. All you have to do is plot 1/CO2 against δ13C and, provided that the trend is close to linear, fit a straight line and read off the δ13C intercept. This is a well-known approach known as the Keeling plot (see reference below, for example). The last time I downloaded the Scripps data, the values were: -13.2 per mil at Barrow, Alaska; -13.3 per mil at Mauna Loa; -13.2 per mil at Samoa; and, -13.0 per mil at South Pole (r2 was 0.96 for Barrow and above 0.98 at the three other sites).

The δ13C observations only go back to around 1980, but there are published data for the Law Dome ice core that also give -13.1 per mil going back to circa 1750. See Figure 1 in Kőhler et al (2006): “On the application and interpretation of Keeling plots in paleo climate research – deciphering δ13C of atmospheric CO2 measured in ice cores”.
Available at: http://www.biogeosciences.net/3/539/2006/bg-3-539-2006.pdf.

Scripps also publish O2/N2 data so that you can plot that yourself against CO2 (as I did a couple of years ago).

Jan 2, 2020 at 2:53 PM Phil Clarke
Your favourite overfunded Climate Science Experts still screwed up.

You simply make the case to withdraw existing funding, and retrieve what has already been stolen from taxpayers.

Sigh. If I had known I was writing for such a tediously pedantic audience I would have come up with some pettifogging form of words as 'exactly as expected once all uncertainties are accounted for and necessary adjustments made'. But this is a blog not Scientific American The context was whether the extra CO2 is manmade or not. In this context a decrease in C13 is exactly what we expect and exactly what we observe. Whether the decrease is quantitively consistent with expectations to 5 decimal places is maybe interesting but irrelevant to my point.

And by the way you have not yet 'demonstrated' any inconsistency. The paper cited is clear that the simple 1/CO2 Keeling plot technique, which requires a 2-reservoir system, is not up to this kind of attribution analysis:

For the anthropogenic variation during the last millennium we use the data measured in air enclosures in the Law Dome ice core (Francey et al., 1999; Trudinger et al., 1999). The component Cadd in Eqs. (3)–(5) reflects the exchange of carbon of an external reservoir with the atmospheric reservoir. The Point Barrow and Law Dome data can be approximated consistently with the typical Keeling plot linear regression function (r 2=96% in both). The y-axis intercept y0 increases from the seasonal effects (−25‰) to the anthropogenic impact (−13‰) with the mixed signal of the undetrended data at Point Barrow in-between (−17‰) (Fig. 1b). This increase is explained by a larger oceanic carbon uptake and a smaller airborne fraction of any atmospheric disturbance in CO2 in the longer time series from the Law Dome ice core (Fischer et al., 2003). These two examples based on measured data sets are already beyond the scope of Keeling’s original idea as they are no longer based on a two reservoir system and highlight the limitations of this approach. While the y-intercept of the detrended data at Point Barrow is consistent with the expected value, the intercept found in the anthropogenic rise in Law Dome does not record the δ 13C signal of the carbon released by anthropogenic activity to the atmosphere.

Jan 2, 2020 at 8:55 PM Phil Clarke

Simply repeating the same lies doesn't make them true. You do make the case for defunding 97% of Climate Science very well.

Like clockwork.