Ice age coming - 2015 or 1974?

Like many people of my generation, I first became involved with environmental issues when I was in high school. Back then, we were all taught to fear imminent cooling of the planet.

Yesterday, NASA announced that burning fossil fuels cools the planet. "But, rather than being good news, NASA has concluded the lack of taking these factors into account means existing climate change models have underestimated at the future impact on global temperatures will be."

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/628524/Climate-change-shock-Burning-fossil-fuels-COOLs-planet-says-NASA

Gavin claims that because the study shows a net cooling effect in the northern hemisphere, climate sensitivity to CO2 is actually greater than previously estimated.

"NASA researchers at GISS accomplished a first ever feat by calculating the temperature impact of each of these variables—greenhouse gases, natural and manmade aerosols, ozone concentrations, and land use changes—based on historical observations from 1850 to 2005 using a massive ensemble of computer simulations. 

The spokesman said: "Analysis of the results showed that these climate drivers do not necessarily behave like carbon dioxide, which is uniformly spread throughout the globe and produces a consistent temperature response; rather, each climate driver has a particular set of conditions that affects the temperature response of Earth.

"Because earlier studies do not account for what amounts to a net cooling effect for parts of the northern hemisphere, predictions for TCR and ECS have been lower than they should be. 

"This means that Earth's climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide—or atmospheric carbon dioxide’s capacity to affect temperature change—has been underestimated, according to the study."

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which draws its TCR estimate from earlier research, places the future estimate rise at 1.8°F (1.0°C).

But the new NASA study dovetails with a GISS study published last year that puts the TCR value at 3.0°F (1.7° C).

Mr Schmidt said: “If you’ve got a systematic underestimate of what the greenhouse gas-driven change would be, then you’re systematically underestimating what’s going to happen in the future when greenhouse gases are by far the dominant climate driver.” 

__________________
Tony Heller does a nice job collecting old media accounts of the same ice age scare tactic here. The rest of this post is quoted from his web page.

14 Jul 1974, Page 1 – at Newspapers.com

NASA’s top climatologists reported the same thing in 1971, and made it clear that the effects of CO2 are not dangerous, and never will be dangerous.

http://vademecum.brandenberger.eu/pdf/klima/rasool_schneider_1971.pdf

Obama’s science adviser John Holdren reported the same thing in 1971, and predicted a new ice age in a joint paper with Paul Ehrlich.

John Holdren in 1971: “New ice age” likely · zomblog

Ehrlich also reported that the US would have food and water rationing by 1980.

6 Oct 1970, Page 3 – at Newspapers.com

NOAA shot this theory down by the year 1977, so it is pretty remarkable that Gavin is trying to resurrect it in 2015.

27 Feb 1977, Page 1 – at Newspapers.com

This endless cycle of mindless climate insanity and lies is what President Obama calls “settled science” – and wants to silence anyone who disagrees.

2015 or 1922?

"The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sails the seas around Spitzbergen and the eastern Arctic, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto unheard-of high temperatures in that part of the earth's surface."

Guess when this report was submitted by U.S. diplomats stationed in Norway?




https://twitter.com/BigJoeBastardi/status/676427775411150852/photo/1

Despite NOAA propaganda, Arctic ice is cyclical

Tony Heller does a great job with historical climate research. You can see his original post here. I don't agree with his characterization of NOAA as fraudulent; instead, I think NOAA is engaged in political speech and spin. So I'll show Tony's material with my own commentary.

My conclusion: If you read NOAA's report card carefully, it is technically accurate. Overall, it is completely misleading. It's an advocacy document, pure and simple. The government should not be engaged in such advocacy.

NOAA’s chief scientist – Rick Spinrad – was cited in a comment to an article about the Arctic. Spinrad claimed "Warming is happening more than twice as fast in the Arctic as anywhere else in the world. We know this is due to climate change."

Arctic air temperatures highest since 1900, global report shows – Telegraph

The 2015 Arctic Report Card that NOAA issued is available here. The summary is here. The report card says, "The average annual surface air temperature anomaly (+1.3°C relative to the 1981-2010 baseline) over land north of 60°N between October 2014 and September 2015 was the highest in the observational record beginning in 1900. This represents a 2.9°C increase since the beginning of the 20th Century."

Of course, the 1981 start date for the baseline is one of the issues. Another issue is the practical results of the "warming." Tony points out: "The US weather Bureau reported exactly the same thing in 1922. Seals disappearing and fish being forced northwards. However, in 1922 the reported warming was much larger than 2.3 degrees."

docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

Tony also writes, "In 1947, scientists reported 10 degrees Arctic warming, much more than the 2.3 degrees reported by Rick Spinrad." That 2.3 degrees apparently comes from the comment to the Telegraph article. The actual report card claims a 2.9 degree warming, and Spinrad was not a co-author of the report card. Still, Tony makes a good point here.

31 May 1947 – TEMPERATURES RISING IN ARCTIC REGION LOS ANGELES…

Tony also makes a good point that "Glaciers were disappearing from Alaska to Norway."

18 Feb 1952 – POLAR ICE THAW INCREASING GLACIERS SAID TO [?] M…

Next, Tony writes, "The sea ice maximum occurred at the end of March, not February 25 as Spinrad claimed, and extent is the highest since at least 2004, not the “lowest on record.”" In this case, it's a question of which data one uses. Tony uses this one:

Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

The other one at the same site looks like this:

Tony argues this one is not as useful for comparisons, but at least it gives some support for NOAA's report card. The main point, though, as Tony mentions later, is that the start date of 1979 skews the data tremendously.

Next, Tony shows that "Satellites show that recent Arctic temperatures peaked about 2010, and have fallen half a degree since then." I think he's right about this, and NOAA doesn't address it.

RSS / MSU and AMSU Data / Time Series Trend Browser

Again, I think Tony is right about his next point: "Before data tampering, Arctic temperatures were at least as warm in 1940 as they are now. Spinrad cherry-picked 1979 as his start date for many of his metrics, because it was the coldest year on record in the Arctic."

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

And this one: "Arctic warming was causing major challenges to communities 60 years ago."

24 Nov 1954 – CANADA WILL SHIFT ARCTIC DWELLERS

Here, I think Tony makes a mistake. The NOAA Report Card is not lying; it is merely misleading, in a propaganda-type exercise. Tony writes, "But the biggest lie of all is his claim “the lowest extent recorded since records began in 1979.” The graph below is from the 1995 IPCC report, and shows that NOAA has sea ice data going back to at least 1973, and that extent was much lower in 1974. Spinrad cherry picked 1979 because it was the maximum of the last 45 years, and hid the earlier NOAA data which showed that ice extent was much lower prior to 1979."

It's entirely legitimate to say that NOAA cherry picked, but that's different from lying and fraud. What this tells me is that NOAA is politically motivated to provide a facade of scientific justification for alarming the public. The IPCC report is available here. The chart is on page 150 (p. 164 in the .pdf). 

Tony's conclusions: "He said “we know it is due to climate change.” Climate change is natural and occurs all the time. What Spinrad is reporting is due to his own junk science. Every single one of Spinrad’s claims was either false or misleading. The norm in government climate science. Why doesn’t peer-review catch these blatant errors?"

I think the answer to Tony's rhetorical question is that the peer review process here, like so many peer-reviews, is truly a review by peers; i.e., reviews are conducted by like-minded people who support the conclusions. Most peer-reviews are done to find factual errors, not to correct or even modify viewpoints. If you read NOAA's report card carefully, it is technically accurate. Overall, it is completely misleading. It's an advocacy document, pure and simple. The government should not be engaged in such advocacy.

Arctic ice melts-1947

The Arctic ice was melting, causing imminent destruction around the planet--in 1947.



http://realclimatescience.com/2015/12/cru-temperature-record-is-complete-garbage/