We are told that the climate science community is reliable and honest, and that they communicate through peer-reviewed research. Where are the peer-reviewed papers predicting that “loss of Arctic ice” would lead to very cold winters?
Several regulars on this site regularly raise the peer-review flag. Here is their chance to prove that climate scientists are not the scoundrels which they pretend to be.
tic tic tic tic tic…………………………….
Good question.
But in keeping with the current news bits……Don’t ask, don’t tell.
As I keep repeating…if anybody is shown as having predicted cold in peer-reviewed articles whilst advising any Government about how to get ready for a warm climate, there could be enough evidence for a prosecutor to act.
William Gray has been predicting for years that it would return to cold but he was called a crank.
And he wasn’t referring to global warming either, just the return to the cold phases of the PDO and AMO.
Where are the calls to tax CO2 and get these darn temperatures down?…. The green movement claims the world should be building more solar panels and wind power stations to make sure we are kept warm while we wait.
Wait a minute! – dont these need sunshine and wind to operate? I suspect many government departments may have to reconsider their energy policies going forward and perhaps not bow to the advice of global warming alarmism. Welcome coal, gas and nuclear power – lets keep our children’s homes warm and our industries working.
Don’t know about peer-reviewed cold articles, but since it’s summer here in Oz:
Bikinis + cold weather = something worth “peer”ing at!
If there is global warming, it can be either be hot or cold. If there is no global warming, it can be either hot or cold. So what is the relevance of global warming?
These days, CO2 just causes extremes, so.. extreme heat, extreme cold, extreme flooding, extreme drought, extreme wind, extreme er… calm?
I’d say the only extreme CO2 causes is insanity amongst alarmists.
My question is if the Arctic warmth is a result of the heat transporting from the tropics northward, and since the AO is very negative, where does the heat go that is currently in the northern latitudes? Back south? A more neutral or positive AO would have meant a colder Arctic but warmer in places where it is currently cold and spread around a bit more.
In other words, IIRC, once the heat reaches the Arctic, the next exit would be out to space, no? If we get a SSW (sudden stratospheric warming) event in January, late Winter/early Spring could bring some very nasty weather. The heat up north has to go somewhere, where does it go once there?
As a matter of fact, scientists Petoukhov and Semenov did indeed predict that it could get cold in winter on the northern hemisphere: “Here we show that anomalous decrease of wintertime sea ice concentration in the Barents-Kara (B-K) seas could bring about extreme cold events like winter 2005–2006.” See http://www.agu.org/journals/jd/jd1021/2009JD013568/ or a more recent press release. The paper was submitted in November 2009.
Cold winters in the north do not contradict the fact of global climate change. But if Petoukhov and Semenov are right, further melting of arctic ice might lead to warmer winters again. For further explanation and a critique of the P&S paper, see here.
Scoundrels, aren’t they?
November, 2009 ? A whole year ago, after three cold winters.
Should have stipulated before 2009
“Should have stipulated before 2009”
Should have stipulated from the beginning, not after the fact, the fact that it had been cooling since 1998. For example: James Hansen should have predicted this record cold, and coldest December in 100 years, could be caused by his “manmade global warming” thingy way back in 1988 at the hearing in Washington. He shouldn’t have come up with his Arctic melting causing cooling excuse after cooling had already happened.
They were slow to catch on. They had to do something about that “travesty” of “missing heat”. So they had to say global warming causes the earth to cool—after it had already been cooling.
Here’s how global warming works: wait to see what happens, then, whatever it is say that’s what “manmade global warming” predicted would happen.
Then say you have some peer reviewed works “from the literature” that prove it. (So inconvenient that the dates on the papers are after the fact though, huh.)
No need for shouting, Amino. We know you don’t believe in peer-reviewed science, and that you are not really interested in an explanation of the cold winter unless it confirms what you already believe.
But Steve asked for peer-reviewed papers on the topic. So he got them.
how’s that Hockey Stick holding up for you Sense?
It’s doing very well, thank you. And it takes more than a cold winter in northern Europe and the US to change that. The hockey stick is about global averages, not weather on relatively small patches.
Scientific papers could convince me the hockey stick is wrong, but no such have appeared. And you, still frozen in denial?
Sense Seeker says:
December 23, 2010 at 4:07 am
And it takes more than a cold winter in northern Europe and the US to change that
You mean 3 harsh winters in a row, each getting progressively worse. Let’s not make things up. Let’s tell the truth.
But you won’t tell the truth because truth is the enemy of propaganda.
Scientific papers could convince me the hockey stick is wrong
Great. Look up these 900:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBQeqKQHlZc
Blue chip panel from the National Academy of Science had this to say about the Hockey Stick:
Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium”
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=4
Sense Seeker says:
December 23, 2010 at 4:07 am
It’s doing very well, thank you. And it takes more than a cold winter in northern Europe and the US to change that.
It should say “most” of Europe, not northern. And you left China off the list. How convenient for your propaganda work to do that.
Their method (i.e., Mann, et al), when tested on persistent red noise, nearly always produces a hockey stick shaped first principal component (PC1) and overstates the first eigenvalue. In the controversial 15th century period, the MBH98 method effectively selects only one species (bristlecone pine) into the critical North American PC1, making it implausible to describe it as the “dominant pattern of variance”.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004GL021750.shtml
Sorry, a rather confused presentation for the Heartland institute full of tree rings about times long ago doesn’t convince me. You can have your medieval warming and little ice age (which I did see on Mann’s graph, by the way).
The important bit of the hockey stick is the end of it. You know, where the heat is turned on in the last decades? No need for tree rings.
Well, it isn’t just one, now is it. Nor, is this year confined to Northern or Western Europe and the U.S. You’ve seen Australia? Or what about the record cold in Mexico while the climate convention was going on?
No, none of these things individually mean anything. Though collectively, while many climate scientists were telling us warm winters are a sign of CAGW, and then today they say cold winters are a sign of CAGW does give one to pause. They can not be both indicative of CAGW, because they are antithesis of themselves. Unless, of course, warm/wet and cold/dry winters are the antithesis, but that would put an unarticulated hypothesis in play. But, one I’d gladly play with.
Sense, I know sometimes I come off as trying to be authoritative. I’m not. I know BS when I see it. I know BS when I hear it. On our worst day, we can show inconsistencies with the CAGW theory as it is articulated, because one can’t fully articulate it. If any CAGW advocate were to attempt to fully articulate the theory, it would be mowed down in a heart beat, on several different levels. And has been, even though the theory is vague and doesn’t have a disprovable facet.
Sense, you’ve seen the fallacy of the arguments for CAGW here. This is easy stuff. You’ve been given links to heavier lifting but truth nonetheless. Come to the light side. It is better over here. And, it is closer to truth.
None of us entirely agree with each other. But we unite against what we know is false.
The data set of proxies of past climate used in Mann, Bradley and Hughes 1998, (“MBH98” hereafter) for the estimation of temperatures from 1400 to 1980 contains collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects.
http://ff.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=259
Mann, Bradley and Hughes 1998 is the Hockey Stick
Sense Seeker says:
December 23, 2010 at 4:48 am
Sorry, a rather confused presentation for the Heartland institute full of tree rings about times long ago doesn’t convince me.
Did you look up the 900 peer reviewed works in the publications?
Sense Seeker says:
December 23, 2010 at 4:48 am
Sorry, a rather confused presentation for the Heartland institute full of tree rings about times long ago doesn’t convince me.
Tree rings don’t convince you? That is excellent. The Hockey Stick is based on a tree ring proxy.
You picked the wrong thing to to say Sense Seeker. You destroyed your own Hockey Stick
Nice work!
Sense Seeker
What other names have you posted comments under in the past?
Fine Amino, you can have Mann’s hockey stick, if you must. There’s plenty of new ones. Here, read some real science: http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm and look at the evidence.
But I know you’ll not do that, preferring to live on in your own reality in some sort of parallel universe.
The paper was submitted in November 2009.
After harsh winters had already been in progress for 2 years.
Nonsense believer:
Do you have the slightest idea how stupid your writing are?
You stated: “Cold Winters in the North do not contradict Climate Change!”
Climate has been changing for millions of years and only an idiot would think otherwise. The evidence for that is in all geological records and in all written historical records because changing climate is one of the major factors in the advances and declines of civilizations. It is probably the main factor behind most of the technical advance society has experienced. If climate did not change there would have been no need to learn to adapt to changing environments. We would probably still be living in caves because it is easy to make a cave comfortable with a steady climate.
There are also research papers that claim an ice free Arctic Ocean will lead to more snow in the northern regions that will lead to higher albedo and advancing glaciers along with falling sea levels due to more H2O being trapped in a frozen state.
Would that be evidence of human caused climate change? No because it would be a repeat of past climate changes as would a change in the Atlantic Circulation pattern. It has to change sometime and we may be over due.
“Cold Winters in the North do not contradict Climate Change!”
That’s right out of the Brenda Eckwurzel Global Warming Hymnal!
You ought to be more imaginative.
Tell us what the world looks like with, and without, man-made climate change.
They don’t hold up very well to scrutiny, do they.
That’s why they run back to their own sites and resort to mockery. They have no other tools to work with
There are 6 peer reviewed articles listed here: . Note that they’re all dated 2009 or 2010. As if they just figured this out. You know, like there was a cold winter or two and someone realized they had to be explained after the fact.
Predicting long-term global averages remains easier than mid- and short term predictions of weather or seasons. Global warming brings changes to ocean currents and air flows, which interact in patterns that are difficult to predict. It’s a complex system.
In comparison, estimating total energy in- and outflows from our planet is easy. (Which is not to say there’s no discussion over exact numbers, but the bigger picture is clear.)
That is a total line of Bull!
They can not even get the regional climate replicated. If you use the proper smoothing you can find anything and you can provide any scenario you want. The problem is that all the models currently being used for projections have been falsified by all the other models attempting to do the same. 22 bad model runs can not be averaged to make a correct statement. GARBAGE IN = GARBAGE OUT!
Sense Seeker says:
December 23, 2010 at 4:01 am
but the bigger picture is clear.
Yes it is:
18 non treering proxies showing how cool it is now compared to 1000 years ago:
http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/9702/mwplia.jpg
Mike Davis says:
December 23, 2010 at 4:22 am
That is a total line of Bull!
Yes, it is propaganda. Sense seeker is versed in all the latest propaganda.
Sense Seeker says:
December 23, 2010 at 4:01 am
Predicting long-term global averages remains easier than mid- and short term predictions of weather or seasons.
You made that up.
Provide the peer review works that would support your absurdity.
For you? Why should I? You don’t believe in that anyway. I can spend spend my life carrying peer-reviewed evidence to you and never get anywhere with you.
Ha Ha Seeker.
Just admit you made it up .
Jo Nova and Warwick Hughes in Australia have shown up the farce down under….. Like the British Met the Aus BOM should be sacked – whether rain or temperature they predicted almost the exact opposite!!
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/12/could-the-australian-bom-get-it-more-wrong/
Meanwhile in California…”More than 12 inches of rain fell in mountains outside Los Angeles and California ski resorts were deluged with more than 15ft of snow……….. Scientists said the freak rainfall was the result of a storm from the Gulf of Alaska hitting subtropical moisture from the Pacific Ocean. They described the storm battering the West Coast as an “atmospheric river” similar in nature, although not in scale, to California’s “Great Flood” of 1861-62 which bankrupted the state.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/8220113/California-hit-by-flooding.html
Mmmmm must be CAGW at work again like it was back in 1861. Was the Terminator around then too?
Bueller……… Bueller…….. Bueller……..
Peer-review of cold predictions butter no parsnips.
No demand, no supply, QED
Climate Scientists are not Pretending to be Scoundrels. They’re singing the paymaster’s songs, straight from the CAGW hymnal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXGhvoekY44
I think this was peer reviewed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE8D52xD4uw
It’s becoming increasingly difficult for an arrogant attitude and mockery of “denialists” to work its magic anymore, but global warmers definitely need a new shtick
Well, yeh, its getting a bit boring. This winter, they’ve lost all credibility. They could have said, this, like last year, was an aberration. But, no, they had to go and say, “we said this all along!”, while people like Steven shows us that’s not the case. They said, “snow is a thing of the past.” They said winters will get much warmer. Now, they say this is consistent with what we said. No, no its not.
In 2000, or 2001, or 2002 or 2003…….the winters are warming now, but towards the end of the decade, there may be some really cold and wet winters.
They didn’t. Worse, now they want to say this is what they said all along. No, no it isn’t. But they think they can tell us a trend of 50 or 100 years? Sure, 10 years may not make a trend, but is 30 years more legitimate?
Thank God for the internet. Screw the FCC for trying to control it.
Where Are The Peer Reviewed Predictions Of Cold?
There
arewere none. But then it started getting cold and they popped up like popcorn.The problem is the warmists are barking up the wrong tree again. They should take a look at the sun. No sunspots today, or the last 5 days. January 28th 2004 was the start of this run of 817 spotless days.
It looks like cycle 24 and 25 will be a represt of cycles 4 and 5,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/20/a-dalton-minimum-repeat-is-shaping-up/
If so the cold winters should come as no suprise, in fact a Dalton minimum would be best case scenario. A new Maunder minimum might last 70 years, the last time this happened the Thames regularly froze. Not good.
That’s nice John, but how sure are you of the prediction about the weak solar cycles? If you are critical of the IPCC’s and related climate models, why not of these predictions based on solar cycles? From what I saw on WUWT, this ‘science’ comes down to eyeballing trends in different cycles, and our knowledge of the past isn’t exactly complete.
But if you are right about the sun, that doesn’t mean that atmospheric CO2 cannot also influence global temperatures. After all, that is what’s been warming us up over the past 30 years or more. And the effects of increased CO2 are very well documented.
But we’ll see how things pan out. I don’t hold my breath for the sun winning the balance.
SORRY Nonsense believer:
There is no real world evidence that the last 30 years are any thing outside of normal climate variations and the last thirty years followed the previous pattern. There is evidence the temperatures recorded during the last thirty years are corrupted by UHI, siting, and processing bias but there is no link to CO2.
Your link is to guesses rather than empirical science. You provide well documented BS!
I have more confidence in my prediction than anything from the IPCC based on highly dubious climate models.
I would CO2 a distant fourth on climate influence.
With
First place = PDO/AMO with a 60-70 year cycle.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/19/integrating-enso-multidecadal-changes-in-sea-surface-temperature/
Second place = Solar modulation of GCR seeding of clouds, directly controlling cloud cover and albedo. In simple terms high solar activity leads to higher global temperature. (and vice versa)
Well known 11 year cycle, other longer cycles.
Read anything from Henrik Svensmark. He is right on the money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark
Third place = Volcanic activity. Obviously a random event. Occasionally massive climate disruption potential.
Currently zero influence, due to lack of volcanic activity, resulting in a warmer world.
http://www.spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=21&month=12&year=2010
Fourth place = WMGG
I think Richard Lindzen has it about right i.e. around 1 C for a doubling of CO2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
Finally a point about CO2
All plant life on Earth uses CO2 to live and grow. Explain how increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere and increasing (slightly) the Earth’s temperature is a bad thing?
Sense Seeker – the problem with any ex-post explanation is that it has the same value as a book on Nostradamus…it only shows how good the explainers are at constructing a logical statement based on their knowledge and beliefs. I guess evolutionary biologist can beat each other silly with yet another just-so story too, without the rest of the world having to care. Alas, that’s different for climate.
As for your thought about the sun not “winning in the balance”, it reminds me of decades wasted in the wave-vs-particle debate about the nature of light. Guess who won “in the balance”.
I take it our alarmist friends have now given up on finding the peer reviewed predictions.
SS,
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
You probably believe CO2 is a pollutant, as sincerely as an Islamic suicide bomber believes there will be 72 virgins waiting for him in paradise. However not all suicide bombers have been male, therefore does a woman get 72 male virgins? http://www.slate.com/id/2160963/
The question should be irrelevant however because we, sophisticated, logical thinking, modernists all know how ridiculous the idea is, don’t we? In any case, suicide is contrary to the rules of Islam. There’s a clear prohibition on suicide in the collected sayings of the Prophet, known as the Hadith. In particular, anyone who kills himself must spend an eternity repeating the act in the afterlife. http://www.slate.com/id/2143505/
Nevertheless, it seems that the words of the Prophet are conveniently ignored by those who order others to their explosive deaths.
Gore & Hansen, Mann & Obama, are just as controlling. Their message is “Do as I say, not do as I do”. Your belief in those charlatans is numbing. They are robbing you and your loved ones and you are letting them? For example, CCX shut down its operations in November. This occurred after an avalanche of its investors bailed following a hurricane of ill winds for cap-and-trade that swept away Democrat control of the U.S. House of Representatives. By that time Sandor had already pocketed an estimated $98.5 million for his 16.5% CCX ownership. Just how much Al Gore’s GIM and Goldman’s GSAM ended up with no one is saying. But it was probably enough to pay for a nice private party.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/12/22/chicago-climate-club-carbon-barack-obama-opinions-contributors-larry-bell_print.html
Don’t be a mug all your life.
“And it takes more than a cold winter in northern Europe and the US to change that. ” – SS
South America experienced a record cold winter also. Where exaclty is it hot? Don’t give me the Greenland Jazz. I don’t condider sub-zero temps to be hot.
SENSE SEEKER; I am going to chime in here, Would you please show the PAL- REVIEWED papers that PROVE beyond a doubt that CO2 is the cause of AGW! And NO VERY LIKELY, MOST LIKELY, Proof beyond a reasonable doubt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!