Tag Archives: Nigel Lawson

Post-Truth Global and Arctic Temperatures

Temperature, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“Post-truth” is the the Oxford Dictionaries word of the year for 2016. The definition reads as follows:

post-truth – an adjective defined as ‘relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief’.

and according to Oxford Dictionaries:

The concept of post-truth has been in existence for the past decade, but Oxford Dictionaries has seen a spike in frequency this year in the context of the EU referendum in the United Kingdom and the presidential election in the United States. It has also become associated with a particular noun, in the phrase post-truth politics.

Post-truth has gone from being a peripheral term to being a mainstay in political commentary, now often being used by major publications without the need for clarification or definition in their headlines.

Our old friend David Rose has been remarkably quiet on the topic of Arctic sea ice recently. Presumably the objective facts from the Arctic are impossible to spin to his satisfaction even for a man of David’s talents? However that didn’t stop him from penning an article for The Mail on Sunday at the end of November on the topic of the recent “record highs in global temperatures“:

Global average temperatures over land have plummeted by more than 1C since the middle of this year – their biggest and steepest fall on record.

The news comes amid mounting evidence that the recent run of world record high temperatures is about to end. The fall, revealed by Nasa satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere, has been caused by the end of El Niño – the warming of surface waters in a vast area of the Pacific west of Central America.

MoS2 Template Master

The Mail article helpfully included this one year old video from the World Meteorological Organization, explaining the basics of the El Niño phenomenon:

According to the commentary:

This phenomenon affects weather conditions across the equatorial Pacific, with potential knock on effects in other parts of the world.

We’ll get on to the “potential knock on effects” in the Arctic eventually, but let’s start with a snippet of Mr. Rose’s “post-truth politics”:

Some scientists, including Dr Gavin Schmidt, head of Nasa’s climate division, have claimed that the recent highs were mainly the result of long-term global warming.

Last year, Dr Schmidt said 2015 would have been a record hot year even without El Nino. ‘The reason why this is such a warm record year is because of the long-term underlying trend, the cumulative effect of the long-term warming trend of our Earth,’ he said. This was ‘mainly caused’ by the emission of greenhouse gases by humans.

Other experts have also disputed Dr Schmidt’s claims. Professor Judith Curry, of the Georgia Institute of Technology, and president of the Climate Forecast Applications Network, said yesterday: ‘I disagree with Gavin. The record warm years of 2015 and 2016 were primarily caused by the super El Nino.’ The slowdown in warming was, she added, real, and all the evidence suggested that since 1998, the rate of global warming has been much slower than predicted by computer models – about 1C per century.

David Whitehouse, a scientist who works with Lord Lawson’s sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation, said the massive fall in temperatures following the end of El Nino meant the warming hiatus or slowdown may be coming back. ‘According to the satellites, the late 2016 temperatures are returning to the levels they were at after the 1998 El Nino. The data clearly shows El Nino for what it was – a short-term weather event,’ he said.

In case you’re wondering where the politics is in all of this, you need look no further than here:

The Twitter account of the United States’ House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology quotes a Breitbart article by another old friend of ours, James Delingpole, which quotes David Rose’s article in the Mail on Sunday:

The last three years may eventually come to be seen as the final death rattle of the global warming scare. Thanks [sic] what’s now recognised as an unusually strong El Nino, global temperatures were driven to sufficiently high levels to revive the alarmist narrative – after an unhelpful pause period of nearly 20 years – that the world had got hotter than ever before.

In case you’re also wondering about the objective facts of the matter David Rose quotes with approval “the authoritative Met Office ‘Hadcrut4’ surface record” in his latest article in the Mail on Sunday this very morning:

New official data issued by the Met Office confirms that world average temperatures have plummeted since the middle of the year at a faster and steeper rate than at any time in the recent past.

The huge fall follows a report by this newspaper that temperatures had cooled after a record spike. Our story showed that these record high temperatures were triggered by naturally occurring but freak conditions caused by El Nino – and not, as had been previously suggested, by the cumulative effects of man-made global warming.

The Mail on Sunday’s report was picked up around the world and widely attacked by green propagandists as being ‘cherry-picked’ and based on ‘misinformation’. The report was, in fact, based on Nasa satellite measurements of temperatures in the lower atmosphere over land – which tend to show worldwide changes first, because the sea retains heat for longer.

There were claims – now exploded by the Met Office data shown here – that our report was ‘misleading’ and ‘cherry-picked’.

Yet bizarrely, the fiercest criticism was reserved for claims we never made – that there isn’t a long-term warming trend, mainly caused by human emissions.

This just wasn’t in our report – which presumably, critics hadn’t even read.

We’ve explained all this to David before, yet bizzarely we obviously need to do so again. Here’s the Mail’s version of the latest HADCRUT 4 data from the Met Office:

hadcrut-mail-20161211

and here’s ours:

hadcrut-wft-20161211

Can you spot any “cumulative effects of man-made global warming”?

Messrs Smith, Rose, Delingpole, Whitehouse et al. may well be unaware of the fact that the satellite temperature data they’re so fond of cherry picking doesn’t include data from the lower troposphere between 80 degrees North and the North Pole. Just in case they fancy spinning the latest objective facts from the Arctic in the near future, here’s the long term autumnal temperature trend:

80n-son-20161211

and here’s the long term November Arctic sea ice extent trend:

monthly_ice_11_nh

Shock News! The Worms Have Turned!!

Satire, , , , , , ,

Today we bring a positive plethora of “Shock News!”. Starting with sea ice, yesterday Anthony Watts published an article on WUWT about the 2016 Arctic minimum extent. That’s not too surprising perhaps, but what’s shocking is that included one of Wipneus’ graphs of Arctic sea ice AREA that has been gracing our very own Arctic Sea Ice Graphs page since Anthony mocked us for not having such a thing. His take on this momentous event?

All of the data I’ve looked at agrees, Arctic sea ice is now on the upswing, and in a big way.

This graph from Wipneus shows the abruptness of the change.

Here it is, in all its glory:

amsr2-area-all-20160913

What’s not in the least surprising is that Anthony failed to provide a link to the source of the graph, and that our polite request for that to be corrected remains invisible took a long time to be approved over at Watts Up With That. Here it is, in all its ignominy:

selection_918

As if that isn’t enough to cope with for one day, there was even bigger shock yesterday. Tony Heller stated:

“Effective Skeptics Don’t Reject Basic Physics“

which is accompanied by a screenshot from an Independent article which reads as follows:

One of Britain’s leading climate change sceptics – former Chancellor Nigel Lawson – has admitted that humans are causing global warming.

Speaking to the House of Lords’ Economic Affairs Committee, Lord Lawson said he did not “question for a moment” that carbon dioxide was a greenhouse gas.

And he accepted there was “huge agreement” among scientists that it was having “some effect” on the atmosphere.

But the former Conservative Cabinet minister argued it would be “crazy” for the UK to try to stop burning the fossil fuels that produce carbon dioxide, claiming countries like China were simply carrying on doing so.

Lord Lawson founded the Global Warming Policy Foundation in 2009 to oppose attempts to reduce the rise in temperatures and has emerged as one of Britain’s leading sceptics.

Here’s a recording of Nigel Lawson versus Adair Turner yesterday, testifying before the Economic Affairs Committee:

It seems as if the “97% consensus” on “anthropogenic global warming” is now at least 97.1%. I cannot help but wonder when Anthony Watts will reveal the news to his faithful followers? Meanwhile most of Tony’s many merry minions are unhappy bunnies this morning. 2015 “New Einstein” award winner Gail Combs complains:

The biggest problem is with that statement he just betrayed every skeptic and agreed that we are all tinfoil hat Den1ers.

It does not matter what else he added. That ‘sound bite’ is a HUGE WIN for the other side. Add the Ship of Fools ‘win’ and they will bash us into the ground.

I am sorry Tony, but it is a complete PR disaster especially right before the US elections.

As you well know this has never been about science. Our side plays by the Marquess of Queensberry Rules, their side are dirty street fighters using Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and lie and cheat and browbeat at every turn. So their side wins EVERY D@MN TIME!

Mr. Heller comments:

I completely agree with [Nigel Lawson]. Do you consider me to be a “real skeptic” ?

Answers on a virtual postcard please, in the space provided below.

The Great Global Warming Policy Forum Con

Satire, , , , , , , , , ,

You may possibly be aware that here in the United Kingdom the charitable status of the so called “Global Warming Policy Foundation” was challenged in 2014. As the BBC reported in 2014:

Lawson’s climate-sceptic group hit by charity status row

The climate-sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation is to relaunch in September, after a complaint about its charitable status.

The Charity Commission has forced it to divide into a charitable educational arm and a separately funded political arm.

The change follows a charge that the main purpose of the foundation is political, not charitable.

The foundation said its new structure would make it even more effective.

It aimed to continue to promote debate about the costs of tackling climate change, it added.

But the complainant had argued that its information was often misleading.

The Charity Commission will issue a formal statement on the changes in the coming weeks, but a spokesman told BBC News: “Some of the the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s activities breached what is expected of an educational charity, namely that the material lacked balance and promoted a particular line of opinion. An organisation will not be charitable if its purposes are political.”

The Charity Commission investigated the Global Warming Policy Foundation following a complaint by Bob Ward, a science communicator who works with Lord Stern’s climate change team at the LSE.

He also complained that the foundation breaches charity rules by “continually disseminating inaccurate and misleading information”.

As a consequence of all that brouhaha yet another organisation with an identical acronym was set up. The Global Warming Policy Forum (or GWPF for short). Would it surprise you to learn that the new “political” GWPF is “disseminating inaccurate and misleading information” about the Arctic? If so then please read on.

In an extract from an article by Ron Clutz dated 28th September 2015 and headlined “Arctic Ice Recovering – MASIE Proves Yearly Arctic Ice Recovering” the GWPF prove nothing of the sort. Mr. Clutz claims that:

You will be hearing a lot about 2015 having the fourth lowest minimum Arctic ice extent ever recorded. Here is what they are not telling you:

GWPF-masie-annual

MASIE has very helpfully provided their records for the last ten years. Since stormy weather can affect both maximum and minimum ice extents, emphasis on March and September averages can be misleading. From a climate change perspective, a better metric is the average ice extent over the entire year. By that measure we gain a realistic perspective on the last ten years of Arctic ice fluctuation.

Actually we don’t Ron, for a number of reasons. For example Chris Reynolds summarises your “better metric” as follows:

Claims that there is no ongoing deterioration in Arctic sea ice are totally unfounded, and it is safe to ignore those making such claims as being unreliable due to their lack of grasp of the subject.

whilst “Tamino” points out that:

The data used, from MASIE, doesn’t start until 2006. Which makes it downright bizarre to use this for studying climate, for two reasons. First, we have data (passive microwave from satellites) covering quite a bit more time — starting in late 1978. Second, the MASIE people themselves tell you that their product isn’t the best for climate studies, instead you should use that passive microwave data from satellites.

If you download the data that “MASIE has very helpfully provided” and plot the self same graph so proudly displayed by the GWPF you will see something that looks a lot like this:

GWPF-masie-day-2015365

Amazingly enough this graph is taken from a more recent article by Ron Clutz, also reproduced in part on the Global Warming Policy Forum’s web site. This one is dated 2nd January 2016 and entitled “Happy Arctic Ice Year!“. Ron claims that:

Arctic ice declined in the decade prior to 2007, but has not declined since. What we have seen in the last decade is a plateau in Arctic ice extent, analogous to the plateau in surface temperatures. This year end report shows there is no reason to worry about Arctic ice melting.

For some strange reason the GWPF have thus far not corrected the extract from Ron’s earlier article on their web site, and neither has Mr. Clutz. For some other strange reason he hasn’t gotten around to publishing my comment to his article pointing him and his loyal readers to this graph which is also derived from the MASIE data, and neither have the GWPF:

MASIE-Min

It’s not as though I haven’t tried! See for example:

Selection_608

I’m not the only one to have my constructive criticism censored by Ron Clutz recently. Neven, proprietor of the Arctic Sea Ice Blog, reports over there that:

He’s deleting my comments again (and his own comments to wipe out traces of the fact, which is a cowardly act), so I’m just posting the comments here for reference.

I’ll conclude for the moment with some more words from Chris Reynolds. Someone who, unlike Ron Clutz and the other GWPF Arctic article authors (GWPFAAA for short), has a grasp of physics:

Ice state in the Peripheral Seas region is a critical metric in determining whether the Arctic Ocean’s ice pack is indeed stabilising or recovering.

Here is a plot of compactness for late summer in the Peripheral Seas from 1979 to 2015, where late summer is the seven day average centred on 31 August.

Here’s the accompanying graph:

Nullius in verba, as the GWPF don’t put it.

 

[Edit – February 18th 2016]

I have recently exchanged a few emails about this issue with Dr. Benny Peiser, who is Director of the Global Warming Policy Forum. However Benny has suddenly gone strangely silent, so here is a transcript of the “debate” thus far:

Us:

Hello Benny,

Thanks for your time in our telephone conversation just now.

In brief, here are my alter ego’s initial quibbles about the GWPForum’s recent Arctic coverage:

and

Please do not hesitate to ask if you require any additional information!

 

Them:

Dear Mr Hunt

I wonder whether you have any comments regarding the latest PIOMAS data which appear to show a pause in the Arctic sea ice melt in recent years?

With best regards

 

Us:

Hello Benny,

All in the fullness of time. First of all though, I am waiting to hear your comment(s) on the points I raised in my original email. Here’s where those “Tweets” finish up:

https://greatWhiteCon.info/2016/02/the-great-global-warming-policy-forum-con/

To reiterate, as numerous people pointed out to Mr. Clutz following his first article, MASIE is not fit for the purpose to which he (and hence the GWPF) put it.

To add insult to injury the first MASIE based graph he (and hence the GWPF) published is wildly inaccurate and misleading, and has still not been corrected.

I still eagerly await your comment(s) on this matter,

 

Them:

Dear Mr Hunt

If I understand you correctly you claim that

1. MASIE is not fit for the purpose to assess Artic sea ice extent, and

2. Arctic sea ice has actually decreased since 2007 — contrary to claims that Arctic ice has not declined in the last 8 years.

I have looked into your first claim and cannot find any information that undermines the reliability of MASIE data for Arctic sea ice analysis.

Regarding your second criticism, the latest PIOMAS data appear to confirm Mr Clutz’s main point, i.e. Arctic ice has remained fairly stable since 2007.

Yours sincerely

 

Us:

Hello again Benny,

Thank you for your swift response to my most recent email. I fear that you totally misunderstand me. Regarding your numbered points:

1) Did your due diligence include reading this section of the NSIDC web site concerning MASIE?

https://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g02186_masie/index.html

Can you see the parts where it says?

MASIE may look like several other sea ice products distributed at NSIDC and elsewhere, but its source data and intended uses are different.

Operational ice charts meet the needs of those going into the ice and provide general situational awareness, such as the extent of fast ice or of ice of any concentration greater than zero percent.

If one is interested in long-term trends in sea ice or how it responds to changing climate forcing, generally, it is best not to use an operational product, but rather one that is consistently produced and retroactively quality controlled.

Do you understand what that means? If not please do not hesitate to ask!

2) Where on Earth did you get that idea from? Here’s what I said once again:

The first MASIE based graph [Ron Clutz] (and hence the GWPF) published is wildly inaccurate and misleading, and has still not been corrected.

To see what I mean all you have to do is compare it to the second MASIE based graph [Ron Clutz] (and hence the GWPF) published.

 

Them:

Dear Mr Hunt

I’m afraid you have not addressed my points.

There is nothing wrong with the MASIE data, in particular not when it comes to short-term data sets (although I agree that it should not be used for any trend analysis).

You did not answer the key question: where is the evidence (as suggested in your graph) that Artic sea ice has declined since 2007?

Yours sincerely

 

Us:

Hello Benny,

I’m afraid that in actual fact it is you who have not addressed my points. Let me take you through them slowly once again. Once you’ve understood the first two rest assured there are more.

1 a) According to the NSIDC, MASIE is not a “short-term data set”, it is an “operational ice chart”.

1 b) In addition, please feel free to search the NSIDC web site for any graph based on the Arctic Ice Annual Average of any metric whatsoever, and let me know what you discover

2) Let’s play “Spot the difference” shall we? Please let me know what differences (if any) you can find between this graph:

GWPF-masie-annual

and this one:

GWPF-masie-day-2015365

Thanks in anticipation,

 

[Edit – February 19th 2016]

Us again:

Not having heard from Benny for a while we thought it polite to enquire after his health this morning:

Dear Benny,

I’ve received nothing back from you since your email of 15:22 on the 16th. Are you OK? If there’s anything we can do to help please do get in touch.

We have some interesting news about which we’d love to know your opinion, as soon as you feel up to it of course. First of all, the NSIDC’s global sea ice extent metric fell to the lowest level *ever yesterday:

Global-Extent-2016-02-18

Secondly, are you aware that the February 13th article on the GWPF web site by Pierre Gosselin entitled “Arctic Sea Ice Trend May Have Turned The Corner As Ice Volume Picks Up Over Past 5 Years” currently looks like this?

2016-02-19_1140-GWPF-DMI

Get well soon,

 

Them:

Dear Mr Hunt

Thank you for your latest concern about global sea ice extent

I suggest to monitor global sea ice extent in the next 12 months to see whether the usual recovery fails to materialise (see graph below).

 

Us:

Dear Dr. Peiser,

I’m delighted to discover that you are evidently in fine fetttle!

I am however afraid that your image is invisible at this end, although it appears to emanate from somewhere on the WUWT sea ice page.

First of all can you possibly resend it?

Secondly I highly recommend that you peruse the GWC sea ice resources instead of Mr. Watts’ in future.

Thirdly will you please fix the wide variety of gross inaccuracies concerning Arctic sea ice that still exist on the Global Warming Policy Forum web site, even after they have been brought to your attention on numerous occasions. For your further information please see also:

https://greatWhiteCon.info/2016/02/global-sea-ice-extent-at-lowest-ever-level/#comment-213484

Best wishes,

 

[Edit – February 23rd 2016]

Us:

Good day Benny,

I trust that you had a pleasant weekend?

I note that the GWPF webmaster has still not corrected even the most egregious of Ron Clutz’s errors republished on the GWPF web site in the following article:

http://www.thegwpf.com/arctic-ice-recovering/

I further note that you have also now republished this article authored by Paul Homewood:

http://www.thegwpf.com/maisie-confirms-arctic-sea-ice-remaining-stable-in-february/

which amongst other errors contains the following insinuation:

“MAISIE, of course, only goes back to 2006, whereas the sea ice index dates to 1979. It is, however, easy to see why NSIDC are keen to use the latter as a starting point!”

This is of course inaccurate, as I have personally pointed out to Paul on several occasions in the past. The NSIDC themselves have this to say on the matter:

“The Sea Ice Index provides a quick look at Arctic- and Antarctic-wide changes in sea ice. It is a source for consistent, up-to-date sea ice extent and concentration images, in PNG format, and data values, in ASCII text files, from November 1978 to the present.

The images and data are produced in a consistent way that makes the Index time-series appropriate for use when looking at long-term trends in sea ice cover.”

When do you suppose the GWPF webmaster will be able to get around to correcting the latest piece of Arctic misinformation to be published on your web site?

Best wishes,

 

Us again:

Good morning Benny,

I note that the GWPF webmaster has still not taken on board any of the helpful advice I have proffered over the last few weeks, and has now posted some inaccurate information about “global warming”. Will he or she never learn?

Sticking with our own speciality, please feel free to “print” Snow White’s prediction that CT global sea ice area will post yet another new record of around 14.22 million square kilometers over the next 2 to 3 days.

I followed Ron Clutz’s recent suggestion on Paul Homewood’s blog to “Take it up with Walt Meier”. I interviewed Dr. Meier yesterday and this is what he told me:

https://greatWhiteCon.info/2016/02/dmi-masie-and-the-sea-ice-index-an-interview-with-walt-meier/

Perhaps it is now time to hand your current webmaster their cards and hire a new one?

Best wishes,

 

[Edit – March 4th 2016]

Us once again:

Hello again Benny,

It seems that your new webmaster has yet to republish the latest product of the Clutz/Homewood porky pie production line! Please pass on our congratulations on their perspicacity. However the latest article on The GWPF web site by David Whitehouse has this to say:

“Is the global warming pause over for good — or will it continue once the current El Nino dies down?”

Does Dr. Whitehouse not realise that there was no “pause”?

There is no "pause"!

For your, and Dr. Whitehouse’s, information here is the latest report from the NSIDC on Arctic sea ice extent:

NSIDC February 2016 monthly Arctic sea ice extent

With a new webmaster in charge at The GWPF can we now anticipate an accurate Arctic article appearing on your web site? Please do not hesitate to ask if you would like to republish one of mine.

Best wishes,

 

[Edit – April 4th 2016]

Us once again:

Hello again Benny,

I hope this finds you well? I have been doing as you suggested! Consequently I could not help but notice that you have not been doing what I suggested, and have instead recently republished a large extract from yet another article by Paul Homewood on the topic of Arctic sea ice:

http://www.thegwpf.com/more-of-the-usual-hype-about-arctic-ice/

Needless to say this one is also downright misleading. For your information, here are the actual facts:

Claim – Arctic Sea Ice Holds Firm?

and

More Of The Usual Hype About Arctic Sea Ice

It looks like you’ll have to let another webmaster go, does it not? Don’t forget to tell the new one that my offer of an authoritative Arctic article still stands.

Best wishes,

 

Them:

We’ll keep you posted!