Slashdot Mirror

You are wrong. I am not a climate scientist. Almost all the people here are not climate scientists. However, if 97% of climate scientists [nasa.gov] around the world agree on something, it tends to sway me into their favor.

That again? 72 people. Do you know exactly what it is those 75 people actually agree on?

Here's a fairly good back and forth on the falsifiability angle: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=521245

Even funnier is the IPCC explicitly avoiding claims of falsifiability of the models:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ScientificEvidence.pdf

"The IPCC appreciated the necessity for attempting to falsify results by a process of validation from the beginning. Their first Report (1990)7 has a Chapter 4 “Validation of Climate Models”

A similar Chapter appeared in the First Draft of the next (1995) Report and, as an “Expert Reviewer” at the time, I submitted the comment that since no Climate Model has ever been validated the term was inappropriate. Somewhat to my surprise, they agreed with me. In the Second Draft, not only had the title of the Chapter been changed, to “Evaluation of Climate Models” but the words “validation” and “validated” had been altered to “evaluation” and “evaluated” no less than fifty times in the text. In addition, all references to “forecasting” and “prediction” had been removed and all model results are now “projections” whose value depends on the extent to which their assumptions can be believed. .

These practices are now standard throughout all the IPCC Reports, .In other words, the IPCC admits that Climate Science cannot meet the requirements usually regarded as essential for the scientific method. ."

It seems that the 'talking point' of the eco-marxists today "unprecedented" levels of CO2...was actually disproven in 2008:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/08_Beck-2.pdf (from 2008)

"The record clearly demonstrates that [CO2 levels were] significantly higher than usually reported for the Last [Glacial] Termination, with levels of up to ~425 ppm about 12,750 years ago, which exceeds the present CO2 concentration of 395 ppm."

This explains thoroughly that
a) it's fundamentally a fallacy to compare Vostok data with Mauna Loa CO2 results (from 3000+ m altitude), and
b) that CO2 values frequently exceeded 400 in both this and the last centuries (as high as 480 depending on how you look at it).

Holy shit!

You found a whole paper that disproves everyone else's research!

Well, that just proves poluto-capitalism superiority!

It seems that the 'talking point' of the eco-marxists today "unprecedented" levels of CO2...was actually disproven in 2008:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/08_Beck-2.pdf (from 2008)

"The record clearly demonstrates that [CO2 levels were] significantly higher than usually reported for the Last [Glacial] Termination, with levels of up to ~425 ppm about 12,750 years ago, which exceeds the present CO2 concentration of 395 ppm."

This explains thoroughly that
a) it's fundamentally a fallacy to compare Vostok data with Mauna Loa CO2 results (from 3000+ m altitude), and
b) that CO2 values frequently exceeded 400 in both this and the last centuries (as high as 480 depending on how you look at it).

As long as the article's a dupe, I'll dupe my reply:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/08_Beck-2.pdf (from 2008)
"The record clearly demonstrates that [CO2 levels were] significantly higher than usually reported for the Last [Glacial] Termination, with levels of up to ~425 ppm about 12,750 years ago, which exceeds the present CO2 concentration of 395 ppm."

This explains thoroughly that
a) it's fundamentally a fallacy to compare Vostok data with Mauna Loa CO2 results (from 3000+ m altitude), and
b) that CO2 values frequently exceeded 400 in both this and the last centuries (as high as 480 depending on how you look at it).

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/08_Beck-2.pdf (from 2008)
"The record clearly demonstrates that [CO2 levels were] significantly higher than usually reported for the Last [Glacial] Termination, with levels of up to ~425 ppm about 12,750 years ago, which exceeds the present CO2 concentration of 395 ppm."

This explains thoroughly that
a) it's fundamentally a fallacy to compare Vostok data with Mauna Loa CO2 results (from 3000+ m altitude), and
b) that CO2 values frequently exceeded 400 in both this and the last centuries (as high as 480 depending on how you look at it).

If the forcing from the albedo were enough to be a tipping point, that is, if receding ice changed the temperature enough to keep the ice from coming back, then the ice would be gone already. So we can know it is highly unlikely that the albedo will cause some irreversible tipping point.

Also, worrying about the changes in the low arctic extent is a bit curious considering the change from winter to summer is an order of magnitude larger.

Couple of things they fail to mention:

1) A lot of that ice grew in the 1940s.
http://news.ku.dk/all_news/2012/2012.5/glaciers_greenland_photos/
"At the time many glaciers underwent a melt similar or even higher than what we have seen in the last ten years. When it became colder again in the 1950s and 1960s, glaciers actually started growing," says Dr. Kurt H. Kjær"

"Kurt H. Kjær has previously worked with his colleague Svend Funder from Center for GeoGenetics on investigating sea ice extent in the Arctic Ocean. Results showed that the sea ice extent has been far from stable throughout the last 10,000 years."

2) This is what NASA has to say about the "unprecedented melt":
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html

"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data."

3) "Arctic Ice Threatens Northern Hemisphere
Posted on April 19, 2009 (note the date)
While the eastern Antarctic ice pack continues inexorable year over year growth, Arctic ice is greater than it’s been in the last 8 years, and showing massive expansion again this year."
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/AMSR-E.jpg

4) "Antarctic sea ice grows to record extent while Arctic continues to shrink"
http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/science/contenthandler.cfm?id=2750

5) http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/.images/HolocenePeriods.png
The world is warming, or cooling, depending on the time scale you look at. See for yourself.

6) The real problems are pollution in a general sense and deforestation. Given mans contribution to carbon is at best 3% and that we've removed so fucking many trees (look for yourself, fly over the Island of Borneo in google maps would be a good start, its gone, it's all gone)... what did you expect was gong to happen. "By Marlowe Hood (AFP) – Jul 14, 2011
PARIS — Forests play a larger role in Earth's climate system than previously suspected for both the risks from deforestation and the potential gains from regrowth, a benchmark study released Thursday has shown." http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j2BAdNIG5Q2FJlEdac1l-KXiTSCA?docId=CNG.dfe97e07f144a2d29eb615412e0c12be.a81

That's right, in 2011 the geniuses that know all about CO2 got the revelation that trees eat the stuff. Next time somebody calls them "experts" rememnber that.

Possibly this was in response to NASA and the NOAA bitch-slapping the IPCC by pointing out in 2012 they'd sort of ignored this fact in their "models":
"8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/

Which doubt caused Gaia-dude to recant, showing he has at least a modicum of intellectual integrity:

""James Lovelock, the scientist that came up with the 'Gaia Theory' and a prominent herald of climate change, once predicted utter disaster for the planet from climate change, writing 'before this century is over billions of us will die

There's no specious use of percentages.

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_window
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png

Compare the absorption profile of H20 vs CO2. Water is several times more. And a good bit of CO2s absorption profile is NOT in the infrared. Then recall that water vapor is 10x more common than CO2, then recall that CO2 is not concentrated at the surface, where we are concerned about the warming. CO2 does warm the upper atmosphere a few fractions of a degree, but not anywhere that matters for glaciers, sea level rise or malaria.

If you don't believe me, then look at the at the IPCC models vs the NASA AIRS satallite data: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evans-CO2DoesNotCauseGW.pdf

If you dig a bit, you will find plenty of papers showing that climate change in the past century correlates more closely to astronomical phenomena (sunspots, cosmic radiance, tidal forces) than it does to CO2 levels? If temperature increases correlate so strongly to CO2 levels then why was the increase so much slower from 1940 to 1970, than it was from 1970 to 2000, and why has it been so much slower in the last decade than predicted by every single model promulgated by the IPCC AR4?

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/US_Temperatures_and_Climate_Factors_since_1895.pdf

http://www.duke.edu/~renato/RamosdaSilvaandAvissarGRL2005.pdf

Or this, from NASA itself, which shows the decrease in sunspot activity which correlates to the current decrease in temperatures in the past decade or so.

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

Yes, CO2 can and does affect the climate, but so do many other things, especially some things that aren't well understood yet. And that's not even considering whether we humans are significantly contributing to the problem or more importantly, whether we can do anything about it.

Now, correlation does not imply causation, but the current models always seem to fail to predict what's actually happening, or "retro-predict" was has already occurred.

Feedbacks are a consequence of the forcing. Both should be counted. Also, keep in mind that 2C is the difference between a glacial and interglacial period - not insignificant. Human influence is both positive (greenhouse gasses) and negative (aerosols). Damn I hope you read through this post - it took way too long to compile :)

Granted, they are not a coherent movement so I can't say that all skeptics have predicted global cooling. The leaders of the movement who are willing to predict anything at all have predicted or promoted global cooling. They are right of course. If CO2 is not a major driver then global cooling has indeed been imminent for the last couple decades. Here is the solar output since 1985: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:138/from:1985

Here are examples from leaders of the skeptic movement predicting or promoting global cooling:

Joseph D'Aleo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_D'Aleo

John McLean: http://www.skepticalscience.com/mclean-exaggerating-natural-cycles.html

Christopher Monckton: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/monckton-global_warming_has_stopped.pdf

Anthony Watts: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22global+cooling%22+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwattsupwiththat.com

Piers Corbyn: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/global-warming-skeptic-predicts-brutal-winter-warns-you-aint-seen-nothing-yet/

James Dellingpole: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100055500/global-cooling-and-the-new-world-order/

Don Easterbrook: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/29/don-easterbrooks-agu-paper-on-potential-global-cooling/

Henrik Svensmark http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/svensmark-global-warming-stopped-and-a-cooling-is-beginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts/

David Rose: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

Alan Caruba, "An Icy End for Mankind?" Science and Environmental Policy Project, November 26, 2005; and Robert W. Felix, "Not by Fire, But by Ice: The Next Ice Age Now," Bellevue, WA: Sugarhouse Publishing.

Lawrence Solomon: http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/05/03/lawrence-solomon-arctic-ice-sets-records-in-april-could-auger-global-cooling.aspx

The only notable people missing are McIntyre, McKitrick, Spencer, and Lindzen. None of these people are willing or able to make predictions.

My prediction? We've just had the hottest La Nina on record - hotter even than all but one of the El Nino's of the previous century. La Nina's are cooler part of the ENSO. ENSO neutral 2010 was tied for hottest year on record. Even a small El Nino (warm part of ENSO) will push us into the hottest year on record. So the hottest year on record will come with the next El Nino. Probably within 2 years?

There are a couple of satellites which travel regular orbits enabling perfect pictures of Greenland and its glaciers.

They are the Terra satellite and the Aqua satellite.

Terra has been in orbit since 1999 and Aqua since 2002. They have taken some excellent, high-resolution images of Greenland and her ice sheets.

They are both in a perfect situation to take comparative images of the extent of glaciers and ice pack over the approximately 10 year period of their service. It would be quite easy to see just how much ice is and is not there in that given time frame. However, there is a problem. I can't find any images which show these comparisons. Why? It ought to be an obvious course of research. "How much ice is there today verses ten years ago?"

But that question isn't answered with direct photographic evidence.

Instead, we are offered fudge FUDD articles like this one, (widely quoted), based on squishy, confusing math.

Why can't we see some simple photos? I am told over and over that the glaciers are retreating. The ice packs are melting. Polar bears are drowning because the ice is vanishing so quickly. (One wonders why the bears did not just walk away from the water's edge. Greenland didn't sink. So maybe something else was going on. Like creative hysterical journalism perhaps?) But okay, the claims are that the ice is vanishing. Fair enough. I'm open to that. I've been open to that for the whole enthusiastic several-year ride I took on the Al Gore bandwagon. But enough is enough. Show me the pictures. We have the satellites in place, they take excellent images on a regular basis. So show them to me. We could all benefit from this very simple demonstration.

But we don't have those photos. (We do have some curious items like which seem to stand in stark contrast to the AGW narrative.)

But really, I'd like to see those satellite images from then and now. Why has nobody provided them?

Here's one theory:

Global Warming is a giant scam. A one-world-government tax scheme and distraction from what is REALLY going on.

Yes, before you argue, climate change is certainly happening. There is no question about that. But the problem is a LOT more complicated than just CO2 emissions. Consider. . .

1. It's happening not just on earth. (Notice the brand new giant spot on Jupiter? What convenient timing.)

2. Animals are freezing to death in places where this doesn't normally happen. Vietnamese cows. Fish in many parts of the world are dying because they find the water too cold. Even people in India are being hit with weird cold snaps. It is suggested that we are entering another ice-age.

3. Magnetic north is rapidly sliding out of the norm. The airport in Tampa FL just repainted its runway markers to catch up with the change.

4. Greenland experienced its first sunrise after the longest night two days too early. [..]on january 13th (13 minutes before 13:00) of each year, the people of Ilulissat go to welcome back the sun after months of darkness." It's clocked to the exact same minute every year. This year it was off by two days. That's odd. --And of course, the AGW people have quickly leaped to blame the melting ice sheets, saying that with the ice sheets melted down, the sun would of course be seen earlier. But there is a problem with that theory. The Sun's appearance isn't measured over something as changeable as ice. It is measured over rock and ocean. So what might be the real reason? Well, here's an idea which doesn't requ

No, just showing that there is other stuff out there. And while on the topic, have you actually read the book? I have. It was written by someone who saw firsthand how what scientists told the IPCC was "translated" beyond its original meaning. Because he WAS THERE. Also, there is this: Even Flawed Data Can’t Hide the Cooling: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/experts And by the way...debunked by whom? As I said, I am not saying what is correct or incorrect, nor am I going to engage in name calling. If you can't discuss it rationally, maybe you shouldn't discuss at all.

[Michael Mann's] original hockey stick graph [...] has been substantially borne out by any number subsequent studies using different data sets.

No it hasn't. At least, not if by "different data sets" you mean data sets that don't intersect with his. The long-term hockey-stickness of the result comes from just a few of the same cherry-picked proxy sets reused over and over again in slightly different combinations.

Suppose Mann does a study using ten data sources including one that goes back a long time and has a hockey-stick signal - say, the Graybill bristlecone series - and nine others that just contribute noise to the mix. If some other researcher does a study that *also* includes Graybill's strip-bark bristlecone pines (a type of data that the National Academy of Sciences said "should be avoided") but swaps out one or more of the nine "random noise" series, it'll probably still have a similar shape. That doesn't mean Mann's conclusion was correct. It might just show GIGO. The output is related to the input.

One problem here is that we don't have a lot of really long data sets. The few we do have have been snooped and massaged a hundred ways - researchers *already know* what shape they have in the inputs before they do the analysis. Reusing data sets invalidates a lot of the standard verification statistics.

Another problem is that the people doing these studies don't seem to be specifying clear and objective input criteria. The researchers just pick a bunch of series they happen to have convenient access to. So there's no way to exclude the possibility that unconscious biases encouraged selection of input sets that specifically got the results they wanted. The fact that by coincidence they keep reusing the *same* sets over and over even when others are available does tend to argue in that direction.

Another problem is that different people are using different definitions of "hockey stick" and what it means for one result to be "like" another. RealClimate likes emphasizing the "blade" part, so for them it seems like even borehole studies that only go back to 1600 are said to"confirm" a HS, even though all that shows is it's warmer now than it was in the Little Ice Age - which no skeptic ever doubted. For the skeptics the main issue is with the "shaft" part - how large was the variance over the last two thousand years? Long-term proxy studies that get their main shape from tree rings tend to be flat in the past because tree rings aren't good long-term temperature proxies, tend to have a sudden upswing in the modern era because some sort of "calibration" step or arbitrary ad-hoc selection data-snooped the choice of a particular set of trees that happen to have a recent growth pulse, and don't drop again at the end because the last bit of data ("regression towards the mean" in a set that suddenly jumped due to a random growth pulse) is arbitrarily discarded and replaced with the instrumental record ("Mann's trick" to "hide the decline"). Long-term (thousand-year or longer) proxy studies that don't get their primary shape from tree rings tend to show a larger variance in the past, a warmer MWP (roughly as warm in 1000-1100 as in recent decades), and a colder Little Ice Age than Mann found.

One example of a study that doesn't rely on tree rings for its fundamental shape is Moberg: Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data Nature, Vol. 433, No. 7026, pp. 613 - 617, 10 February 2005. Quote: "According to our reconstruction, high temperatures - similar to those observed in the twentieth century before 1990- occurred around AD 1000 to 1100, and minimum temperatures that are about 0.7K below the average of 1961-90 occurred around AD 1600. This large natural variability in the past suggests an important role of natural multicentennial variability that is likely to continue. He

I think the problem and question is which data is freely available? Here's a link http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/are_we_feeling_warmer_yet/ that shows differences in the raw data versus the adjusted data. I understand the argument of needing to adjust for different issues, but people rarely know if they are being given adjusted or unadjusted readings. Some of the stonewalling of information that these scientists didn't want to reveal was the original temperatures and the process through which they created the adjusted readings. I'd call that mighty significant information to provide.

Your post is typical of a significant minority of slashdotters who are being mislead by a looby group that make the MAFIAA look like amatures, the urban ledgends you are repeating in your post were created by the heartland institute who are associated with the CEI and other anti-science front groups via the Cooler heads coalition.

Their associated web sites are too numerous to list but two of them that are quoted with depressing regularity on slashdot are icecap (owned and operated by HI) and WUWT, (Watts is a regular attraction at the HI's "climate confrences").

You don't have to read very far into icecap.us to realize these guys are a fraud. The http://icecap.us/index.php/go/faqs-and-myths is filled with strawman arguments like these:

# CO2 is a pollutant.

(Who claimed it was a pollutant?)

# CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas.

(Who claimed it was?)

# The greenhouse effect is a bad thing.

The greenhouse effect is necessary for life on earth as we know it, were it not for the greenhouse effect, temperatures on Earth would be about 60 degrees F (33C) colder than they are at present. The global warming discussions center on the claims that human enhancement of the greenhouse will raise temperatures, and that these will be large compared with natural variations. (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ and Sherwood B. Idso, Craig D. Idso and Keith E. Idso, "The Specter of Species Extinction: Will Global Warming Decimate Earth's Biosphere?,
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/150.pdf)

# Modeling the earth's climate is nearly an exact science.

(Who claimed it was?)

# Summers will be extremely hot and dry.

(Who claimed it was? Some people prefer to call this effect 'climate change', because the effect on the climate is unknown).

Interesting that the research he quotes to make his point is funded by those groups who stand to lose the most if global warming legislation is passed.

Let's look at who some of the people who fund icecap.us are:

Robert C. Balling Jr - Balling has acknowledged receiving $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade (of which his University takes 50% for overhead). Contributors include ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and OPEC.

Sallie Baliunas - Between December 1998 and September 2001 she was listed as a "Scientific Adviser" to the Greening Earth Society, a group that was funded and controlled by the Western Fuels Association (WFA), an association of coal-burning utility companies. WFA founded the group in 1997, according to an archived version of it website, "as a vehicle for advocacy on climate change, the environmental impact of CO2, and fossil fuel use."

Robert M. Carter - Sits on the advisory board of the Institute of Public Affairs which is funded by the mining and tobacco industry along with Monsanto. 'I don't think it is the point whether or not you are paid by the coal or petroleum industry,' said Professor Carter.

The EPA is doing its duty by choosing to ignore junk science funded by the coal and oil lobbies.

Secondly, he also states that global temperatures have fallen for the last 11 years. I really would like to see his work. This article (http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/83), reported in the September 26 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows global temperatures rising for the last 30 years.

Hmm... is it possible for temperatures to decline in the last 11 years but rise in the past 30. Uh. Yes. The trend since 1998 is decidedly down. What does that mean? Well that's a more complex question, but your broad brush covers it up.

I suggest reading the following to get a taste of the counter-argument to the EPA's finding:

• John Christy
• Roy Spencer
• Steve McIntyre
• Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.

These all address concerns about the lack of underlying science--not the political/economics issues.

Secondly, he also states that global temperatures have fallen for the last 11 years. I really would like to see his work. This article (http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/83), reported in the September 26 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows global temperatures rising for the last 30 years.

Hmm... is it possible for temperatures to decline in the last 11 years but rise in the past 30. Uh. Yes. The trend since 1998 is decidedly down. What does that mean? Well that's a more complex question, but your broad brush covers it up.

I suggest reading the following to get a taste of the counter-argument to the EPA's finding:

• John Christy
• Roy Spencer
• Steve McIntyre
• Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.

These all address concerns about the lack of underlying science--not the political/economics issues.

I am not an American but it sure would help if certain American's and their pet lobbyists stopped using psuedo-science and lies to convince small-minded gullible fools that Al Gore has the power and/or charisma to corrupt the members of every major scientific instutution on Earth. I have even had such fools here on slashdot tell me I can't point to the journals Nature or Science when talking about AGW because apparently they too are part of Al Gore's global conspiracy.

Here are some examples of the lies and lobbying I am talking about, Senator Inhofe who's list of desenting scientists, has as much cedibility as the dicovery institute list of scientists that supposedly reject evolution but that has not stopped a large number of slashdotter's from waving it around like a magic wand that somehow makes facts dissapear. Then there is the "Heartland institute" run by one Fred Singer who was also prominent in the tabacco industry's anti-science propoganda. Another site that has raised it's ugly head and that can also be related to the anti-science lobby of the tabacco companies is called IceCap, this site specializes in conflating various regions of ice all over the planet and is incapable of ditingushing the North pole from the south pole. It is run by a guy who is on the payroll at the "Science and Public Policy Institute", who are in turn funded by the "Frontiers of Freedom" which is the lobbting brain fart of yet another (ex) US senator. Wallop and Singer are mates from the tabacco industries anti-science cmapaign, the major contributors to the Frontiers of Freedom include Philip Morris and ExxonMobil.

Yep, these anti-science and anti-environment politicians/CEO's have nothing but good intentions, they publish their propoganda to protect you from "environmental whack jobs" and the scientific community who make ludicrous claims such as smoking causes cancer or that a healthy economy and a healthy environment are not mutually exclusive. They have somehow convinced a large chunk of the US that it's not them who are running scams and lying it's the scientific community under the direction of Al Gore who are the liars and scammers.

"Get real."

How about you get real, pull your head out of the sand and drop the alarmist hyperbole, nobody is putting greenpeace in charge of anything but there is a problem and the anti-enviroment/anti-science rhetoric/popoganda coming from the US over the last decade is what has perverted any attempt at a real solution.

"(Yeah, I know. This will almost certainly get modded down to oblivion by KOSdot mods, probably modded "-1 Troll" but screw it. I've got the karma to burn.)"

I have no idea who KOSdot are and I'm not a fan of greenpeace but I agree that your misguided alarmisim should be moderated into oblivion.

"No-one gives a shit about warning signs dude."

Perhaps that's because organised astroturfers have conviced many people science doesn't apply to AGW.

The fact that the first hit on a google search for 'icecap "global warming"' is the icecap.us site would indicate your pessimisim is warranted. I actually had someone reply to me the other day who said something like "you don't get to quote Nature and Science as evidence for AGW because they are not statisticians".....sigh.

>...and provides further evidence or rapid change in the region. Not everyone agrees. For another spin on this event take a look at http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Wilkins_Ice_Shelf_con.pdf which suggests that the evidence for rapid climate change in this area is missing and suggests that, at best, hyperbole is involved.

While this question was not posed to me, I think I'll take a stab at it anyway.

I would say, "pretty damn good." Take THIS graph for example. It shows MORE ice in the southern hemisphere.

Which is the exact opposite of what THIS article states. So, the data doesn't back up the predictions. Strange. Maybe the predictions were wrong?

Then, there is THIS graph reporting the average temperatures in Antarctica. Hmmmm. It's going down? So, who is correct here; the predictions or the data? Are you one of these people who changes the data when it doesn't meet your expected results?

This is what I posted earlier. There are three links. If you can find data that refutes it, let's hear it. Don't sit there and bash the source because you don't like the data.

Put up or Shut up!

While this question was not posed to me, I think I'll take a stab at it anyway.

I would say, "pretty damn good." Take THIS graph for example. It shows MORE ice in the southern hemisphere.

Which is the exact opposite of what THIS article states. So, the data doesn't back up the predictions. Strange. Maybe the predictions were wrong?

Then, there is THIS graph reporting the average temperatures in Antarctica. Hmmmm. It's going down? So, who is correct here; the predictions or the data? Are you one of these people who changes the data when it doesn't meet your expected results?

This is what I posted earlier. There are three links. If you can find data that refutes it, let's hear it. Don't sit there and bash the source because you don't like the data.

Put up or Shut up!

And since you obviously think you are good at stats why haven't you answered my question? - Under your stated assumptions, what's the probability that Antarctica and/or Greenland is NOT losing ice?

While this question was not posed to me, I think I'll take a stab at it anyway.

I would say, "pretty damn good." Take THIS graph for example. It shows MORE ice in the southern hemisphere.

Which is the exact opposite of what THIS article states. So, the data doesn't back up the predictions. Strange. Maybe the predictions were wrong?

Then, there is THIS graph reporting the average temperatures in Antarctica. Hmmmm. It's going down? So, who is correct here; the predictions or the data? Are you one of these people who changes the data when it doesn't meet your expected results?

Gee, why am I not surprised that people who can't tell the difference between "global" and "local" also can't tell the difference between "arctic" and "antarctic" or, in fact "their ass" and "a hole in the ground".

And since you obviously think you are good at stats why haven't you answered my question? - Under your stated assumptions, what's the probability that Antarctica and/or Greenland is NOT losing ice?

While this question was not posed to me, I think I'll take a stab at it anyway.

I would say, "pretty damn good." Take THIS graph for example. It shows MORE ice in the southern hemisphere.

Which is the exact opposite of what THIS article states. So, the data doesn't back up the predictions. Strange. Maybe the predictions were wrong?

Then, there is THIS graph reporting the average temperatures in Antarctica. Hmmmm. It's going down? So, who is correct here; the predictions or the data? Are you one of these people who changes the data when it doesn't meet your expected results?

Gee, why am I not surprised that people who can't tell the difference between "global" and "local" also can't tell the difference between "arctic" and "antarctic" or, in fact "their ass" and "a hole in the ground".

And since you obviously think you are good at stats why haven't you answered my question? - Under your stated assumptions, what's the probability that Antarctica and/or Greenland is NOT losing ice?

While this question was not posed to me, I think I'll take a stab at it anyway.

I would say, "pretty damn good." Take THIS graph for example. It shows MORE ice in the southern hemisphere.

Which is the exact opposite of what THIS article states. So, the data doesn't back up the predictions. Strange. Maybe the predictions were wrong?

Then, there is THIS graph reporting the average temperatures in Antarctica. Hmmmm. It's going down? So, who is correct here; the predictions or the data? Are you one of these people who changes the data when it doesn't meet your expected results?

And since you obviously think you are good at stats why haven't you answered my question? - Under your stated assumptions, what's the probability that Antarctica and/or Greenland is NOT losing ice?

While this question was not posed to me, I think I'll take a stab at it anyway.

I would say, "pretty damn good." Take THIS graph for example. It shows MORE ice in the southern hemisphere.

Which is the exact opposite of what THIS article states. So, the data doesn't back up the predictions. Strange. Maybe the predictions were wrong?

Then, there is THIS graph reporting the average temperatures in Antarctica. Hmmmm. It's going down? So, who is correct here; the predictions or the data? Are you one of these people who changes the data when it doesn't meet your expected results?

1. [strike]Global warming[/strike] Climate change is not a fact. It's a theory. A bad one at that since it does not predict the current climate much less the near and far future and is not consistent with the data.

2. Climate change is now the fad since earth is not warming globally anymore. In fact, the ocean has been cooling since 2003 and the ice in the Arctic sea is now back at the same level as in 1979 and Alaskan Sea Glaciers are advancing for the first time in 250 years. Hey, those AGW fanatics are now shifting the goal post and make those facts proof of a climate change.

3. Bushes and forests have been burning since the dawn of time. The Australian fire was more fierce due to the idiots who "protected the environment" by banning clearing of vegetation.

Sydney Mornding Herald:
Last week angry fire survivors in Victoria pointed the finger at local authorities who prevented clearing of vegetation. At a public meeting in Arthurs Creek, Warwick Spooner, who lost his mother and brother in the Strathewen fire, stood up criticise the Nillumbik council.

"We've lost two people in my family because you dickheads won't cut trees down." Then of course, there is Liam Sheahan, the Reedy Creek home owner whose house is the only one in a two-kilometre area which survived the fires. In 2004 he was fined $50,000 for removing 247 trees around his hilltop house to protect it from fire. His two-year court battle against the Mitchell Shire Council cost him $50,000 in legal fees.

The Earth is getting warmer and our ice is melting, and that's not in dispute. If the warming trend continues, all of the ice will melt eventually, this is dictated by physics.

Wrong about the physics: Whether all the ice melts is not dictated by the derivative of temperature. Wrong about the facts: polar ice-extent is neutral despite the warming. Southern Extent is increasing.

Your implication of overwhelming political bias in climate science is simply contrary to the facts. The fact that these researchers seem to have been biased is not relevant to the science as a whole.

GP did not mention political bias. He said "bias". This "bias" has been well documented by MIT Climate Scientist Richard Lindzen and Roger Pielke, Jr. of the University of Colorado.

The "think tanks" who criticize climate science don't do any actual science. They cherry pick data from scientific papers, and attempt to refute CO2 vs warming trends with typical logical fallacies, but they do no research, make no predictions, and advance no falsifiable claims.

Huh? Lindzen and his students have put forward the IR-Iris theory that suggests negative-feedbacks dominate. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama wrote a paper explaining the systemic error in the climate models used to predict the IPCC's 2C/century.

There are many more.

And if someone could find compelling evidence that indicated global warming wasn't happening,

Well, yeah, that would be called "the facts".

Indeed, over the past decade, those same facts would support the hypothesis that increased CO2 cools the planet.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/2002-2008TempsvsCO2.jpg

Now, granted, 6 years is a good bit shorter, 15 years to be exact, than the 1977-1998 warming that's got everyone so excited.

So my question to you would be, exactly how many years of declining temperatures vs. rising CO2 does that graph of the last six years have to extend to before you'll admit your modelling assumptions are fundamentally flawed; the 1977-1998 warming was due to non-anthropogenic forces, and CO2 emissions have no measurable impact on climate? 10 years? 15 years? What?

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/sunspots_may_vanish_by_2015/

We're already looking at significant global cooling for several decades down the road, let's hope it's not going to be a new Maunder Minimum type event...

Hmm, SSPI, who are they? Ah, they used to be the Center for Science and Public Policy at Frontiers of Freedom. To quote Sourcewatch quoting the NYT: "Frontiers of Freedom, which has about a $700,000 annual budget, received $230,000 from Exxon in 2002, up from $40,000 in 2001, according to Exxon documentsâ. They also get tobacco money for their little public policy "research". Amazing how not-hard it was to find that.

But why stop there? Who is this McLean guy that wrote it? Let's consult his own description of himself: "John McLean has an amateur interest in global warming following 25 years in what he describes as the analysis and logic of IT." Apparently he has a Bachelor of Architecture.

So your no-consensus argument comes down to a piece written by a guy who isn't a climate scientist for an oil-industry funded think tank. Convincing. There's some criticism of the actual paper here, and more linked to from there.

Apart from accusing every climate scientist of some mass conspiracy, do you have an actual argument to make, or some actual climate scientists to quote?

Isn't global warming just a scam? :)

The headlines are ripe with discussions of the northern cap shrinking. Apparently it is less interesting that the southern cap has reached record size and the average temperature has come down.

Terrestrial heat is simply being redistributed from the north pole to the south pole. Of course, that fact won't bolster the case for socialist-style central planning schemes, so count on the IPCC and the media to avoid it. http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/a_new_record_for_antartic_total_ice_extent

Apparently, the south polar ice cap is the largest it's ever been since 1979, don't hear much about that. http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/a_new_record_for_antartic_total_ice_extent