Slashdot Mirror

No, the land is pretty much permanently covered by ice, and since the land area is fixed, any changes in ice area must be from the sea ice only.

Also note that your graph is called "ant-sea-ice_fig.JPG", and that it appears on this page http://www.worldclimatereport.... titled "Another IPCC Error: Antarctic Sea Ice Increase Underestimated by 50%" So, clearly they're talking about the sea ice changes.

The ice loss that this article is talking about is a reduced thickness of the land ice. That's not something you can see on a 2D picture from a satellite.

Oh Italics

MY GOD MAN playing with fonts doesn't make your point.
Of course it did mine but I doubt you understand it.

http://www.worldclimatereport....

And there is total ice.

Please proceed to fold this into your psychosis about the world ending. BTW did you actually bother to read the earlier links or just dismiss them as being threatening to your reality ?

[quote]Who exactly has reading comprehension problems? The sentence says this year is the warmest on record for the US.[/quote] ...and it's factually wrong; the heat waves of the 1930s were far worse than what we're seeing now, according to data provided by the EPA. Research shows that the temperatures from around AD 400 - AD 1100 were warmer than they are now.

IPCC's Prediction That CO2 Will Cause High Temperatures Found Wildly Wrong, Scientists Confirm 'New peer-reviewed research has found that the IPCC's climate models are wrong, and the prediction of 'accelerating; global warming due high climate sensitivity is wrong' http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/11/08/a-new-lower-estimate-of-climate-sensitivity/

How does it feel to be the one "being deliberately confused"? they are feeding you lies dumbass and real science keeps exposing them!



want more? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/10/new-study-shows-temperature-in-greenland-significantly-warmer-than-present-several-times-in-the-last-4000-years/

In regards to warming trend over the past 15 years, and how well models predicted it:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/09/08/more-evidence-that-models-continue-to-show-too-much-recent-warming/

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/09/06/new-paper-models-continue-to-show-too-much-recent-warming/

http://blog.sethroberts.net/2011/03/04/climate-model-predictions-and-what-happened/

http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/

We can determine the sum of the natural forcings without knowing each individual one. If you have 85 cents, you don't need to know how many dimes you have to know if you can buy a candy bar.

You're missing the analogy. In order to find out how many pennies you have (man made forcings) and non-pennies you have (nickels, dimes and quarters) to make up your 85 cents, it doesn't *matter* what a candy bar costs - you need to be able to differentiate between the pennies and non-pennies.

You've made the assertion that you know, with absolute certainty, the ratio of non-natural forcing to natural forcings. Now play the science game and specify what observations would falsify your hypothesis.

In regards to warming trend over the past 15 years, and how well models predicted it:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/09/08/more-evidence-that-models-continue-to-show-too-much-recent-warming/

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/09/06/new-paper-models-continue-to-show-too-much-recent-warming/

http://blog.sethroberts.net/2011/03/04/climate-model-predictions-and-what-happened/

http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/

We can determine the sum of the natural forcings without knowing each individual one. If you have 85 cents, you don't need to know how many dimes you have to know if you can buy a candy bar.

You're missing the analogy. In order to find out how many pennies you have (man made forcings) and non-pennies you have (nickels, dimes and quarters) to make up your 85 cents, it doesn't *matter* what a candy bar costs - you need to be able to differentiate between the pennies and non-pennies.

You've made the assertion that you know, with absolute certainty, the ratio of non-natural forcing to natural forcings. Now play the science game and specify what observations would falsify your hypothesis.

Fair enough - we've got near 15 years so far, so we can possibly falsify this in what, 9 more years?

We've already demolished your "theory" that temperatures have been falling. We demolish it 3 times a week. Temperatures are only falling if you pick outlier years as your starting and ending points or just plain ignore the data. Temperatures have been climbing steadily. Humans are responsible for significantly more than half of that.

Sorry, I can't let that one slide - asserting that the null hypothesis should be that warming is unequivocally bad for the biosphere and humanity is unjustified. At the very least, we can assert that a warmer world leads to more arable land and more plant life, and more support for all life - and we can look at the Medieval Warm Period and the Holocene optimum as evidence of that.

Didn't we just go through this one as well? This is more proof that you're not interested in reality, you're just trying to convince people who don't know the science that you could be right. First, you're assuming that because the word "optimum" is there, that somehow conditions world wide would be better that it is now. And to some extent you are right, but not because of temperature, because of stability. The climate was stable during the Holocene Optimum, and somewhat cooler than it is now. There was also an increase in humidity that restricted the growth of desert regions. There is no reason to believe the erratic climate we're creating will result in any wide spread benefits both because there won't be stability. There also won't be uniform increases or decreases in temperature across the globe. The medieval warm period isn't even worth mentioning because it was a regional effect, not a global one, so overall heat and moisture flows were probably not significantly different from the usual patterns.

Strict scrutiny applies here. Put another way, just take the past 50 years, where we've observed a warming trend of about .13C per decade...so a little over .5C for the past 50 years. Asserting humans are responsible for half of that, we've got what, about 0.32C in the past 50 years?

You haven't been paying attention. The natural forcings have been decreasing at about -0.05C/decade in that time. That makes humans responsible for 0.18C per decade in your estimate. Currently that's more like 0.23C per decade.

Now demonstrate what benefit we could have had if global average temperature had not gone up .32C in the past 50 years.

As soon as you demonstrate what benefit we could have had if it had gone up .64C in the past 50 years. In either case, it's beside the point. I don't need to prove the a hand grenade will damage a tank to show that a 500 pound bomb will.

As an example, we could look at crop yields: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/archive/previous_issues/vol3/v3n9/feature.htm

That's funny, because that article pretty convincingly shows that something besides climate was driving crop yields from 1950 to 1997. I know you're not stupid enough to miss that.

Or, we could look at cyclone activity: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/26/global-hurricane-activity-at-historical-record-lows-new-paper/

Nothing at Watts' site should ever be confused with objective science. It's often real science reported in a biased manner to make a point that isn't supported by the data. Hurricane activity is a regional effect that is not directly linked to global temperature. They also are not modeled in global climate models. They depend on small scale details of winds and ocean surface temperatures. Gr

In other words if CO2 continues to rise, but temperatures drop for an extended period of time, that would falsify anthropogenic global warming. Two solar cycles without warming, or with cooling would kill it.

Fair enough - we've got near 15 years so far, so we can possibly falsify this in what, 9 more years?

The second doesn't really need to be falsified until someone provides a reason (theory or model) that indicates there is a possibility that rapid climate change over much of the earth would be a good thing.

Sorry, I can't let that one slide - asserting that the null hypothesis should be that warming is unequivocally bad for the biosphere and humanity is unjustified. At the very least, we can assert that a warmer world leads to more arable land and more plant life, and more support for all life - and we can look at the Medieval Warm Period and the Holocene optimum as evidence of that.

Strict scrutiny applies here. Put another way, just take the past 50 years, where we've observed a warming trend of about .13C per decade...so a little over .5C for the past 50 years. Asserting humans are responsible for half of that, we've got what, about 0.32C in the past 50 years?

Now demonstrate what benefit we could have had if global average temperature had not gone up .32C in the past 50 years.

As an example, we could look at crop yields: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/archive/previous_issues/vol3/v3n9/feature.htm

Or, we could look at cyclone activity: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/26/global-hurricane-activity-at-historical-record-lows-new-paper/

I'm more than happy to entertain any other metrics you'd choose to use, but we need to be specific here.

I wonder if Skeptical Science mentions this paper:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/05/02/attempts-to-box-us-out/

Greenland exhibits multi-decadal cyclical patterns. Don't jump to conclusions based on a few years of data.

It's good to know that you just didn't ignore me. I didn't notice, that Slashdot terminated our discussion.

I have a feeling that there's no source or list that you'd consider credible. Will you consider this information about IPCC underestimating Antarctic sea ice growth with 50%? : http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/02/16/another-ipcc-error-antarctic-sea-ice-increase-underestimated-by-50/

Actually, I'd like to know what source you'd consider credible?

Robinjo - still

Wasn't it so inconsiderate of those trees to change the way the respond to temperature?

I wonder why they don't include other tree ring data or the Finnish data? Instead, they used bogus data.

And "they" continue to hide other data.

Of course I know the standard responses...I'm not a climate scientist so what do I know anything, Nature is "Dr. Jones Peer Reviewed", everyone else is paid by Exxon, blah blah blah.

Fact is that this issue is now beyond science and is being fought in the public forum. Anyone who would have the world cripple itself economically needs to be 150% above board with all their data and methods. No hiding behind anything. Anyone with a reasonable background in science should be able to take their models apart, thoroughly understand what they are doing and why and be able to replicate their work, from the friggen hunk of wood to the final graph. Hire more people to fulfill FOI request if that's what it takes.

If necessary, they should set aside a few months a year to do nothing but assist others in understanding their methods (never mind that if any other scientist had to help others replicate their work, it would be seen as a sign of fraud). Too important and busy to do that? Bullshit. Given what want everyone to do, they have an OBLIGATION to do that.

And lastly...I'm sorry but if the friggin tree ring data is not valid for assessing temperature after 1960, then it is not valid assessing temperature before 1960.

Exactly, who has heard that the ice melt across during the Antarctic summer (October-January) of 2008-2009 was the lowest ever recorded in the satellite history?

The paper Tedesco M., and A. J. Monaghan, 2009. An updated Antarctic melt record through 2009 and its linkages to high-latitude and tropical climate variability. Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L18502, doi:10.1029/2009GL039186 gets no mentions.

More here:

Antarctic Ice Melt Lowest on record

Seems to me like we are operating within historical parameters. We could even see it get a good deal warmer and STILL expect another "mini ice age" if you believe in natural cycles

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/

There are several motives for the media and politicians to lie to you about global warming, aside from money and control.

• The media sells more papers, magazines, and television ratings soar when their audience is scared of some imminent catastrophe that your respective service is reporting on. Although, they can't decide whether we're going to burn to death, freeze to death, or drown. http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759
• Environmental organizations and some scientists will lie to you because their funding depends on it. If theres no crisis to work through, then they start losing funding. This is well documented. http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/von_Storch/staged_angst/a_climate_of_staged_angst.html
• Foreign countries are lying to us (by means of the IPCC) because they wish to throw a monkey wrench into the inner workings of western economies, which are the strongest in the world. If our economy slows down, the economic standing of other countries improves because we will no longer dominate the markets.
• Development and industrialization of third world countries will be stamped out, along with hundreds of millions of lives, all under the guise of "saving the planet from climate change". It's absolutely sickening. So, who's really on the "immoral" side? Us or the alarmists?
• Wanna talk about new taxes and restricted freedoms? Try carbon taxes on everything and strict regulations for everyone....all coming soon by convincing you that CO2 & greenhouse gases are somehow evil and you must pay to emit them. Too bad they can't tax the oceans since they are the cause of 96.5% of all greenhouse emissions, naturally, eh! Also too bad they can't go back in time and tax the dinosaurs since CO2 levels were MUCH higher back then and it must have been their fault.

The motives for deception are there. Do your part to fight alarmism!

CO2 is NOT a pollutant!

Educate yourself!

Antarctica is getting colder and thicker: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/12/05/sea-level-rise-not-from-antarctic-melting/), and we know that any fluctuating warming/cooling is due to natural occurrences, and not human activity.

MUST READ LINKS:
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777
"http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/2008/03/
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121_gore.pdf
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
http://www.junkscience.com/challenge.htm
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZjFlNjc
http://www.cei.org/pdf/5331.pdf
http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_sunclimate.html
http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/images/sunclimate_3b.gif
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/03/030321075236.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/56456.stm

in antarctica, inland ice is increasing, not decreasing, its still we below zero, close to mars temps or lower. Its not going to melt unless the earth axis changes. Thats another possibility but not caused by man.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/27/antarctic-ice-a-global-warming-snow-job/

Don't know the difference between a Climatologist, and a Meteorologist, do you?

Easy. A meteorologist has a significantly shorter period of time between prediction and verification than the climatologist. Therefore, his ability to predict accurately improves measurable within single human life spans. Climatologists have to wait much longer to discover how wrong they are and why, so their predictions are often ridiculously inaccurate.

As an example, climatologists predicted over thirty years ago that "the CO2 greenhouse effect warming trend should first become evident in the Southern Hemisphere." Actual observation over the last 25 years with NASA satellite data shows the exact opposite. No word, that I know of, as to why they were completely wrong.

Another example... In 1995, the IPCC revised warming estimates downward by 30% because the predicted temperature increases of 1.3 to 2.3 degrees C made five years earlier only turned out to be about half a degree. Apparently, they forgot to consider sulfate aerosols in their computer models... That's the stated reason, but I'd wager they forgot a lot more than that.

In a knee-jerk reaction to hurricane Katrina, climatologists and media everywhere were blaming global warming for increased frequency and severity of hurricanes. The world's foremost authority on atlantic hurricanes was crucified as a heritic when he called bullshit on them. Now, a new peer reviewed article in Nature by Quirin Schiermeier seems to dispute that claim as well. Run Quirin, run! Here comes a mob with pitchforks and torches... Apparently, we've been very fortunate for the past couple of decades and storm frequency and intensity is only now returning to historic averages. In the meantime, as GP poster pointed out... the past two hurricane season have been complete duds.

Having gotten so much egg on their faces in the past 40 years is bringing about a change in tactics though. I've noticed many climatologists' recent predictions are so far into the future, we'll all be dead before they can be verified.

It's easy enough to predict warming. The planet has been warming for the past 18000 years. It's going to get warmer? Ya don't say?! Warming thus far has only made the planet more habitable for human beings. Pardon me if I don't fall to my knees and repent to the holy mother Earth when a climatologist starts preaching fire and brimstone about future warming.

An article has appeared in a recent issue of Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics with a curious title "Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years." Wow, that's a mouthful! Imagine publishing a paper in a respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal in which you predict global cooling over the next few decades? Apparently, the authors were not moved by the 46.6 million websites found when doing a quick search of the internet for "global warming."

The article was produced by Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian of the Nanjing Normal University in China (obviously, English is not their first language, if you couldn't tell from the title, and some of the following quotes from their article are a bit awkward). The work was funded by the Chinese National Science Foundation, and not by coal interests in China. We have no reason to suspect that Zhen-Shan and Xian are puppets of any group with any interest in denying global warming in the coming decades.

Funny, all I'm reading in the majority of the major media is how doomed we all are by Global Warming. I don't see something like this on Yahoo:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/1 2/01/are-humans-involved-in-global-warming/ nor http://www.junkscience.com/challenge.htm/. Journalist like this issue because it will benefit their political (typically 80% of US Journals have answer polls showing they are somewhat liberal or very liberal in political ideaology). That spells out that only one side will be given to the public. Go ask a journalist major on what they want to do with their carreer, they are more then likely tell you they want to bring social justice to the world. Which of course is not what a journalist should be doing. They are suppost to be giving the public the facts and let us decide. Even if it's against their wished for political agenda.

Dammy

I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric.

It seems that it is we, the professional climate scientists, who are now the (catastrophe) sceptics. How the wheel turns.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=021706G
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/0 1/18/not-as-bad-as-we-thought/#more-134

Of the 15 different findings that were released and covered by the press on December 7, 2005 about global warming, 14 of them were reporting that things were "worse than we thought" and only one of them concluded that things weren't going to be as bad as originally forecast. Given an unbiased prediction, there should be a 50-50 chance that things turned out either worse or better than expected. Under such a scenario, there is only a 1-in-2,000 chance that 14 things out of 15 would be worse. But that's what happened. So, either the original forecasts were not unbiased, a rare event did indeed occur, or, more likely, the interpretation and reporting went a bit over the top--that is, the press (and to some degree the researchers themselves) only like to hype the more extreme results.

You get headlines and grants by claiming San Diego will be underwater by the year 2100. You get ignored and better be paid by NASA or a tenured by a college if you mention increased snow accumulations in the Antarctic.