So they say the ice is melting, but not as fast as some other people estimate.
They don't say the ice is not melting. The sentence before the one you quote:
Our preferred estimate for 1992–2001 is -47 Gt/year for West Antarctica, +16 Gt/year for East Antarctica, and -31 Gt/year overall (+0.1 mm/year SLE), not including part of the Antarctic Peninsula (1.07% of the AIS area).
The two are closely correlated in the Antartic. Feel free to show non-model datasets that would support the GP claim, and detail what is meant with "the ice sheet" [singular?].
The only way to get the Useful Idiots on the side of Global Warming, is to tell them they are fucking geniuses, great Americans, and after a good blow job [...]
Bleurgh. I'l just go back to my first plan - kill the fuckers.
I suggest you start with the Menne 2010 paper that compares surface stations that were considered well placed with poorly placed stations. The adjusted data from the poorly placed stations actually introduced a slight cooling bias compared to the well placed stations.
Oh, don't read Menne, he's a notorious warmist.
Go check out Fall et al, 2011, co-authored by the great Anthony Watts.
Which found that the poorly sited stations gave the same results as the good ones.
One of the statistics that I find horrifying is that nearly fifteen thousand people died in France alone during the 2003 heatwave. The death toll was attributed to the widespread lack of air conditioning in that country
What's horrifying isn't the lack of A/C, it's that people on the verge of a heat-stroke couldn't figure out that dumping a bucket of tap water over their head would drastically cool them down. 104F degrees? That's only slightly above normal body temperature. You must have severe medical issues if you can't easily survive that, barely breaking a sweat (literally) or else incredible stupidity, (eg. wearing long sleeves while pouring sweat).
You are a stupid clown, aren't you?
The excess death rate was in old people. The heat wave shorrtened their lives by around 6 months.
Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends
Souleymane Fall, Anthony Watts, John NielsenGammon, Evan Jones, Dev Niyogi, John R. Christy, and Roger A. Pielke Sr.
[...]
Temperature trend estimates vary according to site classification, with poor siting leading to an overestimate of minimum temperature trends and an underestimate of maximum temperature trends, resulting in particular in a substantial difference in estimates of the diurnal temperature range trends. The opposite-signed differences of maximum and minimum temperature trends are similar in magnitude, so that the overall mean temperature trends are nearly identical across site classifications. [my emphasis]
Climate change denial is an act of treason against life on Earth.
Now let's not get hasty. Life on Earth will do just fine, it'll be just another mass extinction from which new life will spring forth, as it always has.
Now act of treason against humanity, that might fit...
David Brin thinks denialists may end up getting sued.
Pah. They'll probably end up at the ICC at the Hague.
The IPCC is not merely a compiler and summarizer of the full breadth of climate study. It is a filter for a certain narrative, removing original research it finds unhelpful to this narrative, ignoring research that contradicts its narrative and acting as gate-keeper to prevent any scientist who might disagree with the narrative from contributing to its reports.
And how the fuck does it do that? With it's magical paper destruction ray?
Which papers do you argue should have been cited by the IPCC that haven't been?
There is no reason to fear death when paradise awaits you, which is why MAD doesn't work so well where religious extremists are in power.[...]. This is precisely why a nuclear USA is so scary.
I did not say anything about "conspiracy". But biased sources are biased sources, on either "side" of the argument. One is no better than another.
In the case of RealClimate, the people behind the site are the very people who have been pushing the whole AGW theory: Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth, and many of the Had-CRU crowd.
You can't have it both ways: if you can call someone out for biased sources, then I can too.
The question is not whether they're "biased". The question is whether they're right.
Slashdot Mirror
Motorbikes are more dangerous to the rider but not really to other people.
Motorbikes are a very useful source of fit, healthy, brain dead organ donors.
If you ban motorbikes us old farts will have to look for another source of the fresh organs we will soon need.
We are rational - we just suck at understanding the risk of thing sin everyday life.
Thing Sin!
You willl burn in hell, prevert.
Fucking Airbus: [...] Then this lap joint fuselage weakness that they *knew about*.
That was Boeing!
Duh.
GATTACA.
There is no base called "I".
Wikipedia has a page about sunspots. Zow, AGW must be false.
A nice citation for a published paper showing an increase in solar irradiance would be more convincing.
So they say the ice is melting, but not as fast as some other people estimate.
They don't say the ice is not melting. The sentence before the one you quote:
Our preferred estimate for 1992–2001 is -47 Gt/year for West Antarctica, +16 Gt/year for East Antarctica, and -31 Gt/year overall (+0.1 mm/year SLE), not including part of the Antarctic Peninsula (1.07% of the AIS area).
What is this jury of which you speak?
Is it putting out more heat?
No.
lol. So you're saying that amount of radiation the sun produces doesn't vary? And that solar activity won't affect the earth?
Please provide source for increase in solar output.
The two are closely correlated in the Antartic. Feel free to show non-model datasets that would support the GP claim, and detail what is meant with "the ice sheet" [singular?].
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPol/EnviroPhilo/MassBalance.pdf
Grace.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html
The only way to get the Useful Idiots on the side of Global Warming, is to tell them they are fucking geniuses, great Americans, and after a good blow job [...]
Bleurgh. I'l just go back to my first plan - kill the fuckers.
Slashdot's previous article was titled: "Sun Storms May Affect Radios, Cell Phones Today".
Ya think that shiny thing up there has anything to do with global warming?
Of course it does. It's where the heat is coming from.
Is it putting out more heat?
No.
So more heat is being trapped by the atmosphere?
Yes.
Why?
Because there's more CO2 in the atmosphere.
Wow. Where is that CO2 coming from?
Burning fossil fuels.
Whoda thunk it. Maybe we'd better cut down?
Might be a good idea.
Thats all you see because the few isolated incidents of numbers fudging by a single unethical scientist
What on earth are you blathering on about?
Sure it's possible, because ANYTHING is possible. What's lacking is any form of actual hard science to back the theory up.
Ahrenius, 1896.
All I see is fabricated data
Citation needed.
Actually, we came up with a lot of questions that were never answered very well. Like why were both Mars and Pluto exhibiting signs of global warming.
You see, the problem is that "Pluto and Mars show signs of global warming" is simply untrue.
It's been debunked thousands of times.
If you're still repeating it then either you're a lying troll or you're getting your information from lying trolls.
Unfortunately, no. Antarctic ice coverage is above normal: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
Idiot. sea ice doesn't "cover" the Antartic.
because every year the ice sheet is melting faster then predicted.
Since that's not even remotely true, why did you post it?
Antarctic, above normal: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
He says ice sheet melting. You show sea ice. Reading comprehension problems?
I suggest you start with the Menne 2010 paper that compares surface stations that were considered well placed with poorly placed stations. The adjusted data from the poorly placed stations actually introduced a slight cooling bias compared to the well placed stations.
Oh, don't read Menne, he's a notorious warmist.
Go check out Fall et al, 2011, co-authored by the great Anthony Watts.
Which found that the poorly sited stations gave the same results as the good ones.
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/r-367.pdf
What's horrifying isn't the lack of A/C, it's that people on the verge of a heat-stroke couldn't figure out that dumping a bucket of tap water over their head would drastically cool them down. 104F degrees? That's only slightly above normal body temperature. You must have severe medical issues if you can't easily survive that, barely breaking a sweat (literally) or else incredible stupidity, (eg. wearing long sleeves while pouring sweat).
You are a stupid clown, aren't you?
The excess death rate was in old people. The heat wave shorrtened their lives by around 6 months.
Yes he has published. A paper that disproves the theory that poor instrument siteing was responsible for warming.
Sorry for my jumping in but your statement is not true. I will not speculate your motives but it should not stand unchallenged
Fall et al, 2011:
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/r-367.pdf
Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical
Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends
Souleymane Fall, Anthony Watts, John NielsenGammon, Evan Jones, Dev Niyogi,
John R. Christy, and Roger A. Pielke Sr.
[...]
Temperature trend estimates vary according to site classification, with poor siting leading to an overestimate of minimum temperature trends and an underestimate of maximum temperature trends, resulting in particular in a substantial difference in estimates of the diurnal temperature range trends. The opposite-signed differences of maximum and minimum temperature trends are similar in magnitude, so that the overall mean temperature trends are nearly identical across site classifications. [my emphasis]
Climate change denial is an act of treason against life on Earth.
Now let's not get hasty. Life on Earth will do just fine, it'll be just another mass extinction from which new life will spring forth, as it always has.
Now act of treason against humanity, that might fit...
David Brin thinks denialists may end up getting sued.
Pah. They'll probably end up at the ICC at the Hague.
The IPCC is not merely a compiler and summarizer of the full breadth of climate study. It is a filter for a certain narrative, removing original research it finds unhelpful to this narrative, ignoring research that contradicts its narrative and acting as gate-keeper to prevent any scientist who might disagree with the narrative from contributing to its reports.
And how the fuck does it do that? With it's magical paper destruction ray?
Which papers do you argue should have been cited by the IPCC that haven't been?
does nothing to deal with the basic claims.
Anyone who reads wuwt knows this is complete bullshit.
Also, He has published.
Yes he has published.
A paper that disproves the theory that poor instrument siteing was responsible for warming.
Guy must be some kind of warmist.
There is no reason to fear death when paradise awaits you, which is why MAD doesn't work so well where religious extremists are in power.[...]. This is precisely why a nuclear USA is so scary.
No one said business as usual.
Of course nobody said business as usual.
We're not doing business as usual.
We're currently doing worse that the IPCC's "worst conceivable increase in CO2 output".
Your claim is provably false. The WattsUpWithThat site also cites publications in serious journals.
E&E?
I did not say anything about "conspiracy". But biased sources are biased sources, on either "side" of the argument. One is no better than another.
In the case of RealClimate, the people behind the site are the very people who have been pushing the whole AGW theory: Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth, and many of the Had-CRU crowd.
You can't have it both ways: if you can call someone out for biased sources, then I can too.
The question is not whether they're "biased". The question is whether they're right.