arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.global.anom.1979-2008
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
Recent Comments
- arn on Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- Robertvd on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- roaddog on Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- Bob G on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- Disillusioned on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- Ulric Lyons on “Impossible Heatwaves”
- William on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- William on 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- czechlist on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- arn on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
Steven … didn’t you get the memo: the greens moved the goal posts, its all about volume now, ice area is so yesterday 😉 sarc
Volume is better, because they have no way of measuring it and can just make numbers up #PIOMAS
They just make up numbers anyway, no matter what they are claiming to measure! EXTRAPOLATIONS: Pulling it out of their A$$!
PIOMAS = Pull It Out of My Ass System
#PIOMAS or #MASSOPISS?
Has everyone missed the time scale? This graph represents measurements of ice extent from January, 2013 to April, 2013. Not surprisingly, it shows that as the winter progresses, more ice has formed.
You guys should really be ashamed of producing such shoddy disinformation! Go back. Try harder next time!
You may be the stupidest person to have posted on this blog so far.
I don’t know, it’s still a draw between Michael and Too. Ask Michael if he thinks the water in the Atlantic ocean is higher than the water in the Pacific. That’s why you need locks to ‘step up’ to the higher water.
It’s tough Will. Either thinking the Panamal Canal connects the Atlantic and Pacific at different elevations, hence the locks, or someone who doesn’t know what an anomoly is.
Par for the course with climate alarmists.
Actually, I don’t recall making any comment on the relative sea levels of the Atlantic and the Pacific. In fact actual sea level may differ from one side of the Bay of Fundy to the other.
You might try sticking to the actual assertion I made, that the suggestion regarding “2800 Manhattans” is unfounded, unsupported and inane. See if you can knock it down using real evidence.
Or what the Arctic Climate Research Unit is. He wants them to go back and try harder to not disseminate misinformation. LMFAO.
As you are apparently a very smart person, how about telling us what this sequence looks like: 2012.95… 2013… 2013.05… Does that not indicate that during the month of January, the extent of Arctic ice cover has increased? And is that not in fact the case for every year? Is it not inherent in our having an axial tilt?
This fact undoes the whole conclusion we’re supposed to be reaching. 2013 is like every year, in that winters are still colder than summers.
You say “extent”, the rest of us and the graph say “anomaly”. Learn the difference.
Q: “And is that not in fact the case for every year?”
A: No, there are years between January and April when the anomaly has been negative
Be enlightened…
Criticism accepted, Ben. Initially I did not understand the graph as there was no accompanying text. Now I see he answers the question “compared to what?” with his link to a very long list of numbers, readings from 1979-2008.
So what he is illustrating is the departure from normal (above or below) of some unidentified year’s total readings for sea ice area– combining the readings for both polar zones. And I still have some questions maybe you can answer.
First, why combine both poles? Wouldn’t we get clearer information by examining one pole at a time?
Second, what is the significance of the graph at all? All it shows is that at some times in the year in question the anomaly is above normal. At other times it is below normal. So?
Third, which year was examined? He has neglected to identify the year of the data being compared to the span 1979-2008.
Any light you could shed on these questions would be helpful.
Michael, Michael, Michael…
Go back and read the title at the top of the graph. Not the title of the blog post, the title of the graph. Think hard, and ask yourself what this title means. Then re-read your own comments.
Thank you for pointing that out. If you’ll continue reading down the page, I do acknowledge that the graph is for the sum of both Arctic and Antarctic ice extent. However what this gives you is ridiculous and mostly unusable data. Instead I would suggest we can make things more clear by separating the two and addressing each individually. That is, if such is our objective.
Sorry, Glacierman. Google doesn’t give me any results for the search “Arctic Climate Research Unit”. Are you sure this is a real entity?
While I was at it, I googled “2800 Manhattans”. They have no link to anything other than this page and the same chart at climatedepot.com– where there is a link described as “Read the Full Article”. Click on it and you are brought to this page. Click on the link above and you are brought to nothing but a long list of measurements taken during the period 1979-2008.
None of this has anything to do with some number of Manhattans. Nor does it relate to measurements taken between January and April of this current year. Someone! Show us the beef!
You really can’t be as stupid as you pretend to be.
Agreed, it takes some smarts to be really stupid. I.E. on a multiple choice you have to be able to at least identify 1 wrong answer to get 0%.
Sorry, guys. I still can’t seem to get any sort of reasonable response from any of you. Can anyone, for instance, refer me to an article, a comment, a paper that describes just what your argument is?
All I have been able to find on this is (a) the title, above; (b) a graph of Arctic ice extent for winter, 2013; and (c) a link to some undescribed data for the period 1979-2008. The three pieces of data share no common features.
Tell me what your argument is. That would be a start. Describe what “2800 Manhattans” signifies to you. Or is actual discourse not required in your world?
Michael,
You obviously have reading comprehension problems. It would help if you studied the following terms:
1. Global
2. Anomaly
3. Disinformation
4. Link – as in URL, as in : arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.global.anom.1979-2008
Located below the graph you have labeled as misinformation.
You are a joke.
You are extraordinarily opaque to information, Mr G. All you’re doing is (one through three) offering irrelevancies, and (four) giving me a page of unexplained data that DO NOT RELATE to the issue.
Once again, very clearly: I have not yet heard your actual argument concerning these 2800 Manhattans. Please offer it. I may disagree, or I may agree. But I have not yet heard it.
Give it.
Let me also address this: “Located below the graph you have labeled as misinformation.”
See my original comment, above. It’s perfectly good information. And it demonstrates conclusively that as winter progresses, the extent of Arctic ice increases. Please explain how this observation, good for each and every year since time began, proves something about how the Arctic is not warming.
Would you be as patient with me, had I shown a graph of some three-month progression in summer, claiming that it proved the climate was getting warmer? There is a joke here all right. But it’s not on me.
Give us a better explanation of your point. Or admit you have none.
Also, if you don’t understand what the term “Manhattans” is referring to, you also don’t understand satire, or irony and have not been following the CAGW debate very closely. As the alarmist like to try to scare people all the time with statements like “a piece of ice the size of Manhattan recently broke off the West Antarctic Ice Sheet…….”
Everybody panic!
I’m assuming a basic level of intelligence and skill. uiuc stands for The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Michael,
You are simply not qualified to be discussing science. This is a global sea ice anomaly graph. When it is winter at one pole it is summer at the other. Anomaly means deviation from the mean. You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.
“You are simply not qualified to be discussing science. This is a global sea ice anomaly graph. When it is winter at one pole it is summer at the other. Anomaly means deviation from the mean. You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.”
That makes it even worse! As we all should be aware, the Antarctic in summer spalls off huge amounts of floating ice at the margins of the continent. Therefore the net areal increase for both hemispheres would be expected to be positive. Northern, from refreezing. Southern, from spalling.
And that’s what it shows. Now where is your “anomaly”?
Michael,
You have proven that it is not what you don’t know that is so bad, it’s what you think you know that isn’t so.
Maybe if you quit bloviating for a few minutes and try to actually think about what is going on at either pole, you would have your answer.
What on earth are you talking about? I made a simple mathematical claim and provided the data needed to verify it. You are blabbering mindlessly.
“What on earth are you talking about? I made a simple mathematical claim and provided the data needed to verify it. You are blabbering mindlessly.”
Okay, Steve. Let’s take a close look at the graph you’ve provided. During the first week of April, the extent of ice cover dropped rapidly (relative to the average you’ve chosen), from about 400,000 km2 above your multi-year average to about 200,000 km2 above that average.
But if we take the period Mid- to late March, relative ice cover is increasing just as rapidly, from around 200,000 km2 BELOW average to maybe 480,000 km2 above average.
And if we look at the first three weeks of January, the ice cover stays well below average. That is, it shows a negative anomaly. So compared to the average, it’s constantly going up and down, up and down.
Your point?
uh, the ability to read and comprehend is usually required to find things via Google…
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/
Hi again, Steve. Re “I’m assuming a basic level of intelligence and skill. uiuc stands for The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign”:
The graph you’ve chosen to link to shows us nothing. However, since you think of UIUC as a trusted source, I know you’ll appreciate this chart:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
Rather a dramatic negative deviation in recent years, wouldn’t you say?
All of the information you need is there, you simply do not have the skills to interpret it.
The graph’s pretty clear, Steve. It shows the deviation from the 1979-2008 mean. And it shows that mean is best illustrated by the years 1994-1998. Before then, there’s more sea ice in both winter and in summer. After those years, there’s less sea ice.
What am I missing?
Gawd you are dense. There is no global winter or summer, and this is an area anomaly, not an area. You are completely out of your league and are making a complete fool out of yourself.
The graph I’m referencing here, Steve, is not your graph but mine:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
It’s clearly labeled “Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly”. And it shows the progression in time from 1979 through to the present. Unlike your graph, lumping both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice together, this one actually shows us something.
Look at it again.
You need to take a basic calculus course so that you can understand the difference between a first and second derivative, You are blabbering mindlessly
Thanks, Steve. I think I see what you’re trying to show us. If you had published this piece back in January, for instance, it would have been called “Global Sea Ice Area Now 5,400 Manhattans BELOW normal.” Am I right?
It’s like the weather. On any given day, you’re either a little above or a little below normal.
The sun is near its peak right now, so the large amount of Arctic ice has a strong effect on the climate. In the winter there is no sun in the Arctic – so ice extent is not particularly important.
Steve, the last solar minimum was in 2008. As you can see from the chart I offered, there are no apparent impacts on Arctic ice extent from the solar cycle, from either the maxima or the minima. Look for something that illustrates the trend downward over the entire chart period.
Also, the importance of ice extent, whether we’re talking spring maximum or fall minimum, is that it shows that Arctic ice is rapidly MELTING. This melting is not a cause but a result of the increasing greenhouse effect in our atmosphere. Your chart, and minimal presentation, seems carefully crafted to obscure this obvious and important fact.
I really hope you aren’t as dense as you pretend to be.
Ouch! Good one, Steve. 🙂 Your approach to argument is like standing in the rain with someone, telling them they’re too stupid to understand why it’s not raining.
In the Arctic the ice cover is melting. That’s abundantly obvious, particularly when you figure in the thickness of the ice. And in the Antarctic, glacial ice is both melting and spalling off at an accelerated rate. Those are obvious inferences drawn from observation, not speculation.
Your method of obscuring this? To employ a graph combining both polar areas, in the hope that one minimum will cancel out the other maximum. But all it does is give us a useless conclusion. It’s like telling us the average polar temperature, warm at one end of the planet, cold at the other.
We are about 10 days away from the summer solstice, when the Arctic recieves maximum solar insolation. You never seem to understand what is being discussed.
I see– you’re pretending to be unaware of the lag time between maximum sun and minimum ice. The ice minimum comes late in the year.
Also, this was not what was “being discussed”. You’re hoping to confuse by misdirection.
Lokk, Steve… I shouldn’t be having to tell you your business. But the purpose of running a denialist website– indeed, any advocacy website– is to convince those with open minds of the plausibility of your cause through reasoned argument. And it’s not just that you’re not doing a very good job. It’s that you’re not even trying.
I love reading an effective argument. And don’t mind a bit changing my views after following sound logic. But this is something you’ve just never tried. Even the “article” above. No text at all, just a chart and an unexplained link.
If I were the person paying you, I’d be withholding payment until I got a better product. Really.
In re Michael, “Am I right?”
No, Michael. Catastrophist liberals are presently trying, through the mainstream media and through liberal academia, to give the impression that global sea ice area, relative to historical mean, is crashing. If true, that would have to mean one of two things. Either
A) It was at extremely above-average levels at the end of the baseline period (BZZZZZT! Not!) or
B) It is now spending all of its time at dramatically below-average levels.
Now do you see the point that Steven is trying to make? In a nutshell, it is that they are a pack of evil, apathetic liars.
No calculus required for that particular understanding.
RTF
The chart I reference merely shows us that the Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing. It does not offer argument; it offers direct evidence. Your syllogism misrepresents any conclusions that can be drawn from these facts.
“Your syllogism misrepresents any conclusions that can be drawn from these facts.”
Oh really!?
Do tell, how?? I can’t wait to hear this.
RTF
Your points (a) and (b) do not follow. Simply put, there used to be more ice up there. Now there’s less and less. That’s all.
I was not making an argument or trying to give an impression. I was offering measurements. And those measurements indicate a strong trend during the targeted period. A trend toward the disappearance of polar ice.
If you like, you can offer some argument as to why this is happening. But you can’t be an effective denialist if you just try to refute it without reference to the data. You give people nothing they can agree with.
So your position is that my syllogism “misrepresents any conclusions that can be drawn from these facts.”
If I understand your second response correctly, then by “these facts” you refer not to my A and B, but rather to the statement “Catastrophist liberals are presently trying, through the mainstream media and through liberal academia, to give the impression that global sea ice area, relative to historical mean, is crashing.”
And you are asserting that my points A and B do not follow from an assumption that global sea ice area is crashing.
That is ludicrous. Those points certainly do follow from the premise.
Incidentally, who said I was trying to be an “effective denialist”? Certainly not me, because I am not. The truth of what’s going on has been firmly established beyond question. Therefore publicizing said truth is not “denialism” but rather reporting or journalism, and also on many occasions criticism. Liberals themselves now, to a great degree, admit what they are trying to do and that it has nothing to do with temperature or ice. Repeating once what they have said ad nauseam is not “denialism”. Give me a break. And while you’re at it, feel free to leave me alone.
RTF
RT, I think it’s going to take some work before you and I are even speaking the same language. There are big problems. But let’s try to wade through this one item at a time.
1) “If I understand your second response correctly, then by “these facts” you refer not to my A and B, but rather to the statement “Catastrophist liberals…” etc.
That statement is not so much a fact as it is an opinion. And an irrelevant one. Who cares what some person thinks or says? Merely by calling them something like “catastrophist liberals” indicates they’re people for whom you have no respect. So their opinions, whether real or imaginary, have no weight. Right?
Let’s dismiss them. Instead when I use a word like “fact” I refer to actual data, measurements of something in the real world. Those are facts. Inferences and extrapolations from them are not.
2) “It was at extremely above-average levels at the end of the baseline period (BZZZZZT! Not!)”
I’m unsure just what you mean by “it”. Would that be global ice extent? Would it be the departure of ice extent from the norm in the baseline period illustrated in Steve’s graph, above? Or would it be something in connection with the graph I provided, which measures something else entirely?
Identifying “it” would be helpful in addressing your point of contention.
3) “It is now spending all of its time at dramatically below-average levels.”
Ice extent at either pole goes up and down from one year to the next. Also, global ice extent compared to some statistical average over a number of years varies wildly, from one week to the next. This can be seen in Steve’s chart. One month it’s well above the average, the next month it can be well below the average.
My problem with Steve’s choice of charts is that it means exactly nothing. There’s really little to be gained by lumping Arctic data with Antarctic data. It blurs the details to be observed in each dataset. And my contention is that Steve has done this on purpose.
It is my contention that in northern summer we’re seeing a rapid diminishing of ice extent, particularly during the mid-September minimum. But also at the midwinter maximum. And it is my SURMISE that we might see at the same time an increase in Antarctic ice extent, over the historical average. This would be due to spalling of ice shelves from the continent.
One useful idea to be gleaned from this conversation would be for someone to investigate this, to see whether it was true. And if it were, the new extrapolation from data would inform our understanding of Steve’s not-very-helpful chart, above.
I should reply to three more points you’ve raised.
1. “The truth of what’s going on has been firmly established beyond question. Therefore publicizing said truth is not “denialism” but rather reporting or journalism, and also on many occasions criticism.”
Virtually all the science indicates the observed warming is being caused by fossil fuel consumption, land clearing and other human endeavors. This can be measured and has been very thoroughly measured. Theory and observation combine to make a unitary whole, with only increasingly smaller details to be worked out. If you see consensus to the contrary I think you’re following blogs like this to the exclusion of the actual science. Just my opinion, of course.
Speaking of science, nothing is beyond question. You know that, don’t you?
2. “Liberals themselves now, to a great degree, admit what they are trying to do and that it has nothing to do with temperature or ice. Repeating once what they have said ad nauseam is not “denialism”.
Let me suggest again that you’ve been reading too much of what your trusted informants have been telling you, and not enough of what’s going around in the outside world. There really is quite a bit more diversity of opinion, not to mention intelligent opinion, than can be found in the blogs. Try reading more widely.
BTW, I don’t really follow what those “catastrophist liberals” may or may not be saying. If someone is misinformed or uninformed, I usually stop reading right there (I’m making an exception to this rule here, because I find the discussion interesting). If you look back to what I’m actually asserting, it is that the Arctic sea ice has been melting rapidly in recent years. Based on actual measurements, this seems incontrovertible. Are you saying there has been no observed melting?
3. “Give me a break. And while you’re at it, feel free to leave me alone.”
You may have been tired when you wrote this. By continuing the conversation, you indicate that you still find it interesting.
The graph is very simple and concise. Your ability to confuse yourself is becoming legendary.
Michael: I no longer find your conversation the SLIGHTEST bit interesting. If you tried this on my blog, I would ban you. SECOND WARNING: LEAVE ME ALONE!! Do not address me any longer, including to ask me what it is that I think you tried to do to me here. Do not post on my blog, if indeed you might care to which I hope you don’t. You might also want to reconsider the wisdom of writing about me any further since you don’t seem to understand proper boundaries when doing so. But in any event do not address me directly, this means in the second person, any further. This has been your second warning.
Richard T. Fowler
Richard is a testy fellow. Richard calls Michael’s attention to the fact that he also has a blog, then threatens him should he attempt to deface it.
Richard needn’t worry. Michael will not rise to the bait.
“Virtually all the science indicates the observed warming is being caused by fossil fuel consumption, land clearing and other human endeavors.”
Now the true depth of your ignorance has been reached.
Pleases provide even ONE peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.
You are a parrot, and nothing more.
This is a trick question. Natural variability is certainly a factor in any number of climate cycles. No one is refuting that. The solar cycle, the Milankovitch cycles, the various oceanic oscillation patterns, all of these contribute to the endless normal (non-manmade) variations in our climate.
But what’s different now? Man’s transformation of the planet. Over the past 250 years our activities have radically changed the skies, the seas and the solid land surface– and these changes are all occurring at an accelerating pace. Our endeavors have made a readily measurable difference in the characteristics of all. And toward the illustration of that fact, there has been a mountain of peer-reviewed papers– none of which you have bothered to read.
You should not be so focused on “the” cause of climate change. There is no single cause. It arises from the interaction of a multiplicity of causes. Many manmade aerosols, for instance, contribute to a net cooling effect. But that is not to say the planet is therefore cooling.
“Cause of Climate Change”??
Don’t you mean “Global Warming”? The global warming that hasn’t shown up for 20 years and is the biggest scam in history stealing 3 trillion dollars from taxpayers as carbon credits?
That “Global Warming”?
I’m so glad that the London carbon credit industry has people like Michael to evangelise for them. They would be so much poorer and have to drive a Ferrari instead of a Maybach.
Keep up the fine work Michael. I’m sure the cheque is in the mail.
Hi Andy. Those were gator’s words, not mine. I was responding to his comment “Pleases [sic] provide even ONE peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.”
But I do think “climate change” is a better way to describe what’s happening now.
As for the global warming that hasn’t shown up, it takes real dedication to an ideology to ignore the evidence. How many times have I urged people here to take a look at this set of measurements? I offer the actual measurements again:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
BTW i don’t think carbon credits are the way to go. That’s just rearranging bookkeeping entries without going to the core of the problem. My approach to correcting our errors would involve developing liquid fuel thorium technology as an alternative energy source.
Me again, Andy. I’m having trouble verifying your assertion that taxpayers have paid out three trillion dollars in carbon credits. That’s not how they work. Credits are traded between companies. They’re not like subsidies. Here’s a short tutorial:
http://www.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/carbon-trading.htm
Besides– and I quote from the article– “The United States, Kyoto’s most famous holdout, lacks any national mandatory carbon legislation but, ironically, has a booming voluntary carbon market.”
Michael,
From your follow up comments, you really have no idea how the CAGW/carbon game has been played? I find that hard to believe considering how fervently you believe in it. It was always about the money. You can find out all the numbers on the global carbon market at Point Carbon. Knock yourself out, but don’t expect to be spoonfed. The big boys own this game and they are not giving it up to greenies like yourself. Shit, they invented the whole thing as another excuse to hoover up taxpayer dollars. And what a massive success it’s been. Championed by the likes of Gore et al and evangelised by people such as yourself to the point of voting for carbon taxes across most of the world!! $3 Trillion and counting.
Here in Australia we have 3 months to go before we dump the stupidest government Australia has ever had and we dump the stupidest tax we’ve ever had. It seems Australia as a nation has woken up finally. Maybe you might too. I’m an optimist.
And just the Arctic Sea Ice Anomaly as evidence? Perhaps the Antarctic Sea Ice Anomaly or Global Sea Ice Anomaly should also be looked at? Or is that inconvenient when they are both way above long term averages? Enjoy paying your carbon tax to the UK financial houses. They appreciate the cash.
Andy, you can’t just wriggle off the hook by saying “look it up yourself”. You’ve made some assertions and I’m asking that you back them up.
Here in the United States we lack any mandatory carbon legislation. So I absolutely guarantee that not a penny of taxpayer money is being spent on carbon credits… or levied in the form of carbon taxes. In Australia this may very well be different. But I cannot imagine a relatively small country like yours is pulling in three trillion bucks in revenues just from some carbon tax. So once again, substantiate. Please.
There’s another thing, of course. You seem very persistent in wanting me to defend some carbon scheme you’re very upset about. So persistent that you’ve not addressed the fact that I don’t back such schemes. I don’t think they can be made to offer much benefit. Do you recall my writing the following?
“BTW i don’t think carbon credits are the way to go. That’s just rearranging bookkeeping entries without going to the core of the problem. My approach to correcting our errors would involve developing liquid fuel thorium technology as an alternative energy source.”
If you do want to engage me in debate, please realize I have no interest in carbon schemes. I do, however, have a strong interest in LFTR technology, and think it can have a tremendous impact on the actual problem: excessive burning of fossil fuels.
We need to use some form of energy to bring the world’s seven billion people up to a decent standard of living. There’s no way around that. But we don’t need to keep burning fuels that degrade our environment. So I’m trying to endorse a safe, useful and abundant fuel source that few nations are now paying attention to.
Andy, I’m really glad you brought this up:
“And just the Arctic Sea Ice Anomaly as evidence? Perhaps the Antarctic Sea Ice Anomaly or Global Sea Ice Anomaly should also be looked at? Or is that inconvenient when they are both way above long term averages? Enjoy paying your carbon tax to the UK financial houses. They appreciate the cash.”
Okay, let’s look at the Antarctic ice mass balance. In fact you can find lots of material on this if you just google it: “antarctic ice mass balance”. Basically it’s the difference between ice addition and ice loss, usually measured in cubic kilometers.
Here’s one peer-reviewed paper:
“We combined an ensemble of satellite altimetry, interferometry, and gravimetry data sets using common geographical regions, time intervals, and models of surface mass balance and glacial isostatic adjustment to estimate the mass balance of Earth’s polar ice sheets. We find that there is good agreement between different satellite methods—especially in Greenland and West Antarctica—and that combining satellite data sets leads to greater certainty. Between 1992 and 2011, the ice sheets of Greenland, East Antarctica, West Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by –142 ± 49, +14 ± 43, –65 ± 26, and –20 ± 14 gigatonnes year?1, respectively. Since 1992, the polar ice sheets have contributed, on average, 0.59 ± 0.20 millimeter year?1 to the rate of global sea-level rise.”
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183.abstract
As you can see, the southern anomaly is trending in the same direction as the northern anomaly: significant and increasing ice loss as the years go by. The only difference is that in the south we also have the ice cover of a major continent to take into the equation.
As for the global sea ice anomaly, that would measure something different. Such a figure would not include the ice mass balance overall, but only that portion of the ice that existed as free-floating sea ice. A less significant fragment of a statistic. Plus (and this was my original criticism of Steve’s emphasis on his chart) such a lumping of different things obscures more information than it reveals. It would be like averaging surface temperatures at both poles– so that if it were 50 above at one pole and 50 below at the other (F), the average polar temp that day would be zero degrees. So what?
Ice mass balances at either pole are significant data that need to be examined and understood. Both polar regions are currently melting. That’s the takeaway lesson to be learned.
😆
Ockham’s Razor is not a trick question skippy! It is the basis if pragmatic thought, something you have lost, if you ever possessed it.
Gator: What is this in reference to?
Skippy, why are you changing the subject? I asked foe just ONE paper with which to back your ridiculous assertion. You are not asking the right questions, and avoid obvious answers.
I need no hand waving to make my points. You are a parrot.
I do not deny that there are natural factors impacting climate and climate change. The issue is complex and multifactorial– there is no simplistic single “cause”. But it is generally acknowledged that at present, man’s technology is the main driver behind our abrupt and anomalous changes in climate. You are trying to get me to attempt to prove something I never said and do not agree with.
Sorry Skippy, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You assert it is well known that man is altering global climate for the first time in history, and that our climate is unprecedented.
Please provide the peer reviewed papers necessary to back such an outlandish claim, or slink away.
No more hand waving.
BTW I’m busy, no more stupid questions or hyperbole.
You’re still trying to paint me into a corner not of my own making. “You assert it is well known that man is altering global climate for the first time in history,” No, I didn’t say that. You could say that anthropogenic climate change has accelerated since 1750. But “first time in history” is just sloppy language. It gives an indication of the way things change around once they enter your mind.
“…and that our climate is unprecedented.” No, it’s not. And I never said anything like that. The climate was actually quite a bit hotter back at the Paleocene-Eocene boundary. The event was caused by melting marine clathrates– a situation that may be repeating itself today off the northern slope of Siberia. If so, we’re in for a bad time of it.
And I know, I know… you still want some papers. Try this: “Our team of citizen science volunteers at Skeptical Science has published a new survey in the journal Environmental Research Letters of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers…” The team found that 97% of these papers support the idea that the obvious global warming we see around us is man-made.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange
You might read the whole thing before just writing it off because it doesn’t agree with your own fixed opinions. But that’s unlikely. So here’s another one:
http://leisureguy.wordpress.com/2007/09/04/the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/
I guess it would surprise you to learn that outfits like the National Academy of Science and the IPCC rely only on peer-reviewed publications, not guesswork by political hacks, to inform their conclusions. Plus these other institutions, all of whom use the same procedures:
“For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” [p. 3 in (5)].
“Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).”
There’s much, much more, of course. You only have to actually look for it.
Skippy, what did I say about hyperbole? The 97% BS has been thoroughly discredited.
Cite papers or STFU. 😆
And again you woolly parrot, I’m busy, so put up or STFU.
The 97% finding was the result of a survey of twelve thousand peer-reviewed papers– as per your request that I provide such. Only 3% were found to question the anthropogenic source of most current climate change. So yes, deniers can make the cut. They’re just not able to make their case effectively very often.
In contrast with my well-researched response, your reply accuses me, oddly, of being a woolly parrot. I’m not quite sure in what universe this is an insult. But I do believe it’s off topic.
I note in closing that while “busy”, you always seem to have time to fire something off to me. Why not use that time wisely, and conduct your own research into the peer-reviewed literature? You seem never to have done that.
“I note in closing that while “busy”, you always seem to have time to fire something off to me. Why not use that time wisely, and conduct your own research into the peer-reviewed literature? You seem never to have done that.”
I was a climatology student thirty years ago and have foillowed each paper as it has been published. You are an idiot.
Since you are too lazy to look anything up other than alarmist propaganda, I will help you…
“In the SkS forum discussion about how to create this 97% consensus paper, there was a lot of discussion about how to market it. As far as methodology, quality control, etc. goes, not so much, which just goes to show that Cook et al. 2013 was little more than a marketing ploy under the guise of peer reviewed science.
At least one commenter on the SkS forum thought this “cart before the horse” marketing discussion was strange:
“I have to say that I find this planning of huge marketing strategies somewhat strange when we don’t even have our results in and the research subject is not that revolutionary either (just summarizing existing research).” – Ari Jokimäki
read the whole story here: Cook’s 97% Consensus Study Game Plan Revealed
Meanwhile, Richard Tol continues to find errors in the paper data and methodology. Probably time to place your bets for retraction by the journal.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/04/quote-of-the-week-marketing-the-consensus-before-its-97-cooked/
Thank you, anonymous gator person! Of all the people here who’ve tried to tear me down without providing one iota of support for their own flat-earth theories, you’re the only one who has given me a single item of evidence. That’s high praise, as all the others in this discussion seem so remarkably content-free and lacking in concrete argument.
Naturally I bounced from the Watts Up page, being only someone’s second hand take on the evidence, to the evidence itself. Here:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/06/cooks-97-consensus-study-game-plan.html
And I don’t see any evidence of bias or conspiracy. Instead I see a straightforward methodology in service of an aim: to determine the actual fact of how many papers support and reinforce the AGW theory and how many discredit it.
The methodology used is very sound. Too bad the results don’t support your point.
Also, note that their plan is to update this study every year. So between now and 2014 be sure to get your own paper in, demolishing the AGW theory for all time. Submit it for review. Let’s see whether it makes the cut– I’ll be rooting for you.
Finally, “Since you are too lazy to look anything up other than alarmist propaganda, I will help you…”
I’ve been following people like Soon, Balliunas and Spencer for years, with great interest. By taking their premises seriously and seeking in good faith to falsify them, I help myself stay both honest and informed. (I’ve learned a lot about the impact of solar cycles that way.) I even follow people like the Idsos, but mostly for entertainment purposes. 🙂
You are incapable of learning anything if you think that link absolves Cook. And please do tell how you have falsified the work of Dr Christy. You are a lunatic.
“Dr. Tol writes in a critique of the Cook et al. paper:
In fact, the paper by Cook et al. may strengthen the belief that all is not well in climate research. For starters, their headline conclusion is wrong. According to their data and their definition, 98%, rather than 97%, of papers endorse anthropogenic climate change. While the difference between 97% and 98% may be dismissed as insubstantial, it is indicative of the quality of manuscript preparation and review.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/02/the-madness-of-97-98-consensus-herds/
And only a fool would quote Cook or Skeptical Science…
“A Response to Skeptical Science’s “Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data”
Posted on January 17, 2012by Anthony Watts
Guest post by Patrick Michaels
“When the battle is being lost, there is a tendency to try to raise a level of distraction to shift the attention away from the desperate situation at hand. Such is the noise being raised concerning my presentation of the results from a recent series of scientific findings and observations—that lend further support to notion of modest climate change. The apocalyptics and the gloom-and-doom crowd are losing both the science battle and the policy war.
Dana Nuccitelli (aka dana1981) over at the website Skeptical Science has recently written a screed purporting that I delete “inconvenient” data in order to make my points. In fact, what I have done is to highlight the major findings of the studies I have commented on—findings that have indeed strengthened the case that global warming in this century will be in the lower end of the range of projections issued by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Mr. Nuccitelli starts by digging up the dead horse of my 1998 testimony to Congress and my presentation of the global temperature projections made ten years earlier (in 1988) by NASA’s Jim Hansen. In my testimony before the Committee on Small Business of the U.S. House of Representatives in July 1998 (available here) I elected to focus on a comparison between the observed temperatures and those projected to have occurred under Hansen’s (in his words) “business-as-usual” (BAU) scenario. Remember, this was in 1998. There was no worldwide treaty reducing carbon dioxide emissions (indeed, there isn’t one now). The only change to BAU that took place in the 1988 to 1998 time period was the Montreal Protocol limiting the emissions of CFCs. Reductions in production began only in 1994 and the radiative effect of the Protocol by 1998 was infinitesimal. To me, BAU means BAU. One of the main points that I was making in my 1998 testimony was that observations indicated that the global temperature were rising much less than Hansen had forecast under BAU, which is what happened. That was true then, and it remains true today, as the amount of warming he overforecast in 1988 is painfully obvious.
Mr. Nuccitelli then criticizes my handling of the results of a pair of new scientific studies examining the earth’s climate sensitivity by Schmittner et al. (2011) and Gillett et al. (2012). Each of these research teams reported rather lowish estimates of the climate sensitivity. As in any scientific study, there is a lot of discussion concerning data and methods and results in these papers and caveats and uncertainties. In my summary of them, I focused on the major results much as the authors did in the papers’ abstracts. In both case I wrote positively about the findings. Not having obtained the actual raw data from the authors themselves to enable me to create charts directly illustrating the paper’s main points (a task that is commonly not altogether straightforward, timely, or even successful; see the Climategate emails for examples of the myriad of potential difficulties encountered in such an effort), I did the next best thing, which was to adapt the published figures to simplify and highlight the major results (and focus my accompanying text on the main findings).
For example, from Schmittner et al., I removed from one of the original figures some data pertaining to individual components (land and ocean) because the paper was about global temperature and I am concerned about global sensitivity. I showed the global results (and noted in the caption of the Figure I presented that it had been “adapted from Schmittner et al., 2011?). The finding that I showed was the same one which the authors focused on in their abstract which I reproduce here in full:
Assessing impacts of future anthropogenic carbon emissions is currently impeded by uncertainties in our knowledge of equilibrium climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide doubling. Previous studies suggest 3 K as best estimate, 2–4.5 K as the 66% probability range, and non-zero probabilities for much higher values, the latter implying a small but significant chance of high-impact climate changes that would be difficult to avoid. Here, combining extensive sea and land surface temperature reconstructions from the Last Glacial Maximum with climate model simulations, we estimate a lower median (2.3 K) and reduced uncertainty (1.7–2.6 K 66% probability). Assuming paleoclimatic constraints apply to the future as predicted by our model, these results imply lower probability of imminent extreme climatic change than previously thought.
And the same is true for my encapsulation of the work of Gillett and colleagues. In this case, I simplified one of the original figures by removing some results that were derived using a shorter and incomplete (1851-2010 vs. 1901-2000) temperature record while retaining the same record that was preferred by the authors (and again noted in the caption to the Figure that I presented that it had been “adapted from Gillett et al., 2012? and additionally added that “the original figure included additional data not relevant to this discussion”).
That one of the primary scientific advances of the paper was the result derived using the more complete temperature time series is demonstrated by the paper’s title “Improved constraints on 21st-century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations.” Note the words “improved” and “160 years of temperature data” (the full record).
I invite you to compare the “before” and “after” images from these two papers as detailed by Dana Nuccitelli with the descriptions made in summary by the paper’s original authors and you’ll see that I was being true to their work. Further, read through my articles (here and here) spotlighting their results and you’ll see that I was also quite supportive of their findings.
Mr. Nuccitelli, as a contributor to Skeptical Science—a website dedicated to trying to bolster the alarmist claims of human-caused climate change—realizes that it is in his best interest to try to obliterate evidence which paints a less than alarming picture of our climate future. Anyone who both produces and synthesizes such findings will be his target. That’s just the way the game is played by alarmists like Dana and the ever-obnoxious Joe Romm (who probably has done more damage to his cause with his over-the-top vitriol than he can possibly imagine).
If evidence continues to accrue that the earth’s climate is not changing in a manner sufficient to inspire enough fear in the general populace to demand life-altering energy limitations, attacks will continue by those, to use Mr. Nuccitelli phrase “who simply don’t want to accept the scientific reality.”
To keep up with the latest scientific findings concerning climate change highlighting the modest nature of the expected changes—findings that which are unlikely to be highlighted in the general media—I invite you to drop in from time to time here at World Climate Report , my “Climate of Fear” column at Forbes, my “Current Wisdom” feature at Cato, or any of the other sites, such as Watts Up With That? or Junk Science, that occasionally highlight my writings.
And, as always, if you ever don’t believe what I have to say, or want to investigate the issue in more detail, I include a list of references of the papers that I am discussing. So, as Casey Stengel used to say, ‘you could look it up.’
References:
Gillett, N.P., et al., 2012. Improved constraints on 21st-century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations. Geophysical Research Letters, 39, L01704, doi:10.1029/2011GL050226.
Schmittner, A., et al., 2011. Climate sensitivity estimated from temperature reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum, Science, 334, 1385-1388
DOI: 10.1126/science.1203513
UPDATE: Shub Niggurath shows even more integrity issues at Skeptical Science.”
Patrick Michaels is quite a prolific author. He also follows the dictates of his funding, 40% of which he admits come from the fossil fuel industry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fguJod_voPc
100% of alarmist dollars comes from people who benefit from climate alarmism. You need to advance your thinking past the paranoid hippie with dreadlocks stage.
Governments fund climate alarmists.
Governments seek power and money through lesgislation and taxation, to them CAGW is a vehicle.
Are you really so stupid as to bring into queston funding and motives? 😆
And how does 97% of climate experts, and 97% of peer reviewed papers miss these points?
“Dr Richard Feynman, Cornell Physicist in a lecture explained how theorys that failed the test of data or experiment are falsified (“wrong”) and must be discarded.
Global Warming Theory Has Failed
(1) Warming not ‘global’. It is shown in satellite data to be northern hemisphere only
(2) It is now not warming. Warming (global mean and northern hemisphere) stopped in the 1990s
(3) Models suggest atmosphere should warm 20% faster than surface but surface warming was 33% faster during the time satellites and surface observations used. This suggests GHG theory wrong, and surface temperature contaminated.
(4) Temperatures longer term have been modified to enhance warming trend and minimize cyclical appearance. Station dropout, missing data, change of local siting, urbanization, instrumentation contaminate the record, producing exaggerating warming. The GAO scolded NOAA for poor compliance with siting standards.
(5) Those who create the temperature records have been shown in analysis and emails to take steps to eliminate inconvenient temperature trends like the Medieval Warm Period, the 1940s warm blip and cooling since 1998. Steps have included removal of the urban heat island adjustment and as Wigley suggested in a climategate email, introduce 0.15C of artificial cooling of global ocean temperatures near 1940.
(6) Forecast models have failed with temperature trends below even the assumed zero emission control scenarios
(7) Climate models all have a strong hot spot in the mid to high troposphere in the tropical regions. Weather balloons and satellite show no warming in this region the last 30 years.
(8) Ocean heat content was forecast to increase and was said to be the canary in the coal mine. It too has stalled according to NOAA PMEL. The warming was to be strongest in the tropics where the models were warming the atmosphere the most. No warming has been shown in the top 300 meters in the tropical Pacific back to the 1950s.
(9) Alarmists had predicted permanent El Nino but the last decade has featured 7 La Nina and just 3 El Nino years. This is related to the PDO and was predicted by those who look at natural factors.
(10) Alarmists had predicted much lower frequency of the negative modes of the AO and NAO due to warming. The trend has been the opposite with a record negative AO/NAO in 2009/10
(11) Alarmists predicted an increase in hurricane frequency and strength globally but the global activity had diminished after 2005 to a 30+ year low. The U.S. has gone seven consecutive years without a landfalling major hurricane, the longest stretch since the 1860s
(12) Alarmists have predicted a significant increase in heat records but despite heat last two summers, the 1930s to 1950s still greatly dominated the heat records. Even in Texas at the center of the 2011 heat wave, the long term (since 1895) trends in both temperature and precipitation are flat. And when stations with over 80 years of temperature data were considered, the number of heat records last July were not extraordinary relative to past hot summers.
(13) Extremes of rainfall and drought were predicted to increase but except during periods of strong El Nino and La Nina, no trends are seen
(14) Alarmists indicated winter would become warmer and short. The last 15 years has seen a decline in winter temperatures in all regions. In places winter have been the coldest and longest in decades and even centuries.
(15) Alarmists had indicated snow would become increasingly rare in middle latitudes especially in the big cities where warming would be greatest. All time snow records were set in virtually all the major cities and northern hemisphere snow coverage in winter has increased with 4 of the top 5 years since 2007/08. Also among the east coast high impact snowstorms tracked by NOAA (NESIS), 11 of the 46 have occurred since 2009.
(16) Alarmists had indicated a decline of Antarctic ice due to warming. The upward trends since 1979 continues.
(17) Alarmists had indicated Greenland and arctic ice melt would accelerate. The arctic ice tracks with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the IARC shows the ice cover was similarly reduced in the 1950s when the Atlantic was last in a similar warm mode. In Greenland, the warmth of the 1930s and 1940s still dominates the records and longer term temperatures have declined.
(18) Sea level rise was to accelerate upward due to melting ice and warming. Sea levels actually slowed in the late 20th century and have declined or flattened the last few years. Manipulation of data (adjustment for land rises following the last glaciation) has been applied to hide this from the public.
(19) Alarmists claimed that drought western snowpack would diminish and forest fires would increase in summer. Snowpack and water equivalent were at or near record levels in recent winters from Alaska to the Pacific Northwest and Northern Rockies. Glaciers are advancing. Fires have declined.
(20) Alaska was said to be warming with retreating glaciers. But that warming is tied intimately to the PDO and thr North Pacific pattern NP and happens instantly with the flips from cold to warm and warm to cold. Two of the coldest and snowiest winters on records occurred since the PDO/NP flipped cold again (2007/08 and 2011/12). January 2012 was the coldest on record in many towns and cities and snowfall was running 160 inches above normal in parts of the south. Anchorage Alaska set an all time record for seasonal snow in 2011/12. In 2007/08, glaciers all advanced for the first time since the Little Ice Age. In 2011/12, the Bering Sea ice set a new high in the satellite era. Latest ever ice out date records were set in May 2013.
(21) Mt. Kilimanjaro glacier was to disappear due to global warming. Temperatures show no warming in recent decades. The reduction in glacial ice was due to deforestation near the base and the state of the AMO. The glaciers have advanced again in recent years
(22) Polar bears were claimed to be threatened. Polar bear populations instead have increased to record levels and threaten the populace.
(23) Australian drought was forecast to become permanent. Steps to protect against floods were defunded. Major flooding did major damage and rainfall has been abundant in recent years tied to the PDO and La Nina as predicted by honest scientists in Australia. All years with La Nina and cold PDO composited show this rainfall. Drought was associated with El Ninos and warm PDO fro 1977 to 1998
(24) The office of the Inspector General report found that the EPA cut corners and short-circuited the required peer review process for its December 2009 endangerment finding, which is the foundation for EPA’s plan to regulate greenhouse gases. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) report confirmed that EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program-which EPA acknowledges is the “scientific foundation for decisions” – is flawed, echoing previous concerns from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) that the agency is basing its decisions on shoddy scientific work.
(25) Of 18,531 citations in the 2007 IPCC Assessment Report, 5,587 or 30% were non-peer-reviewed material, including activist tracts, press releases, and in one amazing case, “Version One” of a Draft. In important instances, IPCC lead authors chose non-peer-reviewed material, or papers of low credibility, favoring their argument, in the face of prolific peer-reviewed material to the contrary. Instances include alleged climate relevance to malaria, hurricanes, species extinction, and sea levels.
Exhaustive. Forgive me if I don’t reply to all at once.
A) Feynman gives the standard description of the Scientific Method, which I believe to be the only way to think. Too bad you’ve forgotten to link this to any statement about AGW theory. I agree with Feynman.
1) Warming is in fact global, but more evident in ocean temps than in the atmosphere. As most human civilization, fossil fuel emissions, surface disruption and land clearance is in the north, that is where you’ll find the greatest increase in greenhouse gases being emitted– unsurprisingly.
2) Warming is most certainly increasing. Look at any list of the ten warmest years in recorded history (since maybe 1885). All have been since 1998.
I have no idea how you can say something like that with a straight face.
3) Models are of little interest to me. They exist only to be refined or discarded. But if you look at the climate models over time, it appears they’re getting better and better.
For instance it used to be the case that climatologists were very worried. They couldn’t find as much warming as their models predicted. Then they discovered the role aerosol emissions play. Once they adjusted for these aerosols, most with a cooling effect, their previous numbers looked right on the money.
4) The heat island effect has been a bugaboo of accurate reporting. It’s obvious that with our expanding population and exploding urban areas, many once-remote stations are now surrounded by buildings. So accurate record keeping has become muddied.
However it is also the case that the combined effect of seven billion people, half of them living in urban areas, has become so serious that we have to now add– the urban heat effect is a significant factor itself in the disruption of “normal” climate.
I must also add this very important note: as our technological civilization disrupts global climate, not everything expresses itself as atmospheric warming. Most of the added heat (not to mention the excess CO2) sinks into the oceans– with profound effects.
That’s enough to keep us for a while. I’ll try to return to this list later, after a brief return to life outside the blogs. 🙂
“I must also add this very important note: as our technological civilization disrupts global climate, not everything expresses itself as atmospheric warming. Most of the added heat (not to mention the excess CO2) sinks into the oceans– with profound effects.”
Pure hyperbole.
Cite papers or STFU.
There is not a single peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability, the first choice of pragmatists, and a choice DENIED by alarmists who are of course the real deniers.
If I am hearing strange noises emanating from my kitchen in the middle of the night, that sound exactly like my icemaker, I do not hire ghostbusters. First I investigate the obvious, and only pursue the ridiculous when the obvious is disproven. Period.
Quit parroting and start thinking.
Gator, He is not interested in thinking, just propagandizing.
How can you refute natural climate processes? If there are no natural processes, what used to make climate vary before we came along?
Anyone attempting to show that the sunshine never varied, or the Milankovitch Cycles were an illusion, would be laughed off the stage of science. OF COURSE there are natural variations in climate.
Or are you an exclusionist, thinking that EITHER climate variability is man-made, OR it occurs naturally? Is this your position, that there can only be one single cause?
Quit dancing around the issue.
The first step in this investigation is to deterimne that our climate is unnatural. And it isn’t.
Why are you so dense?
“3) Models are of little interest to me.”
You are one of the dumest people I have ever met. Models are all that the alarmists have.
You cannot simply wave your hands and dismiss empirical fatcs.
You are a mental midget.
I see you’ve been bloviating quite a bit during my absence. Most of your comments, unfortunately, don’t add anything of interest.
Models are constructs that attempt to explain phenomena. That’s fine, but they are not “empirical facts”. The way you confuse facts and hypotheses illustrates how little you know about the Scientific Method.
When I’m looking at the climate issue, I prefer to look at data. With data (real facts) I can test the models other create and form my own tentative conclusions. As a result, rather than blindly believing what someone says because it reinforces something I want to think is true, I can test all the models and see which ones lead to a proper view of the world.
Therefore what you’ll get from me will be pertinent data. If you want models instead, there are some 12,000 of them out there in the public domain. Look them up yourself.
Can you read skippy? I put no stock in climate models. If you believe in CAGW, then you are a huge fan of models. Which is it skippy?
Can you show me your age on one hand? 😆
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/disturbing-normalcy-of-arctic-ice-continues/
Gator, Michael claims he prefers to look at the data, and is “biased” towards data, and chided Steven for relying on models. Fortunately for our collective benefit, he references a model while correcting Steven, and espousing how much he prefers data.
Hey Ben! I’m trying to remember which side he is on… but it doesn’t look like it’s his own. 😆
Maybe we should all just back off, and let him debate himselves. 😉
@Gator: “Maybe we should all just back off, and let him debate himselves.”
A “debateses” like this one!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08k1Ds3A1gE
Now that’s just plain old mean! What did Gollum ever do to deserve that kind of comparison?
@Michael: “I can test all the models and see which ones lead to a proper view of the world.”
If even one of them lead to a proper view of the world, there wouldn’t be 12000 models.
Okay guys, everyone’s had their fun. So any depiction of information is a model. I’ll go with that.
Let me ask anyone, then. What is the significance of the data that Steve modeled at the top of this page? It shows that for the first several months of 2013, global sea ice area is at times greater than, and at other times lesser than, the average for the years 1979-2008. What conclusions should that point us toward?
Now how about the model I offered? Does that point to any conclusions? Unlike the one Steve has offered, I think it shows a clear trend. I assume everyone has looked at it.
All please jump in now. On-topic, please.
Ice melts.
Big deal.
The end.
That sounds very much like an admission that warming is taking place. Ice doesn’t always melt. Some times it stays frozen. In fact some times liquid water freezes.
But according to the model I’ve offered, the Arctic ice is rapidly melting now. So apparently the AGW crowd is proceeding from at least one well established fact.
It would appear that the ice is melting in Antarctica as well. You might take a look at the GRACE data. Or read this explanation:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
Noone denies climates change. How do you not get that by now? 😆
And anyone quoting Skeptical Science is a moron. I showed you days ago that they are not trustworthy and lie from the title of the blog, all the way down.
Ice melts.
Big deal.
The end.
I have a followup question, for anyone to answer. If a “model” is just any depiction of data, how can any model be wrong?
The one feature common to every denialist website I’ve encountered is that they all feel the models climatologists put forward to illustrate global warming, or climate change, are “wrong”. Does that mean you’re accusing people of deliberately altering their data? How else could a model be wrong?
Models are GIGO. If the data is not complete, you get G.
The IPCC admits in AR4 ‘2.9.1 Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing’, that they have a ‘low’ to ‘very low’ understanding of 13 out of 16 IDENTIFIED forcings. That means they have some understanding of less than 20% of forcings that they have so far been able to identify.
It is impossible to accurately model anything with that little data, and so many unknowns.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-1.html
You have much to unlearn, and even more to learn.
Thanks for the page– it’s a good summary of our understanding. There are indeed a great many areas where the state of our comprehension needs further work. However it’s hard to deny this incredible coincidence:
1) Atmospheric and oceanic CO2 levels are going up to greater levels than we’ve seen in the past 800,000 years, and this increase is clearly due to anthropogenic sources; and
2) Atmospheric and oceanic temps have been abruptly increasing as well, and there are many other areas where the evidence points to warming. Melting of permafrost, for instance.
The two phenomena above would appear to be strongly linked by a theory proven by Svante Arrhenius some time ago. It’s the greenhouse effect. And the numbers we’re seeing fit the theory we agree has been established.
Details will certainly be modified over and over again in the coming years. Meanwhile the planet will still be growing hotter, absent some unusual new event like the sun growing markedly cooler, or unusual worldwide volcanic activity overwhelming human activities.
The Big Picture holds. It does not depend on the degree of our understanding of things like albedo or cloud formation. Demonstrably, it’s getting hotter. Also demonstrably, its mostly us behind the trend.
Someone must be paying you to act thos stupid, because I cannot believe anyone could be as dumb as you.
Here is where the experts are now in their understanding…
“The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.
The slowdown is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists. True, the basic theory that predicts a warming of the planet in response to human emissions does not suggest that warming should be smooth and continuous. To the contrary, in a climate system still dominated by natural variability, there is every reason to think the warming will proceed in fits and starts.
But given how much is riding on the scientific forecast, the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on. They admit that they do not, even though some potential mechanisms of the slowdown have been suggested. The situation highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system, some of which cannot be closed until we get better measurements from high in space and from deep in the ocean.”
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/06/10/new-york-times-shocker-global-warming-plateaued-last-15-years-despite#ixzz2VwMidJ9A
What part of 80% unkonwn do you not get? 😆
And anyone using the term ‘denialist’ to describe skeptics, is a moron.
It’s best for anyone to remain a skeptic until sufficient data are in to form a strong conclusion. And for nearly everyone watching this body of research unfold, we have reached that point. The strong consensus conclusion is that there is a heavy human hand in our current climate change. How much, and how it is manifested, is the subject of future inquiry.
But the reason I’m calling everyone I’ve talked with so far here a “denialist” is that the debate for you fellows is closed. Any evidence of AGW, for you, is just WRONG WRONG WRONG. Your minds are utterly closed on this point, and the question as to whether human civilization has any impact at all on climate is not open to debate.
That’s not a scientific approach. So I can’t put you into the category of scientists sincerely inquiring as to the extent or the nature of human inputs. And what’s left is the category of ideological zealots.
Am I wrong? If so, offer evidence we can look at and judge. As I have been trying to do.
Yes, you are wrong. There is no consensus, and even of there were, we do not vote on theories or failed hypotheses like CAGW.
The consensus I refer to is among the peer community. Every credentialed person has the right to review newly published research. And 97 (some say 98) percent agree that the mass of information points to a human hand behind observed warming.
To ignore all this is to have one’s head in the sand.
That is complete nonsense and there hasn’t been any warming for 17 years.
To ignore natural variability and take taxpayer money is fraud.
I think Michael has a mental problem (a bad dose of projection). He’s probably studying deniers for some wacky research project about how to promote propaganda (aka ‘climate communication’).
He does have a strange view that only credentialed people have the right to review research. Touching faith in academia.
“Touching faith in academia.”
And governments! Especially after what we have seen lately.
Billy, I’m guessing you don’t know what people mean when they talk about “peer review”. That’s the process by which a research scientist wanting to publish a paper submits it first to his peers– other research scientists. If they agree it’s a good piece of work, they signal to the publisher that it’s ready for publication.
And yes, they do have to be other credentialed scientists. It’s not enough for you to say something like “Ah, he’s fulla crap”. That would be what a scientist might call an unsupported opinion.
And what have I been doing here? If it were a research project they’d have to pay me pretty well to wade through all the BS I’ve found on this site. No, what I was looking for was some good arguments to the effect that man’s influence on climate isn’t the only thing worth studying. Because we learn by questioning the common wisdom (what a scientist would call attempting to falsify a thesis).
And it’s been a big disappointment. Lots of insults and invective, little in the way of worthwhile information and– above all– it reveals the workings of a group of minds that are absolutely closed to new information. If something reinforces your preconceptions you’ll defend it, rightly or wrongly. And if it doesn’t support your preconceptions? You trash it without any serious consideration as to whether it might be right.
Neither the scientific mind nor the liberal mind works that way. We’re always open to new ideas and opinions. But they have to prove themselves, just like the old ideas do.