Why You Should Be Worried About Dishonest Scientists And Journalists

Government funded scientists and their partners in crime in the media say we should be worried about “record low Arctic sea ice”

Arctic sea ice extent is exactly the same as it has been in all recent years, and is more than 300% of the “record low.” It is about 10% below the 1981 to 2000 mean. Why would anyone be worried about this?

Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

The Arctic is extremely cold. Scientists and journalists who say otherwise should be sent to live there.

Most of all, they need to stop lying about the climate.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

117 Responses to Why You Should Be Worried About Dishonest Scientists And Journalists

  1. Lasse says:

    No ice and open water in the Artic during winter will lead to warmer world?
    Record snow in Greenland will make the sealevel rise?
    I am curious how people think?

  2. gator69 says:

    Arctic sea ice extent is exactly the same as it has been in all recent years, and is more than 300% of the “record low.” It is about 10% below the 1981 to 2000 mean. Why would anyone be worried about this?

  3. Chris F says:

    Policy is about to change. I can see these people becoming irrelevant more and more.

    • RAH says:

      I live about 500 miles WNW of Washington, DC. And despite the prevailing winds being against it, I keep thinking I’m detecting the smell of over heated electrical motors. I suspect it’s because of all the shredders working overtime in DC these days.

      • Andy DC says:

        I am right here in the DC area and you are correct. The smell is overwhelming not only from shredding, but from all the rats jumping off the sinking ship.

        In all seriousness, people around here are showing clear signs of severe depression and psychosis. A big shot lobbyist I know stormed out of his own Christmas party in tears and went to bed at 7:30 PM because someone there had a few too many drinks and admitted that he voted for Trump.

        The next day this guy posted on Facebook “Yesterday, I discovered that people I thought were my friends were not my friends at all.”

        Get over it, you crybaby!

        • Latitude says:

          racist bigots….or bigoted racists

          Something like that

        • Gail Combs says:

          That is a great story Andy.

          I am hoping a ton of the Progressive bureaucrats quit in a huff on January 21 and their friends, in a show of solidarity quit with them.

          This is not all that far out. Hubby was telling of a Progressive programer at one of the companies he worked for who quit in a huff upon finding out the code he was working on was to be sold to a defense contractor. He thought better of it and tried to get re-instated the next day and they would not take him back. (This was in the Boston area BTW)

          • RAH says:

            I wouldn’t have taken him back either. If he was so upset that he quit over it then there was a possibility he would sabotage the work or steal it and sell it to others that should not have it.

  4. dennisambler says:

    These journalists never remember what they have written before, as they simply re-hash press feeds from the various scare institutions.
    This was Amos in 2001:

    “Arctic’s big melt challenged”
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1311007.stm

    “We are told the sea ice in the northern polar region is disappearing fast; some computer models even suggest there could be completely open water there during the summers at the end of this century.

    But a new, and as yet unpublished, piece of research is challenging the idea that a big melt is underway. Dr Greg Holloway, of the Institute of Ocean Sciences in Sidney, Canada, has got tongues wagging with his suggestion that the missing ice is still there, piled up in locations where researchers have not been looking for it.

    The evidence for major thinning is supported by submarine data. Upward-looking sonar readings, studied by both US and British scientists, have produced broadly similar results: about a 40% reduction in draught between the 1960s and 1990s – by draught, researchers mean the difference between the surface of the ocean and the bottom of the ice pack.

    (This has always been Peter Wadhams claim to fame. The US scientist was Rothrock.)

    But the submarine data are not exactly comprehensive: the cruises were not continuous and the data sets only cover certain areas in the Arctic. And this is partly what got Dr Holloway into thinking the ice may simply have been “mislaid”.

    He wondered if multi-decadal wind patterns known to operate in the Arctic could have shifted the ice into areas not surveyed by the submarines, giving the illusion that the ice was losing volume over a period of time. And when he matched the timing of the submarine visits with what he knew about wind cycles, his suspicions were confirmed.”

  5. Cam says:

    As of the NSIDC Ice extent chart for yesterday, 2016 finished the year 17k sq km above 2010. Of course when the monthly report comes out they will say the December average was lower than any other year on record, but we know the truth. Only 350k more to go to reach 2012/13.

  6. Gail Combs says:
  7. Eric Simpson says:

    The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen Norway.

    Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change with hitherto unheard-of high temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.

    Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

    Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

    * * *

    * * * * * *

    I must apologize. I forgot to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post – 95 years ago: https://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

  8. David A says:

    …”while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.”

    Well now we know know where that smelt fish went.

  9. barry says:

    Yeah, and why doesn’t anyone ever mention Antarctic sea ice? It’s maintained record low concentration since the 2nd week of November, but does the MSM pick up on that? Nosiree.

    • barry says:

      The article isn’t at all about sea ice.

      See? It’s a conspiracy.

      • Gail Combs says:

        And barry proves he either can not read or does not understand what he is reading.

        From Tony’s article:
        “…ice shelves — tongues of ice…”

        Get a clue . “ice shelves”refer to the part of a glacier sticking out into the ocean.

        Ice shelves are floating tongues of ice that extend from grounded glaciers on land. Snow falls on glaciers, which flow downstream under gravity. Ice shelves are common around Antarctica, and the largest ones are the Ronne-Filchner, Ross and McMurdo Ice Shelves.

        Ice shelves surround 75% of Antarctica’s coastline, and cover an area of over 1.561 million square kilometres (a similar size to the Greenland Ice Sheet). Ice shelves gain mass from ice flowing into them from glaciers onland, from snow accumulation, and from the freezing of marine ice (sea water) to their undersides[1]. They lose mass by calving icebergs, and basal melting towards their outer margins, along with sublimation and wind drift on their surfaces. Source

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          Gail, you’ve exceeded the difficulty level for the grade. Start Barry on something easier and hands-on, then patiently work up the degreee of complexity.

          I suggest for example:

          Polar Puzzle: Will Ice Melting at the North or South Poles Cause Sea Levels to Rise?

          Abstract

          If you leave an ice cube out on the kitchen counter and come back to check on it in awhile, what do you find? A puddle! The same thing happens to ice in nature—if the temperature gets warm enough, it melts. In this ocean science project, you will find out what happens to sea levels if the ice at the North Pole melts, or if the ice at the South Pole melts. It is an important question for the millions of people who enjoy living along the coasts of the world.

          Safety

          Adult supervision is required when making the homemade dough.

          http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_ideas/OceanSci_p015.shtml

          • Gail Combs says:

            “…Gail, you’ve exceeded the difficulty level for the grade….”

            Unfortunately you are correct Colorado. I forget that Progressives can not add 1+1 and get two.

            An ice shelf or glacier tongue sitting out in the water. It is therefore subject to tides, storms and wave action. Ice is brittle and all this motion causes fractures so of course the darn things are going to calve icebergs. That is why they have a term ‘calving’ for the phenomena.

            So an ice shelf is a land based glacier transitioning into icebergs aka sea ice.

            You know, like the water in a RIVER when it reaches the sea is no longer river water it becomes SEA water. Glaciers are rivers of ice just a lot slower moving.

            This glacier is pushing over a tree.

          • barry says:

            From your article, Gail.

            Ice shelves are therefore distinct from sea ice…

            But I just know that you are right and they are wrong, and that you cited the article even though it’s wrong so that you could correct it to ensure I’m properly informed.

          • Gail Combs says:

            So an ice shelf is a land based glacier transitioning into icebergs aka sea ice.

          • Gail Combs says:

            Transition
            movement, passage, or change from one position, state, stage, subject, concept, etc., to another; change: the transition from adolescence to adulthood
            http://www.dictionary.com/browse/transition

            Learn to look up the big words yourself Barry.

          • barry says:

            I see the logic, now. Urine is, after all, merely sea water that is way upstream. Letting go of an over-adherence to ‘distinctions’ allows one to continue to be in the right no matter what. Thank you for that education. I had been wrestling with the distinction made in your article:

            Ice shelves are therefore distinct from sea ice, which form solely from freezing marine water

            But I think you’ve established that they are way too hung up on ‘definitions,’ and cleverly cited them despite potential confusion to your point, so as to reveal this intellectual affliction with naming conventions.

          • barry says:

            adolescence to adulthood

            Yes, it’s all part of a flux, with rather arbitrary distinctions.

            Ice shelves are sea ice in the same way that a teenager is you, Gail.

      • barry says:

        They can’t obscure millions of sq km of sea ice with 1.5 m sq km of ice shelves. I don’t think they realize the topic of this thread.

      • barry says:

        Well, at least in your article they admit they’re not interested in talking about sea ice, Gail.

        Ice shelves are therefore distinct from sea ice…

    • gator69 says:

      Maybe it’s because Antarctica is cooling…

      • barry says:

        UAH have a slight warming in Antarctica sine 1979, and skeptics published a paper finding warming since 1957 at about the same rate.

        http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/01/skeptic-paper-accepted-on-antarctica-rebuts-steig-et-al/

        No doubt these are TEAM members.

        • gator69 says:

          Obviously there is no meltdown occurring at either pole. If NASA shows a slight cooling trend, then there is nothing to worry about, except starving kids. So stop diverting funds away from real tragedies.

          Why is Barry worried about ice?

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            Because Gail rushed through the materials and skipped the playdough projects.

          • gator69 says:

            Thanks CW! I don’t know why, but I always assume that if they can type, they can hold intelligent conversation. Maybe a coloring book can keep Barry busy while the adults talk.

        • barry says:

          Though it pains me to give any credence to NASA data, I could forego the analyses by Roy Spencer and Steve McIntyre that has Antarctica warming in order to keep on message.

          • gator69 says:

            Why worry about a non-problem Barry? Especially when 21,000 innocent humans needlessly starve each and every day.

            What is your problem Barry?

          • barry says:

            My problem is that NASA give the correct answer for climate trend in the Antarctic and WUWT and Roy Spencer give the wrong answer (warming). I don’t know who to trust any more.

          • barry says:

            21,000 people starving world wide? That’s an amazing result. Far less than I would have supposed.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            Die starving. Are you really that ignorant?

          • barry says:

            I’m getting the info from Gator. Should I demand a refund?

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            More than anything you should demand remedial lessons with playdough. It’s hard to keep up later when the foundations are missing.

          • barry says:

            Maybe Roy and Steve are deriving trends from simple least squares regression instead of a more sophisticated linear model to correct for auto-correlation. Do you think they’d be better off with an AR(1) linear regression model or ARMA models? Otherwise, I don’t know why NASA gives the correct answer to Antarctica (cooling trend) and McIntyre and Spencer get it wrong (warming in Antarctica).

            But I know you’ll have some helpful advice. You seem to know a lot about playdough, which I admit I have not spent much time pondering for about 45 years.

          • gator69 says:

            Barry seems both impressed, and disappointed in his team…

            21,000 people starving world wide? That’s an amazing result. Far less than I would have supposed.

            Sick bastard.

          • Gail Combs says:

            US politicians and UN bureaucrats have less compassion and common sense than the average baboon and Barry doesn’t even reach that level. (I refuse to use ethanol contaminated gas BTW)

          • AndyG55 says:

            barry has goofed a big one… as is his meme.

            The graph gator gives is UAH SoPol all, not land.

            Roy’s trend calculations are correct.

            Antarctic land is warming because of the local warming, probably volcanic, of the West Antarctic peninsular..

            In other part of Antarctica warming is not significantly different from ZERO.

            barry needs to go wash his clown suit, yet again, to get the egg off it.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “Far less than I would have supposed.”

            And far less than you hoped for, right barry.!

          • barry says:

            barry has goofed a big one… as is his meme.

            The graph gator gives is UAH SoPol all, not land.

            And Gator called it ‘Antarctica.’ But somehow I don’t think anyone is going to say that was a mistake on his part….

          • gator69 says:

            No barry, I did not call a graph “Antartica”. I showed you a graph that contains the area of Antarctica, and pointed out that the graph shows Antarctica is not warming. You must work really hard to be this stupid.

            Now, what about the innocent humans that you are helping to snuff out? Are you trying to help kill more or less than 21,000 today?

        • RAH says:

          Yea, we can’t even agree on the temperature record of the coldest place on earth or anywhere else it seems, but some are damned sure the atmosphere is going to react in a way it never has before to an added 0.004 mole fraction of C02. It is insanity.

          • RAH says:

            Excuse me that should be a 0.0004 mole fraction.

          • Gail Combs says:

            The Warmists also ignore the fact that the Antarctic Sea Ice has been growing since 1979 except when you hit El Nino years like this year.

            With the El Nino transporting ocean stored heat to space, the PDO and AMO turning negative and cycle 24 winding down to an even deeper minimum than cycle 23, the earth should go into a cooling phase within the next few years.

          • barry says:

            It’s annoying, but currently Antarctic sea ice is at the lowest it’s been in the satellite record and has been since September. I know that a snapshot like this is more meaningful than the trend, because the OP relies on the current snapshot and ignores the long term trend.

            Steve would NOT give us a false argument, so, by the rubric in the OP, Antarctic sea ice has not been growing at all, but rather looks like it may have declined, being continuously the lowest concentration on record since Nov 8.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “UAH have a slight warming in Antarctica sine 1979”

          BULLS**T !!

        • AndyG55 says:

          Nowhere on gator’s graph does it say land.

          It seems that barry is LYING YET AGAIN.

          To make a nonsense point because he has NOTHING else to make a point about.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Barry is LYING.. UAH has a slight COOLING trend

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          That’s too harsh. He was cheated out of playdough lessons and forcibly advanced. Lying would require understanding the subject matter.

          • AndyG55 says:

            The REAL STUPIDITY from barry is that the differences are tiny and well within any error.

            But he HAS to make a big deal out of something, because neither Arctic or Antarctic ice is doing anything unusual.

            Arctic sea ice is well above the levels of most of the Holocene, and the Antarctic has been know to have these brief few month dips and peaks.

            barry is again acting the ignorant clown, thinking that ups and downs of the 40 odd year satellite period is actually of any importance or relevance to anything.

          • barry says:

            See below for UAH reporting on temp trend in Antarctica. I can’t believe Spencer gives a warming trend for Antarctica, can you?

          • AndyG55 says:

            YAWN !

            Margin of error, you ignorant dopey Swartz.

            Its a zero trend either way.

            And it depends where you take end points.

            While we are at it, lets look at the Arctic after the 1998 El Nino and before the recent El Nino

            Same Zero trend there too.

            That’s because CO2 has ZERO warming effect in a convective atmosphere.

            But you KNOW that , don’t you, barry.

          • Gail Combs says:

            This interesting graph of Solar TSI since 2003 shows Cycle 24 is ALREADY lower in TSI than NASA’s ‘Deep Solar Minimum’ of 2009.

          • Gail Combs says:

            The last graph I posted only shows part of Solar Cycle 23 to current.

            The following graph shows earlier TSI up to ~2013

            The first graph shows a fall of 0.7Wm^2 from the peak of Solar Cycle 24 which translates to the TSI of about 1810 or 1900 on the following graph despite the fact solar cycle 24 is not even over yet.

        • Gail Combs says:

          AndyG
          As you know that is only 37 years and the Antarctic surrounded by ocean. The largest ocean is the Pacific and the PDO is in the bottom of its negative phase and just heading towards the positive.

        • Gail Combs says:

          So what does a negative or positive PDO do to the temperatures around the Antarctica?

          OOPs a negative PDO, like we have seen during the GROWTH of sea ice over the last several years, is a WARMER southern ocean!

          It will be interesting to see what happens as the PDO climbs into the positive phase as the sun goes into a deep minimum causing** a change (Δ) in ozone ==>Δ winds around Antarctica ==> Δ wind driven Antarctica Circumpolar Current.

          Three of several papers**
          NATURE: Regional atmospheric circulation shifts induced by a grand solar minimum
          University of Rome (Italy)Solar UV variability and stratospheric ozone
          THE BREWER-DOBSON CIRCULATION

          • RAH says:

            Joe Bastardi’s last Saturday Summary goes over the current indicators of weather and how they are in conflict with each other for forecasting purposes. I found it very interesting. He shows the:
            Madden Julian Oscillation
            Arctic Oscillation
            North Atlantic Oscillation
            PNA (Pacific North American teleconnection)
            Eastern Pacific Oscillation
            Western Pacific Oscillation
            And how each relates to weather in the US according to the meteorological record. They are in conflict with each other thus over all giving a mixed signal as to what our coming weather will be like. This is where the human touch comes in for developing accurate forecasts. Sources like Accuweather just take the output of the ensemble of the American models that use these nodes to generate their forecasts and spit them out as their own forecasts and change as the models change. While real forecasting has the human touch of meteorologists interpreting the data and deciding which of the nodes will be dominant for themselves while referring to various other climate model ensembles like the European and Japanese to come up with their forecasts.

            Go to http://www.weatherbell.com/#premium

            Click the Premium tab at the top and you will find the page with the most recent daily update and Saturday Summary videos.

  10. barry says:

    Thank God you’ve discovered the truth, AndyG55. You can see the trend given for Antarctica at the UAH website itself. Scroll to the bottom of the page and look to the right for the decadal trend – look at ‘So Pol’ – ‘Land’. Because that is Antarctica.

    http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

    Roy Spencer gives a warming trend of 0.07C/decade.

    Tsk. Looks like he’s gone over to the dark side. This is their ‘new’ version of the UAH data – more adjustments!

    Maybe Steve could do an expose on this here, or maybe Bob Tisdale or someone at WUWT should send out the alert…. What do you think? Has Spencer turned, become incompetent or what?

    Why does his analysis show warming in Antarctica??

    • barry says:

      I ran a simple linear regression for SoPol Land data from Jan 1979 to Nov 2016. 0.07C/decade is confirmed. That’s a whole 0.1C/decade different from your result, Andy. Maybe you should head over to Spencer’s site and confront him about it.

      • AndyG55 says:

        You obviously have ZERO idea about error margins and different methodologies. You have to make a big deal out of something, because you have NOTHING

        Your every post shows you are a mathematically illiterate moron.

        I graphed the whole region, because that’s what’s important.

        And the Antarctic region has essentially ZERO TREND over the whole satellite data era

        A point that you are really having problems getting you feeble mind around.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Sorry barry , but Roy’s trends are exactly correct.

        The graph that gator gave up page is actually UAH data for whole SoPol, not for land, and it is also correct for the period stated.

        There is absolutely no discrepancy anywhere except in your feeble mind.

      • barry says:

        Yes, I suspected Gator has mistaken all area North of 60S for Antarctica. And I was not surprised that you did exactly the same, when you quoted me on Antarctica and posted that graph as if it represented Antarctica. But I didn’t want to get too far ahead of myself and make that suggestion. I knew you had a crafty surprise waiting behind what looked like an error.

        You guys clearly know what you’re doing and I’m appreciating the education in how to be a proper CAGW skeptic.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Back-peddling like mad, hey, you slimy git !!

        • AndyG55 says:

          “I suspected Gator has mistaken all area North of 60S for Antarctica.”

          Wow,, probably the most STUPID thing even you have ever said.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “behind what looked like an error.”

          The error was all yours,

          You try to point out a discrepancy in Roy’s trend calcs, and there isn’t one.

          You LIED. and now try unsuccessfully to cover up your DECEIT..

          SLIMY, like a putrid troll

          • barry says:

            You quoted me on temps in Antarctica and then immediately below that quote reproduced the graph that encompasses land and ocean North of 60D, or in UAH shorthand ‘SoPol’.

            https://realclimatescience.com/2017/01/why-you-should-be-worried-about-dishonest-scientists-and-journalists/#comment-34556

            Now, a stupid person would assume that you had made an error here, confusing the continent of Antarctica with the UAH ‘SoPol’ area. But I know your mind is a lot subtler than that.

            I am also confident that Gator supplied a 2 year old temp graph:

            https://realclimatescience.com/2017/01/why-you-should-be-worried-about-dishonest-scientists-and-journalists/#comment-34430

            and called it ‘Antarctica’ when it is SoPol data, NOT because he made a mistake, but because he/she/it, too, is a subtle thinker.

            I am surprised that you have defended the Roy Spencer, when you both have categorically stated that ANTARCTICA has been cooling, and proved it with graphs! And now you say he’s right that it has been warming??

            No, I agree with you. Roy is wrong, and as you’ve been saying all along, Antarctica has been cooling, per your graphs and your comments. Don’t give in to him just because he’s qualified. That never stopped a good skeptic.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Keep the lies and pretence going, barry.

            You got caught out in your own lies.

            Now slither off.. you have left enough slime here already.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “I am surprised that you have defended the Roy Spencer, when you both have categorically stated that…… ”

            gees barry, are you MIXED UP.

            Just finish that second bottle and go to bed.. maybe you will think clearer when you are sober. !!

          • AndyG55 says:

            Roy’s calculations are totally correct from his data.

            GET OVER IT.

            And I cannot find where Roy has said anything.

            Get a grip, barry….. you are coming across as seriously pie-eyed.

            Its quite funny in a clownish sort of way.

          • barry says:

            What, apart from saying North of 60s instead of South, was my error re Antarctic temp trends?

            You and Gator keep showing graphs of Antarctica cooling.

            Who do I believe – you or Roy?!?

    • AndyG55 says:

      “Why does his analysis show warming in Antarctica??”

      West Antarctic Peninsular.

      Are you really that IGNORANT !!

      • gator69 says:

        Are you really that IGNORANT !!

        Do you really need to ask? I believe the thread speaks for itself.

        • AndyG55 says:

          I believe that the only reason barry came here was to reinforce the fact that he is a mathematically and scientifically illiterate moron.

          He did well… he achieved his aim.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Seems that “barry the twerp”, is saying your graph is a land graph.

        Can you see anywhere where it says that ?

        If you look at the data carefully, it is actually the whole SoPol region.

        barry is WRONG…….. or trying to deliberately misdirect yet again.

        Roy’s trend calculation is absolutely correct as being ZERO to two decimal places.

        The full trend is actually -0.0003C/year

        • gator69 says:

          barry is WRONG…

          No doubt, and evil. I wonder how he would feel if his family was part of the 21,000 that will needlessly die today? Seriously, I wonder.

          • AndyG55 says:

            The anti-CO2 agenda has a LOT to answer for.

            It has greatly slowed the development of third world countries. Instead of wasting all that money on destroying first world country power supplies by politically forcing wind and solar , destabilising their power systems… imagine how much the third world countries would have benefitted from good solid RELIABLE coal or gas fired electricity.

            The whole situation SICKENS me..

            but people like barry.. JUST DON’T CARE..

            and furthermore, now that they KNOW that they are stopping real progress in those countries, and causing millions of unnecessary deaths.. they STILL WANT TO KEEP DOING IT. !!

            These AGW scammers, and people who follow them, are DISGUSTING pieces of human trash.

          • Gail Combs says:

            Andy, Gator here is a simple ‘fix’ from the 1970s for desertification, a major problem for much of the third world. Just teaching this low tech method would turn many farm families from close to starving to productive and able to sell goods. The first leg on the journey towards a better life and 21st century technology.

            The critical parts are:
            #1. The “bean tree” from Mexico
            #2. Pen the goats.
            #3. A primitive anaerobic digester.

            Leucaena leucocephala collection of links (from E.M. Smith, although I also remember the original article.)

            ….Goat Poo is collected and, instead of burning it, fermented in an anaerobic digester (made of local materials – bricks in a hole in the ground, IIRC) and the resultant methane gas piped to the huts to a “stove”. The stove was made of dried mud. Little more than shaped mud where the methane from fermentation, “Gobar Gas”, was mixed with air in a very low pressure ‘jet’ and burned under a pot, that sat in a hole in the dried mud. There was a “clay” (dried mud) chimney that took the exhaust gasses out of the hut. The stove was maybe the size of a can of stew and the chimney about the diameter of your wrist.

            Now the “sludge” from the fermenter is GREAT fertilizer. It gets spread on a garden area. Any excess gets spread on the “field” (still a bit like a desert). From the garden, the family gets consistent food that can be dried and used in off seasons, or eaten fresh. Everyone is having much better health….

            Now, in that open desert area, a special tree was planted. Leucaena leucocephala. A “bean tree” from Mexico….

            Very simple changes, and with the exception of the “bean tree” all locally available.

            Penning the goats is critical.
            The idea is to keep the goats from eating new shoots thereby allowing mature growth that shades and holds the soil. Instead pen the goats and have the kids cut and bring the selected feed to the goats. Also the manure is concentrated in a small area easy to collect for the digester.

            You can always tie the darn goat to a tire to keep it from jumping/climbing over/under the fence you build. — BTDT

            Barry, should also be happy because this increases the green plant mass that uses up CO2.

          • gator69 says:

            Gail, as a climatology student, in between the global cooling scare and the great global warming swindle, I wrote a paper on Desertification. It was all the rage, in climatology circles. Of course back then, in order to do research one had to go to this thing called a “library” and check out “books”, as Al Gore had not yet invented the internet.

            Every source I could find, almost exclusively university and government research, said that the deserts would continue expanding at an ever faster rate, and that if we did not spend the world’s treasure on mitigation immediately, we would all die in a sea of sand. So that was basically the conclusion of my paper, and boy did I learn a lesson. I should have known better because I had already spent over 5 years as a geology student by then.

            Fool me once…

      • barry says:

        “Why does his analysis show warming in Antarctica??”

        West Antarctic Peninsular.

        Ah, so the region UAH refers to as So Pol Land is not really all land mass South of 60S (minus the small hole at the pole in UAH data) but is, in fact, only the West Antarctic Peninsula.

        Thank goodness I have such intelligent CAGW skeptics to clear these things up.

        • AndyG55 says:

          My goodness you are DUMB !!!

          You comprehension level is that of an 8 year old.

          You didn’t even read your own link did you. !

          Try again, idiot !!

        • barry says:

          Yes, I did read the link, but it took a long time and left me dizzy. Data pages tend to do that. So many numbers. But do check my link. I just want to be confident that it really is about the Antarctic Peninsula.

          https://realclimatescience.com/2017/01/why-you-should-be-worried-about-dishonest-scientists-and-journalists/#comment-34562

          As I said in that post,

          Why does his analysis show warming in Antarctica??

          I took that to be SoPol –> Land data. But you’re bringing me round to believe that it’s either everything North of 60S, or just the Antarctic Peninsula. I’ll await further clarification.

          Once again, thanks for your incredible help.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “either everything North of 60S”

            OMG but you are seriously DUMB !!!!!!!!!

          • AndyG55 says:

            Stay confused little troll. It suits you.

          • barry says:

            Yeah North/South – I’ve been discussing Arctic sea ice elsewhere and typed North out of habit.

            The link in my post isn’t about the west Antarctic peninsula at all.

            So you’re thinking of some other link in a post I’ve made which doesn’t contain the quote you used.

            You have amazingly subtle skills there.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Way up top, you said….

            “My problem is that NASA give the correct answer for climate trend in the Antarctic ”

            Where is this NASA data..

            .. and how do you know it gives the correct trend?

          • AndyG55 says:

            “Yeah North/South ”

            You might figure it out eventually. or NOT.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “The link in my post isn’t about the west Antarctic peninsula at all.”

            See, you didn’t read your own links.

            It most definitely was about Western Antarctic & Peninsular warming. That was the only significant warming there was in the whole Antarctic region, and it feeds into the tiny warming trend in the land data, and is cancelled by the ocean sea ice temperature data to give an overall trend of essentially ZERO.

            If you read your link , you will figure it out.

            Eventually….. maybe.

            That’s all for tonight.

            I’ll leave you to finish your bottle (morning there still, I take it)

            I have other way more important threads to look at, than arguing with a child troll sucking its thumb.

          • barry says:

            Where is this NASA data..

            .. and how do you know it gives the correct trend?

            Because Gator posted it, and Gator wouldn’t lie.

            https://realclimatescience.com/2017/01/why-you-should-be-worried-about-dishonest-scientists-and-journalists/#comment-34430

            You’ll find I was loath to accept the data at first. That’s ‘adjusted’ data. But Gator didn’t get on board with the warming trends I posted from WUWT (Steve McIntyre paper) or from UAH, and we know how useful it is to have cooling trends wherever we can find them, so I bit down hard and decided to accept NASA data, but only for this part of the world, only because of the cooling trend. It’s on-message.

            It’s just disappointing that WUWT and UAH don’t also show Antarctica cooling.

          • barry says:

            This is the link in the post where you quote me saying, “Why does his analysis show warming in Antarctica??” I’m referring to Roy Spencer here.

            http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

            Nothing about any peninsulas in that link.

            You obviously mean a different post. How cunning of you.

            I suspect you mean the WUWT link to the paper that discussed the Antarctic, and worked out the temp trends for 3 main regions including the Antarctic Peninsula.

            Steve McIntyre and Jeff Condon find an area weighted average of a slight warming for the whole continent since 1957.

            As I remarked when I introduced the paper, I wonder if these skeptics have gone over to the dark side. They were criticising Steig, the charlatan, and were supposed to show a cooling continent. but they wimped out and instead reported a smaller but still warming trend.

            No, it might be better to stick with the crummy NASA data because it tells the story we want.

          • AndyG55 says:

            roflmao..

            You just proved you don’t read your own links.

            Well done clown !!!

            Now GO TO BED and get some sleep so your mind isn’t so wacked-out.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “Because Gator posted it, and Gator wouldn’t lie.”

            No, Gator graph is exactly what it said it is.

            Be more observant, clown.

            You really making yourself look like a low IQ teenager…

            No more hints for you…

            … you can work it out for yourself once you sober up.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “Because Gator posted it, and Gator wouldn’t lie.”

            OMG, the data comes from NASA satellites, but it is UAH

          • barry says:

            Gator’s first sentence in his post says “Antarctica.” This means the continent outside of skeptic science, which is why I was confused.

            The graph itself is labeled.

            “Per NASA satellites So Pol is cooling since 1978
            Huge atmospheric CO2 levels have no impact on Southern continent”

            Now, despite my earlier typing North when it should have been South, I think I have it right that the only continent in the South Pole is Antarctica.

            And it’s UAH data, is it? Shame that NASA got any credit on the graph, but nevermind.

            So, summing up the information you’ve given me Gator has posted here a chart of Antarctica temps – the temps of the continent, and it’s UAH data.

            Once again, Gator’s fine work shows cooling, while the trend given at the suspect UAH site has warming for the continent.

            I hate to see good skeptics come up with discrepancies like this. If only a genuine mistake had been made – such as Gator actually used the UAH data 60S to 90S and mislabeled it as ‘Antarctica’ and ‘the frozen continent’.

            Honest skeptics would spend no time ducking and weaving and come right out and admit such goofs. Unlike the government-paid reprobate warmist scientists. Which is why I know Gator made no mistakes in labeling, and neither did you.

  11. barry says:

    Sorry Guys, you were saying that Antarctica has been cooling. Stupidly, I thought you were referring to the continent. I will try to remember that the old naming conventions get in the way of proper science.

  12. barry says:

    This has been an education.

    When I tried to start a conversation about Antarctic sea ice, I was reproved for not talking about ice shelves instead.
    When someone mentioned temperature changes for Antarctica, I was reproved for not understanding that this actually referred to “the whole SoPol region” which encompasses all UAH data North of 60S.

    I would never have realized that ice shelves are actually sea ice, and that the continent of Antarctica makes a perfect disc at 60S, if I hadn’t come here to be schooled with such good humour and patience.

    Thank you.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “This has been an education.”

      You have learnt NOTHING

      You do not have that capability.

      You are LYING AGAIN

      You said their was a discrepancy in Roy’s trend calculations, you were shown to be WRONG

      So stop acting like a yellow-backed weasel.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “which encompasses all UAH data North of 60S.”

      ROFLMAO !!!

      Sooooo stupid , you are !!!

      • barry says:

        OMG, I said North when I should have said South. Ohhh, the shame, I could just crawl into a twinkie and feed!!

        • AndyG55 says:

          About the nth time..

          Erro, upon error, upon erro.

          Finish the bottle, and get some sleep.

          Perhaps you will be more coherent tomorrow..

          although I doubt it.

        • barry says:

          You said their was a discrepancy in Roy’s trend calculations, you were shown to be WRONG

          You and Gator posted graphs that you both called Antarctica, showing a cooling trend. Gator first did so here, and you did the same here

          I realize now that these were not in fact temps of Antarctica. But I can’t figure out why you named them so.

          Can you tell me why?

          • gator69 says:

            I never called a graph Antarctica. Stop lying barry.

            You came here all upset over nothing. I showed you a graph of the region to calm your frazzled nerves, and you spent an entire day trying to discredit it, making a fool of yourself in the process.

            Now, are you trying up the ante, and starve 22,000 innocent humans today, or is that not enough?

          • barry says:

            “I never called a graph Antarctica.”

            https://realclimatescience.com/2017/01/why-you-should-be-worried-about-dishonest-scientists-and-journalists/#comment-34430

            Right there in the first sentence of the post, and also in the graph itself, where it says “Huge atmospheric CO2 levels have no impact on southern continent.

            The graph also says SoPol, but I assume you were not talking about the temps at 90 N! :-)

          • barry says:

            It’s funny. I gave the link to the graph you posted in the post you just replied to. I also included the link where Andy quotes me saying Antarctica and produces another graph which apparently is not temps of the continent only. Here’s that one.

            https://realclimatescience.com/2017/01/why-you-should-be-worried-about-dishonest-scientists-and-journalists/#comment-34556

            Now Andy tells me that Roy Spencer’s warming trend for Antarctica is right, and that these graphs are not of Antarctica, despite that name clearly appearing above each, and your graph describing the “frozen continent” within the graph box itself.

            I’d prefer to believe you guys with the cooling, but I’m not quite sure if you mean to say that the graphs you presented are not actually of Antarctica, the continent, but some other area around the ‘SoPol.’

            Please clarify what your graph is of?

          • barry says:

            I can’t help the 22,000 today, because by the time I traveled to where they are they’d be dead. But I am going to be suitably sickened from now on, whenever I see or hear a greenie speak. I may even throw things at them, and plan to spend more time on my computer at home typing things to make the world a better place.

          • gator69 says:

            barry, this is what I said, “Maybe it’s because Antarctica is cooling…”

            I did not call the graph “Antarctica”, you did. I simply pointed to a graph that illustrates the fact that we should not be paying much (if any) attention to Antarctica. A graph that showed a cooling trend at the South Pole. I cannot help it if you cannot read graphs, that’s just not my faulty barry. Blame genetics or your teachers, but not me.

            You then went on to claim many things about that graph that were clearly incorrect, because you assumed before thinking and spewed your mindless ideology.

            You cannot possibly be as stupid as you pretend. Or can you? We shall see.

            Quoting barry: I can’t help the 22,000 today, because by the time I traveled to where they are they’d be dead.

            If I see less stupidity from you here I may give you the benefit of the doubt, and figure you are actually speaking out as a skeptic of CAGW in an attempt to place funds where they rightly and morally belong. But from your flippant response to this gemocide barry, I seriously doubt that you give one rats ass about those people.

  13. Gail Combs says:

    This is a fun website and demonstrates why Geologist are better at CLIMATE. (ClimAstrolgists keep focusing on weather and calling it climate.)

    http://www.scotese.com/paleocli.htm

    Up on the left corner is an interactive map that moves the earth’s land mass going from 750 million years ago until today.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *