COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut
Temperatures are -35C
COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut
The always reliable BBC says that the Arctic will be ice-free this year, or sooner.
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’
Same kind of recovery happened in 2008, when 2007’s fall and 2008’s spring had record snowcover extent in the NH. Massive albedo effects made it so cold that 300,000 sq km re-covered the 2008 Arctic in the subsequent summer melt time.
Same will happen here – record cold, even greater albedo than in 2008 (already happened) will cause ice “gain” over the Arctic. But the natural trend will still continue. This year will be the coldest of the last 15, but there will be some temperature recovery for next year, courtesy of a partially re-frozen Arctic. Watch the AGW crowd proclaim that 2015 will “break” the downward trend.
Not so fast, as 2016 & 17 will be hard evidence of albedo’s power to influence our climate by directing temperatures downward when the summer Arctic opens up again!
BTW Albedo directed solar energy pierces the CO2 on the way up as it did on the way down. “Effective CO2” is in the 200ppm range over snowfields.
Let’s hope we can say the same in September and end one more AGW talking point…
We’ll need some patience before the AGW scare goes completely away. They are already transitioning to a “Hurricanes, Tornadoes, and Extreme Weather” linkage as temperature readings drop like flies!
They used to tell us that the weather is not the same as climate (when it was warming), now EVERY weather extreme is a sure sign of global warming. Northern Japan’s record snowfall is being blamed on global warming by the British Biased Corporation. The scam is unrevealing and it’s now an open secret. It will be over sooner or later.
Biased Bastards Corporation!
ClimateDepot.com is being financed by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a nonprofit in Washington that advocates for free-market solutions to environmental issues. Public tax filings for 2003-7 (the last five years for which documents are available) show that the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the ExxonMobil Foundation and foundations associated with the billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, a longtime financier of conservative causes, including being the primary source of money used to fund attacks against Bill Clinton during the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky eras of his presidency [1]. According to a report issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists, from 1998-2005, approximately 23% of the total ExxonMobil funding for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow was directed by ExxonMobil for climate change activities [p. 32].
Big deal. The AGW crowd is the beneficiary of billions of dollars in grant money from various foundations and government agencies. The few dollars that Climate Depot may receive from EXxon is a drop in the bucket by comparison. The Sierra Club receives funding from the power industry (another favorite bogeyman of the Warmists), but you conveniently ignore that fact.
By the way, your attempt to divert attention with the by-now-stale argument about fossil fuel industry funding of AGW skeptics avoids addressing a very inconvenient fact: The planet has seen no statistically significant warming for 17 years, despite rising CO2 levels. The hypothesis that links human-induced CO2 to global warming has been thoroughly discredited. Even the head of the IPCC has had to concede that warming has
stopped.
Get a grip. The world isn’t warming; in fact, it’s cooling. The sun is taking an extended snooze. We haven’t seen it this quiet in more than 100 years, and there is speculation that we may be headed for another Dalton Minimum or, worse, Maunder Minimum. That could be catastrophic for grain production in the Northern Hemisphere, triggering
widespread famine.
I gave you fact and figures on the “stale” funding. Sorry if that bores you, but ExxonKock Bros sites are the ones peddling the Half-truth tales such as the “head of the IPCC” tale.
The whole story went on to say: The UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office, but said it would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend.
Dr Pachauri said global average temperatures had plateaued at record levels and that the halt did not disprove global warming.
“The climate is changing because of natural factors and the impact of human actions,” Dr Pachauri said.
“If you look at temperatures going back 150 years, there are clearly fluctuations which have occurred largely as a result of natural factors: solar activity, volcanic activity and so on.
“What is quite perceptible is, in the last 50 years, the trend is upwards.
“This is not to say you won’t have ups and downs – you will – but what we should be concerned about is the trend, and that is being influenced now to a large extent by human actions.”
He said that it would be 30 to 40 years “at least” before it was possible to say that the long-term upward trend in global temperatures had been broken.
If you choose to believe the man on one point, at least read the entire story!
Pachauri is a railroad engineer, not a climate scientist.
Where does he get the 30-40 year number unless he’s just pulled out of his arse?
Santer originally calculated 17 years of no warming to show a discrepancy between models and global temperature.
In his new paper:
“The multimodel average tropospheric temperature trends are outside the 5–95 percentile range of RSS results at most latitudes.”
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/11/28/1210514109.full.pdf
Translation: model predictions are falsified everywhere except the Arctic.
Why do you believe the 30-40 year claim from an newspaper interview but ignore the peer reviewed science?
BTW, Pachauri received substantial funding for his institute to study the Himalayas glacier melt problem. A problem that turned out to be substantially fabricated. Why do you still believe Pachauri instead of peer reviewed science?
I don’t particularly believe the guy. I know him not. The hypocrisy in half-quoting him I find odd. Is his word credible or not?
I like the paper from Santer. Do you like him?
How do we know that human activities—namely the emissions from our tailpipes and smokestacks—are responsible for warming the planet? To Benjamin Santer, a climate scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, the answer lies clearly within the data. It turns out that, just as perpetrators leave hard evidence like fingerprints and DNA samples at the scene of a crime, the various causes of climate change leave distinct signatures or patterns that climate scientists can identify if they look carefully enough. And hardly anyone has been looking longer or more closely for climate-change fingerprints than Santer.
This is too funny!!!
…is this the same MC that was going on and on about amateurs, and consensus, and scientists and all???
..and now he’s quoting a porn author!
M.C. Kostek: It seems that you do not have the ability to figure out that the money is on the “alarmist” so that the rest of us can be controlled by a government and that is something that people that always want something for nothing look forward to.
Entity
USD
Greenpeace
$300m
2010 Annual Report
WWF
$700m
($524m Euro)
Pew Charitable Trust
$360m
2010 Annual Report
Sierra Club
$56m
2010 Annual Report
NSW climate change fund (just one random government example)
$750m
NSW government (A$700m)
UK university climate fund (just another random government example)
$360m
UK government (£234 m)
Heartland Institute
$7m
(actually $6.4m)
US government funding for climate science and technology
$7,000m
“Climate Money” 2009
US government funding for “climate related appropriations”
$1,300m
USAID 2010
Annual turnover in global carbon markets
$120,000m
2010 Point Carbon
Annual investment in renewable energy
$243,000m
2010 BNEF
US government funding for skeptical scientists
$ 0
Unfortunately, ice VOLUME, the truly important measure, is going in the opposite direction. http://www.rcinet.ca/english/daily/interviews-2012/12-00_2013-02-25-confirmation-of-arctic-ice-volume-diminishing/
Coverage area, while important does not tell the full story of what’s happening to the ice. This new data which determines both coverage, and the very significant information about ice thickness, is combined to determine the more accurate “volume” of ice, and how much ice is being lost.
A new report says accurate data gathered over the past two years proves Arctic ice cover is not only retreating but also getting thinner.
Co-authored by York University polar ice expert Christian Haas, the report used data from the Europan Space Agency CyroSat-2 from 2010 through 2012, combined with other data from both airborne and submarine sensors.
It also compared those figures with data from NASA”s IceSat during the period 2003-2008
It showed that ice volume has diminished by as much as 36% in the autumn period, and 9% through the winter in just those few years.
Stop whining. I’m so sick of this mindless busllshit.
Why in the world is thinning ice “mindless bullshit”?
Deliver your stupid ice-free Arctic and get it over with. PIOMAS will be reporting the thickness as negative in a year or two.
The endless lies have got to stop.
Why don’t you take your sled up to the arctic and find out how devastating the thinning ice is Lazarus?
I’m pretty confident the last thing you found that was “devastating” would be the ice thickness.
CyroSat-2, airborne sensors, submarine sensors and IceSat are all providing “endless lies”? Why would they do that?
It has been 35 below zero for months and the ice is really thin. ROFLMAO
Well, I guess we will find out in August/September if the satellites and and submarines were right or that you were.
I take it you are predicting an ice-free Arctic?
No, but the trend is pretty clear — the total amount of ice (area times height) is shrinking. We will probably have wide areas of ice in winter for decades to come, but the ice will melt sooner (thinner) year after year and there will be large open areas of open ocean in August then July and perhaps in a decade or two, we may even be navigating the Arctic in June or May.
Greenland is still pretty close to the Arctic, right?
The “trend” in Greenland has been going colder…..
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo3.png
Laz, I hope you’re right, but I doubt it. It would be a boon to mankind to open up the arctic for trade and commerce.
Latitude,
Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Alaska, Canada and Russia are all close as well and I don’t think they all trending colder, in fact, I think Canada is trending warmer. In any case, if the land ice melted in any of those places, there wouldn’t be a larger Arctic ocean so i am afraid that I don’t see your point.
Take a trip to the Arctic to see the meltdown for yourself. -73 degrees right now.
Anyone who calls himself “Truth Teller” has got to have some screws loose.
What suyts said thar! So tell Me how many temp stations are being used in the Canadian Arctic for that trend?
“Take a trip to the Arctic to see the meltdown for yourself. -73 degrees right now.”
And yet the ice continues a downward spiral as it has since 1979 when most years were colder than this winter in the Arctic. http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
So tell Me how many temp stations are being used in the Canadian Arctic for that trend?
since 1979 when most years were colder than this winter in the Arctic.
========
Does this crap make anyone else’s head explode?
of course you don’t see the point………..temps have been falling in the Arctic for the past 10,000 years……which means it used to be warmer
It will be interesting to get Lazarus’ take on this historically verified data regarding the arctic, an area where I spent 14 years but have no way of knowing if Lazarus has any practical experience with or not. He does not seem to want to rely in the Danes graphs but wander off on some delusional tangent about something that I would guess he has no understanding of other than what John Cook has told him.
“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 Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with 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, the report continued, 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.”
Who reported this ? the IPCC, the Meteorological Office…. No, that was the US Weather Bureau in 1922.
“The source report of the Washington Post article on changes in the arctic has been found in the Monthly Weather Review for November 1922. It is much more detailed than the Washington Post (Associated Press) article. It seems the AP heaviliy relied on the report from Norway Consulate George Ifft, which is shown below. See the original MWR article below and click the newsprint copy for a complete artice or see the link to the original PDF below:”
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/200389-Flashback-1922-Extra-Extra-Read-all-about-it-Arctic-Ocean-Getting-Warm-Seals-Perish-Glaciers-and-Icebergs-Melt-
Lazarus, the Arctic is a huge area for which only remote sensing (satellite &/or aircraft) will give any real idea of either ice extent or thickness. While the approach discussed in pretty vague terms by RCI (your cite) is interesting, it is also apparently NEW. And new often does not work out well. NEW also requires calibration and validations. And the Arctic, as I mentioned before, is HUGE: the “normal” peak areal extent of ice since 1979 is about 16 million (16,000,000) sq km and the mean about 10 million sq km. One would likely need to have many measurements/observations — that is, thousands of measurements, probably — scattered across the entire area (which shifts and the thickness of which changes over time) to generate a statistically significant sample of observations against which to validate their remote sensing. To put it into perspective, the U.S. land area is about 9.8 million sq km. One could say a remote sensing measurement system model was validated with only 100 on-the-ground measurements, but that leaves vast potential for bias and other problems that would skew the remote sensing model outputs. If they cannot get to the core of the Arctic, and have limited measurements, no matter how precise the program and high-altitude measurements, and the on-ice measurements too, the output could still be screwed up … and no one would know. Can you imagine if someone said “I’ve calculated topsoil loss across the Continental United States using satellite data” and it turned out they only took 200 on-the-ground measurements which were limited to the ocean-bordering states only. Something like that *should* have the scientific community laughing themselves silly.
But yet you think we should believe in a new set of remote sensing based conclusions without some skepticism? Really?
Arctic sea ice extent for January 2013 was well below average, largely due to extensive open water in the Barents Sea and near Svalbard. The Arctic Oscillation also remained in a primarily negative phase. Antarctic sea ice remained extensive due to an unusual northward excursion of ice in the Weddell Sea. December of 2012 saw Northern Hemisphere snow cover at a record high extent, while January 2013 is the sixth-highest snow cover extent on record since 1967.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
And I thought it was March, not January. Silly me.
Ttruth Teller. Think again about Alaska temps. We are 2.3 degrees colder over the last 10 years on average in the state. Information can be found at UAF in Alaska
There are many regions. I don’t know the trends for each of the 8 countries of the Arctic, but Canada’s far north is definitely in a warming trend. Graphs:http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/16-002-x/2011001/ct019-eng.htm
Text: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/16-002-x/2011001/part-partie2-eng.htm
“The climatic regions showing the strongest warming trends are found in the far north of Canada; namely, the Arctic Tundra, Arctic Mountains and Fiords, Mackenzie District, and Yukon and North British Columbia Mountains climatic regions. The trends for these regions show increases in temperatures of 1.6°C to 2.2°C over the study period (1948 to 2009). The Mackenzie District climatic region recorded the strongest warming trend rising a total of 2.2°C.”
Again how many temperature stations are being used in the Canadian Arctic for that trend and where are they located?
Anyone citing NASA GISS or NOAA NCDC temperature data needs to realize that both agencies have been hopelessly politicized. They are charged not will practicing science, but in delivering bogus data that please their political bosses. Their job is to create a warming signal where there is none, to confirm a pre-ordained conclusion: that mankind is warming the planet. They accomplish this feat by manipulating data via homogenization, interpolation and other creative methods (always, of course, ignoring or minimizing the urban heat-island (UHI) effect). The folks at NASA and NOAA deserve a gold star for creativity. Unfortunately, they’ve lost all credibility.
Anyone citing NASA GISS or NOAA NCDC temperature data needs to realize that both agencies have been hopelessly politicized. They are charged not will practicing science, but in delivering bogus data that please their political bosses. Their job is to create a warming signal where there is none, to confirm a pre-ordained conclusion: that mankind is warming the planet. They accomplish this feat by manipulating data via homogenization, interpolation and other creative methods (always, of course, ignoring or minimizing the urban heat-island (UHI) effect). The folks at NASA and NOAA deserve a gold star for creativity. Unfortunately, they’ve lost all credibility.
Hart to argue with that! Got any proof? And is all the rest of the world’s weather data corrupted as well?
It’s the big picture. Our Earth is warming. Earth’s average temperature has risen by 1.4°F over the past century, and is projected to rise another 2 to 11.5°F over the next hundred years. Small changes in the average temperature of the planet can translate to large and potentially dangerous shifts in climate and weather.
Yeah and everything is what was predicted with climate change to happen is because of CO2 and it’s all man’s fault just like it all happened before man was around, but now it’s mans fault! Brilliant! Grant a paycheck to that guy and make a tax on everything yet again. Then when that isn’t enough what will you do next? 😆
Sorry you seem displeased, but the numbers say a lot:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that “[most] of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” The IPCC defines “very likely” as indicating a probability of greater than 90%, based on expert judgement.
Those are climate scientists world wide.
There are many climactic forcings and an increase in CO2 is just one of them. Climate scientists are saying that the other forcings that triggered past climactic changes (before man) are not in evidence now. This rise in CO2 coupled with the Earth’s lessoned ability to balance this increase due to the destruction of carbon sinks (forests) are the premise of the global warming theory.
That’s very well put. CO2 leaves a very traceable footprint.
M>C> says:
March 3, 2013 at 12:17 pm
It’s the big picture. Our Earth is warming
========================
Well yes and no……..
see that little uptic at the end?
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo4.png
then step back a little more….
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo3.png
…and then a little more
notice for the past 10,000 years, temps have been falling
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo2.png
this is why no one with 1/2 a brain is worried about GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!!!
I think at least half of M/C’s brain is firmly lodged where the sun doesn’t shine.
they usually are…………..
The data was gathered by NASA GISS, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center, the Japanese Meteorological Agency, and the Met Office Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom. All four institutions tally temperature data from stations around the world and make independent judgments about whether the year was warm or cool compared to other years. Though there are minor variations from year to year, all four records show peaks and valleys in sync with each other. All show rapid warming in the past few decades, and all show the last decade as the warmest.
Scientists emphasize that weather patterns cause fluctuations in average temperatures from year to year, but the continued increase in greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere assures that there will be a long-term rise in global temperatures. Each individual year will not necessarily be warmer than the previous year, but scientists expect each decade to be warmer than the previous decade.
“One more year of numbers isn’t in itself significant,” GISS climatologist Gavin Schmidt said. “What matters is this decade is warmer than the last decade, and that decade was warmer than the decade before. The planet is warming. The reason it’s warming is because we are pumping increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.”
Carbon dioxide traps heat and largely controls Earth’s climate. It occurs naturally but is also released by the burning of fossil fuels for energy. The level of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere has been rising consistently for decades, largely driven by increasing man-made emissions. The carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was about 285 parts per million in 1880, the first year of the GISS temperature record. By 1960, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, measured at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Observatory, was about 315 parts per million. Today, that measurement exceeds 390 parts per million.
Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/99491/global-temperatures-continue-to-rise/#ixzz2M1dNxUgj
M>C> says:
March 3, 2013 at 4:23 pm
A quick search will literally find anything you want in the world. The claim was that there is SCHOLARLY evidence. Not Googley evidence
======================================
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo4.png
Temperatures are below Hansen’s zero emissions scenario C. Everything else is just bullshit.
There are two arguments MC has to make. That warming is accelerating. And that it’s accelerating sufficiently to get to an extra 2-3C by 2100.
Everything else is distraction.
You can actually look at the raw NOAA numbers and see the adjustments for yourself. I don’t have the article but it was shown that some 80% of corrections before 1959 were downward temp revisions (to get rid of the inconvenient hot 30’s) and post 1959 some 80% of the revisions were upwards. That NOAA to save money cut down on a lot of the weather stations in North America. guess which ones they predominantly cut, yeah the ones showing cooling. 1998 new satellites were showing cooling – so NASA/NOAA corrected them upward – seems like all of our sophisticated modern sensors all show undertemps – odd.
Anyway, if you want to find this info out, there are lots of references here to studies right in junkscience.com!
Thanks for that! Do you have any neutral sources besides junkscience? I never liked them denying tobacco-cancer links, and they are not exactly even-steven on the environment either.
JunkScience.com is a website maintained by Steven J. Milloy, an adjunct scholar the Cato Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute – right wing think tanks with long histories of denying environmental problems at the behest of the corporations which fund them. Milloy is also a columnist for FoxNews.com.
Google scholar “urban height island” as a starting point. There are too many papers on this topic identifying problems with the land surface record to be ignored. On the other hand, I would not be surprised if some sceptics have exaggerated the amount of actual warming that has been added through “adjustments”.
(On the other hand, there is some reasonable evidence that the US and NZ represent special cases. I.e., where the claimed increase in temperatures seem to be in fact, or largely, derived from the adjustments themselves.)
The point of X2 amplification via cloud feedback has kicked the alarmists ass in every single assessment report delivered since the IPCC scam has been incorporated.
If there is a C02 signal to be measured, it is as far in the noise as being able to measure what electromagnetic signals reside within a cubed meter of air, which man can never achieve.
Do you get it?
Wake up the temperatures are being altered,i live in the chicago area and have seen the Ncdc post the temperatures above normal,while local data by Tom skilling showed it to be well below.Later a retraction by Ncdc in a small post.What do you think most people remember? Additionally i have a friend who was on the local meteroligical comitee and was told not to mention any disent in the climate or warming issues, was later forced out as a result.Agree with global warming or you are gone.Science no way!!!
Reeally? This happens in every weather reporting country, every lab in the world? Mighty hard to believe.
Satellite measurements (unaffected by land-based biases) are aligned with temperature records from NASA, NOAA and the others.
How is that possible if the land-based organizations are altering data?
So you are betting on an ice-free Arctic? How much?
Some land based data sets run around 40% warmer than sats. And the divergence is growing. According to AGW modelling, we should be seeing the opposite (greater mid troposphere warming trend.)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/last:360/plot/rss/last:360
However, it should be noted that they are not measuring the same parts of the planet.
On the other hand, if you compare land only to mid trosophere:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vgl/last:360/plot/rss/last:360
it gets even worse and you can visually see the significant growing divergence.
“So you are betting on an ice-free Arctic? How much?”
I have already given you my answer and it was no (read above). Why do you keep going on about it? And what does your question have to do with satellite temperature measurements aligning with land-based measurements?
Looks like Arctic ice area will probably the highest in a decade soon
“Looks like Arctic ice area will probably the highest in a decade soon.”
And what is your prediction for mid-September? Both area and volume?
42
“42” cute (the answer to life the universe and everything?) but evasive.
Last year the surface area was even larger than this year’s at this date and look what happened in September. Ice volume is really the only important measure as it portends how much surface area will be around by the end of summer.
It does seem to me that we have been experiencing 1970’s style storms and temps the last few years and yet NOAA is always reporting it is warmer. I suspect the modified data is so out of whack that comparisons against any temp before 1998 is impossible, and our recent non-warming period is because NOAA is running out of ways to goose the weather monitoring numbers.
And what is your opinion of the “moon landing” and Area 57?
What a stupid comment. Take your conspiracy ad homs to someplace where brain damaged people hang out, like Huffington Post.
I didn’t play the “conspiracy card”, I mocked it.
If we look at temperature data in Greenland we can see a very cold period circa 1880-1930. A very warm period 1930-1950. Another cold cycle up to 1980. If we look at those stations with a long temp history, some show it was warmer in the past. Others show the warmest period was now. So the situation is mixed. We can say that a substantial part of the current warmth is cyclical. The interesting question is what can be attributed to CO2? It would be strange if we couldn’t attribute any warmth to increases in GHG’s, but right now temps aren’t outside historical norms as far as can be reasonably established. The problem is, we have no way of knowing what the temperature would have been without the increases in GHG’s.
NOAA and GISS data tampering is well documented. Instead of acting like a moron, do some reading.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/tracking-us-temperature-fraud/
Recalibration is a more accurate description of what NOAA and GISS did. Their actions looks very logical to me. And they have documented all their actions so nothing was hidden. No conspiracy here.
Anthony Watt’s devoted an entire multi-year study to potential bias in land-based recording stations and his own results matched very closely to the established record.
As well, many of these issues were addressed by the BEST study directly (also well documented and freely available) and their own conclusion was that the temperature record was both honest and professionally done.
I cannot see how it is that so many temperature records match so closely and yet you can single out GISS as being dishonest. Wouldn’t that also jeopardize everyone else’s methodology and conclusions?
Your logic looks shaky to me but I am no expert. You should have your work peer-reviewed and placed in a proper journal. After all that is done and digested by experts, then we will will see if your assertions stand up.
Complete bullshit. Their documentation in no way resembles the numerical adjustments being made, and your half-assed qualitative judgement isn’t worth putting on the bottom of a bird cage.
As I said, I am no expert, but you should allow experts to review your work. If it is solid, it should stand up.
And what about my question of how you can claim one organization is tampering with data when all the organizations match so closely? Wouldn’t this lead to a wide disparity with the other organizations where their data overlaps? This has not happened. I may be wrong, but weren’t your claims addressed by both Watt’s and BEST in their own reports?
My work is right here, and everyone is free to review it. I have seen no refutations anywhere.
What about answering my questions?
1) Why doesn’t the “tampering ” of GISS doesn’t make it out of sync with the other organizations?
2) Were your assertions of data tampering previously addressed by both Watts and BEST? And, if so, what conclusions did they come to?
“Truth Teller” what about examining Steve’s work and criticising it? Or defend NOAA’s work by explaining how the adjustments can be justified.
All I’m hearing is you making bullshit up as you go along…
Nitchke,
I did look at his work. as I said (three times now), I am no expert, but this would be better off scrutinized by experts. And I looked through the GISS explanations of why re-calibrations were needed and it seemed logical to me. Besides many people being involved in this re-calibrations, they were well documented. If this is a conspiracy to hood wink the public, then it is a really strange one.
Again, because I am not an expert, I wanted know what other experts had to say on the subject. So I asked Goddard (three times now) whether his claims were also addressed by both Watts and BEST and, if so, what were their conclusions. Seems like simple things to answer and would be of benefit to the conversation.
I also wanted to know why “tampering” with the temperature record of GISS would not throw it out of sync with the other organizations where their data overlaps. Is that also not a valid and pertinent question?
I don’t understand his reluctance to answer such straight-forward questions.
If you’re not smart enough to critique Steve’s analysis than STFU. You’re confusing and conflating entirely separate issues. If you type out fewer of your thought bubbles fewer people here will conclude you’re a dickhead.
Nitchke,
Judging by your and Goddard’s evasions, I can only conclude that my simple and pertinent questions have answers that you don’t want known.
I didn’t realize that by asking if other’s have scrutinized his work would cause such a problem.
If I write to Richard Dawkins and demand he explain himself to me, and I don’t even bother to show the slightest bit of technical understanding of his work, well, he is going to ignore me because I’m being a dick. It’s not because Dawkins is being evasive, jerk off.
If you want to criticise Steve’s work, then explain where he is going wrong with his analysis. No wait. You repeatedly tell us that you don’t know enough to do this. If you’re not smart enough to figure this out, you wouldn’t understand if Steve was giving you accurate information even if he did waste time on you. You’d still have to believe what he told you on face value (or choose not to believe it). What a dope.
Nitchke,
I have not criticized Goddard’s work — you are projecting. I only asked 2 simple questions.
1) Did Goddard’s issues get looked at by Watts and BEST and, if so, what were their conclusions?
2) Wouldn’t Goddard’s assertion that GISS’s tampered data mean that GISS would be out of sync with the other organizations which, apparently, it is not?
The way you are reacting, it is as if I am asking for state secrets. These questions look harmless to me. I do not understand why you are so upset.
This is a strange site. Most of the posters here get very hostile very quickly, especially if you dare question any of the Hallowed Truths they so believe in. Instead of a rational discussion, friendly give and take of information, you get boatloads of scorn, derision and nastiness directed at you. I daresay this is perhaps the Most Unfriendly “Weather” Site in the World! Now watch the rabid replies flow…
Are you a complete moron? My claims are out there and anyone can disprove them, anyplace anytime. No one has done it. If you want to prove me wrong, then do it.
M>C>
“Whate’ers begun in anger ends in shame.”
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN
Sounds like an indictment of Obama
Prove my numbers wrong, or shut up.
As I was saying, this is a VERY hostile site, very non-scientific and much more to the Raw Hater side of life. Why the anger? I put it down to basic insecurity. If you are confident in your beliefs, then you can actually discuss them rationally like an adult. Here is an example of a site dealing with the same Scenario C questions–
http://angusmac.wordpress.com/
It’s a magical place: friendly, open-minded, fact filled–and no one gets told to “shut up.”
Sounds like an indictment of Obama
Prove my numbers wrong, or shut up.
Mr Goddard,
I am not qualified to prove your numbers right or wrong but aren’t Watts and BEST qualified and didn’t they look into the same issues you have raised when they conducted their own studies? If this is so, what conclusions did they come to?
And would be so kind as to explain how GISS can have tampered data and still be matching the records of other organizations for those times where their records overlap?
Truth Teller Says:
“I also wanted to know why “tampering” with the temperature record of GISS would not throw it out of sync with the other organizations where their data overlaps. Is that also not a valid and pertinent question? ”
Read: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/giss-temperatures-out-of-line-with-the-rest-of-the-world/
No one has addressed the issues I am raising. Enough gossip – find someone to prove me wrong.
Perhaps you should enter the discussion with an open mind, since you don’t have the skills to evaluate the data for yourself.
Or here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/26/nasa-giss-caught-changing-past-data-again-violates-data-quality-act/
Or maybe how NASA GISS uses a trick of a “private” web page to get around violating their own data quality standards to get their message out? http://climateaudit.org/2007/12/28/nasa-evasion-of-quality-control-procedures/
Thank you M>C>,
That is a good link you posted. I also have had enough of this site. It speaks volumes where the blogger (Goddard) is apparently the only person who knows the “truth” about climate but refuses to have his truth put into a science journal and peer-reviewed by experts.
My opinion is that this is nothing more than a “rant” site and to become part of the group, you have to insult as many people as you can.
It is sad. You may have seen on the site an email that questioned why a 25 year old projection (Scenario C) was still so important. Angus, the manager went thru the entire email civilly, and gave a reasoned, friendly response, agreeing to disagree, on good terms. It’s called respect–and the people on here, starting with the tone set by “Steve Goddard,” whoever that is, have none for anyone outside their narrow-minded dogma. Instead of making a case for their point of view, they insult and demean. It seems to be their politics that drive this hostility. Whatever you think of Obama, keep that separate from the science. I come away from these encounters shocked. What other impression can I have of these people except they are an echo chamber, blindly screaming against the outside world?
“We discuss data here?” As “Steve” would so colorfully say, “Bullshit.”
Prove my data is wrong. Find someone who can demonstrate that I am incorrect.
Hiding behind peer review is cowardly bullshit. If peer review was working in climate science, this scam never would have happened.
“Hiding behind peer review” makes no sense. Peer review is the opposite of hiding.
I am so sick of your bullshit. We discuss data here.
You are hiding behind the concept of peer review, as an excuse not to evaluate the data.
Mr Goddard,
You continually miss my point. Proper evaluation of the data requires a certain expertise and methodology. And, as you claim, no other study has looked into your “unique” issues, wouldn’t this make an even stronger case for expert review?
Why peer-review doesn’t work for climate science, but has in every other branch of science for centuries stretches the limits of credulity and, in my opinion, is a paranoid delusion.
Why peer-review doesn’t work for climate science, but has in every other branch of science for centuries stretches the limits of credulity and, in my opinion, is a paranoid delusion.
======
Truth, do you really think peer review works in every other branch of science??
…using what I think you are calling “works”……no it doesn’t
Mr Goddard,
You don’t have to take the step of banning me, as is your practice – I won’t be coming back.
…rotflmao
“as is your practice”…..said by someone who’s been yabbering on forever
If someone can show an unadjusted data set for stations away from the UHI affect that shows significant warming since 1940, you will deserve some attention. Otherwise, you are just a propaganda tool for a disingenuous, highly politicized cult, out to steal a huge amount of taxpayer dollars.
M.C. and Lazarus … watch this (especially what he says from 3:26 to just after the 4 minute mark):
http://vimeo.com/14366077
Interesting video. This was pretty much the “consensus” point of view until the IPCC and Mann hockey team came out with their outlier studies. Those studies from that small group are still fiercely defended today, even though they have long since been debunked as junk science.
Interesting. I did notice that the last temperature rise (of which we are a part) appears almost straight up.
BTW, what was that annoying tick, tick, tick noise in the background?
The big picture:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Nothing to worry about. Move along.
(It would be a good boon if the ice melted in that region more and we had a longer period of warmth in that part of the world. Sadly, I doubt we will see significant changes in a short period of time that will benefit humanity.)
Humhhh! BBC = British Buggering Children!
It was warm when the Romans reached Britain and remained growing grapes near the the Scottish border [no greenhouses then!] and remained until it got too cold for them. The Vikings later found Greenland and colonised it [to a degree], they left when it later got too cold to grow crops. No oil funded data just facts [archeological, written etc] and denied by the Mann/Hansen/Jones brigade. However computer models[ show me one that has proved its predictions] allow grant aided hysterical projections that are spoiling our countryside [ disastrously expensive solar/wind farms] and limp-wristed lying politicians who should be shot for wasting boundless UK resources [coal/gas] in the name of ‘saving the planet’.
Thanks BBC for all the non scientific bullshit [still being broadcast] you have tried to brainwash us with [fortunately not very successfully as it turns out]!
I know a person, an Environmental Scientist actually, of some repute too. Has a PhD, an MBA, and has received at least one International award that I know of. Told me the following:
“I know that CO2 isn’t a problem, but focusing on it will help to bring about my Political aims.”
This person is a stated Communist.
If this person told me such a thing, why the bloody hell would I go believing a Religious nut like Truth Teller?
TimiBoy,
What exactly am I asking you to believe? Have I made any claims about CO2? Have I made any claims whatsoever other than that ice volume is a more important measure than ice area?
Apparently asking if Goddard has had his work reviewed by experts is more than enough to upset a few people on this blog site.
It is funny that while Steve Goddard show the necessary skills to produce charts and make reasonable statements based on them his critics can’t even mount a minimal counter to them instead they run to another place on the internet and post stuff that does not really address what Steve is bringing up or even worse they whine that he is not using the peer review system.
Thus another blog post Steve made and no personal counter is posted since the critics lacks the skill to do so.
Climatechatterbots do not have the ability to analyze data!
I brought that site up to show what a real climate site is like. Filled with research, open to different points of view. Where people are treated with respect. Go figure! You all are grinding your axes so hard you do not realize you hurt your case simply by how you act. Ever wonder why groups like this get the Tin Foil Hat label? Why are you all so pissed off and touchy?
There is about 3 comments on that entire site. What kind of discussion is that?
Why don’t you address the data? You have done enough gossip.
Gossip? Hardly. This is all straight fact–my “experience” over the past two days in your wonderful site. Why don’t you every come down on all the yapping jackals that call me and any one else that dares question “Steve?” It’s your public image, and it is a pitiful one. This place is a pack of high school bullies ganging up on the new kid, and anyone different. I came here to learn, to find out what the different points of view are. I am not bomb throwing, ranting, trolling nor botting. I’ve insulted no one. Yet the negative pressure on here is astounding, and you set the tone. You all want to have a closed door world, like Red State, and shut out different points of view, then do so. Block all outsiders. Stop pretending to be an Information site, discussing data. You have a chance to educate me as to what you see is wrong with current climate data. Instead you and your minions have given me nothing but grief.
You came here on the attack, and have made zero attempt to discuss the data.
Unlike climate alarmist sites, I am not censoring you.
If you want some respect, try discussing science instead of gossip.
M>C> says:
March 4, 2013 at 3:30 pm
I brought that site up to show what a real climate site is like. Filled with research, open to different points of view. Where people are treated with respect. Go figure!
===========================
M>C> says:
March 4, 2013 at 1:35 pm
http://angusmac.wordpress.com/
It’s a magical place: friendly, open-minded, fact filled–and no one gets told to “shut up.”
=======================
MC, is that the site??
…how can it be all those things, when there’s no one there?
You mean if were an ongoing chat group it would be polluted with disrespectful garbage as on here?
No, not at all, I’m just saying if more that two people ever posted to it….you might get the conversation your looking for…no one gets told the “shut up” cause there’s no one there
My point is look at their exchange of ideas–the email asked several questions (why a now 25 year old model is still so important for one). And Angus answered them, calmly, rationally. Wow–no yelling, no threats, no bullshit. People can have different points of view, can interpret data in different ways. This is how real people act. Unlike this site. It’s up to “Steve” to set the tone, and he bullies people, and lets the rest of you act like wild dogs. Disgusting!
You came here on the attack. You have made zero attempt to discuss data. Science is about data. You are a complete waste of time.
Discuss the data and perhaps you can earn some respect.
Look at this email, and his reply:
It is simply astounding how climate skeptics have gotten cornered into such a tiny fraction of disinformation space that they must exhume 20-year old models to vainly poke holes into the current scientific literature.
Hence, McIntyre and his clique can’t get over Mann Bradley and Hughes (1998, 10 years old), and a lot of those who have no clue about GCMs think it’s fair game to throw dirt at Hansen’s GISS model predictions (1988). Meanwhile climate scientists have moved on : some results have survived, some have not, but the basic result remains – AGW is real, no amount of disingenuous PR will make it go away.
Given the simplicity and low resolution of Hansen’s 1998 model (which didn’t have anything remotely close to an ENSO, for instance), it is indeed remarkable that it was able to predict the temperature of the next 20 years to such accuracy. What the Skeptics keep missing (Mr McFarlane in particular) is that numerical modeling and computer power have done quite a bit of progress in the past 20 years, and no climate scientist is retarded enough to be hanging their hat over 1988 results.
Sure, there still are legitimate questions concerning the relative importance of natural vs anthropogenic climate variability, some of which have implications for policy initiatives, and that would deserve healthy debate. Yet the Skeptics are so blinded by their political prejudices that they keep fighting old windmills.
I can’t speak for every climate scientist, but the only reason why I’d ever show the Hansen 1988 figures at this day and age would be to demonstrate that the physics of greenhouse warming are rather basic (indeed, Arrhenius)
had figured it out over a century ago), and that a good radiative transfer code (which is what the GISS model is known for) is enough to produce credible global temperature trends given a realistic forcing.
Current GCMs are now focused on getting the regional scales right – that’s where the money is, and intelligent skeptics (I heard there were some) would be well inspired to get out of their rut and on board that train. If they keep whining at the 1988 stop we soon won’t be able to hear them.
So, now that we’ve got that one cleared, can we please talk about something more interesting ? Abrupt climate change, operational climate prediction, regional climate variability, link with tropical cyclones, to name a few…
Or is it that there just isn’t any stone left for the AGW skeptics to hide ?
My response on 2 August 2008 was:
Wow Julien! So many comments in such a brief response, but, unfortunately, liberally sprinkled with remarks such as disinformation, disingenuous, retarded, prejudices, etc. Nevertheless, I shall try to respond in a more rational manner.
And he does–he goes thru point by point, like a real human being. No insults, trash talking, anger nor hate. Lots to learn for all of you on here.
Models are only “Possible scenarios”, They are not Prediction, forecasts, or even science. they can only produce results based on the information that is input into the program. I learned early in the Computer era a useful phrase: GIGO! That is what we are seeing from the models used to project possible future scenarios. They claim to be based on simple physics by people that do not even understand weather patterns.
Skeptics or Realists about long term regional weather do not see the future the same as the members of the Chicken Little Brigade, that make up the 97% you so proudly defend.
Climate is displaying the same properties it has for MILLIONS of years. We are experiencing a temporary warming period during an overall cooling trend that started some 8000 years ago and has been interrupted by short periods of warming, that appear in the geological records and history books.
My advise you you is to get a grip on reality. We can show you the way, if you get your head out of your A$$!
My advise you you is to get a grip on reality. We can show you the way, if you get your head out of your A$$!
Thanks for the half-assed response. This is exactly my point–you all fight this like a war–Us vs Them, and Your Way is the only way. My head is not up my a$$ because I don’t sing your song. Yours is because that’s what you think of anyone who disagrees with you. Real people respect each other’s opinions.
Models are science fiction. Period.
Sorry to burst your BUBBLE Gator:
Climate Models are Science Fraud! Fiction is an attempt to tell an interesting story! Fraud is to attempt to get rewarded for misdeeds and fabricating results for personal gain.
Science Fraction? 😉
“Gossip is idle talk or rumor about the personal or private affairs of others. It is one of the oldest and most common means of sharing facts, views and slander. This term is used pejoratively by its reputation for the introduction of errors and variations into the information transmitted, and it also describes idle chat, a rumor of personal, or trivial nature.”
I am not gossiping. I am complaining about how I, and any one else on here who dare question you, are treated. There you go again–who did I attack? Why are you so defensive? I came in here quoting other data sources online. I attacked no one, yet have been relentlessly attacked. You don’t get it–I came to learn something about the climate, what is going on. Instead you have given me nothing but krap. What exactly do you think I tell my friends, people at work etc. about you and your site? Think you are doing you cause any good in being such jerks?
Mairzy doats and dozy doats and liddle lamzy divey
A kiddley divey too, wouldn’t you?
Lat:
You are trying to confuse S/HE/IT with facts! 😉
Naughty Boy!!!!!
The sooner you start act acting like real people, the sooner anyone outside your little world will take you seriously.
Your inability to discuss data is legendary
M>C>:
If the World is out to get you, it is not Paranoia!
We are just reacting to your wonderful personality. Nothing personal!
When Climatologists start doing Real Science, the sooner we will start listening to them!
The sooner you start being rational the sooner we will discuss in a like manner!
A choir member that never learned to read music.
Which begs the question….
Why would anyone care if someone like MC takes them seriously or not?
Nice to see you too. Your social skills give me little hope that your rational skills are better than the Climate Scientist community. Which is how it is–you vs the world. You job, if you care, is to convince people you are right. and the rest of the world is wrong. I see lots of huffing and puffing on here how no one gets it, no one listens–this here is why.
Discuss the data
Tell your minions to “discuss the data.”
I want you to stop gossiping and discuss the data
“Gossip is idle talk or rumor about the personal or private affairs of others. It is one of the oldest and most common means of sharing facts, views and slander. This term is used pejoratively by its reputation for the introduction of errors and variations into the information transmitted, and it also describes idle chat, a rumor of personal, or trivial nature.”
You are a complete waste of time
Amazing how you “people” go out of your way to ostracize me. You can’t just ignore me, you want me gone! ONE poster today sent me so data for me to look at. One. The rest of you have done nothing but slung poo my way. What the hell is wrong with you?
…we’re not going out of our way at all
Oh no, I bet this is your normal anti-social behavior.
I have massive amounts of data in 14,000 posts on this site. You never discuss any of it. Are you a complete moron?
I must be to try to deal with you lot.
sorta…we all enjoy watching a troll implode
I realize it’s the Way of this Boy Brigade. No outside opinions please! No questions, no other thoughts.
I think you’ve spent way too much time alone at your friendly, open-minded, magical place …….
Better than this Weather Hellhole!
We offered data for days, and it was ignored. Now the Parrotroll shrieks for data.
One word. Schizophrenia.
Anti-social behaviour is behaviour that lacks consideration for others and may cause damage to the society, whether intentionally or through negligence. This is opposed to pro-social behaviour, which is behaviour that helps or benefits the society. Criminal and civil laws in various countries offer remedies for anti-social behaviour. Antisocial behaviour is labeled as such when it is deemed contrary to prevailing norms for social conduct
…is anyone else getting weirded out
I am!
Whatever. Care to go over the data with Steven.
Chicken out much?
Oh yes, “Steven!” Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
What GISS provides is not temperature “DATA” but results of model runs designed to get people like you to believe they provide real data. It is the same with most of the other temperature records you defend.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html
I got that. How far off is their data from yours?
It is not DATA! It is fabricated and they HOPE you believe it is DATA!
My research found climate conditions stretching back Millions of years that show we are experiencing some of the mildest weather the globe has experienced in the last 38 Million Years. However if the globe could, by some magical happenstance, revert to the conditions experienced during the Holocene Optimum, we would be experiencing even better living conditions. That will not happen as we are currently sliding toward the next Glacial Maximum and the world has been for almost 8,000 years! Of course we only have about 100,000 years to prepare for that.
There is “Anecdotal” evidence and Geological evidence all over the world to support those claims. It took me a few years to find the evidence, and in time you will also, if you open your mind to what is really happening. Hint! It is not CAGW!
Thank you for a cogent, sentient response.
Anything to avoid discussing the massive amount of data and historical references I have provided.
Sorry–the fountain of bile I get on here obscures that.
“Oh yes, “Steven!” Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!”
Yep. Chicken shit through and through.
Afraid to look at the data.
I looked at the “data.” I asked why it is a game changer to you all, and not most other observers.
I hear Skeptical Science is looking for fans….
“Leo Hickman of the Guardian’s Environment blog Friday had a frustration-filled, teeth-gnashing screed where he expressed his disdain over so many skeptic blogs being nominated for the best Science & Technology Category of the Weblog Awards 0f 2013….
On the long list of 17, thirteen were climate science skeptics (including NoTricksZone)….
Of the five finalists, four are skeptic blogs. The sole remaining alarmist blog, Skeptical Science, has dropped out.”
http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/03/intensifying-climate-skepticism-13-of-17-blogs-nominated-for-best-science-technology-blog-are-skeptic/
And they also ignore the data, the Parrotroll will fit right in!
I’ll bet none of those sites treat people like garbage.
People who have money and reputation invested in the lies of the orthodoxy, are not going to listen. I have no money in this game.
Most people have no stake in all this, myself included. By shunning me, you show no interest in advancing your cause.
If you are actually interested in getting to the bottom of this, you will look at the data I have presented on this site.
I have. My question remains what is the difference in your interpretation of it that is such a deal-breaker. What do you see that most other people do not?
NOAA and GISS release temperature graphs which have been heavily tampered with. I have looked at the raw data, and their past publications, and I have seen that the books are cooked. I have presented the data here. That is why you won’t understand what I am talking about unless you look at the information I have presented.
Your mom is probably getting sick of you living in her basement.
You pals at Greenpiece are probably sick of your know it all attitude and your big mouth.
So you come over to this blog to be a twerp to get noticed.
So you are incapable of acting like adults?
I’m a little teapot
Short and stouts
Here is my handle
Here is my spout
When I get all steamed up
I just shout
Tip me over and pour me out
Goo goo, and ga ga to you too.
Discuss the data
Careful analysis has shown that over 97% of the comments on this thread are not related to ice conditions but are in response to a moron that is not familiar with how science really works and repeats BS from the Deniers at the Chicken Little Brigade.
And you all have done nothing to show me anything different. I give the data I find, and you attack me–not the data, but me. Infantile. I ask why the GISS temperature changes are such a deal-breaker to you, while the rest of the online world, outside of the Exxon/Koch sites, takes them in stride, sees them as reasonably done and not the source of a Global Weather Conspiracy. In other words, a layman’s reasonable questions. Same with Scenario C–you saw how Angus handled that query. Like a human being. Only trolls I see on here are the attacking me. Why do you all get so crazy personal about this? I hope you are right–CO2 is not polluting the planet and perverting the weather. 99% of peer-reviewed papers say otherwise.
You have not provided any real DATA for us to discuss! You have provided opinions and computer outputs that were put together by EcoWhacko activists that want to destroy both your and my lifestyles. I do not appreciate their actions.
I have been investigating this for a number of years as has most of the other people on this site. We have all read the junk you brought and were there when it was first fabricated. You just happened to bring a wrong attitude to a site that is interested in Real Science rather than the Pseudo Science you base your arguments on.
I never attacked If you were serious about your beliefs you would express them rationally, like Angus does. Instead you rant and insult. Not helpful to your case!
I read your entire Diatribe before I started commenting. Your first post was an attack against this web site and those that contribute in the discussions.
You need to bring facts and leave the propaganda, rumors and opinions at the Chicken Little Sites!
MC,
Do you think you are the first to try these tactics? When you come in and try characterizing as conspiracy theorist, mean people, etc. you are not going to get kind reactions. If you want to discuss the data, do so, and the posters here will too. If you want to play games, no problem, we have seen them all.
Physicist, TonyD, Lazarus, marsupial, Chris, Appel, Tootsie, et al.
You may be on that list, I don’t know. Coming back for another try.
I came in here doing nothing of the sort. I posted some data–no name calling. I got swarmed with garbage. You can look it up, as they say.
Glacierman:
S/HE/IT just wanted to stop by and wish us well in our endeavor, just like those you remember doing the same over the years you have been “Discussing” Climate Science with members of the Chicken Little Brigade.
I think this is M>C’s initiation into the “Club”!
Or a new persona for one of out friends! 😉
Maybe Cook has reprogrammed their climatebot to just hurl insults then try to claim the high ground…..while never, ever, getting into the data.
S/HE/IT just wanted to stop by and wish us well in our endeavor
=======
3-4 more posts and he’ll move Steve’s blog to #1
At least 10 posts from MC since i posted asking that if data is what He/She/It wants to discuss, then do so and the posters will as well. Not one about any data.
1. You all owe me apologies for treating me like trash. 2. I’ve have asked and asked several questions in the course of this mess, rarely getting any answers.
11.
12.
M>C>:
I am not quite certain your age, however I suspect most of the other posters on this site are old enough to be either your parents or grandparents.
And that has what to do with what?
Your comment about another person’s age
My judgement is only kids would act so childishly.
It is just a reaction to your wonderful personality!
Most here are Battle worn from “Discussing” CAGW histrionics with the Chicken Little Brigade and you jump in with references at some of the CLB hen houses!
That will earn you no respect!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCVR_ajL_Eo
That’s no excuse for 90% of you attacking me like rabid dogs. I can see if I came in acting like that, but I did not.
You may not realize how you present your self as you believe you were providing meaningful information. What you provided is BULL that most of us have seen and heard before. You came on regurgitating the vile that was spewed at us before by some of the top names in the climate game that are promoting CAGW! It is not an excuse of any sort, it is reality, we responded to your position. Some were even very restrained in their reaction.
Sorry that upset you. I presented what I found out there. You should have had the decency to answer in kind, with your interpretation, and not spew bile. All in all you people need to lighten up! If you are going to get anywhere with your side, you have to be able to talk with people like me who are willing to listen.
The advise I would give you is to go to CA and read everything in Steve’s files. From when he started that site. That will give you the FACTS to start your adventure into the world of Climatology. You could start by reading the archives at this site as Steven has done a great job of finding historical references to support his position. There are books like
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=blogs/doug-l-hoffman
that you can read. I have only been involved in these types of issues for about 45 years, CAGW being the latest farce in a long string of concerns from the Chicken Little Brigade, that have proven to be false.
This may well be the greatest scientific fraud in the history of science. Only time will tell if the institution of science is able to regain some of its reputation when the SHTF!
Thanks for that–if it is a fraud, it is an gigantic one!
Latitude:
Thanks for the link. I have been vilified for saying that about Hansen’s testimony and 1988 graph for years now. Maybe this will get some traction! Scenario was called BAU for a reason! It even underestimated the release of GHG components.
It is so great it will bring all of science to its knees in the near future as long as they keep defending the farce!
That would be bad.
The so called scientific bodies you mentioned in your opening posts should have done real science regarding CAGW instead of relying on what if scenarios from Eco Activists! It is still true, You reap what you sow! Harvest time is just around the corner for the CAGW crop!
Normally in a conversation like this I would have advised you to get your head out of your A$$ 20 times by now!
You need to open your eyes to see the real world, not a fantasy that is being promoted by the IPCC!
You need to learn manners. Calling people names is not the way to make your point. Your evidence needs to stand on its own. Being a jerk does not advance your case.
You need to understand that it is a response, that comes from years of “Discussing” CAGW with “True Believers” and worshipers of the Cult of CAGW CLB!
BYW:
I had many years of training to be the Best Jerk that training could produce! It was part of my job description, before I retired!
You still have your chops!
pssst Mike…… http://angusmac.wordpress.com/
It’s a magical place: friendly, open-minded, fact filled–and no one gets told to “shut up.”
Yes, you should check it out, learn some manners.
More schizophrenia! Parrotroll said we did not give data, and now claims he looked at it! 😆
If you really cared about your cause, you would stop calling people names. How old are you?
I don’t have a “cause”. You are showing your hand again.
I only seek the truth.
Flip flop much schizoparrottroll? 😆
Thanks for being so kind! It’s a pleasure will all of you.
I’m not sure what a “pleasure will” is…but thanks…You too!
It’s pleasure against my will!
M>C>
Here a graph for you, a simple one from wikipedia :
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Atmospheric.transmittance.IR.jpg
On the right you can see the CO2 absorption band, which is completly saturated. CO2 doesn’t act alone here, water vapor has an effect around the 15µm band.
Add as much as CO2 you want in the atmosphere, radiative forcing won’t change.
Thanks for the info. I appreciate it.
M>C> says:
March 4, 2013 at 7:15 pm
“I’ll bet none of those sites treat people like garbage.”
Worse, they screen comments, ban skeptics, and prevent free speech.
Sorry you are such a wilting flower, and cannot handle names. Would you rather live with censorship?
I already showed you my idea of a civilized site. And it’s not just names–it’s the whole high school status you have here–you are In or you are Out. If you really cared about the truth, you would be helpful to people, not hateful.
Noone here is hateful. What we are, is sick of childish trolls with a “cause’ who think they discovered AGW, and will not shut up long enough to actually learn something.
FYI – I was a climatology student thirty years ago, none of this is new to me, and I understand it unlike you.
Schizoparrotroll. 😆
You too old then to be so cliquish. Seen any answers to my questions lately? Ever? Are all weather labs in on this ruse? Or are they fooled?
“You too old then to be so cliquish.”
Whatever.
Let’s start at the beginning again.
1- There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our current climate, or how we got here, it appears to be a perfectly natural change.
2- There is not a single peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent or any global climate changes.
3- Read and understand Ockhams’s Razor and the Scientific Method.
4- Calm down and learn about your planet, it is the only one you have.
Thanks for a decent response. I came here to learn, not to be ridiculed.
We will see if you learn anything or not. So far you have accepted what people in power, who have everything to lose, have told you. The real money and power is in regulating CO2, and not in skepticism. I should know, as I have made no money from my efforts and stand to make nothing. I have only my liberty, and the sense of what is right at stake.
I seek only the truth. The truth has no agenda.
Liberty is good, and I appreciate your following that. However, there would seem to be a LOT more money in continuing to distribute CO2 into the sky than there ever could be against that. What entity is larger than ExxonMobil? The energy industry? You know they have spent millions on anti-climate change. Recent story in the UK:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network
I keep hearing about the “real money and power” pushing climate change. What info do you have on that?
Fossil fuels keep you alive. Society would collapse in less than a week if the supply was cut off.
Who said anything about no fossil fuels?
So much for learning.
Alarmists receive billions of dollars in funding every year and depend on it to feed their families. They receive about a thousand times more funding than skeptics.
You are clearly mistaken.
I read your words. Where is your source?
Scenario C is no fossil fuels. Temperatures are below low Scenario C. The whole thing is a complete farce.
How far below? Why do so few weather people recognize this? Will temps increase with El Nino? Do all weather labs know this? Are they fooled or in on it?
“Alarmists receive billions of dollars in funding every year and depend on it to feed their families. They receive about a thousand times more funding than skeptics.”
Don’t forget, for all that money, they produce: Nothing!
Companies like ExxonMobil, BP, etc. basically make modern life possible. Do you really think we would be better off without fossil fuel?
That’s a false choice. No way to stop today. The issue is if the CO2 is damaging the ecosystem. I also do not like the long history corporations have of pushing false information. The tobacco companies did that in the 60s onward, and big energy companies have been doing that was well. Their funding is well documented. Do you have any on who is funding the other side?
Here you go:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf
Thanks for that!
http://www.rtcc.org/eu-budget-set-at-e960bn-but-climate-commitment-in-balance/
Funding for alarmists.
Thanks.
I fear you won’t read it, so I will post one snippet that goes to what you have been arguing:
“Much media attention has relentlessly focused on the influence of “Big Oil”—but the numbers don’t add up. Exxon Mobil is still vilified28
for giving around 23 million dollars, spread over roughly ten years, to skeptics of the enhanced greenhouse effect. It amounts to about $2 million a year, compared to the US government input of well over $2 billion a year. The entire total funds supplied from Exxon amounts to less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.
Apparently Exxon was heavily “distorting the debate” with a mere 0.8% of what the US government spent on the climate industry each year at the time. (If so, it’s just another devastating admission of how effective government funding really is.)
As an example for comparison, nearly three times the amount Exxon has put in was awarded to the Big Sky sequestration project29 to store just 0.1% of the annual carbon-
dioxide output30 of the United States of America in a hole in the ground. The Australian government matched five years of Exxon funding with just one feel-good advertising campaign31
, “Think Climate. Think Change.” (but don’t think about the details).”
Thanks for that. I don’t think it fair to compare however money budgeted for infrastructure, power grid upgrades etc. The Exxon $ is for information. Do you know what PR money the govt spends on this?
MC, you didn’t read very much did you? I think it is intentional and you do not want to look at anything real.
Last time:
“The Australian government matched five years of Exxon funding with just one feel-good advertising campaig, “Think Climate. Think Change.” (but don’t think about the details).”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/in-this-climate-one-departments-not-safe/story-fn59niix-1226588817164
The Australian Climate Change Department and Climate Commission have an operating budget of $1.6 Billion a year, at least until next change of government. “The Climate Change Department and its agencies, as well as the $10 billion Clean Energy Fund…..” The Australian Labor government’s “Clean Energy Fund” have committed $10 Billion in spending that Australia has to borrow on a bunch of wacky socialist schemes to prevent a non-existent threat.
And finally, if the Aussie carbon tax is not repealed, there is the future Australian carbon credit purchases from City of London carbon credit shysters of $50 Billion a year (source: Australian Treasury Projections), which would be far far larger than our whole defence budget. In the US, multiply that number by at least 20, and you see the size of the prize for the alarmist sock puppets and their financier cronies.
In summary, it’s about money and politics, not science. The “Science” is the excuse to squeeze a humungous amount of money from the average punters by panicking them into saying yes to everything – carbon taxes, ETS and monstrously unaffordable projects that will achieve nothing in the end. All you have to do, m’c’, is follow the money trail.
It’s all here on Steve’s blog, along with the detailed refutations of the warmist scientific method and all their alarmist predictions. You can listen to Mann and Hansen and Gore, or examine the data for yourself.
“The issue is if the CO2 is damaging the ecosystem.”
Where is your proof?
I can provide peer reviewed papers that say the opposite.
Do you always make statements without checking facts first?
Papers please.
That’s not an issue?
The only problem with CO2 is that we need more.
Papers please.
“Do you have any on who is funding the other side?”
How much was Al Gore worth when he left office? How much has he made since? And on what?
What is he funding?
Propoganda.
“What is he funding?”
That was not the question. Have you taken your Ritalin today?
That is the subject, not his personal finances.
What a weasel you are! 😆
First you accuse others of making money off skepticism, but then you refuse to look into the source of Big Al’s money.
You weenies have zero credibility! 😆
Schizoparrotroll.
Thanks everyone for a mostly positive wrap-up today. I will check out the info you provided, and get back to you with more questions. I know you can’t wait for that!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAp9sFVdERQ
😆
didn’t gore make some movie?….and he just started reality drop, sort of a irritable climate syndrome game show
Earth ‘s Climate is what is stored in the Oceans. So we have to look what elements can cool or warm the Oceans.
CO2 can not warm the Oceans.
http://www.klimaatfraude.info/images/sverdrup.gif
CO2 is plant food.
Can I get some consensus here?
Yes or no…….Are temperatures/ trends outside of historical norms/variations or not?
absolutely not……….no
Not.
No.
Historical norms/variations ? How far back ?
ok, Robert…you got us on that one
Truth is, temp are way too high
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/vostok.png
NOT even close!
An how accurate were the computer prediction models from like 10 years ago?
Cause I was thinking about buying a little piece of beachfront in Georgia but got scared away cause of the rising tide hype.
beware of Subsidence on the Ga coast…..my back door is about 14 ft from the Caribbean…..we’ve had no sea level rise in over 100 years
An how accurate were the computer prediction models from like 10 years ago?
=====
about as accurate as your 4 day weather forecast
My family helped settle Florida, my father was a seventh generation Floridian, and many of my relations have waterfront property. There has been no readily detectable sea rise, and no need to change infrastructure.
Ask the people who live there.
If temperatures get much colder it could be you have to walk a little bit more to reach the beachfront . 120 km more or less. It also could get busier with people from the north.And don’t forget a Hurricane so now and then.
lol thought so
some peeps just need a victim—its so sad- modern progressives will struggle so hard to find a target- even when they are chasing ghosts. Their first instinct and inclination is to suck up junk science in support of the victim (i.e. humanity, clean air, clean water, the children, the poor, the sick, the disabled,etc,… now the planet). typical liberal MO. very sad
and yeah selected stats can support anything really- the cost benefit going down that road dont add up for me tho
Their new victim is the developing man himself – as if the huge strides in the standards of living have not lifted millions from utter despair. The image of the evil oil barons from 5th grade social studies class must be seared in their minds from 5th grade social studies class. They suffer from the hero/martyr syndrome: identify an offendor, villify it/him, and proclaim they will champion against it- regardless of the merits of truth. Without the villain, their fragile belief system by definition will collapse. This is psych 101. If faced with imminent collapse, our human compulsion will even manufacture a psychically (not physical) real yet ultimately flawed and illogical construct.
Liberalism is technically a mental disease; it should be included in DSM classifications. I know of no known cure, but I think actually engaging real life and accepting personal responsibilty without playing the blame game may help. I pray for the sheeple, the clueless, the misguided, the gullible, and “meaning-well”… for they know not what they do.
The splendour of truth shines forth in all the works of the Creator and, in a special way, in man, created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gen 1:26)
forever, this is fun….
Follow this link to NOAA…..sea level rise in Ga is somewhere between 0 and 3 mm/yr or 0 to one ft a century…..
I think you could probably walk backwards fast enough to avoid it….
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml
of course, if they gave me that same spread….I could win the lotto every time
3 mm/year? Not so.
“The average sea level rise rate for all 157 NOAA tide gauges active this century, is just below 0.7 mm/year.”
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/11/19/sea-level-rise-less-than-0-7-mmyear-and-falling/
As I said, in Florida, there has been virtually no sea level rise in a century. The concrete docks poured in the 1920’s are still very serviceable and have not changed.
I know it’s not so…and you know it’s not so…..that’s NOAA
The dock steps my grandfather poured in the ’20’s are still exactly the same too…..
“Why peer-review doesn’t work for climate science, but has in every other branch of science for centuries stretches the limits of credulity and, in my opinion, is a paranoid delusion.”
Peer review only works when you and your peers are honest, and stick to the Scientific Method, long abandoned by alarmists.
The peer of a crook is a crook.
Why have you not been able to present an unadjusted data set from 1940 to present, away from the UHI affect, that shows significant warming?
The fact of the matter is that Steve has presented multiple data sets showing no significant warming since 1940. So if you are right and he is wrong, please demonstrate something that proves your point. Ranting about peer review and alike does not prove anything.
peer review lol- i just threw up in my mouth.
nice one gator
yep “the sky is falling” tactic is another propaganda technique- used daily by potus and the left
“and if you don’t agree” u r (pick one or more….) a) racist b) uncaring c) bad steward of the environment d) capitalist pig e) extremist f)radical
http://youtu.be/gBzJGckMYO4
I always love how the Trolls have to resort to – ok, the ice area and extent aren’t too bad… but OMG the THICKNESS is TERRIBLE.
Note to the trolls. There was a huge storm centered right over the Arctic for several days in early August 2012. It broke up a lot of the multi-year ice and flushed it south to where it melted. That is why we had a record low in September 2012. News flash, it takes several years after such a huge storm for multi-year ice to form again (seeing as how it is literally impossible for multi-year ice to form in one year….)
So, one would NATURALLY expect that the ice thickness would be somewhat poor right now, since we had that huge summer storm that sat over the Arctic for 4-5 days and broke up a significant amount of multi-year ice.
In the Southern Hemisphere, on the other hand, the Sea Ice Minimum routinely goes down to around 2 million square kilometers EVERY YEAR, and the maximum goes up to 16 million square kilometers EVERY YEAR. This means, mathematically speaking, that only 12.5% of the Southern Hemisphere sea ice even has the remotest chance of being multi-year ice in the first place, so in general, 87.5 % of the Southern Hemisphere sea Ice is going to be single-year ice and isn’t going to be all that thick.
By the way, the Southern Hemisphere hit minimum about a week early this year, and the ice extent and area are already growing again. We have gained over 100,000 square kilometers of Southern Hemisphere sea ice in just the past few days.