Arctic sea ice reaches lowest extent ever recorded (Update 2)

Aug 27, 2012
The Artic Ocean is pictured off the coast of Greenland in 2008. The sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has melted to its smallest ever level in the latest dramatic sign of the long-term impact of global warming, US researchers said Monday.

(Phys.org)—The blanket of sea ice floating on the Arctic Ocean melted to its lowest extent ever recorded since satellites began measuring it in 1979, according to the University of Colorado Boulder's National Snow and Ice Data Center.

On Aug. 26, the Arctic sea ice extent fell to 1.58 million square miles, or 4.10 million square kilometers. The number is 27,000 square miles, or 70,000 square kilometers below the record low daily sea ice extent set Sept. 18, 2007. Since the summer Arctic sea ice minimum normally does not occur until the melt season ends in mid- to-late September, the CU-Boulder research team expects the sea ice extent to continue to dwindle for the next two or three weeks, said Walt Meier, an NSID scientist.

"It's a little surprising to see the 2012 Arctic sea ice extent in August dip below the record low 2007 sea ice extent in September," he said. "It's likely we are going to surpass the record decline by a fair amount this year by the time all is said and done."

On Sept. 18, 2007, the September minimum extent of Arctic sea ice shattered all satellite records, reaching a five-day running average of 1.61 million square miles, or 4.17 million square kilometers. Compared to the long-term minimum average from 1979 to 2000, the 2007 minimum extent was lower by about a million square miles—an area about the same as Alaska and Texas combined, or 10 United Kingdoms.

This visualization shows the extent of Arctic sea ice on Aug. 26, 2012, the day the sea ice dipped to its smallest extent ever recorded in more than three decades of satellite measurements, according to scientists from NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center. The data is from the US Defense Meteorological Satellite Program’s Special Sensor Microwave/Imager. The line on the image shows the average minimum extent from the period covering 1979-2010, as measured by satellites. Every summer the Arctic ice cap melts down to what scientists call its “minimum” before colder weather builds the ice cover back up. The size of this minimum remains in a long-term decline. The extent on Aug. 26. 2012 broke the previous record set on Sept. 18, 2007. But the 2012 melt season could still continue for several weeks. Image credit: Scientific Visualization Studio, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

While a large Arctic storm in early August appears to have helped to break up some of the 2012 sea ice and helped it to melt more quickly, the decline seen in in recent years is well outside the range of natural climate variability, said Meier. Most scientists believe the shrinking Arctic sea ice is tied to warming temperatures caused by an increase in human-produced greenhouse gases pumped into Earth's atmosphere.

CU-Boulder researchers say the old, thick multi-year ice that used to dominate the Arctic region has been replaced by young, thin ice that has survived only one or two melt seasons—ice which now makes up about 80 percent of the ice cover. Since 1979, the September Arctic sea ice extent has declined by 12 percent per decade.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
Video: NASA

The record-breaking Arctic sea ice extent in 2012 moves the 2011 sea ice extent minimum from the second to the third lowest spot on record, behind 2007. Meier and his CU-Boulder colleagues say they believe the Arctic may be ice-free in the summers within the next several decades.

"The years from 2007 to 2012 are the six lowest years in terms of Arctic sea ice extent in the satellite record," said Meier. "In the big picture, 2012 is just another year in the sequence of declining sea ice. We have been seeing a trend toward decreasing minimum Arctic sea ice extents for the past 34 years, and there's no reason to believe this trend will change."

The Arctic sea ice extent as measured by scientists is the total area of all Arctic regions where ice covers at least 15 percent of the ocean surface, said Meier.

Scientists say Arctic sea ice is important because it keeps the polar region cold and helps moderate global climate—some have dubbed it "Earth's air conditioner." While the bright surface of Arctic sea ice reflects up to 80 percent of the sunlight back to space, the increasing amounts of open ocean there—which absorb about 90 percent of the sunlight striking the Arctic—have created a positive feedback effect, causing the ocean to heat up and contribute to increased sea ice melt.

Earlier this year, a national research team led by CU embarked on a two-year effort to better understand the impacts of environmental factors associated with the continuing decline of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean. The $3 million, NASA-funded project led by Research Professor James Maslanik of aerospace engineering sciences includes tools ranging from unmanned aircraft and satellites to ocean buoys in order to understand the characteristics and changes in Arctic sea ice, including the Beaufort Sea and Canada Basin that are experiencing record warming and decreased sea ice extent.

Explore further: Huge waves measured for first time in Arctic Ocean

Provided by University of Colorado at Boulder

3.9 /5 (24 votes)

Related Stories

Winter Sea Ice Fails to Recover, Down to Record Low

Apr 06, 2006

Scientists at NSIDC announced that March 2006 shows the lowest Arctic winter sea ice extent since the beginning of the satellite record in 1979 (see Figures 1 and 2). Sea ice extent, or the area of ocean that ...

Recommended for you

NASA sees zombie Tropical Depression Genevieve reborn

7 hours ago

Infrared imagery from NASA's Aqua satellite helped confirm that the remnant low pressure area of former Tropical Storm Genevieve has become a Zombie storm, and has been reborn as a tropical depression on ...

Wave energy impact on harbour operations investigated

11 hours ago

Infragravity period oscillations—waves that occur between 25 and 300 seconds with a wavelength between 100m and 10km—can have an impact on berthing operations, depending on a harbour's geometry.

User comments : 433

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Temple
3.6 / 5 (23) Aug 27, 2012
I'm waiting for the turning point when we can stop debating *what* is causing our climate change, and start talking about *how* we as a civilization are going to fight it.

I don't care whether you believe that climate change is man made, solar made, or caused by the great FSM as a test of our ingenuity. I want us to start devoting the none-too-modest resources of humanity to solving the issue.

Big business should be, and probably secretly already is, on-board with the upcoming fight. Once this issue becomes a global priority, can you just imagine the trillions of dollars that are going to be up for grabs? The so-called Green Economy is no longer about hugging trees and saving whales, it is about saving our civilization. It's serious business with unbounded room for profit.

The only serious obstacle I foresee is the vested interest of the religious who may choose to see climate change as the fulfilment of various end-of-days prophecy. That's not something to be triffled with at all.
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (30) Aug 27, 2012
Sensor Error

http://stevengodd...minimum/

Fixed it for ya ...

"It's serious business with unbounded room for Graft."
SteveS
3.9 / 5 (18) Aug 27, 2012
Sensor error?

JAXA uses AMSR2

NSIDC uses Nimbus-7 SMMR and DMSP SSM/I

Steve Goddard is comparing apples and oranges.
gmurphy
3.7 / 5 (22) Aug 27, 2012
@NotParker, I imagine that pretty soon the only comeback your absurd denialism will have is to clamp your hands over your ears and shout 'Na, na, na, I can't hear you'.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.8 / 5 (23) Aug 27, 2012
ParkerTard's source of denialist disinformation is Stephen Goddard, a Conservative blogger who gets most of his science wrong. So much so that he was given the boot from Whatts up with that for being such an embarrassment.

It is quite telling that a chronic liar like ParkerTard would use another chronic liar Stephen Goddard, as a source of information.

http://answers.ya...6AA1ne91
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (22) Aug 27, 2012
Meanwhile back here in the reality based community...

http://nsidc.org/...icenews/
SteveS
4.1 / 5 (16) Aug 27, 2012
I almost forgot the Danish Meteorological Institute is also showing a record low extent
http://ocean.dmi....r.uk.php

They are using the European Meteorological satellites METEOSAT and MetOp and also several American satellites operated by NOAA , DMSP and NASA.

Sensor error?
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (19) Aug 27, 2012
But wait! You are not insuinuating that NotParker may be stretching the truth??? Yes, this is sarcasm.

Just wait until UnaTuba shows up and embarasses himself.

It is not so much that this single year is the worst yet, it is important to note this is one year, a record, and there may be more ice next year. This is not a monotonic progression.

However, the quote from NSIDC is the most important information:

"Including this year, the six lowest ice extents in the satellite record have occurred in the last six years (2007 to 2012)."

How can someone discount this? Although, UTuby is claiming the world has been cooling for the past 10 years on another thread so I assume he will come here to note this is more proof of that. (yes, more sarcasm).
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (27) Aug 27, 2012
Sensor Error

http://stevengodd...minimum/

Fixed it for ya ...

"It's serious business with unbounded room for Graft."


""There are many reasons to believe that a big storm could have a large effect on the sea ice," observes James Screen (University of Melbourne). Such a storm might pull warmer air into the high Arctic; its waves and winds could break up large chunks of thin ice into smaller, easier-to-melt pieces; and the resulting ocean currents could push ice together, reducing the total extent of sea ice (though not fostering melt per se)."

https://www2.ucar...-cyclone

NotParker
1.9 / 5 (26) Aug 27, 2012
Sensor Error

http://stevengodd...minimum/



""NIC charts are produced through the analyses of available in situ, remote sensing, and model data sources. They are generated primarily for mission planning and safety of navigation. NIC charts generally show more ice than do passive microwave derived sea ice concentrations, particularly in the summer when passive microwave algorithms tend to underestimate ice concentration. "

http://stevengodd...y-wrong/

thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (21) Aug 27, 2012
NP: I knew you would be back with more misinformation. You said:

"There are many reasons to believe that a big storm could have a large effect on the sea ice," observes James Screen (University of Melbourne). Such a storm might pull warmer air into the high Arctic; its waves and winds could break up large chunks of thin ice into smaller, easier-to-melt pieces; and the resulting ocean currents could push ice together, reducing the total extent of sea ice (though not fostering melt per se)."

Did you catch the part of the quote you used that said: "waves and winds could break up large chunks of thin ice into smaller, easier-to-melt pieces"

Did you notice you quoted the part where it addresses thin ice? Where do you think that came from? How does the ice get thin? It is because it is one or two years old and not multiyear ice that used to be more prevalent. Continued
thermodynamics
3.8 / 5 (20) Aug 27, 2012
Continued: NP - you should listen to what some others have had to say. I actually learned a bit from GSwift7 a few years back when he gave some great information about storms and prevailing winds in the Arctic. He pointed out that they can change the readings significantly. The serious papers and articles on the subject say the same things. That is the reason I pointed out that one year can be the lowest on record followed by years of more ice. However, when the lowest 6 years on record are the past 6, it indicates a more significant influence of something. You seemed to miss that in my response above. Go back and read it (or is that asking too much of you). There is a lot that we can all learn by reading articles and papers. Unless you think you just know more than anyone else. (again, real sarcasm here because I don't think anyone reading your drivel thinks you know much). I agree with people who are skeptical, like GSwift7, and learn from them. You are just a denialist.
SteveS
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 27, 2012
http://stevengodd...t-121498

"A key point is that IMS/MASIE and other operational sources, such as from NIC, use a variety of data sources that are inconsistent in quantity and quality, as well as subjective human analysis to create maps of ice. A primary purpose of these maps is to support navigation in ice-infested waters. So they tend to be conservative and count even areas sparsely covered with ice as \"ice-covered\". The passive microwave data is produced by completely automated processing that is consistent over the entire record dating back to 1979. Thus, while absolute estimates of ice cover may be biased, the trends and variability (e.g., comparing records, determining a record low extent) is more accurate than from using operational sources."
Walt Meier
NSIDC
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (24) Aug 27, 2012
If this is important information, is not the recent record coldest temperature ever measured also important?

http://amrc.ssec....hp?id=41

Or the fact temperatures have been trending downward in Antarctica for so long that Russian scientists are beginning to be concerned we're heading into an ice age?

"According to Vyacheslav Martyanov, the last few years, measurements of air temperature at the Russian Vostok Station is fixed steadily lowering the overall temperature of the air over Antarctica, which is not evidence of global warming, but rather, the beginning of the Ice Age."

http://hainanwel....ase.html]http://hainanwel....ase.html[/url]

I'm having trouble with this link, so here's a cached version (copy and paste):

http:/webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://hainanwel....ase.html]http://hainanwel....ase.html[/url]
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (21) Aug 27, 2012
Did you notice you quoted the part where it addresses thin ice? Where do you think that came from? How does the ice get thin?


"Even though weather conditions in June and July weren't especially favorable for melting"

https://www2.ucar...-cyclone

"another NSIDC product, the new and improved "multi-sensor" MASIE product, shows no record low at ~ 4.7 million square kilometers"

http://wattsupwit...ord-low/
cdt
4.4 / 5 (13) Aug 28, 2012
The current record cold temperature of 100 pK was set in a laboratory in 1999. The fact that we haven't been able to do better in the ensuing 13 years is OBVIOUS proof of global warming interfering with localized minima. (Sorry, I couldn't resist giving an argument at the same level as the drivel that the denialists spew forth. Not that I expect them to see the parallels.)
thermodynamics
4.1 / 5 (17) Aug 28, 2012
Let me see if I have this right NotParker and ubavontuba. You two are saying that you have better information than these scientists who earn their living measureing the ice in the Arctic. Are you saying that they are misrepresenting the amount of ice? Is this a conspiracy that they are engaged in just to earn extra funding? Please just give us the reason that you think that the ice is not at the lowest extent in the records. Then please give us your best guess at why they are misrepresenting this information. I really would like to know what you think the motivation is. For the record, I believe these data and believe that the ice extent is the lowest since they started this type of measurement. Please expand on your reasoning.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (15) Aug 28, 2012
When you see something posted by UbVonTard, you just know it is a lie.

Now only do his links not function, but his quote is no where to be found on the net.

It is a fabrication.

"Or the fact temperatures have been trending downward in Antarctica for so long that Russian scientists are beginning to be concerned we're heading into an ice age?" - UbVonTard

His claim that Vostok temperatures have been declining.

In fact, they show a 1'C rise since 1960.

http://www.nerc-b...rend.pdf
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (15) Aug 28, 2012
Heatwave Fuels Wildfires Across Europe

http://news.sky.c...s-europe
Skepticus
3 / 5 (8) Aug 28, 2012
Anti-GWers, argue all you for your worth! Our business of selling AC and heaters and other remedies for all the climatic mayhem-all Made In China, of course-are doing splendidly, thanks to the unrelenting efforts of you guys. Keep up the good work as we have indoctrinated! Let's create doubts, questions, proofs and disproofs, disorders, ignorance and stupidity. They are always essential for good business. If you are diligent enough in the effort of fecking this planet thoroughly, you may be able to entitled to a ticket off this planet (full price, no discount, however!). Never fear, the proceeds of your work is going to Mars, where we can repeat the whole joyful act again!
RobPaulG
1 / 5 (13) Aug 28, 2012
What about the times when it has been ICE FREE in the past? How could having any ice be lower than ICE FREE? Haven't these guys seen the photos from early in the 20th century...
RobPaulG
1 / 5 (13) Aug 28, 2012
I thought the first comment in this thread was really funny.

The guy wants to "fight climate change". OMG!
djr
4.7 / 5 (12) Aug 28, 2012
Uba - "temperatures have been trending downward in Antarctica for so long that Russian scientists are beginning to be concerned we're heading into an ice age?"

On a recent 10 page long spat - you claimed that you are only interested in exposing the truth - and that you have no climate agenda. Now you respond to a post that is pretty black and white - and states that the arctic sea ice has reached a record low. (That would be a pretty easy thing to fact check - and a pretty stupid set of scientists who would throw their careers away by making such and obvious lie). Your response is to claim that Russian scientists fear we are entering an ice age!!!! Your links did not work - so I did a quick google search and came up with what I think you are referencing - http://iceagenow....ge-2014/ So - counter to all the data showing the globe is warming - and all the models predicting that warming will continue - as a result of our green house gas emissions - cont.
djr
4.7 / 5 (12) Aug 28, 2012
cont. you latch on to some information predicting a new ice age - with no supporting evidence!!! If you are so interested in exposing truth - why do you not notice information about the antarctic such as this? - http://www.guardi...man-made Do the alarm bells not go off in your head when you see information about heading into an ice age - that totally contradicts so much current science, and suggests that in 2014 we will begin a new ice age - that will last for a couple of hundred years???? Ice ages are driven by Milankovitch cycles - and last on the order of 10's of thousands of years. Do you see why others think you have a climate agenda?
runrig
5 / 5 (10) Aug 28, 2012
What about the times when it has been ICE FREE in the past? How could having any ice be lower than ICE FREE? Haven't these guys seen the photos from early in the 20th century...


IT ( the Arctic ) hasn't been ice free in the past. But the NW passage has. There's a difference. Actually a very big one in terms of obfuscating the argument. Ignorance or otherwise?
rubberman
3.7 / 5 (12) Aug 28, 2012
I thought the first comment in this thread was really funny.

The guy wants to "fight climate change". OMG!


Sure the words "negate the negative impacts of climate change", or "halt our contribution to climate change" may have been a better description of desire, but "fight climate change" implies the same thing. It's an easier battle than getting denialists to use common sense....
djr
4.3 / 5 (12) Aug 28, 2012
"The guy wants to "fight climate change". OMG!" The current science believes we are causing climate change - so why is it so funny that we should explore not causing climate change? Trust me the record heat and severe drought in large parts of the U.S. this year is no joke to the farmers going out of business. Yes - we have a lot more work to do to establish the causal connections in this complex thing called climate. I don't see burying our heads in the sand as a smart option.
tadchem
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2012
At this point in the entire "climate change" controversy most participants have already made up their minds and are not about to have their positions in the debate altered by such trivia as 'empirical data.'
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (17) Aug 28, 2012
Let me see if I have this right NotParker and ubavontuba. You two are saying that you have better information than these scientists who earn their living measureing the ice in the Arctic.


"earn their living" trying to measure sea ice with satellites and then ignoring data from before the satellite era.

It was warm in the 30s and 40s. No satellite pictures. Data is ignored in the same way AGW cultists ignore the 30s/dustbowl heat and drought.

There are cycles.
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (18) Aug 28, 2012
What about the times when it has been ICE FREE in the past? How could having any ice be lower than ICE FREE? Haven't these guys seen the photos from early in the 20th century...


IT ( the Arctic ) hasn't been ice free in the past.


"First, we know the Arctic can potentially lose all its sea ice during summer because it has done so in the past. Examination of several proxy records (e.g., sediment cores) of sea ice indicate ice-free or near ice-free summer conditions for at least some time during the period of 15,000 to 5,000 years ago (Polyak et al., 2010) when Arctic temperatures were not much warmer than today."

Walt Meier NSIDC

http://wattsupwit...-part-2/
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (18) Aug 28, 2012

"First, we know the Arctic can potentially lose all its sea ice during summer because it has done so in the past. Examination of several proxy records (e.g., sediment cores) of sea ice indicate ice-free or near ice-free summer conditions for at least some time during the period of 15,000 to 5,000 years ago (Polyak et al., 2010) when Arctic temperatures were not much warmer than today."

Walt Meier NSIDC

http://wattsupwit...-part-2/


1) It has been warmer in the past and AGW was not the cause.

2) It has been ice free in the past and AGW was not the cause.
djr
5 / 5 (12) Aug 28, 2012
"1) It has been warmer in the past and AGW was not the cause."

Does this lead you to conclude that the current warming is A. not caused by AGW, B. not an unusual event in that it is not part of the natural (what ever that word means) cycles such as Milankovitch cycles, and C. not a potential problem we should be studying?
djr
5 / 5 (10) Aug 28, 2012
"then ignoring data from before the satellite era."

That claim is ridiculous - we currently have proxy data because the very scientists you are denigrating have done amazing work to try to generate a historical record. Of course these same scientists acknowledge the data - and work with a full understanding of it's import.

This quote from the article makes it obvious how specious your arguments are. Look at the last 7 words in the quote...

"The blanket of sea ice floating on the Arctic Ocean melted to its lowest extent ever recorded since satellites began measuring it in 1979"
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (15) Aug 28, 2012

"The blanket of sea ice floating on the Arctic Ocean melted to its lowest extent ever recorded since satellites began measuring it in 1979"


... but we won't mention pre-1979 measurements that we do have.
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (15) Aug 28, 2012
"1) It has been warmer in the past and AGW was not the cause."

Does this lead you to conclude that the current warming is A. not caused by AGW, B. not an unusual event in that it is not part of the natural (what ever that word means) cycles such as Milankovitch cycles, and C. not a potential problem we should be studying?


If it wasn't for adjustments in USA data, current temperatures would be 3F or so colder than the 1930s.

So I doubt current temperatures have anything to do with AGW.

Recent papers show a drop in cloud cover large enough to cause any temperature changes.

"A new paper just published in the Journal of Climate finds that global cloudiness has decreased over the past 39 years from between 0.9 to 2.8% by continent"

http://wattsupwit...nfirmed/

Less clouds = more sun = small warming compared to the cold period in the 1970s.

When it got colder in the 60s/70s, was that caused by CO2 too?
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (10) Aug 28, 2012
RobPaulG and NotParker: Would you please be so kind as to share with us when the Arctic was "Ice Free" in the past 200 years? Could you please share your references? Thank you in advance.
djr
5 / 5 (9) Aug 28, 2012
" but we won't mention pre-1979 measurements that we do have." Go right ahead - please share your data with us. This article was very clear about the time frame it was addressing - they really can't talk about satellite data - that was taken before there were satellites can they?
SteveS
4 / 5 (4) Aug 28, 2012
rubberman
3.8 / 5 (10) Aug 28, 2012
Well geez Steve, I know those are older maps...did they still use white back then to indicate snow or ice? Because if so, despite NP's claim that it was warmer, the sea ice coverage seems pretty extensive!
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (15) Aug 28, 2012
Notice the lows around 1650 and 1930s

http://i46.tinypi...tqo1.jpg

http://www.gcess....mDyn.pdf

"(1) A sharp decrease in late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries. Such a reduction corresponds to the
end of the Little Ice Age

(2) Minima in sea ice extent in the 1920s and 1930s,
coincident with high recorded temperatures in the
Arctic

(3) A recovery from the 1940s to late 1960s, coinciding
with a general cooling in the region

(4) A decrease in sea ice extent from then until the end of
the twentieth century"

NotParker
1.3 / 5 (15) Aug 28, 2012
Notice the lows around 1650 and 1930s

http://i46.tinypi...tqo1.jpg

"(1) A sharp decrease in late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries. Such a reduction corresponds to the
end of the Little Ice Age

(2) Minima in sea ice extent in the 1920s and 1930s,
coincident with high recorded temperatures in the
Arctic

(3) A recovery from the 1940s to late 1960s, coinciding
with a general cooling in the region

(4) A decrease in sea ice extent from then until the end of
the twentieth century"



" A recovery from the 1940s to late 1960s, coinciding with a general cooling in the region"

Caused by rising CO2?
runrig
5 / 5 (8) Aug 28, 2012
IT ( the Arctic ) hasn't been ice free in the past.


"First, we know the Arctic can potentially lose all its sea ice during summer because it has done so in the past. Examination of several proxy records (e.g., sediment cores) of sea ice indicate ice-free or near ice-free summer conditions for at least some time during the period of 15,000 to 5,000 years ago (Polyak et al., 2010) when Arctic temperatures were not much warmer than today."


It's called the Holocene climatic optimum and was due to our old friend Mr Milankovitch .....

"The effect would have had maximum Northern Hemisphere heating 9,000 years ago when axial tilt was 24° and nearest approach to the Sun (perihelion) was during boreal summer. The calculated Milankovitch Forcing would have provided 8% more solar radiation (+40 W/m2) to the Northern Hemisphere in summer, tending to cause greater greater heating at that time....." http://en.wikiped..._optimum
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 28, 2012
NotParker: You said: "Notice the lows around 1650 and 1930s"

Could you please explain how that is related to this report on: "lowest extent ever recorded since satellites began measuring it in 1979"?

Were the 1650 AD measurements using radar? Or were they using the GRACE satellites?

Yes, this is sarcasm because you are trying to compare imprecise proxies from 1650 and 1930 with sattelite measurements with error bars today. I assume you don't see anything wrong with that approach. (yes, more sarcasm)
djr
5 / 5 (9) Aug 28, 2012
"Notice the lows around 1650 and 1930s"

I did - and I noticed a couple of things - A. their graph stopped at the year 2,000 - and we have had 12 years of significant ice loss in that 12 year period. B. 2,000 is still the lowest data in terms of ice extent - and hey one little phrase you probably missed - 1940–1959, obtained mainly from interpolation due to abundant missing data. You have proved nothing - the fact remains that the article is very clear in it's scope, and we are at a minimum in terms of satellite data - with several weeks of melting left.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (11) Aug 28, 2012
At no time in the 20'th century, or any other century in at least the past several million years has the Northern Pole been ice free.

"Haven't these guys seen the photos from early in the 20th century..." - RonPaul
SteveS
5 / 5 (3) Aug 28, 2012
Notice the lows around 1650 and 1930s


There is very little correlation between the Actic sea ice maximum and the Western Nordic seas maximum discussed in your links.
http://brunnur.ve...7_04.jpg
http://brunnur.ve...8_04.jpg
http://brunnur.ve...9_04.jpg

runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 28, 2012
If it wasn't for adjustments in USA data, current temperatures would be 3F or so colder than the 1930s.
So I doubt current temperatures have anything to do with AGW.
"A new paper .. in the Journal of Climate finds that global cloudiness has decreased over the past 39yrs ...." Less clouds = more sun = small warming compared to the cold period in the 1970s.


The US is not the globe - and so your first statement is nonsense.
The study you quote is from land-based observers. Speaking as someone who spent 32 years observing/forecasting weather for the UK Met. Office. I know a thing or two about clouds, their effects and inherent errors in their reporting.
The most obvious error however is as this is over land then the study has to separate out the seasons."Less clouds = more sun = small warming .." is simplifying things into distortion. Less cloud in winter over n'thrn continents= cooling.
The paper also cites an increase in CB. A genera driven by high surface temperatures (largely)
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (13) Aug 28, 2012
Notice how ParkerTard's reference isn't for the Arctic, but for the Western Arctic sea? The region of open ocean bounded by Norway to the east, Greenland to the west, Iceland to the south and Svalbard island to the north.

So ParkerTard claims that arctic ice went to zero and then provides a reference to support his claim, a region outside the arctic ocean.

Here is a map of the area...

https://docs.goog...HRGhHSnM

"Notice the lows around 1650 and 1930s" - ParkerTard

ParkerTard is a Congenital and perpetual liar.

He is mentally diseased.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.1 / 5 (12) Aug 28, 2012
Arctic sea ice area has reached a new record low of 2.59 million square kilometers.

1.5 weeks of melt time remain to the average minimum ice area.

http://arctic.atm...ive.html

Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (13) Aug 28, 2012
Read the caption. ParkerTard isn't even including ice in the arctic ocean to support his claim that there was melting in the arctic ocean.

"Yes, this is sarcasm because you are trying to compare imprecise proxies from 1650 and 1930 with sattelite measurements" - thermodynamics

Lies are all you will ever get from ParkerTard.
Lying about science is his only reason for him being here.
That is what he is paid to do.
NotParker
1 / 5 (11) Aug 28, 2012
"First, we know the Arctic can potentially lose all its sea ice during summer because it has done so in the past. Examination of several proxy records (e.g., sediment cores) of sea ice indicate ice-free or near ice-free summer conditions for at least some time during the period of 15,000 to 5,000 years ago (Polyak et al., 2010) when Arctic temperatures were not much warmer than today."

Walt Meier NSIDC

http://wattsupwit...-part-2/

The LIA was the coldest period in 10,000 years. It is no surprise there is less ice than the LIA.

NotParker
1 / 5 (11) Aug 28, 2012
The US is not the globe


But it does have the most weather stations. And the best temperature record (which isn't saying much except that almost everywhere else the record is even more questionable).

As for the UK .... last 6 July's, only one has been barely above the 1981-2000 mean. Ditto for last 6 Augusts.

http://www.metoff...monthly/

NotParker
1 / 5 (11) Aug 28, 2012
you are trying to compare imprecise proxies from 1650 and 1930 with sattelite measurements with error bars today. I assume you don't see anything wrong with that approach. (yes, more sarcasm)


I think it is important to keep some perspective and to claim this is lowest level of sea ice "ever" is a joke.

It is entirely possible it isn't the even lowest level in 80 years.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.3 / 5 (11) Aug 28, 2012
No Tard Boy. Caused by the unrestricted emissions of sulfate aerosols into the atmosphere from U.S. coal fired power plants.

You have been told this dozens of times.

You are apparently incapable of learning from your past errors.

A sure sign of your mental disease.

"A recovery from the 1940s to late 1960s, coinciding with a general cooling in the region"

"Caused by rising CO2?" - ParekerTard

Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (11) Aug 28, 2012
I think it best to remember that ParkerTard was caught telling yet another lie.

He has a very long history of lying.

"I think it is important to keep some perspective and to claim this is lowest level of sea ice "ever" is a joke. " - ParkerTard

It is a manifestation of his mental disease.

"It is entirely possible it isn't the even lowest level in 80 years." - ParkerTard

Only on your home planet of Conservadopia.

Things are much different here in the reality based universe.

NotParker
1 / 5 (11) Aug 28, 2012
"According to JAXA, the Arctic melt season (date max minus date min) has gotten about 30 days shorter since 2005. If the melt season ends in the next eight days, 2012 will be the shortest on record."

http://stevengodd...shorter/

I predict that the maximum ice will be very high this winter.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.3 / 5 (12) Aug 28, 2012
From ParkerTard's own reference.

"Thus, the long-term thinning trend is primarily a reflection of additional energy from globally warming temperatures. Thick ice still moves out of the Arctic (or melts within the Arctic), but the additional energy in the Arctic prevents the replenishment of thicker ice at the same pace. The system is out of equilibrium and older, thicker ice continues to decline (though with some year-to-year variability). The additional energy is not always indicated by warmer local air temperatures though, especially in ice-covered areas." - Walt Meier NSIDC
NotParker
1 / 5 (10) Aug 28, 2012

There is very little correlation between the Actic sea ice maximum and the Western Nordic seas maximum discussed in your links.


"The most reduced sea ice before the 20th century occurred in the late 16th and mid-to-late 17th century, as seen in both the Icelandic historical sea-ice and Western Nordic Seas proxy records. "

http://instaar.co...ct_id=45

NotParker
1 / 5 (11) Aug 28, 2012
"Two isotopic ice core records from western Svalbard are calibrated to
reconstruct more than 1000 years of past winter surface air temperature
variations in Longyearbyen, Svalbard, and Vardø, northern Norway. Analysis
of the derived reconstructions suggests that the climate evolution of the last
millennium in these study areas comprises three major sub-periods. The
cooling stage in Svalbard (ca. 8001800) is characterized by a progressive
winter cooling of approximately 0.9C century"

9C of cooling ... and only 4C of warming since the end of the LIA.

http://munin.uit....quence=1

We have some way to go before it is as warm in the arctic as it was around 800.
runrig
5 / 5 (10) Aug 28, 2012

I predict that the maximum ice will be very high this winter.


Would you care to enumerate how so?
I quote from your source....
"When there isn't as much ice in the Arctic in the summer, then the area is warms up," explains NSIDC's Walt Meier, who is part of the group that tracks Arctic ice coverage throughout the year. Meier says that as the sea ice melts, the ocean absorbs more of the heat, warming up the water and also the air above. These warmer temperatures last longer into the fall than they would have if there had been more summer ice, he says, which delays the time when ice starts to grow again. "In a way, it's starting from behind and then it doesn't have time to catch up."

But of source you deny that Arctic Ice is at a record low.
runrig
5 / 5 (10) Aug 28, 2012
"Two isotopic ice core records from western Svalbard are calibrated to reconstruct more than 1000 years of past winter surface air temperature variations in Longyearbyen, Svalbard, and Vardø, northern Norway. Analysis of the derived reconstructions suggests that the climate evolution of the last
millennium in these study areas comprises three major sub-periods. The cooling stage in Svalbard (ca. 8001800) is characterized by a progressive winter cooling of approximately 0.9C century"

9C of cooling ... and only 4C of warming since the end of the LIA.

We have some way to go before it is as warm in the arctic as it was around 800.


Since when has Svalbard been "the Arctic"?
It's a tiny island and subject to it's own regional variations. Extreme, actually, because of it's unique position at the northern-most extent of the North Atlantic Drift. A stronger than recent NAD would most likely explain the warmer period and that in no way can be used as a proxy for the whole Arctic.
NotParker
1 / 5 (11) Aug 28, 2012

I predict that the maximum ice will be very high this winter.


Would you care to enumerate how so?


March/Apr 2012 were the highest they've been in 5 years. If the melt season is really short again, the freeze will build upon the thick multi-year ice.

For most of March and April ice levels hit 97-98% of the 1980s average.

http://www.ijis.i...tent.htm
NotParker
1 / 5 (12) Aug 28, 2012
"Two isotopic ice core records from western Svalbard are calibrated to reconstruct more than 1000 years of past winter surface air temperature variations in Longyearbyen, Svalbard, and Vardø, northern Norway. Analysis of the derived reconstructions suggests that the climate evolution of the last
millennium in these study areas comprises three major sub-periods. The cooling stage in Svalbard (ca. 8001800) is characterized by a progressive winter cooling of approximately 0.9C century"

9C of cooling ... and only 4C of warming since the end of the LIA.

We have some way to go before it is as warm in the arctic as it was around 800.


Since when has Svalbard been "the Arctic"?


It is within the arctic circle. There isn't much land up their to take ice cores from.
NotParker
1 / 5 (11) Aug 28, 2012

For most of March and April ice levels hit 97-98% of the 1980s average.

http://www.ijis.i...tent.htm


Month Day 1980s 2012 2012 %
4 16 13954618 13806875 98.94
4 15 13968542 13814219 98.90
4 20 13863656 13664375 98.56
4 17 13942750 13736563 98.52
4 21 13817313 13604375 98.46
4 24 13674156 13457656 98.42
3 20 14666250 14412188 98.27
4 3 14455820 14203594 98.26
4 14 14093555 13844531 98.23
3 31 14535352 14273125 98.20
4 1 14502422 14235469 98.16
3 19 14680382 14398750 98.08
4 4 14413854 14133125 98.05
3 30 14549375 14258594 98.00

Those are just the days 98% and above of the 80s avg.
rwinners
5 / 5 (4) Aug 28, 2012
Interesting, isn't it, how land seems to anchor the Arctic ice sheet?
rwinners
5 / 5 (8) Aug 28, 2012
@not... Ice extent is one criteria... how about total ice mass or volume? I'll bet a chart of this would be illuminating.
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 28, 2012
"Those are just the days 98% and above of the 80s avg." So what do you think you have proved by posting all of that data NP. Do you think it proves that this article is false - and we are not at a minimum in terms of sea ice in the arctic (since satellite records began of course)?
NotParker
1 / 5 (11) Aug 28, 2012
Do you think it proves that this article is false - and we are not at a minimum in terms of sea ice in the arctic (since satellite records began of course)?


"There are two different methods of measuring arctic ice coverage. That is a good thing, just as it is good that we have both land stations and satellites to measure air temperature.
Microwave indices see more water than ice, while NIC index sees more ice than water in mixed conditions. So they will each have distinct results and trends.
My only concern is that the news only reports the microwave results, and ignores the equally valid NIC index. As of today NIC shows artic ice extent tracking slightly above 2007."

http://www.natice...ent.html

From comments at:

http://stevengodd...minimum/
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (12) Aug 28, 2012
Let me see if I have this right NotParker and ubavontuba. You two are saying that you have better information than these scientists who earn their living measureing the ice in the Arctic. Are you saying that they are misrepresenting the amount of ice? Is this a conspiracy that they are engaged in just to earn extra funding? Please just give us the reason that you think that the ice is not at the lowest extent in the records. Then please give us your best guess at why they are misrepresenting this information. I really would like to know what you think the motivation is. For the record, I believe these data and believe that the ice extent is the lowest since they started this type of measurement. Please expand on your reasoning.

Strawman argument. I never said anything about the Arctic ice extent. Are you having trouble with the English?

Howhot
4.3 / 5 (11) Aug 28, 2012
Double strawman argument, Ubertubby! You are always talking about Arctic ice extent, and how utterly massive the new ice extent is! Or something just as similar in you total fallacy. So whats wrong with a second language?

NP says "Microwave indices see more water than ice, while NIC index sees more ice than water in mixed conditions. So they will each have distinct results and trends.",

Thank you for your concern. We have already taken that into consideration, and have modified our measurements to take that effect into account. See the article.

NotParker
1.3 / 5 (16) Aug 28, 2012
"As of today NIC shows artic ice extent tracking slightly above 2007."

http://sunshineho...-center/

"The National Ice Center (NIC) is a multi-agency operational center operated by the United States Navy, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the United States Coast Guard. Our mission is to provide the highest quality, timely, accurate, and relevant snow and ice products and services to meet the strategic, operations, and tactical requirements of the United States interests across the global area of responsibility."
Howhot
4.3 / 5 (11) Aug 29, 2012
NP, this is from the article
"It's a little surprising to see the 2012 Arctic sea ice extent in August dip below the record low 2007 sea ice extent in September," he said. "It's likely we are going to surpass the record decline by a fair amount this year by the time all is said and done."


NP, the trend line on global warming seems to stay in the same direction; Earth is getting warmer!
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 29, 2012
Djr -

you claimed that you are only interested in exposing the truth - and that you have no climate agenda.
Correct.

Now you ...states that the arctic sea ice has reached a record low.
Indeed.

(That would be a pretty easy thing to fact check - and a pretty stupid set of scientists who would throw their careers away by making such and obvious lie).
Indeed:

http://amrc.ssec....hp?id=41

Looks like you owe me, the Russian scientists, and The University of Wisconsin-Madison Antarctic Meteorology Program a round of apologies.

Your response is to claim that Russian scientists fear we are entering an ice age!!!! Your links did not work
Yes. Strangely, after originally posting this information, their site went down and my computer was attacked as well. But I saved a cached screenprint:

http://i47.tinypi...q8lt.jpg

so I did a quick google search and came up with what I think you are referencing
Not even close.

ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 29, 2012
So - counter to all the data showing the globe is warming ...you latch on to some information predicting a new ice age - with no supporting evidence!!!


If you are so interested in exposing truth - why do you not notice information about the antarctic such as this? - http://www.guardi...man-made
Actually, I viewed that page. It's not about the interior, and it's rather (and self-admittedly) ambiguous.

Do the alarm bells not go off in your head when you see information about heading into an ice age - that totally contradicts so much current science, and suggests that in 2014 we will begin a new ice age - that will last for a couple of hundred years????
Red Herring. This is from your own presumptuous reference.

Ice ages are driven by Milankovitch cycles - and last on the order of 10's of thousands of years. Do you see why others think you have a climate agenda?
Because you falsely attribute references?
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (13) Aug 29, 2012
"The guy wants to "fight climate change". OMG!" The current science believes we are causing climate change - so why is it so funny that we should explore not causing climate change? Trust me the record heat and severe drought in large parts of the U.S. this year is no joke to the farmers going out of business.
What farmers going out of business? Most farmers carry crop insurance.

Yes - we have a lot more work to do to establish the causal connections in this complex thing called climate. I don't see burying our heads in the sand as a smart option.
Don't be such a Chicken Little. The sky isn't falling.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (12) Aug 29, 2012
the trend line on global warming seems to stay in the same direction; Earth is getting warmer!


This isn't true. for whatever reason(s), global warming stopped at least 10 years ago.

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

NotParker
1.3 / 5 (14) Aug 29, 2012

NP, the trend line on global warming seems to stay in the same direction; Earth is getting warmer!


Not the whole world.

alaska
Highest TMAX 5 year averages
alaska Current 5 year period is ranked No. 4
===========================================================
1 2001 - 2006 1.79
2 1976 - 1981 1.25
3 2006 - 2011 0.96
4 1936 - 1941 0.96

The last 5 years in Alaska are .83C colder than the previous 5 years and the same temperature as 1936-1941.

(Latest BEST data)
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 29, 2012
"As of today NIC shows artic ice extent tracking slightly above 2007."

http://sunshineho...-center/

"The National Ice Center (NIC) is a multi-agency operational center operated by the United States Navy, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the United States Coast Guard. Our mission is to provide the highest quality, timely, accurate, and relevant snow and ice products and services to meet the strategic, operations, and tactical requirements of the United States interests across the global area of responsibility."
That's interesting. Here. I overlayed 2012 (red) over 2007 (green).

http://i49.tinypi...ictk.jpg

runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 29, 2012

NP, the trend line on global warming seems to stay in the same direction; Earth is getting warmer!


Not the whole world.

alaska
Highest TMAX 5 year averages
alaska Current 5 year period is ranked No. 4
===========================================================
1 2001 - 2006 1.79
2 1976 - 1981 1.25
3 2006 - 2011 0.96
4 1936 - 1941 0.96

The last 5 years in Alaska are .83C colder than the previous 5 years and the same temperature as 1936-1941.

(Latest BEST data)


Why can you not keep quoting regional temps in order to justify your agenda? Would you accept AGW protagonists quoting similarly?

Look, the process HAS to be looked at at a global level and that means evening things out both temporally and spacially. Otherwise how could we see what was happening?

But of course you know this. Don't you? You're not stupid are you?
djr
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2012
Uba - "Looks like you owe me, the Russian scientists, and The University of Wisconsin-Madison Antarctic Meteorology Program a round of apologies." Because you are claiming that the antarctic is in a cooling trend - and we are entering a new ice age. I do not consider you to have any credibility. A review of current science will show you that the Antarctic is warming - although at a slower rate than the other continents. Here is a wiki article that gives a good overview of the situation. http://en.wikiped...troversy

Given all the current evidence about our current warming trend - and all the models predicting the warming is going to continue - you respond to an article that simply points out that the arctic sea ice has just broken a new record - with a claim that we are entering a new ice age - you have no credibility.
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (14) Aug 29, 2012

Why can you not keep quoting regional temps in order to justify your agenda? Would you accept AGW protagonists quoting similarly?


Didn't a 6 state heat wave make the news recently as a sign of the apocalypse?

The globe is not warming. Some regions are warming and some are cooling.

Why does it annoy you when I point out the warming cycle peaked years ago in many regions or that the 30s were warmer than present temperatures?
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 29, 2012
rubberman
3.6 / 5 (14) Aug 29, 2012
"- you have no credibility" - This describes both Uba and Parker perfectly.

Engaging either of them will only lock you into a circular debate where the only entertainment is counting how many times they contradict themselves or outright lie, or deny they said something in another post which contradicts something they just said.

They epitomize the word "waste" and aren't worth the time they consume. They are like the crazy guy at the end of the bar who manages to show up every day spewing the same tired bullshit that you have heard so many times you go from feeling sorry for their condition and wondering what misfortune has put them into such a sorry state, to just wishing they had the balls to end it all and spare the rest of us the migraine.

Also, this months issue of National Geographic had an decent article recapping the weird weather/climate change connection. It's old news to most of us but they do nail the GHG element very well and how it fits into what we are seeing.
djr
3.8 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2012
"Didn't a 6 state heat wave make the news recently as a sign of the apocalypse?" So is your argument - "they behave in poor science - so that justifies me behaving in poor science?" Anyone who claims that a 6 state heat wave is a sign of the apocalypse - is very lazy. That does not justify me being lazy.....
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2012


The globe is not warming. Some regions are warming and some are cooling.

Why does it annoy you when I point out the warming cycle peaked years ago in many regions or that the 30s were warmer than present temperatures?


Correct - some regions are warming and some are cooling ( some of the time ). Now put the dots together ... there's a good boy .... and then you AVERAGE them over a significant time frame ( at least 30 years ) and see what the answer is. Wait for it .... and it ( the Globe ) is WARMING.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Aug 29, 2012
"- you have no credibility" - This describes both Uba and Parker perfectly.


Precisely - actually I now consider them as spammers. There is no spark of recognition there. They have no understanding of scientific methods or the need to balance all evidence. It is just a one way diatribe of c**p, cherry-picked to support their agenda. .... One/both of them now will respond with the usual "your warming agenda" but ours is supported by science. Without which we would still think that creation is true and Darwin wrong and be stuck back in the Middle Ages.
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 29, 2012
"- you have no credibility" - This describes both Uba and Parker perfectly.


Precisely - actually I now consider them as spammers.


The AGW cult is always attacker them messenger.

Did you know the NIC did NOT show a record melt of Arctic Sea Ice?
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 29, 2012
"Didn't a 6 state heat wave make the news recently as a sign of the apocalypse?" So is your argument - "they behave in poor science - so that justifies me behaving in poor science?" Anyone who claims that a 6 state heat wave is a sign of the apocalypse - is very lazy. That does not justify me being lazy.....


Pointing out that parts of the world are cooling is not lazy. Claiming it is a sign of an ice age right now would be cult-like ... but I leave that kind of scare-mongering to your cult.

I happen to live on the west coast of North America and it is cooling. Yet no one mentions it in the media or on the AGW cult sites.

Alaska, BC, Washington, Oregon and parts of California are all cooling and have cooled almost 1C in the last 5 years since the PDO switched.

To be interested in that despite the blizzard of AGW propaganda IS science.
djr
4.3 / 5 (12) Aug 29, 2012
"Pointing out that parts of the world are cooling is not lazy." It certainly is if you are using it as part of coordinated strategy to spread confusion on the issue of global warming. The globe is warming. We know there is a lot of noise in the data. Cherry picking pieces of the noise is certainly lazy. When you consistently engage in lazy argument - you invite people to question your motives. To be interested in anything and everything is good. To purposely muddy the waters, cherry pick, use lazy thinking is not good, it is lazy, it is reprehensible - which is why many posters on this science board challenge you.

"Claiming it is a sign of an ice age right now would be cult-like"

Uba is in the process currently of claiming we are heading in to an ice age - I agree with your post - that is cult like. Spamming science boards with rubbish - is also cult like.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2012
"I happen to live on the west coast of North America and it is cooling. Yet no one mentions it in the media or on the AGW cult sites.

Alaska, BC, Washington, Oregon and parts of California are all cooling and have cooled almost 1C in the last 5 years since the PDO switched."

Because it is IRRELEVANT to the AGW theory - I say again.....
Some regions are warming and some are cooling ( some of the time ). Now put the dots together ... there's a good boy .... and then you AVERAGE them over a significant time frame ( at least 30 years ) and see what the answer is. Wait for it .... and it ( the Globe ) is WARMING.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2012
Arctic sea ice area reached a new historic low today of 2.59 million square kilometers. One week average melt time remains in the melt season.

http://arctic.atm...ive.html
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (14) Aug 29, 2012
"I happen to live on the west coast of North America and it is cooling. Yet no one mentions it in the media or on the AGW cult sites.

Alaska, BC, Washington, Oregon and parts of California are all cooling and have cooled almost 1C in the last 5 years since the PDO switched."

Because it is IRRELEVANT to the AGW theory


If cooling is irrelevant to AGW, then it is a really dumb theory. It is then a religion that cannot be falsified.

If a theory predicts rain and a drought occurs, then the theory must be revised.

In the AGW cult, if AGW predicts drought and it rains, then AGW just claims AGW causes rain too.

Cult.

NotParker
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 29, 2012
Arctic sea ice area reached a ...


NIC shows Arctic Sea Ice minimum of 4.57 million sq. km. in 2007 on September 11.

That is 1.5 million sq km below todays data.

http://sunshineho...007-low/
Vendicar_Decarian
4.3 / 5 (11) Aug 29, 2012
Yes. There are a couple of states in the U.S. that show some very minor cooling over the last few decades.

No one mentions them because they represent a small fraction of the U.S. which itself comprises only 2 percent of the globe, and therefore means nothing in the great scheme of things.

Minor regional cooling is anticipated in some areas.

"I happen to live on the west coast of North America and it is cooling." - Foofie
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2012
No one cares about the falling temperatures in your refrigerator Tard Boy.

"If cooling is irrelevant to AGW, then it is a really dumb theory." - ParkerTard

You are mentally diseased.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.1 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2012
fParkerTard still can't tell the difference between weather and climate.

His mental disease prevents it.

"If a theory predicts rain and a drought occurs, then the theory must be revised." - ParkerTard
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 29, 2012
Yes. There are a couple of states in the U.S. that show some very minor cooling over the last few decades.


6 Have been cooling since 1895.

21 since 1921.

42 since 1998.

(Out of 48 continental states)
runrig
4 / 5 (8) Aug 29, 2012

"If cooling is irrelevant to AGW, then it is a really dumb theory." - ParkerTard



For f****s Parky it's not difficult. Cooling is irrelevant at region scales to GW theory. In fact it predicts it.
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 29, 2012

"If cooling is irrelevant to AGW, then it is a really dumb theory." - ParkerTard



For f****s Parky it's not difficult. Cooling is irrelevant at region scales to GW theory. In fact it predicts it.


Ahhh, AGW predicts everything. Just like snake oil cures everything.

Cult.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2012

"If cooling is irrelevant to AGW, then it is a really dumb theory." - ParkerTard



For f****s Parky it's not difficult. Cooling is irrelevant at region scales to GW theory. In fact it predicts it.


Ahhh, AGW predicts everything. Just like snake oil cures everything.

Cult.


Why would you/anyone expect all the planet to warm all at once in a steady-state fashion ??? unless one was of low intelligence or be paid for it. For Ch***s sake, why would anyone think that the distribution of solar heat through the Earth's atmospheric and ocean system would follow a straight line ( up or down ). If you disturb any complex system then instabilities will occur. The world runs on the basis of cock-ups not conspiracies and if you don't like then tough.
djr
4.3 / 5 (11) Aug 29, 2012
"Ahhh, AGW predicts everything." Very childish use of strawman argument. There is no singular AGW theory - another example of lazy - and I would add childish discourse. Climate is complex - the study of climate is very problematic as a result of this complexity. Scientists understand that predicting the future of such a complex system poses huge challenges. Models are being used to try to make predictions about the future - but it is clearly understood there are significant limits. Looking at past predictions by the models - suggest we are on the right track - if anything the models are currently being adjusted because they are too conservative. Earlier predictions said the Arctic would be ice free by 2100. They are adjusting these predictions down.
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 29, 2012
"Ahhh, AGW predicts everything." Very childish use of strawman argument. There is no singular AGW theory


Ok ... AGW theories predict everything.

If theory A predicts drought, and floods occur, some cult member will dredge up theory B which predicts floods.

That way the cult can claim everything is caused by AGW.

Say Goodbye to Baseball
Say Goodbye to Christmas Trees
Say Goodbye to Fly Fishing
Say Goodbye to French Wines
Say Goodbye to Light and Dry Wines
Say Goodbye to Pinot Noir
Say Goodbye to Ski Competitions
Say Goodbye to Ski Vacations
Say Goodbye to That Snorkeling Vacation
Say Goodbye to That Tropical Island Vacation
Say Goodbye to the Beautiful Alaska Vacation
Say Hello to Really Tacky Fake Ski Vacations

etc

http://www.americ...warming/
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 29, 2012

Why would you/anyone expect all the planet to warm all at once in a steady-state fashion ???


All at once? Don't you mean NEVER for some regions?

And when it starts to cool in the USA, you claim it is still warming!!!!

And you ignore the 1930s when it actually di warm like crazy and ignore that that was long before Co2 was supposed to have caused warming.

And then you ignore the cooling after the 1940s , even though that supposedly would have been CO2's fault!

Cult!
cdt
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 29, 2012
Turn your refrigerator/freezer on high and the room warms up more than normal. The net effect is a raising in the average temperature of the room, even when the cooler temperatures inside the fridge are factored in. Insisting that there is no overall warming because the freezer compartment dropped 2 degrees is just being willfully ignorant or purposely deceptive. NP, you focus only on the inside of the fridge and purposely ignore the rest of the room. That's what cherry picking is.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 29, 2012
Insisting that there is no overall warming because the freezer compartment dropped 2 degrees is just being willfully ignorant or purposely deceptive.


What would you think if the fridge thermometer was sitting beside the heat coming off the heat exchanger on the back of the fridge?

Would you think it was 85F inside the fridge?

There are thousands of thermometers placed near airports or in urban centers contaminated by UHI telling us it is warming when they are in fact measuring UHI and the exhaust from jets.

NASA: "Summer land surface temperature of cities in the Northeast were an average of 7 °C to 9 °C (13°F to 16 °F) warmer than surrounding rural areas over a three year period, the new research shows. "

http://www.nasa.g...awl.html

The amazing part is, even with massive amounts of UHI, large parts of the US and UK and other places have cooled or were cooling from 1895.
thermodynamics
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 30, 2012
NotParker: You have pointed out how disengenuous and stupid most of the climate scientists are. You have done extensive research on sites like "Wattsupwiththis" and other similar sites.

Would you please share your engineering/science background? I assume you must be in scientific research to know as much as you do. Could you please give us some of your background that partains to the information you are putting forward? Just to start the ball rolling,

I am a registered professional Mechanical Engineer and my undergraduate degree was in Physics with minors in Math and Chemical Engineering. I taught Heat Transfer and Thermodynamics classes at the advanced undergraduate level (300 level classes). I work on advanced combustion systems. I figure if I share you will be willing to share also. You don't have to reveal who you are, just what your background is. I know I am interested. Thank you in advanced for helping us understand you background.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 30, 2012
Djr -

Uba - "Looks like you owe me, the Russian scientists, and The University of Wisconsin-Madison Antarctic Meteorology Program a round of apologies."
Because you are claiming that the antarctic is in a cooling trend - and we are entering a new ice age.
Strawman. I didn't make those claims. I only reported on the Russian scientists making those claims.

I do not consider you to have any credibility.
Well, since by implication you just denied the credibility of all those Russian and American climate scientists, it seems you're the one with the credibility problem. Can you say: "science denier."

A review of current science will show you that the Antarctic is warming - although at a slower rate than the other continents.
How does it do that while at the same time setting record cold temperatures?

Cont...

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 30, 2012
Djr - cont...

Here is a wiki article that gives a good overview of the situation.
Most of the data in this article is quite old. Even so, your own reference states multiple times the interior of the continent is either not warming, or has cooled.

And here's an assessment from an AGW proponent:

"The temperature of the rest of Antarctica - the other 96% - shows no current indications of rising."

Here's the link. Pay special attention to the 2007 NASA temperature trend map. Do you see all the blue (indicates a cooling trend)?

http://www.coolan...ming.htm

And here's a more recent image:

http://notrickszo...ctic.jpg

Given all the current evidence about our current warming trend
which ended at least 10 years ago.

you respond ...with a claim that we are entering a new ice age
Again, it's not my claim. I simply reported it.

You, have no credibility.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 30, 2012
"Didn't a 6 state heat wave make the news recently as a sign of the apocalypse?" So is your argument - "they behave in poor science - so that justifies me behaving in poor science?" Anyone who claims that a 6 state heat wave is a sign of the apocalypse - is very lazy. That does not justify me being lazy.....

...says the science denier.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 30, 2012
some regions are warming and some are cooling ( some of the time ). Now put the dots together ... there's a good boy .... and then you AVERAGE them over a significant time frame ( at least 30 years ) and see what the answer is. Wait for it .... and it ( the Globe ) is WARMING.
Sure. In the last 30 year span it warmed:

http://www.woodfo....6/trend

But for as much as more than half of that span, it hasn't warmed at all:

http://www.woodfo...97/trend

Where did the warming go?

Vendicar_Decarian
4.4 / 5 (8) Aug 30, 2012
Another new record low in Arctic sea ice area was reached today. It is now 2.31 million square kilometers lower than historical norms.

Minimum ice area is now 50% lower than historical norms.

http://arctic.atm...ctic.png

And is well below the record melt of 2007..

http://arctic.atm...ive.html

Approximately one week remains in the traditional melt season.

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 30, 2012
Precisely - actually I now consider them as spammers. There is no spark of recognition there. They have no understanding of scientific methods or the need to balance all evidence. It is just a one way diatribe of c**p, cherry-picked to support their agenda. .... One/both of them now will respond with the usual "your warming agenda" but ours is supported by science. Without which we would still think that creation is true and Darwin wrong and be stuck back in the Middle Ages.
What science supports your claim for global warming these last 10 years? Gistemp?

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

...nope.

HADCrut4?

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

...nope.

RSS?

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

...nope.

So do you trust the science, or not?

Vendicar_Decarian
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 30, 2012
Arctic Sea Ice Death Spiral

http://tamino.wor...-spiral/

Here is a very illustrative graphic showing how rapidly the Arctic ice extent is falling in a historical perspective.

http://tamino.fil...pg?w=500
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 30, 2012
Uba is in the process currently of claiming we are heading in to an ice age - I agree with your post - that is cult like. Spamming science boards with rubbish - is also cult like.
This is just a despicable lie. It appears you only pretended to have some personal ethics. So sad.

djr is a science denier.

ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (11) Aug 30, 2012
For f****s Parky it's not difficult. Cooling is irrelevant at region scales to GW theory. In fact it predicts it.
How about globally?

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

Vendicar_Decarian
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 30, 2012
Here is a nice animation showing how rapidly the arctic sea ice volume is declining.

http://www.iwants...anim.gif

At current rates of decline sea ice minimum will go to zero within a decade.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 30, 2012
Arctic melt causing a Striking increase of methane in the Arctic

http://arctic-new...tic.html

Large Release of Methane Could Cause Abrupt and Catastrophic Climate Change as Happened 635 Million Years Ago, UCR-led Study Warns

http://newsroom.ucr.edu/1849
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Aug 30, 2012
NotParker: You have pointed out how disengenuous and stupid most of the climate scientists are. You have done extensive research on sites like "Wattsupwiththis" and other similar sites.

Would you please share your engineering/science background? I assume you must be in scientific research to know as much as you do. Could you please give us some of your background that partains to the information you are putting forward?
Argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority).

His background in no way affects the argument. Either his facts are supportable, or they are unsupportable. That's all that matters. That's pure science.

Are you one of those obnoxius engineers who bully everyone around you with your own sense of self-importance? No one is more annoying.

thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 30, 2012
Ubadolt said: "His background in no way affects the argument. Either his facts are supportable, or they are unsupportable. That's all that matters. That's pure science."

I actually expected you to say something like this. His background and yours are important because it helps us understand what science level you might understand. For instance, if someone does not have advanced math, it would do no good to discuss the hydrodynamics of ocean currents or wind. If they have no physics, it will not do any good to talk about energy and energy transfer. If they quit before finishing highschool then it will not do any good to try to explain anything to them. If they completed a degree in fine arts, it would be a difficult task to use math so we would approach the argument using references that are easily readable instead. In your case, I assume that your immediate retreat to name calling and disparaging remarks about education must mean you have very little science in your backgroun
runrig
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 30, 2012
"What science supports your claim for global warming these last 10 years? Gistemp?"

Here follows a lengthy post .......

No point repeating the answer to the above as you have been sold it countless times and it does not register ( but one
comment did actually hit on one reason ) "Alaska, BC, Washington, Oregon and parts of California are all cooling and have
cooled almost 1C in the last 5 years SINCE THE PDO SWITCHED." (NP). THERE ARE OVERLYING CYCLES IN THE CLIMATE AS WELL AS AGW.

The fact that the vast majority of climate scientists support the validity of GW supports my acceptance of it.( and no Mr
Watts doesn't count as a climate scientist - I have worked with weather presenters and they are employed for their (shock)
... presentation ... skills - not their weather/physics knowledge ). Plus my knowledge of the subject by training and profession. I consider their knowledge of the subject above and beyond others - as one would given an non bigoted mind.
runrig
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 30, 2012
ctd
Just as I would if I consulted a doctor. I wouldn't presume to tell him I disagreed because I read a blog that recommended an
alternative treatment. And no, there isn't a conspiracy to tell lies here. You don't go into science to make money. You enter
because you want to discover the truth. Why cheat when playing patience?

I assume you have a profession? Tell me what it is and I will then proceed to tell you you are wrong and I know better.
Because of course I am Conservative and we can't possibly be told what is best.

Every climate change/GW article that appears on this site is spammed by the likes of yourselves ( specifically NP and Uba.
). I say spammed, because this a science site and should be visited/commented on by people who know what the subject
matter involves. I know full well that this post will not have any effect in making you think about your views and learn
something about climate from ( properly ) knowledgeable sources. Or at least get a book on weather.
runrig
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 30, 2012
No matter how much the basics of the theory of GW is explained you resort to the same retorts - just like trained parrots.

You show no glimmer of recognition of what to us is self evident science ( I mean basic - like a doctor taking a
temperature ). And then you proceed to tell that doctor he is wrong. It truly is mind-boggling to us.

Let me now come to the "precautionary principle". Best demonstrated by the following .... Your daughter is about to get
aboard a flight and you ask the pilot. What are the chances of this aircraft crashing during it? Now, if he says just small
fractions of a percent - fine no problem. But ( in alternative universe ), he says, say 10%. What would you do? I know what
a sensible person would do. You see the import of the thing you would lose far outweighs the probability of it happening. And
the probability of GW happening is way above that. So an infrastructure will need to be built to provide green energy and
it will cost money.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 30, 2012
ctd

Just like an infrastructure for petrochemicals has. Whilst it is being built there will be many, many jobs created along the way. This as oil is becoming harder/more expensive to get at and more likely to pollute too ( Gulf ).

Please go and preach to the converted on Mr Watts' site and give us a rest to allow intelligent discussion here.

Who moderates this site? Can anything be done to get rid of these spammers?
djr
4 / 5 (8) Aug 30, 2012
"This is just a despicable lie. It appears you only pretended to have some personal ethics. So sad."

No it is not. When you post a link to an article - as a part of a discussion on a subject such as melting ice sheets - you are using that article as your argument. I therefore hold you accountable for the content of that article. The Russian scientists claim we are entering a new ice age. You referenced that article. That article is nonsense. You are accountable for your action of posting that article. You post a nonsense article - you lose all credibility.

"It appears you only pretended to have some personal ethics." Childish personal attacks - as you said before - name calling is a poor excuse for dialogue - I agree with you.
djr
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 30, 2012
"Can anything be done to get rid of these spammers?" I agree with your post runrig. I think many of us wrestle with the same concerns. I don't think there is good solution. I think many feel the 'don't feed the trolls' approach is about the best we can come up with. But then if feels as if the trolls get to rule the airwaves. Right now - I feel the best approach is to stay on message - provide a counter argument to their rubbish - but try not to spend too much time in front of the computer. I would say keep posting - try not to let them goad you into personal exchanges (I think your asking people who consistently attack science - to reveal their credentials is reasonable - and not a personal attack), and don't take too much time away from your life. Thanks.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 30, 2012
Another new record low in Arctic sea ice area was reached today.


Only using satellites with microwave sensors which do poorly in current conditions.

"Todays Arctic Sea Ice at the NIC is 5.93 million sq km.

In 2007 on this date it was 5.04 million sq km.

The lowest value reached in 2007 was on September 11 at 4.57 million sq km."

http://sunshineho...29-2012/
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 30, 2012
NotParker: You have pointed out how disengenuous and stupid most of the climate scientists are. You have done extensive research on sites like "Wattsupwiththis" and other similar sites.


Why are so annoyed I am passing on data from the National Ice Center?

Why try and attack the messenger?

Is the NIC not mainstream enough for you? Do alternative sources of information threaten your cult?

"The National Ice Center (NIC) is a multi-agency operational center operated by the United States Navy, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the United States Coast Guard."
runrig
4 / 5 (8) Aug 30, 2012
"Can anything be done to get rid of these spammers?" I agree with your post runrig. I think many of us wrestle with the same concerns. I don't think there is good solution. I think many feel the 'don't feed the trolls' approach is about the best we can come up with. But then if feels as if the trolls get to rule the airwaves. Right now - I feel the best approach is to stay on message - provide a counter argument to their rubbish - but try not to spend too much time in front of the computer. I would say keep posting - try not to let them goad you into personal exchanges (I think your asking people who consistently attack science - to reveal their credentials is reasonable - and not a personal attack), and don't take too much time away from your life. Thanks.


Thanks for your support djr
djr
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 30, 2012

Why are so annoyed I am passing on data from the National Ice Center?

Probably because as usual you are cherry picking. Here is a graph from the National Ice Center. Look carefully at the black line. It certainly reinforces the notion that the ice sheets are shrinking.

http://www.natice...only.jpg

SteveS
4.8 / 5 (5) Aug 30, 2012
MASIE NSIDC/NIC Sea Ice
ftp://sidads.colo...sqkm.csv

28th August 2012 4,093,971 sq km

MASIE uses the most recent full day of data from the National Ice Center, obtained nightly.
SteveS
4.8 / 5 (5) Aug 30, 2012
My apologies, that should have said 29th of August

http://nsidc.org/...dex.html

Nowhere left to hide.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 30, 2012
NIC


Daily Arctic Ice Extent - 5.93 million sq km

http://sunshineho...29-2012/

NIC: "Use the Sea Ice Index when comparing trends in sea ice over time or when consistency is important."

I am using the Sea Ice Index.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 30, 2012
MASIE NSIDC/NIC Sea Ice
ftp://sidads.colo...sqkm.csv

28th August 2012 4,093,971 sq km

MASIE uses the most recent full day of data from the National Ice Center, obtained nightly.


"The IMS product uses several satellite data sources including passive microwave, but it is also based on visual analysis and other data sources and undergoes a form of manual data fusion."

"manual data fusion"

Translation: They adjust it.
SteveS
4.6 / 5 (5) Aug 30, 2012

NIC: "Use the Sea Ice Index when comparing trends in sea ice over time or when consistency is important."

I am using the Sea Ice Index.


http://nsidc.org/...e_index/

Are you sure?
SteveS
4.6 / 5 (5) Aug 30, 2012

"The IMS product uses several satellite data sources including passive microwave, but it is also based on visual analysis and other data sources and undergoes a form of manual data fusion."

"manual data fusion"

Translation: They adjust it.


IMS is a NIC product.
http://www.natice...gov/ims/
Are you now saying the NIC fraudulently adjusts their data?
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 30, 2012

"The IMS product uses several satellite data sources including passive microwave, but it is also based on visual analysis and other data sources and undergoes a form of manual data fusion."

"manual data fusion"

Translation: They adjust it.


IMS is a NIC product.
http://www.natice...gov/ims/
Are you now saying the NIC fraudulently adjusts their data?


1) IMS uses NIC data

2) IMS does not show a minimum yet.

3) MASIE is not an IMS product, but it uses NIC data.

4) As MASIE says: "For any given region or day, a user who wants the most accurate analysis of ice edge position and concentration should use products from an operational ice service such as NIC."

Vendicar_Decarian
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 30, 2012
ParkerTard's data that he claims comes from the NSIDC but which really comes from his own Blog written under his alternate naame "sunshinehours1", doesn't actually correspond with the real data that comes from the NSIDC website.

http://nsidc.org/...ries.png

ParkerTard has been caught in a seemingly infinite number of lies in the past.

And now in the present as well.
djr
4 / 5 (8) Aug 30, 2012
"with the real data that comes from the NSIDC website."

http://nsidc.org/...ries.png

The really surreal thing - if you look at the graph, the 1979 - 2000 average bottoms out at about 7,000 square kilometers. We are now down around 4,000 square kilometers - way outside the 2 standard deviation zone - and we are fussing about 2007 vs 2012.... The trend is unmistakable - we don't need to legislate every detail...

NotParker
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 30, 2012
ParkerTard's data that he claims comes from the NSIDC


Not the NSIDC. The NIC. National Ice Center. Links are in the blog .

Arctic Daily : (Select 2006 - 2012 and Aug)

http://www.natice...ent.html

NIC shows 2012 higher than 2007 at this time.

NotParker
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 30, 2012

The really surreal thing - if you look at the graph, the 1979 - 2000 average bottoms out at about 7,000 square kilometers. We are now down around 4,000 square kilometers


And yet maximum ice was quite high this year.

"To keep the Arctic Sea Ice in perspective, March , April and May of 2012 saw many days where ice extent was 97 or 98% of the 1980s average, which is higher than it has been in years."

http://sunshineho...pective/
Vendicar_Decarian
4.3 / 5 (11) Aug 30, 2012
The National Ice center data that ParkerTard is misrepresenting is not intended for long term monitoring of ice, but is intended to monitor current ice conditions.

As a result they do not use continuous recording sensors of a specific type, but rather use whatever data they come across.

As a result, this quarter they may be using photographic data from satellite x, and in the previous quarter, may be relying on microwave measurements of surface ice.

This lack of long term stability in the data sources makes the NIC data unsuitable for yearly comparisons.

Yet that is exactly what ParkerTard is doing with it.

"Not the NSIDC. The NIC. National Ice Center. Links are in the blog." - ParkerTard

It is yet another form of lying by ParkerTard.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 30, 2012
Poor ParkerTard. He is caught misrepresenting his data sources yet again.

"The Sea Ice Index gives a daily image of extent as well as monthly products. However, these daily images are not meant to be used for climate studies or for inferring anything longer than seasonal trends. Satellite data are not quality controlled quickly enough; and for reasons explained in the Sea Ice Index documentation, the daily ice edge position can be off by tens of kilometers or more from the ice edge that an analyst would draw. Reasons include known errors in thin ice detection, bias in summertime concentration estimates, and the relative compactness of the marginal ice zone. See Partington et al. (2003) for an assessment of operational versus satellite-derived ice concentration." - Multisensor Analyzed Sea Ice Extent

http://nsidc.org/...ckground

It is all part of his mental disease.
djr
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 30, 2012
"April and May of 2012 saw many days where ice extent was 97 or 98% of the 1980s average"

More cherry picking.... Here - let's put it in perspective.

http://nsidc.org/...ires.png

Do you notice the trend? - kind of hard to find any global cooling in there.
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (11) Aug 30, 2012
"April and May of 2012 saw many days where ice extent was 97 or 98% of the 1980s average"

More cherry picking....


Nope. Just honesty.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 30, 2012
Poor ParkerTard. He is caught misrepresenting his data sources yet again.

"The Sea Ice Index ...


Again, I was using NIC's data. Not NSIDC.

I am not using IMS's data (as Steve would like me to), even though their graphs do not show a record low either.

You should quit being dishonest about what I am saying.

http://sunshineho...29-2012/

"For any given region or day, a user who wants the most accurate analysis of ice edge position and concentration should use products from an operational ice service such as NIC."

djr
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 30, 2012
"Nope. Just honesty." Honesty is when you let the science speak for itself. Cherry picking is when you select pieces of data to support your own narrative. We all seem to have a tendendcy towareds confirmation bias - so as I explained earlier - when you are consistently claiming that all the scientists are wrong - and you are right - that should give you a clue - but I understand you probably will never get the point.... sigh...
Vendicar_Decarian
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 31, 2012
Parker Tard is so desperate for a way to lie, that he has started to quote his own Blog as a source of information.

"Todays Arctic Sea Ice at the NIC is 5.93 million sq km. In 2007 on this date it was 5.04 million sq km." - ParkerTard

To further compound his lie, he compares NIC data from one year to the next when this kind of comparison is invalid as data collection methods change from season to season and NIC doesn't compensat for this or compensate for satellite observation error.

Poor ParkerTard. He is caught in yet another lie, and then trying to hid his lie by quoting from his own blog which he writes under another false name.

Vendicar_Decarian
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 31, 2012
Knowing the ice edge is valuable to ship navigation, and this is what the NIC data is intended for.

Not even the NIC states that the data is applicable to accessing climate change.

"An important point is that NIC/MASIE, while picking up more ice, is produced via manual analysis and the data quality and quantity varies. So the product is not necessarily consistent, particularly from year-to-year" - Walt Meier NSIDC

"For any given region or day, a user who wants the most accurate analysis of ice edge position and concentration." - ParkerTard

So now you have three sources explaining why you are misrepresenting the NIC dataset.

Wen do you intend to erase the web pages on your denialist blog and stop your stream of lies here?

Poor Mentally diseased ParkerTard.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Aug 31, 2012
Ubadolt said: "His background in no way affects the argument.
I actually expected you to say something like this.
Of course, it's the only proper response.

His background and yours are important because it helps us understand what science level you might understand.
It seems apparent, both of us understand more than you.

In your case, I assume that your immediate retreat to name calling and disparaging remarks about education must mean you have very little science in your backgroun
MY "immediate retreat to name calling and disparaging remarks." Oh, please. "Ubadolt." Really? Grow up.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Aug 31, 2012
"What science supports your claim for global warming these last 10 years? Gistemp?"


Here follows a lengthy post .......
Indeed, but interestingly, you do not answer my question. Instead you fall into a 4 post long ad hominem (personal) attack with appeals to authority and meaningless red herring arguments. But remarkably, your response contains zero global temperature science (the actual subject of my question). Ergo, you are a science denier.

Who moderates this site? Can anything be done to get rid of these science denier spammers?

Vendicar_Decarian
4.5 / 5 (11) Aug 31, 2012
Parker Tard likes to concentrate on the 4 states in the U.S. that show trivial small cooling trends and ignore all of the others that show significant warming trends.

He has repeatedly claimed that the U.S. is cooling based on those 4 states - ignoring all of the rest - and then has publicly stated that the globe is cooling based on the cooling U.S. which he has falsely concluded by ignoring the warming states.

He is indeed suffering from a mental disease.

"And when it starts to cool in the USA, you claim it is still warming!!!!" - ParkerTard
SteveS
5 / 5 (5) Aug 31, 2012
NIC: "Use the Sea Ice Index when comparing trends in sea ice over time or when consistency is important."

I am using the Sea Ice Index.


http://nsidc.org/...ries.png

As recommended by the NIC and NotParker
Vendicar_Decarian
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 31, 2012
Says the denialist who quotes from his own blog as a source of information.

"Just honesty." - ParkerTard

Ahahahahaha........ Poor mentally diseased ParkerTard
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (9) Aug 31, 2012
"This is just a despicable lie. It appears you only pretended to have some personal ethics. So sad."


No it is not. When you post a link to an article - as a part of a discussion on a subject such as melting ice sheets - you are using that article as your argument. I therefore hold you accountable for the content of that article. The Russian scientists claim we are entering a new ice age. You referenced that article.
So if I report a crime, I'm a criminal? If I report a fire, I'm an arsonist?

Man, I've given you the benefit of the doubt until now and restrained myself, but no more. You are a moron.

That article is nonsense.
So setting the cold record way ahead of their expressed fears is nonsense?

You are accountable for your action of posting that article. You post a nonsense article - you lose all credibility.
But that's all you post.

Cont...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Aug 31, 2012
"It appears you only pretended to have some personal ethics."
Childish personal attacks - as you said before - name calling is a poor excuse for dialogue - I agree with you.
Then why is it that's all you do?

Where's your science? What is the global temperature currently doing? Why would you call data from actual climate scientists "nonsense" instead of delving deeper? Do you think they're actually lying? Why? What evidence do you present to counter their claims?

You wouldn't know science if it bit you in the...

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Aug 31, 2012
"Nope. Just honesty." Honesty is when you let the science speak for itself. Cherry picking is when you select pieces of data to support your own narrative. We all seem to have a tendendcy towareds confirmation bias - so as I explained earlier - when you are consistently claiming that all the scientists are wrong - and you are right - that should give you a clue - but I understand you probably will never get the point.... sigh...
...says the denier who recently denied the credibility of Russian and American Antarctic climate scientists.

http://amrc.ssec....hp?id=41

SteveS
4.9 / 5 (7) Aug 31, 2012
I am not using IMS's data (as Steve would like me to), even though their graphs do not show a record low either.


I would like you to use a dataset that has been validated for consistency.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 31, 2012
Parker Tard likes to concentrate on the 4 states in the U.S. that show trivial small cooling trends and ignore all of the others that show significant warming trends.

He has repeatedly claimed that the U.S. is cooling based on those 4 states - ignoring all of the rest - and then has publicly stated that the globe is cooling based on the cooling U.S. which he has falsely concluded by ignoring the warming states.
Says the dolt who ran on and on about the warm U.S., while completely ignoring a deadly cold winter in Europe.

"The 2012 European cold wave was a deadly cold wave ...824 plus deaths reported"

http://en.wikiped...old_wave

Whereas the American heatwave killed 82.

http://en.wikiped...eat_wave

So explain to me again: Why are we so fearful of warm weather?

Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 31, 2012
Wow, a record cold temp in the middle of winter at a single place in the Antarctic.

Which is about as meaningful as the temperature in your refrigerator.

"On June 11, 2012 the temperature at South Pole Station in Antarctica was -73.8°C/-100.8°F." - UbVonTard

Do you intend to be an idiot for the rest of your life Tard Boy?
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 31, 2012
He can't find one that supports his lie.

"I would like you to use a dataset that has been validated for consistency." - SteveS

Meanwhile Arctic ice area has fallen to a new low of 2.52 million sqare kilometers.

One week of traditional melt remains.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (9) Aug 31, 2012
I am not using IMS's data (as Steve would like me to), even though their graphs do not show a record low either.


I would like you to use a dataset that has been validated for consistency.
NotParker already provided this quote:

"Use the Sea Ice Index when comparing trends in sea ice over time or when consistency is important."

It's from the NSIDC MASIE website. Here's the original source:

http://nsidc.org/...asie_sii

But I must admit I'm a little confused on which "monthly" chart they're referring to.

Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 31, 2012
and did a pretty fair job of obliterating America's corn crop.

"Whereas the American heatwave killed 82." - UbVonTard

So long.... Suckers.....
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 31, 2012
UbVonTard takes the following sentence out of context (of course).

He is a congenital liar.

""Use the Sea Ice Index when comparing trends in sea ice over time or when consistency is important." - UbVonTard

The context is the question which it is answering.

That question is...

When should I use MASIE and when should I use the Sea Ice Index?

The question does not include other datasets that capture long term trends properly.

"An important point is that NIC/MASIE, while picking up more ice, is produced via manual analysis and the data quality and quantity varies. So the product is not necessarily consistent, particularly from year-to-year. NSIDC's product is all automated and consistently processed throughout the record. So there may be some bias, but the bias is consistent throughout the timeseries. This means that comparison of different years, trend values, and interannual variability are more accurate using NSIDC." - Walt Meier NSIDC
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (10) Aug 31, 2012
Anyway, this is all moot inregards to the global temperature:

http://www.woodfo...02/trend
kochevnik
3 / 5 (8) Aug 31, 2012
Says the dolt who ran on and on about the warm U.S., while completely ignoring a deadly cold winter in Europe.
"The 2012 European cold wave was a deadly cold wave ...824 plus deaths reported"
So explain to me again: Why are we so fearful of warm weather?

The colder Europe is completely in line with the abatement of ocean currents. This was predicted fifteen years ago: http://www.scienc...5336.htm

Warm weather brings disease, the most noxious being paid web shills and conservatives.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (8) Aug 31, 2012
Uba says:"...says the denier who recently denied the credibility of Russian and American Antarctic climate scientists.http://amrc.ssec....hp?id=41

Uba: We are not denying the credibility of the measurement or the scientists involved. We are just restating what we all know and that is you do not understand science. A single low record on a single day is not climate. It is weather. Please explain why you can't recognize that?

Also, in spite of the name calling from you and NotParker, we have not gotten a response about your level of scientific education. Using a single day of record cold temperature to try to convince people the earth is cooling means you are either ignorant of science (indicating a low level of science education) or you are just trying to lie to everyone. Which is it please?
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (11) Aug 31, 2012
And once again, UbVonTard presents a plot using HadCrut3 and presents it as a reflection of global temperatures when he has been told dozens of times that HadCrut3 omits large regions of the poles and in doing so misrepresents true global temperatures.

He also presents the plot as if it has any statistical significance, but as has been shown at least a half dozen times before, the 10 year period for the plot produces error bars that are ten times larger than the trend he is claiming.

UbVonTard is of course a Congenital Liar, just like ParkerTard.

He might as well provide the following trend.

http://www.woodfo...08/trend
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 31, 2012
(He is) not denying the credibility of the measurement or the scientists involved.
Actually, he did, and continues to do so.

(I am) just restating what we all know and that is you do not understand science. A single low record on a single day is not climate.
Appalling. I provided multiple sources for evidence of a long term cooling trend in the Antarctic, and you missed them all?

It is weather. Please explain why you can't recognize that?
So this is weather, but a seasonal ice melt in the Arctic is Global Warming? LOL. You need to decide. Is it about regional weather events, or global temperatures?

Here's what's happening globally:

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

Which is it please?
It's a tit for tat exchange. You want to talk about the northern ice, claiming it's a result of global warming, and I'm just providing some balance.

Why does the balance bother you so?

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 31, 2012
And once again, VendiTard lies about HadCrut3, claiming it omits large regions of the poles, and conveniently forgets how I showed him all the major datasets omit large regions of the poles.

He also forgets how I showed him it is statistically significant.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (8) Aug 31, 2012
And Again UbVonTard is caught telling a lie.

"Here's what's happening globally:" - UbVonTard

The data he presents is once again not global, since it omits large portions of the poles. Yet he claims that the data shows "what's happening globally."

UbVonTard has been telling the same lie for the last couple of years. Even though he has been repeatedly caught and told his claim is false.

Like all Conservatives he is a Congenital and Perpetual Liar.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 31, 2012
"HadCRUT3: The HadCRUT3 dataset has 80% global coverage over the past 15 years, with poor coverage of the Arctic, Antarctic and also parts of Africa, Asia and Australia." -

http://www.skepti...p?n=1508

"HadCRUT3 suffers from poor land coverage of the continental interiors apart from Europe and the USA - this effect was identified in the previous article. But both HadCRUT3 and the NCDC data omit the Arctic and Antarctic regions."

http://www.skepti...p?n=1378

"And once again, VendiTard lies about HadCrut3, claiming it omits large regions of the poles" - UbVonTard

In another thread UbVonTard was caught telling well over 100 lies in the same thread.

Vendicar_Decarian
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 31, 2012
"The HadCRUT3 1998 anomaly

The super El-Nino of 1998 and its impact on temperature trends is well known. Less well known is that HadCRUT3 appears to have suffered from multiple biases all of which served to inflate temperatures around 1998, and thus create a spurious cooling trend since that date. The biases due to poor coverage in both the Arctic and Antarctic peak in 1998 for HadCRUT3. As we have seen the Arctic bias is significantly improved in HadCRUT4 however the Antarctic bias remains." - http://www.skepti...p?n=1462

And that is why UbVonTard insists upon using HadCrut3. His goal is to misrepresent the facts.

His goal is to lie.
thermodynamics
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 31, 2012
So, UBA has made it clear that he does not have any scientific background (maybe a science class in 5th grade). And, that he doesn't want to talk about his education at all (I can guess why).

NotParker just ignored the questions so I can postulate that he also has no science background(pretty clear from his arguments). That means these two nitwits are arguing multiple science topics with real scientists and they may not even have graduated from high-school. For future reference we now know these noise makers do not have scientific backgrounds. Please don't ask them to solve a PDE. I laid out my background in the initial post asking them - but I'm not asking anyone else to do that, it was just a way to try to make them more comfortable telling about their background. They appear to uncomfortable with theirs.
djr
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 31, 2012
"Childish personal attacks - as you said before - name calling is a poor excuse for dialogue - I agree with you."

"Then why is it that's all you do?"

I think this response comes under the highly sophisticated and mature category of "I know you are, but what am I"

And in the last few posts Uba uses the insult - "dolt, congenital liar, moron, denier" Continued.

djr
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 31, 2012
Continued - to use one example to address why in my view Uba has no credibility on a science web site - and I will no longer engage with him/her in a dialogue - as it demeans me, and wastes every ones time. Uba is currently in the process of trying to argue that there is a "log term cooling trend in the antarctic" Here is a quote from uba "Appalling. I provided multiple sources for evidence of a long term cooling trend in the Antarctic, and you missed them all?" Uba also referenced a site as part of his argument in which a Russian scientist claims we are entering a new ice age.

I will post this reference to a Wiki post that discusses in depth the question of the temperature trend in the antarctic.

http://en.wikiped...troversy

I believe that this issue highlights clearly the futility having this kind of argument.
kochevnik
3 / 5 (12) Aug 31, 2012
@ubavontuba Says the dolt who ran on and on about the warm U.S., while completely ignoring a deadly cold winter in Europe.
So Uba when are you getting back to me about a colder Europe being predicted by AGW, not negating it? Are you too busy counting Mitt Rmoney's 533 campaign lies? Must be a tangled web you have there.
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (11) Aug 31, 2012
Continued - to use one example to address why in my view Uba has no credibility on a science web site - and I will no longer engage with him/her in a dialogue - as it demeans me, and wastes every ones time. Uba is currently in the process of trying to argue that there is a "log term cooling trend in the antarctic"


"ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap"

"East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades"."

http://www.news.c...00043191
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (11) Aug 31, 2012
National Ice Center still shows Arctic Sea Ice 770,000 sq km above 2007

http://www.natice...ent.html

"The National Ice Center (NIC) is a multi-agency operational center operated by the United States Navy, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the United States Coast Guard. "
djr
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 31, 2012
"ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap"

So Parker - are you joining uba in arguing that Antarctica is currently warming?, or are you just continuing to throw out statements of fact - without really stating what your position is?

runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 31, 2012
.... your response contains zero global temperature science (the actual subject of my question). Ergo, you are a science denier. Who moderates this site? Can anything be done to get rid of these science denier spammers?


We have repeatedly provided you with data/explanations and what comes back is parrot-like, making a mockery of intelligent discussion.

It is beyond bizarre that you call me a "science denier spammer". If you are not scientifically literate, how can you possibly know? I'm the meteorologist here and unless you can provide us with information as to your scientific training/profession entitling you make such a statement - that makes you the spammer as you are unable to contribute intelligent input to this or any climate related topic. ( Other than what you selectively choose to read about the subject). Should you be able to provide requested info and you are indeed of a scientific mind, then other conclusions must be drawn to explain your behaviour.
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 31, 2012
"ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap"

So Parker - are you joining uba in arguing that Antarctica is currently warming?,


It is cooling. And has been for a long while.

Th Antarctica Peninsula (1% or 2% of the whole ice sheet) is warming,

NotParker
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 31, 2012
dir: "And in the last few posts Uba uses the insult - "dolt, congenital liar, moron, denier" "

dir, have you ever criticized VD for his crap?

If not, quit whining. It makes you look extra stupid.
djr
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 31, 2012
"It is cooling. And has been for a long while. " That is in complete contradiction to the facts. I am sure you can find articles to support your claim - but claiming that Antarctica is cooling - is rubbish. Here is the wiki article again - http://en.wikiped...troversy - plenty of links to demonstrate that it is fully understood by the science community that Antarctica is warming . "Steig et al. show warming over the entire continent" You are just flat wrong.

dir, have you ever criticized VD for his crap?

I have expressed the opinion that name calling is inappropriate by any one on this kind of forum (also recognized that I have been guilty of name calling in the past). However - Vendi has never said "Name calling is a poor excuse for dialogue," or admonished me for engaging in name calling.

I will not be baited by your childish goading. Your facts are wrong - and anyone who looks in to the subject can draw their own conclusions.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (11) Aug 31, 2012
Why should he? I restrict applying the term liars to proven liars.

"have you ever criticized VD for his crap?" - ParkerTard

You know the type. People like you and UbvonTard.
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 31, 2012
"It is cooling. And has been for a long while. " That is in complete contradiction to the facts.


"The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades"."

http://www.news.c...00043191
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (11) Aug 31, 2012
ParkerTard doesn't like being called a liar.

Congenital liars like ParkerTard seldom do.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.8 / 5 (10) Aug 31, 2012
A good examination of the dishonest journalism in ParkerTard's "cooling antarctic" quote can be found at the following link.

"A new analysis of satellite data by Turner and his colleagues shows that the mean extent of Antarctic sea ice overall has increased at a rate of slightly less than 1 percent (or 100,000 kilometers) per decade since the 1970s, with the most significant increases occurring in autumn." - CE Journal - http://www.cejour.../?p=1677
Vendicar_Decarian
3.8 / 5 (10) Aug 31, 2012
ParkerTard continues to lie with the following claim...

"National Ice Center still shows Arctic Sea Ice 770,000 sq km above 2007" - ParkerTard

After he has been repeatedly told that yearly comparisons are not reliable with NIC due to changes in their observing methods, observers, and changes in sensor types.

NIC is suitable for navigation, but is not adequately standardized to be used for year to year comparison.

ParkerTard is a congenital and perpetual liar.

I have never encountered a Conservative who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.
djr
3.8 / 5 (10) Aug 31, 2012
From Parkers article - "East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling."

Parts of it are cooling - but on net - the continent is warming.

NotParker
1.7 / 5 (11) Aug 31, 2012
From Parkers article - "East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling."

Parts of it are cooling - but on net - the continent is warming.



Nope

"The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades"."

NotParker
1.7 / 5 (11) Aug 31, 2012
National Ice Center still shows Arctic Sea Ice 770,000 sq km above 2007.

Feel free to check.

http://www.natice...ent.html
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 31, 2012
And Again VendiTard is caught telling a lie.

The data he presents is once again not global, since it omits large portions of the poles.
It's as global as any other, or perhaps you think a bunch of Arctic and Antarctic weather stations magically appear for the others? LOL

http://phys.org/n...ice.html

VendiTard has been telling the same lies for the last couple of years. Even though he has been repeatedly caught and told his claim is false.

Like all Conservatives he is a Congenital and Perpetual Liar.
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 31, 2012
National Ice Center still shows Arctic Sea Ice 770,000 sq km above 2007.

Feel free to check.

http://www.natice...ent.html


"NIC charts generally show more ice than do passive microwave derived sea ice concentrations, particularly in the summer when passive microwave algorithms tend to underestimate ice concentration.

The record of sea ice concentration from the NIC series is believed to be more accurate than that from passive microwave sensors,

especially from the mid-1990s on (see references at the end of this documentation), but it lacks the consistency of some passive microwave time series."
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 31, 2012
"HadCRUT3: The HadCRUT3 dataset has 80% global coverage over the past 15 years, with poor coverage of the Arctic, Antarctic and also parts of Africa, Asia and Australia." -

http://www.skepti...p?n=1508


"Skeptical Science" crap is all you have? And you complain about Watts Up With That?

Here, let me give you some real science. Try the MET Office Hadley Centre:

"There are very few observations in the Arctic and Antarctic. GISS attempts to estimate temperatures in these areas, HadCRUT3 does not. This is the major source of difference between the analyses, ...There is a third global analysis produced by NCDC that also uses interpolation to fill in some of the gaps." - Met Office

http://www.metoff...dex.html

There. The real scientists have spoken. If you speak against this ever again, then you are a science denier (not that you aren't already).

How about admitting Gistemp also shows no global warming for at least 10 years?

kochevnik
3.2 / 5 (11) Aug 31, 2012
So ubavontuba how long are you going to keep dodging your obvious lie about Europe cooling? We really want you to bring up the facts and the science that you claim to know so much about. The fate of mankind rests upon your shoulders.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 31, 2012
"The HadCRUT3 1998 anomaly

The super El-Nino of 1998 and its impact on temperature trends is well known. Less well known is that HadCRUT3 appears to have suffered from multiple biases all of which served to inflate temperatures around 1998, and thus create a spurious cooling trend since that date.
That's funny, as HadCRUT3 shows no warming since 1997 (before your supposed data spike):

http://www.woodfo...97/trend

The biases due to poor coverage in both the Arctic and Antarctic peak in 1998 for HadCRUT3. As we have seen the Arctic bias is significantly improved in HadCRUT4 however the Antarctic bias remains." - http://www.skepti...p?n=1462
More "Skeptical Science" nonsense is all you have?

And that is why Uba insists upon using HadCrut3. His goal is to misrepresent the facts.
LOL. How are you going to argue from 1997 now?

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 31, 2012
So, UBA has made it clear that he does not have any scientific background (maybe a science class in 5th grade). And, that he doesn't want to talk about his education at all (I can guess why).
Ad hominem attacks are all you have? Where's your science? Maybe you think science is somehow "won" with ad hominem attacks?

I don't think you'd recognize real science if it kicked you in the...

Here's the science:

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

What do you have to say and show to dispute it? Anything? Anything, at all?

...(crickets chirping)...

That's what I thought.

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 31, 2012
I will no longer engage with him/her in a dialogue
Thank you.

I will post this reference to a Wiki post that discusses in depth the question of the temperature trend in the antarctic.

http://en.wikiped...troversy
And what are you trying to prove with this? Did you even read it? Most of the data is old, and much of it admits the interior is cooling and has been cooling for a long time. In fact the only way to get rid of the cooling trend is to go back to... well, to before the supposed AGW.

And that's only while using uncertain and extrapolated data, (unsuccessfully) designed to prove Antarctica isn't cooling.

The fact is it is cooling, and substantially so. Especially lately.

http://amrc.ssec....hp?id=31

http://amrc.ssec....hp?id=41

But then this is science and you wouldn't know anything about that.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 01, 2012
"The data he presents is once again not global, since it omits large portions of the poles." - Vendicar

"And Again VendiTard is caught telling a lie." - UbVonTard

CRU GISS NCDC BEST

Coverage: Land 65% 99% 89% 99%
Coverage: Ocean 87% 98% 94%
Coverage: Global 81% 98% 92%

http://www.skepti...ger.html

UbVonTard has been told on multiple occasions that HadCrut3 does not have global coverage.

I have provided him with a half a dozen references showing that HadCrut3's global coverage is largely missing at the poles, and constitutes only 80 percent of the globe.

Yet he persists on lying and claiming that HadCrut3 is global and has no bias due to the missing polar regions that it omits.

And in this post he calls me a liar, for providing him with multiple references that show that he is the party who is lying.

I have never encountered a Conservative who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar. UbVonTard is no exception.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (8) Sep 01, 2012
ParkerTard continues to lie with the following claim...

"National Ice Center still shows Arctic Sea Ice 770,000 sq km above 2007" - ParkerTard

After he has been repeatedly told that yearly comparisons are not reliable with NIC due to changes in their observing methods, observers, and changes in sensor types. NIC is suitable for navigation, but is not adequately standardized to be used for year to year comparison.

ParkerTard is a congenital and perpetual liar.

I have never encountered a Conservative who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 01, 2012
So Uba when are you getting back to me about a colder Europe being predicted by AGW, not negating it? Are you too busy counting Mitt Rmoney's 533 campaign lies? Must be a tangled web you have there.
Of course temperatures are linked to ocean currents. When did I say otherwise? But this has been going on for millenia. You need to prove the latest cold wave is a result of AGW.

http://www.time.c...,00.html

How did it switch so quickly from mild weather in December 2011 and early January 2012 to unusually cold in the middle of January?

https://www.wmo.i...rope.pdf

http://www.guardi...al-world

kochevnik
3.4 / 5 (10) Sep 01, 2012
@ubavontuba Of course temperatures are linked to ocean currents. When did I say otherwise?
You wrote that the cooling was NOT a result of AGW on the prior page, as well again inferred in the question of your latest post below
You need to prove the latest cold wave is a result of AGW.
AGW doesn't predict weather, but climate. You're already been told that.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 01, 2012
"ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap"

So Parker - are you joining uba in arguing that Antarctica is currently warming?, or are you just continuing to throw out statements of fact - without really stating what your position is?
Isn't it obvious? The facts speak for themselves. You need but listen.
SteveS
5 / 5 (6) Sep 01, 2012
National Ice Center still shows Arctic Sea Ice 770,000 sq km above 2007.

Feel free to check.

http://www.natice...ent.html


This is not sea ice data

This dataset has not been validated for consistency

NIC: "Use the Sea Ice Index when comparing trends in sea ice over time or when consistency is important."

I am using the Sea Ice Index.

NotParker 30th August 2012

http://nsidc.org/...ries.png

As recommended by the NIC and NotParker
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 01, 2012
We have repeatedly provided you with data/explanations and what comes back is parrot-like, making a mockery of intelligent discussion.
No, you have repeatedly obfuscated. Why won't you simply admit this graph:

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

...shows the world has been cooling for at least 10 years?

It is beyond bizarre that you call me a "science denier spammer". If you are not scientifically literate, how can you possibly know?
I'm plenty "scientifically literate."

I'm the meteorologist here
And I'm the King of Siam. It's the Internet. Anyone can claim anything. The true measure is in the context. So far, you're showing precious little comprehension in the way of science (again, no science in this last post!).

unless you can provide us with information as to your scientific training/profession entitling you make such a statement
Really? So now people need to be "entitled" to speak?

cont...
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 01, 2012
that makes you the spammer as you are unable to contribute intelligent input to this or any climate related topic.
Says the science denier/spammer who isn't even capable of discussing the science.

Should you be able to provide requested info and you are indeed of a scientific mind, then other conclusions must be drawn to explain your behaviour.
Sure. I'm right.

The science says: There has been no substantial global warming for at least the last 10 years.

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 01, 2012
dir: "And in the last few posts Uba uses the insult - "dolt, congenital liar, moron, denier" "

dir, have you ever criticized VD for his crap?

If not, quit whining. It makes you look extra stupid.
Excellent.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 01, 2012
That is in complete contradiction to the facts.
You mean like these facts?

http://amrc.ssec....hp?id=31

http://amrc.ssec....hp?id=41

ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 01, 2012
You wrote that the cooling was NOT a result of AGW on the prior page,
Please remind me. When did I supposedly make this claim?

Anyway, if your claim is it's linked to AGW, you need to prove it. Otherwise, it's just weather.

as well again inferred in the question of your latest post below
Uh, no. I merely deferred to you, as this being a result of AGW is your claim. Please, be my guest. Go ahead and prove it.

AGW doesn't predict weather, but climate. You're already been told that.
Aren't you the the one who claimed: "The colder Europe is completely in line with the abatement of ocean currents. This was predicted fifteen years ago:"

I'm giving you an opportunity to prove it with sound science. Please, don't be shy. I'm ready to listen. Show me how the sudden change from a mild to a bitterly cold winter in Europe is a result of AGW.

djr
3.8 / 5 (10) Sep 01, 2012
"You mean like these facts?" So uba and Parker claim that Antarctica is cooling. They are given extensive scientific references that clearly show their claim is factually inaccurate. Their response is to post links that show that the south pole broke a cold temperature record. Understand - when physorg recently published an article showing that the U.S. had just had the warmest July on record - they jumped up and down - and claimed that you cannot make generalizations about the climate - from subsets of data (for which they are correct). But then they claim that Antarctica is cooling - based on one temperature - from one point on the continent - ignoring a mountain of evidence that says while some parts of the continent may be warming, other parts are cooling (in keeping with projections from models), but on net - the continent is warming.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 01, 2012
I am using the Sea Ice Index.


It looks like you're using the correct chart to me, but I find it interesting these two agencies differ so substantially.

But as the NIC is designed to serve maritime interests, it seems only appropriate they'd tend to be conservative.

However, their data resources and methods appear sound:

"...more than 95% of the data used in sea ice analyses are derived from the remote sensors on polar-orbiting satellites."

Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (11) Sep 01, 2012
No problem.... Here is a MET Office publication.

http://www.metoff...pted.pdf

Figure 5 (replicated below) shows that HadCrut3's global coverage is 80 percent.

https://docs.goog...RUGNDc1k

""Skeptical Science" crap is all you have? And you complain about Watts Up With That? Here, let me give you some real science. Try the MET Office Hadley Centre:" - UbVonTard

While I have not presented UbVonTard with the graphic before I have presented him with the link to the article containing the graphic, and have done so on multiple occasions.

He is a congenital liar.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (11) Sep 01, 2012
The fact is it is cooling, and substantially so. Especially lately.

To support his lie, UbvonTard provides two days when record now temperatures were observed. One back in April 6, 2012 and the other June 11, 2012.

These temperatures were recorded at a single place.

By UbVonTard's Conservative non-logic, he should conclude that Amreicans are getting younger because he saw a child walk through a door back in April 3, 2011 and another child walk through the same door in June 4, 2010.

UbVonTard, like ParkerTard, is mentally diseased.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.8 / 5 (10) Sep 01, 2012
You are absolutely correct. Not only are they are proven to be perpetual liars, - in one thread I counted almost 100 lies told by UbVonTard - several per message - but they are hypocrites as well.

"So uba and Parker claim that Antarctica is cooling. They are given extensive scientific references that clearly show their claim is factually inaccurate." - Dir

Witness ParkerTard's whining about the Antarctic Peninsula's warming not being a measure of Antarctic warming because the Peninsula is only 2 percent of the Antarctic area, and his repeated claims that the globe is cooling because the 2 U.S. states show cooling - when those states comprise less than 2 percent of the U.S. which is less than 2 percent of the Earth's surface.

Lies are all UbVonTard and ParkerTard ever produce. It is what ParkerTard is paid to produce.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (11) Sep 01, 2012
Much of the input to NIC is photographic and relies on visual analysis conducted by different people at different times.

The NIC "Product" is produced for rapid consumption and also contains no corrections for interpretive bias, drift or sensor bias, drift.

As a result it is unsuitable for yearly comparisons as ParkerTard has been dishonestly doing.

"...more than 95% of the data used in sea ice analyses are derived from the remote sensors on polar-orbiting satellites." - UbVonTard

Lying is all Conservatives have left.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.8 / 5 (10) Sep 01, 2012
Why should he? I restrict applying the term liars to proven liars.

"have you ever criticized VD for his crap?" - UbVonTard

You know the type, People like you and ParkerTard.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 01, 2012
So uba and Parker claim that Antarctica is cooling. They are given extensive scientific references that clearly show their claim is factually inaccurate.
Uh, did you have more than one reference? I only saw the Wikipedia article about the controversy.

But it's a moot point anyway. I only brought it up to demonstrate how foolish it is to concentrate on regions.

What is important is that the world hasn't substantially warmed in at least 10 years:

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 01, 2012
No problem.... Here is a MET Office publication.

http://www.metoff...pted.pdf
HadCRUT4 ends in 2010. Even so, it shows no substantial global warming for at least the first eight of the last 10 years (and there's little doubt it would trend downward if updated):

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

You accept Gistemp as being global, and it shows no substantial warming for at least the last 10 years:

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

So what is it you're arguing about? Are you trying to argue against no substantial global warming since at least 10 years ago? You're doing a rotten job of it.

thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 01, 2012
So, UBA has made it clear that he does not have any scientific background (maybe a science class in 5th grade). And, that he doesn't want to talk about his education at all (I can guess why).
Ad hominem attacks are all you have? Where's your science? Maybe you think science is somehow "won" with ad hominem attacks?

I don't think you'd recognize real science if it kicked you in the...

Here's the science:

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

What do you have to say and show to dispute it? Anything? Anything, at all?

...(crickets chirping)...

That's what I thought.



Uba is getting pretty touchy about his education. I gave you mine, why don't you cough up yours? I will continue this discussion so you know why it is important.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 01, 2012
Continued: I want to confess that I am ignorant in the area of Arabic. I went to Iraq and never learned the language. There are millions of people who can speak and write the language better than I can. I would never get into an argument with a native Arabic speaker about the meaning of an Arabic newspaper they were reading. Don't get me wrong, I could argue the basics of the article if it were explained to me, but I could get it very wrong, even if I used a dictionary to translate it. Science is like that in that it has its own vocabularly and sentence structure. People can go to a dictionary and still not get it quite right. So, a forum like this is a good one because some good scientists hang out here to help clarify some of the writeups. I have learned a lot from these discussions from good scientists who know what they are talking about. (Continued)
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 01, 2012
Continued: It seems that Uba and NotParker have no areas of ignorance (or so they profess). Some of us who do understand the science (degrees, years in the labs, hundreds of papers on the subjects fundamental to heat transfer) try to jump in to help those who might not understand (I request and get this kind of help every day here). Two names stand out (among others) who seem to be proud that they do not understand the way physics works. They are UbaVonTuba and NotParker. So, that leaves a few of us to try to correct the record so that when those who don't know, and admit they don't know, can see the alternative to the manure from UBTB and NP. That, I hope, can help them find their own way through the issues. For those who are working so hard to keep the record straight, my hat is off to you. Keep up the good work. I don't have the energy to be her all the time so great work from VD, DJR, koch, and many others.
kochevnik
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 01, 2012
Please, don't be shy. I'm ready to listen. Show me how the sudden change from a mild to a bitterly cold winter in Europe is a result of AGW.
Go look it up, Mr. 'scientist'. Prediction has only been out there for fifteen years. I thought you were on top of your game.
djr
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 01, 2012
But it's a moot point anyway. I only brought it up to demonstrate how foolish it is to concentrate on regions.

The pro science lobby has been going around and around with Parker on this very issue for years, and thousands of hours of posts. We extend the argument to also include long time frames - not just 10 years. We have been beating the dead horse for ever -trying to say that if you want to make pronouncements about the Earth, and climate trends - you have to look at the whole picture - meaning the whole earth (atmosphere, land, and oceans), and use long time scales. We have been keeping data for a little over 100 years. Go to woodfortrees and select any one of the data sets - and graph since 1800. Here is an example - http://www.woodfo...rom:1800 This site gives about 2000 years of climate (most proxy of course) really highlights the current situation - http://www2.sunys...ord.html
djr
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 01, 2012
"Science is like that " Awesome post thermo - thanks.

I am not a scientist - I try to pick up what I can as I go - and like you appreciate the contributions of others who clearly are more knowledgeable. Here is the problem on this issue. If I read an article that discusses the age of the Earth, and supports the current consensus that it is around 4.5 billion years old - I do not have to understand the complexities of the science to appreciate the article. If I write a post claiming that the article is false - I now have a completely different responsibility in terms of my need to know what I am talking about. If I claim that all of the science related to the age of the Earth is a hoax, a grand conspiracy to manipulate research dollars - I have even gone to another level. That discussion needs to happen at the level of peer reviewed published research. It is reasonable of you to ask my credentials if I am the one refuting the current scientific understanding
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 01, 2012
Uba is getting pretty touchy about his education. I gave you mine, why don't you cough up yours? I will continue this discussion so you know why it is important.


Where's the science?

...(crickets chirping)...

That's what I thought.

Oh, wait. Here's the science:

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

NotParker
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 01, 2012
National Ice Center still shows Arctic Sea Ice 600,000 sq km above 2007 ...

... no matter how many insults the cult members throw out.

"NIC charts are produced through the analyses of available in situ, remote sensing, and model data sources. They are generated primarily for mission planning and safety of navigation.

NIC charts generally show more ice than do passive microwave derived sea ice concentrations, particularly in the summer when passive microwave algorithms tend to underestimate ice concentration. "

ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 01, 2012
Go look it up, Mr. 'scientist'. Prediction has only been out there for fifteen years. I thought you were on top of your game.
In other words, you got nuthin'. That's what I thought.

The cold European winter was primarily the result of the Arctic Oscillation in a negative phase in confluence with a blocking high over Siberia.

That was easy.

ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 01, 2012
The pro science lobby
(derisive smirk) You're better defined as the "personal attack lobby." You bring precious little science to the discussion, and attempt to "win" the argument through bullying. This is definitely NOT the hallmark of scientists.

Here's something from a real scientist:

"Dr. Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several peer-reviewed papers on GCMs (Global Climate Models). He argues the Met Office climate models show there should have been "steady warming from 2000 until now."

"If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again," Scafetta said, "the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories.'"

http://www.newsne...15-years

runrig
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 01, 2012
Another long post I'm afraid ( 5 ). Needs must.

" Says the science denier/spammer who isn't even capable of discussing the science."

I, and others have, as I said, repeatedly responded positively to you and given reasoned scientific explanations as well as links to back it up. It is you that have a one-track mind unable to dislodge your prejudice.

Just so you cannot level that accusation at me again for this post I shall try again with this ... You said previously .. "Alaska, BC, Washington, Oregon and parts of California are all cooling and have cooled almost 1C in the last 5 years since the PDO switched."
... Right, you seem to have that much on-board. Before the PDO switched a large El Nino distorted the global temperature graph upwards and since then the cooler phase of the Pacific cycle has taken heat out of the atmosphere. Hence your ( say, as I have not checked ) correct assertion that the above states are cooler.

ctd
runrig
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 01, 2012
Ctd2

Why would that be surprising to you with the cooler Pacific waters directly upwind? These colder waters also have a knock-on effect more widely in the atmosphere, affecting the Jet-stream's meandering, and hence weather beneath in the NH. Where GW comes in is that ( because extremes are more finely balanced ) the Poles are warmed greater. This in turn reduces the temperature contrast between the Pole ( singular as in N - I shall get onto the Antarctic as it is VERY much different from the NP ) and tropics that the Jet-stream is built on. ( I can get into the physics of how a jet evolves if you wish - just ask ). Because the Jet is therefore weakened, then ( just as a cyclist is less likely to wobble at speed than going slowly ) it is much more likely to wander and form Rossby-waves/cut-off vortices that "lock" weather beneath into extremes. Be it warm/cold wet/dry.

ctd
runrig
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 01, 2012
Ctd3

I'm not saying that these "locks", last long, just that they are more likely to form in preferential positions due in part to obstacles of topography such as the Rockies and Himalayas. ( again ask for info on breaking waves into the stratosphere and mountain torque ). Because of this displacement of temperature anomalies both spatially and temporally, in order to obtain a meaningful signal of the global climate, one must have a long time-scale of data and also a world-wide coverage, especially where extremes are occurring ( poles ), which is precisely where we have so little data.
The Antarctic is a land mass. And high in the interior. Vostock, the Russian station, is at a height of 11,443ft where the atmospheric pressure is nearer 650mb ( note pressure as reported by the station is reduced to SL by algorithm ). Antarctica suffers from an ozone hole. Ozone screens us from UV rays and in doing this it warms the Stratosphere. No Ozone, therefore colder Strat.

ctd
runrig
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 01, 2012
Ctd4

Suffice to say that increased warming due to more atmospheric CO2 is but one OVERLYING driver of climate - though over the longer term the more important one, leaving aside orbital fluctuations ( Milankovitch ).

".. you have repeatedly obfuscated" No, see previous posts and above.
"Why won't you simply admit this graph: http://www.woodfo...02/trend ... shows the world has been cooling for at least 10 years?" It may show that to an uninformed eye ...... because you are taking it in isolation and not including the previous 30yrs to see the "wood for the trees", so to speak. Which is why a long time scale is needed to filter out overlying cycles from other influences. The trend line is statistically uncertain in the last 10 yrs due the ( above explained PDO cycle in particular ) but also because the variability exhibited during the period is so large that a trend line cannot be determined with confidence.

ctd
runrig
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 01, 2012
Ctd5
"I'm plenty "scientifically literate." (sic)
... I'm the meteorologist here... " And I'm the King of Siam. It's the Internet. Anyone can claim anything"

Right then, it may be "the internet" but this a reputable web forum for scientists/engineers of a certain professional level of knowledge plus those of like-mind and knowledge in physical subjects. As such a certain level of integrity is assumed and may be earned. See my previous posts for same. To imply that I may be scamming my meteorological credentials and 32 years in the UK Met Office is, quite frankly, beyond the pail. I, at least, give you credit for not scamming as a scientist as you could have bluffed. But honestly it stands out like a sore thumb that you aren't even on the planet ( why would you think you could given my background - integrity please ).

" Really? So now people need to be "entitled" to speak?" Yes, really ( in that I said "scientifically entitled" to speak - which is different ). I believe you are not.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 01, 2012
ctd 3b ( missed some bits LOL )

this feeds down to the Troposphere and strengthens the southern jet making incursions of warmer air from the oceans less likely to penetrate into the interior. Thus a much more muddled picture of temperature trend.

"There has been no substantial global warming for at least the last 10 years." This addressed above and is largely explained by the PDO switch. Worryingly we have gone through a period of a quieter sun ( in UV ). This has had an interesting, though known effect on ( some European winters ). It has been known for a least 40 years, as it is a particular interest of mine and I had read about it before joining the UK Met. Office. During ( some ) of the years at the ends of the 11 yr cycle northern/western Europe can experience a Block ( see above ) that comes from a marked -ve AO. ( High pressure in arctic ) and this spills cold air south/west. Latest explanations suggest that the lack of UV has an effect on the Strat.

ctd in 3c
runrig
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 01, 2012
Ctd3c

( a warming one ) which inhibits/lessens the formation of the stratospheric polar vortex - this feeding down to the tropospheric vortex and ( vortex = low pressure ) so encourages the development of HP in preference. This coupled with the lack of early winter ice/warmer waters seems to have a feed-back effect. Dec 2010 in the UK was remarkable for this.

Finished now. Honest.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 01, 2012
Another long post I'm afraid ( 5 ). Needs must.
You are verbose, I'll give you that.

You said previously .. "Alaska, BC, Washington, Oregon and parts of California are all cooling and have cooled almost 1C in the last 5 years since the PDO switched."
When did I supposedly say that? It looks like you have me confused with someone else.

Some scientist. You can't even get a simple fact of attribution straight!
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 01, 2012
PDO... El Nino... Pacific cycle...
Blather. This is weather/meteorology. You're talking about energy fluctuations within the system, not increasing energy to the system.

.. you have repeatedly obfuscated - uba
No, see previous posts and above.
Your very verbosity is a form of obfuscation.

you are taking it in isolation and not including the previous 30yrs. Which is why a long time scale is needed to filter out overlying cycles from other influences. The trend line is statistically uncertain in the last 10 yrs due the ( above explained PDO cycle in particular ) but also because the variability exhibited during the period is so large that a trend line cannot be determined with confidence.
Here, you're only saying you need a longer trend because you want a longer trend. There's no scientific basis for it. That's like saying you don't believe the pot is boiling because you didn't watch the temperature rise from ambient.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 01, 2012

Here's something from a real scientist:

"Dr. Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several peer-reviewed papers on GCMs (Global Climate Models). He argues the Met Office climate models show there should have been "steady warming from 2000 until now."

"If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again," Scafetta said, "the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories.'"

From Wiki...

According to Scafetta, total solar irradiance (TSI) measurements gathered by satellites since 1978 are flawed due to the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, which prevented the launching of the ACRIM 2 satellite to replace ACRIM 1 and resulted in a two-year data gap. Scientists tried to bridge this gap with data from other satellites and conclude that that there was no increased heating from the Sun to contribute to the global surface warming
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 01, 2012
Another long post I'm afraid ( 5 ). Needs must.
You are verbose, I'll give you that.

You said previously .. "Alaska, BC, Washington, Oregon and parts of California are all cooling and have cooled almost 1C in the last 5 years since the PDO switched."
When did I supposedly say that? It looks like you have me confused with someone else.

Some scientist. You can't even get a simple fact of attribution straight!


who said I was talking to you?????????

you getting paranoid ???
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 01, 2012
Ctd
observed between 1980 and 2002. Columbia's Richard Willson, principal investigator of the ACRIM experiments and his colleagues challenged these findings and revealed a significant upward trend in average solar luminosity during the same period. Scafetta and West applied a new analysis to the Columbia findings to conclude that, "the sun may have minimally contributed about 10 to 30 percent of the 1980-2002 global surface warming."

Scafetta believes that, "At least 60% of the warming of the Earth observed since 1970 appears to be induced by natural cycles which are present in the solar system."In 2009, Scafetta faced criticism for failing to disclose the computer code required to reproduce his research.[10] Scafetta responded by saying that the code in question had been submitted to a scientific journal and that if "the journal takes its time to publish it, it is not our fault."
UKMO response
http://metofficen...ry-2012/
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 01, 2012
" PDO... El Nino... Pacific cycle... Blather. This is weather/meteorology. You're talking about energy fluctuations within the system, not increasing energy to the system."

Ah good, precisely so ..... you've got it. Good boy. Make a scientist of you yet!

"Your very verbosity is a form of obfuscation." No merely giving you a glimmer of my knowledge and lengthy because there is so much you don't know.

"Here, you're only saying you need a longer trend because you want a longer trend. There's no scientific basis for it." What ?? read again and you'll find I gave the scientific basis for such a requirement.

"That's like saying you don't believe the pot is boiling because you didn't watch the temperature rise from ambient." You'll have to explain that one sunshine !

I said ... " Which is why a long time scale is needed to filter ( read identify ) out overlying cycles from other influences".
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 01, 2012
Today Sept 1, 2012 Arctic sea ice area has reached a new low.

Current sea ice area is now recorded to be 2.48 million square kilometers, approximately 0.5 million square kilometers below the 2007 record low.

Several days in the traditional melt season remain.

It is anticipated that the melt season will be extended this year due to significantly warmer water in the Arctic Ocean than in previous years.

This warm water is the the result of larger regions of dark surface water absorbing more sunlight in the months previous.

A plot of sea ice area extent compared to previous years can be found here...

http://arctic.atm...ive.html
Vendicar_Decarian
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 01, 2012
UbVonTard has been repeatedly been told, and provided links to articles explaining why statistically short intervals produce lowered confidence limits in statistical trends.

In particular he has been repeatedly shown and told how his 9 year "cooling trend" has a 2 sigma statistical error that is ten times larger than the trend his is attempting to claim.

In other words, there is ZERO statistical significance to his claimed trend.

"Here, you're only saying you need a longer trend because you want a longer trend." - UbVontard

Not only does UbVonTard dishonestly continue to present the same statistically irrelevant plot as a real trend, but as I have shown n dozens of occasions, the plot in question is known to be biased toward colder temperatures due to it's lack of global coverage.

UbVonTard misuses HadCrut3 as his source data claiming that it provides global coverage of the earth's temperature when in fact it covers only 80 percent of the globe, and omits most of the polar regions
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 01, 2012
Today Sept 1, 2012 Arctic sea ice area has reached a new low.

Current sea ice area is now recorded to be 2.48 million square kilometers, approximately 0.5 million square kilometers below the 2007 record low.


A comparison of now (30th Aug) vs 2007 can also be seen at the same site......

http://igloo.atmo...;sy=2007
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 01, 2012
UbVonTard is blissfully unaware of the fact that the energy of an oscillating system is a function of both the frequency of the oscillation and the magnitude of the system's oscillation.

To increase the frequency you must increase the energy unless you simultaneously decrease the amplitude of the oscillation.

What is observed is both an increase in the frequency of extreme weather patterns as well as their severity.

It therefore follows that the energy of the system must have increased.

Direct observation of that energy increase comes from measurements of global temperature.

"You're talking about energy fluctuations within the system, not increasing energy to the system." - UbVonTard

UbVonTard's ignorance of basic scientific principles is not surprising.

He shows the same contempt for knowledge that virtually all other Conservatives show.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 01, 2012
Note the reduction in the area shown in purple. This is thick multi-season ice. Multi-season ice is Ice that melts slowly.

From the graphic, Arctic Multi-season ice has been reduced to 70 percent (approx) of it's value in 2007 over the last 5 years.

Ice volume is collapsing even faster than ice area.

http://psc.apl.wa...ntV2.png

"A comparison of now (30th Aug) vs 2007 can also be seen at the same site......

http://igloo.atmo...;sy=2007
" = runrig
kochevnik
3.2 / 5 (9) Sep 01, 2012
@мошенник In other words, you got nuthin'. That's what I thought.
So you're back to lying. Why don't you put money on your assertion, since you're so convinced you're right?
djr
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 01, 2012
"If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again," Scafetta said, "the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories.

So - on a thread in which numerous posters are trying to argue with uba that 10 years is not a sufficiently long time scale to make any conclusions in terms of climate - uba posts an interesting reference - that makes that exact point. Scafetta is arguing that IF the plateau in the temperatures we are currently observing continues - we will be forced to reevaluate the models. This reinforces what we are trying to get through - the importance of looking at the big picture.
djr
4 / 5 (8) Sep 01, 2012
Uba "But it's a moot point anyway. I only brought it up to demonstrate how foolish it is to concentrate on regions."

I wonder if Parker is paying attention - uba says it is foolish to concentrate on regions - like say the south pole - which is a region of Antarctica - not all of Antarctica. Oh - that is so funny, Uba was just wasting our time - in order to teach us a point - the exact point many posters have been trying to make (including one who works for the British Meteorological office). Any more dead horses around here that need beating.
pauljpease
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 01, 2012
I wish forums like this were like Twitter, so I could see comments by those I respect (i.e. follow them), and not see comments by notparker (i.e. "unfollow"?).
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 01, 2012
Another long post I'm afraid ( 5 ). Needs must.
You are verbose, I'll give you that.

You said previously .. "Alaska, BC, Washington, Oregon and parts of California are all cooling and have cooled almost 1C in the last 5 years since the PDO switched."
When did I supposedly say that? It looks like you have me confused with someone else.

Some scientist. You can't even get a simple fact of attribution straight!


who said I was talking to you?????????

you getting paranoid ???
Then you opened with a quote from me, which you attributed to another. Either way, you blew it. That you can't even admit to this obvious mistake, proves you're patently dishonest too.

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 01, 2012
Ah good, precisely so ..... you've got it. Good boy. Make a scientist of you yet!
F.O.

merely giving you a glimmer of my knowledge
Pedant

What ?? read again and you'll find I gave the scientific basis for such a requirement.
The global temperature is the global temperature. PDO cycles and system variability are irrelevant to the total energy of the system. Unless, that is, you're claiming the total energy of the system can spontaneously change! LOL

Variability as a function of measurement methodology is a whole 'nuther matter, but considering the claimed coverage of the various datasets, this should be fairly minimal. The proof is in the various claims that, "This is the fourth warmest July since..." and, "January–July 2012 was the 10th warmest such period on record"

If these records can be so confidently pinned down, then the confidence in the trend is equally high.

cont...
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 01, 2012
"That's like saying you don't believe the pot is boiling because you didn't watch the temperature rise from ambient." You'll have to explain that one sunshine !
Really? You need someone to explain this to you? Wow. ...Okay (see below).

I said ... " Which is why a long time scale is needed to filter ( read identify ) out overlying cycles from other influences".
You don't believe the current temperature trend is the current temperature trend, and can't disassociate it from what came before.

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 01, 2012
So you're back to lying. Why don't you put money on your
assertion, since you're so convinced you're right?
How much you got?

And if you had something to offer, why didn't you spill it already?

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 01, 2012
So - on a thread in which numerous posters are trying to argue with uba that 10 years is not a sufficiently long time scale to make any conclusions in terms of climate - uba posts an interesting reference - that makes that exact point. Scafetta is arguing that IF the plateau in the temperatures we are currently observing continues - we will be forced to reevaluate the models. This reinforces what we are trying to get through - the importance of looking at the big picture.
Obviously, you didn't even bother to read the reference. The trend being discussed in the reference is the 15 year trend. The deadline given for rethinking the models is 2015 (as in 2.25 years away).

Try again.

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (12) Sep 01, 2012
Uba "But it's a moot point anyway. I only brought it up to demonstrate how foolish it is to concentrate on regions."

I wonder if Parker is paying attention
It seems obvious NotParker brings up regional trends and reports in contrast to the regional comments and thinking of the science deniers, like you.

uba says it is foolish to concentrate on regions - like say the south pole - which is a region of Antarctica - not all of Antarctica. Oh - that is so funny, Uba was just wasting our time - in order to teach us a point - the exact point many posters have been trying to make (including one who works for the British Meteorological office). Any more dead horses around here that need beating.
I've been trying to make this point all along, but folks like you and Venditard can't get away from linking regional hotspots to global warming. This is why I regularly post things like:

http://www.woodfo...02/trend
djr
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 01, 2012
"This is why I regularly post things like:"

Which is why I regularly post things like: -

http://www.woodfo...50/trend

Any more dead horses around here need beating.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 01, 2012
Which is why I regularly post things like: -

http://www.woodfo...50/trend

Any more dead horses around here need beating.
The discussion is that global warming has stopped, and there's been no significant global warming for at least the last 10 years. Your graph only shows that the world has warmed. It doesn't reflect what's happening now.

Climate science deniers like you, use it to coverup the current trend.

Here's the current science:

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

kochevnik
3.2 / 5 (11) Sep 01, 2012
So you're back to lying. Why don't you put money on your
assertion, since you're so convinced you're right?
How much you got? And if you had something to offer, why didn't you spill it already?
Because every bet I've place with a conservative they lost, and moreover winced on paying. Besides why should I enlighten someone too lazy to use the search box on this same site?
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 01, 2012
Because every bet I've place with a conservative they lost, and moreover winced on paying.
Well then, it's a good thing I'm not a conservative, isn't it?

Besides why should I enlighten someone too lazy to use the search box on this same site?
So you accuse me of being lazy, because you're too lazy to support your own claim?

Or is it that you simply can't support your claim?

You've lost already. Pay up.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (11) Sep 01, 2012
15 year trend = approx .01'C per year

http://www.woodfo...97/trend

"The trend being discussed in the reference is the 15 year trend." - UbVonTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3.8 / 5 (10) Sep 01, 2012
Sorry Tard boy, but your assertion for the last year at least is that the globe is cooling and that the warming has reversed.

"The discussion is that global warming has stopped" - UbVonTard

Can't you even keep your own lies straight?

There is no discussion with liars like yourself. We simply expose your continual stream of lies.

Meanwhile, here is the global trend for the last 15 years.

http://www.woodfo...97/trend

http://www.youtub...embedded
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (11) Sep 01, 2012
Telling Lies of omission isn't science.

"Here's the current science:" - UbVonTard

Your lie is in repeatedly claiming that your plot is a global trend, and yet as I have shown repeatedly the data is not global, and the time period is so short that the statistical error is ten times larger than the slope you claim is valid.

You are on record as claiming that you will continue to lie about the reality of Global Warming for the rest of your life.

Filth.

http://www.youtub...embedded
cdt
3.5 / 5 (11) Sep 02, 2012
Runrig, I can't believe you have the audacity to suggest that your "opinion" counts more than the clearly deeply researched facts brought to light by the illustrious Ubavontuba and NotParker simply because you've been actually doing climate research at a reputable institution for a mere 32 years. Outrageous. What next? Are you going to claim that Einstein understood relativity better than our intrepid posters too just because he invented the theory and played a modest role in getting it accepted by a bunch of geeks? HA! And double HA!

Somewhere you've missed the new reality that UvT and NP have obviously picked up on -- that all opinions are equal in this new utopia of the internet age, massive differences in education, intelligence and understanding notwithstanding.
kochevnik
3 / 5 (12) Sep 02, 2012
Besides why should I enlighten someone too lazy to use the search box on this same site?
So you accuse me of being lazy, because you're too lazy to support your own claim?

Or is it that you simply can't support your claim?

You've lost already. Pay up.

This took me 15 seconds to find:
http://www.newsci...age.html

Your degree in advanced bible thumping isn't helping you. Perhaps a masters in Romney power lies and a doctorate in dope smoking without your parents knowing would make you more well rounded.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (11) Sep 02, 2012
Wrong again... Idiot...

It has been explained to you multiple times, and you persist in making the same ignorant claim that the statistical confidence in a trend comes exclusively from the errors in each data point.

The basics of statistical confidence is taught in grade 9 along with basic probability.

In that class, children learn that the smaller a sample size the more statistically uncertain the statistical properties of the sample reflect the statistical properties of the sample space the sample was drawn from.

Clearly you didn't make it through grade 9.

"If these records can be so confidently pinned down, then the confidence in the trend is equally high." - UbVonTard

In the case of simple averages, standard deviation is a measure of statistical confidence. The larger a sample's standard deviation the lower the statistical probability that the mean of the sample lies close to the computed mean.

Cont.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (11) Sep 02, 2012
This is also true for all computed variables in a sample. Including the slope of a trend line.

In the case of statistical trend lines, the more closely clustered data is around the trend line the less likely the real trend deviates from the trend line. The more the data is distant from the computed trend line, the more likely the real trend differs from the computed trend.

I have on multiple occasions computed the statistical variance in your 9 year trend line, and in each case provided you with a graphic showing the potential trends at a 2 sigma level of confidence.

Here is one such plot.

https://docs.goog...UQ3JjSG8

It shows that the trend line which has essentially zero slope has a two sigma error of plus or minus 0.25'C per decade.

This means that any trend between those two values is likely.

Your claim of cooling - based on 9 years of data, is therefore statistically invalid.

The real trend over those 9 years can simply not be determined.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (11) Sep 02, 2012
And again 10 years is not a relevant time period.

As the following graphic shows, there have been many 10 year, (or longer), period where there has been no warming. Yet the warming continued.

https://docs.goog...1bUhRQUE

"The discussion is that global warming has stopped, and there's been no significant global warming for at least the last 10 years." - RyggTard
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 02, 2012
This took me 15 seconds to find:
Idiot. This is a prediction of an ice age. Is Europe frozen over, buried under miles thick glaciers all of a sudden now? LOL

Like I said, "You got nuthin'."

Your degree in advanced bible thumping isn't helping you. Perhaps a masters in Romney power lies and a doctorate in dope smoking without your parents knowing would make you more well rounded.
Now I get it. You're nuts. Good luck with that.
djr
3.9 / 5 (8) Sep 02, 2012
"The discussion is that global warming has stopped, and there's been no significant global warming for at least the last 10 years. Your graph only shows that the world has warmed. It doesn't reflect what's happening now."

Uba is correct on both points. The salient point is - what do we mean when we say 'now'. In other words - what is the relevant time frame. At one point Uba said that climate was defined by any time scale you want to select (paraphrase) - which of course is fundamentally false. Vendi made the point well in this post - and Uba's own reference Scafetta clearly agrees.

As the following graphic shows, there have been many 10 year, (or longer), period where there has been no warming. Yet the warming continued. https://docs.goog...1bUhRQUE
djr
3.6 / 5 (8) Sep 02, 2012
"Obviously, you didn't even bother to read the reference."

I certainly did read Uba's Daily Mail reference. Uba may want to read up a little on the Daily Mail - and rethink posting them as a credible source on a science web site - here is a starter - http://climatecro...esearch/

But we must address the facts - and not attack the source - so looking at the embedded video on the above link will do that.
kochevnik
3 / 5 (10) Sep 02, 2012
@ubavontuba Now I get it. You're nuts. Good luck with that.
So you're not only a documented liar, proven ignorant on a subject on which you claim competence, but also a sore loser!
djr
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 02, 2012
Correction - Uba's source was not from the Daily Mail - it was based on an article from the Daily Mail - here is the link to the original article - http://www.dailym...ain.html
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 02, 2012
Uba is correct on both points.
Thank you.

The salient point is - what do we mean when we say 'now'. In other words - what is the relevant time frame.
Currently, the relevant time frame is more than 15 years long.

http://www.woodfo...97/trend

But as to why it's relevant:

AGW proponents commonly speak in terms of "continued warming" and even "accelerated warming" as being fact. So the logical scientist seeking to verify these claims looks at the data beginning from now, backward in time to see if continued warming and accelerated warming are, and have been, occurring. It quickly becomes apparent this is not the case.

there have been many 10 year, (or longer), period where there has been no warming. Yet the warming continued.
Fallacy. Just because it has gone up after a hiatus in the past doesn't mean it must do so now.

more...

runrig
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 02, 2012
Runrig, I can't believe you have the audacity to suggest that your "opinion" counts more than the clearly deeply researched facts brought to light by the illustrious Ubavontuba and NotParker simply because you've been actually doing climate research at a reputable institution for a mere 32 years. Outrageous. What next? Are you going to claim that Einstein understood relativity better than our intrepid posters too just because he invented the theory and played a modest role in getting it accepted by a bunch of geeks? HA! And double HA!

Somewhere you've missed the new reality that UvT and NP have obviously picked up on -- that all opinions are equal in this new utopia of the internet age, massive differences in education, intelligence and understanding notwithstanding.


LOL cdt
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 02, 2012
HADCRUT3

15 year trend = down -0.017C / decade

http://sunshineho...5-years/

Whatever is happening in the arctic (and not the antarctic) has more to to with the Atlantic Oscillation and not a change in temperature.

Of course the cyclone this year has confused some of the microwave based sensors.

NotParker
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 02, 2012
Runrig, I can't believe you have the audacity to suggest that your "opinion" counts more than the clearly deeply researched facts brought to light by the illustrious Ubavontuba and NotParker simply because you've been actually doing climate research at a reputable institution for a mere 32 years.


I guess the "reputable institution" has trouble reading graphs or graphing data.

http://sunshineho...5-years/

down -0.017C / decade
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 02, 2012
Correction - Uba's source was not from the Daily Mail - it was based on an article from the Daily Mail - here is the link to the original article - http://www.dailym...ain.html


On same day Met Office reveal it's been the wettest summer ever,

temperatures plunged to almost record summer lows overnight
Braemar is Scotland was the coldest spot as it dropped to -2.1C

There has only been one August night colder, August 21 1973, when Lagganlia in the Highlands suffered -4.5C

It tops off a miserable summer, which has been the wettest in a century, causing flash floods only yesterday"

http://www.dailym...ose.html

July 2012 in the UK was 3.7C colder than the warmest July in 2006.
djr
3.5 / 5 (6) Sep 02, 2012
"Fallacy. Just because it has gone up after a hiatus in the past doesn't mean it must do so now." Correct - so as Uba's own sources acknowledge - we are at a point where temperatures are on a plateau, and we have to wait and see if this indicates warming has ceased, or if (as has happened in the past) warming is continuing. Of course other indicators (ice sheets, glaciers etc) are continuing to change - in line with continued warming. So - smart money - based on history, and other indicators - would be placed on continued warming. Why not wait and see what happens? Why the need to rush to judgement?
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 02, 2012
...cont:

Your link didn't work, but I presume you used a screenshot from this:

http://www.skepti...tsv3.gif

The longest previous period depicted is 8 years long (not even 10). The average length is 7.33 years. And they used BEST data, which is a land only dataset.

Look at what happens when you graph the same trends on the HadCRUT3 data we've been discussing:

http://www.woodfo....2/trend

So your argument certainly falls apart for time (if not incomplete data).

djr
4.1 / 5 (8) Sep 02, 2012
July 2012 in the UK was 3.7C colder than the warmest July in 2006.

I guess Parker does not read Uba's posts - Uba says it is "foolish to concentrate on regions" Uba is of course correct - it does smack of an underlying political agenda when you continue with the same rubbish - after been told time and again that it is rubbish.
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 02, 2012
July 2012 in the UK was 3.7C colder than the warmest July in 2006.

I guess Parker does not read Uba's posts - Uba says it is "foolish to concentrate on regions"


I posted global data as well ... which has a downward trend.

In order to investigate which regions are causing the downward trend in global temperature, they should be discussed.

You may wish the facts covered up, but I think that is sad.

http://sunshineho...5-years/
Vendicar_Decarian
3.8 / 5 (10) Sep 02, 2012
And once again UbVonTard lies by presenting a plot from HadCrut3 as if it provides global coverage of temperatures when in fact HadCrut3 omits large areas of the Earth's poles, and therefore produces a negatively biased temperature series.

He has been told this close to 100 times over the last year and yet he persists in lying by using known biased data.

"Currently, the relevant time frame is more than 15 years long.

http://www.woodfo...97/trend" - UbVonTard

HadCrut4 is less biased because it includes more of the polar regions. This is one of the reasons why it replaces HadCrut3.

The plot it produces is dramatically different than the Lie UbVonTard is telling.

http://www.woodfo...97/trend
runrig
4 / 5 (6) Sep 02, 2012


who said I was talking to you?????????

you getting paranoid ???
Then you opened with a quote from me, which you attributed to another. Either way, you blew it. That you can't even admit to this obvious mistake, proves you're patently dishonest too.



Lie - go back and look at the post. There is no mention ( AT ALL ) of who the post was aimed at. Just quotes and my responses. I'll post it again if you want.
runrig
4 / 5 (6) Sep 02, 2012
The global temperature is the global temperature. PDO cycles and system variability are irrelevant to the total energy of the system...

Look - we don't know the "total energy" -to do that we need to identify those other energy budget cycles overlying the CO2 GW signal in order to quantify it. That is why long times scale of data are required. The PDO is a decadal cycle and the AMO multi decadal, as is a solar cycle. Hence your claim that "the last 10/15 years have shown no warming" is not valid. The point is we cannot say that because we need to take away those overlying cycles from the data to reveal the GW signal. It may or it may not have done, but we cannot say that yet. The data is incomplete and too noisy. Look at the graph of global temperatures and you will see other significant periods you could isolate and draw a null or cooling trend line but the trend has once again resumed rising once the overlying cycles come neutral or in phase.
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 02, 2012
And once again UbVonTard lies by presenting a plot from HadCrut3 as if it provides global coverage of temperatures when in fact HadCrut3 omits ...


HADCRUT4 omits data after 2010.

http://sunshineho...5-years/
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 02, 2012
runrig: The PDO is a decadal cycle


PDO shifts phases on at least inter-decadal time scale, usually about 20 to 30 years.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Sep 02, 2012
"Obviously, you didn't even bother to read the reference."

I certainly did read Uba's Daily Mail reference.
This alone proves you didn't read the reference. I do see that you later admitted I used a derivative reference, but in the future I would appreciate honesty from the beginning.

Uba may want to read up a little on the Daily Mail - and rethink posting them as a credible source on a science web site - here is a starter - http://climatecro...esearch/
I don't know that using one obviously biased site's argument against another is a particularly valid argument to make. At least the Daily Mail offered direct quotations from well respected scientists and appears to have referenced reputable sources. That is, the science appears relatively sound.

cont...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Sep 02, 2012
But we must address the facts - and not attack the source -
I agree.

so looking at the embedded video on the above link will do that.
As I said before, the link didn't work for me. Was it the same as the Skeptical Science video I presented?

Correct
Thank you.

so as Uba's own sources acknowledge - we are at a point where temperatures are on a plateau, and we have to wait and see if this indicates warming has ceased, or if warming is continuing.
I agree. But it is apparent this hiatus is unique in terms of length, thereby indicating it's more significant in terms of its implications.

Of course other indicators (ice sheets, glaciers etc) are continuing to change
Seasonal, and periodic change is normal.

in line with continued warming.
Fallacy. As we've had no global warming, global warming can not be the cause of these recent changes. There may be some lingering ice melt momentum from the previous period of warming though.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Sep 02, 2012
So - smart money - based on history, and other indicators - would be placed on continued warming.
I'm not inclined either way. That is, I think there are equally valid arguments for either cooling or warming, or even neither to occur.

Why not wait and see what happens? Why the need to rush to judgement?
Correct. Time will tell.

Therefore, running around in a panic about it is illogical. But I do support the jurisprudence to investigate mitigation processes in either case. Even if warming and/or cooling are not problems now, having the tools to address these issues may certainly come in handy, someday.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (10) Sep 02, 2012
ParkerTard continues with his lies of omission.

HadCrut3 omits most of the arctic and antarctic regions as he has been told dozens and dozens of times.

As a result it's trend is based toward cooling.

"HADCRUT3 - 15 year trend = down -0.017C / decade" - ParkerTard

HadCrut4 corrects that bias to some extent.

http://www.woodfo...97/trend

The trend over the last 15 years according to the current HadCrut4 data set is .084'C per decade plus or minus .152'C per decade within a 2 sigma confidence limit.

One has to go back as far as 1995 with HadCrut 4 in order to have a trend that is the same size as the error, and back to 1989 in order for the statistical error to be half the size of the trendline.

This is why climate is defined on 30 year or longer time periods.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.8 / 5 (10) Sep 02, 2012
I see, so you have just spent the last year and a half constantly claiming the opposite because you believed otherwise.

Lying scumbag.

Meanwhile Arctic ice area has declined to 2.49 million square kilometers. The lowest value ever recorded in human history.

Ice volume is falling even faster.

"I think there are equally valid arguments for either cooling or warming, or even neither to occur." - UbVonTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (11) Sep 02, 2012
UbvonTard tells so many lies he can't keep them straight.

"I think there are equally valid arguments for either cooling or warming" - UbVonTard 2 messages ago

"As we've had no global warming..." - UbVonTard 3 messages ago

I have never encountered a Conservative who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 02, 2012
July 2012 in the UK was 3.7C colder than the warmest July in 2006.

I guess Parker does not read Uba's posts - Uba says it is "foolish to concentrate on regions" Uba is of course correct - it does smack of an underlying political agenda when you continue with the same rubbish - after been told time and again that it is rubbish.
Isn't this what you're doing when you talk about regional ice melt during a period without global warming?

I don't think providing a balance, particularly in light of the fact we're in a period without global warming, is uncalled for.

And so long as folks are being civil about it, talking about the weather is a time honored way of "breaking the ice" (so to speak). (yes, the pun is intentional)

Although weather might be affected by global temperature changes, weather is neither proof off, nor even indicative of global temperature changes. Earth and its various climate drivers are too big and chaotic to maintain weather stability. Weather happens.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.8 / 5 (10) Sep 02, 2012
Idiot. Keeping temperatures steadily above 0'C will cause ice to melt even though the temperature isn't changing.

Do you intend to remain a moron for the rest of your life?

"As we've had no global warming, global warming can not be the cause of these recent changes." - UbVonTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3.8 / 5 (10) Sep 02, 2012
Still can't figure out the difference between weather and climate?

"temperatures plunged to almost record summer lows overnight Braemar is Scotland was the coldest spot as it dropped to -2.1C" - ParkerTard

Your brain damage must be more extensive than I thought.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.8 / 5 (10) Sep 02, 2012
It will be added soon enough.

"HADCRUT4 omits data after 2010." - ParkerTard

Until then if you need the last two years, use a global data set like this one...

http://www.woodfo...95/trend
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 02, 2012
HADCRUT3 - 15 year trend = down -0.017C / decade"


HADCRUT4 has no data past 2010.

http://sunshineho...5-years/

Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (11) Sep 02, 2012
Which implies that global temperatures trends must be taken over inter-decadal time scales in order to avoid the PDO induced noise.

So why have youTard and UbVonTard been posting statistically meaningless 9 and 12 year temperature plots and claiming that they have statistical significance?

"PDO shifts phases on at least inter-decadal time scale, usually about 20 to 30 years." = ParkerTard

Thanx for admitting that you were just lying all along.
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 02, 2012
Still can't figure out the difference between weather and climate?

"temperatures plunged to almost record summer lows overnight Braemar is Scotland was the coldest spot as it dropped to -2.1C"


The global temperature is downwards. Some regions are cooling a lot, like the UK and the west coast of North America.

Scientists (like me) are curious about the regions that are cooling.

Propagandists like you and dir and howhot and rubberman try and pretend it didn't stop warming 15 years ago.

Vendicar_Decarian
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 02, 2012
Poor ParkerTard. He repeats his idiocy even after it is exposed.

It will be added soon enough.

"HADCRUT4 omits data after 2010." - ParkerTard

Until then if you need the last two years, use a global data set like this one...

http://www.woodfo...95/trend

What's the problem boy? Have you forgotten how to read?

Is your brain disease causing you to run out of brain cells?
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 02, 2012
Lie - go back and look at the post. There is no mention ( AT ALL ) of who the post was aimed at. Just quotes and my responses. I'll post it again if you want.
Another lie. You repeatedly used the singular pronouns "you" and "your," indicating throughout you were addressing a single individual.

And as you continued by directly addressing multiple quotes from me, it's apparent to anyone proficient in English your intention was to address me.

Either that, or you're having trouble with the English. And as educated as you claim to be, this seems unlikely. Therefore, either I'm likely correct and you're lying about to whom you were addressing, or you likely lied about your education.

I do think it's funny you added a "(sic)" where my spelling is both correct and directly copied from you, and in the same section you misspelled "beyond the pail" (should be "beyond the pale").

"Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive."

Are you ready to be honest yet?

Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 02, 2012
Wrong again Moron. Temperatures aren't vectors. They are singular values. There are not up temperatures anymore than there are left temperatures or right temperatures.

What you mean to say, but you are too ignorant to phrase it properly is that the global temperature trend is down,

But of course, that claim is a lie since over the short periods you have presented, the statistical error in the trend is 10 times larger than the trend you claim, and hence the trend has no statistical significance.

On the other hand, extending the time period back to 1995, we end up with a 2 sigma statistical error in the trend that is 1/2 of the trend itself. This indicates that the trend is a valid one.

Here is a plot of that valid trend...

http://www.woodfo...95/trend

"The global temperature is downwards." - UbVonTard

So other than for the purpose of lying. Why are you presenting statistically insignificant trends?

Brain Damage?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (10) Sep 02, 2012
Your capacity to read simple graphs is on par with that of a grade 4 student.

The statistical error in your graph is more than 2 times larger than the trend it shows.

"I guess the "reputable institution" has trouble reading graphs or graphing data." = ParkerTard

So why are you presenting nonsense as statistically significant ParkerTard?

Are you ignorant of what "statistical significance" is? Or are you just trying to perpetuate your lie?
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 02, 2012
Look - we don't know the "total energy" -to do that we need to identify those other energy budget cycles overlying the CO2 GW signal in order to quantify it.
Here, you're essentially saying we know next to nothing about climate drivers, and also (and obviously) implying our climate models are inherently invalid.

That is why long times scale of data are required.
Then how do we so firmly fix this July as being the fourth warmest since so and so? Is it magic?

The PDO is a decadal cycle
Actually, no. The PDO is misnamed. It's actually inter-decadal.

and the AMO multi decadal,
But controversial.

as is a solar cycle.
Uh, 11 years (on average) hardly qualifies as multi-decadal. Perhaps you're referring to aperiodic solar variability?

ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 02, 2012
Hence your claim that "the last 10/15 years have shown no warming" is not valid. The point is we cannot say that because we need to take away those overlying cycles from the data to reveal the GW signal.
That's like saying it's not cold out tonight if you discount that it's winter, the sun is down, it's snowing, and the wind is blowing.

It may or it may not have done, but we cannot say that yet. The data is incomplete and too noisy.
And yet we can specifically state this July is the fourth warmest since so and so. How does that work? Is it magic?

Look at the graph of global temperatures and you will see other significant periods you could isolate and draw a null or cooling trend line but the trend has once again resumed rising once the overlying cycles come neutral or in phase.

I've already discussed this in response to djr. Please read those responses, above (or below, if you switched the comments to "newest first").
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 02, 2012
I think there are equally valid arguments for either cooling or warming, or even neither to occur. - Uba
I see, so you have just spent the last year and a half constantly claiming the opposite because you believed otherwise.
The opposite? The opposite of cooling, warming, or neither is what, exactly?

Perhaps you have been arguing against me based upon a false premise of your own making?

Vendibot is funny. LOL.

ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 02, 2012
Another funny one from Vendibot. Apparently it can't discern between past, present, and future tense. Looks like the programmers are going to have to pull an all-nighter!

UbvonTard tells so many lies he can't keep them straight.

"I think there are equally valid arguments for either cooling or warming, or even neither to occur." - Uba 2 messages ago

"As we've had no global warming..." - Uba 3 messages ago

I have never encountered a Conservative who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.
Am I entitled to compensation for pointing out these flaws?
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 02, 2012
Idiot. Keeping temperatures steadily above 0'C will cause ice to melt even though the temperature isn't changing.

Do you intend to remain a moron for the rest of your life?

"As we've had no global warming, global warming can not be the cause of these recent changes." - Uba
Idiot robot. If the temperatures aren't trending upward, it isn't global warming.

Vendibot cracks me up. LOL
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 02, 2012
It will be added soon enough.

"HADCRUT4 omits data after 2010." - ParkerTard

Until then if you need the last two years, use a global data set like this one...

(Gistemp)
Okay. Fair enough.

Looky. No global warming in at least the last 10 years:

http://www.woodfo....5/trend

But why was HadCRUT3 good enough to raise the GW alarm, but now that it's quiet, it's not good enough?

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 02, 2012
Temperatures aren't vectors. They are singular values. There are not up temperatures anymore than there are left temperatures or right temperatures.
But they're thought of as vectors over time. That is to say, "The temperature is rising." is grammatically correct. But I'll agree, "The global temperature is downward." is a little awkward. But with a 1,000 word count maximum, we often find it necessary to cut words, which can leave some awkward phrasing. As long as the intended meaning is clear, I don't have a problem with it.

"The global temperature is downwards." - Uba
Now Vendibot has directly attributed a phrase to me from another commenter. LOL.

I'm beginning to wonder if "runrig" is a supposedly improved chatbot based on Vendibot's programming. They both make a lot of similar mistakes.

I hope so. I'd very much like to see Vendibot replaced with a more "intelligent" and civil version.

NotParker
2.2 / 5 (10) Sep 02, 2012
Your capacity to read simple graphs is on par with that of a grade 4 student.


I will concede you are as smart as a 4th grader ... barely.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 02, 2012
Your capacity to read simple graphs is on par with that of a grade 4 student.

The statistical error in your graph is more than 2 times larger than the trend it shows.

So why are you presenting nonsense as statistically significant ...?
All you're saying is to state, "This July is the fourth warmest July since so and so." is a lie.

How do they make these specific determinations, if the data is so unreliable? You can't have it both ways.

Good luck not blowing any capacitors or frying any IC's trying to rationalize it.

Vendibot is fun to mess with. LOL
thermodynamics
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 02, 2012
Sorry Tard boy, but your assertion for the last year at least is that the globe is cooling and that the warming has reversed.

"The discussion is that global warming has stopped" - UbVonTard

Great reference from YouTube VD. I'm pretty sure that Uba and NP won't have the attention span to watch and learn.
Can't you even keep your own lies straight?

There is no discussion with liars like yourself. We simply expose your continual stream of lies.

Meanwhile, here is the global trend for the last 15 years.

http://www.woodfo...97/trend

ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 02, 2012
Your capacity to read simple graphs is on par with that of a grade 4 student.


I will concede you are as smart as a 4th grader ... barely.

ROFL! Excellent quip.

But perhaps you are being too generous. Even fourth graders generally understand sentence tense.

I love that Vendibot is arguing the data of the last 10 years is unreliable, essentially invalidating all those "hottest decade on record" claims. LOL

NotParker
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 02, 2012
The trend for CRUTEM4 (land) for the last 5 years is -0.035C / Decade.

It would be declining even more if there was 2011 and 2012 data.

Which is why they don't update it anymore.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 02, 2012
@thermodynamics:

Great reference from YouTube VD. I'm pretty sure that Uba and NP won't have the attention span to watch and learn.

Curious. To which YouTube reference are you referring? The Vendibot post you responded to doesn't have a YouTube reference.

NotParker
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 02, 2012
thermodynamics:
http://www.woodfo...97/trend


Yes, GIStemp did exaggerate the 1998 warming.

They now admit that with a decling last 10 years:

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

-0.0232565 per decade
thermodynamics
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 03, 2012
thermodynamics:
http://www.woodfo...97/trend

-0.0232565 per decade

NotParker: You have pointed us to your plots. Can you please tell us what you think they mean?
Lex Talonis
1 / 5 (5) Sep 03, 2012
Actually the term "Arctic" is officially out of the english and all languages, because of the ambiguity in the differentiation between Arctic and Antarctic - because of the similarity between the terms and the lack of the link between the words and the locations.

The correct term is now Norpole and Soupole - meaning North Pole or South Pole; thus The Arctic Ocean is now to be called, the Norpole Ocean.
djr
3.7 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2012
Uba - "Isn't this what you're doing when you talk about regional ice melt during a period without global warming?"

Yes it is - and it would be wrong to draw generalized conclusions from regional data. This is why I referred to Arctic ice sheet melting as an indicator - something to be paying attention to. So I think maybe we can have some agreement that we are currently at an interesting moment. If the temperatures continue to trend flat - and other indicators suggest warming is continuing - it will leave the scientists with a conundrum to try to understand. As I said earlier - smart money is on the warming trend showing back up in the temperature data - but let's wait and see. My wider point - relates to the whole science of global warming. Do we let the science take it's course - and keep learning as it develops? Some constantly accuse the scientists of manipulating the data, and lying, and running a global conspiracy to control research money. I disagree.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 03, 2012
It will be added soon enough.

"HADCRUT4 omits data after 2010." - ParkerTard

Until then if you need the last two years, use a global data set like this one...

http://www.woodfo...95/trend
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2012
No you didn't you Lying Scumbag. You posted data from Hadcrut3, which omits 20% of the earth's surface - mostly in the polar regions, and therfore produces an artificially biased dataset. Biased downward.

The following data set is truly Global in scope.

http://www.woodfo...95/trend

"I posted global data as well ... which has a downward trend." - ParkerTard

Do you ever intend to stop lying ParkerTard?
Or is lying your life's work?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2012
Poor Mentally diseased ParkerTard.

NASA no more makes announcements by altering temperature data than the moon men are announce their intentions to you via those moon beams that your tinfoil cap keeps from penetrating your diseased brain.

As for your claimed trend -0.023'C per decade, adding one more year of data gives a trend of plus 0.013'C per decade

Adding 2 more years of data puts the trend at plus 0.08'C per decade.

In your stated case of a negative trend the error in the two sigma error in the trend line that you conveniently forget to mention is 10 times larger than the signal that you are claiming.

Which means your trend line has ZERO statistical significance.

The same is pretty much the case when you add 1 or 2 more years by the way.

Adding 4 years however gives a slope of plus 0.126'C per decade with an error of plus or minus 0.170'C per decade.


"They now admit that with a decling last 10 years: http://www.woodfo...02/trend -0.0232565 per decade" - ParkerTard

Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 03, 2012
Gosh. None of the links work for UbVonTard. He can't find the videos. He can't find the PDF's of the scientific literature.

It is almost as if he is keeping himself willfully ignorant.

"Curious. To which YouTube reference are you referring? " - UbVonTard

How Conservative of him.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 03, 2012
But a trend of .76'C per decade since 2008

http://www.woodfo...rom:2008

"The trend for CRUTEM4 (land) for the last 5 years is -0.035C / Decade." - ParkerTard

Too bad the your trend line has an error that is over ten times larger than the signal that you are claiming.

Are you claiming that the trend has any statistical significance?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 03, 2012
But you don't.

"But perhaps you are being too generous. Even fourth graders generally understand sentence tense." - UbVonTard

What is your excuse today? Couldn't find the URL? The Link doesn't work? Algebra is evil Muslim science?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 03, 2012
And yet they are...

http://www.woodfo...rom:1992

"If the temperatures aren't trending upward, it isn't global warming." - UbVonTard

Do you intend to remain a liar for the rest of your life Tard Boy?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2012
UbvonTard tells so many lies he can't keep them straight.

"I think there are equally valid arguments for either cooling or warming, or even neither to occur." - Uba several messages ago

"As we've had no global warming..." - Uba 1 message previous

I have never encountered a Conservative who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2012
I have never said that the data is unreliable.

What I have repeatedly shown is that the trend you claim is accompanied by a statistical error that is 10 times larger than the trend you claim, making that trend have a statistical significance of ZERO.

Zero is unsurprisingly is the level of honesty you have shown over the last 1.5 years.

"I love that Vendibot is arguing the data of the last 10 years is unreliable, essentially invalidating all those "hottest decade on record" claims. LOL" - UbVonTard

And now UbVonTard ignorantly conflates the statistical significance of a computed trend with the idea that the data itself is "unreliable".

I throw a die twice and come up with 2 sixes. The data is known perfectly but the trend is entirely unclear.

This confuses UbVonTard with his fifth grade education.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 03, 2012
Lookie a statistically irrelevant trend of -0.023'C plus or minus 0.234'C per decade.

Add one more year and it goes to plus 0.013'C plus or minus 0.200'C per decade.

The error is 10 times larger than the signal you are claiming.

"Looky. No global warming in at least the last 10 years:

http://www.woodfo....5/trend" - UbVonTard

Do you intend to continue lie by trying to pass of statistically invalid trends as statistically significant?

Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 03, 2012
Scientists use HadCrut3 because they are smart enough and honest enough to know it's limitations and work within them.

You don't have the intellectual capacity to do so.

"But why was HadCRUT3 good enough to raise the GW alarm, but now that it's quiet, it's not good enough?" - UbVonTard

Hadcrut3 has been the favorite of Denialists like yourself because it has shown the least warming of any of the major data sets.

That is after all why you are habitually caught using it's data to lie.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 03, 2012
Temperatures are scalar values, they are not vectors.

"But they're thought of as vectors over time." - UbVonTard

Clearly you don't know what a vector is or how they are used.

Your ignorance is vast.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 03, 2012
The data isn't unreliable.

It is the spread of the data away from your claimed trend line that makes the errors in the trend 10 times larger than the slope you claim.

"How do they make these specific determinations, if the data is so unreliable? You can't have it both ways." - UbVonTard

It has been explained to you at least a dozen times. Your continued ignorance on this matter despite the explanations tells us that you are too ignorant to educate or willfully ignorant.

You should flag down some grade 5 student walking home from school and have them teach you some science and statistics.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Sep 03, 2012
Isn't this what you're doing when you talk about regional ice melt during a period without global warming? - Uba
Yes it is - and it would be wrong to draw generalized conclusions from regional data. This is why I referred to Arctic ice sheet melting as an indicator - something to be paying attention to.
Of course it's worth studying, but so very much freezes and so very much naturally melts every year that more or less isn't much to get excited about. It's the continental ice that might be concerning, but it melts at a higher temperature, so it isn't quite so sensitive.

So I think maybe we can have some agreement that we are currently at an interesting moment.
Indeed.

If the temperatures continue to trend flat - and other indicators suggest warming is continuing - it will leave the scientists with a conundrum to try to understand.
I don't consider "indicators" to be very valuable, as they're generally subject to the vagaries of weather.

cont...
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 03, 2012
As I said earlier - smart money is on the warming trend showing back up in the temperature data
I wouldn't be too quick to place that bet.

but let's wait and see.
Agreed.

My wider point - relates to the whole science of global warming. Do we let the science take it's course - and keep learning as it develops?
Of course.

Some constantly accuse the scientists of manipulating the data, and lying, and running a global conspiracy to control research money. I disagree.
There is some truth to this. I don't think it's a conscious "conspiracy" so much though as the system of science itself is biased by the people in it.

As you've seen here, people tend to self-identify with group identities and ideals (they like consensus, aka: tribalism). Those holding minority opinions are vehemently bullied. Scientists are usually a bit less dramatic, I think, but scientists are people too. Unless people are ready for it, it's hard to sell a new concept or way of thinking.

thermodynamics
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 03, 2012
Uba says: "Of course it's worth studying, but so very much freezes and so very much naturally melts every year that more or less isn't much to get excited about. It's the continental ice that might be concerning, but it melts at a higher temperature, so it isn't quite so sensitive."

Uba: Please explain what you mean by: "...it melts at a higher temperature..."

Let me rephrase the question: Are you smoking crack?

If we are talking about ice, the melting point is sensetive to impurities. However, as we have tried to explain before to you, the melting of ice is, nearly, isothermal. How do you explain the ice melting at a "higher temperature." This is going to require the spinning of a monumental yarn. Please, enlighten us. Is there something you haven't filled us in on?
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 03, 2012
thermodynamics:
http://www.woodfo...97/trend

-0.0232565 per decade

NotParker: You have pointed us to your plots. Can you please tell us what you think they mean?


NotParker: You never answered this question. Can you please explain what you think your plot means? I am always ready to have something like this explained to me. Thank you in advance.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 03, 2012
Uba: Please explain what you mean by: "...it melts at a higher temperature..."

Let me rephrase the question: Are you smoking crack?

If we are talking about ice, the melting point is sensetive to impurities. However, as we have tried to explain before to you, the melting of ice is, nearly, isothermal. How do you explain the ice melting at a "higher temperature." This is going to require the spinning of a monumental yarn. Please, enlighten us. Is there something you haven't filled us in on?
"Sea ice is largely formed from seawater that freezes. Because the oceans consist of saltwater, this occurs below the freezing point of pure water, at about -1.8 °C (28.8 °F)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

djr
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 03, 2012
This alone proves you didn't read the reference. I do see that you later admitted I used a derivative reference, but in the future I would appreciate honesty from the beginning.

Knock off the childishness Uba - here are the facts - I read your referenced article. I then read the met office response (as linked from the article). I then read the source article from the tabloid rag the Daily Mail. I then responded to your post - and made a mistake in crediting the source article to you - not the article you actually posted. Realizing my error - I posted a correction. No need for childish dramatics - it was a simple error that I corrected. Remember when IPC put too many zeros on a number - they were corrected - and life moves on - mistakes happen.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 03, 2012
thermodynamics:
http://www.woodfo...97/trend

-0.0232565 per decade

NotParker: You have pointed us to your plots. Can you please tell us what you think they mean?


NotParker: You never answered this question. Can you please explain what you think your plot means? I am always ready to have something like this explained to me. Thank you in advance.


AGW theory is dead. Natural variation occurred.

The Sun is entering a long period where sunspots may not be visible.

It will get cold.

djr
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2012
"You may wish the facts covered up, but I think that is sad." More dramatics - you guys are too much. I like facts as much as you do Parker. It is often more telling which facts you choose to focus on. I admit to a high level of confirmation bias - digging for articles that support my narrative - and ignoring ones that contradict it. Let me show you your confirmation bias NP - you dug up an article from a tabloid rag - the Daily Mail - about England having a hot summer. But you did not find this article (just for example) http://mancunianm...chester- about an area 4 times the size of England - that is experiencing twice the average level of warming. Curious right? So confirmation bias is pretty normal - but you might want to wonder 'when my confirmation bias contradicts mountains of well established science, and my sources are tabloid rags-maybe that says something about me!!'
djr
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2012
"Those holding minority opinions are vehemently bullied" Unfortunately I think there is some truth to this - I hope the name callers will tone it down - and maybe one day knock if off all together. Of course the other side to this is the frustration felt by people who are excited about science - reading a science web site - and then finding there is a group of posters who insist on tying up the discussion with flagrant nonsense like cherry picking data to support their own confirmation bias. Attempts to set the record straight are met with perpetual circular arguments, and then everything often ends in name calling. I don't condone the name calling (which comes from all sides) - but I am not sure if there is a solution. The main point for me is that I don't go to young earth creationist web sites and start fights all the time - so I wonder why the anti science crowd need to do that to Physorg.
djr
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 03, 2012
"It will get cold." Do you mean in Scotland, or are you making a prediction about global temperatures? If so - I think you are very wrong - and I don't think it will be many years before the upward trend re-surfaces in the temperature data.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 03, 2012
"It will get cold." Do you mean in Scotland, or are you making a prediction about global temperatures? If so - I think you are very wrong - and I don't think it will be many years before the upward trend re-surfaces in the temperature data.


We are only 4 years into the negative PDO. The positive PDO last from 1978 to 2008.

26 years of cooling to go ....

http://en.wikiped...:PDO.svg

And thats hoping that the sun wakes up ...

http://wattsupwit...lumping/
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 03, 2012
But you did not find this article (just for example) http://mancunianm...chester- about an area 4 times the size of England - that is experiencing twice the average level of warming.


Data? A graph? a Map?

I post graphs from HADCRUT ... you post anecdotes.

I post Environment Canada Data for Nunavut (Canadian Arctic). Yes it warmed a lot. But it also drop 5C recently.

http://sunshineho...ne-2012/

Where is YOUR data?
runrig
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2012
Uba (2 posts)

"Another lie. You repeatedly used the singular pronouns "you" and "your," indicating throughout you were addressing a single individual".

Right then, some English lessons sunshine. Look here ... http://en.wikiped...pronouns

See 2nd person - the possessive determiner "your" is used in both the singular and plural case as is "you". You have obviously never addressed an audience or had decent English lessons it seems.

"And as you continued by directly addressing multiple quotes from me, it's apparent to anyone proficient in English your intention was to address me. Either that, or you're having trouble with the English".

I was addressing two people, yourself and guess who. Both of you ( notice the use of the plural possessive pronoun "you" ) are equally dense regarding this subject and disrespectful to boot - for that reason I omitted your names. It won't happen again.
runrig
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2012
ctd

"I do think it's funny you added a "(sic)" where my spelling is both correct and directly copied from you"

OK, I will paste your quote again ... "I'm plenty "scientifically literate.""
Has the penny dropped? ( clue - its not the spelling ). How about, maybe " I am scientifically well read " or simply " I am scientifically literate". It is also an in-joke in that you are patently NOT scientifically well read.

Here endeth the English lesson. Try not to show yourself up any more that you have to on this site.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 03, 2012
A new minimum Arctic Ice area was reached today. The extent of this years melt has been astonishing.

The current remaining arctic sea ice area, which is yet another low never seen before in human history is 2.44 million square kilometers.

http://arctic.atm...ive.html

Arctic sea ice volume has also reached a new, never seen before low.

"Where is YOUR data?" - ParkerTard

From the shape of the plot at least a few more days of ice melt are left in this season.

http://arctic.atm...ctic.png

Earlier in this year, both ParkerTard, Sunshinehours1, and UbVonTard were claiming that arctic sea ice area is increasing.
NotParker
2 / 5 (8) Sep 03, 2012
A new minimum Arctic Ice area was reached today.


Not at the NIC. However the DMI and Norsex graphs hint that it might be the earliest minimum ever ... indicating a record maximum is possible this winter.

http://sunshineho...um-ever/
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 03, 2012

The current remaining arctic sea ice area, which is yet another low never seen before in human history


Only if you think human popped off a spaceship less than 5,000 years.

"First, we know the Arctic can potentially lose all its sea ice during summer because it has done so in the past. Examination of several proxy records (e.g., sediment cores) of sea ice indicate ice-free or near ice-free summer conditions for at least some time during the period of 15,000 to 5,000 years ago (Polyak et al., 2010) when Arctic temperatures were not much warmer than today."

http://wattsupwit...-part-2/

This year the cyclone caused the ice to break up. It happens.

However I think a record maximum will occur this winter. All that heat will radiate out into space earlier than it should have.

Brr. A cold winter is coming. Bundle up.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2012
ParkerTard's comment below shows just how out of touch with reality American Conservatives are.

"AGW theory is dead." - ParkerTard

He lives in a magical, fantasy land of his own creation, where warming is cooling, water boarding isn't torture, where WMD were found in Iraq, the earth is only 6,000 years old, and cave men had pet dinosaurs.

And he thinks wheat and corn will be grown on the barren, 3.5 billion year old rock of the Canadian shield.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2012
Given that earlier in the year you predicted record grain harvests, moderate summer temperatures, and an claimed that arctic sea ice coverage was growing, I'll put your prediction below where it belongs.

"The Sun is entering a long period where sunspots may not be visible." - ParkerTard

In the trash.

Now the sun's subsurface plasma current does seems to be declining.

Can you tell us the source of your prediction that the decline will be long and result in no sunspots, compared to the reduction in the late 1800's where sunspot counts declined to roughly present levels, only to rebound.

ParkerTard has spectacular faith in his own ignorance.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2012
I presume that ParkerTard took and extra dose of Prozac or Ritalin or whatever drug it is that his psychiatrist has prescribed for him.

"Only if you think human popped off a spaceship less than 5,000 years." - Parkertard
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2012
ParkerTard was exposed as lying earlier in this thread for using the quote he now reposts.

"First, we know the Arctic can potentially lose all its sea ice during summer because it has done so in the past." - ParkerTard

It turns out that the author of the quote isn't talking about the Arctic ice but ice in the region outside the arctic ocean between Norway, Iceland and Greenland.

You would think that once ParkerTard's lie was exposed once, he wouldn't repeat it.

But he does repeat his lies, over and over and over again.

It is a sure sign of his mental disease.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2012
And last year you were blaming the melt on 3 million invisible volcanoes under the arctic ice cap.

"This year the cyclone caused the ice to break up." - ParkerTard

You have subsequently modified your delusion to make those three million invisible volcanoes global.

Just recently you provided support for your 3 million invisible undersea volcano claim by redefining undersea hills as volcanoes.

Such is the nature of your mental disease.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 03, 2012
as is a solar cycle.
Uh, 11 years (on average) hardly qualifies as multi-decadal. Perhaps you're referring to aperiodic solar variability?



I actually thought you would fall into that trap. Of course 11 yrs is not multi-decadal but there are other (though not confirmed cycles admittedly - may just be amplification of the 11 yr) But I have sympathy for the Gleissberg cycle.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 03, 2012
What a congenital liar such as yourself claims to think, has no relevance to the real world.

"However I think a record maximum will occur this winter." - ParkerTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2012
ParkerTard and UbVonTard are on record as claiming that the observed warming of the globe is a result of the sun, even though solar output is observed to be declining.

What is more amusing is that they also claim that a lack of sunspots causes cooling and yet in their 8 to 10 year plots of the earth's temperatures that run counter to the increasing sunspot count of late, they make no attempt to correct for the solar sunspot cycle to see what the real temperature trend is.

They would need a minimum of 2 sunspot cycles worth of data (22 years) in order to compensate for the effects of the sunspot cycle, and yet they fixate on 8, 10 and 15 year periods.

ParkerTard just made some idiotic claim of significance for a temperature series that was 5 years long.

They aren't even bright enough to be consistent in their lying.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 03, 2012
Uba

"you misspelled "beyond the pail" (should be "beyond the pale")."

Fair's fair - I am all for giving credit where due. You are correct.
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 03, 2012
I ...made a mistake in crediting the source article to you - not the article you actually posted. ...it was a simple error that I corrected. ...life moves on - mistakes happen.
"Apology accepted, captain Needa."

ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 03, 2012
"Those holding minority opinions are vehemently bullied" Unfortunately I think there is some truth to this - I hope the name callers will tone it down - and maybe one day knock if off all together. Of course the other side to this is the frustration felt by people who are excited about science - reading a science web site - and then finding there is a group of posters who insist on tying up the discussion with flagrant nonsense like cherry picking data to support their own confirmation bias.
Didn't you just admit to doing this yourself?

Attempts to set the record straight are met with perpetual circular arguments, and then everything often ends in name calling. I don't condone the name calling (which comes from all sides) - but I am not sure if there is a solution.
I think your idea to turn down the volume, with the goal of eventually ceasing altogether, is a good start.

cont...
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 03, 2012
Perhaps if you would stop lying...

"I think your idea to turn down the volume, with the goal of eventually ceasing altogether, is a good start." - UbVonTard

But then, if you did that, you would have nothing to say.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 03, 2012
The main point for me is that I don't go to young earth creationist web sites and start fights all the time - so I wonder why the anti science crowd need to do that to Physorg.
What's your definition of "anti-science?" Is it anyone who questions "accepted (mainstream) science?" Isn't that at the very core of discovery?

Sure, lots of folks overdo it in terms of quantity and volume, but that's a problem for the moderators. Here, moderation seems sporadic, at best.

There are highly moderated sites you can go to which do heavily moderate the dialogue and regularly ban repeat, "crank" offenders. But I think they're rather dull.

I think some of the crank theories are both entertaining and thought provoking. A little more moderation might be nice (particularly to tone down the demagoguery), but I'd rather they underdid it than overdid it.

NotParker
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2012
ParkerTard and UbVonTard are on record as claiming that the observed warming of the globe is a result of the sun, even though solar output is observed to be declining.


There are two components to solar output (for a simpleton like you).

1) Energy that leaves the sun.

2) Energy that reaches the earths surface. (Clouds etc can reflect energy back to space)

Yes, solar intensity (#1) is on its way down. Solar Cycle 24 is going to be the lowest in 100 years or more.

http://www.leif.o...ount.png

Bright Sunshine (#2) has fluctuated over the 20th century, reaching peaks in the 20s/30s and 90s.

http://sunshineho...unshine/
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 03, 2012
"Energy that reaches the earths surface" is not a component of solar output.

If you can't even get the fundamentals straight ParkerTard, you aren't even qualified to be in the game.

What is next from you? That temperature is a vector? That if you define a hill as a volcano that there are three million of them under the ocean? That you can grow vast crops of wheat and corn on the barren rock of the Canadian shield? That arctic ice is increasing? That last year's non-winter was "astonishingly cold"?

Excuse us if we continue to have no respect for your idiocy.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 03, 2012
Actually solar intensity is higher now than it was just a few years ago. Solar energy output increases during the solar cycle, reaching it's peak roughly around the solar maximum.

"Yes, solar intensity (#1) is on its way down." - ParkerTard

Poor ParkerTard. You can't get anything right can you?

By the way.... That ridiculous 5 year temperature plot you provided that has zero statistical confidence... How did you correct for the change in the solar cycle over those 5 years?

You did do that didn't you?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 03, 2012
Interesting how "bright sunshine" was low in the 1980's according to your plot, and yet the rate of global warming was high.

"Bright Sunshine (#2) has fluctuated over the 20th century, reaching peaks in the 20s/30s and 90s." - UbVonTard

So Tard Boy... Doesn't that tell you something about the sun's role in the observed warming of the globe?

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 03, 2012
Right then, some English lessons sunshine. Look here ... http://en.wikiped...pronouns

See 2nd person - the possessive determiner "your" is used in both the singular and plural case as is "you". You have obviously never addressed an audience or had decent English lessons it seems.

I was addressing two people, yourself and guess who. Both of you ( notice the use of the plural possessive pronoun "you" ) are equally dense regarding this subject and disrespectful to boot - for that reason I omitted your names. It won't happen again.
Another lie. "It is you that have a one-track mind unable to dislodge your prejudice." is entirely singular, Two individuals cannot have a one-track mind, but they can have one track minds (plural). Two people cannot have a prejudice, but they can have prejudices (plural).

This is just one of many examples.

"Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive."

Are you ready to be honest yet?

runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 03, 2012
Another lie. "It is you that have a one-track mind unable to dislodge your prejudice." is entirely singular, Two individuals cannot have a one-track mind, but they can have one track minds (plural). Two people cannot have a prejudice, but they can have prejudices (plural).

This is just one of many examples.

"Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive."

Are you ready to be honest yet?



You really must be on something sunshine. Whether it is just at present or generally I don't know. Where in that post did I mention anything to do with one-track minds or prejudices? Either singular or Plural. Answers on a postcard to ....

And by the way ... Leave Sir Walter Scott out of it.
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 03, 2012
I do think it's funny you added a "(sic)" where my spelling is both correct and directly copied from you.


OK, I will paste your quote again ... "I'm plenty "scientifically literate.""
Has the penny dropped? ( clue - its not the spelling ). How about, maybe " I am scientifically well read " or simply " I am scientifically literate".
It's a colloquialism, nimrod. The form is even popularized in a song ("Now by this time I'm plenty high You know when your mouth a getting dry You're plenty high." - George Thorogood & the destroyers).

It is also an in-joke in that you are patently NOT scientifically well read.
Says the very moron who claimed the PDO was decadal. LOL

Maybe you should stop before making a further mockery of yourself.

Here endeth the English lesson. Try not to show yourself up any more that (sic) you have to on this site.
Why don't you try following your own advice?

ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 03, 2012
as is a solar cycle.
Uh, 11 years (on average) hardly qualifies as multi-decadal. Perhaps you're referring to aperiodic solar variability?


I actually thought you would fall into that trap. Of course 11 yrs is not multi-decadal but there are other (though not confirmed cycles admittedly - may just be amplification of the 11 yr) But I have sympathy for the Gleissberg cycle.

"I actually thought you would fall into that trap." Really?

So to cover your own mistake you're now claiming you set a childish trap? Is this really any better than simply admitting you were in error?

As your claimed education is extensive, and you claimed to be employed with one employer for 32 years, if this were true, you would have to be (at least) in your fifties.

Now do you really expect me to believe this is how a senior professional scientist really behaves? LOL

Grow up.

ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 03, 2012
Another lie. "It is you that have a one-track mind unable to dislodge your prejudice." is entirely singular, Two individuals cannot have a one-track mind, but they can have one track minds (plural). Two people cannot have a prejudice, but they can have prejudices (plural).

This is just one of many examples.

"Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive."

Are you ready to be honest yet?
You really must be on something sunshine. Whether it is just at present or generally I don't know. Where in that post did I mention anything to do with one-track minds or prejudices? Either singular or Plural. Answers on a postcard to ....

And by the way ... Leave Sir Walter Scott out of it.
Confirmation. You are a chatbot. Chatbots have problems with context retention.

I'd hoped you'd be better than the Vendibot. The "personality" is slightly improved, but the AI isn't any better.

Time to pull another all-nighter, coding. Order up the pizzas!

runrig
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 03, 2012
"It's a colloquialism, nimrod. The form is even popularized in a song "Now by this time I'm plenty high You know when your mouth a getting dry You're plenty high." - George Thorogood & the destroyers."

Actually I'm more into Led Zep, Deep purple and Pink Floyd amongst many others. Though it is used by, what we call, "Chavs" over here. See.. http://en.wikiped...iki/Chav Either way it's poor English.

"Says the very moron who claimed the PDO was decadal." Short-hand for the meaning of the acronym ( Pacific decadal Oscillation ) I do know the cycle is actually 20-30 yrs.

" Maybe you should stop before making a further mockery of yourself."

And old English proverb .. " Pot calling kettle black ". I was man enough to admit you were correct with the "pale" spelling. I'm waiting for you to admit about the .. ahem ..plural possessive pronoun. Embarrassed? - Actually probably not, your modus operandi denies that you are capable showing integrity.
runrig
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2012
"As your claimed education is extensive, and you claimed to be employed with one employer for 32 years, if this were true, you would have to be (at least) in your fifties.

Almost correct sunshine, but not education, just meteorological education. I am 58 actually. Is that beyond your comprehension? Don't judge me by tour standards. Put the dope down and try to show some integrity.

"Now do you really expect me to believe this is how a senior professional scientist really behaves? LOL." In the mind of a deranged and ignorant idiot, distorting his world-view, yes actually. There's quite obviously no way to get through to you. But I don't give up.

"Grow up". Took the words out of my mouth, especially as I seemingly have way more life experience than you.

PS: I must be doing something right - I have really got you going haven't I ? Even VD cant do that all the time. LOL

runrig
3.1 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2012

I'd hoped you'd be better than the Vendibot. The "personality" is slightly improved, but the AI isn't any better.

Time to pull another all-nighter, coding. Order up the pizzas!



An arrogant ar****le as well. And do I surmise a nerdy profession?

I've come across deranged personalities like you before ( during my incomprehensible 58 yrs on this planet ). They think they are brilliant ... despite all the obvious evidence to the contrary. Must be something to do with parental guidance.
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 03, 2012
thermodynamics:
http://www.woodfo...97/trend

-0.0232565 per decade

NotParker: You have pointed us to your plots. Can you please tell us what you think they mean?


NotParker: You never answered this question. Can you please explain what you think your plot means? I am always ready to have something like this explained to me. Thank you in advance.


AGW theory is dead. Natural variation occurred.

The Sun is entering a long period where sunspots may not be visible.

It will get cold.



That is pretty much what I thought when I asked this question twice. You have no idea what the graph you pointed us to means. Your answer has no possible way of coming from that graph. You post a graph then spout dogma when asked what it means. Nice job of showing how you "interpret" graphs. I could get better answers from a kid in high school.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2012
do I surmise a nerdy profession?
Well, first I started out farming, but then I got into tractor pulls and stock car racing (won three championships). But the thought of all that horsepower made me think of powerful horses, so I drove the Budweiser Clydesdale team on the Beer Wagon for a few years. All that beer made me woozy, so I took up skydiving to clear my head. I enjoyed the altitude so I joined the Air Force and flew top secret spy planes that went so fast I can't tell you. That got me interested in the space program, so I signed up to be an astronaut with NASA. They didn't have a slot for me, but the Air Force came back and offered me a gig to their secret moon base (oops, you didn't hear that from me). Upon re-entry, my capsule was misdirected and it fell on the head of the rebel military leader in Thailand. The king liked me so much for doing that, he adopted me. Sadly, he died yesterday, so now I'm the freakin' King of Siam.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2012
What? You didn't compete professionally in hotdog eating contests at corn festivals?

No wonder you have no comprehension of science, basic algebra or basis statistics.

"Well, first I started out farming, but then I got into tractor pulls and stock car racing" - UbVonTard
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 03, 2012
Shortest Melt Season Ever!

http://arctic-roo..._ext.png

By tomorrow it will be above 2007 and climbing for a new record maximum!

NIC shows still above 2007.

http://www.natice...ent.html
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (8) Sep 04, 2012
Ice melt continues...

http://arctic.atm...ive.html

NIC is not to be used for yearly comparisons since observers change, instruments change and no quality control is done on the input data. Further no attempt to standardize data interpretation. Much of NIC is the result of visual photographic inspection.

"NIC shows still above 2007." - ParkerTard

ParkerTard has been told this a half dozen times, yet he still persists in dishonesty using the data for yearly comparisons, knowing full well that they provide false comparisons.

He compounds his lie by failing to disclose that his data source suffers from these observational problems.

ParkerTard is mentally diseased.
cdt
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 04, 2012
Shortest Melt Season Ever!

http://arctic-roo..._ext.png

By tomorrow it will be above 2007 and climbing for a new record maximum!


Wow, I've seen some questionable extrapolations in my time but the certainty with which this extrapolation is made is flabbergasting. Granted when the melt season ends the graph will start upward, so there is a possibility that the melt season is indeed over. But just looking at the graphs of other years it is clear that an upward turn does not always indicate the end of the melt season. It is this willingness to make absolute pronouncements based on flimsy evidence that more than anything else belies NP's absence of a solid science background in my book.
SteveS
5 / 5 (2) Sep 04, 2012
By tomorrow it will be above 2007 and climbing for a new record maximum!


Which dataset will you be using to judge the maximum and what is your rationale for believing it will be a record?
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 04, 2012
By tomorrow it will be above 2007 and climbing for a new record maximum!


Which dataset will you be using to judge the maximum and what is your rationale for believing it will be a record?


As I've said, the JAXA data showed Mar/Apr/May ice levels at 97% to 98% of the 1980s average.

It hit 98.94% on Apr 15th and 16th.

http://sunshineho...pective/

DMI and Norsex/SSMI also showed the 2012 line above all the recent years for long stretches.

The only reason the microwave based indexes showed large "melt" was because the cyclone broke up the ice.

A short melt season - long freeze season. I think it will hit over 100% of the 1980s average.
SteveS
5 / 5 (2) Sep 04, 2012
A short melt season - long freeze season. I think it will hit over 100% of the 1980s average.


Which dataset?
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 04, 2012
A short melt season - long freeze season. I think it will hit over 100% of the 1980s average.


Which dataset?


I said I used Jaxa. It is the easiest data to find. Not necessarily the best.
SteveS
5 / 5 (2) Sep 04, 2012
A short melt season - long freeze season. I think it will hit over 100% of the 1980s average.


From the JAXA data
2008 shortest preceding freeze season (166 days) second largest maximum

2010 longest preceding freeze season (199 days) fifth largest maximum

Good luck with your prediction

2013 maximum to be higher than the 1980s average maximum on the jaxa dataset

Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 04, 2012
Today a new minimum Arctic ice area was reached. The current value is 2.37 million square kilometers. This is the lowest Arctic ice area ever recorded in human history. Several days in the traditional ice melt season remain.

http://arctic.atm...ive.html

"The only reason the microwave based indexes showed large "melt" was because the cyclone broke up the ice.' - ParkerTard

ParkerTard has been posting links to charts showing ice levels increasing. However the charts ParkerTard have been posting are not for the entire arctic, but for a small region just outside the arctic ocean.

ParkerTard is a congenital and perpetual liar.
NotParker
1 / 5 (8) Sep 04, 2012
Today a new minimum Arctic ice area was reached. The current value is 2.37 million square kilometers. This is the lowest Arctic ice area ever recorded in human history. Several days in the traditional ice melt season remain.

http://arctic.atm...ive.html

"The only reason the microwave based indexes showed large "melt" was because the cyclone broke up the ice.' - ParkerTard

ParkerTard has been posting links to charts showing ice levels increasing. However the charts ParkerTard have been posting are not for the entire arctic, but for a small region just outside the arctic ocean.


Ha ha ha. You stink of desperation.

http://wattsupwit...-corner/

Note how different every graph is .. different sensors different algorithms, different guesswork.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 05, 2012
ParkerTard seems to be very frustrated that his claimed dramatic rise in north polar ice coverage that he claimed was the end of the melt season which was in fact exposed as a lie on his part.

Even the data he now links to in protest proves his earlier claim to be a lie.

"Note how different every graph is .. different sensors different algorithms, different guesswork." - ParkerTard

Different methods do produce different results. All show the melt to be continuing, but reaching it's conclusion substantially below every other year in recorded human history.

Gnash your teeth Tard boy. Stomp your feet. Nature doesn't respect your vapid proclamations.

Neither does any thinking person.
thermodynamics
3 / 5 (4) Sep 05, 2012
NP: For most of these posts you have protested that the datasets used were falacious and that there was no minimum this year. Insteady you have pointed out that there is only one data set that is to be believed. Now that that set shows a record minimum you are saying it isn't important because thick multiyear (how do you get multiyear ice in one year?) ice will rapidly climb to a record maximum. So, what is it?

1) Was there a record low reached?
2) Do you have any links to someone other than Watt who is predicting a record high in ice this winter?

You keep me spinning just to try to keep an eye on your moving target. Answering the questions will help us all. Thank you in advance for your well thought out answer. We will all be keeping an eye on the ice to look for the spike upward over the next few days.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (8) Sep 05, 2012
A great video showing how thick Multi-year ice is rapidly vanishing from the Arctic Ocean.

http://www.climat...n-arctic
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 05, 2012
NP: Easily tested to see if the 2012 low zooms back up today to bounce behind that of 2007. Then 2012 could bounce back down...

NP just doesn't understand he is competing high temperatures with high CO2 against a mean through the CO2 has been rising. I'm sure that any statitions won't see anything wrong with that.
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 05, 2012
NP: For most of these posts you have protested that the datasets used were falacious and that there was no minimum this year.


The trouble with microwave sensors is that do badly with summer ice.

"NIC charts generally show more ice than do passive microwave derived sea ice concentrations, particularly in the summer when passive microwave algorithms tend to underestimate ice concentration. The record of sea ice concentration from the NIC series is believed to be more accurate than that from passive microwave sensors,"

I didn't say they microwave based data was bad with winter ice.

Pay attention.
SteveS
5 / 5 (4) Sep 05, 2012
Sea Ice Index Northern Hemisphere Extent Anomalies August 2012

http://nsidc.org/...ires.png

As recommended by the NIC and NotParker
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 05, 2012
Sea Ice Index Northern Hemisphere Extent Anomalies August 2012

http://nsidc.org/...ires.png

As recommended by the NIC and NotParker


Actual NIC Weekly.

http://www.natice...ent.html

Daily shows on this day:

2012 = 5.23 million

2007 = 4.65 million

All the microwave based graphs are much lower, but they all show different values. With microwave it is a wild assed guess in the summer.

NIC is better.

2007's lowest was September 11th at 4.57 million.

thermodynamics
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 05, 2012
NP: you do realize that your favorite plot shows data once a week and user a lagging mean don't you?

Do you need me or anyone else who is sane on this forum to explain how this works.
SteveS
5 / 5 (4) Sep 05, 2012
Disclaimer

NIC data is not consistent between 2007 and 2012 and should not be used for trend analysis

Now let's compare the 2012 and 2007 data.

The NIC data you referenced is the sum of the ice edge extent and the marginal ice zone extent

The data is available here

http://www.natice...cts.html

and here

http://www.natice...and.html

the relevant figures are

2012 ice edge extent (>20%) 2,841,915 – marginal ice zone extent 2,390,635 (0 to 20%)
2007 ice edge extent (>20%) 3,547,333 – marginal ice zone extent 1,018,054 (0 to 20%)

Notice that 2012 ice edge extent is 20% down on 2007
SteveS
5 / 5 (4) Sep 05, 2012
How much ice is there in the marginal ice zone and sea ice edge extent?

Assuming that ice concentration in 2007 was the same as it is in 2012 (which is not the case http://igloo.atmo...;sy=2012 ) we can treat both the same and assume 100% concentration.

With regard to the marginal ice zone I'm happy to go with the most extreme example and assume a 1% concentration for 2007 and 20% for 2012

2012 (2,841,915 x 100%) + (2,390,635 x 20%) = 3,320,042 sqkm
2007 (3,547,333 x 100%) + (1,018,054 x 1%) = 3,557,514 sqkm

So even in this extreme example there is still much less sea ice in 2012 than in 2007

But as I said NIC data is not consistent between 2007 and 2012 and should not be used for trend analysis
SteveS
5 / 5 (4) Sep 05, 2012
NotParker 3rd Sept

Shortest Melt Season Ever!

By tomorrow it will be above 2007 and climbing for a new record maximum!


http://arctic-roo..._ext.png
cdt
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 05, 2012
Assuming that ice concentration in 2007 was the same as it is in 2012, we can treat both the same and assume 100% concentration.


SteveS, the assumption of 100% skews the numbers in your favor (giving a bigger number for 2007).

With regard to the marginal ice zone I'm happy to go with the most extreme example and assume a 1% concentration for 2007 and 20% for 2012

2012 (2,841,915 x 100%) (2,390,635 x 20%) = 3,320,042 sqkm
2007 (3,547,333 x 100%) (1,018,054 x 1%) = 3,557,514 sqkm


The real extreme would be to assume that >20% coverage means a low average, say 25%, while <20% means a high average, like 15%. That gives:

2012 (2,841,915 x 25%) (2,390,635 x 15%) = 1,069,074 sqkm
2007 (3,547,333 x 25%) (1,018,054 x 15%) = 1,039,541 sqkm

It takes some real data manipulation to get things to come out with less ice in 2007 than 2012, but to the committed denialist the numbers can always be skewed to give a false impression.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) Sep 06, 2012
Today a new minimum Arctic ice area was reached. The current value is 2.37 million square kilometers. This is the lowest Arctic ice area ever recorded in human history. Several days in the traditional ice melt season remain.

http://arctic.atm...ive.html

Note how different every graph is .. different sensors different algorithms, different guesswork.



NP: Did you notice that in every graph shown in your example, every one had 2012 as having the least ice even though (as you said): "different sensors different algorithms, different guesswork." If they were not consistent then some should show different results of all of the differences you point out. You have just shot yourself in the head with your own graphs. Each one shows 2012 as the worst on record for arctic sea ice. Please explain how every graph showing less ice in 2012 helps your case that 2012 was not a record low?
NotParker
1 / 5 (5) Sep 06, 2012
If they were not consistent then some should show different results


NIC shows different results. Your cult has a foul mouthed hissy fit when I post links to NIC.

AGW Cult = a religion for foul mouthed propagandists.
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 06, 2012
Because it is intended for navigational purposes, is produced in part by visual inspection of satellite photographs, and uses satellite imaging that is not processed for consistency, among other things.

As you have been repeatedly told, these factors make year to year comparison of the NIC data nearly worthless compared to the other arctic records available which do not suffer from the same consistency issues.

"NIC shows different results." - ParkerTard

Poor ParkerTard. He is incapable of learning. His mental disease prevents it.
VendicarD
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 06, 2012
Meanwhile, Arctic ice area has now reached a new record low level of 2.36 million square kilometers.

This is the lowest level of sea ice coverage that has ever been recorded in human history.

Potentially several more days of sea ice melt remain.

"AGW Cult = a religion for foul mouthed propagandists." - ParkerTard

Poor ParkerTard. He is frustrated at the fact that his non-science and ignorance are continually losing the battle against fact and reality.
NotParker
1 / 5 (6) Sep 06, 2012

"NIC shows different results." - ParkerTard

Poor ParkerTard. He is incapable of learning. His mental disease prevents it.


There is no difference between the foul-mouthed attacks by the AGW Cult on anyone trying to have a reasonable discussion and religious extremists projecting hate on anyone who is not an adherent to their cult.
VendicarD
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 06, 2012
Rational discussion is not possible with people like ParkerTard who entire purpose for living seems to be to lie with his every breath.

"anyone trying to have a reasonable discussion" - ParkerTard

As an example, ParkerTard claimed that minimum arctic ice was reached a week ago.

Yet today is another minimum in arctic sea ice area.

Even his own data source calls him a liar.

http://arctic-roo...mall.png
SteveS
5 / 5 (3) Sep 06, 2012
NIC shows different results. Your cult has a foul mouthed hissy fit when I post links to NIC.


The NIC data you link to includes the marginal ice zone beyond the ice edge. The NIC recommend using Sea Ice Index.

http://nsidc.org/...ries.png

NotParker
1 / 5 (8) Sep 06, 2012
NIC shows different results. Your cult has a foul mouthed hissy fit when I post links to NIC.


The NIC data you link to includes the marginal ice zone beyond the ice edge. The NIC recommend using Sea Ice Index.

http://nsidc.org/...ries.png



The NIC clearly says microwave-based measurements are useless in the summer.
NotParker
1 / 5 (8) Sep 06, 2012
Rational discussion is not possible with people like ParkerTard who entire purpose for living seems to be to lie with his every breath.

"anyone trying to have a reasonable discussion" - ParkerTard

As an example, ParkerTard claimed that minimum arctic ice was reached a week ago.

Yet today is another minimum in arctic sea ice area.

Even his own data source calls him a liar.

http://arctic-roo...mall.png


AGW Cult - Home for foul-mouthed losers who can't stand a different point of view so they rant and insult people.

AGW Cult has zero interest in real science. All they want is propaganda.
SteveS
5 / 5 (2) Sep 06, 2012
The NIC clearly says microwave-based measurements are useless in the summer.


No they don't

NIC: "Use the Sea Ice Index when comparing trends in sea ice over time or when consistency is important."

I am using the Sea Ice Index.

NotParker 1st Sept
NotParker
1 / 5 (7) Sep 06, 2012
"NIC charts generally show more ice than do passive microwave derived sea ice concentrations, particularly in the summer when passive microwave algorithms tend to underestimate ice concentration. The record of sea ice concentration from the NIC series is believed to be more accurate than that from passive microwave sensors, especially from the mid-1990s on"

VendicarD
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 06, 2012
Poor ParkerTard... Not even his own source agrees with him.

"The NIC clearly says microwave-based measurements are useless in the summer." - ParkerTard

ParkerTard's source (above)

"The record of sea ice concentration from the NIC series is believed to be more accurate than that from passive microwave sensors, especially from the mid-1990s on" - ParkerTard's reference

Tard Boy... I don't see the word "useless" in there.

But you clearly do.

More evidence of the extent of your mental disease.
SteveS
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2012
NIC clearly says microwave-based measurements are useless in the summer.


If the NIC says microwave based measurements are useless in the summer why do they use them

"In addition, ground weather observations, synthetic aperture radar (SAR), microwave scatterometer returns, numerical weather prediction, sea ice models, buoys, reconnaissance flights, and various DMSP visible and microwave products are incorporated into the daily Snow and Ice chart."

Microwave based products are not as accurate at very low concentrations which is why the Sea Ice Index and others uses a 15% cutoff to define the ice edge. This produces a consistent dataset, unlike the NIC data which is compiled from whatever data is available each day. This is why year to year comparisons are not advisable and the NIC recommend using Sea Ice Index.
thermodynamics
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2012
So, let me see if I have this right. At this time NotParker is claiming:

1) that arctic sea ice has been increasing since September 4th.
2) That it never reached a record minimum in 2012.
3) That we will see a record high level of sea ice this winter in the Artic.

Is that right Not Parker? Are these all of the observations from this thread that you will stand by?
NotParker
1 / 5 (8) Sep 07, 2012
NIC clearly says microwave-based measurements are useless in the summer.


If the NIC says microwave based measurements are useless in the summer why do they use them

"In addition, ground weather observations, synthetic aperture radar (SAR), microwave scatterometer returns, numerical weather prediction, sea ice models, buoys, reconnaissance flights, and various DMSP visible and microwave products are incorporated into the daily Snow and Ice chart."


They don't rely on them in the summer as much as other indexes.
SteveS
5 / 5 (4) Sep 07, 2012
They don't rely on them in the summer as much as other indexes.


So not useless then.

Where cloud obscures the ice pack infra-red and visual satellite imagery are of limited use, so they rely on microwave based measurements even in summer as ground weather observations, buoys, and reconnaissance flights can only cover a small percentage of the total ice area.
NotParker
1 / 5 (6) Sep 09, 2012
VD: Meanwhile, Arctic ice area has now reached a new record low level of 2.36 million square kilometers.


Weird. Jaxa has it at 3,593,750 sq km

http://www.ijis.i...tent.htm

National Ice Center has it at 4.88 million sq km.

SteveS
5 / 5 (3) Sep 09, 2012
Weird. Jaxa has it at 3,593,750 sq km

National Ice Center has it at 4.88 million sq km.


Jaxa Measures extent, VD is quoting the area which is currently at 2.294 million sq km.

http://arctic.atm...ctic.png

The NIC IMS product had the extent at 3.774 million sq km on the 4th of September, as did the NSIDC/NIC MASIE product.

http://www.natice...only.jpg

http://nsidc.org/...dex.html
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 09, 2012
VD: Meanwhile, Arctic ice area has now reached a new record low level of 2.36 million square kilometers.


Weird. Jaxa has it at 3,593,750 sq km

http://www.ijis.i...tent.htm

National Ice Center has it at 4.88 million sq km.



It is interesting that your URL shows this to be the lowest ice extent ever measured (as do all of the rest). How do you reconcile that with this not being the lowest extent ever measured? It seems that your own references contradict you.
NotParker
1 / 5 (7) Sep 09, 2012
Weird. Jaxa has it at 3,593,750 sq km

National Ice Center has it at 4.88 million sq km.


Jaxa Measures extent, VD is quoting the area which is currently at 2.294 million sq km.

http://arctic.atm...ctic.png


NORSEX has ice extent at 4.4 million.

Everybody has it different. JAXA keeps revising their old figures because they are underestimating.

Everyone has a different calculation and baseline, but the deranged AGW cult spews dehumanizing venom to distract form their failed cult.

Bain observed that a primary function of dehumanizing language is to reinforce the self-esteem of the "in group".

Stephan Lewandosky is another AGW cult leader (along with fraudster Peter Gleick) who prefers dehumanizing their opponents to actual science.

http://climateaud...sky-scam
VendicarD
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 10, 2012
Remains unanswered by ParkerTard

"Please explain how every graph showing less ice in 2012 helps your case that 2012 was not a record low?" - Thermodynamics

"NIC shows different results. Your cult has a foul mouthed hissy fit when I post links to NIC." - ParkerTard
VendicarD
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 10, 2012
Meanwhile, Arctic ice area reached yet another low today of 2.293 million square kilometers.

This is the lowest level of ice seen in the arctic ocean in all of recorded human history.

There are possibly a couple of more days of melt left in the season. The slope of the graph suggests that the melt season will be extended this year due to high arctic ocean temperatures which can be seen here...

http://www.esrl.n...anom.gif
VendicarD
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 10, 2012
ParkerTard likes to look for oranges to dishonestly compare with apples.

In this case he is comparing ice extent with the minimum ice area that I presented earlier.

What is really laughable about ParkerTard's nonsense is that NORSEX is also showing this years melt to be a record low.

http://arctic-roo...n-arctic

"NORSEX has ice extent at 4.4 million." - ParkerTard

Poor ParkerTard. What he isn't lying about, he just gets wrong. 100% of the time, day in and day out.

His mental disease is terminal.
VendicarD
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 10, 2012
Make up your diseased mind ParkerTard.

You first claimed that they were "useless" and when your lie was exposed, you now claim the following.

"They don't rely on them in the summer as much as other indexes." - ParkerTard

What nonsense will you claim next week?
SteveS
5 / 5 (2) Sep 16, 2012
Current JAXA sea ice extent 3,475,781 Sq. km (September 15, 2012)
Previous Record minimum 4,254,531 Sq. km (September 24, 2007)

This is the equivalent of Usain Bolt beating his 9.58 second 100m world record by 1.75 seconds
NotParker
1 / 5 (6) Sep 16, 2012
Current JAXA sea ice extent 3,475,781 Sq. km (September 15, 2012)
Previous Record minimum 4,254,531 Sq. km (September 24, 2007)

This is the equivalent of Usain Bolt beating his 9.58 second 100m world record by 1.75 seconds


"Day 256 Antarctic ice is the highest ever for the date, and the eighth highest daily reading ever recorded. All seven higher readings occurred during the third week of September, 2007 – the week of the previous Arctic record minimum."

http://stevengodd...-silent/
SteveS
5 / 5 (3) Sep 16, 2012
Day 256 Antarctic ice is the highest ever for the date...


An increase of 0.2% over the previous highest for the date, or the equivalent of Usain beating his record by 0.02 seconds.
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 16, 2012
Day 256 Antarctic ice is the highest ever for the date...


An increase of 0.2% over the previous highest for the date, or the equivalent of Usain beating his record by 0.02 seconds.


1,000,000 sq km higher than the the 1979-2000 average.

More than 2 standard deviations above the 1979-2000 average.

http://nsidc.org/...ries.png
SteveS
5 / 5 (3) Sep 16, 2012
1,000,000 sq km higher than the the 1979-2000 average.

More than 2 standard deviations above the 1979-2000 average.


3,421,780 sq km lower than the the 1979-2000 average.

More than 6 standard deviations below the 1979-2000 average.

http://nsidc.org/...ries.png
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 16, 2012
1,000,000 sq km higher than the the 1979-2000 average.

More than 2 standard deviations above the 1979-2000 average.


3,421,780 sq km lower than the the 1979-2000 average.

More than 6 standard deviations below the 1979-2000 average.

http://nsidc.org/...ries.png


I think we can agree that record amounts of sea ice in Antarctica are NOT because the earth is warmer ... because it isn't warmer than it was 15 years ago.

Therefore the Arctic Sea Ice changes are most likely just part of the natural cycle exacerbated by the very large Arctic Cyclone that broke up the ice.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Sep 17, 2012
3,421,780 sq km lower than the the 1979-2000 average.

More than 6 standard deviations below the 1979-2000 average.


I think we can agree that record amounts of sea ice in Antarctica are NOT because the earth is warmer ... because it isn't warmer than it was 15 years ago.

Therefore the Arctic Sea Ice changes are most likely just part of the natural cycle exacerbated by the very large Arctic Cyclone that broke up the ice.
It looks like you're both right:

"This rapid pace of ice loss in 2012 was dominated by large losses in the East Siberian and the Chukchi seas, likely caused in part by the strong cyclone that entered the region earlier in the month and helped to break up the ice."

"At the end of August, ...neither the northern or southern routes of the Northwest Passage were open."

http://nsidc.org/...icenews/

SteveS
5 / 5 (4) Sep 18, 2012
I think we can agree that record amounts of sea ice in Antarctica are NOT because the earth is warmer ... because it isn't warmer than it was 15 years ago.


Over the last 15 years average global seaice cover has declined by 78,300 sq. km per year.

Antarctica average has increased by 22,800 sq. km per year and the Arctic has decreased by an average of 90,200 sq. km per year.