Has Antarctic sea ice expansion been overestimated?

Jul 22, 2014
A tabular iceberg surrounded by sea ice in the Antarctic. Credit: Eva Nowatzki, distributed via imaggeo.egu.eu

New research suggests that Antarctic sea ice may not be expanding as fast as previously thought. A team of scientists say much of the increase measured for Southern Hemisphere sea ice could be due to a processing error in the satellite data. The findings are published today in The Cryosphere, a journal of the European Geosciences Union (EGU).

Arctic sea ice is retreating at a dramatic rate. In contrast, satellite observations suggest that sea ice cover in the Antarctic is expanding – albeit at a moderate rate – and that sea ice extent has reached record highs in recent years. What's causing Southern Hemisphere sea ice cover to increase in a warming world has puzzled scientists since the trend was first spotted. Now, a team of researchers has suggested that much of the measured expansion may be due to an error, not previously documented, in the way satellite data was processed.

"This implies that the Antarctic sea ice trends reported in the IPCC's AR4 and AR5 [the 2007 and 2013 assessment reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] can't both be correct: our findings show that the data used in one of the reports contains a significant error. But we have not yet been able to identify which one contains the error," says lead-author Ian Eisenman of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at University of California San Diego in the US.

Reflecting the scientific literature at the time, the AR4 reported that Antarctic sea ice cover remained more or less constant between 1979 and 2005. On the other hand, recent literature and the AR5 indicate that, between 1979 and 2012, Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent increased at a rate of about 16.5 thousand square kilometres per year. Scientists assumed the difference to be a result of adding several more years to the observational record.

"But when we looked at how the numbers reported for the trend had changed, and we looked at the time series of Antarctic sea ice extent, it didn't look right," says Eisenman, who set out to figure out what was wrong.

To measure sea ice cover, researchers splice together observations from different instruments flown on a number of different satellites. They then use an algorithm -- the most prevalent being the Bootstrap algorithm – and further processing to estimate sea ice cover from these data. A new The Cryosphere study compares two datasets for sea ice measurements: one generated using a version of Bootstrap updated in 2007, and another that results from an older version of the algorithm. Subtracting the older dataset from the new one, shows a spurious jump in the satellite record in December 1991. The vertical dotted lines indicate transitions between satellite sensors, with the December 1991 change dominating the difference in ice cover in the two versions. Credit: Eisenman et al., The Cryosphere, 2014

Scientists have used to measure sea ice cover for 35 years. But the data doesn't come from a single instrument, orbiting on a single satellite throughout this period. Instead, researchers splice together observations from different instruments flown on a number of different satellites. They then use an algorithm – the most prevalent being the Bootstrap algorithm – and further processing to estimate sea from these data.

In the study published in The Cryosphere, Eisenman and collaborators compare two datasets for sea ice measurements. The most recent one, the source of AR5 conclusions, was generated using a version of Bootstrap updated in 2007, while the other, used in AR4 research, is the result of an older version of the algorithm.

The researchers found a difference between the two datasets related to a transition in satellite sensors in December 1991, and the way the data collected by the two instruments was calibrated. "It appears that one of the records did this calibration incorrectly, introducing a step-like change in December 1991 that was big enough to have a large influence on the long-term trend," explains Eisenman.

"You'd think it would be easy to see which record has this spurious jump in December 1991, but there's so much natural variability in the record – so much 'noise' from one month to the next – that it's not readily apparent which record contains the jump. When we subtract one record from the other, though, we remove most of this noise, and the step-like change in December 1991 becomes very clear."

With the exception of the longer time period covered by the most recent dataset, the two records were thought to be nearly identical. But, by comparing the datasets and calculating Antarctic for each of them, the team found that there was a stark difference between the two records, with the current one giving larger rates of sea ice expansion than the old one in any given period.

If the error is in the current dataset, the results could contribute to an unexpected resolution for the Antarctic cover enigma.

Explore further: Poles apart: Arctic sea ice has shrunk but Antarctic sea ice has grown

More information: A spurious jump in the satellite record: has Antarctic sea ice expansion been overestimated? The Cryosphere, 8, 1289-1296, 2014. www.the-cryosphere.net/8/1289/… /tc-8-1289-2014.html

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Arctic sea ice avoids last year's record low

Oct 04, 2013

This September, sea ice covering the Arctic Ocean fell to the sixth lowest extent in the satellite record, which began in 1979. All of the seven lowest extents have occurred in the last seven years, since ...

Declining sea ice to lead to cloudier Arctic: study

Mar 31, 2012

Arctic sea ice has been declining over the past several decades as global climate has warmed. In fact, sea ice has declined more quickly than many models predicted, indicating that climate models may not be correctly representing ...

Antarctic sea ice reaches new record high

Oct 12, 2012

(Phys.org)—Two weeks after a new record was set in the Arctic Ocean for the least amount of sea ice coverage in the satellite record, the ice surrounding Antarctica reached its annual winter maximum—an ...

Large sea ice changes North of Swalbard

Jun 12, 2014

During the last decades warmer Atlantic water has caused a retreat of the ice edge north of Svalbard. In contrast to other areas of the Arctic Ocean, the largest ice loss north of Svalbard occurred during ...

Recommended for you

NASA image: Fires in the Egypt River Delta

9 hours ago

This NASA satellite image is of the Egyptian River Delta. Actively burning areas, detected by MODIS's thermal bands, are outlined in red. Each hot spot, which appears as a red mark, is an area where the thermal ...

Terra Satellite sees Tropical Storm Ana over Hawaii

9 hours ago

Tropical Storm Ana made a slow track west of the Hawaiian islands over the last couple of days, and by Oct. 20 was moving westward away from the main Hawaiian islands and heading toward the northwest Hawaiian ...

User comments : 94

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

MR166
2.2 / 5 (22) Jul 22, 2014
Right, that research ship got caught in a Bootstrap Algorithm error. I hate it when that happens.
LariAnn
4 / 5 (21) Jul 22, 2014
This is the way science works. Errors found may be in favor of, or against, a particular theory or hypothesis, but finding and correcting them is as important as the raw data itself. Too bad for the deniers that, in this case, it refutes their position even more strongly.
TegiriNenashi
2 / 5 (21) Jul 22, 2014
Well, with new adjustment they might succeed making Antarctic ice obey warming predictions. They still need to clean embarrassments like researcher stuck in the ice last year, or surface temperature records
http://www.nerc-b...rend.pdf

TulsaMikel
1.9 / 5 (23) Jul 22, 2014
The data actually showing ice growing at the south pole never stopped warmers from lying and saying it's not growing. Didn't stop them from trying to silence other scientist and shaming them by calling them "deniers". It didn't stop them from dismissing the data on the largest amount of ice on the globe to keep their theory valid. Any neutral party with intellect can use the timeline of this disagreement to plainly see which side is being political and which side is being scientific. There are irregularities in the climate. Lets not drive down the wrong road trying to fix them.
David Keech
4.8 / 5 (17) Jul 22, 2014
TegiriNenashi, that's Antarctic sea ice. The land ice (at least some parts of it) is most definitely melting. And melting land ice is one of the proposed explanations for the observed increase in sea ice. Fresher ocean water freezes at higher temperatures, causing more ice. Greater evaporation thanks to warmer temperatures causing greater snowfall is another. And now this difference between two measurements is yet another. Time will tell which of them are correct.

That temperature record from a single station is meaningless as an absolute figure without a trend line calculated through it. And at -50 degrees, I don't think there's any melting going on at that station anyway. I did notice you picked the only station in Antarctica with a statistically significant negative trend.

http://www.antarc...ctic.php
David Keech
4.8 / 5 (18) Jul 22, 2014
TulsaMikel, the ice growth at the Antarctic was only the sea ice. The land ice is melting. That wasn't a lie.

Pointing out someone's mistakes is not the same thing as "trying to silence them". Pointing out mistakes in their own data is what this article is all about.

The term "deniers" (amongst others such as "skeptics" and "contrarians") is nothing more than a grouping term, the same way you have used "warmers".

There was no dismissing of data, scientists just don't do that. If there is data that disproves a theory, either the theory needs to be adjusted or the mistake in the data found. A scientist's prime motivation is being *correct* so knowing that they are not correct is a cause for more research, not pretending the data doesn't exist. In an earlier comment I mentioned two adjustments to the theories that were proposed to explain the expanding sea ice and now this mistake in the data is an example of the other direction of investigation.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (15) Jul 22, 2014
Well, with new adjustment they might succeed making Antarctic ice obey warming predictions. They still need to clean embarrassments like researcher stuck in the ice last year, or surface temperature records
http://www.nerc-b...rend.pdf

If you find that graph a surprise then you know nothing of meteorology/climatology ........... oh wait a sec, you don't, do you?
runrig
4.5 / 5 (16) Jul 22, 2014
Welcome David Keech ... excellent posts.
TegiriNenashi
1.5 / 5 (16) Jul 22, 2014
"Fresher ocean water freezes at higher temperatures, causing more ice" -- we have debunked this nonsense already. First, lets clarify are we talking glacier surface or underwater melt. With average antarctic air temperature well below freezing the surface melt is negligible. The alleged WAIS melt that made news recently is caused by antarctic circumpolar current deviated from it's happy route around the continent and branching to Amundsen coast. By the time it arrives to the ice shelf its temperature is measly 2-3K above ice melt point. By simple comparison of ice and water heat capacity one can easily see that it would take tons and tons of water to warm one cubic meter of ice to the melting temperature and then melt it. The fresh water from the ice is immediately diluted by factor of 10. Therefore, the salinity argument (fresh water making sea ice freeze more easily) is rubbish.
TegiriNenashi
1.5 / 5 (16) Jul 22, 2014
I also put vostok,
http://www.nerc-b...rend.pdf
but this weird site always drops second link with subsequent edits. One thing to notice is that the further one gets from the pole, the larger is the temperature noise. One explanation is that at the pole there is no day-night time temperature variations, so south pole station is perfect.

Why these 2 graphs are remarkable? Back in 1978 in infamous Nature paper John Mercer predicted that during the next 50 years antarctic temperatures might rise 5-10K.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (15) Jul 22, 2014
The fresh water from the ice is immediately diluted by factor of 10. Therefore, the salinity argument (fresh water making sea ice freeze more easily) is rubbish.

No it's not, as I have posted up before. Deeper waters do not *know* the surface air temp and can melt the ice shelf nose at -2C - and indeed a continuous current can provide your "tons and tons of water".
Aside from that the freshening would be largely due to summer-time melt of existing ice. As you know, fresher water is lighter. yes?

Also the *revelation* of this article IS NOT new. See...
http://tamino.wor...ncrease/

I agree in the above's finding that Antarctic ice increase is real.
Because of surface water freshening and increased surface winds (which meteorologically are less convergent into the Continent) - if you do not understand that then ask.
Oh, just one paper link...
http://www.earth...._02.html
runrig
4.5 / 5 (15) Jul 22, 2014
....Why these 2 graphs are remarkable? Back in 1978 in infamous Nature paper John Mercer predicted that during the next 50 years antarctic temperatures might rise 5-10K.


So what?
He was wrong FFS
Doesn't make what's happening now wrong - however much you what it to be.
Usual cherry-picked quote-mining as though Mr Dyson or Ms Curry or whoever is an omniscient being and this guy or whoever on the AGW (science) side is stupid/wrong and by corollary so is AGW.
... because I've Googled a blog.

TegiriNenashi
1.6 / 5 (13) Jul 22, 2014
Salinity decrease in Ross sea is believable. Even though Antarctic circumpolar current is clock-wise (flowing away from Ross sea), Ross sea gyre seems to carry the alleged melted water from Amundsen coast to Ross sea. Still there is a lot of homework to do for your camp:
1. The salinity difference is still negligible, just look at salinity map. Even salinity difference with equator would not affect ice freezing point much, plus you have to prove a stronger assertion, that salinity decreased in recent years (to explain sea ice increase).
2. Sea ice cover is growing uniformly around Antarctica, not just in Ross sea.
3. Demonstrate the alleged non-mixing of fresh and salt water by supplying actual data. Southern ocean in notorious for ferocious storms (which would mix water).
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (18) Jul 22, 2014
So, this is the settled "science" on which decisions, that will significantly affect everyone of our lives, are being made. Oopsy.
What happened to the peer review process that the AGW Chicken Littles boasts so much about?
Is this "science" or dogma?
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (16) Jul 22, 2014
Is this "science" or dogma?


Science...
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (19) Jul 22, 2014
You are the perfect Chicken Little to your cult.
How was the Kool-Aid today?
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 23, 2014
2. Sea ice cover is growing uniformly around Antarctica, not just in Ross sea.


Correct - that's why the primary driver is the increased windiness....
caused by the increased meridional deltT in the SH - in turn caused by AGW.
And no, I'm not going around the goldfish-bowl again in explaining why Antarctica remains frigid in it's interior.
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (13) Jul 23, 2014
You are the perfect Chicken Little to your cult.


Actually antigoracle - I think I am fairly reasonable - and not alarmist at all. I am interested in science - and listening to what the scientists (that's the people who have spent their whole lives studying this stuff) have to tell us.

It seems that with your rude, ultra childish - knee jerk reaction to every article with the word climate in it - and your complete lack of constructive contribution to any process - you are the one with the overt cult mentality.

Here - read my comments at the end of this thread - maybe you can discuss some science.

http://phys.org/n...bal.html
MR166
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 23, 2014
An opinion of the data from the other side.

http://hockeyscht...ice.html

He points out that the newer satellite is much older than the increase in ice and when it was deployed the ice figures showed not change in trend. Only of late did it show increasing ice.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 23, 2014
Correct - that's why the primary driver is the increased windiness....
caused by the increased meridional deltT in the SH - in turn caused by AGW.

So runrig, in the Arctic, wind breaks up the sea ice, however in the Antarctic it leads to its formation and stability, right.
Wait, I just realized why. It's the ANTarctic, you know the opposite, ergo it must be true.
Scroofinator
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 23, 2014
and listening to what the scientists (that's the people who have spent their whole lives studying this stuff) have to tell us.

I'm tired of this week ass excuse for thinking what they say is right, and then shitting on any other logical explanation just because "the scientists" say to. Use your own damn brain, or do you enjoy giving up your free will?

You know, priests have spent their whole lives studying stuff, yet they have been pretty wrong about some things...

When I first heard this, I wasn't that surprised. Doesn't warm air rise (to the NH) and cold air sink (to the SH)?
rockwolf1000
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 23, 2014
Doesn't warm air rise (to the NH) and cold air sink (to the SH)?


Yes. In the same way that CO2 doesn't cause global warming.

Your comments are very week this weak.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Jul 23, 2014
Correct - that's why the primary driver is the increased windiness....
caused by the increased meridional deltT in the SH - in turn caused by AGW.

So runrig, in the Arctic, wind breaks up the sea ice, however in the Antarctic it leads to its formation and stability, right.
Wait, I just realized why. It's the ANTarctic, you know the opposite, ergo it must be true.

Denialist simplistic and one-track thinking my friend.
The Arctic is virtualy enclosed by landmass.
The Antarctic is completely open to Ocean.
Winds in the Arctic can only find an outlet for sea-ice through the Bering Strait, Davis Stait and Norwegian Sea.
The Ocean around Antarctica is stormy.
The Arctic is not.
I'll let you figure out the differences there that lead to sea-ice expansion in the SH winter and not in the NH in it's winter.
Oh, hang on you don't do science and logical thinking do you.
Just knee-jerk reactionary stuff driven by an ideological dislike of being told AGW is real.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 23, 2014
When I first heard this, I wasn't that surprised. Doesn't warm air rise (to the NH) and cold air sink (to the SH)?


No, but then I'm a Meteorologist ... so therefore I must be wrong.

If you want to know how the general circulation of the Earth's atmosphere works then ask and I will tell.
Now do you see how that works?
Ask an expert and they will give you the benefit of their knowledge.
Err - like you did when you went to Uni.

I'm tired of this week ass excuse for thinking what they say is right, and then shitting on any other logical explanation just because "the scientists" say to. Use your own damn brain, or do you enjoy giving up your free will?

Nothing to do with free will ... and everything to do with logic. Experts know stuff .... much more than non-experts. Other explanations if plausible HAVE been examined ... and found wanting. The Emperor is not naked and you aren't the the only one to spot he is. Sorry if that crushes your ego. it's just life, and logic.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 23, 2014

So runrig, in the Arctic, wind breaks up the sea ice, however in the Antarctic it leads to its formation and stability, right.
Wait, I just realized why. It's the ANTarctic, you know the opposite, ergo it must be true.

Denialist simplistic and one-track thinking my friend.
The Arctic is virtualy enclosed by landmass.
The Antarctic is completely open to Ocean.
Winds in the Arctic can only find an outlet for sea-ice through the Bering Strait, Davis Stait and Norwegian Sea.
The Ocean around Antarctica is stormy.
The Arctic is not.
I'll let you figure out the differences there that lead to sea-ice expansion in the SH winter and not in the NH in it's winter.,,,.

So runrig, is your argument for or against my point?
http://www.climat...duction/
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 23, 2014

So runrig, in the Arctic, wind breaks up the sea ice, however in the Antarctic it leads to its formation and stability, right.

So runrig, is your argument for or against my point?
http://www.climat...duction/


Just trying to figure out what your point is. I assume it is that in 2012 the wind broke up the ice. That was the year of the min-min. I think everyone agrees with that.

However, if you are saying that is the only reason the ice was so low then you will find fewer in agreement.

In 2013 the ice rebounded but it was one year ice. It is melting at a high rate right now.

http://nsidc.org/...icenews/

It will probably be a smaller ice extent than 2013, but probably not lower than 2012. The idea is that you should not expect a monotonic decrease or increase in any parameter on the earth.
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 23, 2014
Scoofinator
You know, priests have spent their whole lives studying stuff, yet they have been pretty wrong about some things..


You keep demonstrating how you do not understand the scientific process - and then you cry when people call you for being unscientific.

Do you not understand the difference between the way a priest attains knowledge, and the way science attains knowledge?

A great example is Galileo. Data always wins out over superstition. If you don't respect the process of science - that is your business - but why are you then coming to a science site - and spreading your lack of discipline.

Please answer this. When you get sick - do you go to the doctor?
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 23, 2014
So runrig, is your argument for or against my point?
http://www.climat...duction/

Anti: take it from me - I would never agree with your point on here.

"The effect is huge in the immediate aftermath of the cyclone, but after about two weeks the effect gets smaller," said lead author Jinlun Zhang, an oceanographer in the UW's Applied Physics Laboratory. "By September, most of the ice that melted would have melted with or without the cyclone."

www.sciencedaily....5220.htm
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 23, 2014
Also....

http://onlinelibr...abstract

"A comparison with a sensitivity simulation driven by reduced wind speeds during the cyclone indicates that cyclone-enhanced bottom melt strongly reduces ice extent for about 2 weeks, with a declining effect afterward. The simulated Arctic sea ice extent minimum in 2012 is reduced by the cyclone but only by 0.15 × 106 km2 (4.4%). Thus, without the storm, 2012 would still have produced a record minimum."
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 23, 2014
I'm tired of this week ass excuse for thinking what they say is right, and then shitting on any other logical explanation just because "the scientists" say to
the key word in your argument is LOGICAL... you've YET to provide anything LOGICAL, because SCIENCE demands EMPIRICAL evidence... not fancy words
Use your own damn brain, or do you enjoy giving up your free will?
Using ones brains is great as long as they follow a path that PROVES something with EMPIRICAL data... hence the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, to which you have zero discipline to use
You know, priests have spent their whole lives studying stuff, yet they have been pretty wrong about some things
See above post by strangedays
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 23, 2014
Doesn't warm air rise (to the NH) and cold air sink (to the SH)
the NH is only UP on a map if it is PRINTED that way, so the UP is completely arbitrary regarding the view of hemispheres.

UP= away from the center of the gravity well, which would be the center of the Earth in our case
down= towards the center of the gravity well

BECAUSE we use our senses, which are adapted to use in a gravity well, to define something like UP and DOWN, then there MUST be a definition attached to them for explanation, which is why you see a Key & legend on a map.

Maps are completely arbitrary in their printing. (see European vs USA maps)

logically, you could argue that UP is NORTH on a map, or SOUTH, depending on how it was printed, which ONLY PROVES that LOGIC is subjective to the argument as well as a set of details

which is WHY science uses EMPIRICAL DATA with well defined parameters and not just "logical sounding arguments" like philosophy and MONKS...
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 23, 2014
Correct - that's why the primary driver is the increased windiness....
caused by the increased meridional deltT in the SH - in turn caused by AGW.

So runrig back to my original question. In the Arctic, wind breaks up the sea ice, however in the Antarctic it leads to its formation and stability, right.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 23, 2014
So runrig back to my original question. In the Arctic, wind breaks up the sea ice, however in the Antarctic it leads to its formation and stability, right.


Wind played a part in break up of ice in late summer 2012 in the Arctic yes - this because the ice was thin/vulnerable. Winds there were acting on an established ice-field. In the Antarctic sea-ice extends to ~60S unbounded, with ice forming closer the coast and being blown away. Winds there are acting on FORMING ice. See Figure 2.4.3.1 (b) (SH winter) for storm tracks...

http://www.antarc...ptic.php

The Arctic rarely has any strong jet above it, thus storms are rare and in 2012 was acting on MELTING ice .

Think of the place/time the ice is in and not simplistically assume it acts the same just because wind is blowing on it.
It's called scientific thinking.
MR166
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 24, 2014
This is why I do not trust the data.

http://www.warwic.../?p=3149

NOAA has a vested interest in promoting the climate scare. NASA under Hansen was just as bad if not worse. Governments or government funding supplies the temperature data that most of science uses for their reports. This is a classic case of garbage in equals garbage out.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 24, 2014
Mr: from your "Blog"...
"Of course NOAA is quoting weather station data assembled by the GHCN latest effort where most sites are in urban heat islands and then they impose zillions of blithering warming adjustments to increase the warming."

No the UHI affect has no discernable warming bias on the temp record .... as the Koch's sponsered BEST study by Muller deomonstrated (among others).
Adjustments have been necessary for among other things, to correct a bias when the daily max was changed from being read in the evening (possible time of max for the day) to the morning (very rarely a time of max).
Oh and the "adjustments" were for 2% of the Earth - which is what the US is. The clue is in the word GLOBAL in AGW and not AAW (Anthroprogenic American warming). FFS.

"Bad luck NOAA – both satellite systems – RSS and UAH agree there were previous hotter Mays and Junes and even the May-June 2014 combo does not fly in 2010 and 1998.
I know what data I would have more confidence in."

No your bad luck as the comparison is over longer than the sat period and is the instrumental record
And of course.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (12) Jul 24, 2014

It's called scientific thinking.
--runrig
Ha ha. You too funny runrig, methinks you missed your calling.
Antarctica, where man made CO2 is warming the ocean only in the west, where it so happens there is strong geothermal activity. Everywhere else it is responsible for strong winds blowing ice out to sea where it is too cold to melt.
No wonder the computer models can't predict this stuff, because they are incapable of "scientific thinking" or perhaps they just don't have an arse to pull this crap out of.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 24, 2014

It's called scientific thinking.
--runrig
Ha ha. You too funny runrig, methinks you missed your calling.
Antarctica, where man made CO2 is warming the ocean only in the west, where it so happens there is strong geothermal activity. Everywhere else it is responsible for strong winds blowing ice out to sea where it is too cold to melt.
No wonder the computer models can't predict this stuff, because they are incapable of "scientific thinking" or perhaps they just don't have an arse to pull this crap out of.

My pleasure ... If you can bring a little joy each day and all that.
Look sunshine, contrary to your opinion perhaps, I have no ambition to make you understand the science
I simply correct your bollocks whenever you post it. Simples. For others.
"All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to stand idly by".
Make of that whatever you want. I care not a jot. But ignorance will not win where I am in possession of knowledge. Ta. Ta.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 25, 2014
Runrig, there is knowledge and then there is Rational Knowledge.
https://www.googl...rational

So, you may want to ask yourself, if it is rational, that what your climate "science" has concluded is happening around Antarctica, is due to man made CO2.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 25, 2014
So, you may want to ask yourself, if it is rational, that what your climate "science" has concluded is happening around Antarctica, is due to man made CO2.

There is also scientific knowledge which takes into account logic/probability.
It is rational to me because I have spent 40 years working with/analysing and latterly keeping abreast of new developments/observation of weather/climate. To me it is second nature.
And to have people turn around and say I am ignorant of the subject is beyond bizarre - but entirely the norm from denialists.

Tell me - do you have any axe to grind in your opinion of AGW science - in that you are not ideologically opposed to "being told" that it exists and a serious problem. That you dislike it because of "my tax dollars"?
If no and you merely think the science is wrong - then let me tell you that you have zero grasp of said science. To go to Blogs for information is a self-fulfilling prophecy of bias.
Either alternative is profoundly dishonest.
MR166
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 25, 2014
http://news.inves...cals.htm

The ultimate goal of the green movement and climate science is the ending of capitalism. They are sure that socialism and total government control is the answer to all of mankind's woes.
Dr_toad
Jul 25, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 25, 2014
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/072414-710279-capitalism-endangered-by-green-lobby-eco-radicals.htm

The ultimate goal of the green movement and climate science is the ending of capitalism. They are sure that socialism and total government control is the answer to all of mankind's woes.
PERSONAL CONJECTURE BASED UPON CONSPIRACY THEORY

I sure would hate losing the capitalistic system...

None of the scientists, researchers, environmentalists or other people who can actually comprehend the science that I talked to want to end it either...

Your information is not only biased, but based upon a faulty premise: conspiracy and delusion.
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 27, 2014
@MR166
The ultimate goal of the green movement and climate science is the ending of capitalism.


With a staggering display of sloppy thinking - MR166 constructs a straw man. There may well be some in the environmental movement who would like to see capitalism replaced with socialism. Does this mean that all environmentalists would like to see such a thing - of course not. Few would disagree that we need environmental oversight by governments. Someone needs to ensure that Deep Horizon, and Exon Valdez don't happen too often - right? I have friends who would be considered environmentalists. None are socialists. All would agree that the clean air act in the U.S. has been a positive.

MR166
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 27, 2014
It looks like the Bootstrap Algorithm error is getting worse on a daily basis.

http://sunshineho...10-mean/

It is strange that it took 20 years to become apparent. It must be some sort of additive rounding error. They had better correct it soon otherwise this runaway satellite data will show the entire Southern Hemisphere to be frozen solid.
MR166
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 27, 2014
" All would agree that the clean air act in the U.S. has been a positive."

Like the other government bureaucracys the EPA is increasing it's powers at an alarming rate. Individual rights are being trampled at will. It reminds me of the plant in the move Little Shop of Horrors. "Feed Me"!

The environmental laws enacted in the 70's were sorely needed. But it does not follow that if a little is good a lot has to be better.
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 27, 2014
@MR166 - nowhere in your response did you address the reality that your thinking was lazy - you created a straw man - and rebutting your laziness was very straightforward. I am surprised that you continue to post.
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 27, 2014
The environmental laws enacted in the 70's were sorely needed. But it does not follow that if a little is good a lot has to be better.


I do not dispute that. You and I would probably have very high agreement on the hideous nature of an out of control government. I am trying to start a small business, and staggered at how unfriendly to business the U.S. system is. The bureaucracy is staggering.

None of that is relevant to the issue - that you lumped all 'greens' into a group (socialists) - that was lazy, and inappropriate. If we are going to be able to talk about these issues - we have to stop demonizing each other - and stick with the real issue. Our globe is warming - and that may be a serious problem. Let's study it.
MR166
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 27, 2014
Yes Strange, it is a big fat unfair generalization. But I firmly believe that the leadership of the green and climate movements have ulterior motives for their positions, one of which is full government control of EVERY aspect of our lives. No 32 ounce sugary soft drinks for you.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 27, 2014
it is a big fat unfair generalization. But I firmly believe that the leadership of the green and climate movements have ulterior motives for their positions, one of which is full government control of EVERY aspect of our lives. No 32 ounce sugary soft drinks for you.
@mr166
now wait a minute: there is EMPIRICAL evidence that the leaders of the Climate Change DENIAL effort have an agenda ( http://www.drexel...nge.ashx ) and it is NOT something that will save the planet, but this means that there must also be a reciprocal belief with anyone who is environmentally friendly?

Now, specifically regarding some political party? maybe that is so... but to label anyone who is environmentally conscious and also aware of the warming crisis, this is wrong. This is EXACTLY like saying: since pedophiles utilise the internet for their nefarious purposes, then ANYONE on/using the internet is a pedo!
No difference really!
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 27, 2014
But I firmly believe that the leadership of the green and climate movements have ulterior motives for their positions, one of which is full government control of EVERY aspect of our lives.
@MR166
specifically regarding this comment... this may pertain to some POLITICAL parties that you are aware of... but as for the general belief or the general movement in question? NO organization wants too much gov't interference... it is bad for profit OR successful management.

Only the gov't will push for more gov't as it is a self-sustaining org that gets defensive with cutbacks. (that is why some cutbacks never make any sense... hurt the taxpayer/voter for having the gall to want cutbacks in the gov't)

and don't bother bringing up Gore.. he is an idiot IMHO. and he is NO SCIENTIFIC head! and SCIENCE is the basis of the people here on PO arguing the global warming issue.
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 27, 2014
Yes Strange, it is a big fat unfair generalization.


So could we agree not to do that stuff? I would agree that the generalizations often go both ways - demonizing the 'other side' is an easy trap.

I do disagree with you that there are 'leaders' of some 'green' movement - who are out to impose socialism on the world. I agree with Captain - that the problem is much more a systemic issue regarding government. Organizations almost always protect themselves - and will resort to what ever tactics they can to protect their budget, and their power base. Government always has a propensity to grow - and power goes to the heads of those who wield it. History tells us this.

On the other hand - I believe that in general - the science community is genuinely concerned about the climate - and feels responsible to communicate this concern to the policy makers. Me - I want to see small gvt. and a willingness to listen to the science.
MR166
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 27, 2014
I do not believe that there will be a socialist revolution per se in the US. But individual freedom will die a death of 1000 cuts. The only guarantor of our freedoms, the Constitution, is already being called passe by people in power. Onerous, freedom robbing laws are always passed "For the Good of the People". We have reached a point in the US where you have no hope of even knowing or understanding all the laws that govern your daily activities. That is a prime indication of a totalitarian government.

Al Gore is the poster child for what is wrong with the environmental movement and science and it's misuse by our government.
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 27, 2014
But individual freedom will die a death of 1000 cuts.


That is happening as we speak. Many towns now dictate what you can and cannot grow in your front yard. I am not technically allowed to brew a gallon of beer or wine in my basement - without applying to the State for a license. Starting a small business is almost impossible. English folks now have to pay a fine to the government - if they want to take their kids out of school for a vacation - yes - government out of control.

All that has little or nothing to do with climate science - and the facts around that topic.

I have no more respect for Al Gore - than I do for Vice President Cheney - two egotists - wanting to inject themselves into the big power game. Again - does not change the facts around the climate.

antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 27, 2014
There is also scientific knowledge which takes into account logic/probability.
It is rational to me because I have spent 40 years working with/analysing and latterly keeping abreast of new developments/observation of weather/climate. To me it is second nature.
And to have people turn around and say I am ignorant of the subject is beyond bizarre - but entirely the norm from denialists...blah..blah..
--runrig
Oh great sage of climate, verily you are the Pliny of our times.
MR166
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 27, 2014
Lastly the hypocrisy of some in the "Green" movement is beyond belief. Commuting to work via private jets is commonplace. Huge estates are commonplace as are huge resource guzzling yachts. Don't tell me to live in a 200 sq ft matchbox to save the planet while you live in multiple huge mansions or you buy a relatively new 5000 sq ft home just to tear it down and build a more opulent one.
MR166
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 27, 2014
"I have no more respect for Al Gore - than I do for Vice President Cheney - two egotists - wanting to inject themselves into the big power game. Again - does not change the facts around the climate."

That is where you an I differ. Who knows what the REAL facts are about any climate change that is due to our activities?

To me, climate change alarmism is just another tool used to get you to voluntarily give up your freedoms and allow the government to funnel your tax dollars to the oligarchs.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 27, 2014
There is also scientific knowledge which takes into account logic/probability.
It is rational to me because I have spent 40 years working with/analysing and latterly keeping abreast of new developments/observation of weather/climate. To me it is second nature.
And to have people turn around and say I am ignorant of the subject is beyond bizarre - but entirely the norm from denialists...blah..blah..
--runrig
Oh great sage of climate, verily you are the Pliny of our times.

So you agree that criticism of your *specialist* knowledge (if you have any), and the announcement that you are "ignorant" by a complete numpty is beyond annoying and also beyond logical?
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 27, 2014
That is where you an I differ. Who knows what the REAL facts are about any climate change that is due to our activities?

To me, climate change alarmism is just another tool used to get you to voluntarily give up your freedoms and allow the government to funnel your tax dollars to the oligarchs.

And to me this just demonstrates your enormous selfishness... in consideration of none on the planet but you own inconsequential self.
People out there. Is it me but do we not live in a 'society", where there is necessary cooperation between humankind? Is it not logical that if there is a problem perceived by experts in a field affecting said 'society' then societal action would be required to tackle it?
And yet our US friends call it 'socialism' and an assault on our 'tax dollars'.
Can't look beyond your own self interests eh my friend?
Splendid, I suppose you're a good "God a' fearin American"
And if you are, you are a hypocrite to boot.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 27, 2014
But individual freedom will die a death of 1000 cuts. The only guarantor of our freedoms, the Constitution, is already being called passe by people in power. Onerous, freedom robbing laws are always passed "For the Good of the People".
@Mr166
In this you and I can agree
Lastly the hypocrisy of some in the "Green" movement is beyond belief. Commuting to work via private jets is commonplace. Huge estates are commonplace as are huge resource guzzling yachts
That is because there is money to be made in it. And if you will note, even volunteer org's have management (Ever see what the Top dog gets paid at Red Cross?)
this is something that I detest as well
but the leadership does NOT represent the SCIENCE... which is the gist of my argument.
IF A POLITICIAN is using AGW it is likely a tool for his own benefit... but that is NOT the case with the SCIENCE, nor with some posters here.

just FYI - I don't care about the leadership- only the SCIENCE
I do what I can for my own reasons
MR166
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 27, 2014
Runrig if the small amount of warming that man might be creating vs. warming from natural cycles is proven to of major importance for the survival of mankind then I would be selfish and a hypocrite not to participate in the solution.

But that is not yet the case. To voluntarily give up the freedoms, for no proven reason, that tens of thousands of people died trying to preserve is treason of the highest order.

As far as taxes go, they are not an unexhaustible resource and giving tax money to crony capitalists is also a form of treason.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 27, 2014
Oh great sage of climate, verily you are the Pliny of our times.

So you agree that criticism of your *specialist* knowledge (if you have any), and the announcement that you are "ignorant" by a complete numpty is beyond annoying and also beyond logical?
--runrig
Perhaps you should learn a bit about Pliny.
http://old.qi.com...;start=0

And so I be validated.
MR166
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 27, 2014
"IF A POLITICIAN is using AGW it is likely a tool for his own benefit... but that is NOT the case with the SCIENCE, nor with some posters here."

So what happens when that same politician funnels grant monies back to the scientists that increase the power of his tool and not others?

Don't bother to tell me that does not happen!

Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 27, 2014
So what happens when that same politician funnels grant monies back to the scientists that increase the power of his tool and not others?
Don't bother to tell me that does not happen!
@Mr166
1- you can prove this?
2- A politician might try to insure a person gets funding for his science, however, it is the science itself that speaks volumes, NOT the fact that he was funded

If you will study what is being published out there, you will find that studies ARE being done, but the data STILL points one way.
You may think that it seems like a conspiracy, but if you take the wide angle and look again, it would have to involve multiple countries/nations, areas, subjects/specialties, studies and with people who are KNOWN to hate/disagree with other individuals.

In regard to the science, there is ONLY Empirical info and then the rest!
http://blogs.scie...sagrees/
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 27, 2014
funnels grant monies back to the scientists that increase the power of his tool and not others?
to continue
like the above blog on AAAS shows... the science happens. it works. The studies are being done to FIND OUT information or to prove/disprove a theory/hypothesis. In this, science is effective and works well. There is NO WAY to really hide from empirical data.

With regard to funneling funds to anti-warming... you misunderstand the science. There is ONLY CLIMATE SCIENCE... there are no Anti-warming/warming studies and divisions among the scientists... only scientists searching for the reasons and trying to find answers.

There is NO WAY that a conspiracy would work UNLESS THERE WAS A GLOBAL hard core spy network eliminating any scientist that disagrees with a specific party line... and given the HUGE differences between the nations involved (who cannot even agree to a single set of political specifications) then it is unlikely (impossible IMHO) for a global conspiracy
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 27, 2014
Don't bother to tell me that does not happen!
@Mr166
so, to wrap it up... the ONLY division regarding climate science is with the UNEDUCATED as well as the POLITICALLY or OTHERWISE MOTIVATED PEOPLE...

Big oil etc has a vested interest in making you believe in a controversy because they are a corp that is designed for making HUGE profits. Same with power companies. More restrictions means higher prices so that they can retain high profits.
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

PEOPLE tend to make decisions based upon their peers, their religion, their hatred of something (like Muslims or gay people), their political party inclinations (stick to the party line) and many other reasons that have NOTHING TO DO with the SCIENCE!

stick to the SCIENCE and you will see reality... all else is subjective and irrelevant
MR166
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 27, 2014
Capt. you are an intelligent guy, did it ever occur to you that the above paper we are commenting on is just a piece of propaganda that was paid for by federal grant money and that the outcome of the "research" was pretty much predetermined by the needs of the government.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 27, 2014
Oh great sage of climate, verily you are the Pliny of our times.

So you agree that criticism of your *specialist* knowledge (if you have any), and the announcement that you are "ignorant" by a complete numpty is beyond annoying and also beyond logical?
--runrig
Perhaps you should learn a bit about Pliny.
http://old.qi.com...;start=0

And so I be validated.

Only in an alternative universe my friend - one inhabited by people who are consumed by an all encompassing distrust and self absorption, with no regard for fellow travellers on this planet.
Blind to logic whilst discoursing with the Fairies.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 27, 2014
Runrig if the small amount of warming that man might be creating vs. warming from natural cycles is proven to of major importance for the survival of mankind then I would be selfish and a hypocrite not to participate in the solution.

But that is not yet the case. To voluntarily give up the freedoms, for no proven reason, that tens of thousands of people died trying to preserve is treason of the highest order.

As far as taxes go, they are not an unexhaustible resource and giving tax money to crony capitalists is also a form of treason.

AGW is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Shame you don't like it.
Trouble is you're not a reasonable person. You don't understand the science and deny that experts in said science have the best possible answer mankind can muster.
For ideological and selfish reasons. It is not in your gift to gainsay unless it's necessary actions affect only you. At least not in terms that are NOT reasonable to the average person. Ie everyone with a brain cell
MR166
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 27, 2014
"AGW is proven beyond reasonable doubt."

Yes, but it is impossible to tell how much it has contributed to the overall warming trend and what effect this additional warming will have on mankind. Natural cycles make man's contribution look insignificant. None of the supposed tell tail signs of man warming have been proven to exist.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 27, 2014
Capt. you are an intelligent guy, did it ever occur to you that the above paper we are commenting on is just a piece of propaganda that was paid for by federal grant money and that the outcome of the "research" was pretty much predetermined by the needs of the government.
@Mr166
Yes, it did.

But considering the preponderance of available information supporting the climate warming as well as the fact that it comes from all corners of the globe... well... let me put it this way: I have been all over the globe, and getting people in the SAME country who live in different parts of it (like, say... Czechoslovakia) to agree on topics that are directly related to all parties is difficult enough... getting people from different countries all on the same page is like herding CATS!

Again... go back to the empirical evidence. It speaks for itself. Ignore the politics, the peer pressure and all that other stuff... read the evidence/the science!
looks/walks/flys/quacks like a duck = duck

Dr_toad
Jul 27, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MR166
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 27, 2014
"Arctic sea ice is retreating at a dramatic rate."

Propaganda 101 there Capt.
Dr_toad
Jul 27, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 27, 2014
@MR166
That is where you an I differ. Who knows what the REAL facts are about any climate change that is due to our activities?


Putting the word REAL in there suggests that you and I have a very different understanding of science, and facts. For me - facts = facts.

The facts around global warming

1. Our global system is warming.
2. It is warming faster than it has done any time in the past 65 million years.
3. There are a number of contenders for the drivers of the current warming trend - milankovich cycles, solar radiation, plate techtonics, atmospheric composition, etc.
4. Having explored all of the known possible drivers of warming - the science community has a high level of confidence that the current trend is caused by increased atmospheric green house gasses from human activity.

If you have evidence that any of these FACTS are actually not FACTS - please share.
MR166
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2014
Lets see, 18K years ago much of the NA continent was covered in 1 mile of ice so it is safe to say that the climate is warming and the seas are rising.

The so called faster warming occurred only from about 1979 to about 1996. Temperatures have been stable to declining since then. http://woodfortre.../to:2015
To say that there has never been a faster 17 year warming period in the last 65 million years is a mathematical impossibility since we do not have that sort of resolution when determining past climate history.

4 Is complete BS since their best models were unable to predict the 17 year pause. The fact is that we know very little about climate and climate cycles other than the fact that CO2 in a lab jar absorbs heat.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2014
4 Is complete BS since their best models were unable to predict the 17 year pause. The fact is that we know very little about climate and climate cycles other than the fact that CO2 in a lab jar absorbs heat.

If you willfully refuse to understand what it is GCM's can and cannot do, then you will forever remain ignorant. Which is exactly what you want of course. God forbid the truth get in the way of your world-view.

GCM's are NOT MEANT and CANNOT predict "the pause". The ones that have (accidentally) - Have got it right.
You do know what I mean by "accidentally" do you?
Let me explain for the nth time in words of as few syllables as possible.
No one kinows how to predict the strength and duration of an ENSO/PDO phase ............ sooooooo
THAT CANNOT be included into the model explicitly. Hence the bl***y error bars.

And so now can you enlighten us as to why you think they should not have missed "the pause".
http://phys.org/n...sed.html
MR166
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2014
"No one kinows how to predict the strength and duration of an ENSO/PDO phase ............ sooooooo"

Stop making my point. They do not know the strength and duration of any of the climate cycles or feedback loops and thus cannot give a quantitative value of added CO2 to temperature changes with any degree of accuracy. Also, they cannot be sure that CO2 levels are solely responsible for recient increases.
MR166
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 28, 2014
Make that recent increases.
MR166
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 28, 2014
The only safe assumption that can be made is that there must be a preponderance of negative feedback loops in nature or we would not be here. If not, the earth would be a cinder or a snowball by now.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 28, 2014
"No one kinows how to predict the strength and duration of an ENSO/PDO phase ............ sooooooo"

Stop making my point. They do not know the strength and duration of any of the climate cycles or feedback loops and thus cannot give a quantitative value of added CO2 to temperature changes with any degree of accuracy. Also, they cannot be sure that CO2 levels are solely responsible for recient increases.


Rubbish climate cycles RECIRCULATE stored heat in the Earths system. It is not ADDED HEAT. The accuracy is fine thanks as anyone who knows what GCM's are doing, and as the study I linked to on here.
You prove MY point in not realising climate cycles need ~30 yrs to play out NOT 16.
And yes we can be sure because there is NO OTHER candidate ... and empirical physics is incorporated into them to do so - confirmed by spectroscopic analysis of back-radiated IR on instruments around the world. Confirmed by satellite date that shows more W/m*2 of solar coming in than IR out
MR166
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2014
"Rubbish climate cycles RECIRCULATE stored heat in the Earths system. It is not ADDED HEAT. "

Are you trying to tell me that past ice ages were due to heat storage and the sun has absolutely nothing to do with it.
MR166
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2014
"Confirmed by satellite date that shows more W/m*2 of solar coming in than IR out"

If I am not mistaken they have launched a new satellite to measure this. It will be interesting to see the resulting figures.

Clouds reflect more than IR wavelengths. How does that effect the IR out calculations?
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 28, 2014
"Rubbish climate cycles RECIRCULATE stored heat in the Earths system. It is not ADDED HEAT. "

Are you trying to tell me that past ice ages were due to heat storage and the sun has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Then It did now it doesn't. Why is that so hard to understand?
The Earth should be cooling!
The SH receives ~8% more solar energy in it's summer than the NH in it's. FFS
If you know about Milankovitch cycles, then you'll know that it was cooler summers in the NH which over millenia contributed to the Ice ages, with a feed-back of CO2 sinking into the oceans. AND vice versa.
Now we are adding the CO2 unnaturally ... in effect humans are doing the "vice versa".

MR166
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2014
"The Earth should be cooling!"

We are still coming out of the LIA how can that be? The trend has been warming since then.

"If you know about Milankovitch cycles, then you'll know that it was cooler summers in the NH which over millenia contributed to the Ice ages, with a feed-back of CO2 sinking into the oceans. AND vice versa."

Are you saying that temperature changes PRECEDED changes in CO2 levels?
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 28, 2014
"The Earth should be cooling!"

We are still coming out of the LIA how can that be? The trend has been warming since then.
Bollocks.
Err - never let the truth get in the way of a world-view....
http://theresilie...arge.jpg

"If you know about Milankovitch cycles, then you'll know that it was cooler summers in the NH which over millenia contributed to the Ice ages, with a feed-back of CO2 sinking into the oceans. AND vice versa."

Are you saying that temperature changes PRECEDED changes in CO2 levels?

I'm not just saying it - it's unequivocal - that Temps (NORMALLY) change first (orbital forcing) followed by CO2/H2O feed-back.
Uh-oh ... seems we've short-circuited that eh, sunshine (no pun intended) and damn well put the CO2 in there first.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 28, 2014
Clouds reflect more than IR wavelengths. How does that effect the IR out calculations?


Clouds reflect SW and absorb/re-emit LW.
The SW reflected is not contributary in adding heat to the planet - the IR out is the Earth's re-emission of solar energy absorbed into the climate system and is measured at TOA.
We know the solar constant to within fractions of a percent.
We know reflected SW (albedo) very well from sat.
And that plus the IR out falls short of all solar wavelengths entering the TOA.
MR166
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 28, 2014
"I'm not just saying it - it's unequivocal - that Temps (NORMALLY) change first (orbital forcing) followed by CO2/H2O feed-back."

It wasn't that long ago that climate science held the opposite view.
MR166
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2014
Others doubt the validity of this study including the person who wrote the algorithm.

This study is just more propaganda.
MR166
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 28, 2014
Sorry, forgot the link

http://dailycalle...arctica/
Dr_toad
Jul 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2014
Mr166 said:
"I'm not just saying it - it's unequivocal - that Temps (NORMALLY) change first (orbital forcing) followed by CO2/H2O feed-back."

It wasn't that long ago that climate science held the opposite view.


No, you idiot, climate science has never "held the opposite view." You might have thought so, but that is only because you have never understood climate science.

Temps normally change first. The difference now is that humans (yes, you and I) are increasing CO2 (we weren't here to do it in the past). That, in turn, is raising the temperature.

Now water vapor is the feedback and human produced CO2 is the driver of temperature. Do you understand that yet?
MR166
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 28, 2014
"Bollocks.
Err - never let the truth get in the way of a world-view....
http://theresilie...arge.jpg"

Is that M. Mann's famous "Hockey Stick"?

Which side of climate science is a fraud are you on Run?
Dr_toad
Jul 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MR166
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 28, 2014
"No, you idiot, climate science has never "held the opposite view." You might have thought so, but that is only because you have never understood climate science."

Well here is one article about it.

http://wattsupwit...y-proxy/
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 28, 2014
"No, you idiot, climate science has never "held the opposite view." You might have thought so, but that is only because you have never understood climate science."

Well here is one article about it.

http://wattsupwit...y-proxy/


Of course you didn't remember to read the article and took the headline at WattsUp as the truth.

The article was a lot more subtle than you are.

"it becomes apparent that the CO2 change slightly preceded much of the global warming"

"preceded much" Which is not the same as "preceded."

How much? That is not known from the article. Also, when in the heating. For instance, if the heating takes place 10,000 ybp and there is a spike in CO2 as a result, there can be a pause then another rise driven by the CO2. The other point is that there is only one paper on this so far. I want to see what the others say.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 29, 2014

Bollocks.
Err - never let the truth get in the way of a world-view....


Keep the faith, runrig. I can tell you're getting tired, but I think you might be wearing one or two of them down!

Anyway, it's a nice thought.. And thank you for your informative and resource-backed comments.

Thanks Toad....
I'll try.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 29, 2014
"Bollocks.
Err - never let the truth get in the way of a world-view....
http://theresilie...arge.jpg"

Is that M. Mann's famous "Hockey Stick"?

Which side of climate science is a fraud are you on Run?


No that's every study that has been done(s) 'hockey stick'
And, as I keep saying, also Mr Muller's Koch sponsored one.
If they can't create their own faked graph then you're on to a loser I reckon.
Not that you ever will (reckon I mean) - need more than one brain cell to do that - mind that's just the contribution of your parents ... your world-view has been twisted by the ideology you yourself have gained. It does not describe the real world. The only hing that can come close to that is science .... which of course you abhor and those like me that tell/know it.
Most know that says more of you than me/science. So continue being your own idiot's advocate eh? FFS.
MR166
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 29, 2014
The chart seems to be missing the MWP.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 29, 2014
The chart seems to be missing the MWP.

No, that's included.
It wasn't global, that is, there were warmer regions offset by cooler ones. Result - little change.

file:///C:/Users/Tony/Downloads/PAGES_2k_NGEO_Supplement.pdf

(Copy/paste into browser bar)

See the world maps on here (yes I know it's SkS but it is reporting the above "seminal" paper.

http://www.skepti...iate.htm

And another denier's myth blown out of the sky. Not for the first, and certainly not the last time ... on here. Because the goldfish get around that there bowl damn quick with our lot.