Overheated Arctic sign of climate change 'vicious circle'

November 24, 2016
Ice cover at the top of the globe shrank to its smallest area in 2016—some 4.14 million sq km (1.6 million sq miles)—on September 16

Freakishly high temperatures in the Arctic driven by heat-packed oceans and northward winds have been reinforced by a "vicious circle" of climate change, scientists said Thursday.

Air above the Polar ice cap has been 9-12 degrees Celsius (16.2 to 21.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above average during the last four weeks, according the data from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI), which tracks hourly changes in Arctic weather.

And during several days last week, temperatures above the North Pole were a balmy zero degrees Celsius (32 degrees Fahrenheit), a full 20C (36F) above the levels typical for mid-November, said Martin Stendel, a DMI climate researcher based in Copenhagen.

"This is by far the highest recorded" in the era of satellite data, starting in 1979, he told AFP.

"What we are observing is very unusual."

At this time of year, open Arctic ocean exposed by sea ice melted away in summer should be freezing again, with thousands of square kilometres icing over every day.

But that has not been happening, at least not at the same pace, said Stendel.

"Not only was the ice not growing as it would normally, there was further melting due to warm air coming in," he explained by phone.

The US National Snow and Ice Data Center reported that in October was the lowest on record, some 6.4 million square kilometres (2.5 million square miles).

Ice cover at the top of the globe shrank to its smallest area in 2016—some 4.14 million sq km (1.6 million sq miles)—on September 16.

Several factors have caused the Arctic to overheat since late October, say scientists.

The most immediate are warm winds sweeping up from western Europe and off the west coast of Africa.

"The winds carrying this heat is a temporary—and fairly unprecedented—weather phenomenon," said Valerie Masson Delmotte, a scientist at the Climate and Environment Sciences Laboratory in Paris.

Only since Thursday have they abated.

Mirror effect

A second contributor is the record-strong Pacific Ocean El Nino that tapered off earlier this year—after pumping a couple tenths of a degree of added warming into the atmosphere.

But reinforcing these periodic, if powerful, drivers is the biggest one of all: global warming, experts agreed.

About 80 percent of solar radiation from the Sun bounces back into space when it falls on white snow and ice

"The long-term decline in sea ice in the Arctic can be attributed to ," said Ed Blockley, lead scientist at the UK Met Office's Polar Climate Group.

Manmade climate change caused by heat-trapping greenhouse gases has already pushed up Earth's average surface temperature by 1.0 C (1.8 F) since the pre-industrial era.

It the Arctic, however, the pace of warming has been twice as fast, caused in part by a vicious circle that scientists call "positive feedback".

About 80 percent of solar radiation from the Sun bounces back into space when it falls on white snow and ice, what Delmotte called a "mirror effect".

But when those same sunrays hit deep blue sea—far more of which is now exposed—80 percent of that warmth is absorbed into the water instead, and stored there.

"If you look at the extent of sea ice, then you can see the vicious circle right away, because there's a clear downward trend," said Stendel.

And in the short term, that exposed sea water is slowing the reformation of ice.

At just under zero degrees Celsius, the sea water is vastly warmer "compared to the ice that should be there", Stendel added.

Air temperatures above the thick layer if ice replaced by open sea "are generally minus 30 to minus 40 Celsius".

The loss of could have far reaching consequences.

"It amplifies in general, and increases warming especially in nearby continents," Delmotte told AFP.

One of those neighbouring land masses Greenland, whose huge ice sheet—melting rapidly—contains enough water to lift global sea levels by several metres.

Explore further: Earth's warm October not record; 2016 likely record hot

Related Stories

The heat goes on: Earth sets 9th straight monthly record

February 17, 2016

The January figures are in, and Earth's string of hottest-months-on-record has now reached nine in a row. But NASA said January stood out: The temperature was above normal by the highest margin of any month on record.

Recommended for you

Scientists examine bacterium found 1,000 feet underground

December 8, 2016

Pioneering work being carried out in a cave in New Mexico by researchers at McMaster University and The University of Akron, Ohio, is changing the understanding of how antibiotic resistance may have emerged and how doctors ...

67 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

JongDan
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 24, 2016
They forgot about the negative feedback which is lake effect snow in Siberia. Which means less heat absorbed next spring, reversing the conditions.
Also, there is no mirror effect at work right now, since it's late fall therefore night in high Arctic.
Nik_2213
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 24, 2016
Doesn't matter about the data, opinions are now too polarised...
eg ask an AGW-denier if they'd change their mind should 5% of Greenland ice-cap slough.
Then iterate through 10%, 15% etc unto 'should ALL the ice-cap slough'...
Sadly, you'd need a non-volcanic, non-sunspot, 'Little Ice Age' to convince AGW supporters...
;-(
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (8) Nov 24, 2016
bullshit, here is the current weather in resolute
https://weather.g...c_e.html
JongDan
4.7 / 5 (12) Nov 24, 2016
bullshit, here is the current weather in resolute
https://weather.g...c_e.html

Resolute is pretty far away from the north pole, m8.
cjones1
2 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2016
Is there a historic record of particulate accumulation on the Arctic snow and ice, from Alaska to Greenland, that a dirty snow effect increases melt? I can think of two countries whose recent industrial development, without adequate scrubbers, has contributed large volumes of pollution. Methane hydrates evaporation from permafrost Pingos and mud flats in the Beaufort Sea are no doubt contributing to the climate change in the Arctic, but the natural sources of green house gases seem to be ignored by the AGW proponents.
SteveS
5 / 5 (7) Nov 25, 2016
bullshit, here is the current weather in resolute
https://weather.g...c_e.html

As JongDan says Resolute is pretty far away from the north pole, and also if you scroll down on that site you will see that their forecast temperatures are far above the normals for this time of year.

Try these sites: -

http://ocean.dmi....n.uk.php
http://cires1.col...t2m.html
philstacy9
1 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2016
"Antarctic sea ice had barely changed from where it was 100 years ago, scientists have discovered"
http://www.climat...0-years/
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2016
i've been chasing this one, WP had a headline 36 DEGREES WARMER IN ARCTIC!!! , its been cold in resolute for a month and the 'RED BLOB !!!!! ' temp 'anomaly' is centered right over resolute.
and i have been to resolute and farther north so i know exaclty where it is.
Mark_Goldes
1 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2016
Interested in replacing fossil fuels much faster? See breakthrough science and technologies at aesopinstitute.org Cheap, 24/7/365 solar powered engines are one example.
SteveS
5 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2016
i've been chasing this one, WP had a headline 36 DEGREES WARMER IN ARCTIC!!! , its been cold in resolute for a month and the 'RED BLOB !!!!! ' temp 'anomaly' is centered right over resolute.
and i have been to resolute and farther north so i know exaclty where it is.


WP?

36 degrees F or C?

Red blob?

Resolute is just one data point at 76 degrees north. It's also currently showing 5C above average temperatures and is forecasting even higher temperatures next week according to you link
https://weather.g...c_e.html

look at the arctic temperatures here: -

http://ocean.dmi....n.uk.php

Last week it was over 20C above average

gkam
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 25, 2016
Phys1
5 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2016
"Antarctic sea ice had barely changed from where it was 100 years ago, scientists have discovered"
http://www.climat...0-years/

But Arctic sea ice has shrunk.
https://youtu.be/6ZAuRpK4tkc
https://www.nasa....-summers
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2016
yes is is now a bit higher than average -12 to -19 vs avg -22 last week it was not 20 above average nor has it been for the month

WP = washington post [ ministry of truth ] red blob = alarming NOAA color scheme

sorry but with reports like this and the election media fiasco i'm not inclined to believe anything any more.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2016
and if you look at the yr 2014 @ http://cires1.col...t2m.html

its not out of range , so where was GW then ?
antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2016
But Arctic sea ice has shrunk.
-- physRetard
Fortunately no where near as much as the empty space between your ears has grown.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (9) Nov 25, 2016
anti, the only thing you get across with that scream-across-the-playground level of thought is an exposure, a betrayal to the rest of us the state of your failed maturation.
SteveS
5 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2016
yes is is now a bit higher than average -12 to -19 vs avg -22 last week it was not 20 above average nor has it been for the month


nor did the article claim it was

"temperatures above the North Pole were a balmy zero degrees Celsius (32 degrees Fahrenheit), a full 20C (36F) above the levels typical for mid-November"

North Pole, not Resolute.

BTW -12C is more than a bit above the average of -22C

red blob = alarming NOAA color scheme


If you mean the map on this wp article, the 'red blob' is obviously not over Resolute.

Don't get fixated on Resolute, as pointed out in other comments it is just one data point, the temperature there cannot be used as a proxy for what is clearly a seasonally very warm arctic.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2016
https://www.thewe...rth-pole

here is the temp @ n pole right now , the headline is screaming 36 above normal so it should be -62 does that sound right ? google has no result for nov. norms . the avg mean winter temp is - 40 , so they are saying it should 20 below normal.

here is the map with the red blob being shown over resolute and other areas,,

http://www.ecowat...838.html
SteveS
5 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2016
here is the temp @ n pole right now , the headline is screaming 36 above normal so it should be -62 does that sound right ?


No, because you are mixing up Centigrade and Fahrenheit, and why are you looking at today's temperature when the article you linked to was dated eight days ago? When the article says "Presently, the North Pole is recording temperatures 36 F (20 C)" they are referring to the 18th not today.

here is the map with the red blob being shown over resolute and other areas,


And here is a map showing the location of Resolute, if you compare the two you will see that the 'red blob' is not over it.

https://www.googl...4.829729
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2016
another 'version ' of map

https://www.thest...nds.html

i checked the temps the day that report came out
SteveS
5 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2016
another 'version ' of map


No conspiracy here, it's not another 'version' just the same map but for a different day. One's dated the seventeenth and the other the eighteenth, and neither one shows the 'red blob' over Resolute

i checked the temps the day that report came out


I take you mean North Pole temperatures, in which case you would have seen what this buoy measured, air temperatures above zero.

http://iabp.apl.w...8480#top
Phys1
5 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2016
another 'version ' of map


No conspiracy here,

Another "conspiracy" debunked.
antigoracle
Nov 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gkam
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 26, 2016
Were you hounded and bullied as a boy? It shows in your treatment of others, and the adolescent tone of it.

Did they call you "retard"?
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2016
Correct , not centered over resolute but it does cover it,
SteveS
5 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2016
Correct , not centered over resolute but it does cover it,


Not even covered, sorry.
snoosebaum
Nov 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
SteveS
5 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2016
sorry it is , go round again ?

No, people can make up there own minds, but your original call of 'bullshit' is totally busted
Jayem01
Nov 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2016
anti, the only thing you get across with that scream-across-the-playground level of thought is an exposure, a betrayal to the rest of us the state of your failed maturation
Has anyone noticed george kamburoffs morally superior tone of late? Did your mom come to visit for the holidays george?

This is especially poignant given his nature as a lying cheating victimizing psychopath. Cosmic irony.
gkam
1.5 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2016
Outgrow your fixation on the folk who bested you, "otto". As you admitted, you are here using a phony name to play your "games", as you put it. Your own words.

But you have become so nasty in that role, I think it has tapped into a very nasty Id. Are you aware of your out-of-control emotional posts? Are you cognizant that it betrays your character, not mine, the person you attack?

Yes, we have been through this all before, your insistence we all look into psychopathy. It is a cry for help. A scream.

Go get it. For the sake of everybody who has to deal with you.
Phys1
5 / 5 (4) Nov 27, 2016
@phys.org
Why don't you remove a few idiots here?
Did you even read your own guidelines?
They are a joke.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 28, 2016
@phys.org
Why don't you remove a few idiots here?
Did you even read your own guidelines?
They are a joke.

Another "brilliant" post from the Retard of the Decade. Of course, being the consummate retard, it is beyond his capacity to recognize that it is of himself he speaks.
gkam
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 28, 2016
Really, anti, I am serious. Were you terribly bullied as a kid?

Did they call you a "retard"? Did it hurt your feelings? Well that does not work here. Many of us are grownups.

Being a nasty anonymous sniper is the lowest form of artificial life. Proud? What do you get out of it? Are you getting back at those who said you were dumb, stupid? Is that it?

Please go to Twitter and take your fellow snipers with you.

Phys1
5 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2016

Another "brilliant" post from the Retard of the Decade. Of course, being the consummate retard, it is beyond his capacity to recognize that it is of himself he speaks.

@insanicle
Soon you will start using "retard" more than once in every sentence.
You will end up with a straightjacket, foaming "retard! retard !".
SteveS
5 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2016
sorry it is , go round again ?


@snoosebaum

I'm sorry, I don't know why your comment was removed. I have no issues with anything you posted and would not want you to think I had anything to do with this.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2016
sorry it is , go round again ?


@snoosebaum

I'm sorry, I don't know why your comment was removed. I have no issues with anything you posted and would not want you to think I had anything to do with this.
i've been wondering about that myself....

especially considering there are far better candidate posts for removal (antigorical, gkam, etc)

snoosebaum
2 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2016
Ok, guess the moderator needed somthing to do .

I think we both had a point , it was cold normal in resolute and there was an odd weather system over the pole . But ithink the article was alarmist , no mention of siberian cold on a google search and looking at the historical weather data around the pole I can't see a trend. News has always been used for propaganda and recent events have been a reminder. The establishment feels they have to motivate an apathetic and sometimes frozen public hence we have one sided stories with blazing hot anomaly maps. Meanwhile any talk of real solution to environmental problems like , say, population control are beyond consideration. Maybe war with Russia will solve that.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2016
I think we do not need blazing hot anomaly spots to understand what is happening. These are just some of the millions of facts which tell the story.
Zzzzzzzz
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2016
snoosebaum, and I expect you can see Russia from your porch..... you've got just about that level of cred....
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 29, 2016
But ithink the article was alarmist
@snoose
why?
because you say so?
Meanwhile any talk of real solution to environmental problems like , say, population control are beyond consideration
this aint the first time you brought this up - so who dies first?

one of the biggest problems that i have with this type BS comment is that:
you don't' truly believe in your statement - you post it for shock value and to make a stand on an outrageous solution that isn't viable

this is obvious in that you, yourself, refuse to act upon your own beliefs

repeating it doesn't do anything for you or your delusional BS crap movement

you want to assert yourself over others and that is all, so either get the education that allows you to be some kind of leader or act upon your beliefs. either way it will stop you from posting nonsensical delusional solutions that are as well thought out as a 5 year old's to-do list
jeffensley
1 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2016
Phytoplankton will be more than happy to occupy the more open waters of the arctic and help regulate atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

https://www.scien...n-bloom/
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2016
Unless the water becomes too acidic.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2016
LOL.
So, you can fool the Chicken Little idiots all of the time.
The Sahara desert was once green. How much manmade CO2 turned it into a desert?
https://www.googl...fTvoGQBQ
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2016
stumpy, true enough , meanwhile GW alarmists fly about in jets proposing outrageous solution that isn't viable, ie stop consuming and live in a tiny house.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2016
How about living simply in an efficient house with garden, roof PV, and an EV?
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 29, 2016
meanwhile GW alarmists fly about in jets
@snoose
so you're saying that anyone who supports the science should never fly?
and not all pro-science people are "alarmists"

you can't just ignore the science as it points to a lot of probable outcomes that are potentially horrendous
and considering the accuracy of the models to date, it would also be considerably stupid
proposing outrageous solution that isn't viable, ie stop consuming and live in a tiny house
1- that's politics and rhetoric

2- not a single pro-science anyone has ever said to stop consuming
they may state we should consider reducing our consumption, but not one has stated to stop that i am aware of

as for the living in a tiny house: that is also subjective
my house is tiny to most people, but i can think of cultures where it would be considered large

we know certain things are causing problems - but we also know that there can be solutions that are viable
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2016
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
How about living simply in an efficient house with garden, roof PV, and an EV?
and again, sloganeering doesn't help the situation, especially when you can't take into consideration that some people just can't afford to live your personal lifestyle

the poor cannot afford to "rebuild" or to drastically alter their lifestyle that is quite literally hand-to-mouth and paycheck to paycheck in too many cases

so quit proselytizing your perspective as the only possible solution unless you are personally going to pay for the restructuring and renovation of others life

people like you are the reason we have the political divide on this issue anyway
- you never produce facts for your argument
- you link subjective articles for "evidence"
- & you think everyone is capable of living the lifestyle that you, personally, live because you think it is cheap (it aint)

white knight elsewhere
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2016
"so quit proselytizing your perspective as the only possible solution unless you are personally going to pay for the restructuring and renovation of others life"
-----------------------------------------

Only possible solution? Every situation is unique. Even you know that. And we are early adopters and thought others would like to hear the results of real installations and situations. This one worked out. But systems and grid operators change rules, and I want to be independent if necessary.

This is about applied science.

Zzzzzzzz
5 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2016
Cap'n - what snoosebaum is saying is that he has this comfortable delusion constructed in which global warming and anyone who recognizes it are all alarmist, and that humanities woes instead must all be confined to issues whose resolution is highly unlikely. This enables the delusionist to do whatever he or she wants, while salving their conscious. Snooze is very unlikely to abandon the delusion he has so much invested in.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 29, 2016
Snooze is very unlikely to abandon the delusion he has so much invested in
@Zzzz
yeah, that is typical of most of the anti-agw crowd for some reason
what always astonishes me is their adherence to dogma over logic, science and actual evidence (be it studies or just plain observation)

it is a fascinating in certain respects (the psychology)

snoosebaum
1 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2016
i thought one who recognizes the potential of GW would be alarmist by definition , but it seems they [ the most concerned ] have trouble believing it enough to alter personal behaviour , hence flying about on jets examples below, canadians the worst it seems sending 383 ! on Paris vacation re; solutions , how about a national solar program ? , never even mentioned

http://www.cnsnew...16506840

http://www.thereb...nference

gkam
1 / 5 (3) Nov 29, 2016
" but it seems they [ the most concerned ] have trouble believing it enough to alter personal behaviour "
-------------------------------------------------

I've been telling you otherwise. And Stumpy has PV and storage,too.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 29, 2016
i thought one who recognizes the potential of GW would be alarmist by definition
@snoose
nope
i found this definition to be accurate and well supported by their references/evidence
Alarmism is excessive or exaggerated alarm about a real or imagined threat, such as the increases in deaths from an infectious disease
- https://en.wikipe...Alarmism

whereas we can understand the nature, there is no excessive or exaggerated alarm
but it seems they [ the most concerned ] have trouble believing it enough to alter personal behaviour
for starters, you are taking the example of people like al gore and considering it representative of the whole: that type of stereotyping without a shred of evidence is kinda stupid, isn't it?

how do most of the pro-AGW posters here live?
does it support your claim?
what do they "drive" and how do they all vacation?

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2016
@snoose
how about a national solar program ? , never even mentioned
you mean you've never seen it mentioned
but it is out there, and here is just one example i know for a fact (near my brothers home)
http://www.seia.o...carolina

lets start with the above solar program you mention: who pays for the solar panels? gov't? or you?
you can already get rebates from various sources

then lets talk ability to actually use them on houses:
we can out here, but in lots of neighborhoods you have rules that forbid it (with things like wind turbines or clothes lines) because of the perception of value to high dollar investments (the house and neighborhood)

so what needs to happen?
education to shift the public perception about power consumption and source
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2016
@snoose last
have trouble believing it enough to alter personal behaviour
i had to get back to this: why do you think people have problems altering their personal behaviour?
for starters, you're blaming this on the "alarmists", so to speak... it's not their fault, really
the problem lies in companies and people like the following: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

these people are actively promoting false information and statements to create a public confusion - the public actually thinks there is a global warming controversy in the US

there isn't

there is the science, which overwhelmingly states what is being said

and then there is the people who want to undermine said science to protect their financial cash cows

stop believing and following the political arguments and stick to the source material - the science

not the blogs, articles or news - the scientific papers
SteveS
5 / 5 (1) Nov 30, 2016
@snoosebaum

...it was cold normal in resolute...


Above average

http://climate.we...ID=53060

looking at the historical weather data around the pole I can't see a trend.


"Observations show that Arctic-average surface temperature increased from 1900 to 1940, decreased from 1940 to 1970, and increased from 1970 to present."

http://www.nature...rep02645
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (1) Nov 30, 2016
It says -17.5 , not 0 or 36 / 20 above avg . Yes I'm sure theres lots of studies showing its hot everywhere , sorry I'm just a bit sceptical after watching tony Hellers presentation showing how they altered the record . On the other hand I live near glaciers and can see them melting. Then again try this , look at squamish bc on google earth , find mt garibaldi to the east. On top are the remains of a glacier , follow downthe valley to town , all the way, now in the forest are the moraines , that's melting over a long period I would think a few centuries. Glaciers were receding here at the turn of the century but were high in the mountains.
SteveS
5 / 5 (1) Nov 30, 2016
It says -17.5


Which is 5C above the November average, not

...cold normal in resolute...


http://climate.we...spBack=1
snoosebaum
not rated yet Nov 30, 2016
ok.

snoosebaum
not rated yet Nov 30, 2016
ok and things seem to be getting hot here

http://realclimat...te-data/,,,]http://realclimat...data/,,,[/url] but read the fine print

The ERA40 reanalysis data set from ECMWF, has been applied to calculate daily mean temperature

http://www.ecmwf....analysis , which seems to be in line with this critique
http://realclimat...te-data/

but the canadian data appears unaltered
SteveS
5 / 5 (3) Dec 01, 2016
ok and things seem to be getting hot here

http://[url=http://realclimatescience.com/alterations-to-climate-data/

but the canadian data appears unaltered


So your argument comes down to a conspiracy theory where all the worlds climate scientists conspire for over forty years in order mislead the public to ensure themselves further funding. Obviously all the world leaders must have been in on it as well, after all don't you think G.W.Bush would have exposed the fraud if he had known? Unless of course the NSA and CIA are also colluding with the scientists in order to further the interests of their lizard overlords.

Or maybe the reanalysis of climate data is described in published papers that have shown them to be an improvement in accuracy and/or coverage.

Without referring to a grand conspiracy, ask yourself why none of the people making these claims have published a paper proving the fraud, and why nobody has been prosecuted for misuse of federal grant money?
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2016
So your argument comes down to a conspiracy theory where all the worlds climate scientists conspire for over forty years in order mislead the public to ensure themselves further funding.

Nope, could not happen.
http://davidpratt...gate.htm

To reinforce their message of catastrophic global warming, they were prepared to manipulate and massage data in highly dubious ways. Although replication of research results is a key part of the scientific method, they sought to avoid granting legitimate requests for their data and computer code, including requests filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and were willing to destroy data and correspondence.
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Dec 01, 2016
Why would you believe that? Because you want to believe it?

I learned early on to not trust the man who tells me what I want to hear.
Phys1
5 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2016
stumpy, true enough , meanwhile GW alarmists fly about in jets proposing outrageous solution that isn't viable, ie stop consuming and live in a tiny house.

How would that disprove AGW if it were true?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2016
meanwhile GW alarmists fly about in jets proposing outrageous solution that isn't viable

Ya know, if it weren't for idiots like you they wouldn't have to. Think they are doing this for fun, do you?
HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (1) Dec 04, 2016
Snoosebum is snoozing up with antisciencegoraclemonkey, his own sock :D

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.