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

The Artic Ocean is pictured off the coast of Greenland in 2008
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.

Arctic sea ice shrinks to new low in satellite era
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.

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

Arctic sea ice shrinks to third lowest area on record (Update)

Provided by University of Colorado at Boulder
Citation: Arctic sea ice reaches lowest extent ever recorded (Update 2) (2012, August 27) retrieved 22 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2012-08-arctic-summer-sea-ice.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

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.

Aug 27, 2012
Sensor Error

http://stevengodd...minimum/

Fixed it for ya ...

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

Aug 27, 2012
Sensor error?

JAXA uses AMSR2

NSIDC uses Nimbus-7 SMMR and DMSP SSM/I

Steve Goddard is comparing apples and oranges.

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'.

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?

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).

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


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/


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

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.

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

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]

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
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.)

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.

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!

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...

Aug 28, 2012
I thought the first comment in this thread was really funny.

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

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?

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.'

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.

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/

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.

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.

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?

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.


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"


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?

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

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)

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


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)

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.


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/


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.

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.

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


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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Aug 28, 2012
Interesting, isn't it, how land seems to anchor the Arctic ice sheet?

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.

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/

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?


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.


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."

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!

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.


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?

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.


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


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)

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


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?

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?


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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.


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/

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)

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.

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.

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.

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/

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
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.

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.

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.

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...


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.

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.

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?


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?


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.


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


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.


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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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/

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."

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

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.

Aug 30, 2012
My apologies, that should have said 29th of August

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

Nowhere left to hide.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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."


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.


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/

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.

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."


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.


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?


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

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...

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...


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


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.

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?


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.


Aug 31, 2012
Anyway, this is all moot inregards to the global temperature:

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

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.

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?

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?


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.

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.

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.

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

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. "

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.

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,


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.

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

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"."


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

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.

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."

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?


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.

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?


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.


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.


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


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.

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.

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

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...

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


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.

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


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.


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."


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


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.


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.

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)

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.

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.

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


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. "


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.


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


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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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

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 ???

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/

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".

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

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?

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"?).

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.


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...

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.


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?


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.


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

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


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?

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.


cdt
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.

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.

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.

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!

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...


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

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.


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

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.

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).


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/

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.

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.

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/

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.

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...

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.


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.


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.

Sep 02, 2012
HADCRUT3 - 15 year trend = down -0.017C / decade"


HADCRUT4 has no data past 2010.

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


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.


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?


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?


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").

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.


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?

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