Ice sheet overview

The question that must be asked, is the current level or even trend in ice extent unusual?

No.

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap15/law_dome.html

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/OllierPaine-NoIceSheetCollapse-AIGNewsA…

What a surprise! Neither of RW's links address the question of whether or not the current level and trend in ice extent are unusual.

Perhaps Richard might like to watch the changes.

On a graph ... http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeser…

Or in pictures ......
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=02&fd=21&fy=2011&s…

I particularly like to use that 30-31 year comparison display at Cryosphere Today. It's sometimes a bit of a wakeup call when you've spent too much time looking at numbers, graphs, reports.

"The question that must be asked, is the current level or even trend in ice extent unusual?

No."

Exactly what the environmentalists want you to believe, RW. After all, what better story to to disguise the nefarious uses to which they plan to put the "missing" heat from the Greenhouse Effect. Bwahahaha....

adelady, show me a nice animation of what Arctic ice did during the MWP.

Simons, you don't get it. Wide variation in ice extent over thousands of yearsis normal. There is no evidence what is happening now it beyond that normal variation.

Antarctic warmer 130,000 yeas ago http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0134840e51fd970c-pi

Oooh dear, poor old Wakefield has fallen for a particularly nasty and well distributed piece of disinformation.

It is amazing how many mistakes a denier can come up with in just one graph.

Here are two of the most obvious, obvious to anyone who actually wants to think about what they are looking at and have the intelligence to process the visual picture, two attributes lacking in most deniers who frequent this blog.

Firstly, how many time must the deniers be told that the "G" in "AGW" stands for "Global" and the "A" does not stand for "Antarctic" which is what this graph is showing.

Secondly, the "time zero" is not today, it is not even 1950 when "BP" was defined, it is actually 1880. See this link for confirmation:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/e…

Is Wakefield really that stupid or does he post this misinformation knowing that it is rubbish? Either way, it shows that he really doesn't understand anything about science, climate science and honest behaviour. He is certainly not behaving as a "skeptic" but as a denier who just gobbles up any information that appears to bolster his political views.

Once again Wakefield ignores the science and repeats denier spam.

There is no scientific evidence (sediment cores) that the Arctic was ice free any time in at least the past 80,000 years.

Since the 1960's several hundred sediment cores have been retrieved from the central Arctic. In the world's deep oceans, sediment rich in biological remains normally accumulates at rates varying from 1.5 to 3 centimeters per thousand years. 27 In contrast to this, the sedimentation rate in the Arctic cores has been only about 1.5 to 2 millimeters per thousand years over the last 700,000 years or so, with the average at the low end of this range for the last 70,000 or 80,000 years. It is very poor in biological material, consisting largely of ice-rafted gravel. Everybody who has studied these cores has agreed that the Arctic has remained ice-covered for at least the last 70 or 80 thousand years. If the sea had been open for several thousand years as Ginenthal claims, and therefore capable of supporting large-scale photosynthesis, it would be quite obvious from a tenfold increase in sedimentation and a dramatic change incomposition in the cores. Hunkins and Kutschale note:

...Sedimentation in the Arctic Ocean has continued unchanged over the last 70,000 years. In most Atlantic cores, a sharp boundary is found marking the end of the last glaciation about 11,000 years ago. This boundary is not evident in the Arctic Ocean sediments. Presumably any marked change in the ice cover would have changed the sedimentation regime. This implies that the ice cover has existed relatively unchanged through the last glaciation and through post-glacial time to the present. 28

The question, "Was the Arctic ice-free during the hypsithermal?" is answered by the sediment cores: It was not.

http://www.pibburns.com/smmia2.htm

and

28. Kenneth Hunkins and Henry Kutschale, "Quaternary Sedimentation in the Arctic Ocean," Progress in Oceanography Vol. 4 (1967), p. 94. See also Kenneth Hunkins, Allan W. H. Bé, Neil D. Opdyke, and Guy Mathieu, "The Late Cenozoic History of the Arctic Ocean," in Turekian, op. cit., pp. 215-237.

Richard, if you want to continue posting here your behaviour needs to be different from past threads, specifically, you need to answer substantive responses to your arguments and links.

As someone who "follows where the data takes him", what are your thoughts about the evidence from arctic ocean ice cores that Ian brought up? I for one do find it very compelling evidence that the arctic ocean has not been ice free in a very long time, probably not since the Eemian.

Ah, come on, Coby. Let him post. It keeps the poor sod off the streets.

Besides, since crakar's meltdown we won't have the usual supply of dipshit Wattsian drivel to keep the blog alive and the conversation up to date.

Oh, right. You Canadians believe in censoring lies.

(Couldn't resist that one. . . . :)

PS thanks for the links/points Richard, Ian, Adelady.

Secondly, the "time zero" is not today, it is not even 1950 when "BP" was defined, it is actually 1880. See this link for confirmation:

Since the MWP was warmer than today, it does not matter that this dataset ends in 1880. Because today is not warmer than the MWP.

There is no scientific evidence (sediment cores) that the Arctic was ice free any time in at least the past 80,000 years.

(and Coby) And it isnt ice free today, won't be in 100 years, wont be in 1000 years. 80,000 years is nothing in geology.

What you have to do is show that the current ice extent is the LOWEST in history, and that means more than the last 30 years. What what the ice extent during the MWP?

Now, Coby, you want me to answer questions, you can start by answering that one.

Wrong again Wakefield:

Since the MWP was warmer than today, it does not matter that this dataset ends in 1880. Because today is not warmer than the MWP

No honest scientist has provided results which make that claim. The only people who make this claim are deniers and they do it by cherry picking data, misinterpreting data and simply lying.

Why do you not get the message that the G is for "global".

As for ice extent, there are no data which show that there was less ice during the MWP. There are lots of papers (google ACEX) and you will see that the results reported in the scientific literature, as opposed to the lies flying around in denier circle, (do you believe the rubbish about the Chinese navy sailing over the North Pole a few hundred years ago? If so you are in fantasy land) support no ice free status for millions of years.

It is a characteristic of your average denier (and Dick is a VERY average denier), that they make bald statements of ideology and try to pass them off as facts. It's probably why they want to be able to get away with lying on television and calling it news.

Anyway, at post #11, Dick made the standard idiotic claim of deniers about the supposed MWP and then poses the question about what the Actic ice extent would have been during that period.

Well, if Dick had even done 5 seconds research, he would have discovered this:

http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2010/EGU2010-14048.pdf

So - the answer to your question about Arctic ice extent during the supposed MWP is......

It was greater than the second half of the twentieth century.

How are you going to spin that one Dick?

And if you don't like the study I provided at #13, you can try this one:

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/oce/mholland/papers/Polyak_2010_historyofseaice…

Would you like more, or do you get the point?

RW @5: "

Simons, you don't get it. Wide variation in ice extent over thousands of yearsis normal. There is no evidence what is happening now it beyond that normal variation.

You really need to learn to think more critically.

Woolly thought #1. The references you gave did not support the argument you were making.

Woolly thought #2. I was not arguing with the point you were making.

Woolly thought #3 (implied). Even if the extent of polar ice has varied in the past, that does not mean that the cause of the current decline is the same as the causes for previous declines.

Woolly thought #4 (implied). Even if the extent of polar ice has varied in the past, that does not mean that the current decrease in ice extent has no consequences for humans.

Come on, man! After all the goofs you've made have you still not learnt that, before you post something, you need to take a moment's reflection and ask yourself, 'Is that really correct?'

RS

But then, there IS evidence that what is happening now is beyond 'natural variation', and that evidence can be discovered by a few seconds research. It is contained in these quotes from the links I provided - which are both to peer-reviewed papers in journals - not the usual dross served up by Dick and his denialist compatriots (and which is NOT acceptable as 'evidence'):

"....The current reduction in Arctic ice cover started in the late 19th century, consistent with the rapidly warming climate,and became very pronounced over the last three decades. This ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years and unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities...."

"....The resulting reconstructions are compared with known atmospheric circulation patterns (e.g., NAO) and key climatic variables in order to identify dominant processes responsible for the observed variability in the past millennium. The most striking feature of our pan-Arctic sea-ice cover reconstruction is the abrupt and sustained decrease in summer ice extent observed during the second half of the 20th century, which is apparently unprecedented in the previous 9 centuries...."

Next?

But then, there IS evidence that what is happening now is beyond 'natural variation', and that evidence can be discovered by a few seconds research.

Oh, I agree entirely. I was just making the point that RW assumed that his links said something that they did not, then argued with something that I did not write. At times I wonder if his brain is going to mush.

mandas:

I tried both your links and I froze (AGW must now be falsified . . . )

Just to make damn sure its what I assume--I'm a dipshit with a dipshit PC---the links are correct? Did anyone else try?

skip

I just checked and they seem ok to me. Maybe its you.

I use Google Chrome if that means anything

Both work fine for me too.

The takehome message in the second link appears to be on page 17 (Fig. 12). It appears that proxy estimates may, if anything, underestimate the amount of ice in the historical record. Though I haven't read the whole thing yet, or the references, so I may be wrong there.

"The question that must be asked, is the current level or even trend in ice extent unusual?"

Nope.

The question is why is it at the current level.

The answer is "it's warming".

The question that raises is why is it warming.

The answer to that is CO2 has increased markedly.

The question that raises is why is CO2 rising.

The answer to that is that humans are burning 30 trillion tons of CO2 each year.

"Since the MWP was warmer than today,"

Got any proof, Dick?

Cry in your soup boys:

WUWT â Voted Best Science Blog in the 2011 Bloggies
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/27/wuwt-voted-best-science-blog-in-t…

Wow, your own people --Phil Jones admits is was. Go to the CO2science website, they have a database of papers showing it was, and it was global. But I guess you will be the denier now when you keep claiming it wasn't.

Well, if Dick had even done 5 seconds research, he would have discovered this:

Mandas, when did a computer model turn into physical evidence? This isn't a measure of what the ice extent was during the MWP, it's a computer reonstruction.

"...our pan-Arctic sea-ice cover reconstruction..."

Means nothing, garbage in garbage out.

Nobody burns CO2, Wow.

Nobody burns coal either. They burn it in something.

"WUWT â Voted Best Science Blog in the 2011 Bloggies"

This must mean there's a consensus that WUWT is the best blog, but we also know from WUWT that consensus is always wrong and the underdog is right.

This would then make Realclimate the better blog.

According to Dick and his pals.

"Wow, your own people --Phil Jones admits is was."

Nope, he didn't.

Nobody has, except the fraud at Climateaudit.

"they have a database of papers showing it was, and it was global"

(This would make it a consensus therefore wrong, yes?)

The MWP wasn't global and you haven't shown it was.

Wakefield shows his ignorance once again (well what else can we expect from some one who doesn't understand the first thing about science?):

Mandas, when did a computer model turn into physical evidence? This isn't a measure of what the ice extent was during the MWP, it's a computer reonstruction (sic).

"...our pan-Arctic sea-ice cover reconstruction..."

This was not a "computer reconstruction", it was past history recorded by actually looking at samples, you know the stuff they scraped of the sea bed so that they would know what was at the top, ice or open water. You show your ignorance and anti-science prejudice every time you post here.

You are in the same class as all the pseudo-scientists who voted a junk and pseudo-science site as "best science site". It makes them look even worse (if that is possible) in the eyes of real scientists. Just about everyone of your posts on this blog have been the exact opposite of what knowledge, reason and honesty says. That says all we need to know about you and your pals that you keep citing, ignorance and prejudice in full flow. It would be a laughing matter if it wasn't so important for future generations.

The MWP wasn't global and you haven't shown it was.

And when I do show references showing it was, then what?

It would be a laughing matter if it wasn't so important for future generations.

How so? Explain how the future would for sure, no doubt about it, be bad because of AGW. Make sure you provide evidence and references that explain exactly what will change, and how it will change. And provide evidence of those changes happening now.

This must mean there's a consensus that WUWT is the best blog, but we also know from WUWT that consensus is always wrong and the underdog is right.

Now who is the denier? RC wasn't even nominated. That must hurt. RC is slowly dying, son it's followers will be small clique of True Believers like Ian.

Dick, this ought to help you work out whether the warming is natural or not:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/how-we-know-recent-warming-is-not-natur…

PS on the "Now who is the denier?", that is YOUR argument on why the IPCC is wrong. I'm just pointing out that you, like all deniers, change your argument to fit your desired outcome, not from any sort of rigour.

"And when I do show references showing it was, then what?"

Then they get tested for accuracy.

Then if they are accurate, the MWP has been shown to be global.

At least you're now conceding the fact that you haven't proven the MWP is global yet. You're not normally so helpful.

"RC wasn't even nominated."

Proof of a conspiracy to hide the truth from the whatters.

Wow, I don't want to drone on about a relatively minor matter, but I would be grateful for clarification. You referred to humans 'burning 30 trillion tons of CO2 each year'. When I replied that no one burns CO2 you answered, rather mysteriously, that 'Nobody burns coal either. They burn it in something'.

I'd be grateful if you could explain what you mean. Is it actually possible, I asked myself, that Wow fails to understand the elementary chemistry of combustion? Surely not, but maybe you could set my mind at rest.

No, it isn't possible to get me to explain something patently obvious to you.

The MWP is OT for this thread Richard, except for cryospheric conditions at that time. For discussion of the MWP references found at "CO2Science" (none of which are global, most of which do not agree about when the warm period was), please go to this thread.

Your off hand dismissal of the actual evidence provided by mandas is in sufficient. Either say something substantive with supporting scientific evidence or drop your claim that the current trend in arctic ice is not unusual.

And Richard, as someone who claims to believe only the data, your childish gloating about WUWT's popularity is really pathetic and irrational.

All very well, Coby, but what about Wow's offhand dismissal of my perfectly reasonable question?

And what about your offhand dismissal of my perfectly reasonable question:

Do you still think Richard is the Mike Tyson of AGW denial?

You don't answer because you're cornered. Don't think I'll ever let you forget it.

Skip, as I have thought several times, you are like the Bourbon Monarchy: you forget nothing; you learn nothing.

And you answer nothing.

Dick, this ought to help you work out whether the warming is natural or not:

There was no evidence there that the warming trend is from CO2. That was just the usual appeal that it must be. Schwartz disagees because he can't figure out the climate's sensitivity to more CO2.

Hell, you people can't even tell us what exactly is warming.

[deleted, off-topic]

[deleted, off-topic]

Snowman, I am moderating Richard more than others for the simple fact that he has been dominating this blog's comments for a number of months now and his characteristic link-spamming and topic-changing dodges destroy any chance of having a normal, responsive conversation.

Can I just summarise what happened last night while I was asleep?

Yesterday afternoon, I provided links to two papers which showed the results from extensive proxy reconstructions of Arctic ice extent over millenia (in one case), and the past thousand years (in the other). They conclusively showed that Arctic ice is at its lowest extent in at least 50,000 years or so, and during the so-called northern hemisphere MWP the ice extent was greater than it is today. This was in response to Dick's earlier claims - based on an ideological viewpoint rather than an evidentiary one - that there was no evidence that the current decrease in Artic ice extent was anything other than natural variation, and his question about what the ice extent during the MWP was.

So the evidence is quite conclusive. There is evidence - despite Dick's claims to the contrary, and Dick's ideological position about 'natural variation' can be shown to be wrong.

And in response what do we get? A post from Dick that wattsupmybutt has been voted by its readers to be the most popular science blog, and an assertion that the papers I linked to were based on computer models. Well, I guess that showed us huh Dick?

Of course, as Ian correctly pointed out, the papers were NOT based on computer models, but were extensive reconstructions based on evidence.

And second, perhaps Dick would like to explain what - if anything - is proven by wattsupmybutt being more popular than any other website. I mean, more people drink cask wine than drink Grange Hermitage, and that is a pretty good analogy of the difference between wattsupmybutt and Realclimate. But anyway, as I have already pointed out, NEITHER site can be used as evidence to support an argument. So who cares?

Dick, it would go a long way to restoring some form of credibility if you would - for once - admit you are wrong. I know it is not your normal modus operandi, but as you repeatedly try to claim "you go with the evidence". You have been shown the evidence, so its about time you started to live up to your own claims and show a modicum of integrity.

. . . its about time you started to live up to your own claims and show a modicum of integrity.

Do you really think he will?

Richard is what I call a "polemical kamikaze": He's been drubbed so many times on so many issues that restoration of integrity is unthinkable. so he might as well be an impossible pest about it and just keep dogma propping shit he's never read, doesn't understand, etc.

People like Richard and Snowman see escalating absurdity as a form of revenge against their refuters.

Coby deleted the 3 references I had showng the MWP was global and warmer. He also deleted my question to him if MWP was warmer was that a threat to AGW. How can these be off topic when it can be shown that he MWP was warmer, hence sea ice extent must have been lower than today?

"the Holocene sea ice history
of the CAA indicates less summer sea ice
10,500â9000 years before present (B.P.), perhaps
similar to current trends"

http://gizmo.geotop.uqam.ca/rochonA/Fisher_et_al_Eos_2006.pdf

"We correlate a pronouncedâLittle Ice Ageâ event and six warm intervals within the preceding 2000 years."

http://hol.sagepub.com/content/9/2/247.short

But I guess Coby will just delete this. Starting the RC pratice of deleting posts you don't like eh?

Dick

".....How can these be off topic when it can be shown that he MWP was warmer, hence sea ice extent must have been lower than today?...."

You cannot state '....sea ice extent must have been lower...' without evidence. And you have already been shown evidence that it was NOT lower than today. What part of 'evidence' don't you understand?

And are you serious with those links? I mean, really serious, or are you just trying to be funny? It's that, or you are either an idiot or illiterate.

This link
http://gizmo.geotop.uqam.ca/rochonA/Fisher_et_al_Eos_2006.pdf
is to a 2006 article which says in part:
".....A consortium of Canadian groups is using ocean cores, ice cores, and mammalian and archeological histories to build a Holocene sea ice history; preliminary results are reported here...."

What's so hilarious about that is that I have already provided the FINAL findings - not the preliminary findings - of studies from 2008 and 2009; not 2006. Why don't you go back and read them for a change Dick?

Because if you made the effort to read them, you will already have discovered what I have been saying to you Dick. The evidence is that sea ice extent right now is lower than it has been for thousands of years - and we know that previous low ice extents were caused by orbital forcing.

Here's a tip Dick. Before forming an opinion, do some reading of evidence - not the idiotic opinions of other denialist bloggers. And if you are going to try and 'trump' evidence I provide by way of studies, try and do it with a study that is both more recent and complete.

"Coby deleted the 3 references I had showng the MWP was global and warmer."

You were warned about off topic posts, and the existence or not of a global MWP is not the topic of this thread. Your references did not show this either.

So your latest offering is on topic and from peer reviewed science, thanks for that. It also does not support your claim. According to the first link, we must go all the way back to 10,000 years ago, during the holocene climatic optimum to find sea ice levels lower than today. I would say that lowest in 10,000 years qualifies as unusual. Who do you think you impress posting links to things that absolutely do not agree with your position?

The second link is only the abstract so you and I do not know just how pronounced these 6 "warm intervals" were, but again it does not really support the idea of an exceptional warm period 1200-1000 years bp, does it?

On a meta note, Richard, can you please explain to us why those two papers count as evidence for you but the two that mandas linked to do not? The hall mark of a skeptical thinker is questioning all evidence put before them. What you do, blindly accept anything you think supports your point and categorically reject anything that does not, is the precise opposite of skeptical.

coby

I am perfectly happy to accept Dick's link as 'evidence'. If you have a close look at it, you wil notice that, as I pointed out in post #52, it is to a 2006 article reporting the PRELIMINARY findings of a study of proxy information from the Artic. It was published by these authors:

Kinnard , Zdanowicz, Fisher, Dyke, Koerner, Bourgeois, de Vernal, Hillaire-Marcel, Savelle and Rochon

Of course, as I also pointed out in post #52, I had ALREADY provided a study from 2009 (published in 2010), which reported the FINAL findings of a study of proxy information from the Arctic. It was published by these authors:

Kinnard, Zdanowicz, Fisher, Ladd and Isaksson

Notice any similarities? Yes - that's right, Dick tried to use the PRELIMINARY findings of the SAME study to refute the FINAL findings. If that doesn't demonstrate a complete lack of awareness of what he is talking about, I am at a loss to understand what does.

Mandas:

Richard's posts have degenerated into a muddle--even a phantasmagoria--of self-contradiction and absurdity. Its what he does. Its all he does. Its all he'll ever do. Even Snowman is facing the fact that his Mike Tyson is a side show clown and a cruel joke on himself.

Keep doing your thing, Mandas. You're great at it. Just give up any hope of getting a concession from Richard.

"There was no evidence there that the warming trend is from CO2."

There is evidence of a warming trend.

This is why ice levels are lower than they were.

The reason why it's warming could be:

Sun. Test: are the days warming quicker than the nights and the equator warming quicker than the poles? Result: no. Sun hypothesis falsified.

Orbital forcing. Test: look at the orbital parameters and determine the changes to captured solar radiation are positive. Result: no. Orbital forcing hypothesis falsified.

CO2. Test: are nights warming faster than days, poles warming more than nights and the CO2 levels increasing? Result: yes. CO2 hypothesis not falsified.

Occam's razor or Sherlock Holmes deduction would lead us to conclude the only available answer: CO2 is correct, however unlikely we may feel it to be.

"but what about Wow's offhand dismissal of my perfectly reasonable question?"

What reasonable question? It was a query from a three-year-old.

Since you don't have anything to say against the trend being warming and therefore the ice shrinking, you are accepting them. So, rather than deal with it, you go "look at the monkeys!" to try and derail.

Not happening.

For anyone annoyed by Coby's efforts to get Richard on topic, I'd like to point out that the topic of this thread ought to be ice sheets not sea ice. Coby even offered a link to a more appropriate thread to discuss sea ice.

I predict before the day is over we'll get a link to Wattsup from Richard.

Blueshift

You are 100% correct about this thread supposedly being about ice sheets. My apologies for getting distracted and focussing on Arctic ice instead. But back on the subject....

You often see the usual suspects carrying on about sea ice in the Antarctic, and using increases there to justify their claims about there being no global warming etc. Here is a link to our mate wattsupmybutt from July 2010:

wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/03/antarctic-sea-ice-peaks-at-third-highest-in-the-satellite-record/

Of course, what these deniers fail to discuss is where sea ice in both the Arctic and Antarctic come from. In the Arctic, sea ice is almost entirely the result of the winter freezing of sea water, with some glacial outflows from locations such as Greenland. Sea water freezes much more easily in the Arctic and the Antarctic, because of an obvious factor of geography - the Arctic sea goes all the way to the north pole, while the Southern Ocean around Antarctica extends no more that about 75 degress south. In fact, almost all sea ice from oceanic winter oceanic freezing in Antarctica melts during summer. This has become worse in recent years as the Southern Ocean has warmed:

www.pnas.org/content/107/34/14987.full

The vast majority of 'long term' ice around Antarctica comes from glacial outflows. And this begs the obvious question - if sea ice around Antarctica is increasing, and it is not as a result of oceanic freezing, then where is it coming from?

And the obvious - and correct - answer is that it is coming from increased glacial outflow from the Antartic mainland.

www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n7/full/ngeo890.html

www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V61-4R5VYXF-1&_user…

Glacial outflow appears to be accelerating, and this can only be for two reasons. Firstly, there is more precipitation occuring in the glaciers 'source', and hence more ice/snow to flow out - sort of like more rain falling in a river's catchment. The second reason is that the glaciers are warming, and as a result they are moving faster.

Well, the good news is that precipitation does appear to be increasing:

journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017%3C0427%3AMAPPIS%3E2.0.CO%3B2

This is good news because it means that more water is being removed from the rising oceans, and could potentially be âlocked upâ in the Antarctic ice sheet. The current estimate is that this could reduce sea level rise by approximately 0.05 mm per year (which you would have to admit, is not a lot!).

The bad news is that Antarctic glaciers are also melting:

www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n2/abs/ngeo102.html

Of course, if the rate of glacial outflow were to exceed the rate at which precipitation was locked up on the mainland, you would have an increase, not a decrease, in sea level rise. But I am not sure if anyone has quantified this to date â I cannot find any studies and most of the data appears to be not significant enough to draw any definitive conclusions. Maybe someone else can throw their two cents worth in here.

And what this all means I will just leave here for people to discuss, dissect and - of course â deny, as they see fit.

Actually, current studies show that the warmest period in the Antarctic was around the Roman Warm Period.

Tao et al 2009
The penguin population showed significant fluctuations, reaching its highest density between 4700â2400 calibrated years before present. This coincides with evidence for a late Holocene warm period in the Vestfold Hills, similar to that associated with the late Holocene penguin optimum recorded in the Ross Sea and Antarctic Peninsula regions.

Huang et al 2011
Around 1,800 years ago, the Adélie penguin populations at both Zolotov Island and Ardley Island increased rapidly and reached their highest levels ~1,000 yr BP. For the past ~900 years, the penguin populations at Zolotov Island have shown a general rising trend, with fluctuations, while those at Ardley Island have shown a moderate decreasing trend. The Adélie penguin populations at both Ardley Island and Zolotov Island showed a clear decline ~300 years ago, which we interpret as a response to the Little Ice Age, or a neoglacial cooling event.

Prior to Stieg 2009 there were no studies that show warming in the Antarctic during the CO2 warming of the late 20th century. ODonnell et al 2010 shows that Stiegs findings were not valid.

So what warming are we talking about in the Antarctic? It was warmer 2000+ years ago.

"ODonnell et al 2010 shows that Stiegs findings were not valid."

Um, that was not my impression. I admit I have not dug into that one very much, but wasn't O'Donnell 2010 showing some methodological problems with Steig 2009 but that correcting them did not remove the warming?

And again, we are swimming in murky statistical terminology here. Usually when you find statistical problems you can then say the findings (it is warming) have not actually been shown. "We can not determine a warming trend" is NOT equal to "we have determined there is no trend".

Coby,

What O'Donnell showed was that Steig was smearing the warming from the AP on to the rest of the continent. The methodology was flawed in S09. Prior to S09 there was no reported warming over the continent but there was warming in the AP. The AP is largely north of the Antarctic circle and it's warming is well documented. So while O10 does not prove there was no warming on the continent, it does proved that S09 does not prove continental warming either.

As a side note, S09 showed much reduced warming in the AP.

Everything I can find shows that the greatest warming in the Antarctic took place in the 1935-1945 period. Since one of the proofs of global warming is that both poles would warm at the same time, then the last time that seems to have happened was during the "non-CO2" based warming in the 1935-1945 period.

Max warming based in the Antarctic happened during the RWP 2000 years ago. Both penguins and seals have still not returned to the colonies and rookeries that are currently both to cold and too far from open water today.

Vernon

Can I just clarify a few things please?

Apart from the data I provided on warming of the Southern Ocean, your question on 'what warming are we talking about?' appears to be based on nothing at all. Where did anyone say the Antarctic was warming? I provided studies which shows the glaciers are melting - which is probably a good proxy for temperatures - but I can't see anywhere where I suggested that it was warming other than that.

Of course, there is your proxy of penguin colony fluctuations. Since you didnât provide a link, I assume the first one is this one here:

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&ai…

And the second one is this one here:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/k7jr264r1m5q0512/

Assuming I have correctly linked to the right studies, can I ask why you only posted information from the abstract and then tried to draw a conclusion from that, rather than reading the whole studies as would be normal for anyone who wished to understand what the authors were saying (but which, might unfortunately negate the ideological point you are trying to bullshit us with)?

If you had actually done the hard yards and done some reading (yeah - difficult I know), you would have discovered this gem in the results section of the first study (I havenât accessed the second one yet):

â.....In this study, we performed two additional AMS 14C dating on the samples at -3 and -36 cm, but the dating of the sample at -36 cm failed due to insufficient carbon content. The conventional dates were corrected and calibrated as described in Huang et al. (2009). The corrected and calibrated dates are listed in Table I. The sample at -55 cm has the maximum value of 8463 calibrated year before present (cal. yr BP), and the sample at -3 cm has the value of 1254 cal. yr BP. A polynomial curve was used to extrapolate and interpolate the age versus depth curves of the ornithogenic sediments between -55 cm and -3 cm (Fig. 2)....â

Since you have demonstrated you arenât interested in reading, let me interpret it for you: The samples covered the period between 8,483 YBP, and 1,254 YBP.

Now can you tell me how you infer current temperature trends from data that is no recent than a thousand years old?

mandas,

I stated that based on the studies I have read, all indicate that between 2-5kYBP the Antarctic supported rookeries and colonies farther south than than can exist in the present. One of the reasons is because it is too cold now at the relic sites now, so when they were populated, it must have been warmer than it is now.

I was pointing out that the current warming in the Antarctic has not reached the level exhibited then.

"Since one of the proofs of global warming is that both poles would warm at the same time"

Actually, no. The delayed response of the Antarctic is in very close agreement with climate models. The reason is the thermal isolation of that content due to the circumpolar current in the southern ocean.

Vernon

The problem with attempting to use proxy measures such a penguin populations to determine issues such as climate change is that you need to be able to isolate other factors so that any climate change signal is evident.

Unfortunately, with animals such as penguins, over the past century or so there are significant other pressurs on their populations which did not exist 1,000 or even 200 years ago. Issues such as hunting, oil pollution, changes to predator and prey species populations etc to name just a few.

Here are a number of links to articles (sorry they are not studies) to demonstrate what I mean:

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/05/0509_penguindecline.html

www.world-science.net/othernews/080701_penguins.htm

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100906145115.htm

news.mongabay.com/2007/0302-penguins.html

Note how the first article attributes the decline to climate change, the second and third to fishing and pollution etc, while the last one says the causes cannot be determined.

I think the last one is the most honest of the four, as attribution of any population decline is usually the result of multiple factors, with one or more of those factors acting as the 'trigger' for the most significant aspect of the decline.

For example, climate change may not have a major DIRECT impact on penguins, but it could have an impact on their food supply and consequently cause a decline. Alternatively, it could indirectly benefit penguins by adversely impacting their major predatory species (seals etc). But then, you would have to factor in other things such as whale hunting, which may allow their food supply to grow - or the threatened status of sharks, which would allow seal numbers to increase and which would have flow on effects for penguin numbers.

I could go on and on, but I hope you are getting the point. There have been so many changes in the eco-system, that making comparisons of pre and post industrial animal populations is virtually impossible, and should not be relied on for anything. It is especially difficult to try to draw the conclusion that a decline in range is definitive evidence one way or the other for climate change - it isn't. Population decline is caused by multiple factors - and in the modern world the most likely cause of any population decline or range shrinkage is more likely to be anthropogenic than natural.

"Extensive glaciers in North-western North America during medieval times" Koch and Clague [2011]... evidence of glaciers rivalling LIA extents and some exceeding them.

"Land Surface Temperature Changes in Northern Iberia since 4000 years BP,based on d13C of speleothems" Martin-Chivolet et al.[2011] Study of speleothems in three caves finds modern warmth is greater than any time in the past 4000 years.

"Post-glacial regional climate variability along the East Antarctic coastal margin-evidence from shallow marine and coastal terrestrial records" Verleyen et al [2007]. No evidence..for an equivalent to the NH MWP.

"while the last one says the causes cannot be determined."

Well, the causes obviously CAN be determined. What can't be done is draw any firm conclusions from the evidence as to the extent of the changes the causes made.

""ODonnell et al 2010 shows that Stiegs findings were not valid."

Um, that was not my impression."

Indeed. It is, in fact, a lie.

ODonnell et al shows that Steig's work had a less effective test and that a more effective one shows a warming trend of some small significance on the EAIS and a stronger warming trend no the WAIS.

What post-ODonnell showed is that he was hoping to find something different and when asked to show why this better test was better, threw a tantrum to divert attention.

Indeed. It is, in fact, a lie [by Vernon]--Wow

This is the part where Vernon, as precedent shows, will complain that the "tone" is too harsh, that he is being treated uncivilly, that he's just a small timer trying to have an honest dialogue, and sniff away claiming the moral high ground.

You see this from Watts and his various Wattslings *all the time*. The pattern is:

(a) lie
(b) get caught in one's lies
(c) decry the uncivil tone of the ones who correctly identify one as a liar

For Vernon's most recent completion of this cycle please see:

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/10/gmuniversity_investigatin…

I suspect that is what we will get now, although my predictive powers are now in doubt, I must confess. I was sure Richard would dogmablog us with yesterday's post on Watts regarding arctic/anarctic temp trends.

I am happy to report I was wrong.

Recovery mechanisms of Arctic summer sea ice

S. Tietsche, D. Notz, J. H. Jungclaus, J. Marotzke, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany

We examine the recovery of Arctic sea ice from prescribed ice-free summer conditions in simulations of 21st century climate in an atmosphereâocean general circulation model. We find that ice extent recovers typically within two years. The excess oceanic heat that had built up during the ice-free summer is rapidly returned to the atmosphere during the following autumn and winter, and then leaves the Arctic partly through increased longwave emission at the top of the atmosphere and partly through reduced atmospheric heat advection from lower latitudes. Oceanic heat transport does not contribute significantly to the loss of the excess heat.

Our results suggest that anomalous loss of Arctic sea ice during a single summer is reversible, as the iceâalbedo feedback is alleviated by large-scale recovery mechanisms. Hence, hysteretic threshold behavior (or a âtipping pointâ) is unlikely to occur during the decline of Arctic summer sea-ice cover in the 21st century.

Received 1 October 2010; accepted 14 December 2010; published 26 January 2011.

Citation: Tietsche, S., D. Notz, J. H. Jungclaus, and J. Marotzke (2011), Recovery mechanisms of Arctic summer sea ice, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L02707, doi:10.1029/2010GL045698.

mandas & wow,

What do you know, yet another study that shows warming was greater in the Antarctic. I guess I should not have led with those but then I would not have gotten so much snark out.

Hall et al 2006, Holocene elephant seal distribution implies warmer-than-present climate in the Ross Sea. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 103, p. 10213-10217.

The period between 1,100 and 2,300 14C yr B.P., marked by significant expansion of elephant seal colonies and a disappearance of Adélie penguins, represents the greatest sea-ice decline (and probably the warmest ocean and air temperatures) in the Ross Sea in the last 6,000 yr. This was followed by an increase in sea ice and the development of land-fast ice â1,000 yr ago on the VLC, which we propose led to the abandonment of seal colonies. The ice regime remains too severe for either elephant seals or penguins to occupy the southern VLC today.

wow,

Sorry but calling someone a liar, while fairly standard here is not supported by the facts. O10 shows that S09's methodology was in error and there is no demonstrativenesses warming across the Antarctic.

Coby,

We have had the discussion on the models, pretty sure I still have a thread here about them. How do you explain global warming in the 1935-45 period that was was detected at both poles, and both hemispheres and yet the global warming in the 1975-1998 is not apparent out side the AP?

72 "Our results suggest that anomalous loss of Arctic sea ice during a single summer is reversible, as the iceâalbedo feedback is alleviated by large-scale recovery mechanisms."

Interesting, thanks Richard. I always suspected that once gone completely, it would be more difficult for the sea ice to reform. Of course, one anomalously warm summer is not the same as a sustained warming and young ice is more easily melted when the next year's summer is as warm or warmer.

You didn't misinterpret that study to mean arctic sea ice will bounce back once it hits bottom, did you?

Vernon, I don't think I have ever seen antarctic temperature trends for that period (early 20th c.).

One might expect different responses in the antarctic for different forcings. Early 20thC was only partly CO2 forced, at that time there were likely equally important forcings from solar trends and changes in volcanic activity.

Is polar amplification an expectation of warming from all kinds of forcings?

Just to help you,Richard @ 72,your cited study is looking at seasonal behavior for evidence of tipping points: crossing thresholds into states from which there is no seasonal recovery.

As the introduction says:

"Arctic summer sea-ice extent has decreased substantially in recent years,and it will very likely continue to decrease owing to anthropogenic climate change."

The authors are exploring why seasonal losses,and temporary recoveries, can be dramatic,even while the overall decadal/multi-decadal extent is on a downward trend. They are looking for evidence of non-linear threshold behavior. They find none,while AGW drives extent lower in the long term.

Vernon

Seriously? Seriously??

Did you not read anything I wrote about the reliability of using animals from the pre and post industrial ages as proxies for temperature changes and the difficulties in extrapolating data that is thousands of years old? And did you also not take my advice about actually reading the papers you are linking to, rather than relying on the opinions of other denialists to give you yours?

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/27/10213.long

If you had done both, you would have discovered a couple of interesting facts. Firstly, this study on elephant seals (link provided above since you didnât provide one â AGAIN!!!) disagrees with your earlier studies on penguins, as per this quote from the paper:

â....Integration of southern elephant seal and Adélie penguin data affords a distinctly different record of Holocene sea-ice change than that previously derived from penguin data alone. For example, the disappearance of penguins from the southern VLC (â2,500 14C yr B.P.), originally thought to reflect severe ice, is now interpreted as indicating a period of sea-ice reduction so great that Adélie penguins no longer were a viable population.....â

So could I ask you to please â as a bare minimum â be consistent with your own denialism, and not to link to papers that contradict each otherâs findings. It goes a long way to stop you from looking silly.

Further on in the paper, the authors suggest this (and it is in the abstract so you have read it too):

â....This was followed by an increase in sea ice and the development of land-fast ice â1,000 yr ago on the VLC, which we propose led to the abandonment of seal colonies....â

I wonder what the proponents of the supposed MWP make of that one? (I canât remember what your views are on that issue â maybe you could enlighten us.) A major expansion of sea ice 1,000 years ago in Antarctica! Go figure! (sorry to get off topic there coby)

And I thank you for providing these studies, no matter what you think the implications of them are. You are attempting to use them as evidence that it was warmer in the Antarctic in the past. It may well be that was the case. But what do you think it means for the future of the various species referred to in the paper? If climate change can produce such dramatic effects on population size and range, what do you think will happen now and in the future? Maybe you could do some reading on the issue. Here is something to start you off:

http://www.penguinscience.com/Paper%209.pdf

And I am going to conclude with a reiteration of my already stated position on this issue and a question.

I have never suggested that it was NOT warmer in the Antarctic at some time in the past. If you read my post #64 you will see I said EXACTLY that. So letâs just assume that you are 100% correct â it was warmer in parts of the Antarctic a few thousand years ago than it is now. So what?

If Wakefield and Vernon believed their financial advisers as religiously as they believe their denier advisers they would both be bankrupt by now. They are both scientifically bankrupt, that's for sure.

Would you two sue your financial advisers if they gave you such dishonest information?

Hi Ian,

Do you hear a popping sound ever time you pull your head out to take a breath? Oh wait, is that beneath the level of discourse here? Let me think about that, no, for Ian it is totally ignore anything presented and attack the individual. I was worried there for a second.

mandas,

The point of this post is that "current warming" is going to exceed the recent past, but Antarctic appears to have been warmer during the RWP than the present. Melting glaciers in the Alps are uncovering mines from the RWP. What is exceptional about the last bit of warming and the Antarctic Ice Sheet?

vernon

I am going to ask you once again. So what? In what way does it matter if Antarctica was warmer at some time in the past? The debate about AGW is not - nor has it ever been - whether or not some regions of the world are warmer now or were warmer in the past. I have always stated - as does the theory of AGW - that the effects of AGW will be highly regional, with some regions warming more than others, at different rates to others, at different times to others, and in response to different influences than others. But then, no climate scientist denies that. It is just a tool of the very average denialist to try and draw a straight line linear regression of temperatures to the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and complain that it isn't perfectly correlated. If you want to make a case, you are going to have to come up with something far better.

This debate is - and always has been - that the globe is warming right now as a result of anthropogenic influences, and the overall globe (you know - the 'G' in AGW) is undergoing exceptional warmth right now. It is not going to increase at a linear rate - there will be overlaying natural variabilities as a result of ocean cycles etc. If you disagree, you are going to have to find some evidence for this fact - and you have not nor have you ever presented any evidence to that effect.

And I know you are a proponent of the supposedly globally synchronous MWP and have attempted to use that in the past to 'prove' your case that warming right now is NOT exceptional. I can show you the posts and threads if you like to that effect - but I am sure you are not so dishnoest as to deny your own opinion as other posters of disreputable ilk try to do.

I noted you avoided answering my question about the MWP in your last post, instead trying to refocus on the supposed RWP. Instead of doing that, why don't you substitute this statement:

"....The point of this post is that "current warming" is going to exceed the recent past, but Antarctic appears to have been cooler during the MWP than the present....."

That statement can easily supported by the evidence from your paper on elephant seals. How does it feel to have shot your own case in the foot?

Vernon, why are you so frightened of the truth being exposed about yourself and the other deniers who frequent this blog? If you do not like what I say about you then there is an obvious and simple solution, be honest, careful and thoughtful in your posts. If you do that I will have nothing negative to say about you and the other deniers.

Vernon is being delusional (see I didn't say you were lying):

Melting glaciers in the Alps are uncovering mines from the RWP

Typical denier nonsense, throw out a flagrant piece of denier rubbish with no cites and no backing.

And they wonder why we find them so dishonest and stupid.

Ian,

I know your a "quality poster here" but do you do anything except call anyone who disagrees with your beliefs a liar? Anything?

mandas,

The whole point of AGW, or CAGW, or climate disruption, or whatever it is being called this month, is that this is exceptional. The warming at the beginning of the 20th century was just as fast as the warming at the end that was due to "CO2". The Ice Sheets could melt away because it is so much warmer now then it has been, except when it was not. I am simply offering proof that the current warming is not as great is it was at the time of the RWP.

We could discuss it or we could trade insults, I concede you want to trade insults.

Coby,

Yes, I believe that global warming will show as polar amplification since the earth is largely a heat engine that moves warmth collected at the equator to the poles. That if the globe is warming then both poles will be warming. If you disagree with that please link some some studies that show why. Any study you present needs to address why there was polar amplification at both pole in the 30-40 and not in the 80-2000. I know all the studies I have read say that both should be warming and that was why S09 was great. It showed warming across the whole Antarctic.

I still love the RC posts that have no warming in Antarctica proving AGW and then when S09 came along show warming and then, warming prove AGW.

Skip,

I am sorry for ignoring you but your posts are at least fun to read unlike Ian's. So please continue to flame me, but please be a little more inventive.

Vernon

"....I am simply offering proof that the current warming is not as great is it was at the time of the RWP...."

No you haven't. You obviously did not read a single thing I wrote.

Firstly, you tried to show that the MWP was warmer than today, and that this supposedly proved the current warming was not exceptional. Not only has everyone tried to show you that you were wrong with that claim, your latest link also shows that the MWP was NOT GLOBALLY SYNCHRONOUS. You need to accept that really simple fact and move on. The MWP does not show that the current warming is unexceptional - in fact, the MWP did not exist as a global phenomenon. Thank you for proving that fact.

You have now moved on to the RWP, without even acknowledging your own point - and everyone elses - about the MWP. How about you demonstrate that level of integrity instead of carrying on in your usual fashion about insults? You are not above insulting and name-calling yourself (remember how I called you out for calling skip's post "the stupidest thing" you had read, before complaining when skip called you a liar?)

So - we know you are wrong about the MWP. You have referenced a paper which specifically states that the Antarctic underwent a major increase in the extent of sea ice 1,000 years ago. You obviously accept that the paper is valid, otherwise why did you reference it? So - given that you accept the paper, you obviously accept it's claim about Antarctic temperatures. Ergo, you were wrong about the MWP.

Let's move on to this suposed RWP.

Where is it? Where is your evidence for it? Was it a global event? When did it occur?

Come on man! Putting three letters together and making an acronym does not constitute proof of anything. You have made a claim - that during this "RWP" the planet was warmer than today. Prove it.

Vernon, if you were as smart as you think you are you would see that I don't call you a liar because we disagree. I call you a liar because you tell lies. Now isn't that simple?

Just go back and see what you have posted and what I and others have said about how accurate your postings are. I just don't believe that anyone can be as wrong as you are so consistently without lying. After all, even a crooked penny sometimes comes up tails.

Vernon, have a look at this map:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2010&mon…

Some regions are 6.8C warmer than the baseline.

The MWP you want to look at doesn't get anywhere near this warm.

"We examine the recovery of Arctic sea ice from prescribed ice-free summer conditions in simulations of 21st century climate in an atmosphereâocean general circulation model. We find that ice extent recovers typically within two years."

Oddly enough, when he likes the output, computer simulations are just fine and dandy and acceptable proof.

This is why you're called denier, not skeptic.

Notice how Richard is reduced to just cutting and pasting abstracts without commentary?

"Here's a study. It proves . . . . something."

. . . please continue to flame me, but please be a little more inventive. -- Vernon

You first, pal.

When you invent a novel repugnant behavior besides blatant obfuscation and deceit I'll compose the appropriately worded censure.

wow,

I will let mandas, skip, and coby explain why what you said was wrong.

vernon

"....wow, I will let mandas, skip, and coby explain why what you said was wrong...."

Explain why WHAT was wrong?

The graph he linked to at post #86 appears valid - although I would like to see a lot more underlying data. As wow said - some regions are up to 6.8 degrees warmer in 2010 than the 1951-80 baseline. Some are also cooler - which is exactly what I suggested at post #80 about regionalism.

If you are referring to the concept of an overall global temperature rather then picking an individual location and attempting to exptrapolate those numbers for the globe as a whole, then you have a point. The correct approach that wow should have taken was to compare the overall global temperature with the overall temperature of the supposed MWP. But you have already demonstrated - with the paper you kindly provided at post #73 - that there was NO global MWP. So maybe that was wow's error - to refer to something that didn't exist for the SH.

I would also like to suggest that if you are being critical of wow for asserting that a regional temperature is somehow representative of the globe, then perhaps you should take a look at some of your own assertions, which clearly fall into that category. Wow's map clearly suggests that some parts of the Antarctic coastline were a LOT warmer than the baseline, while others - including the continent's interior - were distinct cooler. What do you think that may mean for some of the papers you referenced and which you were using to support your claims about the MWP and RWP and Antartic temperatures?

Or are you referring to his comments in post #87 about modelling? If so, I am not sure what you are asking. Perhaps you could explain please.

...or is it just a tacit admission that he doesn't know enough to attempt a refutation himself?

"The correct approach that wow should have taken was to compare the overall global temperature with the overall temperature of the supposed MWP."

Indeed, but I thought I'd do it the Vernon way.

Apparently he isn't quite ready to say that his way is wrong, even if used by someone else.

Vernon, here is no convincing the True believers here. Ian is a foul mouth bigot towards anyone who questions the faith. Skip just loves to pull your chain, no interested in the science. Manadas doesn't understand. Chris's math is pathetic, and Coby, well, the gate keeper of the faith is what they are.

Just watch the reaction to this post:

"New paper claims a value one seventh of the IPCC best estimate for Climate Sensitivity for a CO2 doubling"

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/02/new-paper-claims-a-value-one-seve…

Wakefield is wrong once again:

Ian is a foul mouth bigot towards anyone who questions the faith

What I hate with a passion is people like you who lie, obfuscate, misinterpret, misinform, slander scientists, make fun of science and show incredible ignorance about just about everything.

it is people like you who will be deemed by future generations of being a "foul mouth bigot" when the consequences of your malfesance is so obvious that even people with limited intelligence can see where you have taken us.

Grow up.

"Vernon, here is no convincing the True believers here."

Indeed, there's no true believer like you, vern and snowjob.

You see, if you have evidence, there's no need for belief.

You, however, don't have evidence, so you have to believe in a Great Conspiracy.

If the sensitivity is so low, Dick, why have we 0.7C warming at the moment?

The poles have already seen 6.8C warming. Rather higher than 0.92C.

And isn't your assertion previously been that there has been cooling going on?

What's happened to that?

You seem ready to accept anything that will disprove your work as long as it "proves" the IPCC wrong somehow.

Richard, there is a thread for climate sensitivity. Why don't you take your paper there?

Bonus points if you can coherently explain the paper methodology.

LOL. Watch the reaction to *this*.

Its not even a published paper, Richard. Even Watts says it remains to be seen whether "the methodology is sound". You have not read it, don't understand it, don't care, and will never know what the paper is about *at all*.

I don't know enough about the subject to know either way myself of course, but let me ask you a question, Richard:

If the paper conducted a t-test in which the numerical value of calendar year was treated as a ratio variable, would you think the "methodology was sound."

Consider it a warm up question, MIke Tyson. LOL.

Vernon, and then we have Wow, who continuously misunderstands what you post. For example:

And isn't your assertion previously been that there has been cooling going on?

I never said the planet is cooling, and I have repeatedly stated as clear as is possible, that the SUMMERS in Canada have cooled, not the winters. Winters have been less cold, which is driving he averge higher. But for some reason Wow is either incapable of understanding that, or is deliberately misrepsenting my position.

Wow also said
If the sensitivity is so low, Dick, why have we 0.7C warming at the moment?

Well, it's simple enough to figure out. If CO2 sensitivity is much less than the IPCC then the rest of the "warming" must be natural.

But for people like Wow and Ian they cannot fathom any part, any role, for natural causes for the current temperature trends. For them, we wicked humans are causing all the changes, and all the changes are all bad.

LOL.

The new tactic from Richard: "Responding is beneath my dignity."

Richard, I already know you never read the article. So does everybody else. There is no deception to preserve.

Wakefield repeats his famous lie once again:

I have repeatedly stated as clear as is possible, that the SUMMERS in Canada have cooled

Yes you have repeatedly stated that nonsense and you have been repeatedly shown that it is rubbish. Repeating a lie over and over again does not make it true.This is the nonsense which got you started with your lies, misinformation, obfuscation, misrepresentation and other logical nonsense.

Why do you keep on repeating this lie? Have you no shame?

He then goes on to blame pixies and little green men for warming:

then the rest of the "warming" must be natural.

As anyone who has even a basic understanding of science knows you cannot create energy from nothing. Therefore there has got to be a scientific reason for the warming, better described as an increase in the energy accumulated in the biosphere. All possible "natural" causes have been examined and have been found to be either having no change during the past 50 or so years or the natural force is in fact decreasing. Wakefield, where is this "natural" energy coming from? What physical force is causing the earth's climate to warm?

If you do not answer this question then you are finished as anyone who has even a shred of scientific knowledge behind their ideas.

Vernon, notice how Ian now employs "we know everything there is to know" defence. In the world of the True Believers, there is no doubt, there is no uncertainty, and there is nothing left to discover.

Wakefield has problems understanding simple English:

Ian now employs "we know everything there is to know" defence.

Must make you feel good to completely misinterpret what knowledgeable people say. it shows that you know absolutely nothing, surprise surprise.

I never said that scientists know everything about everything. However, they do know enough to know that people like you are trying to lead as to a future which many of us understand and want to avoid.

What have you got against your fellow humans that you wish them such a dreadful future?

And stop insinuating that understanding the science behind AGW is a religion. That is just being dishonest. Religion has no basis in facts whereas science is based on facts and evidence. If you had taken some science courses rather that being taught by an idiot you would have course know that.

Vernon, notice how Ian now employs . . .

LOL.

Speaking of which . . .

So, Vernon! Please go on the record! What do you *you* think of Snowman's Mike Tyson??

Your opinion in this matter is valued--and remembered--superlatively.

RW @102

In the world of the True Believers, there is no doubt, there is no uncertainty, and there is nothing left to discover.

Richard: in all the nonsense you have written here, can you link to a single occasion when you have expressed doubt about your knowledge of anything?

Vernon, here is another excellent example of what AGW, and the True Believers, is all about:

What have you got against your fellow humans that you wish them such a dreadful future?

The ASSUMPTION that a warmer world is a horrible future, so "dreadful" that we must dismantle Western Civilization to save the world. Of course, they never explain what this "dreadful" future would actually look like, but I could guess that The Road would be a good place to start. Like that movie Ian? Did it make you feel all warm inside? Did you relate to the old man when he said something about "I knew this was going to happen"?

Vernon, this view was born in the socialist/communist political world view after the Berlin wall fell and the socialists needed to find a new message. It has NOTHING to do with saving the world, and everything to do with culling the excessive (and evil) human population and ending our modern civilizaton.

People like Ian cannot even fathom that a "warmer" world would actually be much better to for the planet, and humans. Always has been in all of human history, and all of geological Deep Time.

RS, do you agree with Ian's proclamation that a warmer world, definitely, will be "a dreadful future?" Sounds like no doubt there.

I have stated several times, there is TOO MUCH doubt and uncertainty to predict the future.

Wakefield commits the biggest ad hominem attack of all time. He accuses anyone with knowledge about the science of AGW and what it will do to the future climate as religious fanatics and Communists. He never quotes any real science just junk and lies but thinks he knows everything about what is going on.

I think that there is a name for such people, and it is not an ad hominem just a statement of fact. Wakefield is one of the worst cases of some one affected by Dunning Kruger syndrome.

Coby, it is time to make this site an honest site and a "Dunning Kruger Free Zone".

How many lurkers get convinced by Wakefield's dishonest rhetoric?

I have stated several times, there is TOO MUCH doubt and uncertainty to predict the future.

A generally wise perspective, and one you would have done well to follow when you were predicting that global tmax would follow your Canadian "trend." And as for my own powers of prediction, I invite people to evaluate them from the old GAS thread:

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/11/global_and_seasonally_ave…

Where's Vernon, Richard? Notice neither he nor Snowman will tie their wagon to your post? Some friends . . . .

By the way, you *must* have spoken with Judith by now. How'd that go?

Hehe.

RW @107

I have stated several times, there is TOO MUCH doubt and uncertainty to predict the future.

I meant uncertainty about your personal knowledge of matters on which other people may be informed, as distinct from doubt that anyone knows the answer. When have you ever written "Someone else might know . . ." or "My mistake. You are correct" despite the numerous occasions on which you have been shown to be ignorant or mistaken?

" ...there is TOO MUCH doubt and uncertainty to predict the future."

In that case, we'd better roll up our sleeves and get busy. If there is so much uncertainty, that means we could be in for a very bad time. With so much uncertainty, engineers and actuaries will have to completely redo all their work to accommodate more extremes, all of which is more costly. With so much uncertainty, you can bet your boots (and the shirt on your back) that your insurance premiums will rise, a lot, fast. And your councils and area governmental bodies will raise rates to get the funds needed for roads, bridges, levees, water and sewage treatment plants and all those other boring amenities that make modern life so agreeable.

More uncertainty, Richard, means more, not less, chance of worse outcomes, faster.

â....Manadas (sic) doesnât understand...â

Au contraire my idiotic acquaintance. Mandas understands only too well.

â.....Just watch the reaction to this post: "New paper claims a value one seventh of the IPCC best estimate for Climate Sensitivity for a CO2 doubling...â

This latest offering â a 'paper' by Herman Harde is so moronic I donât even know where to begin. You continually bang on about how you "go with the evidence", yet you are now so desperate that you are relying on abstracts from conference papers that have not even been presented or published yet. The conference isnât until April. Do you get that? THE PAPER HAS NOT EVEN BEEN PRESENTED YET. No-one knows whatâs in it! Yet here is you â plus the great Anthony Watts and his moronic followers â making claims that it somehow provides the proof for which you have so desperately been searching. I mean really! Are you serious? Or are you just so twisted in your ideological delusions?

We all know you rely on Anthony Watts and the idiots at C3Headlines to give you your opinion â being completely incapable of developing a rational thought yourself â but in future could you please, please, please, please at least wait until a paper is published and you have read it before you try and present it as evidence. You will look less a fool than you already do if you at least have read and have a modicum of understanding of the things to which you are linking.

I especially love how the âpaperâ came to your attention as well. Check out the thread at wattsupmybutt:

â.....Paul Ostergaard writes via email....Here is an interesting new paper that Miklos Zagoni has pointed me to via Judith Curryâs blog. This researcher in Germany has carried out a spectroscopic analysis of the impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gasesâ contribution to warming....â

So - you found out about it because Anthony Watts found out about it because Paul Ostergaard wrote an email that Miklos Zagoni found something on Judith Curryâs blog!! Do any of you people even read journals? Or do you get EVERYTHING fifth-hand? Have you NEVER heard of primary sources? Talks about chinese whispers.

For f***âs sake Dick. At least try to do some science. Your efforts to date are so woeful you would fail a high school class (which I suspect was the case all those years ago anyway).

More uncertainty, Richard, means more, not less, chance of worse outcomes, faster.

Such is the logic of a True Believer.

Explain what we have to do to ward off this "worse outcomes"

Maybe Ian can add some of his own opinion on what he thinks should be done.

"Explain what we have to do to ward off this "worse outcomes"

That's not the issue, Richard. The issue is uncertainty. Is it boundless as you seem to state, or is it within the parameters that climate science has so far deduced?

We know that science has underestimated some things, like the speed of Arctic ice melt and the amount and the frequency of drought in the Amazon. But, by and large, these are indications that any uncertainties are on the high side - that the projections seem to be understating the speed and the size of negative impacts.

If your argument is that uncertainty is larger than the scientists have so far said, then you are arguing that you expect to see more of this kind of negative impact? Or are you?

Dick

â....More uncertainty, Richard, means more, not less, chance of worse outcomes, faster....
Such is the logic of a True Believer....â

What? Among your other failings Dick, are you complete clueless about the English language?

Ok. Let me explain. If something is âmore uncertainâ, it means you are less certain of the outcomes. Therefore â by definition â there is a greater chance of the outcome being worse than you anticipate.

Yes Dick â such is the logic of the true believer. It is the logic of someone who can understand basic concepts.

On the other hand, there is the logic of the denier. The person who just doesnât get it.

Dick â youâre remarks are getting stupider and more delusional by the day. Maybe itâs time you sought help.

That's not the issue, Richard. The issue is uncertainty. Is it boundless as you seem to state, or is it within the parameters that climate science has so far deduced

We don't know all the parameters. And yes, it is the issue. With all the hand waving that things will be, emphasize, WILL BE, worse, you need to explain how. And what we need to do to reverse it. For example, do you agree with power rationing to curb CO2 emissions as proposed in the UK? Should oil prices be much higher to curb demand?

, like the speed of Arctic ice melt and the amount and the frequency of drought in the Amazon.

What drought in the Amazon? Back it up with evidence. Sea ice in th Arctic has stablized, no change in the last 5 years.

But, by and large, these are indications that any uncertainties are on the high side - that the projections seem to be understating the speed and the size of negative impacts.

Nonsense. Range of possible futures: Tropical paradice to Horrific mass extinctions, ie 100 to -100. Uncertainty works in both directions. Hence the most likely future is the same as today.

If your argument is that uncertainty is larger than the scientists have so far said, then you are arguing that you expect to see more of this kind of negative impact? Or are you?

What negative impacts? What's happening now that is bad and become worse? Give examples with evidence.

Ok. Let me explain. If something is âmore uncertainâ, it means you are less certain of the outcomes. Therefore â by definition â there is a greater chance of the outcome being worse than you anticipate

Why is a possible outcome of a future being a tropical paradice automatically excluded? Why is there no possibiity that there is a greater chance of the outcome being BETTER than anticipated?

RW @116:

Sea ice in th Arctic has stablized, no change in the last 5 years.

Nonsense.

RW @117

Why is there no possibiity that there is a greater chance of the outcome being BETTER than anticipated?

Who, apart from you, said there is 'no possibility'?

For the past few months, you have been misunderstanding and misquoting people's words, citing references that do not support your views, mangling statistics in bizarre ways and generally showing a lack of critical thought. (Oh, you criticize those who raise questions about your ideas, but show no indication that you actually understand their criticisms.) If you value your reputation, it is well past time for you to take a step back and spend a month or two going over all the posts here. If you can, get someone you trust to explain to you what each of your questioners/critics is saying. Then think how you should have responded, bearing in mind that on a science blog, critics who give links to scientific literature usually have a valid point. One good response, frequent among scientists but that I have never seen you utilize, is to change your mind and to concede that your critic may be correct.

I do not enjoy seeing people make utter fools of themselves; that is what you are doing here.

RS, out of 100, assign a percent probability to the future being the following:

1-- better than today
2-- same as today
3-- worse than today

The "consensus" by people like Ian and adelady is that 3 is the only option. That's the default position of the AHW faith. Otherwise, why worry about CO2 emissions?

No, Richard. No one is saying that is the only option. Its a risk that needs to be accounted for.

You need to read R. Simon's post. Its what I've been telling you for months. You are simply scientifically, methodologically, and generally illiterate. Snowman and Vernon have abandoned you--and for very good reason. Even *they* know better than to associate themselves with your lunacy. Your email exchange with J Curry went pretty much as I expected, didn't it? Oh, Richard.

The only mystery remaining is why you do this to yourself: whether you realize it and are just being stubborn or if you really believe you're winning in some self-deluded sense.

More selfish and simple minded words from Wakefield:

Why is a possible outcome of a future being a tropical paradice (sic) automatically excluded?

If idiots like Wakefield want to live in a "tropical paradise" I suggest that they go and live on some uninhabited tropical island where their stupidity will not harm anyone but themselves.

It seems as if Wakefield in his selfish stupor does not think through his ideas of paradise.

If most of the mid latitudes were turned into a "tropical paradise" just how much of our food supply would we lose? How much of our food besides coco-nuts, bananas and coffee is grown in the tropics?

Such idiocy will surely lead to mass starvation.

That is why his third point:

3-- worse than today

is the expected outcome of continued increase in CO2 from burning of fossil fuels. This will have such a negative effect. Mass starvation and its consequences will not be an enjoyable outcome for future generations.

Obviously Ian doesn't think humans are smart enough to deal with changes and grow more food, as we have for the past 100 years.

Since you are so concerned with feeding people, maybe you can explain how we can feed everyone with less fossil fuels burned. Exactly what do you think should be changed to curb CO2 emissions?

â....What drought in the Amazon? Back it up with evidence. Sea ice in th Arctic has stablized, no change in the last 5 years....â

Well, I was right. Dick is getting stupider and more delusional by the day. For F*** sake Dick, I have never read anything more delusional and so completely divorced from reality as that statement.

You are sitting in front of a computer. Go to Google and type âAmazon Droughtâ. We had this argument with crakar, do we really need to have it with you as well? OMFG you are so stupid!!!!!

And no change in Arctic sea ice in the last 5 years? Which planet are you on?

But Richard, you've still not dealt with the uncertainty issue.

You're the one who was arguing not so many posts ago that there is "too much" uncertainty. Too much uncertainty _does_ mean that engineers must design buildings, bridges, roads and other structures to cope with the likelihood of storms, floods and high winds. Local authorities must reconsider and possibly rebuild drainage and other infrastructure to cope with a wider range of impacts - that's what uncertainty means.

If you acknowledge a wider range of outcomes (known as too much uncertainty) and you're responsible for the continued well-being of the people who need the amenities you're responsible for building or providing, you. have. no. option. but to engineer-in resilience against the negative impacts within that range of uncertainty.

As for whether outcomes are better than rather than worse than? That's the whole idea. When we buy insurance or over-engineer bridges, the expectation is that wé don't want a pay-out and we don't want the bridge tested to breaking point.

But when the uncertainty is 'too much' we are obliged to account for it. Literally. We have to pay the premiums. We have to pay for better materials and construction methods.

What you have to face is accepting or rejecting uncertainty as stated by climate scientists, actuaries and other professionals. If you reject, you then have to say what uncertainty ranges you want substituted for particular items, or at least what factors you want taken into account in a professional recalculation.

".....Since you are so concerned with feeding people, maybe you can explain how we can feed everyone with less fossil fuels burned....."

Obviously Dick doesn't think humans are smart enough to deal with changes and grow more food without extra fossil fuels, as we did for the past 10,000 years.

Too much uncertainty _does_ mean that engineers must design buildings, bridges, roads and other structures to cope with the likelihood of storms, floods and high winds. Local authorities must reconsider and possibly rebuild drainage and other infrastructure to cope with a wider range of impacts - that's what uncertainty means

No it does not. You are confusing engineering issues with normal variation of how the planet works. With your line of reasoning we should spend trillions building an asteroid deflection system, because the uncertainty over when the next big one will hit ranges from tomorrow to millions of years from now. The uncertainty over when and where earth quakes will hit means we should move all people from active tectonic zones, by your logic.

Uncertainty in this context is about HOW the climate systems works. The uncertainty is so high that before we waste trillions on mitigation efforts we need to do more research to see if there is even a threat to begin with.

When we buy insurance or over-engineer bridges, the expectation is that wé don't want a pay-out and we don't want the bridge tested to breaking point.

Bad example. Bridges are not over engineered. They are a compromise of what is needed 95% of the time and costs. That's why some bridges and buildings fail. Cost was more important.

But that's besides the point here. Buildings and bridges are built based on known engineering calculations. Research is done to prove the engineering works as it should. That world has very little uncertanty because it is not a chaotic system with millions of degrees of freedom like the climate has.

Obviously Dick doesn't think humans are smart enough to deal with changes and grow more food without extra fossil fuels, as we did for the past 10,000 years.

Not feeding 7 billion we didnt. There is 7-10 calories of oil energy in every food calorie we eat. The planet cannot feed 7 billon people without oil. Over the winter Canada imports 100% of our fresh foods. Gone with out oil.

So, you think everyone should grow all their own food like we did for the previous 10,000 years? Right. Why don't you start that, grow all your own food, and in a year tell us how great it was. Live a life of no FF for one year.

So now we are getting close to the motive of AGW. A desire to move humanity back to hunter/gathering with a population less than 1% of today.

"Buildings and bridges are built based on known engineering calculations. Research is done to prove the engineering works as it should."

Precisely. Here in Oz we're getting very familiar with the concept of 20 yr, 50 yr, 100yr, 500 yr floods. We know perfectly well that a local council will engineer the most important access bridges for 200 yr floods whereas the secondary roads are built within the cost constraints of 10 to 20 year events.

We're also familiar with cyclone ratings. So now they're proposing that houses further south along the coast of Queensland will have to be built with a cyclone rating more like that of the northern coasts.

And that brings us back to your :-
"That world has very little uncertanty because it is not a chaotic system with millions of degrees of freedom like the climate has."

Firstly the climate does not have millions of degrees of freedom. More importantly, when we're looking at increasing uncertainties in the way you do - councils would have to instruct engineers and housebuilders and everyone that the 200 yr event has now become the 20 to 50 yr event.

The major public infrastructure may not need adjusting because that was always built to cope with extremes that less vital things weren't expected to cope with. So now all the roads, houses, businesses have to be redesigned or abandoned because they can't withstand these previously rare events - and they can't afford to insure because the insurance company raises premiums because their actuaries say that event is now likely to occur so much more often.

There are not "millions of degrees of freedom" in the climate system. It's highly constrained by physics, chemistry and biology. That does not mean that all manifestations of those combinations are amenable to mammalian life (see snowball earth) let alone the civilisations we have built.

Get your head around the idea that we have to calculate certainty / uncertainty about what we know. The big complicated thing is putting them all together and working out whether the combinations narrow or widen certain ranges of uncertainty.

But there are ranges of uncertainty. There are numbers attached. They tell us what we may have to live with.

The "millions of degrees of freedom" approach is the big scary thing in the wardrobe approach. Scaring yourself silly by saying it's all too terrible to think about is not the way to go.

".....Obviously Dick doesn't think humans are smart enough to deal with changes and grow more food without extra fossil fuels, as we did for the past 10,000 years.....
Not feeding 7 billion we didnt. There is 7-10 calories of oil energy in every food calorie we eat. The planet cannot feed 7 billon people without oil. Over the winter Canada imports 100% of our fresh foods. Gone with out oil...."

Dick obviously doesn't get sarcasm either!!

So - no oil no Canada huh? Sounds attractive.

".....The planet cannot feed 7 billon people without oil....."

And so what do we do when the oil runs out there Dick - as it most certainly will.

RW@120:

"RS, out of 100, assign a percent probability to the future being the following:

1-- better than today

2-- same as today

3-- worse than today"

Why? Is this supposed to be a reasoned response to the criticisms I made?

"Bad example. Bridges are not over engineered."

Bridges ARE over-engineered.

They're rated for AT LEAST a loading of 2x their stated rate. They are also built to withstand a once-a-century event (earthquakes in earthquake country, hurricanes in hurricane country, etc).

The point is that someone touting a bridge that only just meets the load can fail easily and then the engineer gets canned for killing people.

Dick has the opportunity to kill for profit and by the time we see the deaths, he's already died rich on the lives of others.

"I have repeatedly stated as clear as is possible, that the SUMMERS in Canada have cooled"

Then again we have the problem that you, Dick, have taken

1) Limited area of Canada
2) For a very limited period of time

to then "disprove" GLOBAL temperature trends and seemingly have no problem with it.

You said earlier you had used all data for all the world, but now you say you clearly stated that you used Canada for summer and maximum temps only.

The problem you have is convincing anyone you've CLEARLY stated anything when you CLEARLY state many contradictory things, making any clear statement you give unsupportable because not even YOU believe it (else you would not gainsay it elsewhere).

councils would have to instruct engineers and housebuilders and everyone that the 200 yr event has now become the 20 to 50 yr event.

What evidence is there for increasing frequency of weather events?

So now all the roads, houses, businesses have to be redesigned or abandoned because they can't withstand these previously rare events - and they can't afford to insure because the insurance company raises premiums because their actuaries say that event is now likely to occur so much more often.

Nonsense. Insurance companies just want to make more money. There is no incease in frequency of weather events. What has increased is the number of people affected because of population growth.

That does not mean that all manifestations of those combinations are amenable to mammalian life (see snowball earth) let alone the civilisations we have built.

More nonsense. There is no evidence the planet is moving to uninhabitable levels. Hasn't in the last 500 million years, and our CO2 won't do it in the future. What is uncertain is the sensitivity of the climate to more CO2. The HIGH senstivity the IPCC claims is too high. So the affects of CO2 on the climate is MUCH less than the AGW faithful claim.

Thus, if anything the uncertainty is on the DOWN side of the effects. And that does not even include if such effects are bad or good. That's another level of uncertainty. You claim, unwarrentedly, that a "warmer" world is bad. Yet all of history shows a warmer world is better.

So are you going to advocate we spend trillions on a space defence system? Advocate moving hundreds of millions away fom active tectonic zones? How may hundeds of thousands have died from earthquakes? Not one person has died from AGW.

And so what do we do when the oil runs out there Dick - as it most certainly will.

Ah, I see. So this is all about peak oil? Then why don't you tell that story instead of trying to hide behind AGW?

That would be an interesting discussion here. How about it, Coby, a thread on peak oil?

Why? Is this supposed to be a reasoned response to the criticisms I made?

Answer the question and you get the response.

"What evidence is there for increasing frequency of weather events?"

Well, there's certainly a few records broken lately. Russian heatwave, Darwin has its wettest wet season ever - and still has 2 months yet to go, Brisbane had major flooding without a cyclone driving the rainfall ....... heaps of places in USA having their second or third "once in 100 year" floods in just a few years, Lake Eyre filling with water for 3 years in a row - unheard of.

But my comments about councils and building regulations and the rest were responding to your uncertainty remarks. The plain fact is that more uncertainty about the range of likely events means that any longterm planning must account for higher frequency of adverse events.

But now you are certain that "... the effects of CO2 on the climate is MUCH less than the AGW faithful claim."

Seeing as the planet escaped from snowball earth conditions and we're here to talk about it indicates to me that the climate is responsive to greenhouse gases. And the climate has managed to get out of full-blown ice ages since then. Don't know how to explain that without ghgs playing their part.

I realise you don't see this as evidence of the role of ghgs at all, let alone convincing evidence, but I find it persuasive. (I also find the fact that CO2 lasers and air to air missiles work as well as they do pretty persuasive also.)

Until more and better evidence comes along to show me otherwise, I'll accept the work of highly trained people who know more about this stuff than I do. Even then, it's the work of highly trained people that will convince me.

"Answer the question and you get the response."
The best response you could give would be to change your attitude.

"Nonsense. Insurance companies just want to make more money. "

As does the oil industry.

So do makers of DVD drives (who use lasers that rely on the quantum equations that also show CO2's effects).

In a capitalist system, everyone wants to make money. Failing to do so means you starve to death and you don't then want anything.

You see, we also have this thing called "free market" where you can shop around for your insurance. Someone inflating their prices can be undercut by someone inflating their prices less and the informed customer moves to the best insurance from their needs.

Or are you saying that competition doesn't exist in Australia or the USA or Europe, etc?

Insurance companies don't need to make stuff up about weather to make money. But you need to make out that they do because you cannot otherwise discount their knowledge.

"There is no evidence the planet is moving to uninhabitable levels"

There is. Temperature is going up.

If it keeps going up, there is a temperature that is uninhabitable and that temperature is higher than now. So as long as the planet warms, it IS moving to uninhabitable levels.

"Hasn't in the last 500 million years,"

We haven't inhabited even 0.2% of that time. So wrong.

" and our CO2 won't do it in the future"

Because you say it won't? Wrong.

"What is uncertain is the sensitivity of the climate to more CO2."

Yes.

"The HIGH senstivity the IPCC claims is too high."

YOU claim. Without any support.

"Thus, if anything the uncertainty is on the DOWN side of the effects."

Why? Because you say so? Wrong.

"You claim, unwarrentedly, that a "warmer" world is bad."

Ever heard of heat stress?

Why was Washington, before the days of AC, considered a punishment posting for the military?

It was hot and wet.

That's OK if you're with a woman, but it ain't no good if you're in the Jungle.

And pop over to the Sahel and see how well you survive there. If you "know" that higher temperatures aren't a problem, go to it. Land is cheap there.

"Not one person has died from AGW."

Just like not one person has died from cancer caused by smoking...

1) Limited area of Canada
2) For a very limited period of time

Well, there's certainly a few records broken lately.

Breaking records isan accounting issue, nothing to d with trends in the weather. The day you start to keep recos, every day is a record breaker. Do the math, to fill all possible weather positions would take several thousand years or more. Recordbeaking means nothing.

Russian heatwave,

Nonsense again. It was a one off, highly locallized event arount Moscow, the Urakrane was normal, and Siberia as below normal.

Darwin has its wettest wet season ever - and still has 2 months yet to go,

Nonsense again, the 1970's was just as bad (wasn't one of the AGW messages that Australia was in severe drought?)

Brisbane had major flooding without a cyclone driving the rainfall .......

Nonsense, the 1970's saw flooding just as bad. It's been admitted that event had NOTHING to do with AGW.

heaps of places in USA having their second or third "once in 100 year" floods in just a few years, Lake Eyre filling with water for 3 years in a row - unheard of.

Nonsense. http://www.lau.chs-shc.gc.ca/C&A/bulletin_e.html

"Breaking records is an accounting issue, nothing to d with trends in the weather."

I think we have another contender for dumbest thing Dick has ever said here.

"It was a one off, highly locallized event arount Moscow"

All weather is.

"Nonsense again, the 1970's was just as bad (wasn't one of the AGW messages that Australia was in severe drought?)"

Nope, 1970's wasn't just as bad. The reason why the flooding wasn't as bad is that they'd uprated the flood defences.

"It's been admitted that event had NOTHING to do with AGW."

Nope again. It's been stated categorically that AGW heavily influenced it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2011/feb/16/floods-2000-c…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/feb/16/climate…

You do talk a lot of nonsense.

"Wow why is it so difficult for you to understand that in all of Canada there are only some 20 stations with complete records going back to 1900?"

Nothing.

It's how you change from saying you used all the data from all over the world to you used 20 stations in Canada for Summer max temps only and back again.

Understanding why you keep doing that is not easy unless we take the position that you are a congenital and pathological liar.

Brisbain flood not from AGW:

http://thesixtyzone.com/global-warming-did-not-cause-the-brisbane-flood…

"scientists from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change agree that it is not possible to ascribe individual severe-weather events to âglobal warmingâ. They have said so twice: in the 2001 Third Assessment Report and in the 2007 Fourth and most recent Assessment Report"

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/brisbane_floods.html

Google: brisbane flood not global warming

Dick

Are you really as moronic and deluded as your latest post suggests?

You want us to google "Brisbane flood not warming" as some sort of proof that AGW played no part? Then you want us to read articles written by a bug-eyed inbred Walter Mitty and one from an institute with no credibility?

Is that the quality of your argument?

You are so away with the fairies that it beggars the imagination.

Go away and find some real evidence for a change.

RW,

As amusing as it is to see that you still have no clue what failing to reject the null means your recent posts continue to have nothing to do with ice sheets. Please find the appropriate thread for the topics you wish to discuss and post there.

Mandas, show evidence that the Brisbane flood was the worst in all of Australian history. Show evidence tht correlates Brisbane floods with CO2 increase over time. Show evidence of the percent more CO2 played in either when that flood happened or its increase in intensity.

Recall that when skeptics use single events as evidence that AGW isnt happening, like this year's UK record cold winter, we are told one event cannot be used to show AGW. Yet when YOU show one even it can be. There is a term for that.

OK Blueshift:

Widespread Persistent Thickening of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet by Freezing from the Base

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/03/02/science.1200109

That's pretty interesting RW. Have you actually read the paper or just the abstract?

How does this change prior understanding? I.e. what does GRACE show for mass balance changes in this area?

Its the same old Wakefield Gambit:

"Here's science paper. It proves something. So there."

Of course he didn't read it for godsakses. We all know that.

skip

"....Of course he didn't read it for godsakses. We all know that....."

Ahhh - but I have, and I have saved a copy to my desktop. I will hold off providing any information on the paper until Dick gives us his interpretation of what he thinks it means.

So how about it Dick? You have linked to a paper. Why did you do so? What were you hoping to achieve by linking to it? In what way do you think the paper adds to the debate? And while you are at it, tell us who told you about it and what their interpretation is.

There's always been something about RW's summer cooling hypothesis that's struck me as familiar and I finally realized what it is.

In music production, there is an effect called a compressor. It's one of the most difficult for people to understand, but it's probably the most important. What it does is it "tames the peaks"; it reduces the volume when extra-loud sounds come through it. While the description sounds like it makes things quieter, what actually happens is the reverse. Those tamed peaks let you raise the volume of everything else.

I'm not saying that the climate is being compressed, per se, just that to me it seems as though RW is pointing at reduced peaks, ignoring the raised everything else, and claiming it's cooler.

and claiming it's cooler.

Ah, but he only claims that of TMax. Overall its actually becoming "less cold"!

But interesting analogy.

The paper is behind a pay wall, but is reviewed in WUWT.

How does this change prior understanding? I.e. what does GRACE show for mass balance changes in this area?

GRACE has some serious problems.

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N29/C1.php

Why did you do so?

Because the thread is about sea ice, and I did not expect the pro-AGW people would link to it, so I did. Seems there is more complexity to polar ice than as thought, and not in the models.

just that to me it seems as though RW is pointing at reduced peaks, ignoring the raised everything else, and claiming it's cooler.

Such as? What should I be looking at in the data that would show this. The data is only daily TMax and TMin, highest and lowest of the day.

Those of you who think extreme events are because of AGW should read this: http://judithcurry.com/2011/03/08/extreme-testimony/

Note Zwiers comment that AGW will produce (not might produce, but WILL produce):

"...longer and more intense heat waves..."

Interesting since all of you deny that's what AGW predicts.

". AGW will produce (not might produce, but WILL produce):"

He was talking to non-scientists. And he's got the point that if he talks "science-y" they'll take his caveats and uncertainties as 'no problem'. So he left them out.

What the science says is that under a warming climate, we can expect more extreme weather events more often. Longer, hotter heatwaves are one instance of more extreme weather.

He's just shortened the statement, appropriately, for an inexpert audience.

Dick, Dick, Dick, Dick (shaking my head in sorrow)

â....Why did you do so?.... Because the thread is about sea ice, and I did not expect the pro-AGW people would link to it, so I did...â

Doubly wrong. Neither the thread nor the paper is about sea ice, but nice way to show your total lack of comprehension there. This thread â and the paper â is about ice sheets. You do know the difference, right?

â...The paper is behind a pay wall, but is reviewed in WUWT....â

Wrong again. And even more hilarious this time. The paper is NOT reviewed at wattsupmybutt. The only thing that Watts does is provide the abstract - he doesnât even comment on it â and then his minions all discuss the abstract. Not one single one of them even attempts to read or understand the paper before commenting. Hereâs the link to watts if anyone wants to see deniers in action. You can even see such gems as â...I guess everyone has seen the latest spew from the liars at nasa....â

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/08/east-antarctic-ice-sheet-getting-…

And thank you for admitting that you havenât made the slightest attempt at reading something before offering it as some form of proof of your viewpoint. This proves â once again â what passes for science in the denial community. None of you â especially you Dick â has an opinion which is based on evidence. It is just a bunch of nutjobs who more likely than not failed high school science all getting together and reinforcing each otherâs twisted, ideologically-driven, wordviews.

Since neither you, watts, or any of his idiot supporters have even bothered to read the paper before forming an opinion (what does that say about your credibility?), here are just a few snippets for your reading pleasure:

â.....Large ice sheets thicken by the accumulation of snow on the surface yet little is known of processes at the base of the ice sheets. Radar images of ice sheets are characterized by isochronous internal layers associated with changes in dielectric properties of the ice. In the center of ice sheets these internal layers continue almost to the ice sheet bed (1). Away from the domes and ice divides, these layers disappear in the bottom 10-30% of the ice sheet. This homogeneous, echo-free basal layer can be hundreds of meters thick (2) and is considered to be the result of elevated basal temperatures, deformed ice, stagnant ice or increased layer roughness (3). The absence of reflectors in the base of the ice sheet makes decoding basal processes difficult.....â

â....We interpret both populations of basal reflectors and the underlying packages of ice as the result of basal freeze-on. ... Using this simple approach, the valley head freeze-on process has been persistent for a minimum of 30,000-60,000 year while the valley wall freeze-on has been persistent for a minimum of 10,000-20,000 year. The process of basal freeze-on has continued through the glacial interglacial transition. The processes are likely to have been persistent for significantly longer but older freeze-on ice may not be easily detected by radar.....â

â....The thick packages of freeze-on ice surrounding Dome A illustrate that basal freeze-on modifies the fundamental structure of ice sheets, thickening the ice column from the base. The freeze-on rates in the Dome A region may be locally greater than the surface accumulation rates. The upwarping of internal layers over accretion sites implies active interaction between basal accretion and the entire ice sheet. The accretion-induced upwarping of basal ice will move old ice to a higher elevation in the ice sheet increasing the potential of preserving very old ice. Alternatively the widespread melt required to support the freeze-on process may have destroyed the ice containing the ancient paleoclimate records. Without inclusion of basal processes, simple models of ice sheet temperatures cannot accurately predict the location of the oldest ice (11)....â

Since you, watts and his minions are scientifically illiterate, ideologically driven, pathological liars, let me interpret all that for you (as simply as possible).

The weight of the ice sheets causes temperatures at the base of the sheet to rise. The resulting meltwater can move around and refreeze, causing distortions in the overlaying ice sheet. Because of this melting and freezing, locating very old ice can be problematic and it makes reconstruction of paleoclimatic records difficult. The authors hope to overcome these problems by analysing how the ice has moved by observing the buckling effects of the ice sheets. This will also assist in the understanding of ice sheet movements and changes and improve the relevant models.

And if you â in any way â think that provides some sort of evidence that AGW is flawed, you are a bigger fool than I previously thought. The reason I didnât link to it before â as per your idiotic statement â....I did not expect the pro-AGW people would link to it, so I did...â â was because it has virtually nothing to do with climate change. Although the authors are solidly in the âpro-AGWâ camp, and have said so in many of their other papers. I can provide links if you want. Itâs part of the scientific process to read associated studies and papers so you know what the authorâs views are, as well as to try and understand the relevance of the particular paper you are reading and how it fits into the science. I say this because you appear to have absolutely no understanding of this very basic concept.

Despite claims in the deniersphere (and the ill-informed media), Antarctic ice is NOT growing from underneath â and only a complete moron would think that. Where do you think the water is coming from? Rain? It is simply meltwater of ice that is already there. The ice is not growing â it is just reshaping itself. But that is so obvious a child would understand it.

I have said it before and I will say it again Dick. DO SOME READING OF REAL SCIENCE BEFORE PUTTING FINGERS TO KEYBOARD. AND STOP RELYING ON OTHERS TO GIVE YOU YOUR OPINION.

Sure mandas, you with your "reading" and "analysis" think you have it all figured out, but all Watts and Wakefield have to do is spot a paper with the word "thickening" in it and they know they have AGW beat!

"Those of you who think extreme events are because of AGW should read this:"

Then link to Curry whose last link you used read like a New Age Healing Crystals advert.

"The paper is behind a pay wall, but is reviewed in WUWT."

So you're not willing to pay for access to a paper yet will use it anyway to prove your point?!?!?

If you don't know what the paper says, how can you say it "proves" your point?

Answer: you can't.

Congenital liar.

"Note Zwiers comment that AGW will produce (not might produce, but WILL produce):

"...longer and more intense heat waves...""

http://www.skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cooling-oceans.htm

and, as you've been told before, the USA records of high temperature days are increasing as the years go by whilst the record cold temperature days are decreasing.

Which does show more intense heat waves.

And neither the length nor intensity of a heatwave is recorded with your use of Tmax summer temperatures.

So much for Brisbane 2010 flood because of AGW. No where near the hieghest on record.

http://www.bom.gov.au/hydro/flood/qld/fld_history/brisbane_history.shtml

Wakefield gets it all wrong again:

So much for Brisbane 2010 flood because of AGW. No where near the hieghest (sic) on record.

I'm not sure whether he is deliberately trying to mislead (always hard to tell when some one is both ignorant of facts and dishonest) or is just confused but the Brisbane flood which caused so much damage occurred in 2011. The data he links to only go up to October 2010.

It is incredible that someone should be so consistently wrong.

But no longer surprising.

Notice how he ignores Mandas?

And neither the length nor intensity of a heatwave is recorded with your use of Tmax summer temperatures

Explain how to measure heat waves.

What the science says is that under a warming climate, we can expect more extreme weather events more often. Longer, hotter heatwaves are one instance of more extreme weather.

He's just shortened the statement, appropriately, for an inexpert audience.

No, he lied to make his point.

He lied, because the data shows no increase in summer TMax anywhere on the planet since 1900.

skip

Of course Dick is going to ignore what I wrote. You don't expect him to show a modicum of integrity do you? He comes from a dishonest profession, so it just stands to reason that he will continue to be dishonest for his whole life.

Sort of like that link he provided at post #164 on the height of the Brisbane floods. It's called cherry picking.

Not only does the link not have the data for the latest flood in Brisbane, after the 1974 floods the government constructed a large damn - Wivenhoe - both to store water and to control future flood events. During the 2011 flood, the dam reached 200% of its flood storage capacity. Some estimates are that it took up to 5m off the maximum level of the flood, and without Wivenhoe the flood level would have been the highest in history - even surpassing the 1894 levels. The rainfall in the catchment certainly was the highest in history.

So once again, Dick gets it wrong. I'm not sure about you, but if I was wrong with such monotonous regularity, I would start to question why the people who were giving me my opinions (watts et al) were such fools.

Ian, on Brisbane flood of 2011:

"This week, thousands of Brisbane and Ipswich residents have been displaced by the worst floods the region has endured in 37 years"

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/weather/brisbane-flood-vict…

So the 1974 flood was higher, but not economically worse.

Yeah but RW has already reached the nadir of credibility and he knows that. He long ago gave up trying to convince any of us with these dipshit tactics. He just posts to convince himself now. He thinks as long as he's posting he's winning in some sense.

skip

It seems from some previous posts that your powers of prophecy have been somewhat lacking in recent times with regard to Dick. Let me give it a go.

He is about to link to a NOAA paper entitled:

"Was There a Basis for Anticipating the 2010 Russian Heat Wave?â by Dole, Hoerling, Perlwitz, Eischeid,Pegion, Zhang, Quan, Xu, and Murraye.

The paper has been accepted - but not yet published - by Geophysical Research Lettere. Despite this, wattsupmybutt and his minions are all over it like a cheap suit. As pper usual, they have seized on a press release and are conducting their usual standard of scientific excellence by drawing conclusions without having read the primary document. Here is the press release for those who are interested:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110309_russianheatwave.html

So come on Dick. Make my day. What has Anthony told you to think today? Give us your (sorry - I mean Anthony's) considered views on another paper that neither of you has read yet.

But back on the topic. And while I am talking about Geophysical Research Letters, here is another disturbing paper just published on the subject of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet loss.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL046583.shtml

I wonder how much more evidence needs to pile up? The deniers are looking more and more like John McCain standing up in the Senate giving a speech on how the repeal of DADT will cause the end of civilisation. They just don't get it.

What has Anthony told you to think today? Give us your (sorry - I mean Anthony's) considered views on another paper that neither of you has read yet.

Nice, you provided a paper that shows the Russian "heat wave" was indeed a natural event.

I had already seen this: http://cdnsurfacetemps.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/moscow-1949-2010/

They just don't get it.

Explain why this supposed increase in sea level rise doesn't show up.

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml…

Pick any station you want, there is no evidence of any acceleration in the rate.

I WIN!!!! My prediction came true!!!

".....Nice, you provided a paper that shows the Russian "heat wave" was indeed a natural event....."

No Dick. You have - once again - failed to either read or understand anything. I have NOT provided a paper which shows the Russian heatwave was a natural event, because I HAVEN'T PROVIDED A PAPER AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!

All I have done is provide a link to a press release for a paper that HAS NOT BEEN PUBLISHED YET!!!!!!!!!!

Damn you are stupid. You failed to learn last time when you linked to the abstract of a conference paper for a conference that hasn't yet been held, now you and the morons at wattsupmybutt are making claims about a paper that you haven't read (no surprises there though), BECAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN PUBLISHED!!!!!!!!!

Are you really as deluded as you make yourself out to be, or is it all woo?

Mind you, I absolutely LOVE the link you provided at post #174 to try and claim support for your argument. I really hope everyone here has a look at it. I especially LOVE the first graph entitled "Yearly Tmax for July" (for Moscow). Please, please, please everyone go and check it out.

Tell me Dick, what does the linear regression slope tell you? I know what it tells me!

Of course, you will go with this absolutely unethical statement made by the author:
"...Take 2010 out and the trend is flat, no over all increase in TMax. 2011 will very likely reset that increasing slope back to flat...."

That's the problem isn't it Dick? It is patently obvious that there IS an increase in summer Tmax for Moscow, and the only way to 'reset' the trend is to remove incovenient data points. If that isn't the worst case of downright unethical, fraudulant, lying, denialism, I am at a loss to know what is. Why not take 1950 out, and make the slope steeper?

You people are deluded, pathological, lying, non-scientific, ideologically driven, insane, dangerous loons.

"And neither the length nor intensity of a heatwave is recorded with your use of Tmax summer temperatures"

Whaaaa? This clearly went by me straight through to the keeper. Or perhaps it got choked off at the transfer station to longer-term memory.

Anyway, if I read this right, that means that this analysis will fail to pick up large numbers of high temperature days if no single one of those days exceeds some number or other. ??? No?

I have no idea whether anywhere in Canada is displaying such weather behaviour. But summers are surely hotter if there is a higher number of days with higher, but not necessarily record-breaking, temperatures. A recording and analysis framework that cannot pick up such a phenomenon is a bit lacking.

(Seems a bit like saying you're getting less rainfall even though the rain gauges record precipitation more often ... because you've not had floods.)

I must be wrong. Someone can explain what I'm missing.

Thanks for that site Richard. Good fun to play with.

There is something a bit peculiar about the Gulf of Mexico. The Key West SLR is almost flat, but the Texas gauges are something else again! 6+mm a year in a couple of places. http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=…

The Philippines has some truly odd features as well. And an earthquake can seriously muck things up locally - a nice site for aimless wandering through unfamiliar data.

I've now started a search for some other stuff I've seen in passing but not saved. (Total water stored or otherwise diverted before reaching its historical ocean outfall.)

"He lied, because the data shows no increase in summer TMax anywhere on the planet since 1900."

But the summer Tmax you use won't show a statistically proven trend of increased heatwave count and deeper heatwaves.

And this data:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/record-highs-lows.jpg

shows that record temperature count in the USA is increasing. This is somewhere on the planet and is after 1900.

Seems like you're lying.

Then again, we could have guessed: you typed something. You and the truth have at best a theoretical knowledge of each other.

Why go to the US? Canada's got some good info.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/adsc-cmda/default.asp?lang=en&n=E74BF1CD-1 The last time a Canadian summer was cooler than the 1951-1980 average was 28 years ago.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/adsc-cmda/default.asp?lang=en&n=30EDCA67-1 More importantly, Canadian summers are getting seriously wetter! Check the bottom of the page.

Ad:

I had to fish through your EC link to get to this:

http://www.ec.gc.ca/adsc-cmda/default.asp?lang=En&n=77842065-1#a1

Was it the one we needed to see? Also, it said the document was last modified in January. Had anyone posted this before? If not, great link--and laugh.

The link I gave adelady/skip was one I'd given Dick before on another beck thread.

He knew that the USA shows more temperature records over the last few years, but keeps saying there IS NO DATA that shows heatwaves increasing on the planet.

Since he states what he KNOWS to be false, this is called "lying".

All I have done is provide a link to a press release for a paper that HAS NOT BEEN PUBLISHED YET!!!!!!!!!!

It now accepted for pubishing: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/09/noaa-findsclimate-change-blameles…

So it STILL ISN'T PUBLISHED.

Funny how you CANNOT accept that anything you say is wrong in any way whatsoever.

Denialism depends on this.

The Farce is strong with this one.

PS since there are papers from earlier that say that heatwaves ARE having a deleterious effect on the runssian climate, why do you believe this one?

Since you haven't even read it (nor have any of your coworkers at WTFUWT), how do you know that it shows what you say?â Hump Day Hilarity
Congress looking to put the kibosh on GHG related taxes â
NOAA findsâclimate changeâ blameless in 2010 Russian heat wave
Posted on March 9, 2011 by Anthony Watts

We mentioned this previously on WUWT, now it is officially peer reviewed and accepted. Maybe this will be a lesson to those in the MSM and eco blogland who immediately jump on every newsworthy weather event, and with no supporting evidence, attribute it to âglobal warmingâ, âclimate changeâ, or âclimate disruptionâ or whatever the marketing phrase of the day is. The factual science is in, and the answer that we knew all along? To paraphrase James Carville; Itâs the weather, not climate, stupid.
NOAA: Natural Variability Main Culprit of Deadly Russian Heat Wave That Killed Thousands

Source here

Daily Moscow temperature record from November 1 2009 to October 31 2010. Red and blue shaded areas represent departures from the long-term average (smooth curve) in Moscow. Temperatures significantly above the long-term average scorched Moscow for much of July and August. NOAA credit. - click to enlarge

The deadly Russian heat wave of 2010 was due to a natural atmospheric phenomenon often associated with weather extremes, according to a new NOAA study. And while the scientists could not attribute the intensity of this particular heat wave to climate change, they found that extreme heat waves are likely to become increasingly frequent in the region in coming decades.

The research team drew from scientific observations and computer climate models to evaluate the possible roles of natural and human-caused climate influences on the severity of the heat wave. The study was accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters, a publication of the American Geophysical Union.

âKnowledge of prior regional climate trends and current levels of greenhouse gas concentrations would not have helped us anticipate the 2010 summer heat wave in Russia,â

doesn't say "CO2 blameless". It says that knowing CO2 levels were higher would not have helped anticipate such a deep heat wave.

But it happened.

And one thing that helped it become so deep was the rise in global temperatures.

Or do things that are warmer not warm other things nearby in Dickworld?

adelady, keep in mind that stations along active tectonic zones alters the rate of rise (or fall). For example, the south coast of the UK is sinking, while Scotland is rising, as the European Plate moves north. As Pacific islands get older, they lose land, and it appears they are "sinking" or sea level is rising. Note the Hawaiian chain up to Midway.

Thus you need to choose stations on stable cratons to get an accurate picture of what is happening to sea level.

It seems RW really shot himself in the foot at 144 with âbreaking records is an accounting issue, nothing to d with trends in the weather.â

Wow, record setting temps has nothing to do with AGW, it has everything to do with accounting. I have proven that here: http://cdnsurfacetemps.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/simulating-record-setti…

Notice your link does not go before 1950, why is that? It's because the 1930's would dominate record highs.

Canadian summers are getting seriously wetter! Check the bottom of the page.

No. http://www.cmos.ca/Ao/articles/v380301.pdf

My two cents:

You need to treat the trolls here like a kid with a tantrum: put them in time out. They are achieving at least one of their goals, which is to take the time and energy of good people to try to get them to think and pay attention.

My mother had a stroke, and when she is particularly impossible, we just remove all stimulus and she quiets down, just like a two-year-old. You are all providing exactly what RW et al. want, which is attention.

In addition, this conversation is boring because the people who actually know what they are talking about are not really talking to each other, which is what needs to happen.

I know there will be a scream of "censorship" and if the blog owner doesn't want to edit this stuff out after it's gone on far too long, the rest of you can help by ignoring the staggeringly off-base and irrelevant material, particularly when it has been demonstrated over and over again that the poster is not interested in learning, but in "proving" that they are right.

Insulting these people provides them with even better ammunition - they can go over to their favorite places and say "look, I got insulted, they are unclean and nasty."

Please have a conversation with each other, not with trolls.

Greengold, explain why.

Susan, I know. For myself, I'm pretty sure that Richard doesn't "lie". He's kidding himself - but he thinks he can persuade others in the same way he was convinced.

If that fails, he has the "they're all brainwashed" explanation. And then back to step one.

And he never, never realises that this group, far more than the ones he relies on, would grasp like starving hordes at a food truck onto anything competent showing a scientific basis for more positive views about our circumstances.

Shame really.

For myself, I'm pretty sure that Richard doesn't "lie".

Expect a rant about that from Ian, but thanks anyway.

I used to accept AGW. I expected those "scientists" were doing their jobs properly. That all changed the day it was proclaimed that the science was settled, no questioning allowed.

Lo, T.-T. and Hsu, H.-H. 2010. Change in the dominant decadal patterns and the late 1980s abrupt warming in the extratropical Northern Hemisphere. Atmospheric Science Letters 11: 210-215.

"...do not support the scenario that the emerging influence of the AO-like pattern in the 1980s can be attributed to the anthropogenic greenhouse effect."

Reviewed here:
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V14/N10/C1.php

No change in past 115 years of Arctic temps, 1920s warmer:

Opel, T., Fritzsche, D., Meyer, H., Schutt, R., Weiler, K., Ruth, U., Wilhelms, F. and Fischer, H. 2009. 115 year ice-core data from Akademii Nauk ice cap, Severnaya Zemlya: high-resolution record of Eurasian Arctic climate change. Journal of Glaciology 55: 21-31.

Reviewed here: http://www.co2science.org/articles/V14/N10/C2.php

Dick

You used to be a fireman I believe? I used to trust them once upon a time, but now I know that they are all just disengeuous liars sucking at the government teat.

They sit around in their 'station houses' all day drinking beer and watching porn. Occasionally, they realise that if they don't actually demonstrate that they are useful (you know, by putting out a fire), then the government may cut their funding.

We all know that improved regulations means that fires just don't start by accident anymore. So in order to ensure their funding continues, firemen go around and start fires so they have something to do. They are all nothing more than lying arsonists.

I don't trust a single one of them.

RW,
Once again you are completely off topic. You completely failed to respond to Mandas who unlike you or Watts read the only on-topic paper you have referenced in this thread (note that ice sheets are not sea ice.)

Your reply to me re: GRACE was also a complete non-response. Assuming for a moment that GRACE did have problems, the question was whether your linked paper indicated any differences from the understanding of Antarctica that we have gained from GRACE or other sources. In other words you need to see what the general understanding of mass balance is for the area of the Antarctica that you referenced.

Dick

You are a moron.

How many times do we have to tell you to READ A PAPER BEFORE COMMENTING? You have â once again â relied on the opinion of someone else who also appears not to have read the paper. And â once again â you both have got it wrong. When will you EVER learn?

At post #194 you linked to this paper, supposedly reviewed at CO2science:

http://epic.awi.de/Publications/Ope2008c.pdf

And you â and they â have come to the earth shatteringly stupid and wrong conclusion that there has been â....No change in past 115 years of Arctic temps, 1920s warmer....â

Of course, if you actually READ the paper you would have realised that is NOT the case, and cannot be concluded by even the most cursory reading. Why donât you try it â just for once??!!

Once again â since you havenât read the paper â let me do it for you. Here are some quotes and explanations:

â...In this paper, we present high-resolution data of stable water isotopes, melt-layer content as well as major ions from the uppermost 57m of this core, covering the time period 1883â1999....â

So firstly, the record stops at 1999. It does not cover the most recent decade. You know â the one which has been described as the âhottest on recordâ. So you CANNOT make the claim that the 1920s were warmer than today, because âtodayâ is not in the data. Next....

â....The AN _18O time series shows a distinct increasing trend with pronounced changes since 1883. Starting from a low level of about â22%, _18O values increased to values of â18% at about 1920 and 1940. From 1950 to the 1980s they oscillated about â20% and rose again afterwards. Besides the strong warming in the first two decades of the 20th century the most prominent feature of the AN _18O time series is the double-peaked SAT maximum between 1920 and 1940. These values were not reached again until the end of our record in the 1990s. This agrees with the instrumental sub-Arctic SAT data (Fig. 5). The double-peak structure of this SAT maximum seems to be a specific feature of the Eurasian Arctic, since the 1920 peak is not visible in other SAT time series, e.g. Bodø or Akureyri. Based on instrumental data, Przybylak (2007) stated for the whole Arctic the decade 1936â1945 and the year 1938 to be the warmest in the 20th century. Only the period 1995â2005 and the year 2005, respectively, reached and exceeded these values....â

So the 1920 peak is only evident in this dataset â and is not evident in other samples from different locations. That suggests very strongly that the 1920 peak is a local phenomenon. The authors agree:

â....We present the correlations for some of these SAT time series in Table 2. The best accordance between AN _18O and instrumental SAT time series (1883â1998) was found for Vardø (r5yrm ¼ 0.62) and Arkhangelsk (r5yrm ¼ 0.61) stations, located at the Barents Sea and White Sea coasts, respectively (Fig. 5, data from Climate Research Unit (CRU) Norwich, Brohan and others, 2006). Compared with Golomyanny, their SATs are not (or in the case of Arkhangelsk to a much lesser extent) influenced by the occurrence of sea ice. The good correlations and similarities of the time series reveal again the influence of the Atlantic
Ocean via the Barents Sea and Kara Sea on SZ region SAT conditions...â

What is FAR more interesting, is that the authors very specifically state that 1938 was the warmest peak, but that â...only the period 1995-2005 and the year 2005, respectively, REACHED AND EXCEEDED THESE VALUES.....â

Do you get that Dick? The authors state â based on the data they have and the instrumental record â that THE CURRENT PERIOD IS THE WARMEST SINCE 1883.

There is a lot more to this paper, but I honestly am getting fed up with having to do your research and analysis for you. It takes a special sort of person to continually fail to do even the most basic research before forming an opinion on a subject. You are one such special person Dick. In the past few days, I have provided a relatively modest reading of several papers that you have linked to, but failed to read before doing so. In each and every occasion your conclusions have been shown to be completely wrong, and driven by your political ideology rather than evidence. If you had even a scintilla of integrity you would have admitted your mistake and learned from it. But not you. You never even acknowledged that you may have got it wrong, before moving on to the next link and the next opinion that you trawled from a denier website.

Why do you keep trusting these people, when they lead you astray EVERY SINGLE TIME? Why are you completely incapable of learning from your mistakes? Are you really so deluded?

Richard,

More days with Tmax above a threshold would be a type of âtemperature recordâ. If âbreaking records has nothing to do with trends in weatherâ, then, by your definition, your Tmax analysis is âan accounting issueâ.

Greengold, you are not understanding. Count of the number of days above a threshold temp, considered a heat wave, is a physical reality. Days hitting a certain temperature are only recordsetting by definision dependant upon when you start records. They are related, but different measurements. Eventually, all temps will be filled and no more record temps will be seen (in 3000 years). Thus if we had records going back 3000 years we would have no record breaking temps. But we would still be able to count the number of days in each year above a certain temp and see a trend. Because we have only 100 years of records, we can have a drop in the number of heat waves while at the same time have recordsetting days.

Write a program, and you can simulate that.

They are all nothing more than lying arsonists.

Tell me where you live so I can email this comment to the hall near you. Then when you need them, they will ignore you. You are one ignorant prick and not worth my commenting on anything you post.

Actually, I will get the email of all Au departments and pass your comment on.

What's up Dick? Don't like it when someone casts aspersions on your profession? Bit of a hypocrite aren't you?

You love saying that you don't trust scientists and that we are all involved in a conspiracy or that we are only doing it for the grant money. But as soon as someone does it to you, you get all upset.

You are showing your true colours aren't you? I knew I would get a reaction - which is exactly why I did it. If you don't like people criticising your profession, stop doing it to others.

And will you email my comments before or after you email Judith Curry? How is that going by the way?

Oh, and Dick.

I already know you can't be bothered commenting on anything I post. I have posted long detailed analyses of a number of the references you provided, and not once did you have the integrity to even acknowledge that you may have got it wrong.

One of us is ignorant - and most people here know who it is.

"Tell me where you live so I can email this comment to the hall near you."

You're a lying arsonist. You associate with sociopaths and help them cause more trouble because you gain personally out of it, as do other firemen because higher temperatures make fires more dangerous and more frequent and therefore make you more money.

Your bias in wanting a warmer world is extremely obvious. You're just in it for the cash bonus.

"For myself, I'm pretty sure that Richard doesn't "lie"."

So why is he saying that there is no increase in temperatures records and heatwaves over time anywhere on the planet when he's already been shown a specific graph that shows otherwise?

If you say something wrong then when corrected, stop saying it, then that is just a mistake (which for Dick is probably willful). If you continue saying it despite knowing now it's wrong, it's no longer a mistake, but a lie.

"Wow, record setting temps has nothing to do with AGW"

If you REALLY believed this, why are you saying that you have proved that heatwaves have not been seen by your analysis and therefore AGW is wrong?

IF record temps are nothing to do with AGW, then the lack of their appearance has nothing to do with AGW either.

But that statement is assinine and a real corker of a delusion from a sociopath.

If AGW is warming, why wouldn't a record setting temperature become more frequent? Explain, if you can.

"adelady, keep in mind that stations along active tectonic zones alters the rate of rise (or fall). For example, the south coast of the UK is sinking, while Scotland is rising"

Which is at max about 200ft in 10,000's of years.

Adiabatic lapse rate is 10degrees per mile. Therefore 200ft is 0.38C, over 10,000 years is 0.00038C per decade.

Temperature rises are around 0.17C per decade from AGW in the past 60 years.

Less than 2% of the signal COULD be due to rising or falling levels in the UK.

Also, since this is a lapse rate and the REMOVAL of ice would give a lift, that 200ft change would only be seen as COOLING.

And it's not like they could account for this change in any case.

Yet to your idiocy this effect is

a) not accounted for
b) going to hide the decline in temperatures you believe is going on

Wrong and wrong.

Hehe.

Hey look, I'm just saying . . . we need to start assembling/voting on the Wakefield Highlight Reel.

The t-test debacle R Simons caught will almost certainly have to be number 1 ("Fun with Undergrad Statistics").

Other contenders are:

The Phantom Link
The Weather Channel as Climate Science
The Curious Case of Benjamin Laken
Judith and Me

Those come off the top of my head but if people could remind me of others that have been spotted I would seriously like to create a master list.

Coby, you have attracted a poor bunch of human representatives. I will make sure this is well known elsewhere, way to go.

Good bye.

There's also "High temperature records have nothing to do with AGW", though that's an eclipsing binary with "And Canda's Tmax is decreasing, therefore AGW is wrong!".

Push one argument down, the other one pops up.

What?!

Richard for godsakes: What makes this humiliation any worse than all the others?

Also, Wow, you have to remember that "And Canada's Tmax is decreasing, therefore AGW is wrong!" needs an unwieldy addendum that saps some of its rhetorical sting. It technically needs to read:

"And Canda's Tmax is decreasing [and the statsy, sciency, signifancy, null-hypothesisy, trendsiness of this is not relevant, according to my daughter-in-law, who supervises the laying of pavement], therefore AGW is wrong!"

Nonetheless if you want your candidate to be voted on appropriately you need to at least make it complete, you pathetic human representative.

I will make sure this is well known elsewhere, way to go. Richard

I suppose this means they will no longer speak highly of you over at Wattsupchuck and ClimateFraudit, Coby. Sorry.

"you pathetic human representative."

Given Dick is supposedly human, I take this as a compliment...

What also makes that addition is that it is another meta-class of Dick's errors. The Eclipsing Binary error.

I was sure @208 was someone complaining about Richard, going to scare away quality readers, until I saw it was his comment! Like skip said, there goes my creds with WUWT and Climate Etc commenters...so sad.

It seems unlikely, but I sure hope Richard meant his goodbye, he is way beyond tiresome. That knight from Monty Python is pretty funny, but imagine if you were stuck sitting beside him on a long plane ride!

OK, back to icesheets, sort of.

I didn't save it so it's my own fault. I thought it was on Crock of the Week but I haven't found it there. And I couldn't identify it on the youtube index. So it's probably (but not certainly) one of those university/ conference/ educational/ other presentations.

The thing that captured my interest was that if Greenland alone melts, sea level around Scotland and Iceland is likely to _fall_ while it will rise much, much further away. Most importantly, the worldwide variations in SLR can be examined to estimate how much, if any, might be attributable to melting from GIS, WAIS or EAIS. If the SLR near Northern Europe is a lot higher/ faster than say around Australia, then it's much more likely to be from Antarctica and not Greenland.

It's about gravity and uplift. Surely I'm not the only one who thought this was interesting - and had the good sense to both save it and index it correctly.

Anyone?

Just to clear up an erroneous statement made up thread. The change in height of land masses in the UK has got nothing to do with tectonic plates moving over one another. It is caused by post glacial rebound (aka glacial isostatic adjustment) which causes Scotland to be "uplifted" and southern England to be depressed (I bet you thought it was single malts and poor quality of English beers which caused the "uplifting" and depression respectively). The rates are quite substantial with a rate of 1 cm per year quite common.

One of the positive advantages of the "uplifting" is the creation of "raised beaches" which make for the best of all golf courses.

So a warmer and tectonically disturbed world would be better?

Adelady

Are these what you are referring to?

Media report here:
http://harvardmagazine.com/2010/05/gravity-of-glacial-melt

Paper here:
http://geo.orst.edu/files/geo/Mitrovica-2009-Science.pdf

mandas, it's the concept. But it was a really nifty video. By a scientist.

I'm really kicking myself now.

Adelady

How about this then:

http://videosift.com/video/Melting-ice-caps-could-cause-gravity-shift

Thanks I've saved that now that I've seen it.

The one I have in mind talks - 7-15 minutes maybe - about being able to identify which icesheet may have contributed to higher SLR in one place rather than another. After first talking about the notion being a bit of a surprise when examining ....... something else. Maybe GRACE?

Don't worry. I'll have to track it down myself seeing as I'm the one who found it so absorbing - but not enough to ensure I had reliable access to the frustrating thing. Maybe one of the guys over at the ice blogs might know it.

"I bet you thought it was single malts and poor quality of English beers which caused the "uplifting" and depression respectively"

Poor compared to what?

Them's fighting words, made.

(if you're going to compare Brit lagers with foreign ones, then fair enough, but if you're going to use *real* beers vs lagers, we're not going to talk again..!)

I was sitting at home last night watching an old episode of âStar Gate â Atlantisâ (what can I say, Iâm a nerd) when the truth hit me!

We all laugh at deniers and some of their claims, and we are all banging on about how their claims are incompatible with the known laws of physics etc, and that they are internally inconsistent. But over the last couple of weeks we have all been commenting on two issues; the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and the âinterestingâ claims made by the author of a link provided by Michael of Brisbane.

And here is the âspookyâ bit. Have a look at this claim made by Michaelâs author â but donât laugh just yet!
http://www.helium.com/items/680599-assessing-the-reality-of-atlantis

Now have a look at the evidence:
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2009/07/atlantis-at-last.html

It would seem there is internal consistency in some of these claims. Greenland once WAS green; however, it wasnât because of the MWP. It was because it used to be at the equator, and because it really is Atlantis.

Perhaps the next time someone tries to make the argument about Greenland once being green, we should respond with this information. It would be fascinating to see the reaction.

Okaaaaay, Pangaea.

Greenland might have been green 250 million years ago. But I doubt too many Vikings were growing vines.

Yes, but mandas there is some inconsitency there - the map he shows in your second link has to be flipped to make the point. But as he states in the link below:

"The landmasses of the Earth exhibit many creature-like shapes, mostly incomplete or otherwise tantalizingly vague, but many like Africa are quite striking and clear. And they are almost all upright on the globe of the Earth, with north defined as "up"-and that means they were not randomly positioned, but deliberately shaped and placed upright. The landmasses of the Earth were designed, as any child can see-and as mankind was taught, in its childhood, by the "gods"." (my bold).

http://newsblaze.com/story/20090619102218dale.nb/topstory.html

So, if you have to flip the map to prove Atlantis, does that not mean all the creature-like shapes & faces will be upside-down?