From NCAR an “unexpected new result” – “Arctic ice… likely to expand as it is to contract”

It seems that the Serreze “death spiral” might be on hold. From UCAR/NCAR:

Arctic ice melt could pause in near future, then resume again

BOULDER—Although Arctic sea ice appears fated to melt away as the climate continues to warm, the ice may temporarily stabilize or somewhat expand at times over the next few decades, new research indicates.

The computer modeling study, by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, reinforces previous findings by other research teams that the level of Arctic sea ice loss observed in recent decades cannot be explained by natural causes alone, and that the ice will eventually disappear during summer if climate change continues.

But in an unexpected new result, the NCAR research team found that Arctic ice under current climate conditions is as likely to expand as it is to contract for periods of up to about a decade.

“One of the results that surprised us all was the number of computer simulations that indicated a temporary halt to the loss of the ice,” says NCAR scientist Jennifer Kay, the lead author. “The computer simulations suggest that we could see a 10-year period of stable ice or even a slight increase in the extent of the ice.  Even though the observed ice loss has accelerated over the last decade, the fate of sea ice over the next decade depends not only on human activity but also on climate variability that cannot be predicted.”

Kay explains that variations in atmospheric conditions such as wind patterns could, for example, temporarily halt the sea ice loss. Still, the ultimate fate of the ice in a warming world is clear.

“When you start looking at longer-term trends, 50 or 60 years, there’s no escaping the loss of ice in the summer,” Kay says.

Kay and her colleagues also ran computer simulations to answer a fundamental question: why did Arctic sea ice melt far more rapidly in the late 20th century than projected by computer models? By analyzing multiple realizations of the 20th century from a single climate model, they attribute approximately half the observed decline to human emissions of greenhouse gases, and the other half to climate variability.

These findings point to climate change and variability working together equally to accelerate the observed sea ice loss during the late 20th century.

The study appears this week in Geophysical Research Letters. It was funded by the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s sponsor.

Rapid melt

Since accurate satellite measurements became available in 1979, the extent of summertime Arctic sea ice has shrunk by about one third. The ice returns each winter, but the extent shrank to a record low in September 2007 and is again extremely low this year, already setting a monthly record low for July.  Whereas scientists warned just a few years ago that the Arctic could lose its summertime ice cover by the end of the century, some research has indicated that Arctic summers could be largely ice-free within the next several decades.

To simulate what is happening with the ice, the NCAR team used a newly updated version of one of the world’s most powerful computer climate models. The software, known as the Community Climate System Model, was developed at NCAR in collaboration with scientists at multiple organizations and with funding by NSF and the Department of Energy.

The research team first evaluated whether the model was a credible tool for the study.  By comparing the computer results with Arctic observations, they verified that, though the model has certain biases, it can capture observed late 20th century sea ice trends and the observed thickness and seasonal variations in the extent of the ice.

Kay and her colleagues then conducted a series of future simulations that looked at how Arctic sea ice was affected both by natural conditions and by the increased level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The computer studies indicated that the year-to-year and decade-to-decade trends in the extent of sea ice are likely to fluctuate increasingly as temperatures warm and the ice thins.

“Over periods up to a decade, both positive and negative trends become more pronounced in a warming world,” says NCAR scientist Marika Holland, a co-author of the study.

The simulations also indicated that Arctic sea ice is equally likely to expand or contract over short time periods under the climate conditions of the late 20th and early 21st century.

Although the Community Climate System Model simulations provide new insights, the paper cautions that more modeling studies and longer-term observations are needed to better understand the impacts of climate change and weather variability on Arctic ice.

The authors note that it is also difficult to disentangle the variability of weather systems and sea ice patterns from the ongoing impacts of human emissions of greenhouse gases.

“The changing Arctic climate is complicating matters,” Kay says. “We can’t measure natural variability now because, when temperatures warm and the ice thins, the ice variability changes and is not entirely natural.”

About the article

Title: Interannual to multidecadal Arctic sea ice extent trends in a warming world

Authors: Jennifer Kay, Marika Holland, and Alexandra Jahn

Publication: Geophysical Research Letters

Link to the paper is here

About these ads

146 thoughts on “From NCAR an “unexpected new result” – “Arctic ice… likely to expand as it is to contract”

  1. Oh, come on. They’re just padding their bets now. No matter what happens with sea ice, they’ll be able to say “See we told you so global warming will still kill us all!”

  2. Now that we are beginning to see probable cooling (apparently) from a reduction in solar activity. expect to see more and more of the models predict a pause in warming in order to claim they saw this coming and not to worry, warming is still going to occur, it’s just delayed.

    Handy way for them to try to keep the climate change money flowing in for another 10 years…

  3. ….In other words, research indicates that arctic ice could do anything, and we’ve got a weasel clause that will allow us to blame it all on anthropogenic forcing, right?

    If you can’t measure natural variability now, then you can’t make any definitive claims at all, because you can’t attribute specific anthropogenic, non-quantifiable influences. The mere claim that “…the ice variability changes and is not entirely natural” is a manifest statement that you don’t know what you’re dealing with.

    Girls, why don’t you go do something productive, and just go shopping. At least that’ll stimulate the economy, something the IPCC says we need, something you CAN quantify.

  4. ‘the paper cautions that more modeling studies and longer-term observations are needed ‘
    A call for more grants well there is a shock , meanwhile that they saying when you get down to the bottom line is . We don’t know what is behind changes in Ice levels for sure and we can’t tell you if they will decrease or increases with any accuracy worth a dam. But anyway its AGW to blame , doom oh doom .

  5. Ah, the old A.C.M.E. simulation trick again. You know they’re too far gone in their heads when they make statement prediction based on their models that has yet to be correct on even simpler stuff.

    At least religious people believe in an entity that can only be tested by faith. Belief in buggy climate machinery simplified and derived from buggy weather machinery doesn’t really have the same ominous connotation. :p

  6. The conclusions of the study sounds to me something aimed to reassure the warmists. “Even if you see a stop or even a recovery in the ice extent, be faithful that eventually the ice will disappear!” Al Gore docet.

  7. Everyone with half brain can compare AMO natural cycle, closely related to Arctic temperatures and sea ice extent and come to conclusion, that since AMO has switched recently back to negative mode, gradual decrease in Arctic ocean /and air/ temperatures resulting in increase of the ice extent are about to be expected. Oh, and put your stinkin’ models somewhere!

  8. Even though the observed ice loss has accelerated over the last decade, the fate of sea ice over the next decade depends not only on human activity but also on climate variability that cannot be predicted.

    Isn’t that what a lot of us have been saying all along?

  9. By analyzing multiple realizations of the 20th century from a single climate model, they attribute approximately half the observed decline to human emissions of greenhouse gases, and the other half to climate variability.
    When did human emissions of GHGs go down?

  10. Notice how they conviently stopped at 2007 ,which was lowest year on record .But then that fits thier agenda to a T.

    REPLY: The photo choice was mine, not theirs – Anthony

  11. So, CO2 hasn’t changed the physical world so much that water won’t freeze? Man, i thought it could do anything.

  12. The latest version of Climate Scientology . . . we have covered all our bases for the next ten years so our models MUST be working.

    Please send a few hundred million more research $dollars so we can continue to run the con and grift the taxpayer.

  13. Wheeee…this is fun. I’m waiting for the next model to tell us all Arctic sea ice will be gone by the year 2250…or depending extraneous conditions it will cover 1/3 of the globe. Either way it will definitely be caused by anthropogenic global warming.

  14. DJ says:
    August 11, 2011 at 12:38 pm

    ….In other words, research indicates that arctic ice could do anything, and we’ve got a weasel clause that will allow us to blame it all on anthropogenic forcing, right?
    =================================================================
    DJ, it’s worse than that……
    ..they couldn’t find an anthropogenic signature…..and they tried

  15. 1) prediction made.
    2) prediction falsified.
    3) prediction altered such that all results are expected.
    4) prediction now impossible to prove incorrect.
    5) Meanwhile, real scientists still not making predictions, leaving that to soothsayers.

  16. Since they are based on untenable assumptions, more modeling studies can’t produce the needed insight. Funding should be diverted to proper data exploration.

  17. It still amazes me how intelligent, indeed some of the most intelligent people the world has yet produced can be so alarmingly stupid and so utterly determined to defend a failed theory. Anyone might reasonably think that they has a financial stake in prolonging the shelf life of a failed theory, so fanatical are they to produce the most ridiculous fabrications as to why CAGW will cause any and all possible effects from no ice to more ice,from hot to freezing and any state in between, more floods and less floods, more snow and less snow, drier and wetter, its all in there and all supposedly point to just one conclusion and root cause?

    A consensus it most certainly aint, more like an emotional ailment I think, a psychotic detachment from reality where the sufferer cannot accept a reality where all their work for decades means nothing, the ultimate scientific blind alley. And yet even Einstein made the same mistake with his cosmological constant and before him one of the most brilliant minds humanity has yet produced in the form of Lord Kelvin unable to grasp the age of the earth even when presented with a direct method of measurement. Letting go and admitting failure is very hard to do, especially when so many years of effort has been invested and so many reputations on the line. Nobody likes to admit that much of their working lives have been squandered.

    You can imagine a climate scientist at 40yrs old having spent two decades trying to make CAGW theory fly only to find it is a lemon, what will that person do next? The investment of irreplaceable time, the loss of prestige and position the very act of acceptance itself near impossible to comprehend and yet if Einstein could do it and so many others then it is not an impossible mountain to climb. The collapse of so many careers, the wrecking of so many reputations, not only personal but institutional. The very act of admitting failure will blow many a house down around a great many red ears, this particular ‘phlogiston’ aint going quietly.

  18. So if Arctic ice decreases, the models predicted it, and if they increase – then they predicted that as well!

    “This I had also forseen” (The soothsayer, Asterix and the Soothsayer, Goscinny & Uderzo.)

  19. Everytime I see studies like this I want to involuntarily gag. No explanation as to why “one of the world’s most powerful computer climate models” couldn’t see this when they were gleefully pronoucing a “death spiral”. No explanation of what they updated to get the result they did. They can’t quantify natural variabilty but human emissions are still responsible for half of the warming we’ve observed in the recent decades. They even managed to introduce “climate variability”. In what way is this different from climate change. And of course, the obligatory “more study is needed”. Yeeuch.

  20. Ack. Models again. They look at the model output and imagine it reflects reality, when it’s really still just a guess, based on incomplete knowledge and semi-arbitrary assumptions. As Nils Bohr said: “Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.” That these people believe their models can make these kind of predictions with anything approaching accuracy says a lot more about their lack of humility than it does about the climate. And yes, I know they call the model output “projections” rather than “predictions” but that’s just weasel words.

    This is just a setup for when the arctic starts it’s recovery over the next couple of decades, they can say that it is all just a brief respite, and it’s still “much worse than we thought.”

  21. So. Ice melts when it is warm, water freezes when it’s cold.. What a major scientiffic breakthrough. As the world is emerging from a major and a minor ice age one would sureley be expecting ice to melt and overall temperature to be warmer, might even welcome it. And with co2 steadily rising and global temperature not, what will it take to shut down alarmism and let common sense back into play? (we should be more concerned about a case of global cooling..)

  22. “BOULDER—Although Arctic sea ice appears fated to melt away as the climate continues to warm, the ice may temporarily stabilize or somewhat expand at times over the next few decades, new research indicates.”

    Wow…the next few decades, hmmm, seems like they’re giving themselves some breathing room.

  23. **Even though the observed ice loss has accelerated over the last decade, the fate of sea ice over the next decade depends not only on human activity but also on climate variability that cannot be predicted.”**
    They just have to get that human activity in. Bust they found a chair to crawl up on the fence so they have their butts on both sides now.
    Tomorrow I am going golfing. If my wife wants to we will go shopping instead.
    Every angle covered.

  24. Another example of the wonder of AGW theory — either a growing icecap or a shrinking ice cap is consistent with the models! Who cares if the model can’t accurately predict anything — it doesn’t matter! It’s like predicting the results of a coin toss will be heads or tails. You can’t lose.

  25. Just what are people supposed to take from an article that says:
    “When you start looking at longer-term trends, 50 or 60 years, there’s no escaping the loss of ice in the summer,” Kay says

    And says:
    “Since accurate satellite measurements became available in 1979,…….”

    And continues with:
    “The simulations also indicated that Arctic sea ice is equally likely to expand or contract over short time periods under the climate conditions of the late 20th and early 21st century.”
    ==============
    It is not fair to cover ALL the bases like this, and when did a decade become the new measure of climate trends.
    Seems like a desperate attempt to explain the current lack of warming, and the very real possibility of some cooling due the Sun’s activity.

  26. Mindless. Cut all federally-funded climate change related budgets this year for every department, agency, and research institution. Eliminate IPCC funding completely.

  27. So they admit the models are horribly wrong? And there is no global warming. Which means there is no AGW. Which means it is science fiction as of today. Right?

  28. 1856 : “‘vast open iceless Polar Sea”

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/08/03/1856-vast-open-iceless-polar-sea/

    1923 : Arctic “radical change in climatic conditions, with hither- to unheard-of high temperatures”

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/08/03/1923-arctic-radical-change-in-climatic-conditions-with-hither-to-unheard-of-high-temperatures/

    1939 : Global Warming – 20% Ice Loss In The Arctic – Both Poles To Overheat – Fish Migrating North

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/08/03/1939-global-warming-20-ice-loss-in-the-arctic-both-poles-to-overheat-fish-migrating-north/

    etc etc etc.

    That is why I like Godfrey Bloom .

    scam scam scam

  29. This is bad science/unscrupulous prophecy at its best.

    “So OK, the world didn’t end at 10.00am this morning, but it will definitely end at 10.00am on August 11th 2021, so please keep the contributions/grants rolling in to the 4th Gospel Alliance of Saint Hansen”.

    “Just remember folks, this is your only chance for salvation and a free organic T-shirt, so keep sending the checks so we have the funds to keep you informed of what’s really happening – as it happens!”

  30. “Although the Community Climate System Model simulations provide new insights, the paper cautions that more modeling studies and longer-term observations are needed to better understand the impacts of climate change and weather variability on Arctic ice.”….OR ELSE WE WILL LOSE OUR FUNDING.

  31. Oh, the sweet sound of alibis being forged. Next they will be saying that we might get a mini-Ice-Age, but it will surely be followed by more warming!

  32. By analyzing multiple realizations of the 20th century from a single climate model, they attribute approximately half the observed decline to human emissions of greenhouse gases, and the other half to climate variability.

    Well, you are half way there, at last. Just a little further, and reality will welcome you…..

  33. As an immigrant to the USA and a fan of college football on TV, I used to wonder what disciplines contributed to the curriculum of General Studies for football players. Maybe the college administrators thought so too and have broadened the application base for college scholarships by including Climatology. I’m not a scientist, but these conclusions are childish, asinine and worthless. Is the term “scientist” so debased and the high-paying private jobs so hard to come by that these nuts will put their name to any conclusion for the sake of personal dogma? Are these “scientists” cut from the same tree as the people who fake resumes to get that “great” job? Do they still teach ethics in the home, or is it something that is left at home when these tyros start college?

  34. You can’t have an each way bet with only two runners or even four. Put your money on the nose or take your modelling elsewhere; no place betting allowed. Nobody is interested in 50:50 odds.

  35. Well, since skeptics don’t believe the models anyway, it doesn’t matter what they say the ice will do.

    As it is, we’ve got no sign of expansion and the arctic will be ice free in the summer sometime this century, probably eariler than later. No models needed to see that…

  36. The dramatic (increase|decrease) in (Arctic|Antarctic) (sea|continental) ice is not inconsistent with (global warming|climate change|climate disruption|irritable climate syndrome) theory.

  37. “R. Gates says:
    August 11, 2011 at 3:37 pm
    Well, since skeptics don’t believe the models anyway, it doesn’t matter what they say the ice will do.”

    So you do admire our integrity in calling this model output bollocks as well? proves we don’t latch on to ANY poor science.

  38. Forget the virtual ice cover in their virtual model, forget the virtual winds, forget the virtual ocean currents! What I want to know is what happened in their model runs to those cute cuddly desperately endangered virtual polar bears???

  39. When you consider that eventually every airplane that flies either lands or crashes, can’t you describe every flight as a “death spiral”? I mean, if a plane starts going down, and then the pilot recovers control, he’s still going to end up on the ground at some point, so it’s technically a “death spiral”, even if he’s temporarily in a straight & level flight up until he enters the final approach. QED.

  40. Saith R. Gates August 11, 2011 at 3:37 pm in a bit of snippy tone:

    Well, since skeptics don’t believe the models anyway, it doesn’t matter what they say the ice will do.

    And since none of the Universe, the Galaxy, the Solar System, the Earth, or the “Artic” is (demonstrably, or provably) in any way a model, it also doesn’t matter what the models say, outside of their pernicious effect on public policy, insidious criminalization of normal behaviour, and my ever-loving taxes. So, pipe down, & keep it to yourself, Sparky, and maybe I’ll thank you one day for not nosing around in my living room, kitchen, bathroom, or bedroom*.

    *I have lightbulbs in those, yes. Funny that.

  41. I am looking at the 2007 picture. The thing i would like to know was there a persistent wind condition that could have compressed the ice. If that was true the ice extent would not at all been related to SST or air temperature

  42. “expand as it is to contract for periods of up to about a decade.”
    So, even when they are wrong they are right. This now also goes for the whole arctic thing, which was the last one actually going along with the projections. Warmcold, droughtflood, snowrain, wetdry and now they bring you the all new…. freezemelt. Priceless. Really. These guys are selling sand in Sahara every day. Incredible.

  43. You know how it is. Some mornings you get up and think- Don’t be so harsh on post-normal science,there might be something in it and then you click on WUWT for the latest and that settles it.
    Still I might be persuaded to go in for Monckton’s comet bats suggestion if there’s a whopping big grant in it somewhere, unless there’s anything sexier than that going around?

  44. Lee from WA quotes and says:
    August 11, 2011 at 12:56 pm
    Even though the observed ice loss has accelerated over the last decade, the fate of sea ice over the next decade depends not only on human activity but also on climate variability that cannot be predicted.

    “Isn’t that what a lot of us have been saying all along?”

    Yes, for years, in the greatest detail and with the clearest explications. I would describe this as a “hopeful surrender.” They are surrendering but hoping we will permit them to hold onto some negotiable amount of anthropogenic influence.

  45. I would like to see a study describing conceivable future observations in detail which would be inconsistent with current cAGW theory. Preferably not on century scale, of course, but one that could be accomplished in several short years at most. That would be something.

    But this? They are effectively saying that just about anything is consistent with model projections. Now, it is a well established fact of logic, that if a proposition is consistent with each element of a set of propositions containing mutually inconsistent ones, then its negation also has this property. That is, if models behaving this way say we are in trouble, they should also say we are not in trouble (at the same time).

  46. For the last 20 to 30 years, AGW models have shown that there will be a dangerous, ever increasing average world temperature. This culminates in a year 2100 catastrophe… requiring an increase in taxes & payments to the UN now, today.

    Now, because the world isn’t warming, AGW scientists have discovered new modeling techniques that predict that there’s a second order effect, say an influence of some sort of second derivative, that will cause a local minimum in warming. Ahhh… SCIENCE MARCHES ON!

    If they couldn’t model an ever increasing rise in world temperature, what makes them think they can now convince us that they can model two reversals of temperature change on the way to 2100.

    THEY MUST KNOW OR THINK SOME OF US ARE NUTS! LOL!

  47. Moving the goalpost is one thing:
    Rotating the field 180 degrees because things are not occuring in the direction predicted is quite another.
    Now that they have a new model sword to hold over everyone’s heads, they think they can keep it there for the next 20 years. They admit they still have biases in the model, which means that the latest incarnation is only a bandaid remedy.

  48. If the expansion period ends with arctic ice at a simlar or greater extent to what was observed in 1979 then surely the AGW theory of ice melt will be debunked. Until then nobody can really say that AGW has no role to play, the reality is that we just dont know for sure how small the anthropogenic role is – yet.

  49. The appropriate term is ‘Pythonesque!’

    Consumer: Look, this here Anthropogenic Global Warming thingy you sold me last week is dead.
    Supplier: No it’s not it’s merely sleeping.
    Consumer: Sleeping!!!……

  50. R. Gates says: August 11, 2011 at 3:37 pm

    As it is, we’ve got no sign of expansion

    I don’t know about that. For some reason, Greenland Sea Ice has been trending above average this season;
    ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/r07_Greenland_Sea_ts.png

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.5.html

    and it appears that the most significant driver of Arctic Sea Ice Volume is the amount of multi-year sea ice that is transported through the Fram Strait to the Greenland Sea each summer, i.e.

    “The most important thing about this paper is that it foretells this summer’s record minimum ice extent in the Arctic,” Rigor, a research scientist and co-author on the paper, says. “While the total area of ice cover in recent winters has remained about the same, during the past two years an increased amount of older, thicker perennial sea ice was swept by winds out of the Arctic Ocean into the Greenland Sea. What grew in its place in the winters between 2005 and 2007 was a thin veneer of first-year sea ice, which simply has less mass to survive the summer melt.”

    “perennial sea ice covering the Arctic Ocean decreased by 23 percent during the past two winters as strong winds swept more Arctic ice than usual out Fram Strait near Greenland. The study relied on 50 years of data from the International Arctic Buoy Program, currently directed by Ignatius Rigor of the UW’s Applied Physics Laboratory, and eight years of data from NASA’s QuikScat satellite, a review of which was led by Son Nghiem of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.”

    http://www.washington.edu/news/archive/id/37009

    In the last week ice transport has picked up, so we will have to see how things unfold, but if there is a regime change in Arctic wind patterns and multi-year sea ice transport through the Fram Strait decreases, then an expansion in Arctic sea ice would be a natural corollary.

    Neven has been maintaining an animation of this season’s sea ice transport through the Fram Strait:

    http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/07/2011-fram-strait-animation.html

    I find it amusing how excited Neven seems about increased sea ice transport, e.g.:

    “Update August 8th: Added images from the previous three days. Some serious ice transport going on there. If this keeps up…

    Update August 11th: Added images from the previous two days, and removed images from July. Transport is steaming full speed ahead.”

    These animations of Arctic Sea Ice Concentration animation;

    and Arctic Sea Ice Thickness;

    show the same phenomenon with less cheerleading…

  51. The models are reasonably accurate in predictions (and +/- 60% is reasonable in this science).

    CO2 is at its highest level in 25 million years and the ice has never been lower (if we don’t count all the times when it was lower which is also reasonable in this science).

  52. Smokey says:
    August 11, 2011 at 3:57 pm

    Here’s a link for R Gates, and it’s not a model: click
    ===================================================
    It amazes me that anyone can look at that……..and not see the obvious

  53. Seems like they are admitting they don’t know what is going on. Just as likely to do one or the other means we could do coin flips with the same accuracy. The dollars that could be saved in this arena are now mathematically quantifiable. Let X give the dollars spent on models. Assuming we used a half-dollar, the equation would look like this:

    X-(X-.5)=.5

    Solve for X.

  54. R. Gates says:
    August 11, 2011 at 3:37 pm
    Well, since skeptics don’t believe the models anyway, it doesn’t matter what they say the ice will do.

    As it is, we’ve got no sign of expansion and the arctic will be ice free in the summer sometime this century, probably eariler than later. No models needed to see that…
    =============
    Please enumerate the consequences of this unfolding tragedy, so that we may inform the unwashed masses, lest they miss the chance to forestall their doom, whilst saving their grandchildren, otherwise the gold will be well defended.

  55. Smokey says:
    August 11, 2011 at 3:57 pm

    Here’s a link for R Gates, and it’s not a model: click
    Smokey, the graph title at the top says temps from May 2008 to June 2011. but the actual graph contains none of those data, just temps up to early 2008. I think you got your “includes” and “excludes” mixed up.

  56. Mark my words, the warm-earthers will switch their focus to the Antarctic as the Arctic ice builds, which seems odds-on for the next two decades. They will still cry “catastrophic ice loss” again, just switching poles. Next decade the well-known “see-saw” phenomenon that oscillates between the poles will see the Arctic ice grow and the Antarctic wane. This will happen, as it has done forever during average sun cycles. Unless we get a Maunder type minimum, as some scientists are forecasting, when both ice packs will grow.

  57. I used to be a Foreign Service Officer, you know, what Robert Heinlein called “Striped pants Johnnies.” Reputations in the Foreign Service are made by how well you are able to predict what is going to happen in a particular country as the result of a particular political development. These climatologists must have learned there prediction techniques from the old hands in the Foreign Service who had the CYA methodologies down pat.

    When you arrived for your assignment in a new country and you are in the Political Section you write a very astute telegram (State calls them telegrams, not cables) staking out your position. “Because of “X” the situation in the country is likely to improve considerably.” You wait a few months and then write another telegram saying that because of “X” the country is bumping along with no major changes. Lastly you write a third telegram saying because of “X” everything is going to collapse, death and destruction will result, send AID money immediately.

    Now your reputation is made. No matter what condition actually obtains you simply write another telegram citing the appropriate clearly prescient view you earlier foretold. Looks something like this: Reftel AMEMB XXXX, dated August 11, XXXX, as clearly predicted by the Mission’s Political Counselor the situation has unfolded exactly as our analysis and observation of the scene foretold. Etc.,Etc.

    Promotions all around. Life is good. As an Arctic “Ice Expert,” all you have to do to be thought brilliant is to say in suitably timed separate reports, Arctic ice is expanding, then Arctic ice is stable, and finally Arctic ice is melting away. As soon as the situation is abundantly clear, reference your appropriate earlier prediction and “Bob’s your Uncle.” Hundred percent accurate prediction because hardly anyone looks for other, earlier contrary predictions you made. (Hmm, I bet WUWT readers would be both unkind and rude enough to point to the earlier contrary ones.) Darn.

    Cheers,

    John

  58. David Falkner says:
    August 11, 2011 at 6:58 pm
    “Seems like they are admitting they don’t know what is going on.”

    Pretty much.

    They should get in contact with R.Gates, who seems to know EXACTLY what is going to happen.

  59. ““One of the results that surprised us all was the number of computer simulations that indicated a temporary halt to the loss of the ice,” says NCAR scientist Jennifer Kay, the lead author.”

    …which lead us to the conclusion that the computer must be kaputt and please send money we need a bigger one.

  60. Smokey;
    Sorry, a different graph and page came up last time I clicked the link. I can’t find it again, so disregard my comment.

  61. It seems to me that the model is an ice model, not a climate model. That is, one of the assumptions is that the atmosphere warms because of CO2. I still think using the output from one model (that has flaws) as the input for another is stretching things a bit. IF the atmosphere warms then it is reasonable to think ice will melt.

  62. Quite funny really…. they can see that their previous projections were wrong, and the Arctic is not thawing as their old models showed, .. so suddenly their new models are projecting “we don’t know” for the next decade, then more thawing away in the future when it can’t be proven until we get there.

    So, they have covered their assets for another decade, then they will refresh their models again.

    Mills and Boone, anyone ?

  63. Someone needs to inform NCAR that speculation without predictive power is not science. They need a refresher course in science 101 and the concept of hypotheses and theories.

  64. Stark Dickflüssig says:
    August 11, 2011 at 4:09 pm
    “…
    it also doesn’t matter what the models say, outside of their pernicious effect on public policy, insidious criminalization of normal behaviour, and my ever-loving taxes.
    …”
    Well said!

  65. Although Arctic sea ice appears fated to melt away as the climate continues to warm, the ice may temporarily stabilize or somewhat expand at times over the next few decades, new research indicates.

    “One of the results that surprised us all was the number of computer simulations that indicated a temporary halt to the loss of the ice,” says NCAR scientist Jennifer Kay, the lead author. “The computer simulations suggest that we could see a 10-year period of stable ice or even a slight increase in the extent of the ice. Even though the observed ice loss has accelerated over the last decade, the fate of sea ice over the next decade depends not only on human activity but also on climate variability that cannot be predicted.”

    ================================

    Can anybody say the term “CIRCULAR REASONING” in all caps?

    Maybe R Gates would try to defend this quote but I will give him/her the benefit of the doubt before I jump to conclusions.

    But if Gates can not distance him/her self from these comments as being completely loaded and ludicrous, then no more conversation with him /her is needed.

    What say ye, Gates?

    Or are you so akin to the groupthink phenomenon of circular reasoning that you don’t see the flaws in this “release” too.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  66. Don’t worry, it won’t be too long before the catch words that started as “CO2 causes Catastrophic Global Warming”, and have mutated to “CO2 causes Climate Change”, then to “CO2 causes Climate disruption”……

    now at CO2 related Climate, “we don’t have any bl–dy idea, but its CO2 doing it”

    next step??… CO2 related Global Cooling… or have a few already tried that one ?

    then finally , when the truth dawns on them.. the CO2 related part will get left out……
    and they will find another bogie to hang natural climate variability on.. and to make money out of ..

  67. Seems to me those models can be made to sing whatever song climate alarmists request, Taxpayers appear to be funding hi-tech karaoke machines. Who knew?

  68. I have a very sophisticated flight simulator program running on my computer which I love to play with it every once in a while.

    But does this make me a certified pilot already? I suppose not – although, if you gave me enough funding, I could start a PR-campaign aimed at convincing enough people that I am, in fact, a certified pilot and will finally be able to get my hands on the controls of a real plane.

    But then you better make sure you are not on board. Because I personally wouldn’t dare to be a passenger on board of that airliner I was controlling…

  69. Maybe these people saw this analysis of Australia’s carbon tax and fed it into their model. It makes as much sense.

    As it appeared in the Courier Mail on 19 Jul (P67), by Kenmore poet, John Fegan, who sent this best explanation for calculating the carbon tax so far.

    Carbon tax in simple terms.
    One 44 gallon drum of camel fart methane, washed, sorted and stamped with appropriate health warnings is added to a cubic metre of Bowen Basin coal and chemically fused.
    This mixture is then weighed by the Department of Camel Fart Watch, expressed as a fraction against the supply-sided monetarist index and the sequestrated Dow Jones and expressed as a coefficient tangential to the J Curve.
    The resulting figure is then aligned with our closest neighbour’s currency, the Indonesian rupiah and the New Guinea cowrie shell and integrated into the Hang Seng, The One Hung Low, the NASDAQ, the Paddy Whack and the Nicky Nacky Noo, cut into 10 roughly proportionate pieces and immersed in boiling oil.
    This figure will then be referred to as the Surplus Funding Applicator or SFA. The SFA is based on the Hebrew cubit and rod system and closely allied to the Armenian shekel. It embraces all accepted Australian terms of measure – smidges, bee’s dicks, tads and country miles. It is always expressed in running writing so accountants and brothers-in-law can understand it.
    The SFA is now an internationally recognized measure and ratified by the IMF, the MBF and RAAF but totally ignored by the US, Great Britain and China. A large Labour government department will now multiply this figure by the rise and fall of the left-hand ball, divide it by Julia Gillard’s inside leg measurement, add the age of the third son of the current Government Whip, present it to a focus group and divide it by six, resulting in a figure of 3/5ths of the aforementioned SFA, which I think is about all we can expect from this Government.
    I do, however, think there is merit in exploring camel fart home heating.

  70. NCAR scientist Jennifer Kay said”… Even though the observed ice loss has accelerated over the last decade, ….”

    If ice loss peaked in 2007 then for 4 out of the last 10 years the observed ice loss has not accelerated, it has not even stayed the same, it has reversed. I am astounded that a trained scientist can misrepresent such facts. Accelerating means getting faster each time period, such misuse of scientific terms betrays poor scientific rigour and further confirms my doubts about the credibility of so many climate “scientists”.

  71. lthough Arctic sea ice appears fated to melt away as the climate continues to warm, the ice may temporarily stabilize or somewhat expand at times over the next few decades, new research indicates.

    Sounds to me like they are covering their bases in case the sun does go into a solar minimum…

    Just saying.

  72. John Trigge says:
    August 12, 2011 at 12:47 am

    I do, however, think there is merit in exploring camel fart home heating.

    I’d recommend termites instead. They might be small but there’s quite a few of them around and apparently they produce more methane than any other species.

    [Note to anyone from the UK – that came from QI so it’s obviously 100% accurate … ]

  73. I always enjoy R Gates’ contributions. If anything he is consistent in his belief in CAGW and the end is near if we do not shut down our industrialised society.
    “R. Gates says:
    August 11, 2011 at 3:37 pm
    Well, since skeptics don’t believe the models anyway, it doesn’t matter what they say the ice will do.
    As it is, we’ve got no sign of expansion and the arctic will be ice free in the summer sometime this century, probably eariler than later. No models needed to see that…”
    Not sure if “sceptics” don’t believe in models. Dr Spencer is supposedly a “sceptic” but he has recently produced work using simple models. It is rather the type of models and input that is subject to debate. Another point I would like to make is the constant obsession with Arctic ice extent and thickness with the rare mention of Antarctica. Sea ice is currently (slightly) above the 1979-2008 mean down there. If the CAGW supporters are concerned with the lack of albedo surely they should worry about the south pole area as well although there seems to be little to worry about. I actually think individuals such as “Just The Facts says: August 11, 2011 at 5:50 pm” and what he refers to are much closer to the facts (excuse the pun) about what is happening. In the absence of any significant global warming since 1998 it is probably much more down to wind and currents. I really do not subscribe to the summer ice free Arctic any time view soon or at all. The socalled “warmists” really need to come up with more convincing arguments to convert somone like me to their “beliefs”.

  74. They are hedging their bets, which makes good economic sense on the part of the prophets. In the economic circumstances that we have dug ourselves into, it can be expected (with the beloved 95% certainty) that funding for all research, globally, will significantly reduce over the next few years. Those who cannot see a likely opening for themselves outside of academia need to position themselves so that they are able to switch horses at a moments notice. Nice for them to be able to say in their c.v. “I drew attention to some of the uncertainties back in 2011.

  75. This new investigation and simulation helps to illustrate the problem caused by advocate scientists and conniving politicians. The death spiral gained traction with politicians as a justification for more legislation, more interference and more taxes.

    Can anyone tell me how certain or uncertain the original claims of a death spiral were? Is it likely to be a case of certainties expressed in a summary that are not supported by the body of the paper and state agents exploiting the summary rather than the science?

  76. Michael Schaefer says:
    August 12, 2011 at 12:10 am
    …I personally wouldn’t dare to be a passenger on board of that airliner I was controlling…

    :D Nice allusion to Groucho: “I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member”. Thx for the chuckle.
    _______

  77. John Peter;
    There’s another of those inconvenient negative feedback thingies in play, too. The dark water left after the ice melts shines heat rays off into space unimpeded by a warming, frozen, white blanket! So the warmer it gets, the faster it gets colder. That, btw, is a layman’s summary of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

  78. There are a few obvious questions here:

    1. If we only have accurate records since 1979, what sort of records exist before that? In particular, do we have detailed records of when the NE and NW passages were open and if so, where is the data?
    2. From such anecdotal evidence, is there any indication of cycles/beats in arctic ice extent oscillation, since beats/cycles for harsh winters in the UK undoubtedly exist.
    3. What evidence do we have that 1979 ice extent was ‘normal’, as opposed to the maximum of a 30 year/70 year cycle?
    4. Do we have any evidence that 30 years of solar quietness can affect arctic sea ice extent? If so, what is it?
    5. Is there any evidence that the Medieval Warm Period showed significantly less arctic sea ice than during the Little Ice Age? If so, how in heck did the ice recover if we are now into ‘irreversible’ loss of Arctic Ice?

    Look forward to suitable experts educating/enlightening us……

  79. Cassandra King,
    It’s not a fact yet that the cosmological constant was a mistake.
    Nobody knows for sure, what really is going on but Big Bang expansion certainly doesn’t work.

  80. Arctic sea works as a thermostat. An ice layer insulates the water by hobbling its ability to lose heat through evaporation, radiation, and conduction. It will continue in that capacity unless and until there’s none of it even in the winter. At the point the thermostat is wide open and can’t open any further. Until that point it continues to function and will limit how much the northern hemisphere ocean can warm or cool. I understand the interest in it due to the fact that it’s a handy guage of whether the ocean is receiving more or less energy. That said it’s a fool’s errand to watch every little change because winds play a large role in any one year over its extent where at times the wind will help spread it out and make it greater in extent or push it together into a lesser extent.

  81. Peter Plail says:
    August 12, 2011 at 1:15 am
    NCAR scientist Jennifer Kay said”… Even though the observed ice loss has accelerated over the last decade, ….”

    If ice loss peaked in 2007 then for 4 out of the last 10 years the observed ice loss has not accelerated, it has not even stayed the same, it has reversed. I am astounded that a trained scientist can misrepresent such facts. Accelerating means getting faster each time period, such misuse of scientific terms betrays poor scientific rigour and further confirms my doubts about the credibility of so many climate “scientists”.

    _____

    The loss of Arctic sea ice on a year to year basis continues, and will end with a ice free summer arctic sometime this century. The only real discussion is about the path it will take to get there.

  82. Michael Schaefer says:
    August 12, 2011 at 12:10 am

    “I have a very sophisticated flight simulator program running on my computer which I love to play with it every once in a while. But does this make me a certified pilot already? I suppose not – although, if you gave me enough funding, I could start a PR-campaign aimed at convincing enough people that I am, in fact, a certified pilot and will finally be able to get my hands on the controls of a real plane.”

    Actually, back in the days when personal computer simulators weren’t all that good at simulating the view out of cockpit windows (early 1990’s) I was taking real flying lessons. I was exceptionally good flying by instruments and handling the radios while flying the plane. Whether it was at night over the ocean (really scary), wearing a hood to obscure my view of the ground during the day, or just having my view of ground blocked by clouds, fog, or smog. I attribute that skill to Microsoft Flight Simulator. I think the simulator also conditions you to not fly by the seat of your pants as the force of gravity keeping your butt in the seat is not a reliable indicator of what the aircraft is actually doing. That’s because you can’t tell apart the force of the earth’s gravity from the force imparted by acceleration (including centrifugal forces) experienced inside the cockpot. So the flight simulator forces you to ignore those and concentrate on your instruments. More modern flight simulators might actually be inferior because the view out the cockpit is so realistic you can fly by looking out the window. I have used a flight simulator for quite some time but sound also provides important queues about what’s going on like the sound of your motor, the sound of the wind, and of course your stall horn attached to wing which starts to whistle when lift decreases into critical lack thereof.

    So I’d agree a flight simulator isn’t going to give you the skills of a certified pilot but it certainly helps an awful lot and is probably enough to spell the difference between life and death should you find yourself in the stereotypical movie situation where the pilot of a plane you’re in has become incapacitated and there’s no one but you to bring it in for a safe landing. Flying is mostly done by checklist, knowing your aircraft, and developing motor skills. The flight simulator will develop all those skills.

  83. So, they have finally figured out a way to change the model phrase “climate scenarios” to “climate predictions”. Let this be a referred link to any AGW poster who dares remind us that models are meant to portray only “scenarios” and are not meant to offer predictions.

  84. Latitude says:
    August 11, 2011 at 1:03 pm
    warmcold, wetdry, droughtflood, snowrain……………………….

    You forgot to add the new one … freezemelt.

  85. It goes like this:

    We need grant money. We model the population and determine only death and destruction gets the peoples attention (modeled based on the nightly news content). We then model that the more outlandish the claims the more money follows. So we model the press release to get numbers that maximize those dollars. We find in the models that more money flows if a villain is identified. We then throw three darts blindly at a periodic table and see that they hit on carbon and oxygen twice. We then for the first time look at real data to determine that the world is indeed producing CO2. We then do population modeling and determine that everyone complains about the weather but no one ever does anything about it. We then produce a model that correlates all weather with CO2. We write a program that periodically releases press releases correlating the most recent weather headline with our villain. We then schedule vacations around the globe to meet with our team and pat each other on the back (ok – who selected Norway in the winter!!?) Money flows – life is good. That is the IPCC process isn’t it?

  86. Thinking more about what MS Flight Simulator, or similar software, can develop as real flying skills, motor skills would be lacking unless you have some top shelf controls, especially yoke and rudder pedals with force feedback. The force you need to exert on flight controls is a very important feedback. It would also be quite helpful to have a throttle located in the same place as the actual aircraft because when things get dicey you don’t have time to be looking about in the cockpit for the throttle. Your hand has to know where to go for the throttle without looking for it. To a lesser extent the radios and other electronic navigation aids also need some motor memory so your hand can go to them without taking your eyes and attention away from other things. It’s also handy to have some motor ability for the flap control. That’s not usually something that requires fast adjustment but at times it might. Every little bit of additional motor skill helps to make you a safer pilot.

  87. The last paragraph describes the problem they are having with their models and predictions and that is too many variables all changing at once constantly and unpredictably.

    They lost me on the “and is not entirely natural”. I am wondering what about the ice is not natural. Perhaps the ice is possessed.

  88. steven mosher says:

    “Actually smokey that is a model as well.”

    Not really. It’s empirical evidence from ice cores.

    Steve,

    The graph was made by Petit, et al. Sorry, I didn’t save the original paper.

  89. gmak says:
    August 12, 2011 at 5:14 am
    What about the contention that it is the Arctic Ice VOLUME that is declining? Isn’t this more important than the extent of ice coverage? Or am I missing something.

    http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/arctic-ice-melt-0810.html

    Tired of the whole name-calling from both sides.

    ____
    Volume is the best overall metric, and is of course declining, and this is consistent with more warmth in the Arctic. Some skeptics want to point to wind and try to insinuate that it’s just the wind pushing the ice out of the Arctic or some nonsense like that. Wind play a role in ice export, but the loss of volume is from more warmth overall. The melting of the permafrost, which is also occurring, can’t be caused by wind, as it doesn’t blow 10 feet underground the last I checked. We’ve simply got more warmth in and around the Arctic and it’s melting. Pretty simple.

  90. Ian H says:
    Wheeee…this is fun. I’m waiting for the next model to tell us all Arctic sea ice will be gone by the year 2250…or depending extraneous conditions it will cover 1/3 of the globe. Either way it will definitely be caused by anthropogenic global warming.

    Ian E says:
    Oh, the sweet sound of alibis being forged. Next they will be saying that we might get a mini-Ice-Age, but it will surely be followed by more warming!

    Ian & Ian – they’re definitely hedging their bets. I recently saw a program where they flat-out said “Global warming” could cause another ice age. No matter what happens, they were right!

  91. Slightly OT, but still….

    About this polar bear thing: Has anybody actually confirmed that a reduced ice pack is actually bad for the polar bear population, or is it just an assumption? What studies have been done?

    How do we know that the current ice pack is optimal or less than optimal? Was the ice pack during the Little Ice Age more conducive to the polar bear population? And how about the animals the polar bears hunt? There is a strong relationship between predators and their prey. A low population of prey will only support a small population of predators. Is more ice better for the seal population, or is more open water better?

    Exit Question : What does a polar bear eat?
    Answer: Anything it wants.

  92. Leaving the model discussion aside, it does appear to me that the Arctic ice extent could easily challenge the 2007 lows this year. The 2007 loss has been described many times as “wind-driven” and so it’s reasonable to consider that year to be an anomaly in the relatively consistent dropping of Arctic ice extent over the past couple of decades. That would make 2008, 09, and 10, not recoveries, but more back on trend, with 2009 a rebound from 2008 and 2010 continuing the downtrend.

    We’re already below 6mm km2 so 5 mm km2 by the end of August is likely, and 4.7 to 4.8 should easily be reached by the Sep low. Given the relatively low concentration of the ice and the fact that wind hasn’t seemed to play much of a role so far, just in place melting, it wouldn’t be surprising to have it at 4.6 to 4.8 mm km2 by the end of August and for the low to go below 4.5 in Sep.

    Toss a good 2007 wind into the mix and it could go much lower, I suspect. If the world is cooling, it appears that it’s going to be late showing up in the Arctic. Oh, and I do suspect it’s cooling. I’m just observing what appears to be happening year by year and have been logging guesses of under 4.5 since the first poll here, based mainly on how slow things appeared to freeze up last winter.

  93. So Mr. Gates, we finally have your um…scientific position.

    Anthropogenic CO2 will cause the disappearance of summer Arctic ice EXCEPT when it doesn’t!

    You are absolutely certain that all summer sea ice will be gone, by century’s end, but anthropogenic CO2 must first cause the apparent sea ice to increase. Once this is completed, then the way is clear, for the total annihilation of summer sea ice. Or is it possible, you have come to the conclusion, that our climate or ice models, are not much better than muttering “booga booga”, under the full moon, while casting chicken bones.

    It seems to me that your efforts would have been better spent, dragging a row boat across the Arctic, looking for non existent sea ice. Sometimes the reality of sudden, imminent death can create crystal clear epiphany. GK

  94. “Since accurate satellite measurements became available in 1979, the extent of summertime Arctic sea ice has shrunk by about one third.”

    So the satellite measurements started at the end of a cooler period of time (when an ice age was “imminent” & polar ice expanding)? Because if you start measuring from the peak, things do generally go down…

  95. My, hasn’t Mr R Gates changed. A year ago he was a semi-sceptic, now he is a card carrying AGW-er.

    Mr Gates are you now saying that the 2007 “record” melt was not primarly wind driven?

  96. R. Gates

    “Well, since skeptics don’t believe the models anyway….”

    So belief (have faith) is what we are being asked to have. Sir, you are belatedly beginning to get what sceptics are all about. Belief has no place in science. Beliefs are anathema to science. Beliefs have stifled science. Belief implies the perfectly viable option of disbelief. You observe phenomena and attempt to understand it. You construct an hypothesis and then you and others try to falsify it. If it is falsified, it doesn’t matter what one believes. This has been the problem all along – models and so-called theories that have not been proven require belief to carry them. I see now that even the concept of denier (heretic) ties into a belief system in the minds of the proponents. Thoughtful people here are not saying I don’t believe it, they are saying prove it.

  97. R. Gates says:
    August 12, 2011 at 7:06 am
    “The loss of Arctic sea ice on a year to year basis continues, and will end with a ice free summer arctic sometime this century. The only real discussion is about the path it will take to get there.”

    My argument is about the imprecise use of language by a so-called professional. Accelerating ice-loss means it gets faster each year. Whatever you might speculate about the future (and I think your record is getting stuck on this issue), the loss is simply not getting faster. This is another attempt to conjure up images of catastrophic runaway climate events, but the evidence seems to suggest a slow rise in temperature and an equally slow decline of melting ice, probably to the benefit of mankind by extending the areas of the earth which are suitable for agriculture.

    Can’t cite any reports or facts, this is just an opinion, which places it in the same category as your view of the future of Arctic ice.

  98. As “Skeptic” said way above, “where are the trolls?”. Have they all left the ship? By now they should be covering these replies with red herrings – yet no one has done so. WUWT?

  99. I should also add that true skeptics evaluate each paper on its own merits, not which “side”
    it seems to support.

    And Gar Pearse is wrong on a couple of points about science.

    Firstly, no theory is ever proven.

    Secondly, there is much to be gained from an understanding of Popper’s ideas on falsification, but the fact is his extreme interpretation is simply not how science works.

    Scientists generally look for evidence to support a theory, and if a theory is well supported by numerous lines of evidence, will not abandon it because of a single or several contradictory results.

    When the orbits of some planets did not conform to Newton’s theories, undiscovered planets were postulated to explain the anomolies. In some cases suitable planets were found.

    In the case of Mercury, the planet was never found, becuase the problem was indeed with the theory, and it took Einsteins General Relativity to overturn Newton. But even then although strictly “false” Newtons approximation is good enough for Nasa to send spacecraft with pinpoint accuracy to the furthest ends of the solar system.

  100. A retry then: By the way I did not “label” anyone a denialist. I said that denialism was an attitude of mind opposite to true skepticism. Do you have a problem with that?

    Jason gives the game away. Apparently his idea of a skeptic is one who does not change his mind.

    I was a skeptic when I did not consider the evidence for AGW sufficiently well established. I remain a skeptic having concluded that accumulating evidence was well established. But not certain, and in the light of further evidence, I may change my mind again.

    A skeptic also evaluates each piece of evidence on its own merits, recognising that some evidence may be interpreted as supporting AGW or not supporting AGW, and conclusions based on these assessments will shape his overall position.

    Many of those who claim the honourable title of skeptic are no such thing. The have a fixed position and refuse to accept or consider any evidence that challenges their permanently fixed belief. They often exhibit the attributes of the psychological condition that Sigmund Freud called- but perhaps I won’t go there.

  101. So the D word is out but I note that it is acceptable in the comments to call those who conclude that AGW is occuring “warmistas” “alarmingly stupid” “trolls” using “weasel words”, accuse climatologists of being akin to people who fake resumes and question if they taught ethics at home and post after post accusing the authors of the study and scientists in general of being corrupt individuals who are trying to scam further grant money “scam scam scam”

    The sensitivity is a little one sided don’t you think?

    [Reply: Please read the site Policy. Moderation is done with a light touch here. But the line is drawn at equating scientific skeptics with Holocaust deniers. ~dbs, mod.]

  102. Philip Shehan says:

    “I was a skeptic when I did not consider the evidence for AGW sufficiently well established. I remain a skeptic having concluded that accumulating evidence was well established.”

    Philip, there is no empirical, testable evidence, per the scientific method, of catastrophic AGW – or for that matter, of AGW. None at all.

    Now, AGW may exist. It may cause some warming of the atmosphere. But that assumption is based entirely on models, which are based on radiative physics, but not on reproducible, testable, replicable, real world evidence.

  103. Moderator: Point taken but I do not agree with the proposition that the term is exclusively a reference to Holocaust denial or used with that intent.

    As I noted above I do not apply it to genuine skeptics whichever side of the fence they are currently on but do consider that many of those who call themselves skeptics indicate an aversion to considering counterevidence which is very remeniscent of Freud’s description of the psychological condition I alluded to.

    [Reply: You will be able to read this, but it will not be posted. This site allows plenty of latitude with few restrictions. “denier,” “denialist,” and other words with the “denier” root are routinely snipped. You hear and read that pejorative term everywhere. But it is not welcome here. I won’t comment any more on this issue because that is site Policy. Don’t take it personally. Just please avoid using those particular labels here. Thanks. ~db stealey, mod.]

    REPLY: I disagree with Mr. Shehan and have the source to back it up. It has ALWAYS been about linking to holocaust denial. See the inception of this slur:

    GOODMAN, Ellen. 2007 Boston Globe op ed: “Global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers”
    Source: [1]. Ellen Goodman, “No change in political climate”, Boston Globe, 9 February 2007: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/ .

    I’m also going to over ride moderator Stealey and allow this to be posted, because I’m going to elevate this to a full post later.

    – Anthony Watts

  104. Thank you to the moderator and Mr Watts for their replies. The link here appears to be paywalled so can’t comment on it.

  105. Philip Shehan says: August 12, 2011 at 3:14 pm

    I should also add that true skeptics evaluate each paper on its own merits, not which “side” it seems to support.

    Sure, this 2001 paper, “Fram Strait Ice Fluxes and Atmospheric Circulation: 1950–2000″ by Torgny Vinje published in the American Meteorological Society Journal of Climate found that;

    “The corresponding decadal maximum change in the Arctic Ocean ice thickness is of the order of 0.8 m. These temporal wind-induced variations may help explain observed changes in portions of the Arctic Ocean ice cover over the last decades. Due to an increasing rate in the ice drainage through the Fram Strait during the 1990s, this decade is characterized by a state of decreasing ice thickness in the Arctic Ocean.”

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282001%29014%3C3508%3AFSIFAA%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    This 2004 paper “Variations in the Age of Arctic Sea-ice and Summer Sea-ice Extent” by Ignatius G. Rigor & John M. Wallace, states that;

    “The winter AO-index explains as much as 64% of the variance in summer sea-ice extent in the Eurasian sector, but the winter and summer AO-indices combined explain less than 20% of the variance along the Alaskan coast, where the age of sea-ice explains over 50% of the year-to year variability. If this interpretation is correct, low summer sea-ice extents are likely to persist for at least a few years. However, it is conceivable that, given an extended interval of low-index AO conditions, ice thickness and summertime sea-ice extent could gradually return to the levels characteristic of the 1980′s.”

    http://seaice.apl.washington.edu/

    This 2007 paper “Rapid reduction of Arctic perennial sea ice” by Nghiem, Rigor, Perovich, Clemente-Colo, Weatherly and Neumann states that;

    “Perennial-ice extent loss in March within the DM domain was noticeable after the 1960s, and the loss became more rapid in the 2000s when QSCAT observations were available to verify the model results. QSCAT data also revealed mechanisms contributing to the perennial-ice extent loss: ice compression toward the western Arctic, ice loading into the Transpolar Drift (TD) together with an acceleration of the TD carrying excessive ice out of Fram Strait, and ice export to Baffin Bay.”

    http://seaice.apl.washington.edu/Papers/NghiemEtal2007_MYreduction.pdf

    This 2010 paper, “Influence of winter and summer surface wind anomalies on summer Arctic sea ice extent” by Masayo Ogi, Koji Yamazaki and John M. Wallace, published in Geophysical Research Letters states that;

    “We have shown results indicating that wind‐induced, year‐to‐year differences in the rate of flow of ice toward and through Fram Strait play an important role in modulating September SIE on a year‐to‐year basis and that a trend toward an increased wind‐induced rate of flow has contributed to the decline in the areal coverage of Arctic summer sea ice.”

    http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d2/masayo.ogi/2009GL042356.pdf

    This 2011 paper, “Recent wind driven high sea ice export in the Fram Strait contributes to Arctic sea ice decline”, submitted to The Cryosphere by L. H. Smedsrud, et al. used;

    “geostrophic winds derived from reanalysis data to calculate the Fram Strait ice area export back to 1957, finding that the sea ice area export recently is about 25 % larger than during the 1960’s.”

    http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/5/1311/2011/tcd-5-1311-2011-print.pdf

    So, having had an opportunity to “evaluate each paper on its own merits” do you agree with Son V. Nghiem when he said in an October, 1 2007 NASA article that;

    “the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. “Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,” he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.

    “The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century,” Nghiem said.”?

    http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html

  106. Smokey: I am sorry but to say there is no empirical evidence for AGW is nonsense.
    Certainly the evidence can be disputed but I am afraid you are making my point about Dr Freud’s psychological insight here.

    There is empricial data and it can and has been tested agains the theory. For example on the arctic ice question:

    http://www.ualberta.ca/~eec/Stroeve2007.pdf

    Or global temperatures:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-5.html

  107. Gary Pearse says:
    August 12, 2011 at 1:31 pm

    R. Gates

    “Well, since skeptics don’t believe the models anyway….”

    _____
    Thoughtful people here are not saying I don’t believe it, they are saying prove it.

    ____
    Perhaps semantics is part of the problem. When I say “believe” I mean “have a certain amount of validity to indicate trends or dynamics of a system”.

    But in terms of your general statement about thoughtful people…i would hope that is how all thoughtful people behave regarding something as complex as the climate.

  108. Philip Shehan says:
    August 12, 2011 at 8:22 pm
    Smokey: I am sorry but to say there is no empirical evidence for AGW is nonsense.
    Certainly the evidence can be disputed but I am afraid you are making my point about Dr Freud’s psychological insight here.

    There is empricial data and it can and has been tested agains the theory. For example on the arctic ice question:
    ====================================

    … and what’s the data that shows a connection with this and CO2 going from 280 ppm to 380 ppm, allegedly due to human contributions, besides f**k all.

    Don’t waste your time looking, there isn’t any such data.

  109. Philip Shehan says: August 12, 2011 at 8:22 pm

    There is empricial data and it can and has been tested agains the theory. For example on the arctic ice question:

    http://www.ualberta.ca/~eec/Stroeve2007.pdf

    Or global temperatures:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-5.html

    I eagerly await your response to my comment above on the “arctic ice question”, but I am not sure where you are coming from in terms of “global temperatures”. When I look at the RSS Lower Troposphere Satellite Temps, I see a small increase over the last 30 years:
    ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tlt_global_land_and_sea_v03_3.png

    Furthermore, when I take into account the big El Ninos that occured in 98 and 09/10, as Roy Spenser does on the UAH Lower Atmosphere Temp chart;

    the average increase looks even smaller. Then when i take into account the fact that there have been significantly less major volcanoes. i.e. ones with a Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI) rated 5 or higher, during the last century;

    1902 – VEI6(?) – Santa Maria, Guatemala
    1907 – VEI5 – Ksudach, Kamchatka
    1912 – VEI6 – Novarupta (Katmai)
    1932 – VEI5+ – Azul, Cerro (Quizapu)
    1956 – VEI5 – Bezymianny, Kamchatchka
    1980 – VEI5 – St Helens, US
    1982 – VEI5 – El Chichon, Mexico
    1991 – VEI6 – Pinatubo, Philippines

    as compared to a period such 1580 – 1680;
    1580 ± 20 – VEI6 – Billy Mitchell
    1586 – VEI5? – Kelut, Java
    1593 – VEI5? – Raung, Java
    1600 – VEI6 – Huaynaputina
    1625 – VEI5 – Katla
    1640 – VEI5 – Komaga-Take, Japan
    1641 – VEI6 – Mount Parker
    1650 – VEI6 – Kolumbo, Santorini
    1660 – VEI6 – Long Island (Papua New Guinea)
    1663 – VEI5 – Usu, Japan
    1667 – VEI5 – Shikotsu (Tarumai), Japan
    1673 – VEI5? – Gamkonora, Halmahera
    1680 – VEI5? – Tongkoko, Sulaw

    which coincides with the depths of the Little Ice Age:

    http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_lia.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

    The effects of volcanoes on Earth’s climate are well know, e.g. “the 1991 explosion of Mount Pinatubo, a stratovolcano in the Philippines, cooled global temperatures for about 2–3 years.

    In 1883, the explosion of Krakatoa (Krakatau) created volcanic winter-like conditions. The next four years after the explosion were unusually cold, and the winter of 1887 to 1888 included powerful blizzards.Record snowfalls were recorded worldwide.

    The 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora, a stratovolcano in Indonesia, occasioned mid-summer frosts in New York State and June snowfalls in New England and Newfoundland and Labrador in what came to be known as the “Year Without a Summer” of 1816.

    A paper written by Benjamin Franklin in 1783 blamed the unusually cool summer of 1783 on volcanic dust coming from Iceland, where the eruption of Laki volcano had released enormous amounts of sulfur dioxide, resulting in the death of much of the island’s livestock and a catastrophic famine which killed a quarter of the population. Temperatures in the northern hemisphere dropped by about 1 °C in the year following the Laki eruption.

    In 1600, the Huaynaputina in Peru erupted. Tree ring studies show that 1601 was cold. Russia had its worst famine in 1601 to 1603. From 1600 to 1602, Switzerland, Latvia and Estonia had exceptionally cold winters. The wine harvest was late in 1601 in France, and in Peru and Germany wine production collapsed. Peach trees bloomed late in China, and Lake Suwa in Japan froze early.[4]

    In 1452 or 1453, a cataclysmic eruption of the submarine volcano Kuwae caused worldwide disruptions.

    The Great Famine of 1315–1317 in Europe may have been precipitated by a volcanic event,[5] perhaps that of Kaharoa, New Zealand, which lasted about five years.[6]

    The extreme weather events of 535–536 are most likely linked to a volcanic eruption.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter

    What percentage of the small increase in tropospheric temperature over the last 30 years do you think can be attributed to increases in anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions versus oceanic oscillations, volcanic activity, or other natural climate changes?

  110. Juts the Facts: Excuse me if I do not exhustively read the links but I gather the point of these papers is that ice coverage in the arctic is the sum of many factors which vary from year to year.

    No problem whatever with that. Those who accept AGW also understand that global warming is causing a longterm reduction in ice coverage as evidenced by the figures in the first link in my above post.

    philincalifornia’s refusal to accept that there is data and theory constituting evidence that human’s have increased the atmospheric CO2 concentration and that this is causing significant atmospheric warming (which does not mean that the data and the theory and thus the evidence cannot be disputed) has me again recalling Doctor Freud and has my fingure lingering over the fourth letter of the alphabet on the keyboard.

  111. Philip Shehan says: August 12, 2011 at 10:43 pm

    Juts the Facts: Excuse me if I do not exhustively read the links but I gather the point of these papers is that ice coverage in the arctic is the sum of many factors which vary from year to year.

    No, the point is that the majority of the decrease in Arctic sea ice is due to wind/ natural causes, so to hold up the decrease in Arctic sea ice as evidence of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is disingenuous and erroneous.

    philincalifornia’s refusal to accept that there is data and theory constituting evidence that human’s have increased the atmospheric CO2 concentration and that this is causing significant atmospheric warming

    What constitutes a “significant atmospheric warming”?

    has my fingure lingering over the fourth letter of the alphabet on the keyboard.

    What are the criteria for this label? Do you think that using the obviously loaded term denier is helping your cause? If you are trying to convince people of the “merits” of your “side”, holocaust references are probably not your best material…

  112. Just the Facts:
    Again, I (and more to the point, climatologists and AGW theory) are entirely in agreement with your analysis of the effect of volcanic eruptions on climate. It is one of the many multifactorial contributions to temperature upon which the anthropogenic CO2 signal is superimposed.

    It was considered significant enough to be one of three parameters, along with CO2 concentration and solar output used to account for the temperature record in a paper written in 1981. (Fig 5 of this paper):

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf

    As my posts above indicate, I consider that there are genuine skeptics on both sides of the fence who argue the science.

    My use of the D word is limited to those who show not the slightest skepticism in their belief system, who react with hostility to any challenge to it and who shoot the messenger with attacks on the integrity and professionalism of scientists who present evidence that does challenge it, and will not even accept the existence of such evidence.

  113. Philip Shehan says: August 12, 2011 at 8:22 pm:

    “There is empricial data and it can and has been tested agains the theory.”

    Philip, that is just wrong. One more time: there is no empirical, testable evidence, per the scientific method, of catastrophic AGW – or for that matter, of AGW. None at all.

    The links you posted are not evidence. They are conclusions based on computer models. Models are not evidence; models are tools. And in climatology, they are not very good tools, as Prof Freeman Dyson points out. From each of your links:

    If the multi-model ensemble mean time series provides a true representation of forced change by greenhous gas…

    And:

    …58 simulations produced by 14 models with both anthropogenic and natural forcings. The multi-model ensemble mean is shown as a thick red curve and individual simulations are shown as thin yellow curves.

    There is no real world, testable, reproducible evidence for AGW. None. AGW may exist. But evidence for it, based on the scientific method, is non-existent.

    Finally, AGW is not a theory, it is a hypothesis. A theory allows for accurate predictions. But the AGW hypothesis has been consistently wrong in its predictive ability. AGW is only a hypothesis. Using the proper terms is essential in any scientific debate.

  114. Philip Shehan says:
    August 12, 2011 at 10:43 pm

    philincalifornia’s refusal to accept that there is data and theory constituting evidence that human’s have increased the atmospheric CO2 concentration and that this is causing significant atmospheric warming (which does not mean that the data and the theory and thus the evidence cannot be disputed) has me again recalling Doctor Freud and has my fingure lingering over the fourth letter of the alphabet on the keyboard.
    ============================================

    Why do you guys keep saying that there is data, and loads of scientists agree that there is loads of data, but never actually type up what the data is, even in bullet point or precis form ??

    In the recent Monckton debate in Australia, his opponent started out with your argument that there is data, and loads of scientists concur that there is, but failed to produce any in the entire debate. It’s because there isn’t any.

    I analyze data professionally as a scientist (Ph.D. in carbon chemistry, 200 peer-reviewed papers). When I see some data, I’ll form a conclusion based on the data. If the data indicate that the massively logarithmically reduced power of that portion of the 390+ ppm that is anthropogenic is capable of causing CAGW, or any measurable AGW, in the complex chaotic climate system, I will accept it.

    Right now, the temp vs CO2 trend is indicating the opposite.

  115. Philip Shehan says: August 13, 2011 at 2:31 am

    Just the Facts:
    Again, I (and more to the point, climatologists and AGW theory) are entirely in agreement with your analysis of the effect of volcanic eruptions on climate. It is one of the many multifactorial contributions to temperature upon which the anthropogenic CO2 signal is superimposed.

    It was considered significant enough to be one of three parameters, along with CO2 concentration and solar output used to account for the temperature record in a paper written in 1981. (Fig 5 of this paper):

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf

    In the paper you cite, Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, by Hansen et al. it states that;

    “Energy growth has been 4 to 5 percent per year in the past century, but increasing costs will constrain future growth (1, 4). Thus we consider fast growth (`3 percent per year, specifically 4 percent per year in 1980 to 2020, 3 percent per year in 2020 – 2060, and 2 percent per year in 2060 to 2100), slow growth (half of fast growth), and no growth as representative energy growth rates.”

    “Projected global warming for fast growth is 3 – 4.5 degrees Celsius at the end of the next century, depending on the proportion of depleted oil and gas replaced by synfuel (Fig. 6). Slow growth, with depleted oil and gas replaced equally by synfuels and nonfossil fuels, reduces the warming to ~ 2.5 degrees Celsius.”

    According to Enerdata’s, May 2011 global energy report, average growth rate CO2 emissions from energy use from 1990-2010 in the G20 countries was 2% per year:

    http://www.enerdata.net/enerdatauk/press-and-publication/publications/g-20-2010-strongly-energy-demand-increase.php

    “Collectively, the G-20 economies comprise 87.2% of global nominal GDP:”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-20_major_economies

    So Hansen et al. appear to have overestimated the 1980 to 2020 growth rate in CO2 emissions from energy use by a factor of 2. Furthermore, even at the much lower level of CO2 emissions growth that we’ve seen, Hansen et al.’s “slow growth” of “warming to ~ 2.5 degrees Celsius” “at the end of the next century” seems unsupported by the data.

    The trend in Lower Troposphere Temperature is .143 degrees Celsius per decade;
    ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tlt_global_land_and_sea_v03_3.png

    and so if we arbitrarily assumed that half this increase was due to natural climate changes such as oceanic oscillations, volcanic activity and solar activity, that would mean that the anthropogenic contribution to Lower Troposphere Temperature would be .0715 degrees Celsius per decade, or .715 degrees Celsius per century, which is less than a 3rd of Hansen et al.’s projection of “slow growth” of “warming to ~ 2.5 degrees Celsius” “at the end of the next century”. Why are we trying to reduce our CO2 emissions, with great disruption to the world economy and stunting the rate of development for billions of people, when observations indicate that the impact of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are relatively small?

    My use of the D word is limited to those who show not the slightest skepticism in their belief system, who react with hostility to any challenge to it and who shoot the messenger with attacks on the integrity and professionalism of scientists who present evidence that does challenge it, and will not even accept the existence of such evidence.

    Frankly your description seems to apply to many of the supporters of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming narrative. But I would never use the term denier to label them, as I find it disrespectful to the approximately six million European Jews killed during the Holocaust, “in particular, over one million Jewish children were killed in the Holocaust, as were approximately two million Jewish women and three million Jewish men.” as well as, “some 200,000 Roma (Gypsies)”, “at least 200,000 mentally or physically disabled patients, mainly Germans, living in institutional settings, were murdered in the so-called Euthanasia Program.” and “between two and three million Soviet prisoners of war were murdered or died of starvation, disease, neglect, or maltreatment. The Germans targeted the non-Jewish Polish intelligentsia for killing, and deported millions of Polish and Soviet civilians for forced labor in Germany or in occupied Poland, where these individuals worked and often died under deplorable conditions. From the earliest years of the Nazi regime, German authorities persecuted homosexuals and others whose behavior did not match prescribed social norms. German police officials targeted thousands of political opponents (including Communists, Socialists, and trade unionists) and religious dissidents (such as Jehovah’s Witnesses). Many of these individuals died as a result of incarceration and maltreatment.”

    http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005143

    Using the loaded term denier in relation to people who have differing opinions on climate science, equivocates vigorous scientific debate with denial of the Holocaust. Frankly, it seems more like lashing out and throwing around ad hominems, because you are losing this argument…

  116. “Smokey says:
    August 12, 2011 at 4:31 pm
    Philip Shehan says:

    “I was a skeptic when I did not consider the evidence for AGW sufficiently well established. I remain a skeptic having concluded that accumulating evidence was well established.”

    Philip, there is no empirical, testable evidence, per the scientific method, of catastrophic AGW – or for that matter, of AGW. None at all.

    Now, AGW may exist. It may cause some warming of the atmosphere. But that assumption is based entirely on models, which are based on radiative physics, but not on reproducible, testable, replicable, real world evidence.”

    Let’s see if we can get you your evidence Smokey.

    First, lets get clear on some terms and basic questions.

    1. If the earth had no atmosphere would it be warmer or cooler than it is?

    A simple yes or no.

    2. Do you need to do an experiment ( take away the atmosphere) to test #1.

    A simple yes or no.

    3. Are there other ways, short of removing the atmosphere, that we can give you evidence on this question?

    4. Can you weigh the sun? can you put it on a scale repeatedly, or are there other ways we can test a sentence like “the sun weighs more than the moon?”

    5. Do you use a cell phone? If I told you that radiative physics was used to design that working
    system what would you say?

    6. Do you believe the images a weather satellite shows you? Do you believe the physics required to derive that image?

    7. Do you believe in the physics described by Radiation Transfer equations?

    8. Do you think that radars work? Is the physics they are based on “settled”? If not,
    explain how they work.

    Part of the problem we have is understanding what we mean by AGW, what we mean by evidence, so I’m trying to understand what you mean by evidence.

  117. Steven Mosher,

    1. If the earth had no atmosphere would it be warmer or cooler than it is?

    Answer: It would depend on whether you’re measuring the temperature on the day side or on the night side.

    #2: Yes. But you can do it on a small scale.

    #3: Yes. See R.W. Wood.

    #4: There is empirical evidence confirming the sun’s mass.

    #5: Misleading. Cell phones are empirically tested.

    #6: See #5.

    #7: Yes. [More accurate: I accept the physics. But there are still major unknowns.]

    #8: See #5.

    There is correlation between the rise in CO2 and the [very mild] rise in temperature over the past century and a half. There is also correlation between postal rates and temperature. But there is no empirical evidence, testable per the scientific method, proving that the rise in temperature – with parameters well within those of past rises – is due to the rise in CO2. If that question was settled, the question of the climate sensitivity number would be settled. It’s not.

    I could go into the scientific method, the null hypothesis, and Occam’s Razor again, but it gets tedious. Suffice it to say that they all support natural climate variability as the reason for temperature fluctuations. CO2 may have an effect, and I accept that. But there is no testable evidence proving that CO2 caused the rise in T, or how much of that rise is attributable to CO2. There are only educated guesses, and they vary all over the map.

  118. 1. If the earth had no atmosphere would it be warmer or cooler than it is?

    You dodged the question. would it be warmer or colder during the day AND during the night

    2. Do you need to do an experiment ( take away the atmosphere) to test #1.

    Really?

    3. Are there other ways, short of removing the atmosphere, that we can give you evidence on this question?

    Woods “experiment” Says NOTHING about the removal of the atmosphere. A few points
    1. the atmosphere is miles thick. His greehouse wasnt
    2. The atmosphere is moist in some places and super dry miles up. he didnt control
    for this.
    3. he provided no data.
    4. It doesnt answer the question of whether the earth would be warmer or cooler with an
    atmosphere.
    5. What does his experiment predict for temperatures on the moon which has no atmosphere

    4. Can you weigh the sun? can you put it on a scale repeatedly, or are there other ways we can test a sentence like “the sun weighs more than the moon?”
    You failed. We “know” what the sun weighs by applying a theory and doing calculations, NOT by weighing it. There is no direct empirical evidence.. ie putting the sun on a scale.

    5. Do you use a cell phone? If I told you that radiative physics was used to design that working
    system what would you say?
    So you accept the phsyics as true

    6. Do you believe the images a weather satellite shows you? Do you believe the physics required to derive that image?
    You accept the physics as true

    7. Do you believe in the physics described by Radiation Transfer equations?

    What unknowns? exactly

    8. Do you think that radars work? Is the physics they are based on “settled”? If not,
    explain how they work.

    It looks like you accept RTE. That means WOODS WAS WRONG. What physical theory has come out of woods “experiment”. Nothing. No cell phone no radar no satillite would work if woods were correct. WHY. because the physics of RTE, the physics of cell phones and radars and satillites ALL depend upon the atmosphere ATTENUATING signals that pass through them.

    Why do radars transmit in X band? what is a transmission window?

    Here is the thing Smokey. RTE which you accept, tells us that the atmosphere with more C02 will block more IR. More h20 will block IR. Is a clear night with no clouds warmer or colder than one with clouds? Can an IR sensor see through clouds?

    the first step is passed. You now admit that RTE is working tested physics. You accept that the molecules in the atmosphere can block the transmission of radiation ( ever shine a flashlight in the fog?)

    The next step.. What happens to surface temperatures as a result of the physics you accept. physics that works. physics you rely on.

  119. steven mosher says:

    “The next step…”

    No. I’ve answered your quiz, and I’ve tolerated your bird-dogging of my posts for a long time now. So ‘the next step’ is that I get to ask you a question. Not eight questions. Just one:

    Were you actually an English professor, or anything similar, or related?

    Because based on your complete lack of grammar, spelling, writing and punctuation skills, that is impossible for any rational person to believe. An eighth grader could do better. So, maybe it was just a rumor?

    If I’m mistaken, now is your opportunity to correct the record. After you’ve answered, I’ll gladly answer more of your questions.

  120. Philip Shehan says:
    August 13, 2011 at 2:31 am

    My use of the D word is limited to those who show not the slightest skepticism in their belief system, who react with hostility to any challenge to it and who shoot the messenger with attacks on the integrity and professionalism of scientists who present evidence that does challenge it, and will not even accept the existence of such evidence.

    Sounds like a perfect description of Michael Mann to me.

    Aside to Anthony – I do like the improved reply facility. The preview function is excellent; I’m glad there is no edit function as that makes revisions of history possible.

Comments are closed.