Climate FAIL from A to Z presented at Durban

This might be a bit overzealous per Morano’s unique writing style, but compared to some of the stuff we’ve seen from warmists, pretty mild. Lots of useful links and notes – Anthony

By Marc Morano  –  Climate Depot

Below is the Introduction to the report. Full report is available here. (PDF)

INTRODUCTION:

Many of the proponents of man-made global warming are now claiming that climate change is worse than they predicted. According to an October 18, 2011 Daily Climate article, global warming activists claim that the “evidence builds that scientists underplay climate impacts” and “if anything, global climate disruption is likely to be significantly worse than has been suggested.”

But this exclusive Climate Depot exhaustive A-Z Climate Reality Check report on the scientific reality of the failure of man-made global warming shatters any such illusions that the climate is “worse than we thought.” As the real world evidence mounts that global warming claims are failing, the climate activists have ramped up predictions of future climate change impacts to declare that it “worse than we thought.” But a prediction or projection of 50-100 years into the future is not “evidence.” Recent scientific data and developments reveal that Mother Nature is playing a cruel joke on the promoters of man-made climate fears.

The scientific reality is that on virtually every claim — from A-Z — the claims of the promoters of man-made climate fears are failing, and in many instances the claims are moving in the opposite direction. The global warming movement is suffering the scientific death of a thousand cuts. This Climate Depot special report categorizes and indexes the full range of climate developments in a handy A-Z reference guide. The A-Z report includes key facts, peer-reviewed studies and the latest data and developments with links for further reading, on an exhaustive range of man-made global warming claims.

The Antarctic sea ice extent has been at or near record extent in the past few summers and the ice is expanding, the Arctic has rebounded in recent years since the low point in 2007, polar bears are thriving, sea level is not showing acceleration and is actually dropping, Cholera and Malaria are failing to follow global warming predictions, Mount Kilimanjaro melt fears are being made a mockery by gains in snow cover, global temperatures have been holding steady for a decade or more and many scientists are predicting global cooling is ahead, deaths due to extreme weather are radically declining, global tropical cyclone activity is near historic lows, the frequency of major U.S. hurricanes has declined, the oceans are missing their predicted heat content, big tornados have dramatically declined since the 1970s, droughts are not historically unusual nor caused by mankind, there is no evidence we are currently having unusual weather, scandals continue to rock the climate fear movement, the UN IPCC has been exposed as being a hotbed of environmental activists, former Vice President Al Gore is now under siege by his fellow global warming activists for attempting to link every bad weather event to man-made global warming and scientists from around the world continue to dissent from man-made climate fears at a rapid pace.

Climate Depot’s new A-Z report reveals that the great man-made global warming catastrophe that was predicted – has been cancelled.
In addition to the scientific collapse of anthropogenic global warming fears, the political collapse has been just as stunning. President Obama has been criticized by former Vice President Al Gore for failing to do enough when it comes to climate change legislation. The now defunct and “scientifically meaningless” Congressional climate bill failed because the Democrats realized it was political suicide. The new political expediency in Washington is global warming skepticism. The UN global warming treaty process lay in shambles. See: Democrat Walter Russell Mead analyzes Gore: Gore steered the green movement ‘into a tsunami of defeat that…will loom as one of the greatest failures of civil society in all time.’

Proponents of anthropogenic climate change have been reduced to making outlandish claims of a mythical 97% or 98% consensus. See: Global Warming: A ‘98% Consensus Of Nothing': ‘Only shameless activists or statistically ignorant claim that survey of 77 anonymous scientists’ is proof of 98% ‘consensus’. Once esteemed science groups like the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) have now corrupted and have used taxpayer money to lobby for the passage of climate bills. See: Ralph Cicerone’s Shame: NAS Urges Carbon Tax, Becomes Advocacy Group — ‘political appointees heading politicized scientific institutions that are virtually 100% dependent on gov’t funding’ & NAS Pres. Ralph Cicerone Turns Science Org. into political advocacy group: $6 million NAS study is used to lobby for global warming bill & MIT’s Richard Lindzen: ‘Cicerone of NAS is saying that regardless of evidence the answer is predetermined. If gov’t wants carbon control, that is the answer that the NAS will provide’

Movement ‘was bound to fail’

A movement that had Al Gore – one of the most divisive political figures – as the face of the movement, was bound to fail. A movement that utilized the scandal ridden United Nations – which is massively distrusted by the American people – as the repository of science, was doomed to fail. Gore and the UN IPCC are now reduced to pointing to every storm, flood, hurricane or tornado as proof of man-made global warming. The UN has been reduced to blaming man-made global warming for prostitution. See: Climate Astrology — ‘It Has Been Foretold’ of Extreme Weather: ‘UN IPCC science has a status similar to interpretations of Nostradamus and the Mayan calendars’ & Climate Astrology borrows from the past: ‘Before That Witch Moved Into The Neighborhood, We Never Had Bad Weather Or Disease’

But a scientific moment of clarity is now prevailing: The UN and the U.S. Congress do not have the power to legislate, tax or regulate the weather. See: Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer: ‘The idea that Congress can stop climate change is just hilarious’ – Warns of ‘climate change cult’ – July 8, 2009 – Prominent scientists continue to challenge the alleged “consensus.” See: Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Who Endorsed Obama Dissents! Dr. Ivar Giaever Resigns from American Physical Society Over Group’s Promotion of Man-Made Global Warming

‘Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables’

The idea that CO2, a trace essential gas in the atmosphere that humans exhale form their mouth, is the main climate driver is now being challenged by peer-reviewed studies, data and scientists from around the globe. It is not simply, the sun or CO2 when looking at global temperatures, it is the Sun, volcanoes, tilt of the Earth’s axis, water vapor, methane, clouds, ocean cycles, plate tectonics, albedo, atmospheric dust, Atmospheric Circulation, cosmic rays, particulates like Carbon Soot, forests and land use, etc. Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, not just CO2.

Professor Emeritus of Biogeography Philip Stott of the University of London explained the crux of the entire global warming debate when he rebutted the notion that CO2 is the main climate driver.

“As I have said, over and over again, the fundamental point has always been this: climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically-selected factor (CO2), is as misguided as it gets,” Stott wrote.

Even the global warming activists at RealClimate.org admitted to this key climate reality in a September 20, 2008 article. “The actual temperature rise is an emergent property resulting from interactions among hundreds of factors,” RealClimate.org explained.

The global warming movement continues to lose scientists, many formerly with the UN IPCC. See: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore

The future does not look bright for global warming activists as more scandals continue to rock the movement. See: Climate Depot’s Exclusive Round Up of Climategate 2.0 – Read about the most comprehensive report on the latest global warming scandal – Even warmists are lamenting that Climate 2.o may be ‘devastating': ‘These [emails] sound worse than I thought at first – their impact will be devastating’

MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen has observed that “Ordinary people see through man-made climate fears — but educated people are very vulnerable.”

  www.ClimateDepot.com

A-Z Climate Reality Check (Editor’s Note: This A-Z report will be regularly updated and will serve as a handy reference guide to man-made global warming claims.)

Full PDF report is available here.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate FAIL, Durban Climate Conference and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

123 Responses to Climate FAIL from A to Z presented at Durban

  1. ThePowerofX says:

    [Using multiple screen names violate site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]

  2. Al Gored says:

    Shouldn’t really use the word “fail.” It will damage their self-esteem. They do deserve marks for Attendance. They have been very good at attending these expense account parties even when they have had to fly all the way to beach resorts around the world in December.

  3. Gail Combs says:

    Now if someone would just stand up and read that to the Circus Act in Durban. On the other hand we have Lord Monckton and that is even better.

  4. Roger Knights says:

    I think we’ve reached a tipping point!!!

  5. albertalad says:

    Excellent article – many, many links here that are indeed make this article a keeper if you want to play in the AGW arena we’re all gonna die by next Tuesday lottery. I’m getting confused how many times and ways we’re supposed to be eradicated – the Bible guy predicted a few months ago, as the Bible guys predicted thousands of years ago and we’re still going, and the year before that and so on, the Mayans by 2012, the global warming zealots we’re all gonna dies every other week, NASA telling us aliens are gonna wipe us out because of global warming, it’s worse than we thought keeps getting recirculated – and each time even worse than the last time.

    How can semi-sane humans ever read this stuff let alone so called serious newspaper and TV news regurgitate this garbage without laughing hysterically?

  6. Scott Covert says:

    If the Newyork Times would put that on the front page it might do some good. You are preaching to the choir Bro.

  7. Scarface says:

    Marc Morano, another hero in the fight against the AGW-cult. Great post! Thanks!

  8. TheFlyingOrc says:

    A damn fine resource of links. It really seems like the skeptics are winning, which I would have never predicted 3 or 4 years ago.

  9. petermue says:

    “if anything, global climate disruption is likely to be significantly worse than has been suggested.”

    … for their wallet$.

  10. Roger Knights says:

    Bloomberg: “US Delay on Climate Pact spurs backlash”:
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-07/u-s-delay-on-climate-pact-spurs-backlash-from-eu-to-barbados.html

    An intensely alarmist, slanted article, reflecting Bloomberg’s latest expansion into greenism with his “sustainability” section, tabbed on his main page.

  11. gary says:

    Looks like Penn State University does a lot more than whitewash climate gate scams Jerry Sandusky Taken Out of Home in Handcuffs http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Jerry-Sandusky-Taken-Out-of-Home-in-Handcuffs-135184658.html?dr

  12. johnnyrvf says:

    http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1812/MIT-Climate-Scientist-Ordinary-people-see-through-manmade-climate-fears–but-educated-people-are-very-vulnerable
    I find that remark sums up the complete lack of understanding of what and how intelligence is to some acdemics, I know many people of all age groups who are successful in many areas of Engineering, Catering, Business, Science who are in no way ‘vunerable’and have seen through the CAGW scam just as surely as other aquaintances and friends who may not have academically ‘high’ I.Q’s but being farmers, market traders, etc are in no way limited in intellect or mental capacity and probably have a much better standard of living than Dr. Lindzen does, not living in an artificial reality driven by fear.

  13. tarpon says:

    Could we stick to what they say is true only?

  14. pat says:

    nicely timed weather event, coinciding with Durban:

    8 Dec: Australian: Sarah Elks with AAP: La Nina is behind record summer lows
    BRISBANE residents yesterday shivered through the city’s coldest December day in 123 years, while Sydney has recorded its iciest start to summer in 51 years…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/la-nina-is-behind-record-summer-lows/story-e6frg6nf-1226216722372

  15. JEM says:

    ThePowerOfX – You are referring to the claims about Antarctic ice extent? Or Antarctic and Arctic ice levels and polar-bear populations?

    While Morano’s a bit of a bomb-thrower and sometimes as guilty of cherry-picking as those pastry chefs on the warmist side he’d criticize for it, I don’t see anything particularly outlandish or unsupportable in his claims here.

  16. JonBo says:

    I was interested in the first point Mark raises in his article i.e. that arctic ice has rebounded since 2007 and was wanting to find his source. I checked out the PDF which then gave a link to climate depot but the link on this page just brought me back again and seemed to just go in a circular fashion. I have still not been able to find the source. Is anyone else having the same or similar problem, or am I going wrong somewhere in my search. Any help gratefully received. Thanks.

  17. SSam says:

    Al Gored says:

    “… They do deserve marks for Attendance…”

    In my opinion the only attendance award that they deserve involve penal institutions.

  18. Mike Jonas says:

    ThePowerofX says: “The first 3 claims are pure BS. I stopped reading after that.

    TPoX – I see you provide no evidence to back up your statement. The first three claims were:
    1. The Antarctic sea ice extent has been at or near record extent in the past few summers and the ice is expanding,
    2. the Arctic has rebounded in recent years since the low point in 2007
    3. polar bears are thriving
    (Links were provided, see the main post)

    Perhaps you would like to provide evidence that these three claims are incorrect. One thing you will find on WUWT is that people do pay attention to actual evidence.

    NB, if you regard 2 and 3 above as one claim, then add in
    3. sea level is not showing acceleration and is actually dropping

  19. Skiphil says:

    Roger Knights says:
    December 7, 2011 at 3:12 pm

    Bloomberg: “US Delay on Climate Pact spurs backlash”:
    =======================================================

    The word ‘backlash’ is ridiculous — all the article showed as a bit of whiny bleating from the usual suspects.

    A more accurate (if long-winded) headline would be “US Hint of Rationality Provokes Pathetic Whining From the Usual Freeloaders and Parasites”

  20. Mike Jonas says:

    JonBo – same here. A good place to look for all sorts of climate data is WUWT’s ‘Reference Pages’ in the top menu. Arctic ice is above the 2007 level no matter how you look at it. It could be argued that “rebounded” is a bit strong, but the visual comparison …
    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=12&fd=05&fy=2007&sm=12&sd=05&sy=2011
    (laterst date available)
    … does show thicker ice now across most of the Arctic.

  21. JEM says:

    JonBo – when you click on the link in the Morano article, it takes you to a stub entry on the climatedepot site with ‘Visit Site’ in the title bar. That link then takes you to an entry at the WorldClimateReport blog that references a paper published in GRL.

    A little circuitous but maybe he wants to spread the clicks around…

  22. Latitude says:

    Thanks Marc!

  23. K2 says:

    “Recent scientific data and developments reveal that Mother Nature is playing a cruel joke on the promoters of man-made climate fears.”

    Mother Nature doesn’t play cruel jokes. The ignorant AGW pranksters are the cruel joke.

  24. Cassandra says:

    JOnas etc…Please when you ANSWER THESE warmist or climategate team GUYS SUPPLY LINKS! 1. Check DMI ice extent yes NH ice has been increasing since low of 2007. 2. Check Cryosphere today (a warmist site) Yes antarctic has been ABOVE anomaly for about 3 years on average. 3. Yes temperatures have been falling since 2000 probably not significantly but they sure aint rising. This months average probably a negative anomaly or a zero, check Roy spencers CURRENT satellite temps (NOAA monitors this UAH University of Alabama)

  25. John West says:

    That’s a Google +1 post.

  26. crosspatch says:

    per Morano’s unique writing style

    That’s a very diplomatic way to put it. His site looks like a hoarder’s garage.

  27. crosspatch says:

    Shouldn’t really use the word “fail.” It will damage their self-esteem.

    Right. We should use THEIR word … “discredited”.

  28. Marian says:

    Unfortunately it looks like a number of Govt’s around the World aren’t getting the message. Too busy trying to appease and suckup to the UN agenda!

    NZ, Australia sleepwalk to climate suicide

    http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/?p=2030

  29. davidmhoffer says:

    That’s it? 25 comments and the most negative thing about the article is Anthony saying it might be over zealous? Where the heck are the trolls? My favourite passtime is troll baiting, and I count on WUWT to real them in for me. Sorry, this powerlessX guy doesn’t even count as a troll! He needs an upgrade to get to troll! But he must be a green trollet (trolip? starter troll? what?), that’s why he’s powerless…

    Oooh, I’m stretching if I used a line like that. Maybe itz up to us skeptics to play devil’s advocate in order that we have an actual debate going in these threads? Here, I’ll give it a go.

    Sniff…well obviously all you folks at WUWT are suffering from mass confirmation bias. The author is a known propogandist with an openly known agenda to cast doubt on climate science by any means. Marc Morano’s obvious hatred of anything positive for the long term good of mankind is expressed in his over the top pronouncements and cherry picked studies. Consider the links he’s posted in his article. What do almost all of them have in common?

    They are actual measurements, that’s what! Did any of those study authors, even one of them, consult with the modeling community? For those new to the climate debate, do you even know what a serious offence that is? Wolfgang Wagner, a PhD professor in Vienna, and the former editor of the prestigous journal Remote Sensing has to resign his position as editor and leave the journal in complete embarrasment for letting a coolist paper that was based on actual measurements get published without getting input from modelers first. He even had to apologize in person to Kevin Trenberth, that’s how bad basing studies on data instead of models actually is. Would you trust your kids with this guy? I think not.
    ———————-

    OK everyone, have fun tearing me apart for that. I’ll read all the comments in a couple of hours, and hopefull there will be some hilarious riposts. A couple of hours is how long it is going to take me to stand in the shower and see if I will ever feel clean again…

  30. Gary Mount says:

    crosspatch says:

    December 7, 2011 at 6:10 pm

    per Morano’s unique writing style

    That’s a very diplomatic way to put it. His site looks like a hoarder’s garage.

    Some people call sites like that a news aggregator site.
    I find his site… entertaining. I do wish he could indicate which links takes one to a warmist article. I hate it when that happens and I am not prepared.

  31. Bob K says:

    Playing something like this would seem to be appropriate for the closing ceremonies at Durban. ;)

  32. Old woman of the north says:

    The Australian public broadcasting corporation ABC is ramping up the stories of warming in every way possible at the moment in support of our idiot goverment giving away $millions to ‘climate changed countries’ without once mentioning that each of these places has vast population growth, which is what is affecting environments by over use – nothing to do with climate. The world will have droughts, floods, freezes etc despite what humans do. I despair of finding a rational thought with these people! All these enormous donations will do is feed corruption.

  33. ferd berple says:

    pat says:
    December 7, 2011 at 3:45 pm
    BRISBANE residents yesterday shivered through the city’s coldest December day in 123 years, while Sydney has recorded its iciest start to summer in 51 years…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/la-nina-is-behind-record-summer-lows/story-e6frg6nf-1226216722372

    Gillard’s CO2 policies are evidently having an impact on temperatures in Oz. As Gore pointed out, temperatures fall first, then CO2 follows.

  34. G. Karst says:

    Canada’s CBC is currently running a poll which was worded, by design, to ensure condemnation of Canada’s withdrawal from Kyoto.

    The way it was worded, it was hard for a skeptic to vote

    Is Canada doing its part in the global fight against climate change?

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2011/12/is-canada-doing-its-part-in-the-global-fight-against-climate-change.html

    Despite this! The poll results currently are:

    Yes – 47.7%
    No – 51.3 %
    Undec – >1%

    Another fail. GK

  35. Ammonite says:

    Please refer to G. Foster, and S. Rahmstorf, “Global temperature evolution 1979–2010″, Environmental Research Letters, vol. 6, 2011, pp. 044022. This paper strips out ENSO, volcanic effects and solar variation across GISS, NCDC, CRU, RSS, UAH temperature series for the period covering the satellite era. Temperature is *rising* consistently at ~0.16C/decade in all the series tested. The rise is significant in all cases. Check out RealClimate http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/12/global-temperature-news/ for more detail.

    For the genuinely skeptical reader, the results of Foster and Rahmstorf are worth pondering. If the theory of AGW is so far off the mark as a theory, how is it that temperature is consistently rising?

  36. davidmhoffer says:

    G. Karst;
    Is Canada doing its part in the global fight against climate change? >>>

    That’s actually hilarious. The CBC and most of the media in Canada are wringing their hands about Canada getting out of Kyoto as if the mere act of doing so will cause the entire polar bear population to drop dead on the spot…

    And 47% say… good enough for me?

    And keep in mind…that’s the people who frequent the CBC!
    (for our American friends, CBC regards Obama as a raving right wing lunatic)

  37. JEM says:

    @Gary Mount – I think Morano’s trying to emulate Drudge, though he doesn’t turn over his news nearly as fast.

    As for warmist content…I clicked on one of his links the other day and found myself at ThinkProgress. When push comes to shove, if I had a heart attack and dropped dead at my desk I suspect I’d rather my heirs find a bunch of Japanese fecal-porn sites in my browser cache than StinkProgress.

  38. jorgekafkazar says:

    Nice, Marc.

  39. otsar says:

    Ammonite,
    What do you think might be responsible for the 0.16C/decade temperature rise?

  40. davidmhoffer says:

    Ammonite;
    For the genuinely skeptical reader, the results of Foster and Rahmstorf are worth pondering. If the theory of AGW is so far off the mark as a theory, how is it that temperature is consistently rising?>>>

    Whoopee! a TROLL!
    Set/Troll Baiting = On

    OK Ammonite, let’s start by saying that I agree with you that temperature is consistently rising. the graphs in those article start around 1950 and 1980 which is a pretty short time period. Really, the temperature has been consistently rising for….centuries. Since the Little Ice Age. Of course the little ice age was really only a blip in the grand scheme of things… if you take that out…the temperature has been rising for the last several thousand years…since the last full ice age. Of course, even in those scare graphs (ever notice how when you take a picture of an ant and blow it up really big it looks scary as all get out, but really, itz just an ant? Try graphing those temps on a proper scale in degrees K from0 to 350 and…ooops, looks almost flat) but back to the scare graphs, even in them, temps are pretty much flat for the last 10 to 15 years, despite CO2 being the highest EVER…and don’t go on about aerosols in China having a cooling effect, their coal plants are as clean as our and we’ve cleaned up more smog problems in North America and Europe inthe last 50 years than China can possibly compensate for….so….where’s the warming? All you got is graphs with close ups to make tiny variations look like monster ants and warming trends that are thousands of years old, long before CO2 started to increase at all.

    Whew. Really needed that,thanks!

    Any other drive by troll comments? Hitting the hay, will get to them in the AM.

  41. Ammonite says:

    otsar says: December 7, 2011 at 9:13 pm
    Ammonite, What do you think might be responsible for the 0.16C/decade temperature rise?

    Hi otsar. Rising GHG concentrations, but without starting an endless rehash of every other possible mechanism, my intention is to make people aware that temperature continues to rise. Years 2009 and 2010 are the highest in the Stefan and Ramstorf series, well above 1998 when the super-El-Nino is factored out. Many skeptics are essentially betting against the identified trend. The Climate Depot article eludes to this.

    Did you read the RealClimate summary? What do you make of it?

  42. Ammonite says:

    Typo: “Stefan and Ramstorf” should read “Foster and Rahmstorf” in my last post.

  43. davidmhoffer says:

    otsar says:
    December 7, 2011 at 9:13 pm
    Ammonite,
    What do you think might be responsible for the 0.16C/decade temperature rise?>>>

    Well ain’t that cute. A pair of trolls! One posts a link to an article that is a rehash of rehash of rehashed cherry picking, and poof! here’s another troll responding to the first troll with a casual, what do you think is responsible for the temp rise, accepting it at face value and asking the question as if it was casual conversation so that the first troll can respond:

    ————
    Hi otsar. Rising GHG concentrations, but without starting an endless rehash of every other possible mechanism, my intention is to make people aware that temperature continues to rise. Years 2009 and 2010 are the highest in the Stefan and Ramstorf series, well above 1998 when the super-El-Nino is factored out. Many skeptics are essentially betting against the identified trend. The Climate Depot article eludes to this.
    Did you read the RealClimate summary? What do you make of it?
    ———————————-

    Really? I mean REALLY? How long did it take you two to come up with this charade? Oh yes, and there’s another nice comment with a set up to generate yet another question about the hottest years…well once you taske 1998 out because well, it was hotter to it doesn’t count…and we cut the graph out before that temp bubble in the 1930 to 1945 rage that used to be hotter until GISS “adjusted it” then there was the Medieval Warming period which was supposedly warmer, but on regionaslly…of course regionally being Greenland, Canada, Chile, Egypt, China, New Zealand, Russa, Finland, the Unite States…you know…regional…

  44. Ammonite says:

    davidmhoffer says: December 7, 2011 at 9:27 pm
    Set/Troll Baiting = On: …despite CO2 being the highest EVER …where’s the warming?

    Hi DMH. It is refreshing to know you have labelled your statement above as “bait”. Unfortunately many skeptical commentaries miss the point that warming is occuring in line with the central tenets of AGW.

    Set/Invitation-for-Genuine-Skeptics = On:
    For those who wish to read http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/12/global-temperature-news/ warming is clear and consistent.

  45. davidmhoffer says:

    Ammonite;
    Set/Invitation-for-Genuine-Skeptics = On:
    For those who wish to read http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/12/global-temperature-news/ warming is clear and consistent.>>>

    Followed the first time you posted the link, summarize a response explaining how devoid of meaning the article is and why, and you response is…to post it again. Wow, just say the same thing over and over again and that will prove it for sure.

  46. Sorry Marc, Methane is not an influence on climate. It seems you have accepted nonsense from the IPCC without checking the truth. Look at my post here http://cementafriend.wordpress.com/ and the comments which contain further explanation.
    Also, you should ask why Trenberth has not withdrawn his Global Heat Balance papers when he has admitted that the radiation “window” is 66W/m2 and not 40W/m2 as in his papers. Basically, Trenberth and all the so-called climate scientists have no understanding of the basic (engineering) science -heat & mass transfer, fluid dynamics, reaction kinetics and thermodynamics which is necessary to assess atmospheric changes (ie weather and climate)

  47. Al Gored says:

    Short (3:46), brutal, funny and classic commentary by the (Canadian) CBC’s Rex Murphy on Durban, Tutu, green extortion, China good-Canada bad and all that:

    http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/Shows/The_National/Rex_Murphy/1275870718/ID=2172735930

  48. rk says:

    it seems to me that dancing on the grave of the AGW movement may be a little premature. First, this is a machine, as amply demonstrated by the e-mails…and political machines have inertia. Second, the science is just a proxy for what liberals have wanted for decades, command and control systems based on some sad Malthusian theory. There are many other ways of continuing the movement. Sure, throw science under the bus…you still have energy independence, dirty fossil fuels, world wide pollution, the gross inequities wealth and energy consumption worldwide…etc. etc. etc.

  49. Steve C says:

    Old woman of the north says (December 7, 2011 at 7:45 pm):

    The Australian public broadcasting corporation ABC is ramping up the stories of warming in every way possible at the moment in support of our idiot goverment …

    OWotN, count yourself lucky you don’t have to listen to or watch the “objective, impartial (ho ho) BBC”. Not only did we get David Attenborough’s Special Global Warming Propaganda Edition of his ‘Frozen Planet’ series last night, on Monday afternoon they even managed to lever a chunk of AGW propaganda into a programme about genies, which you might reasonably have expected just to be a harmless, Christmas-pantomime-oriented item for the kids. Plus, come to that, most of their other output. Truly, Marc Morano is not the only one who’s “overzealous”.

    A (very) slight positive coming out of their current assault is that even people with no particular interest in climate, or even science, have started asking questions about the Beeb’s full-on brainwashing. When they mention it to me, I generally just show them a few graphs of measurements, give them a few internet links (starting with WUWT), and they go away a little more enlightened and a lot less inclined to trust the media.

  50. P Wilson says:

    if its worse than we thought, then the delegates don’t agree:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16080539

  51. D. Patterson says:

    P Wilson says:
    December 8, 2011 at 1:04 am
    if its worse than we thought, [....]

    To support such thinking during the COP17 revelry at Durban, Seth Borenstein, Associated Press, has published an article claiming:
    .
    “Billion-dollar weather disasters smash US record. By SETH BORENSTEIN | AP – 10 hrs ago.”

    One of the items of disinformation included in his article is the inclusion of the wildfire disasters in the Southwestern U.S. being the consequence of Global Warming. Unmentioned in the article is the role of illegal immigrants setting fire to these areas as a part of their illegal border crossing activities. This is yet another example of how Seth Borenstein and his ilk have the perfect opportunity to show the world a genuine example of anthropogenic activities warming the planet’s landscape with deliberate arson, and he neglects to do so and hides the real world instances of AGW.

  52. Greg Holmes says:

    it must be happening, must be, the BBC says so, even David Attenborough says so. I have the highest regard for David, he is a giant amongst his profession, The BBC have put a tarnish on his latest work, with the help of WWF et al. Dam shame!.

  53. Bob B says:

    Ammonite;

    Any 5th grade science student can read the below set of graphs and see that the tiny-tiny-tiny recent warming is nothing but a blip of noise in a very noisy past set of temperatures.

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim3.gif

    When I show ALL Engineers and scientists this animation they shake their heads and say—That’s’ it? That’s what this global warming scare is all about? A tiny 0.6C blip of warming over the past 100years? That’s what we are trying to convince people to spend huge parts of the planets GDP—trillions of dollars to fix?
    So now basically we have a gaggle of “Climate Scientists” mostly from universities who have never had to design a real thing like a bridge or like life saving drugs and be responsible for the outcomes of their predictions. In the cliamtegate emails they have now been caught to acknowledge these simple facts. Heck they don’t even want anybody checking their simulations with positive feedback fudge factors. So when I see trolls like you and other chicken little’s running around like the sky is falling and want to spend MY money on this technical misleading garbage I get really pissed at your foolishness!

  54. Charles.U.Farley says:

    You just know that all this Global climate warming cooling extreme weather change theyre constantly promoting is hogwash for one simple reason: Its the high pressure sales technique they use to try and sell it.

    Buy now! One only! Never to be repeated! Dont lose yours! and all that familar stuff so beloved of con artists across the globe.
    “Do it now or youre doomed, sign here”…. and the moment that familiar stink wafts around the media and up your nostrils you just know its all bull.
    Offering up the “scary scenarios” to get “something” done about a none problem was always doomed to fail.
    It might well stir up a hornets nest in the first instance, but after a while, it all settles down and because their predictions of doom ( Harold Camping style) fail to live up to expectations then theyll continue to keep losing any semblance of credibility (not of course that they had much to spare, i mean, GIGO models? c’mon fellas you can do better than that….cant you?), but then what do they expect? Reading the bones and tea leaves as opposed to proper scientific study and rigor was always going to end badly for them and rightly so.
    We’ve had the end of the world via hot methods, and high sea level methods, and unbreathable air methods, im quite looking forward to some pestilence.

    I was just wondering if all the scientists theyve excluded and done dirty deeds on couldnt form their own scientific group to promote real science instead of this garbage pseudoclaptrap we keep getting from the whackjobs at cru and uea …….et al?

  55. Catherine says:

    THE TRUTH ABOUT SEA LEVELS

    An interesting article in the Spectator by Nils-Axel Morner trashes completely all the scare stories about rising sea levels from the BBC, Gore, the IPCC, and all the other lying propagandists.

    See the whole article here http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/7438683/rising-credulity.thtml

    Here is part of it –

    “…But the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (2007) tells a different story about sea levels worldwide and is worth quoting in some detail: ‘Even under the most conservative scenario, sea level will be about 40cm higher than today by the end of 21st century and this is projected to increase the annual number of people flooded in coastal populations from 13 million to 94 million. Almost 60 per cent of this increase will occur in South Asia.’

    “This is nonsense. The world’s true experts on sea level are to be found at the INQUA (International Union for Quaternary Reseach) commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (of which I am a former president), not at the IPCC. Our research is what the climate lobby might call an ‘inconvenient truth’: it shows that sea levels have been oscillating close to the present level for the last three centuries. This is not due to melting glaciers: sea levels are affected by a great many factors, such as the speed at which the earth rotates. They rose in the order of 10 to 11cm between 1850 and 1940, stopped rising or maybe even fell a little until 1970, and have remained roughly flat ever since.

    “So any of the trouble attributed to ‘rising sea levels’ must instead be the result of other, local factors and basic misinterpretation. In Bangladesh, for example, increased salinity in the rivers (which has affected drinking water) has in fact been caused by dams in the Ganges, which have decreased the outflow of fresh water.

    “Even more damaging has been the chopping down of mangrove trees to clear space for shrimp farms. In one area, 19 square miles of mangrove vegetation in 1988 had by 2005 decreased to barely half a square mile. Mangrove forests offer excellent protection against the damage of cyclones and storms, so inevitably their systematic destruction has drastically increased local vulnerability to these problems.

    “At Tuvalu in the Pacific, I found no evidence of flooding — despite claims in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth that it was one of those ‘low-lying Pacific nations’ whose residents have had to ‘evacuate their homes because of rising seas’. In fact the tide gauge of the past 25 years clearly shows there has been no rise.

    “But the best-known ‘victim’ of rising sea levels is, without doubt, the Maldives. This myth has been boosted by the opportunism of Mohamed Nasheed, who stars in a new documentary called The Island President. The film’s tagline is ‘To save his country, he has to save our planet’. It is a depressing example of how Hollywood-style melodrama has corrupted climate science. Nasheed has been rehearsing his lines since being elected in 2009. ‘We are drowning, our nation will disappear, we have to relocate the people,’ he repeatedly claims.

    “If this is what President Nasheed believes, it seems strange that he has authorised the building of many large waterside hotels and 11 new airports. Or could it perhaps be that he wants to take a cut of the $30 billion fund agreed at an accord in Copenhagen for the poorest nations hit by ‘global warming’? Within two weeks of Copenhagen, the Maldives foreign minister Ahmed Shaheed wrote to the US secretary of state Hillary Clinton to express support for the accord.

    “The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment claimed that ‘there is strong evidence’ of sea level rising over the last few decades. It goes as far as to claim: ‘Satellite observations available since the early 1990s provide more accurate sea level data with nearly global coverage. This decade-long satellite altimetry data set shows that since 1993, sea level has been rising at a rate of around 3mm yr–1, significantly higher than the average during the previous half century. Coastal tide gauge measurements confirm this observation, and indicate that similar rates have occurred in some earlier decades.’

    “Almost every word of this is untrue.

    “Satellite altimetry is a wonderful and vital new technique that offers the reconstruction of sea level changes all over the ocean surface. But it has been hijacked and distorted by the IPCC for political ends.

    “In 2003 the satellite altimetry record was mysteriously tilted upwards to imply a sudden sea level rise rate of 2.3mm per year. When I criticised this dishonest adjustment at a global warming conference in Moscow, a British member of the IPCC delegation admitted in public the reason for this new calibration: ‘We had to do so, otherwise there would be no trend.’

    “This is a scandal that should be called Sealevelgate. As with the Hockey Stick, there is little real-world data to support the upward tilt. It seems that the 2.3mm rise rate has been based on just one tide gauge in Hong Kong (whose record is contradicted by four other nearby tide gauges). Why does it show such a rise? Because like many of the 159 tide gauge stations used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, it is sited on an unstable harbour construction or landing pier prone to uplift or subsidence. When you exclude these unreliable stations, the 68 remaining ones give a present rate of sea level rise in the order of 1mm a year.

    “If the ice caps are melting, it is at such a small rate globally that we can hardly see its effects on sea level. I certainly have not been able to find any evidence for it. The sea level rise today is at most 0.7mm a year — though, probably, much smaller.

    “…The true facts are found by observing and measuring nature itself, not in the IPCC’s computer-generated projections. There are many urgent natural problems to consider on Planet Earth — tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions not least among them. But the threat of rising sea levels is an artificial crisis.”

    Strangely, although this article was published a while ago, there has been no mention of it anywhere in the British MSM.

  56. chuck nolan says:

    “promoters of man-made climate fears”
    I like this term.

  57. Jean says:

    We need more articles like this, the alarmists are going to be moving the goalposts as their dire predictions fail.

  58. JonBo says:

    JEM:
    Thanks for that, but i am still having the same problem. No matter, I have followed the link provided by the other guys and i’m guessing this must be where Mark got his data from. Thanks all.

  59. R. de Haan says:

    No matter what you throw at them, they won’t give up.
    Now we are endangering humankind

    Sen. Boxer to climate-change deniers: ‘You are endangering humankind’
    http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/197815-boxer-to-climate-deniers-you-are-endangering-human-kind

  60. JonBo says:

    Gary & Mike:
    Thanks for the links. I had a good look but could not find a straightforward chart showing sea ice volume; all the graphs and charts just seemed to concentrate on sea ice extent & coverage. Obviously it is the overall volume that is the more important factor here and I assume it is this that Mark Morano is refering to in his paper. It’s possible I have missed something as I am not altogether scientifically literate so can you point me in the right direction if this is the case. Many thanks.

  61. Steve from Rockwood says:

    Climate catastrophe has postponed due to lack of funds.

  62. observa says:

    “It’s worse than we thought!”
    Yes, global warming and then climate change didn’t work for long and now global climate disruption is failing to hold their attention and we’re fast running out of terminology to frighten them with.

  63. G. Karst says:

    Catherine says:
    December 8, 2011 at 4:55 am

    …“In 2003 the satellite altimetry record was mysteriously tilted upwards to imply a sudden sea level rise rate of 2.3mm per year. When I criticised this dishonest adjustment at a global warming conference in Moscow, a British member of the IPCC delegation admitted in public the reason for this new calibration: ‘We had to do so, otherwise there would be no trend.’…

    …The world’s true experts on sea level are to be found at the INQUA (International Union for Quaternary Reseach) commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (of which I am a former president), not at the IPCC…

    This type of manipulation is not new, nor is it surprising. It is demonstrative. However, it brings up the question: What has the INQUA commission and yourself done, since 2003 or AR4 to correct the IPPC or expose the fraud since. Informing sceptics is a start however your organization should be squalling at the top of their collective voices. Otherwise, what good are they, if they are superseded by the IPCC. Y’all are an authority or NOT. GK

  64. Vince Causey says:

    Ammonite,

    If you think that after people follow that link they are gonna think “OMG, he’s dead right – the warming is real and consistent,” in a Damascean conversion, then I can only say that you must have a very poor understanding of WUWT bloggers. There is nothing in that graph on RC that nobody here hasn’t seen over and over.

    The problem we sceptics have is a) on a larger timescale, temperatures have risen (Roman, medieval warm periods) then fallen (dark ages, little ice age) then risen, so in what way is this current warming unprecedented? b) Why has the warming stopped despite higher than ever co2 levels? c) Where is the missing heat that Trenberth is on about? d) Why is there more warming in the northern hemisphere than southern if co2 is a well mixed gas?

    If you want to convert sceptics, provide convincing answers without resorting to magic, and we’ll see how that works out.

  65. Geoff Alder says:

    Durban Current Weather

    Yesterday (Wednesday) really felt like summer had kicked in. That has all changed today. A most unsummer-like and bitter wind has come up from the South, and today it has been wet and thoroughly miserable. Rest assured — none of the Delegates will be stretching out on any beach today.
    Incidentally, our local weekly rag came out this morning with its main headline being “Climate talk detractors land on ‘Toti beach”. (The main beach of Amanzimtoti, abbreviated ‘Toti, was where Lord Monckton and his little party parachuted down a couple of days back). So, a new one, — we are now “detractors”!

    Geoff Alder

  66. Watching the local TV news in South Africa it seems there have been fisticuffs in the hall between African supporters of the Africa stance ( send us money ) and the Zuma stance of “let’s do a deal with the EU”.

    Quite disturbing really.

    http://www.news24.com/SciTech/News/Activists-claim-Zuma-supporters-attacked-them-20111208-2

  67. Ammonite says:

    Vince Causey says: December 8, 2011 at 7:48 am
    The problem we sceptics have is a) on a larger timescale, temperatures have risen (Roman, medieval warm periods) then fallen (dark ages, little ice age) then risen, so in what way is this current warming unprecedented? b) Why has the warming stopped despite higher than ever co2 levels? c) Where is the missing heat that Trenberth is on about? d) Why is there more warming in the northern hemisphere than southern if co2 is a well mixed gas?

    a) Check for qualifiers in the source statements when reading terms like “unprecedented” (eg. last 1000 years). Current warming is clearly not unprecedented on geological time scales. It is important to make distinctions between what scientists are claiming and what journalists are reporting.

    b) ?? Warming is proceeding at ~0.16C/decade in all 5 temperature sets tested and has been consistent across the 1979-2010 period with 2009/10 being the two warmest years in all 5 cases. This is the point of Foster, Rahmstorf 2011.

    c) A clear implication of Foster, Rahmstorf is that energy is accumulating in the atmosphere/ocean. Foster challenges Trenberth’s assertions on warming significance. Warming is significant with known short term influences removed .

    d) Land/ocean ratio.

  68. otsar says:

    As I understand it water vapour is the most powerful Green House Gas. Also as I understand it when one combusts hydrocarbons, for example, methane, one molecule of CO2 is produced and two of H2O. What should we be doing with all of that nasty combustion water. Perhaps capturing it and injecting it into some deep formation? Could some people be chasing the wrong goose?
    quiz hint: think about the effects of saturation.

  69. Ammonite says:

    Bob B says: December 8, 2011 at 4:26 am
    Any 5th grade science student can read the below set of graphs and see that the tiny-tiny-tiny recent warming is nothing but a blip of noise in a very noisy past set of temperatures.

    Hi Bob B. I keep getting thrown out of the interface, so mercifully for everyong I’ll keep this short. My intent is show the temperature trend is upward and consistent. Satellites measuring radiation escaping from earth in the CO2 absorption bands is falling year on year. As such, I anticipate the current temperature trend to continue. That temperature has had far wilder excursions in geological history does not negate current behaviour. Nor does it provide comfort that things must somehow be ok given that for most of the period depicted there were no humans on the planet.

  70. rw says:

    fred berple
    Dec 7, 2011 at 8:18 pm

    Gillard’s CO2 policies are evidently having an impact on temperatures in Oz. As Gore pointed out, temperatures fall first, then CO2 follows.

    Could this be our first example of the Gillard effect?

  71. 4wdweather says:

    More Durban-influencing BBC nonsense – starving polar bears turn to cannibalism due to reduced ice cover.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16081214

  72. Alba says:

    In the Second World War the Nazis were the bad guys and the United Nations were the good guys. Now, the climate alarmists are seen as the bad guys and the climate realists are seen as the good guys. Are we now at the stage of El Alamein? “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.” The climate alarmists are on the defensive. All around them they are besieged by the attacks of the climate realists. The area they occupy is getting smaller and smaller. Their troops are getting fewer and fewer. The Leader Gore has declared that no more territory must be conceded. He has declared that the Hockey Stick, the rising sea levels and the declining population of polar bears are all Festungen and must be defended to the death. A hideous fate waits any who surrender to the realists. The alarmists take refuge in bombastic propaganda but the people can see through this. The people know that sooner or later the climate alarmists will be defeated. And then the victorious troops can go home. But, just as after the end of the Second World War many on the victorious side found life in peacetime to be dull and boring compared to the excitement they had experienced during the War, will that be the feeling that many climate realists will feel as they shut down their websites and blogs and find that life is no longer the same? Will we all celebrate the final defeat of the climate alarmists but also feel that a lot of the excitement has gone?

  73. Bob B says:

    So Ammonite, tell me why praytell the biggest heat storage place on the Earth–The oceans have been consistently losing heat?

  74. Bob B says:

    Also Ammonite, UAH and RSS Satellites have shown 2009/2010 as NOT the warmest years. Surface station measurements have been shown to be pure steaming crap. UAH shows flat to cooling trend over the last decade!

    ” As such, I anticipate the current temperature trend to continue. That temperature has had far wilder excursions in geological history does not negate current behaviour. Nor does it provide comfort that things must somehow be ok given that for most of the period depicted there were no humans on the planet.”—–What planet are you living ON? and what current behavior has you so scared compared to past temperature noise blips?

  75. Bob B says:

    Ammonite, It has been said 17-30yrs is need to test a “Climate modeling” forecast. Well the only thing we can use to test projections of Temp Vs CO2 are not even close:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/13/is-jim-hansens-global-temperature-skillful/

    So where is your proof most of the recent warming is man-made and not just climate NOISE?

  76. Brad T says:

    While I applaud the document, I also see some questions being raised. Many of the sources are blogs and religiously biased newspapers, which may not legitimate sources. The fact that it has a religion section alone might be a red flag to many. Religion has no place in scientific study and the claims made in it. 95% of what is in this study uses non-cited information from the original website, which is intrinsically a religiously biased, non-academic website.

    I guess I’d like to see more, independent, scientific links and/or references. That would help in discussions with those supporting AGW.

  77. Matt G says:

    “Many of the proponents of man-made global warming are now claiming that climate change is worse than they predicted. According to an October 18, 2011 Daily Climate article, global warming activists claim that the “evidence builds that scientists underplay climate impacts” and “if anything, global climate disruption is likely to be significantly worse than has been suggested.”

    While global temperatures were actually rising significantly, claims were made by some scientists rarely at the time about the possibility this may lead to dangerous global warming in future. When temperatures reached the peak around 1998 these claims increased how bad global warming was going to be (ironic at the time this was) based on a very strong El Nino. Temperatures dropped significantly with the proceeding La Nina and then claims were it cooled down due to natural circumstances with La Nina and global warming will resume with future El Nino’s. UK’s future children will never see snow again etc. When ongoing El Nino’s occurred after this period despite global temperatures flat lined and claims increased, global warming was worse than we thought with hurricanes, floods, droughts and extreme weather to increase more often. (this has never been true by stats or by science links with AGW and ENSO, AO, AMO, NAO, PDO and blocking highs in weather patterns)

    When another La Nina occurred for the first time in a while (since 2001) and this showed a short term cooling period for global temperatures with claims that global warming was worse than we thought. This warming was just around the corner and will be worse then ever. Not long after with the realisation that the globe has not been warming for quite a while [then almost as long as period as the scare from Hansen (1988) in the first place] climate change was the worse then previously expected. One strong El Nino in 2010, second over recent decades to 1997/98 El Nino with global temperature reaching 2nd highest too.

    If global temperatures were being driven by AGW 2nd highest is not high enough. Claims that climate change was worse than we thought. Global temperatures declined after with two successive La Nina’s with reports recently of the warmest La Nina ever recorded. Claims recently that climate change is worse then we thought. Arctic ice has been declining slowly over recent decades, but how about Antarctica and the fact the short term data for both poles is too short to be able to distinguish between natural change, never mind how much human influence there is.

    Yet during all this period global temperatures have remained stable with no change in any claims mentioned that is different from natural frequency of weather events. All the apparent extremes that were to occur have failed. It is now climate change because global warming failed, but as climate always changes there is nothing to distinguish between natural or not. It is really worse then we thought when it becomes trying to practice climate science. (One of newest sciences around today and one of the most amateurish) If the government and expert scientists knew the world was going to end for many of us based on scientific fact in a few years or so (super volcano, comet or asteroid etc) do you think they would actually tell the public every day for years before or wait until the last minute as possible to prevent disorder?

    It originally started as a genuine science concern that I also believed at the time, but has now become one big scam. Virtually nobody disagrees with a little AGW (not just CO2), but CAGW is a totally different matter with no scientific evidence what’s so ever. Passing off scientists that believe in a little AGW as CAGW or dangerous climate change is just dishonest and sums up the amateurish group of people generally involved in climate science alarmism.

    NOTE – Amateurish because being new science and still early days with many variables that humans have so for failed to truly understand. (there are many others not mentioned here including troposphere hot spot, positive feedback, stratospheric cooling, aerosols, black soot, warming in the pipeline, clouds, sun and oceans etc)

  78. davidmhoffer says:

    Ammonite;
    A clear implication of Foster, Rahmstorf is that energy is accumulating in the atmosphere/ocean.>>>

    The argo buoys have been showing a declining ocean heat content from the time they first began reporting until the most recent. Before we had the Argo buoys, we had ships taking water temps through their cooling tubes and before that we had ships taking temps by throwing a bucket over the side and pulling it up to stick a thermometer in.

    OHC is FALLING and that dang ocean thingy weights 1,400 TIMES as much as the atmosphere. Where the oceans go…the tiny atmosphere will follow.

  79. davidmhoffer says:

    otsar;
    What should we be doing with all of that nasty combustion water. Perhaps capturing it and injecting it into some deep formation? Could some people be chasing the wrong goose?
    quiz hint: think about the effects of saturation.>>>

    Cool new tactic, you and ammonite working together to try and hijack the thread. Team Trolling!

    Anyway, CO2 is sitting at about 400 parts per million, and at sea level, water vapour runs as high as 40,000 ppm. So, if CO2 has increased by 120 ppm as suggested by many studies since 1920, and for every CO2 molecule released, two more H2O molecules were released, that would raise water vapour to 40,240….

    Not that it would actually happen though. the “extras” would be absorbed by natural processes that would return the actual water vapour levels to normal right quick…faster than we’re releasing them by orders of magnitude.

  80. Ammonite says:

    Bob B says: December 8, 2011 at 2:31 pm
    “UAH and RSS Satellites have shown 2009/2010 as NOT the warmest years.”

    Agreed. Please read Foster, Rahmstorf 2011. Their assessment of “warmest” is made with ENSO, volcanic eruptions and solar influence backed out.

    “Surface station measurements have been shown to be pure steaming crap.”

    BEST + remarkable agreement in the underlying trends of surface and satellite series (the ~0.16C/decade mentioned earlier) suggest otherwise.

  81. Ammonite says:

    Bob B says: December 8, 2011 at 2:44 pm

    Jim Hansen’s early model has a climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 of ~4.2C. Refer to Knutti and Hegerl 2008 http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf. Median sensitivity from scores of studies using multiple different approaches is +3C.

  82. Ammonite says:

    otsar says: December 8, 2011 at 12:14 pm
    quiz hint: think about the effects of saturation.

    Indeed. Satellite measurement showing decreasing radiation escaping the earth in the absorption bands of CO2 year on year is a strong indicator that we are far from saturation. Venus is another.

  83. davidmhoffer says:

    Ammonite says:
    December 8, 2011 at 5:35 pm
    otsar says: December 8, 2011 at 12:14 pm
    quiz hint: think about the effects of saturation.
    Indeed. Satellite measurement showing decreasing radiation escaping the earth in the absorption bands of CO2 year on year is a strong indicator that we are far from saturation. Venus is another.>>>

    Do you jokers thing you are fooling anyone? Ammonite makes a statement that is misleading and questionable, otsar jumps in with an innocent sounding question that looks sorta kinda like a legit search for information, and then Ammonite responds with “Indeed. blah, blahm blah” and takes the opportunity to respond with a regurgitation of his original point.

    Claims without links to data, no explanation of the physics, no mathematical formulas or analysis, just two trolls talking to each other on what clearly looks like a predetermined script and hoping that this subterfuge will make their “science” look less dodgy.

    Of course the question is, less dodgy than what? Enron?

  84. Bob B says:

    Ammonite, yes it will take another 30years to see that model as crap as well.
    ” Median sensitivity from scores of studies using multiple different approaches is +3C”.
    Early signs showing pending crap:

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/la-nina-drives-hadcrut-nhsh-13-month-mean-outside-1sigma-model-spread/

  85. otsar says:

    There is really good tutorial on band saturation here: http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/archer.ch4.greenhouse_gases.pdf:
    Amateur troll hunters should watch the Norwegian film The Troll Hunter. Those fluent in Norwegian and familiar with scandinavian humour will have fun with it, those not, will be simply be mystified and left out in the cold. Who knows, it might even be educational for some not familiar with far north humour.

  86. Werner Brozek says:

    “Matt G says:
    December 8, 2011 at 4:04 pm
    Global temperatures declined after with two successive La Nina’s with reports recently of the warmest La Nina ever recorded.”

    “Ammonite says:
    December 8, 2011 at 5:23 pm
    Agreed. Please read Foster, Rahmstorf 2011. Their assessment of “warmest” is made with ENSO, volcanic eruptions and solar influence backed out.”

    “Ammonite says:
    December 8, 2011 at 5:29 pm
    Median sensitivity from scores of studies using multiple different approaches is +3C.”

    I will roughly assume that at the rate we are going now, the +3 C per doubling is close to +3 C per century which is 0.03 C per year.

    Keeping the above in mind, I would like to compare apples with apples. I agree this La Nina is the warmest. The anomaly according to Hadcrut3 is 0.357 for 2011 to the end of October and I will assume any change for the last two months will be negligible. Previously, we had a La Nina in 2000 where the anomaly was 0.271. We also had one in 1996 where the anomaly was 0.137. It has been 15 years since the 1996 La Nina and 11 years since the 2000 La Nina.
    Now if the +3 C were true, then according to the 1996 La Nina, the anomaly for 2011 should be 0.137 + 0.03(15) = 0.587. Likewise, according to the 2000 La Nina, the anomaly for 2011 should be 0.271 + 0.03(11) = 0.601. The anomaly for 1998 was 0.548. So this La Nina should be warmer than 1998 if the warming is indeed catastrophic and your 3 C is correct. Since 0.548 is lower than both 0.587 and 0.601, I can only conclude that your “scores of studies using multiple different approaches” is way too high. Do you agree?

  87. Ammonite says:

    Werner Brozek says: December 8, 2011 at 7:11 pm
    I will roughly assume that at the rate we are going now, the +3 C per doubling is close to +3 C per century which is 0.03 C per year.

    Hi Werner. I am not sure why transient sensitivity (the yearly rise) should translate to equilibrium sensitivity in 100 years. If you assumed 200 years things would balance (in your equation). If you assumed 20 years things would be way out. More to the point, assuming that transient response stays linear until equilibrium is probably not justified at all.

  88. davidmhoffer says:

    otsar;
    There is really good tutorial on band saturation here: http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/archer.ch4.greenhouse_gases.pdf:>>>

    Nice try. That’s not a tutorial on band saturation, it is a brief description of radiative physics in preperation for coming up with theoretical answers regarding various gas concentrations at various frequencies base on a COMPUTER MODEL so that the students can demonstrate their ability to run a COMPUTER MODEL correctly and get answers that match the theory programmed into the COMPUTER MODEL but there’s no requirement at all to show that the calculated results from the COMPUTER MODEL have any realistic relationship to actual measured results. Nor does the article mention that the COMPUTER MODEL doesn’t take into account feedback of any sort, which the IPCC keeps reducing their estimate of because they’ve discovered that their COMPUTER MODELS were using estimates way too high.

    Any other tutorials to point us at? How about a graphics program to hide the decline? Or maybe how to write code that statistically weights data until it looks like a hockey stick? Is there a tutorial on getting journal editors fired? Putting data sets in upside down and hoping nobody notices? How about one for building a 1000 year temperature reconstruction with 50% of the data from a single tree? Is there one called “Thread Hijacking for Dummies” too?

  89. Ammonite says:

    Bob B says: December 8, 2011 at 6:14 pm
    Ammonite, yes it will take another 30 years to see that model as crap as well. “Median sensitivity from scores of studies using multiple different approaches is +3C”. Early signs showing pending crap…

    Bob B, I hope you are correct. From the article you linked to: “All trends computed based on monthly values of observations since 2000 are positive but also lower than trend of 0.197C/dec associated with monthly values of the multi-model mean from Jan 2000 through Oct 2011.”

    Under Foster, Rahmstorf 2011 the underlying trend is calculated to be ~0.16C/decade. This is certainly lower, but not outrageously so.

  90. Ammonite says:

    davidmhoffer says: December 8, 2011 at 6:12 pm
    Do you jokers thing you are fooling anyone? Ammonite makes a statement that is misleading and questionable, otsar jumps in with an innocent sounding question…

    Ah, conspiracy theories. As otsar is apparently fluent in Norwegian and I live in Australia only you DMH have been able to penetrate our dastardly scheme. You see, otsar is just rahmstorf rearranged with a few letters missing (Harry Potter would be all over it) and I am the secret love child of Craig Foster from a Brazilian soap opera. The illuminati will not be impressed now that our cover is blown.

  91. Werner Brozek says:

    “Ammonite says:
    December 8, 2011 at 7:47 pm

    Hi Werner. I am not sure why transient sensitivity (the yearly rise) should translate to equilibrium sensitivity in 100 years. If you assumed 200 years things would balance (in your equation).”

    Hi Ammonite. At the present time, we are at 390 ppm and it is increasing by 2 ppm each year. In order for it to double from 280 to 560, it would take another 170 ppm. At the present rate, this would be another 85 years, or to the year 2096. I realize things may speed up or slow down depending on technology and the availability of hydrocarbons. As well, the effect is logarithmic. Assuming the temperature went up by 0.8 C so far, then in 85 years it would presumably go up another 2.2 C. This translates to 2.6 C in 100 years so I believe I am at least in the ball park to assume 3 C per doubling translates to about + 0.03 C per year at the present time, especially considering the logarithmic response. This is roughly double the 0.016/year you are referring to. That number (0.016/year) may be true over the last 31 years, but did you know the slope is negative for RSS since March 1997?

  92. davidmhoffer says:

    Ammonite;
    OK, I’ll take your word for there being no collusion between you and otsar, and that you are the love child of Craig Foster. Well hold on… since you’ve announced it, it isn’t a secret…but if it isn’t a secret then everyone knows….but Craig Foster is a fictional character, so you’ve claimed something that isn’t true and attributed it to someone that doesn’t exist.

    Very clever! Are you a climate scientist too?

  93. davidmhoffer says:

    Ammonite;
    More to the point, assuming that transient response stays linear until equilibrium is probably not justified at all.>>>

    Correct. The transient response curve is much steeper at the beginning of the curve and decelerates as it approaches equilibrium. So, if we’re at .o3/yr now and equilibrium is 200 years…we won’t even get to spitting distance of +3. Dontcha just hate how physics works?

  94. davidmhoffer says:

    we won’t even get to spitting distance of +3.>>>

    meant to say of +2. actually that might be high too. more like…aw crap, I’d have to figure natural ln function of CO2 going from 280 to 400 multiply by time constant of 5.35 then solve for area under the curve to arrive at some sort of rough average from 1920 to now to work backwards into a time constant based on 200 years which would be roughly 40 years then use that to arrive at where we are in the equilibrium curve and extrapolate that out to arrive at a likely equilibrium sensitivity based on the combination of temperature data and CO2 increases since 1920…yikes, I’d have to be a physicist to do all that so I’ll just guestimate… less than 1. Lots of work being done showing that feedbacks are net negative…so, yup, less than one makes a buncha sense.

    Now if I was Werner…I could actually do the math….

  95. Ammonite says:

    Werner Brozek says: December 8, 2011 at 9:22 pm
    “Assuming the temperature went up by 0.8 C so far, then in 85 years it would presumably go up another 2.2 C.”

    Hi Werner. Are you assuming the temperature response is instantaneous? Suppose CO2 went to 560ppm tomorrow. Would you expect temperature to rise by 2.2C tomorrow as well? It takes time to heat up the ocean. (My apologies if this is not your assumption.) This effect is sometimes referred to as “heat in the pipeline”. The earth’s temperature has not yet stabilised for the CO2 already present in the atmosphere. It will continue to rise even if CO2 stays at 390ppm.

    “That number (0.016/year) may be true over the last 31 years, but did you know the slope is negative for RSS since March 1997?”

    Please review the Foster, Rahmstorf link above. The 0.016/year is almost constant once known short term effects are removed. Measuring from El-Nino peaks to La-Nina troughs (or vice-versa) does not give an adequate expectation for future behaviour.

  96. Bob B says:

    Ammonite–

    Working link here:
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/akasofu_ipcc.jpg
    What I think you are seeing is “Climate Scientists” cherry picking data over a short period. I believe the trend you want to believe in is nothing but climate noise superimposed over the
    :constant natural warming trend I link to above. BTW you still haven’t told me why the Ocean heat contenet is droppiing? And it’s by a huge amount!

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/2011-update-of-the-comparison-of-upper-ocean-heat-content-changes-with-the-giss-model-predictions/

  97. Vince Causey says:

    Ammonite,

    I asked: “a) on a larger timescale, temperatures have risen (Roman, medieval warm periods) then fallen (dark ages, little ice age) then risen, so in what way is this current warming unprecedented?”
    You replied: “Current warming is clearly not unprecedented on geological time scales. It is important to make distinctions between what scientists are claiming and what journalists are reporting.”
    You are agreeing then that there is nothing unusual about this warming, yet offer no evidence that is man made.

    Question b) “Why has the warming stopped despite higher than ever co2 levels?”

    Your reply: “?? Warming is proceeding at ~0.16C/decade in all 5 temperature sets tested and has been consistent across the 1979-2010 period with 2009/10 being the two warmest years in all 5 cases. This is the point of Foster, Rahmstorf 2011.”

    You conveniently ignore that there has been no warming in the last 10 years. So let me be more specfic – why has there been no warming in the last 10 years if co2 is increasing?

    Question c) “Where is the missing heat that Trenberth is on about?”

    Your reply: “A clear implication of Foster, Rahmstorf is that energy is accumulating in the atmosphere/ocean. Foster challenges Trenberth’s assertions on warming significance. Warming is significant with known short term influences removed ”

    Are you saying that there shouldn’t be any heat accumulation in the oceans? If not, how can there be a radiative imbalance without heat accumulation?

    d)”Why is there more warming in the northern hemisphere than southern if co2 is a well mixed gas?”

    Reply: “Land/ocean ratio.”

    Tell me more. In what way does this land/ocean ratio translate to less warming? Again, if there is no land to warm, then the heat must be going into the oceans, but it aint. See c) above.

  98. Werner Brozek says:

    “Ammonite says:
    December 9, 2011 at 12:57 am
    Hi Werner. Are you assuming the temperature response is instantaneous? Suppose CO2 went to 560ppm tomorrow. Would you expect temperature to rise by 2.2C tomorrow as well? It takes time to heat up the ocean. (My apologies if this is not your assumption.) This effect is sometimes referred to as “heat in the pipeline”. The earth’s temperature has not yet stabilised for the CO2 already present in the atmosphere. It will continue to rise even if CO2 stays at 390ppm.”

    Hi Ammonite. I do not believe that the air temperatures will go up by 3 C for a doubling of CO2. But whatever increase there may be, it would be pretty fast. On a sunny day, it is hot but when clouds roll over, the temperature drops very quickly and vice versa. So I expect air temperatures to be influenced soon however the (negative) feedbacks would also be observed. So if CO2 went to 560 ppm tomorrow, I will take a wild guess here and predict the temperatures will go up by another 0.3 C within a month. But this is a guess and I cannot prove it.

    Now as for the oceans, that is a totally different thing. As I recall, it was never really made clear whether the presumed 3 C increase included the oceans. Can you tell me if the oceans also were expected to go up by 3 C eventually?

    If this is the case, then it would take a thousand years for the deep ocean to get the heat. On the other hand, if the assumption was just that the air warms by 3 C and this heat then goes into the ocean, the ocean temperature increase would not even be able to be measured.

    The part below is from an earlier post of mine:

    I did some calculations with the following numbers:
    Mass of air is 5 x 10^18 kg;
    Specific heat capacity of air is 1 kJ/kgK
    Assume a 3 C rise in air temperature due to AGW. (I do not agree with this scenario, But I am just crunching numbers assuming that is the case.)

    Mass of oceans is 1.4 x 10^21 kg;
    Specific heat capacity of ocean water is about 4 kJ/kgK
    The question I am trying to answer is that IF we for the moment assume the air temperature were to potentially go up by 3 degrees C, but IF we then assume ALL this heat goes into the ocean instead, how much would the ocean warm up?

    Using mct(air) = mct(ocean), I get an answer of 0.0027 C is the increase in the temperature of the ocean. Of course, this cannot be measured, nor would the ocean expand to any noticable degree with this added temperature. But IF Trenberth is right that the heat can go into the ocean, what are we worried about?

  99. Werner Brozek says:

    “Ammonite says:
    December 9, 2011 at 12:57 am
    Measuring from El-Nino peaks to La-Nina troughs (or vice-versa) does not give an adequate expectation for future behaviour.”

    I agree that this is comparing apples and oranges to some extent. But the flatness of the last 14 yeas cannot be dismissed either. See Bob B’s post above. This lull fits perfectly with the 60 year long rough sine wave over the last 130 years. From his post, see http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/akasofu_ipcc.jpg

  100. Keith Battye says:

    Naidoo, top dog at Greenpeace, has been “de-badged” at COP 17 in Durban. I presume this is like being thrown out of the proceedings and he is very cross according to e-tv. Seems to be about organizing some protest resulting in unruly behavior.

  101. Ammonite says:

    Bob B, Vince, Werner: The ocean. Werner, the vast majority of any accumulating energy must go there. The air doesn’t heat up +3C (say) but the ocean stays at zero. Nor does the air heat +3C and then dump its negligible content into the ocean. The systems are coupled and the ocean takes a long time to heat.

    According to AGW ocean heat content (OHC) should be rising. So why has OHC seemingly stalled in the recent decade under various estimates/measurements? Measurement suffers from sampling issues (little to no measurement of the deep ocean for example), accuracy issues and noise. There are always wiggles in the data. The question then becomes, how long must OHC “stall” to bring its longer term trend into question? In general, ~10 years is too short to assess climate trends. Extrapolating from a relatively short basis does not make for sound future predictions. The jury is still out on this one.

    Bob B, if climate sensitivity is of the order of 1C as you believe, OHC must still continue to rise with rising CO2. Falling OHC is just as much a problem (in principle) for 1C as 3C.

    Werner, to the extent that climate cycles exist they do not negate the effect of rising GHG but would be superimposed over it. (Note that this is the case for the solar cycle according to Foster, Rahmstorf.)

    Vince, you are measuring to the bottom of a La Nina year for your warming assessment. Please note that 2011 will be the warmest La Nina on record. What does this imply when the next decent sized El Nino rolls around?

  102. JonBo says:

    Hi all. I have not had a response to my previous post (it was only yesterday so thats perfectly understandable, we’re all busy people with bust lives etc). I have had to do a fair bit of scouring around but have managed to find an up-to-date chart on arctic sea ice volume which you can see at this link:
    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/
    On re-reading the intro to Marc Morano’s article I can see he is talking just about arctic sea ice extent and I had not read it carefully enough first time. Obviously I had a good look at the links I was kindly given that show the patterns of arctic sea ice area. There has cetainly been some recovery but, as I think someone else has posted, saying it has ‘rebounded’ might be a slight exaggeration, but i am not too troubled by this.

    What I am more concerned with is that Marc Moranos conclusion does not follow from his premise when he says that ‘the real world evidence mounts that global warming claims are failing’ in regards to his claim about arctic ice
    Surely to demonstrate that there has been no warming, you need to show that the overall amount of ice (i.e. volume) has increased, or at least not decreased as opposed to just looking at area covered. He has not done this and the chart I found shows a substantial loss of ice over the period 2007 to present, which seems to back the idea that warming has/is taking place.
    Anyway, I would love to hear other others opinions on this. Thanks.

  103. Bob B says:

    Ammonite–you didn’t respond to the long time natural warming recovery from the ice ages? And the cherry picking little heating on top of that?
    Regardless Ocean heat content is DECREASING!
    So it all may be climate noise—move along nothing to worry about

  104. Werner Brozek says:

    “Ammonite says:
    December 9, 2011 at 12:32 pm
    Werner, to the extent that climate cycles exist they do not negate the effect of rising GHG but would be superimposed over it.”

    Hi. Check out the following again.
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/akasofu_ipcc.jpg

    We have a sine wave that has a period of 60 years with peaks at 1880, 1940 and 2000. And the line through the sine wave is a steadily rising line. Presumably, from 1880 to 1940, we were coming out of the LIA which explains that part of the rise. But the rise from 1940 to 2000 is just as steep. Did this have a different cause or is it just a continuation for coming out of the LIA? In my opinion, if the CO2 really started to kick in after 1945, that line should be curving upwards, but it isn’t. You may hypothesize that the the first 60 years of the straight line could be due to LIA and the last 60 years due to CO2. But if that were the case, why the stall over the last 13 years? You could argue that 13 years is too small to draw any conclusions. Perhaps. But it is nothing to sneeze at either. So before spending billions on carbon capture and the like, I think we should wait a few years to be sure. In the meantime, there are much more urgent concerns in this world that need attention now.

  105. Ammonite says:

    Bob B says: December 9, 2011 at 2:20 pm
    Ammonite–you didn’t respond to the long time natural warming recovery from the ice ages? And the cherry picking little heating on top of that? Regardless Ocean heat content is DECREASING!
    So it all may be climate noise—move along nothing to worry about

    Bob B, I indicated up front that I did not wish to conjecture on every possible cause of temperature rise, so I’ll take a pass for now on ice age recovery. Inclusion of the entire satellite record is hardly cherry picking! It is all the data available. It would be lovely to have more, but that’s all she wrote to date. As stated before, the temperature rise in the Foster, Rahmstorf series is statistically significant, hardly suggestive of noise.

  106. Ammonite says:

    Werner Brozek says: December 9, 2011 at 3:47 pm
    …But if that were the case, why the stall over the last 13 years? You could argue that 13 years is too small to draw any conclusions.

    Hi Werner. My last post in this thread. As stated before, measuring from an El Nino peak to La Nina trough (last 13 years) is an extremely poor predictor of future behaviour. I have the distinct impression that you have not read the RealClimate link posted above or the Foster, Rahmstorf paper. Temperature continues to rise and the rise is statistically significant when known causes of short term variability are stripped out. With all variability left in, yes, short run time frames of the order of 10 years or so are insufficient to draw definitive conclusions.

  107. JayD says:

    “Ammonite says:
    December 9, 2011 at 7:39 pm
    …measuring from an El Nino peak to La Nina trough (last 13 years) is an extremely poor predictor of future behaviour.”

    And yet you are implying, that measuring from La Nina “low” to El Nino “high” is an extremely good predictor of future behaviour? And the rise is all man made, because “known causes of short term variability are stripped out”?
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/akasofu_ipcc.jpg

    And from climategate about RC:
    ” Mann wrote:
    the important thing is to make sure they’re loosing (sic) the PR battle. That’s what
    the site [Real Climate] is about.”

  108. Brian H says:

    Steve C says:
    December 8, 2011 at 12:29 am

    Steve, my aging eyes misread, and saw “the Feeb”. Oops. Then I thought, “Wait a minute …”

    ;D :)

  109. Bob B says:

    Ammonite,

    “As stated before, the temperature rise in the Foster, Rahmstorf series is statistically significant, hardly suggestive of noise.”

    Look at Fakasofu again. The time period you quote is a tiny cherry picked period and it does appear on top of a long term trend–and maybe from to 120yr AMO-PDO cycles.–did you actually look at it?

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/akasofu_ipcc.jpg

    Yet you want to close your eyes and say Na Na Na–it’s CO2–this is exactly why I get pissed at your foolishness and “Climate Scientists” You have no PROOF—only conjecture and there should be consequnces to the “TEAM’. Hell just look at the time and money wasted by the gaggle at Durban.

  110. Werner Brozek says:

    “Ammonite says:
    Under Foster, Rahmstorf 2011 the underlying trend is calculated to be ~0.16C/decade.”

    See Phil Jones interview at:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

    Note the answer to question A: A – Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
    Period Length Trend
    (Degrees C per decade) Significance
    1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
    1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
    1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
    1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes

    So it seems as if “Foster, Rahmstorf 2011″ are agreeing with Phil Jones. So the question is: Since 1860 to 1880 and 1910 to 1940 had nothing to do with CO2, why should the conclusions of “Foster, Rahmstorf 2011″ have anything to do with CO2? Their slope was no higher, even with all their adjustments.

  111. JonBo says:

    Bob B:
    In answer to your question, I don’t. As I indicated in my original post I have only started looking at this whole debate and have started by checking out the validity of Marc Moranos claims, and Polar ice was the first issue he raised in a very strongly worded introduction.
    You make a perfectly valid point, but I am trying to be as methodical about this as I can be and taking things one step at a time. I can only repeat my first point that Moranos claim is not supported by the evidence he presents in his argument.
    You may well be right in what you imply, I really don’t know, but I have noticed there is a lot of talk by skeptics about sea ice loss/gain. If, as you suggest, it does not make any difference if there is a big loss in arctic ice on the grounds that it may have happened before for all we know, then why concentrate on it as an issue.
    Also I am a bit puzzled in that, I have already said, when looking at the actual amount of sea ice loss or gain we have to look at volume. The first place I checked was the reference page on this site where I found several charts showing sea ice extent but none showing volume. I find this a very strange omission considering its importance.
    Anyhow, as I said, you still raise a perfectly valid issue and I now intend to follow your link. Many thanks.

  112. D. Patterson says:

    JonBo says:
    December 10, 2011 at 8:38 am
    [....]
    I can only repeat my first point that Moranos claim is not supported by the evidence he presents in his argument. [....]

    Morano’s comment was principally a response to the Alarmist claims, and those claims are generally speaking about the measurements of sea ice extent. Although the Alarmist arguments sometimes include claims about ice volume, such claims are based upon sea ice extent and subjective guesses about what they beleive a model parameterization adjustment should be to produce a desired result. Currently, there are no objectively quantitative ice volume measurements with anthing remotely close to the necessary temporal and spatial coverages. Consequently, Morano and anyone else can only make objective observations about sea ice extent. As Morano has noted, sea ice extent has been on the rebound, meaning increasing to levels above the minimums of 2007, in the Arctic. Sea ice extent in the Antarctic has on balance been increasing even while Arctic sea ice had been decreasing. Total planetary sea ice was stable or increasing in recent decades during and despite the planetary warming of the past century. So, it can only be wondered how you would conclude Moran’s comment could be incorrect.

    You may well be right in what you imply, I really don’t know, but I have noticed there is a lot of talk by skeptics about sea ice loss/gain. If, as you suggest, it does not make any difference if there is a big loss in arctic ice on the grounds that it may have happened before for all we know, then why concentrate on it as an issue.

    The sea ice extent is an issue, because the Alarmists make it a political and economic issue justifying the censorship and dismissal from employment of scientific and public critics, the transfer of sovereignty to unelected representatives openly avowed to creating a One World Government under their own leadership, with the melting ice as the reason for these emergency measures to be taken without public knowledge or debate.

    “if there is a big loss in arctic ice on the grounds that it may have happened before for all we know” is a misrepresentation of the situaton. We know for an indisputable fact that the Arctic has experienced a big loss of ice before beyond any possible doubt. In fact, you have the situation exactly backwards and upside down.

    The normal condition of the Arctic is to be free of any ice cap. The normal conditon of the Arctic throughout the Earth’s past is to be ice free. There have been only a very limited number of relatively brief periods of time when the Earth has experienced an ice age. Of those very few ice ages, only a couple or perhaps few of them resulted in an icecap on the Arctic. The current ice age is one of those exceedingly rare occasions when an icecap existed in the Arctic. During the 20-30 million year period of the current ice age, the Arctic ice cap has been present on and off again for only a few million years, waxing and waning to great extents between glacial and inter-glacial periods in the exceptional periods when the ice cap did exist.

    Even during the current and ongoing inter-glacial priod of the latest 10,000 years or longer, the Arctic ice cap has been waxing and waning with an overall decline from the last maximum glacial extent. It should always be remembered that the last maximum glacial extent of the Arctic icecap is the most extensive experienced by the Earth in about the last 2.2 billion years, long before terrestrial lifeforms colonized and inhabited the continents. In other words, the Earth has been warming up in previous inter-glacial periods and in this inter-glacial period relative to one of the coldest ice age periods experienced in the last half of its entire ~4.6 billion year existence. During these inter-glacial periods there have been many episodes of warming which melted enough Arctic sea ice to result in the formation of shoreline deposits indicative of open sea water along the northern coasts of Greenland. The Dorset Culture maintained extensive communities in Northern Greenland and Eastern Greenland on and off again through the waxing and waning of climate conditions until the recent Little Ice Age. Even during centuries, we have reports from mariners indicating great changes in sea ice extent in the Arctic.

    There can be no doubt, the Arctic sea ice extent of the overall past has normally been zero and extraordinarily extended southwrds into the temperate latitudes of North America and Eurasia. We also know that the Arctic sea ice extent has been less than the present during the past 2,000 years and likely similar to the present within the past century or earlier. All of these events occurred before the late 20th Century and early 21st Century carbon dioxide emissions.

    Also I am a bit puzzled in that, I have already said, when looking at the actual amount of sea ice loss or gain we have to look at volume. The first place I checked was the reference page on this site where I found several charts showing sea ice extent but none showing volume. I find this a very strange omission considering its importance.
    Anyhow, as I said, you still raise a perfectly valid issue and I now intend to follow your link. Many thanks.

    You have to ask yourself how anyone can display an OBJECTIVE quantitative measurement of Arctic ice volume when no such empirical measurements of the Arctic have ever been made in the necessary temporal and spatial series? A critic can discuss, analyze, and debate the SUBJECTIVE guesstimates resulting from conjectural parameterizations in the conjectural models used by Alarmists, but you cannot fault someone when they choose not to misrepresent conjectural model results as actual empirical observations of real conditions.

    Also, consider the implications of the conjectural ice volume models when compared to what we observed from empirical evidence of ice volumes during the current ice age. The sea levels were hundreds of feet/meters lower during the recent maximum glacial epochs, while the northern regions of the North American and Eurasian continents were overlaid with ice glacial ice sheets hundreds of feet/meters of ice extending southwards from the Arctic. These gargantuan volumes of ice were melted by natural events to cause the sea levels to rise. Consider the quantities of thermal energy required to cause the melting of such vast amounts of ice extent and volume. Then remember the Solar scientists advise us there has not been a change in TSI (total Solar Irradiance) during these freezing and unfreezing events that could explain such massive changes. Then compare the maximum and minimum ice volumes conjectured for the last century by the Alarmist conjectural modeling to the maximum and minimum ice volumes conjectured during the prior periods of this same ice age. Ask yourself how the thermal energies required for the Modern ice volume variability are outside the range of natural ice volume variability experienced in the absence of human influence? Then ask yourself how important the ice volume variance versus the ice extent variance is today when the ice extent is mostly confined to the relatively thin Arctic sea ice and the thicker Greenland continental ice? During the maximum ice volumes of the glacial epochs, most of the ice was laid upon the continents and not the Arctic seas. These proportions have radically switched now that most of the Arctic ice is sea ice instead of continental ice sheets. The thermal energies required for changes of volume and extent are likewise altered. How important then is the current ice volume on the seas relative to their ice extent? Which measure is the greater indicator of thermal energies under Modern circumstances, in the absence of reliable and comprehensive quantitative Arctic ice volume measurements?

    The Antarctic ice extent and ice volume is far greater than that of the Arctic. Why place such an emphasis upon the variations of the Arctic while disregarding the lack of such changes in the far more influential Antarctic?

  113. JonBo says:

    D. Patterson

    OK, You have made a lot of assertions without references or links (I’m not having a go here, it just means I have to put some effort into checking your claims, it’s not a problem)

    *Currently, there are no objectively quantitative ice volume measurements with anthing remotely close to the necessary temporal and spatial coverages.

    OK, I obviously need to look into that as a starting point

    *The sea ice extent is an issue, because the Alarmists make it a political and economic issue etc .

    In this statement you seem to imply that sea ice extent is the only indicator being used here. My understanding is that there are a number of factors that warmist scientists claim to have identified that suggest that the planet is warming and that this warming is due to increased CO2. An overall loss of ice would merely be an indicator that there is more heat in the system now than there has been for a while and that this must be the result of planetary warming. It does not nothing to support the assertion that this warming is due to increased CO2 as opposed to natural causes and natural cycles. The evidence that supports the assertion that CO2 is a significant comntributer to recent warming is apparently the so-called “fingerprints”.

    Thats all i have time for right now
    Many thanks

  114. D. Patterson says:

    JonBo says:
    December 10, 2011 at 6:01 pm

    The sea ice caught in the gyre in the Arctic Sea is driven by winds and sea currents, and they vary considerably. The sea ice breaks and is driven upwards into pressure ridges. Consequently, ice thickness and volume is continuously changing and varying with the current, seasonal weather, and longer cyclical weather and climate. Monitoring ice thickness and volume is highly problematical, because each of the technologies capable of providing ice thickness measurements of wide areas each has serious limitations in the areas and accuracies for which they can provide measurements.

    Satellites in space are limited in coverage by their orbital parameters. They typically leave a large are at the geographic North Pole unobserved, because their orbits do not allow observations of this region. They are also limited in their abilities to sense the ice thickness beyond a certain accuracy in those areas which they can make observations.

    Aerial surveys can achieve greater accuracies and observe regions around the North Pole not observable by the satellites, but perpetual nightfall and budgetary limitations limit their potential usage to do so.

    Submarines are limited in their temporal availability and their ability to make measurements in the littoral regions.

    Even if recent technology solved all of these existing problems with accurate measurements and coverage in an instant, there would still be no past such time series with which to make the necessary comparisons. At best, researchers at present can only use the incomplete and less than required accuracies in the measurements to make refined estimates of what they think the measurements ought to be. Such subjective estimates can provide some guidance about the scope of such measurements, but they are too inaccurate and inappropriate to detect the subtle changes the Alarmists wish to attribute to anthropogenic influences, if there were such of any significance.

    No, “sea ice extent is the only indicator being used here,” but it is the only metric which can be supported by Alarmists or Skeptics with any halfway reasonable degree of measurements. Even then, their are considerable inaccuracies in the ability to sense the ice extent margins. The ice volumes can only be roughly approximated at present and guessed at in the more distant decades with the very incomplete data available to anyone.

  115. JonBo says:

    D. Patterson

    *Currently, there are no objectively quantitative ice volume measurements with anthing remotely close to the necessary temporal and spatial coverages.

    I have looked into this and it appears that you are wrong. It seems that there are a number of ways in which arctic sea ice volume is measured from ice thickness measuring buoys to US Navy submarines to aerial ice thickness measuring instrumentation packages to ships measuring the thicknesses on their recon cruises to orbiting satellites. Measurements are taken and updated on a monthly basis.

    In the antarctic, measurements are taken by satellite:
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml

    I am just wondering on what you based your assertion. Thanks.

  116. D. Patterson says:

    JonBo says:
    December 11, 2011 at 9:00 am
    [....]
    I have looked into this and it appears that you are wrong. It seems that there are a number of ways in which arctic sea ice volume is measured from ice thickness measuring buoys to US Navy submarines to aerial ice thickness measuring instrumentation packages to ships measuring the thicknesses on their recon cruises to orbiting satellites. Measurements are taken and updated on a monthly basis.

    That totally misrepresents what I have said. I DID NOT say there were no measurements by these methods. On the contrary, I listed those same methods. What I did say is that those measurments are limited in scope to less than the whole ice volumes by significant measures, the methods lack adequate accuracies, and the methods lack temporal coverage. Consequently, researchers use the limited data points to estimate and therefore are making educated guesses about what they think a full set of empirical data points might say if it were possible to collect the full set of datapoints. Since they cannot observe the full set of data points, they resort to using interpolations and extrapolations of the limited data in an effort to simulate a hypotheitical model of what they hope could be a reasonable representation of what reality should look like. Unfortunately, such estimates based on assumptions are typically inaccurate to greater or lesser degrees. Until we have better ways of collecting the necessary data, the reality remains to be revealed, and the accuracies of these estimates remain to be determined. For example:

    Spreen, Gunnar. Satellite-based Estimates of Sea Ice Volume Flux : Applications to the Fram Strait Region (Satellitenfernerkundung des Meereisvolumenflusses in der Framstraßenregion)
    [….]
    The lack of spatial sea ice thickness information has been one of the weaknesses for previous existing methods to determine the sea ice export. In this study a new method to obtain the sea ice volume flux exclusively from satellite measurements is presented. Previous estimates of the sea ice volume flux relayed on ice draft measurements of a single Upward Looking Sonar (ULS) in the Greenland Sea. The GLAS laser altimeter onboard the ICESat satellite launched in 2003 offers for the first time the opportunity to obtain the spatial sea ice thickness distribution up to 86°N latitude. In this study a method to determine the sea ice freeboard from ICESat altimeter data is developed and applied to nine ICESat measurement periods between 2003 and 2007. Assuming hydrostatic balance and by utilization of further satellite, in situ and climatological data these sea ice freeboard measurements are converted to sea ice thickness maps of the Fram Strait region. The satellite-based ice thickness estimates are combined with sea ice area and sea ice drift, as retrieved from AMSR-E microwave radiometer measurements at 89 GHz, to obtain the sea ice volume flux. The errors of the input quantities and the final sea ice volume flux are assessed. Using this method the spatial sea ice volume flux distribution is obtained from satellite observations for the first time. The Fram Strait sea ice volume flux is further investigated by calculating a monthly sea ice volume flux time series between January 2003 and April 2007. Summer months have to be disregarded due to missing sea ice drift data. The sea ice volume flux shows large interannual and -seasonal variability. A mean monthly Fram Strait sea ice volume flux of (248±90) km^3/month with respective minimum and maximum values of 112 km^3/month (May 2003) and 484 km^3/month (December 2004) was found. These satellite-based sea ice volume flux estimates from the years 2003 to 2007 are compared to previous sea ice volume flux estimates obtained for the period 1990 to 1999 and can be used as extension of these previous time series. Finally, a comparison of sea ice volume flux estimates from this study with oceanographic salinity measurements shows good coincidence of summer melting events. A comparison to model results reveals large differences in the lateral distribution of the sea ice volume flux. The presented method does not just allow, as previously, to determine the sea ice export through Fram Strait but has the potential to investigate and better understand the dynamics of sea ice volume changes north and south of Fram Strait.
    [….]
    http://ediss.sub.uni-hamburg.de/volltexte/2008/3776/

    Estimated data points are not real or actual data points. Estimates may be useful for some purposes, but they can be in significant error and are not reality.

    To understand what has been said, try to find the following empiricaldata, not the interpolated or extrapolated data, for the period of ice volume flux representative of the period of greatest anthropogenic atmospheric emissions of carbon dioxide.

    With respect to submarines, let’s see the submarine upward sonar measurements of sea ice thickness for all of the littoral regions of the Kara Sea, Laptev Sea, and Queen Elizabeth Islands for the period 1945 to 2011.

    With respect to satellites, let’s see the satellite measurements of sea ice thickness for all of the Arctic Sea ice north of 86 degress N. latitude for the period 1945 to 2011.

    With respect to aerial surveys, let’s see the aerial survey measurements of sea ice thickness for all of the East Siberian Sea ice for the period 1945 to 2011.

    Cryosat is one of the more promising research tools to come online, unfortunately it is quite useless for providing measurements the period prior to its deployment.

  117. JonBo says:

    D. Patterson:
    I will have been writing my 9 am posting as you submitted your 8.50 am posting which I did not see. Hence the apparent mis-representation and I apologise for the mix-up.
    You are clearly well informed for which I give you full credit.
    You obviously do not accept the data on the grounds that it is incomplete and therefore invalid and you have explained why this is the case. Yet this data is still being used in peer reviewed studies, one of which I provided a link to.
    Can you provide me with any peer reviewed studies that demonstrate why this data should not be used to draw any meaningful conclusion from due to it’s inherent uncertainties?
    Many thanks

  118. D. Patterson says:

    JonBo says:
    December 11, 2011 at 1:32 pm
    [….]
    You are clearly well informed for which I give you full credit.
    You obviously do not accept the data on the grounds that it is incomplete and therefore invalid and you have explained why this is the case.

    It is not a case in which I “do not accept the data on the grounds that it is incomplete and therefore invalid [….] “ Much of the data is acceptable as far as it goes. Other data is of dubious accuracy. Other data is downright irrational. It’s a mixed bag. Worst of all is the data which has not been observed and collected, accurate or not. It is the application of the existing and non-existent data to the formulation of alleged peer reviewed studies demonstrating poor and sometimes non-existent scientific discipline which is problematic for science and the social institutions reliant upon such works. Again, estimates and modeling can be useful tools in scientific research. The problem arises when some people attempt to mislead society into trusting so-called scientists who wrongly and improperly attempt to pass off and sell estimates as the same weight of evidence as real world data of adequate accuracies. This is when the peer reviewed research abuses privilege and veers off into the area in which it may be said that scientific fraud may be taking place. People attempting the similar kinds of misrepresentations of technical data in the financial markets have often ended up behind prison bars. In the realm of so-called climate science they are awarded a Nobel prize, chairmanships, and trips to exotic resorts for the next COP conference. Then it is left to the rest of us to try and provide a general explanation why it appears someone is misrepresenting the nature of the data for whatever purposes.

    Yet this data is still being used in peer reviewed studies, one of which I provided a link to.

    Can you provide me with any peer reviewed studies that demonstrate why this data should not be used to draw any meaningful conclusion from due to it’s inherent uncertainties?
    Many thanks

    I’m not saying the “ data should not be used to draw any meaningful conclusion” at all. On the contrary, the data is quite useful when it is used within its inherent limitations. The problem occurs when the data is used in circumstances that are inappropriate. An example of an inappropriate use of data is marine navigation or aerial navigation. Maps and charts in the past were not always accurate in their marine depths and terrestrial elevations. The mapmakers often provided some cautions about the potential for data errors in the published work and the need to not rely on the data for some critical purposes. Ships captain’s who have failed to heed those warnings have been known to run their ships aground, and aerial pilots have perished along with their hapless passengers when they discovered rocks in clouds which the data misled them itno believing had no rocks.

    So it is with many other types of measurement data. When I conducted a rawindsonde or a piball atmospheric sounding, there was a prescribed method by which the observations had to be made and reported. The methods were devised to capture data meant to be used for only certain purposes. If, however, some so-called scientists came along at a later date and attempted to use the observations I reported, they could very well come to completely wrong conclusions. Upper level winds in more active convective sky conditons would push the balloons in opposite directions between reported observation intervals. Consequently, the data was quite useful for their intended purposes, but would be totally unreliable when used to characterize wind directions, altitudes, and air pressure within 1 meter and 1 second intervals of accuracy. These kinds of problems rear their ugly heads whenever someone claims accuracy in the reconstruction using measurements made for other purposes in an earlier time period to reconstruct a time series of another kind in the present time and forecast of the future. The ice volume research has an inherent problem when they attempt to infer satellite measurements for time periods prior to the existence of such satellites and prior to the existence of any kind of orbital satellite.

    To get a feel for the nature of the problem, you should for just the fun of it attempt to find those submarine upwards sonar scans of the ice thicknesses in the seas I wrote about earlier. You may also find it interesting to see why obtaining the aerial ice thickness measurements for the East Siberian Sea prior to recent decades tends to be problematic. Clue: aircraft attempting to do so encountered problems, often fatal.

    With respect to sources discussing the uncertainties, you are basically asking for much of the content of this blog and Website. If you investigate the content here, at Climate Audit, and other worthy Websites included in their references, you can find just such discussions of innumerable references. Sometimes the authors of these peer reviewed studies have written the blog posts discussing the pros and cons of these sources. In particular, you would be well advised to see the contributions of Roy Spencer and John Christy, who are the sources of much of the satellite observations and studies. They can certainly be more helpful describing the strengths and weaknesses of their own satellite observation programmes.

    As for the peer reviewed research you cited, remember most peer reviewed research is later demonstrated to be flat out wrong. The question of whether or not any particular example of the peer reviewed papers in climate science is right or wrong and to what extent is the topic of debate within and without science, regardless of attempts by anti-scientific voices attempting to propagandize that the science is settled. By its very Nature, science is not and never ever can be “settled.” You can observe this problem yourself by carefully reading your source and finding how many times it used an estimate of data or data points as if they were the same as or tantamount to an actual direct measurement. Then ask yourself whether or not the peer reviewed paper, Alarmist or Skeptic, was misleading in its representation of the accuracy and appropriate application of the existing and any non-existing data. All papers make such mistakes, but it may be illustrative to see who is more prevalent in making such inappropriate assertions.

  119. JonBo says:

    OK, let me explain. I am merely a layperson with absolutely no relevant scientific credentials and many limitations when it comes to understanding scientific literature. I do however, have some understanding of the importance of peer reviewed and that is why I am asking for citations of peer reviewed papers so I can get a feeling for the argument. You have kindly pointed me in the direction of some and I will have a look at the work of Spencer and Christy.

    I “do not accept the data on the grounds that it is incomplete and therefore invalid [….] “ etc
    That fine. But, whatever your reasons and as you have already said, it is not taken seriously by sceptics due its inaccuracies and this is the only point I was trying to make. Apologies if I did not get you quite right on that.

    *As for the peer reviewed research you cited, remember most peer reviewed research is later demonstrated to be flat out wrong.
    Indeed. But is it not the case that this demonstration will usually be displayed in another peer reviewed paper by other scientists such as Spencer and Christy of whom you mention?

    *By its very Nature, science is not and never ever can be “settled.”
    Of course you are right. But would I not be correct in saying that science does asses the weight of evdence supporting a particular theory and an estimate of probability that the theory is correct is then given. Any decisions that need to be made are done so on the level of probability ascribed to the theory. You do not wait until you have 100% certainty because it is not achievable.
    In relation to how the extent of polar ice is measured it is at least “settled” enough for there to be agreement between warmists and sceptics that the data can be used to show more or less accurately that which it intends to show.

    *You can observe this problem yourself by carefully reading your source and finding how many times it used an estimate of data or data points as if they were the same as or tantamount to an actual direct measurement. Then ask yourself whether or not the peer reviewed paper, Alarmist or Skeptic, was misleading in its representation of the accuracy and appropriate application of the existing and any non-existing data. All papers make such mistakes, but it may be illustrative to see who is more prevalent in making such inappropriate assertions.

    I would find it very helpful if you could give me at least 1 citation, preferably relating to the main topic we are discussing here i.e. polar ice, and ideally of the most blatant case of that which you describe as this will make it much easier for me to ascertain.

    I apologise if I do not respond to all the points you make or follow all the areas of enquiry you suggest but I only started off with the intention of making a few enquiries and not for it to become some sort of full-time hobby. Believe me, taking part in this discussion is not something that I can naturally do without a considerable amount of effort and I am well aware that I can easily misunderstand what you have to say if I am not very careful in my reading.

  120. JonBo says:

    JonBo:
    I have had a look at Spencer & Christy but their work seems to be about satellite measurements of temperature. I am specifically looking for work of qualified scientists in the area of ice volume. Whatever the criticims may be of temperature measurements, I cannot extrapolite this to cover measurements of ice volumes as they are 2 different things. I am just wanting to focus on one issue at a time and not flit from issue to issue or follow other areas of enquiry until I have completed this one. I am still trying to discover what is contained in the scientific literature as to the usefulness and reliablity of polar ice volume measurements ,whether it can reliably be used to say that volume is increasing/decreasing and to what degree of accuracy, and where I can find a critique in the literature of the use of this data that would justify sceptics to exclude the use of this data.

    *You can observe this problem yourself by carefully reading your source and finding how many times it used an estimate of data or data points as if they were the same as or tantamount to an actual direct measurement.”
    This would tell me nothing about its validity or usefulness. For all I know measurements may be taken between large distances and estimates put in and still found to have a high degree of accuracy. That is for scientists to decide and explain in the literature and not for me to just decide for myself when I have no expertise.

    *The problem arises when some people attempt to mislead society into trusting so-called scientists who wrongly and improperly attempt to pass off and sell estimates as the same weight of evidence as real world data of adequate accuracies. This is when the peer reviewed research abuses privilege and veers off into the area in which it may be said that scientific fraud may be taking place. People attempting the similar kinds of misrepresentations of technical data in the financial markets have often ended up behind prison bars.

    This is a very serious accusation. If you have evidence of this in relation to the topic under discussion (measurements of polar ice volume) can you please give me the specific citations for me to check. I feel that if you are making such serious allegations then you should be providing me with the necessary citations and references rather than just advising me to look around this website.

    In addition:
    I have gone back and had another look at the graph on arctic sea ice extent and have ralised that Moranos use of 2007 is a blatant cherry pick.

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png

    Obviously he is correct in saying that arctic ice extenthas recovered by using this low point, but it is still the second lowest point on the graph. Hardly the stunning rebuke to climate scientists that he claims. Pick a year either side and you get a downward trend. But whatever of these you choose to pick as your starting point it might not be statistically meaningful as climate scientists mainly concern themselves with long-term trends.

    Thankyou

Comments are closed.