Bipolar disorder – as in the Arctic, the Antarctic sea ice extent is affected by wind, unless of course it’s ‘climate change’

From the “no matter what happens it is climate change” department. So, according to this, when the Arctic loses ice it is due to climate change ‘global warming’ when the Antarctic gains ice it is due to ‘climate change’ and is just as bad. WUWT readers may recall that a few years ago NASA concluded that wind patterns were a major factor in Arctic sea ice loss, pushing the mobile sea ice further south where it melted. Here’s their press release form 2007. Now from the British Antarctic Survey  and NASA JPL comes a similar but opposite conclusion for the Antarctic.

I’ve downloaded the time lapse and converted it to YouTube for everybody’s benefit since all the folks at BAS offer is an FTP link with this press release that few will visit. See the video I inserted below.

Why Antarctic sea ice cover has increased under the effects of climate change

The first direct evidence that marked changes to Antarctic sea ice drift have occurred over the last 20 years, in response to changing winds, is published this week in the journal Nature Geoscience. Scientists from NERC’s British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena California explain why, unlike the dramatic losses reported in the Arctic, the Antarctic sea ice cover has increased under the effects of climate change (they neglected to mention natural variation here – Anthony).

Maps created by JPL using over 5 million individual daily ice motion measurements captured over a period of 19 years by four US Defense Meteorological satellites show, for the first time, the long-term changes in sea ice drift around Antarctica.

Lead author, Dr Paul Holland of BAS says: “Until now these changes in ice drift were only speculated upon, using computer models of Antarctic winds. This study of direct satellite observations shows the complexity of climate change. The total Antarctic sea-ice cover is increasing slowly, but individual regions are actually experiencing much larger gains and losses that are almost offsetting each other overall. We now know that these regional changes are caused by changes in the winds, which in turn affect the ice cover through changes in both ice drift and air temperature. The changes in ice drift also suggest large changes in the ocean surrounding Antarctica, which is very sensitive to the cold and salty water produced by sea-ice growth.”

“Sea ice is constantly on the move; around Antarctica the ice is blown away from the continent by strong northward winds. Since 1992 this ice drift has changed. In some areas the export of ice away from Antarctica has doubled, while in others it has decreased significantly.”

Sea ice plays a key role in the global environment – reflecting heat from the sun and providing a habitat for marine life. At both poles sea ice cover is at its minimum during late summer. However, during the winter freeze in Antarctica this ice cover expands to an area roughly twice the size of Europe. Ranging in thickness from less than a metre to several metres, the ice insulates the warm ocean from the frigid atmosphere above.

The new research also helps explain why observed changes in the amount of sea-ice cover are so different in the two Polar Regions. The Arctic has experienced dramatic ice losses in recent decades while the overall ice extent in the Antarctic has increased slightly. However, this small Antarctic increase is actually the result of much larger regional increases and decreases, which are now shown to be caused by wind-driven changes. In places, increased northward winds have caused the sea-ice cover to expand outwards from Antarctica. The Arctic Ocean is surrounded by land, so changed winds cannot cause Arctic ice to expand in the same way.

Dr Ron Kwok, JPL says, “The Antarctic sea ice cover interacts with the global climate system very differently than that of the Arctic, and these results highlight the sensitivity of the Antarctic ice coverage to changes in the strength of the winds around the continent.”

There has been contrasting climate change observed across the Antarctic in recent decades. The Antarctic Peninsula has warmed as much as anywhere in the Southern Hemisphere, while East Antarctica has shown little change or even a small cooling around the coast. The new research improves understanding of present and future climate change. It is important to distinguish between the Antarctic Ice Sheet – glacial ice – which is losing volume, and Antarctic sea ice – frozen seawater – which is expanding.

###

This research was funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

The paper ‘Wind-driven trends in Antarctic sea ice motion’ by Paul R. Holland of British Antarctic Survey and Ron Kwok of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California, USA is published in Nature Geoscience this week.

Issued by British Antarctic Survey

h/t to WUWT reader “Forrest”

About these ads
This entry was posted in Antarctic, Sea ice and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

181 Responses to Bipolar disorder – as in the Arctic, the Antarctic sea ice extent is affected by wind, unless of course it’s ‘climate change’

  1. Juice says:

    But aren’t Antarctic temperatures also decreasing?

  2. John V. Wright says:

    Bipolar disorder – perfect headline, Anthony.

  3. kramer says:

    ScienceDaily has an article on this titled “Why Antarctic Sea Ice Cover Has Increased Under the Effects of Climate Change.

    I knew a while ago that some scientist(s) were going to come up with a study that tied that increase to climate change if they couldn’t show a decrease in the ice.

    And here’s my prediction on all other current and future natural events that skeptics will point out as not consistent with climate change: Scientists will eventually come out with papers that show those natural events are tied to climate change.

  4. Monty says:

    Well, Anthony, climate change is complicated. Which is why you should do some science if you want to criticize papers like this. If you think it is wrong why don’t you send a rebuttal to Nature Geoscience? Of course you won’t….that would require some hard work!

  5. Andy Adkins says:

    I am having difficulty with the wind causally being attributed with responsibility for sea ice changes in the arctic, because the process of sea ice loss must distribute its energy response in the atmosphere (whereupon feedback processes impacting sea ice and winds endlessly cycle)

  6. P. Solar says:

    ” The new research improves understanding of present and future climate change. It is important to distinguish between the Antarctic Ice Sheet – glacial ice – which is losing volume, and Antarctic sea ice – frozen seawater – which is expanding.”

    I thought the latest on the Antarctic Ice Sheet was that , after replacing guestimated computer models’ output with physical data, the new story was : gaining a lot (+zero/-quite a lot), ie definitely NOT losing volume.

  7. Coalsoffire says:

    Folks, CAGW (also known as Climate Change or Climate Disruption) is not science. Until there is a recognized and agreed upon set of conditions or observations that will falsify it, it is just dogma or even doctrine. Nothing scientific about it at all since all conditions and observations are interpreted to support the dogma. If you think this is unfair or just wrong then please state the condition or observation that would falsify the theory and then find and cite support of it in the “scientific” literature.

  8. Kev-in-Uk says:

    Monty says:
    November 12, 2012 at 7:23 am

    Well Monty – I think it is you who needs to research before posting. Firstly, Anthony likely does more hard work in a week than the comedians who wrote this paper probably do in a year.
    Secondly, if you think climate change is really that complicated – you perhaps ought not to try to read about it – as most folk with only half a brain can and do understand that AGW is largely a made-up scam and can interpret the good science from the bad. (At a guess, you probably fall into the ‘please will someone help run my life, ‘cos I’ve no brain’ and rely on the output of others for guidance. Sad, No, really! it is!)

    as for this paper – what a load of spinological tosh – and that’s just from the bits quoted here!

  9. mitigatedsceptic says:

    What’s wrong with climate change? It’s always happening surely?
    But watch the alarmists read AGW!

  10. pat says:

    Hmmm. But currents and storms have nothing to do with the Arctic’s quick seasonal declines.

    And speaking of bipolar. This is too exquisite. In his haste to smear a conservative, George Monbiot wrongly accuses a former treasurer of being a pedophile. And is in deep trouble.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2231288/Lord-McAlpine-sue-Sally-Bercow-pointing-finger-Newsnight-investigation.html
    In America the press and Warmists would embargo the story. But that is not possible in Britain with its much more diverse national media and brutal slander laws.

  11. Mike Bromley the Canucklehead says:

    Monty. As long as you do the same in support of this paper. I dare say you must be a scientist, eh? You obviously know how to ‘do science’, so pitter-patter, let’s get at ‘er!

  12. jaypan says:

    Impressive movie.

    The term “Climate Change” says it all.
    Science cannot use misleading language.
    In this case even senseless language.
    Otherwise it’s not science. QED.

  13. Mike Bromley the Canucklehead says:

    “the ice insulates the warm ocean from the frigid atmosphere above”

    I love how the press release races through that statement with nary a dwell. The warm ocean? Around Antarctica? What? Monty! Help! Explain this! (/sarc just in case)

  14. focoloco says:

    Well Monty, please be patient as I am a very slow person, but you might be able to explain this better then.

    If the ice grows it is due to AGW
    If the ice is reduced it is because of AGW
    For centuries the ice cover has NOT been constant, but varies a lot.

    What should non-AGW scenario look like?

  15. Monty says…
    No Sir, you are wrong, I am afraid. It would just require the pile of funds these researchers have used to come up to their conclusions. I am sure Anthony’s check from Big Oil has been delayed by Sandy and that is the underlying reason he has not answered in due form, as you suggest. Do I really need using /sarc tags here? [Mods, edit or delete if not appropiate, thanks]

  16. kent Blaker says:

    They show us how the jet stream in the north causes dramatic changes in the weather but do they ever show us what happens in the southern hemisphere’s jet stream? Following sea ice numbers on a daily basis we see changes of plus or minus 100,000 sq. Km. in 24 hours. The only logical conclusion is that it is the wind blowing this way then that way.

  17. Climate Weenie says:

    Clearly lots of factors are involved and natural variability is probably still greater than any antrho signal.

    But when one runs radiative models over Antarctica, one finds the surprising result that doubling CO2 causes locales which are cold and high to radiate MORE not less energy to space at the top of the atmosphere. ( This is evident for south pole, and probably also Greenland, Himalayas and high tropical clouds ).

    One possible result of this would be colder Antarctic and maybe more Antarctic sea ice.

    The implication is that total forcing may be somewhat lower than the presumed 3.7W/m^2 for a doubling. And also maybe a little greater mass and heat exchange across the tropopause.

  18. Ed Moran says:

    Monty, @7:23 am

    that’s just plain nasty and stupid. Look at his output! Remember he runs the blog after a day’s work because he’s not taking taxpayer’s money. (Unlike say Gavin.)

    One man to answer all the AGW garbage that comes out every day? Grow up! Anyway, The Team would “change the meaning of peer review” to stop any rebuttal being published.

  19. Mr Lynn says:

    Monty says:
    November 12, 2012 at 7:23 am
    Well, Anthony, climate change is complicated. Which is why you should do some science if you want to criticize papers like this. . .

    What exactly do you mean by ‘climate change’? ‘Global warming’? ‘Anthropogenic global warming?’ Have you any observational evidence that these hypothetical constructs actually have empirical referents?

    /Mr Lynn

  20. Richard111 says:

    -15C forecast for UK before November ends.
    http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/357655/Coldest-winter-freeze-on-way
    All those fans on the mountain tops really cooling the place down. /sarc

  21. Jimbo says:

    Ranging in thickness from less than a metre to several metres, the ice insulates the warm ocean from the frigid atmosphere above.

    I wonder how much heat the Arctic lost since mid September?

    From my vaguest recollection I seemed to remember that Antarctica has not warmed overall and may have cooled slightly. Doesn’t this, if correct, fly in the face of CAGW which says that most of the warming would be felt at the poles? Just askin.

  22. temp says:

    Monty says:
    November 12, 2012 at 7:23 am

    No research needed since NASA and many others have come out and stated for global warming to be true both poles must melt.

    You see if “polar amplification” is really only “arctic amplification” then we can say its perfectly natural. We know thats its natural because of things like the medieval warm period and such that as you know according to Mann and other global warming “experts” happened “only”(majority etc) in the northern poles. So if the arctic is the only thing melting and global warming “experts” say the medieval warm period is natural then it is on them to show that the current events are not natural as well. Anyway you cut it be it our side of the argument or the “expert” side melting only at the arctic disproves global warming.

  23. Dodgy Geezer says:

    Monty says:
    “….. Of course you won’t….that would require some hard work!”

    Um… Monty, you ARE aware that this is the same Anthony Watts who ran the ‘Surface Stations’ temperature project, and single-handedly proved what the NOAA was unable to do with around 1500 staff? For free, and in his own time?

    Just asking…..

  24. D Böehm says:

    Climate Weenie says:

    “Clearly lots of factors are involved and natural variability is probably still greater than any antrho signal.”

    Not trying to argue, but I want to point out that there is no verifiable “anthropogenic signal” to be found anywhere. AGW remains an evidence-free conjecture. It may exist, but there is no testable, empirical evidence to support it. There are no AGW measurements. None.

    If AGW exists [still an "if", not a certainty], it is simply too small to measure.

  25. ColdOldMan says:

    Monty says:
    November 12, 2012 at 7:23 am
    Well, Anthony, climate change is complicated.

    No it’s not. The IPCC says it’s the CO2 wot done it. There, simples.

    Or maybe it’s so complicated there isn’t enough computing power in the world, at the moment, that could handle all the various competing variables that need to go into the models. So, CO2 is easy to build a link to (we’ve got a picture to prove it), plus it lets us deal with those nasty, dirty industrial processes at the same time.

  26. richardscourtney says:

    Climate Weenie:

    Your post at November 12, 2012 at 8:07 am says in total

    Clearly lots of factors are involved and natural variability is probably still greater than any antrho signal.

    But when one runs radiative models over Antarctica, one finds the surprising result that doubling CO2 causes locales which are cold and high to radiate MORE not less energy to space at the top of the atmosphere. ( This is evident for south pole, and probably also Greenland, Himalayas and high tropical clouds ).

    One possible result of this would be colder Antarctic and maybe more Antarctic sea ice.

    The implication is that total forcing may be somewhat lower than the presumed 3.7W/m^2 for a doubling. And also maybe a little greater mass and heat exchange across the tropopause.

    Oh!
    The radiative models predict a “colder Antarctic and maybe more Antarctic sea ice”? Really?
    Where was that secret published and why did nobody tell the IPCC?

    Or is your post merely another post hoc excuse for the failure of the AGW-hypothesis and models based on it to correctly predict anything?

    Richard

  27. michaelspj says:

    Sorry guys I had this one first:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2012/01/05/is-global-warming-a-bipolar-disorder/

    REPLY: I made no claim of being first – Anthony

  28. ColdOldMan says:

    I’ve just spotted this.Very Interesting.

    Steady Antarctic ice growth ‘limits confidence in climate predictions’

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/12/antarctic_ice_growth_investigated/
    h/t http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/nasa-bas-agree-that-antarctic-ice.html

  29. Monty says:

    Thanks for all your comments. I repeat…if Anthony thinks this paper is wrong then he should write a rebuttal and submit it to Nature Geoscience. After all, this is how science is done with hypotheses being challenged in the peer-review literature. It’s pretty clear that he won’t do this and so his criticisms are, as usual, worthless. It’s telling that WUWT regularly blogs about how rubbish papers are but NEVER publishes formal rebuttals. There are lots of open-access journals available where this could be done but, amazingly, ‘skeptics’ prefer to write their nonsense on blogs like this!

  30. Jeremy says:

    It is actually quite simple and there is no need to read the paper: Man-made climate change is just a pretext for research grants.

    Virtually everything that could possibly be linked to man-made climate change has already been hitched to this gravy train.

    It was ONLY a matter of time before the fraudsters got to a colder Antarctic with greater ice extent being caused by global warming.

    These academic con artists will eventually be caught by their own lies but not until they have already consumed a great deal of OPM (pronounced “opiom”) – Other People’s Money.

  31. Jimbo says:

    Imagine the irrational headlines today.

    [1978] Record-High Temperatures in the Antarctic – A Synoptic Case Study
    http://meteo.pr.erau.edu/sinclair/pubs/sinclair_1981.pdf

    [1934] Wintry Warmth
    [Little America, Antarctica]
    Unseasonable warm conditions for 12 days now with but a single exception the temperature has been above zero
    http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/2356406

    Yet today any warmth anywhere in Antarctica is a sure sign of global warming. I’m just glad Gore and Hansen had not yet got into gear.

  32. Jeremy says:

    Monty,

    If you cannot see that more sea ice and a colder Antarctic is illogical in the context of “Global Warming’ then I suggest that nothing will convince you.

  33. Matthew W says:

    Monty says:
    November 12, 2012 at 7:23 am

    Well, Anthony, climate change is complicated. Which is why you should do some science if you want to criticize papers like this. If you think it is wrong why don’t you send a rebuttal to Nature Geoscience? Of course you won’t….that would require some hard work!
    ====================================================
    BWAHAHAA!!!
    You of course don’t see the irony/hypocrisy of claiming wind is responsible for more ice and wind is responsible for less ice. As an alarmist, you can cover yourself with either choice when it fits your template.

  34. D Böehm says:

    Monty says:

    “…if Anthony thinks this paper is wrong then he should write a rebuttal and submit it to Nature Geoscience.”

    He should, huh? So you presume to set the WUWT agenda? You get to tell folks what they should do? Then how about this: I am telling you to read the entire WUWT archives, including comments. Then you will be up to speed on the subject. Currently, you are not.

    So how does it feel having someone telling you what you should do? Are you going to do it? Or will you remain ignorant of the subject?

    Anthony Watts does a tremendous amount of work, and you got off on the wrong foot by implying that he’s lazy. Maybe it’s your projection, I don’t know. What I do know is that whenever I see your screen name after this, my first thought will be: “No credibility”.

  35. markx says:

    Monty says: November 12, 2012 at 7:23 am

    “….Well, Anthony, climate change is complicated…..:”

    Ha ha, I think you meant complicated, amusing and contradictory, didn’t you, Monty?

  36. Gail Combs says:

    Monty says:
    November 12, 2012 at 8:50 am

    Thanks for all your comments. I repeat…if Anthony thinks this paper is wrong then he should write a rebuttal and submit it to Nature Geoscience….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Go try that sorry excuse on people who have not read the climategate e-mails and Caspar and the Jesus paper.

  37. Matthew W says:

    Dodgy Geezer says:
    November 12, 2012 at 8:20 am
    this is the same Anthony Watts who ran the ‘Surface Stations’ temperature project, and single-handedly proved what the NOAA was unable to do with around 1500 staff? For free, and in his own time?
    =====================================================
    And not only that, the global alarmists dismiss it out of hand !!!!

  38. Kev-in-Uk says:

    Hmm – it would seem Mr Monty is possibly a paid TROLL. That’s fine, we can all now ignore him/her/it – and hope he toddles back to his cozy cave at RC or somewhere equally disgusting!.

  39. Gail Combs says:

    Climate Weenie says:
    November 12, 2012 at 8:07 am

    ….when one runs radiative models over Antarctica, one finds the surprising result that doubling CO2 causes locales which are cold and high to radiate MORE not less energy to space at the top of the atmosphere….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Oh, OH, It is now ‘OFFICIAL’ we are headed into global cooling because of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Different day same tune. Isn’t this where David Susuki entered stage left in the 1970′s?

  40. Jimbo says:

    Monty says:
    November 12, 2012 at 7:23 am
    ………………………..
    Sceptics don’t have to produce a damned thing. In science the onus is on those who are making the new claims ie AGW as opposed to natural climate variation.

  41. With apologies in advance but after reading Monty’s posts I couldn’t help wondering “Python” or “Full” Either way thanks for lightening up my morning coffee break, Monty.

  42. pdxrod says:

    “Climate change is complicated” says Monty. That’s the oldest trick in the pseudo-scientists’ book. Kramer’s comment just above Monty’s covers this approach – climate ‘scientists’ make predictions post hoc. Whatever happens, they are able to blame it on ‘global warming’, or ‘climate change’ as they now call it – an empty phrase which gives the game away. The constant re-writing of their predictions exposes them completely.

  43. Bertram Felden says:

    Monty, I’m sure you would find a lot more to your liking if the sceptics could have even just a little slice of the $60bn and rising funding that the AGW mob has received.

    You are confusing, I think, a career in following the money with actual scientific research. There is also, of course, the intrinsic bias against those who swim against the stream – just human nature – so blogging is one of the most effective ways for sceptics to get their ideas across. You say that the sceptics rely on demolishing the underpinnings of well funded AGW papers. Well there is a lot of truth in that, and there is a good reason – they are, by and large, challenging a hypothesis. It is for the proponents of the hypothesis to prove their case – if they cannot then the hypothesis cannot stand unmodified. Pointing out the flaws in the AGW hypothesis is all that is required; it is not necessary to propose an alternative.

    The problem with AGW is that is it a hypothesis, not even a theory; those who propose it have consistently failed to suggest how it can be proven or disproved. When you have a ‘science’ based upon computer models that omit at least 30% of the variables because they cannot be measured what you have is junk. In this case very very expensive junk.

    I am not a ‘climate scientist’, whatever that actually is, but I did spend the latter decade of my career building, running and interpreting the output from what were at the time fairly complex models fed by large datasets. The models were, invariably, utter cr*p because they were trying to model a complex system with a gallimaufry of measurable and unmeasurable variables. There was no point telling the guys paying for them this, because their eyes are all glazed over at being on the ‘cutting edge’. Your could run successful regression tests until the cows came home; the predictive power was never more than indicative at best. At the beginning of each year my team and I would make guesses as to the key outcomes in the real world. Senior management relied on the models (hey, they were expensive and jolly impressive), but the team guesses were always far more accurate than the model forecasts.

    I know that statistical theory has been developed a lot since my day, and the computing power available to the modelers is huge, but the old adage ‘garbage in = garbage out’ is, and always will be, incontrovertibly true.

  44. temp says:

    Monty says:
    November 12, 2012 at 8:50 am

    The paper is already “rebutted” by the IPCC 3rd and probably fourth reports. No need for any new papers on the matter.

    Here is what the IPCC says about it

    “Climate change in the polar region is expected to be among the
    greatest of any region on Earth.”(<—– note that means both North of South and OMG were all going to die)

    "Twentieth century data for the
    Arctic show a warming trend of as much as 5 C over extensive
    land areas (very high confidence), while precipitation has
    increased (low confidence). There are some areas of cooling in
    eastern Canada. The extent of sea ice has decreased by 2.9%
    per decade, and it has thinned over the 1978–1996 period (high
    confidence). There has been a statistically significant decrease
    in spring snow extent over Eurasia since 1915 (high confidence).
    The area underlain by permafrost has been reduced and has
    warmed (very high confidence). The layer of seasonally thawed
    ground above permafrost has thickened in some areas, and new
    areas of extensive permafrost thawing have developed."

    "In the
    Antarctic, a marked warming trend is evident in the Antarctic
    Peninsula, with spectacular loss of ice shelves(high confidence)." <—- note the choice of "spectacular loss" and OMG were all going to die.

    "The extent of higher terrestrial vegetation on the Antarctic
    Peninsula is increasing (very high confidence). Elsewhere,
    warming is less definitive. There has been no significant change
    in the Antarctic sea ice since 1973, although it apparently
    Technical Summary: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability 59
    retreated by more than 3° of latitude between the mid-1950s
    and the early 1970s (medium confidence)." <—- note the walk back.

    "In the A n t a rctic, projected climate change will generate
    impacts that will be realized slowly (high confidence).
    Because the impacts will occur over a long period, however,
    they will continue long after GHG emissions have stabilized.
    For example, there will be slow but steady impacts on ice
    sheets and circulation patterns of the global ocean, which will
    be irreversible for many centuries into the future and will cause
    changes elsewhere in the world, including a rise of sea level.
    Further substantial loss of ice shelves is expected around the
    Antarctic Peninsula. Warmer temperatures and reduced sea-ice
    extent are likely to produce long-term changes in the physical
    oceanography and ecology of the Southern Ocean, with intensified
    biological activity and increased growth rates of fish." <—- not a single thing about adding ice all about losing it.

    The IPCC clearly didn't see any ice increase in the future. About the only thing here is the IPCC uses some really vague and terms and doesn't commit whole hog.

    "In contrast to the unanimity of themodels in predicting a northpolar
    amplification of warming, there are differences among the
    model projections concerning polar amplification in Antarctica,
    especially over the continent (Parkinson, 2004)." <—- note once again that models predicted polar amplification and were fine and used for many things… but now that it can't be proven those models are still used and "correct" however were just going to forget about that whole part of them being WRONG.

    The simple reality is that models were USED in the IPCC report that include polar amplification at the…. derp derp derp POLES. So now will the IPCC go back and say that all the predictions these models made were wrong? NO. Will the term be changed to arctic amplification likely. Will global warming zealots ignore the fact that the IPCC has been proven WRONG. YES.

    The reality is simple. Polar amplification is proven wrong. Thus the IPCC reports are wrong and any models that used it are flat out wrong. The IPCC in typical fashion won't admit that it was wrong and used models that have now been proven wrong. It will ignore it put out another report that shows the same result by simply removing the data it doesn't like. Thats not science thats just picking data that supports your argument and then getting rid of it when it doesn't.

  45. Jimbo says:

    Monty says:
    November 12, 2012 at 8:50 am

    Thanks for all your comments. I repeat…if Anthony thinks this paper is wrong……

    And I repeat SCEPTICS DON’T HAVE TO PRODUCE A DAMNED THING. They could if they want or have the time but they don’t have to produce anything.

    In science the onus is on your side to present the evidence as it’s your side making claims of AGW (not yet shown but guessed based on correlation – yet stalled for 16years) as opposed to natural climate variation.

    Finally, how about encouraging some big oil funds our way (like CRU & Stanford Climate Research) for a change so sceptics can write up “mountains of evidenc”. Sheeesh.

  46. Jimbo says:

    You say there are lots of open access journals, well here’s one that deals in Biopolar disorder.

    ………when the Arctic warms the Antarctica cools and visa versa. This is the first time that a bi-polar seesaw pattern has been identified in the 20th century Arctic and Antarctic temperature records. The Arctic (Antarctic) de-trended temperatures are highly correlated (anti-correlated) with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) index suggesting the Atlantic Ocean as a possible link between the climate variability of the Arctic and Antarctic regions.
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n1/full/ngeo1026.html

    Remind me, weren’t both poles supposed to warm due to CAGW because of co2?

  47. Jimbo says:

    Monty says:
    November 12, 2012 at 8:50 am
    ………………There are lots of open-access journals available where this could be done but, amazingly, ‘skeptics’ prefer to write their nonsense on blogs like this!

    I admit, you are correct and we do write nonsense. But so do Warmists. ;-)
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/03/the-big-self-parodying-climate-change-blame-list/

  48. john robertson says:

    They almost get it right,”climate change is complicated” really? climate is complicated, correct.Climate change is redundant and idiotic, does anyone say water-wet when they mean water? Climate changes from ice-age to slightly warmer over the centuries, climate for sure,I see the statement,” evidence of man made climate change is overwhelming,”So evidence of manmade climate is overwhelming,eh? Where? in the Mall? Your air-conditioned high-rise?
    What is this overwhelming evidence, of man made climate effecting the global climate?Global Climate? Sell that to the penguins .I can’t take much more of this G.I.G.O supposition nonsense, once I snap its local politics, with the intent to bring to retributive justice all who abused science and public policy in the name of their cause.The argument is easy to make, either you were extremely gullible or stunningly stupid, to enact policies ,without doing any fact checking.
    Where are the archives of science supporting these renewable fantasies?
    Where is the evidence of CAGW? We defer to the IPCC is not a valid response, it is evidence our advisors to govt did not carry out their duties. Our politicians did no due diligence and our professional bureaucrats dropped the ball. Thats assuming incompetence versus agenda.
    As the CAGW/CC/CDR/EW, bedwetting stands right now there is no discernible difference between blaming CO2 or God.Which God…..CO2 ?

  49. Frank K. says:

    Bertram Felden says:
    November 12, 2012 at 9:30 am

    “Monty, Im sure you would find a lot more to your liking if the sceptics could have even just a little slice of the $60bn and rising funding that the AGW mob has received.”

    Folks – people like “Monty” show up here regularly in order to justify the continued flow of Climate Ca$h to the greedy climate scientists. Remember – in climate science, there are NO recessions, no huge national budget deficits, no unemployment! Party on, NASA/NCAR/NSF/DOE/NOAA!!

  50. johnbuk says:

    I’m disappointed none of you have seen the desperate plight of the penguins suffering from dizziness with all this climate change swinging them round the Antarctic.

  51. Louis says:

    “However, this small Antarctic increase is actually the result of much larger regional increases and decreases, which are now shown to be caused by wind-driven changes. In places, increased northward winds have caused the sea-ice cover to expand outwards from Antarctica.”

    So some regions have increased and some have decreased, but the overall trend is a slight increase in ice extent. Are they saying that AGW is regional and not global? How does global warming increase the wind in some areas and decrease it in others? And how can you distinguish natural variations in wind from that caused by AGW? I just don’t see how they can make any connection to global warming here.

  52. Jimbo says:

    Here you go Monty.

    IPCC
    5.7. Polar Regions
    Climate change in the polar region is expected to be among the greatest of any region on Earth. Twentieth century data for the Arctic show a warming trend of as much as 5°C over extensive land areas (very high confidence), while precipitation has increased (low confidence). There are some areas of cooling in eastern Canada. The extent of sea ice has decreased by 2.9% per decade, and it has thinned over the 1978-1996 period (high confidence). There has been a statistically significant decrease in spring snow extent over Eurasia since 1915 (high confidence). The area underlain by permafrost has been reduced and has warmed (very high confidence). The layer of seasonally thawed ground above permafrost has thickened in some areas, and new areas of extensive permafrost thawing have developed. In the Antarctic, a marked warming trend is evident in the Antarctic Peninsula, with spectacular loss of ice shelves (high confidence). The extent of higher terrestrial vegetation on the Antarctic Peninsula is increasing (very high confidence). Elsewhere, warming is less definitive. There has been no significant change in the Antarctic sea ice since 1973, although it apparently retreated by more than 3° of latitude between the mid-1950s and the early 1970s (medium confidence). [16.1.3.2.]………………..

    In the Antarctic, projected climate change will generate impacts that will be realized slowly (high confidence). Because the impacts will occur over a long period, however, they will continue long after GHG emissions have stabilized. For example, there will be slow but steady impacts on ice sheets and circulation patterns of the global ocean, which will be irreversible for many centuries into the future and will cause changes elsewhere in the world, including a rise of sea level.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/vol4/index.php?idp=150

    The impacts are being felt far quicker than we previously thought.

  53. Monty says:

    So the bottom line is that Anthony is not going to write a scientifically-argued rebuttal. Didn’t think so. The reason that you ‘skeptics’ aren’t taken at all seriously is that you almost always fail to engage with science in a coherent way. Writing hysterical blog posts just doesn’t cut it. If you think that this paper is another ‘nail in the coffin’ of AGW then you have to show it. BTW every other week the ‘skeptics’ loudly pronounce another ‘nail in the coffin’ and every other week no-one believes you.

    What you have to realize is that climate science is complicated. We don’t know everything (if we did there wouldn’t be any point being a scientist) and the world is full of surprises. But the basic science for AGW is settled.

    Thanks.

  54. Manfred says:

    Monty says: November 12, 2012 at 8:50 am
    “After all, this is how science is done with hypotheses being challenged in the peer-review literature.”

    Monty old fellow, did you trouble to copy this to Al Gore, or are you simply trying it on us after being told it was too much of an inconvenient truth for him to stomach?

  55. D Böehm says:

    “So the bottom line is that Anthony Monty is not going to write a scientifically-argued rebuttal read the WUWT archives to learn something. Didn’t think so.”

    There. Fixed it for Monty. No charge.

    Monty says: “But the basic science for AGW is settled.”

    No, it is not. I challenge Monty to provide empirical, testable evidence showing an AGW signal. Show the cause and effect.

    Monty is one of those gullible people who believes, since he has no evidence. His belief is enough. But it is not enough for skeptics. Show me proof of AGW. Belief is not sufficient. Belief only works with witch doctors and fortune tellers. We need verifiable empirical data proving AGW. But so far, there is none.

  56. temp says:

    Monty says:
    November 12, 2012 at 10:55 am

    Once again Monty the IPCC has long documented this whole thing… they clearly state that BOTH poles MUST warm and will warm greater then any other place. Why should Mr Watts write a study that has already been written 10x over and been approved by 97% of “climate scientists”.

    Are you saying the IPCC is not a valid source of research? If so then I could see your argument however please state that clearly.

  57. JJ says:

    Monty says:

    After all, this is how science is done with hypotheses being challenged in the peer-review literature.

    No, sweetie. “Peer-review literature” is not necessary to science. “Peer-review literature” is not a component of the scientific method, and in many cases “peer-review literature” operates in direct opposition to scientitifc principles. With respect to science, “peer-review literature” is at best a convenience, typically a nuisance, and often anathema.

    It’s pretty clear that he won’t do this and so his criticisms are, as usual, worthless.

    Uh, no. Criticism stands on its own merits. The worth of criticism is in its content, not the venue in which it is communicated. That is one of those scientific principles that is often undermined by “Peer-review literature” and the idiot’s tendency to build fallacious ad verecundiam arguements therefrom.

    BTW, Monty: The IPCC says this in its latest report:

    Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic under all SRES scenarios.

    But it ain’t. One does not need “peer review” to point out the fact that ‘global warming’ is an unfalsifyable political/religious conjecture. It ain’ t science. Shrinking ice – its global warming! Same old ice – its global warming! Growing ice – its global warming!

  58. Frank K. says:

    Monty says:
    November 12, 2012 at 10:55 am

    “So the bottom line is that Anthony is not going to write a scientifically-argued rebuttal.”

    Monty [sigh] – you are in fact the one who is looking very foolish right now. You talk about “hysterical” blog posts, yet we’ve endured endless “hysterical” newspaper articles and crud like Al Gores “An Inconvenient Truth”.

    “But the basic science for AGW is settled.”

    Could you explain that “basic science” for us, Mr. Monty? Show us heathens the fine art of scientific rebuttal…(this should be good…). If you don’t reply, then I’ll take that as a sign that you are just another manic, mind-numbed CAGW robot…

  59. D Böehm says:

    Addendum to my last post: AGW may exist. I am keeping an open mind. But without confirming evidence showing conclusively that CO2 is the direct cause of any global warming, AGW remains a Conjecture: the first step in the Scientific Method hierarchy, prior to a Hypothesis. AGW is neither a Hypothesis nor a Theory, both of which are falsified if they cannot make accurate predictions. What has AGW predicted?

    AGW is not testable or measurable at this point. There is no verifiable cause and effect. AGW is a conjecture based on radiative physics — but AGW is not the same thing as radiative physics. There is too much we do not know. And the planet has been deconstructing the AGW conjecture for the past sixteen years. I think the planet is telling us something. It is certainly causing great consternation among AGW true believers.

    Finally, the catastrophic AGW [CAGW] conjecture is deconstructed by the climate Null Hypothesis.

  60. Monty says:

    D Boehm. That’s why you people aren’t really skeptics.

  61. Silver Ralph says:

    Pat. George Monbiot wrongly accuses a former Conservative treasurer of being a pedophile. And is in deep trouble.
    _______________________________

    Monbiot could not tell a Sir from a Lord (Sir McAlpine and Lord McAlpine), and so keen was he to denigrate the Conservatives (he writes for the Grauniad) he jumped on the wrong bandwagon. This is rather similar to his jumping on the Global Warming bandwagon, which was again cased by a poor understanding and political motivation.

    .

  62. D Böehm says:

    Monty says:

    “That’s why you people aren’t really skeptics.”

    Of course we are. The only honest kind of scientist is a skeptic. Otherwise witch doctors would still be around.

    The purveyors of CAGW are not skeptics. The are true believers in their evidence-free conjecture. You seem to be one of those non-skeptics.

    I challenged you to produce testable, empirical evidence of AGW. You avoided that, because your Belief is enough. But belief is not enough for scientific skeptics. We require data. Produce data — or everyone will know you have only a belief system. There is no credibility in that.

  63. richardscourtney says:

    Monty:

    Your post at November 12, 2012 at 11:23 am says in total

    D Boehm. That’s why you people aren’t really skeptics.

    No, D Boehm’s comments to you demonstrate that he understands the scientific method and, therefore, he recognises pseudoscience when he sees it.

    Please reflect on what that indicates about you as revealed by your posts.

    Richard

  64. Frank K. says:

    I see that “Monty” can’t explain “basic settled science” to us heathens.

    [Note - the quality of our trolls is definitely declining. Monty shows up and just throws some ad homs around for his own amusement..].

  65. john robertson says:

    Monty has it right, from the believers perch, there is nothing global warming can’t do. Every request for the “Overwhelming evidence of CAGW” is followed by… crickets… or frantic arm waving and name calling. Circular reasoning is theology not science.

  66. Rick K says:

    “Monty,”
    You’re exhaling way too much CO2.

  67. LazyTeenager says:

    So, according to this, when the Arctic loses ice it is due to climate change ‘global warming’ when the Antarctic gains ice it is due to ‘climate change’ and is just as bad.
    ———
    Not sure that this is true.

    The arctic is the sea area plus some surrounding land. As far as I know the sum total of ice is trending down.

    The Antarctic is the land area plus some surrounding ocean. The ocean ice area is going up slightly (but a fraction of the arctic ice loss), while the land is loosing ice faster at the margins and gaining some in the interior as a consequence of greater snowfall. Offhand I don’t know what the sum total actually is.

  68. LazyTeenager says:

    Kevin-in-UK says
    you perhaps ought not to try to read about it – as most folk with only half a brain can and do understand that AGW is largely a made-up scam and can interpret the good science from the bad.
    ———
    Hi Kevin, as a comedian I might suggest you rephrase that.

  69. Dire Wolf says:

    Monty

    You say that we don’t know everything. Exactly. We don’t know enough to commit trilliions of dollars, the degradation of Western economies and the permanent impoverishment of the 3rd world for schemes that will neither reduce CO2 nor provide energy. The skeptical position is simply that. If you want us to run, lemming-like, off the cliff of economic insanity, you have to show us that there actually is a mountain lion stalking us and that this is the only viable alternative.

  70. D Böehm says:

    Lazy T,

    Kevin-in-UK is right.

    But I’ll give you the opportunity to prove us wrong: produce testable real world evidence showing a direct connection between global temperature and CO2. In other words, produce falsifiable scientific evidence showing that human GHG emissions cause global warming.

    They might. But I have seen zero evidence showing that CO2 has any effect on global temperature — and plenty of real world evidence that it doesn’t. And if it does have a minor effect, it is so minuscule that it just doesn’t matter. And since one of those two possibilities are obviously the case based on real world observations, then there is no reason to spend another dime on the scam. Is there?

  71. temp says:

    Frank K. says:
    November 12, 2012 at 11:48 am
    “[Note - the quality of our trolls is definitely declining. Monty shows up and just throws some ad homs around for his own amusement..].”

    O I don’t know he had a promising start until the IPCC railroaded him. Kind of hard to win an “argument of science” when your “science bible” counters your very claim.

    LazyTeenager says:
    November 12, 2012 at 12:18 pm

    “The Antarctic is the land area plus some surrounding ocean. The ocean ice area is going up slightly (but a fraction of the arctic ice loss), while the land is loosing ice faster at the margins and gaining some in the interior as a consequence of greater snowfall. Offhand I don’t know what the sum total actually is.”

    While true somewhat this still counters the global warming argument.

    The problem the IPCC has always had is that thing like global are read as well global to mean the whole planet. Thing like polar are read to mean both poles.

    If you read the IPCC they basically run around in circles when dealing with anything on the south side of the world. They had to put out vague all encompassing arguments for that areas because they had no clue what would happen. Since they needed to cover the whole global with info they guessed… a lot and those guesses are coming back to haunt them because they claimed they weren’t guesses.

  72. mitigatedsceptic says:

    There you are – for ‘climate change’ read AGW! This conflation is a cheap trick and nothing to do with science, models or, perish the thought, empirical evidence. It has to do with propaganda and nothing else.

    Remember that the early models failed to match past records and it was hypothesised that the ‘greenhouse effect’ (a misleading metaphor) filled the gap. Since then there have been many new causal relations hypothesised and some suggested and abandoned as being too complicated (e,g, the behaviour of water in all its phases) but still the gap is attributed to human activity.

    I am a scientist, though not a ‘climatologist’. I recognise a chaotic system when I see one and climate is strictly chaotic. By that is meant that although it is state-determined, such is its complexity and such is our ignorance of its past states, that prediction is impossible. Almost literally, anything can happen and to attempt to attribute causes is a futile and indeed misleading activity. Hume put it ‘anything can be the cause of anything else’. Newton before him ‘hypotheses non fingo’ – I do not feign causal explanations beyond the evidence.

    Someone above is correct in saying that the onus of providing a plausible (it is too much to ask for truth) story lies firmly on the shoulders of those who advocate political action; not on any others. Carbon footprints and the greenhouse effect are simply ‘just so stories’ but they lack plausibility simply because they are not scaled to the real world. For example the proportion of CO2 continues to rise but the warming has stopped. How plausible is AGW in the face of that?
    And who has demonstrated that reducing GHG emissions could possibly have any mitigating effect? The climate system is riddled with bifurcations (tipping points) from which there can be no return. The Second Law rules – OK?

    Do we really think that this puny animal that belched smoke and ash for a hundred years or so could possibly have had any effect at all on the climate system? Climate has never been in equilibrium and it never will. Change is inevitable and unpredictable. To attribute it to human activity is not only foolish it is arrogant.

    Unfortunately, as the alarmists make political hay and warn the world of AGW, there may well be global cooling on the way and there is no Plan B! Surely a cold climate is much more of a threat to more people than a warmer one?

  73. Sparks says:

    The north and south poles are opposites or, are different in many ways, they behave separately and each has a different set of variables. Recently, all the man made climate change nonsense that I have read have been ignorant attempts to explain away the overwhelming evidence that changes taking place on earth are natural.

  74. Kev-in-Uk says:

    LazyTeenager says:
    November 12, 2012 at 12:22 pm

    LT – ah! that might explain some of your posts appearing as comedy? or should that be a comedy of errors! ;) (No insult intended!)

  75. donald penman says:

    I don’t accept the idea that wind will cause the Antarctic sea ice to expand but not the Arctic sea ice.,there is loads of room for the Arctic sea ice to be pushed out by the wind.The Antarctic sea ice is further from the pole than the arctic sea ice is and would melt more if it was being pushed out by the wind.

  76. Ryan says:

    OK, so we need to worry about Antartica shrinking because a lot of the ice is not floating but on rock and could cause sea levels to rise whereas we don’t need to worry about the Arctic shrinking because most of it is floating and can’t cause sea levels to rise. But Antartica is growing and the Arctic is shrinking, so we don’t need to worry and can all go back to sleep, right?

  77. CD (@CD153) says:

    Monty: For whatever reasons, poeple like you have a difficult time in your minds distinguishing between what is essentially a pseudo-religious ideology masquerading as science on one hand and what is true science on the other. And you are certainly not alone in the world. Many people can’t.

    Those who have created and led the way in religious cults and movements (which includes CAGW here) throughout history have demonstrated clever and skillful ways in which they can manipulate science, facts and reasoning to take advantage of the vulnerable masses who do not have the education, understanding, proper mindset, life experiences and wisdom that comes with age to question their cult leaders (try Googling Stalin and Lysenkoism) . These gullible masses are so easily brainwashed that starting a cult-like, pseudo-religious movement like CAGW becomes both very tempting and profitable to those with with the skills, the knowledge and the gaul to do it. The cult leaders know that they need to acquire some degree of control over people, money and political power to pursue their ends, whatever those ends may be. And a cult is the perfect path to take in pursuit of those ends.

    I don’t know how old you are Monty. If you are young though, you need to undertand that you are one of those vulnerable people I’m talking about here precisely because of your youth. The young are the most vulnerable of all to cults.

    With regards to Anthony’s post here, it would appear that NASA is contradicting itself. One does not need to be a scientist here (and I am not one) to see it. CAGW-induced wind patterns causing ice melting in the Arctic, but then causing MORE ice in the Antartctic? Really? Monty, a contradictory snafu like this from the cult leaders (if it can be called a snafu) should raise a red flag that triggers a desire among the cult followers to begin questioning the religion.

    Today’s CAGW cult leaders, including Hanson, Mann, McKibben and others, are losing their grip on (and concern for) the difference between right from wrong, between the moral and immoral, between the ethical and the unethical. They have gone horribly astray by the lack of a conscience, questionable values (which does not necessarily include climate and/or environmental protection), and giant egos that demand regular feedings of the belief that they are gifts to humanity. These all serve to explain their behavior. This is not to say that the Earth’s climate and environment do not require our attention and protection (when shown conclusively to be necessary). They certainly do. With that said, the problem here does not necessarily lie with the the ends of the CAGW cultists, but with the MEANS to those ends. The actions we take on climate and/or environmental protection (if any) must be based on what sound, provable science tells us, and nothing else.

    Hanson, Mann and the others are of the false belief that thay have a license to perpetrate fraud because of the ends they are pursuing. They do not. The sooner that they are exposed to the whole world for their fraudulence, the better.

  78. Billy Liar says:

    Juice says:
    November 12, 2012 at 7:08 am

    But aren’t Antarctic temperatures also decreasing?

    … leading to stronger katabatic winds.

    Quelle surprise!

  79. In an interesting, if unintended, experiment, the Australian government managed to create Arctic like conditions in Antarctica, and to their surprise the ice melted.

    AUSTRALIA’S $46 million Antarctic airstrip is melting, leaving the government scrambling to find a new air link to the frozen continent.

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/antarctic-airstrip-melting-away-20121023-283kx.html#ixzz2C3IOObEV

    Those planes will deposit a layer of black carbon on the airstrip causing it to melt. Of course no one is admitting this, as none of the climate scientists predicted this, and it will lead to the (correct) conclusion Arctic ice melt is due to black carbon, rather than AGW.

  80. CD (@CD153) says:

    A wrongly worded sentence in my last post. Should have said: “This is not to say that the Earth’s climate and environment do not require our attention and protection. They certainly do when it is shown by science to be conclusively necessary”. The essay applies to both Monty and LazyTeenager. Thanks.

  81. “If Monty did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him”.
    Apologies to Voltaire.

  82. David Ball says:

    I posit that Lazy T is as good at comedy as he is at climate science. He has no discernible sense of humour.

  83. Surfer Dave says:

    “Sea ice plays a key role in the global environment – reflecting heat from the sun and providing a habitat for marine life.” One problem I have with these statements about the massive effect of the change in albedo at high latitudes when sea is is present or absent is that for half the year these regions receive no light at all and for the other half the sun is at such a oblique angle to the surface that the amount of solar radiation per square metre must be almost negligible. How can these small surface areas (relative to the entire planet’s surface area) be so important when they receive such a small amount of direct sunlight?

  84. the sun is at such a oblique angle to the surface that the amount of solar radiation per square metre must be almost negligible.

    This is a common misunderstanding. In fact, high latitudes receive more solar radiation in mid-summer than the tropics.

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page3.php

    Note, I don’t believe these numbers take clouds and atmospheric scattering into account.

  85. stefanthedenier says:

    Perfect title – Bipolar Disorder – ALL OF YOU GUYS ARE SUFFERING one way or another; from the regular polar crap ====you have being avoiding your medicine, your medicine is on my blog

    1] common brainwashing for the last 20years: ”ice is white, reflects sunlight – minus ice = GLOBAL warming” WOW! and another WOW! (assault on the ice started by the Warmist ”scientist / bias media = with ice crusher ships – making lots of corridors – ruff water smashes the rest… I have given the name of that ice in my book: ” the Whale’s White Greenhouse” Warmist scientist and bias media = Vandals

    1B} my real proofs, that both camps avoid for the last few years:: a] on individual polar cap, there is NO sunlight to reflect for 6 months – but lots of unlimited coldness the water to accumulate, without ice as shield / insulator. Everybody is scared from my real proofs and runs for cover – apart of few; tried to point that is no such a thing as coldness, only heat (ridiculing me for not using Kalvin – instead of facing the truth) Here is now sentence on this post: ” the ice insulates the warm ocean from the frigid atmosphere above” Hallelujah = NASA and time for all of you to start plagiarizing me; instead of admitting that I was correct all the time and you were ALL wrong all the time. ”Gentleman’s genes deformed on both sides of the sandpit”

    2] water has mirror effect , reflects lots of sunlight – go in the morning on the east coast / evening on the western – look in the horizon -> you will start sneezing, same as if you look directly at the sun

    3] ice on tera-firma is melted from below, day and night / summer and winter – by the geothermal heat!!! b] needs replenishing that deficit ===== when is El Nino, more ice is added on part of Antarctic that gets winds from S/E Pacific / but less on the side that gets winds from Australia and south Africa === Warmist select the side that has less ice and scare the people === fake Skeptics select the opposite side and ridicule the Warmist… Then changes to La Nina = the noise changes for short period – until each mob discovers suitable place on antarctic to be advertised…

    REALITY: ice ”starts” melting, when temp gets above ZERO centigrade!!!!!. In your cool-box if you have 2-3kg of ice; starts melting earlier, than if you have 7kg of ice. (antarctic has more than 14kg of ice… b] temp on average is ”TWICE AS COLD than in your deep freezer” Hello Hansen’s zombies, from both camps!

    If you would like to EXPOSE the crimes in progress; because ice on the polar caps is melted for different reasons, not heat === needs replenishing every season, by ”freeze-drying moisture from the air” If you are not suffering from ”TRUTH-PHOBIA” here: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/midi-ice-age-can-be-avoided/

  86. stefanthedenier says:

    Juice says: ”But aren’t Antarctic temperatures also decreasing?”

    Juice, temp is not increasing, or decreasing. b] the amount of ice has nothing to do with the phony GLOBAL warming. c] the planet needs to warm up by 30C,, ice on antarctic to ”START” melting because of heat.

    2] there is PERMANENT ice thousands of km north (closer to the equator) in New Zealand, Patagonia. The amount of ice depends on the amount of ”raw material” available to renew the ice that is melted by the geothermal heat on land – and by speeding / slowing currents of salty water below the ice, on the sea http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/midi-ice-age-can-be-avoided/

  87. D Böehm says:

    The long term temperature trend in the Antarctic is declining.

    Another view. And another.

    The Arctic has much less than one-tenth the ice of Antarctica. Greenland has much more ice than the Arctic. If all the Arctic ice completely melted yeear-round, it would be a net benefit. There really is no downside to less Arctic ice. Of course, complete melting will not happen. But it is about the only thing the alarmist crowd has to scare people with.

  88. stefanthedenier says:

    Philip Bradley says: ”This is a common misunderstanding. In fact, high latitudes receive more solar radiation in mid-summer than the tropics”

    Phil, this statement of yours; shows that you can use your brains – that is dangerous thing in the blogosphere = where everybody is parroting only what Hansen said, or didn’t say.
    Are you trying to be the ” the white sheep in the family”? if yes, join me.

  89. RDCII says:

    Monty,

    3 things.

    1). Anthony didn’t actually show any disagreement with the science. Go read it again. He observed politically convenient paradoxical results between two papers. So…why do you think he even disagrees with the science of this paper? What exactly are you insisting he rebut?

    He’s made an observation, and put it out there for discussion, and someone may even be able to shed some light on the issue…but it apparently won’t be you.

    2). Your confusion is about the nature of the piece. This is a news piece about science and the politics of science and CAGW, not a piece of science.

    Scientists publish reports and papers to impart knowledge; interested parties who may or may not be scientists read and learn; if they then observe that the science is contradictory, they can publicize that fact.

    It’s not up to the readers to do the science; it’s now up to the scientists, who have been challenged by the spotlight put upon the paradox, to work together and do the science to resolve the contradictions.

    It is very strange that you want to require the reporter to do the science; do you require police reporters to do policework and autopsies? Political reporters to run for office? Nonsense. There is no magical geas put upon the reporter to then participate in what they report. Arguably the opposite, actually.

    Some of the greatest journalistic revelations of all time occurred because someone noticed a paradox or a contradiction. I think maybe that’s why you’re so desperate to keep Anthony from highlighting one.

    3). We all know your requirement that Anthony do some science in order to have credibility criticizing papers is something you don’t even believe in. Why? Because following your same logic, you should do the hard work of running a huge blog before criticizing the blog.

  90. Let’s get this right – the northerly winds blow very cold air off the melting ice sheet across the ice already forming on the “warm ocean” and freeze the “leads” so created, thus extending the ice extent. The “warm ocean” is thus insulated from the cold air and warms up the continent during the Antarctic summer, melting more of the ice sheet – presumably when the winds blow southward again. There’s a logic disconnect here, but I can’t quite put my finger on it……..

    Perhaps it’s a new meaning of “warm” which I find hard to grasp. Perhaps it’s a lack of understanding where all the cold northerly-streaming air comes from, and where the presumed warmer southerly summer winds go to. Perhaps the “hollow-Earth” theory has something to commend it after all. What does sound hollow is this rash of “we didn’t understand it before but now it’s all clear, and it doesn’t falsify climate change/global warming” papers and articles, including “the lack of ozone causes the cold, and the cold causes the lack of ozone”. Circular argument anyone?

  91. wayne Job says:

    I found the phrase “the northward winds are spreading the ice” some what problematic.
    If you are at the south pole and do a full 360 turn you are facing north the entire time.
    This would mean that CO2 is causing a 360 degree north wind from the south pole to spread the ice. The down draught at the south pole must be a killer.

    Clutching at straws comes to mind with this non sense, do these so called scientists actually use facts or real data or do they just run with the vibe of AGW and project conclusions.
    Then along comes Monty, Monty you are full of it, Thus you are the full Monty. Good Grief.

  92. Monty says:

    Hi RDC11
    My argument with those at WUWT is that they tend to have a very superficial view of what science means. It seems to me that it is incredibly naieve to say: AGW cannot be happening because Antarctic sea ice is increasing. This is unbelievably simplistic. There are lots of reasons why sea ice in the Antarctic could increase and be caused by AGW at the same time that Arctic sea ice is decreasing and this be caused by AGW. The influence of meltwater, wind directions and strength, the effects of wind regimes and temperature, decreasing salinity caused by sea ice production all contribute to the picture we see. It’s only when recognising the complexity of this that we get a better understanding of climate change. This is why I said earlier that ‘climate change is complicated’. Childish assertions by lots of people here along the lines of ‘how can AGW be causing Arctic ice reduction and Antarctic ice increase’ just shows that most posters here have a low level of interatction with how science works.

    Science is complicated and sometimes counter-intuitive. If WUWT wants to be taken seriously then it needs to submit some analysis to the peer-reviewed litearture. Clearly WUWT doesn’t want to be taken seriously, except to those who have already made their minds up because of their ideological blinkers.

  93. phlogiston says:

    This looks like the beginnings of the bipolar seesaw that marks both the beginning and the end of interglacials – see Tzedakis et al 2012. The full blown seesaw occurs 3kyrs after glacial inception but it is probable that it begins thousands of years previously and builds up to full strength during glacial inception.

    Two other important points from this paper:

    1) Glacial inception always takes place when obliquity is decreasing and never after the obliquity minimum.

    2) Glacial inception occurs approximately 10 kyr after peak interglacial conditions in temperature
    and CO2.

    In regard to (1), it seems possible that decreasing obliquity somehow destabilises the N-S inter-hemisphere symmetry of ocean circulation, leading to the bipolar seesaw.

    In regard to (2) it is curious that over the last 8-9000 years since the Holocene peak, temperature has fallen but CO2 has steadily risen. WUWT?

    In any case all this indicates glacial inception within the next 1-2000 years.

  94. What a lot of winter sea ice north of the Antarctic Circle where it does get some sun all winter.

  95. rathnakumar84 says:

    And here is some bull[snip] from Indian MSM:
    “In summer this year, the Arctic Ocean ice melt reached a record high level. Now, with the southern hemisphere summer approaching, scientists’ attention is focused on climate change effects on the Antarctic Ocean.”
    http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/will-antarcticas-biodiversity-be-saved/article4051549.ece

  96. richardscourtney says:

    Monty:

    Your post at November 13, 2012 at 3:26 am begins by saying

    Hi RDC11
    My argument with those at WUWT is that they tend to have a very superficial view of what science means. It seems to me that it is incredibly naieve to say: AGW cannot be happening because Antarctic sea ice is increasing.

    The remainder of your post continues in similar vein; i.e. it consists of statements which are the opposite of the truth.

    Your view of “what science means” is mistaken, and “those at WUWT” have a complete and sophisticated understanding of science. But you refuse to learn from replies to your superficial and mistaken posts.

    Nobody says;
    “AGW cannot be happening because Antarctic sea ice is increasing”.
    If you had read the replies to you then you would have seen that people are pointing out
    (a) the increase to Antarctic sea ice is the opposite of a prediction from the AGW hypothesis.
    and
    (b) there is no evidence that AGW is happening
    and
    (c) it is the responsibility of those advocating the AGW hypothesis to provide evidence that AGW is happening
    and
    (d) until there is evidence that AGW is happening then there is no reason to suppose it is.

    The remainder of your post could be dissected in similar manner. Please stop posting erroneous assertions and, instead, learn from the information in the archives of WUWT.

    Richard

  97. Frank K. says:

    I see that Monty STILL cannot provide us with his explanation of the “basic settled science”…

    Typical CAGW believer…

  98. Jason says:

    Since the average depth of the Arctic Ocean is 1000m, why don’t we just dredge and fill it to create a land mass for the ice to hold on to? It seems that if you slow the movement, you can significantly limit the ice loss. I realize the forced involved are monumental, however with the proper engineering it might be possible. Dubai uses interconnecting concrete blocks as a base, and the water flow around the features are engineered. It could be that several small islands is all it takes to hold the ice back from drifting too far south. Just a little drag might be all it takes…
    Then the albedo of the [now permanent] north pole might keep temperatures down and reverse the ice loss.

  99. beng says:

    “Monty” must not be reading/understanding the responses to him/her. If he did, he’d immediately be squashed, dry up & blow away in the wind. (h/t to Clint Eastwood)

  100. Monty says:

    Mr Richard Courtney claims that “Nobody says; “AGW cannot be happening because Antarctic sea ice is increasing”.

    Well here are some posters on this thread who claim precisely that:

    Focoloco: “If the ice grows it is due to AGW. If the ice is reduced it is because of AGW”

    Jeremy: “If you cannot see that more sea ice and a colder Antarctic is illogical in the context of “Global Warming’ then I suggest that nothing will convince you”.

    MathrewW: “wind is responsible for more ice and wind is responsible for less ice. As an alarmist, you can cover yourself with either choice when it fits your template”.

    Jimbo: “Remind me, weren’t both poles supposed to warm due to CAGW because of co2?”.

    No doubt there are others.

    And then D Boehm comes up with the marvellous: “AGW is not testable or measurable at this point. There is no verifiable cause and effect. AGW is a conjecture based on radiative physics — but AGW is not the same thing as radiative physics. There is too much we do not know. And the planet has been deconstructing the AGW conjecture for the past sixteen years. I think the planet is telling us something. It is certainly causing great consternation among AGW true believers”.

    Which is so evidence-free as to be worthless(and wrong).

    So as I said earlier….climate science is complicated. The fact that almost nobody here at WUWT understands it is not my problem. Science (and politics?) has left you lot behind.

    I will leave the final word to Paul Holland. He’s one of the people who wrote the paper (ie did the hard work that none of you are capable or prepared to do). He says:
    “Our study of direct satellite observations shows the complexity of climate change. The Arctic is losing sea ice five times faster than the Antarctic is gaining it, so, on average, the Earth is losing sea ice very quickly. There is no inconsistency between our results and global warming.”

    If you disagree with him then write a rebuttal!

  101. JJ says:

    Monty says:

    My argument with those at WUWT is that they tend to have a very superficial view of what science means.

    You have demonstrated that you are not capable of such assessments. Perhaps you should stop pretending.

    It seems to me that it is incredibly naieve to say: AGW cannot be happening because Antarctic sea ice is increasing.

    Sweetheart, the people that claim that AGW exists also claim (on the same basis) that the existance of AGW neccesitates shrinking polar ice. At both poles. It ain’t happening. The theory fails to match observations. The theory is wrong. Accepting that the theory is wrong, and seeking a new theory, is how science works. Hanging on to the failed theory in the face of contradictory information is how religion works.

    This is unbelievably simplistic. There are lots of reasons why sea ice in the Antarctic could increase and be caused by AGW at the same time that Arctic sea ice is decreasing and this be caused by AGW.

    None of those reasons are part of the AGW theory. Nor are those things components of the 20 or so models that all alledge to embody that theory. If the theory and the models contained those components, they would predict the observed growth Antarctic ice. They dont. The theory and the models based on it are wrong.

    Childish assertions by lots of people here along the lines of ‘how can AGW be causing Arctic ice reduction and Antarctic ice increase’ just shows that most posters here have a low level of interatction with how science works.

    You are scientifically illiterate. You have no means to assess the level of interation that others have with how science works, as you have no familiarity with it yourself.

    If WUWT wants to be taken seriously then it needs to submit some analysis to the peer-reviewed litearture.

    As stated above, “peer review literature” does not have the relationship to science that you think it does. To the contrary, “peer review literature” is anathema to science when it is used as you do. If you want to chastise someone for unscientific belief, find a suitably shiny surface and address that guy.

  102. Frank K. says:

    Still waiting “Monty”…

  103. Monty says:

    And as if by magic, the next poster says exactly what Mr Courtney says no-one says: JJ “Sweetheart, the people that claim that AGW exists also claim (on the same basis) that the existance of AGW neccesitates shrinking polar ice. At both poles. It ain’t happening”.

  104. D Böehm says:

    And thus Monty drags his red herring across the trail, hoping to avoid answering questions.

    Thanks, JJ, for exposing Monty as a true scientific illiterate.

  105. richardscourtney says:

    Monty:

    My post addressed to you at November 13, 2012 at 4:58 am concluded saying

    Please stop posting erroneous assertions and, instead, learn from the information in the archives of WUWT.

    Your reply to that at November 13, 2012 at 9:12 am consists solely of erroneous nonsense which demonstrates your need to learn. Indeed, it begins by quoting several sarcastic comments which you quote as being real because you lack sufficient knowledge to understand that they were extracting the urine.

    I shall not waste time bothering to try to help you further. You are pleased to live in your arrogance based on your ignorance, and your posts are fooling nobody except perhaps yourself.

    Richard

  106. Frank K. says:

    D Boehm says:
    November 13, 2012 at 10:38 am

    You know D Boehm, what I think is even more alarming is that I think “Monty” may actually be employed by the climate industry as a “scientist”. Then again, if I derived my income from a job where it was my duty to alarm and scare people about the weather climate, I suppose I’d act like “Monty” too…

  107. richardscourtney says:

    Monty:

    This post is NOT an attempt to help you. It is a demand for you to apologise for your post at November 13, 2012 at 10:34 am which says in full

    And as if by magic, the next poster says exactly what Mr Courtney says no-one says: JJ “Sweetheart, the people that claim that AGW exists also claim (on the same basis) that the existance of AGW neccesitates shrinking polar ice. At both poles. It ain’t happening”.

    NO!
    How dare you!?

    JJ’s comment is completely consistent with what I said; i.e. I said

    Nobody says;
    “AGW cannot be happening because Antarctic sea ice is increasing”.
    If you had read the replies to you then you would have seen that people are pointing out
    (a) the increase to Antarctic sea ice is the opposite of a prediction from the AGW hypothesis.
    and
    (b) there is no evidence that AGW is happening
    and
    (c) it is the responsibility of those advocating the AGW hypothesis to provide evidence that AGW is happening
    and
    (d) until there is evidence that AGW is happening then there is no reason to suppose it is.

    JJK saying
    “the people that claim that AGW exists also claim (on the same basis) that the existance of AGW neccesitates shrinking polar ice. At both poles. It ain’t happening”
    is THE SAME as my having said
    “the increase to Antarctic sea ice is the opposite of a prediction from the AGW hypothesis”.

    You, sir, are despicable. Apologise.

    Richard

  108. Matt G says:

    Monty,

    The basic science shows the oceans warmed by decreasing low cloud albedo. What has that got to do with AGW when the change in wind pattern could have easily been caused by this?

    Historically it has been known the the poles behave in reverse of each other. Again what is the difference between that natural behavior and a short 20 year change. There is no difference to D/O cycles or bonds events, except much less dramatic version. This paper is just an assumption that can’t be distinguished between natural climate or not.

    A 20 year change in wind patterns mean nothing until it can be shown it has never happened naturally before. The hypothesis early on was that sea ice would decrease at both side of the poles. This would happen despite increased snowfall due to warming. Now it is apparent that this is not happening and what ever happens in future is now down to this. This is not science, but awful spinning of conjecture that has no theory because all changes support it.

  109. Matt G says:

    “This would happen despite increased snowfall due to warming.”

    Note – mean south pole only for this.

  110. JJ says:

    Monty says:

    And as if by magic, the next poster says exactly what Mr Courtney says no-one says:

    Huh. Previously, I had only asserted that you were scientifically illiterate. Thanks for providing the basis for upping the ante to just plain illiterate as well.

    Any other deficiencies that you’d like to demonstrate? Apart from intransigence, that is. I’d guess that we are all willing to stipulate to that.

    While you ponder that, you might return to some of the issues that you have left unaddressed. Such as the fact that the IPCC says:

    Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic under all SRES scenarios.

    You disagree with that prediction, claiming to know “lots of reasons why sea ice in the Antarctic could increase and be caused by AGW at the same time that Arctic sea ice is decreasing and this be caused by AGW”. You think the IPCC and the modelers they rely on are wrong. We agree with you. Seems like your beef is with them. Climate change is complicated – go explain it to them.

    Don’t be afraid. They will be enthralled by your ‘warming = cooling’ theories. Really. They love that $#!^. You could be the next James Hansen. You have all of the qualifications…

  111. Monty says:

    It would appear that JJ (and no doubt others) have misunderstood what ‘AGW’ theory (whatever that means) is. All it says is that adding GHG like C02 to the atmosphere must have a warming effect. This is what we see, along with natural variability. This warming is expected to have an impact on the cryosphere (which is what we see). In some places on earth warming will lead to increased atmospheric water vapor (Clausius Clapeyron) and some ice masses will temporarily add mass as snowfall exceeds ablation. This is what we see. We know that the Arctic is warming (expected from models since the 1970s) and we know that Antarctica should also warm (this is also happening….Antarctic Peninsular is warming fast, and Steig et al 2009 showed WAIS also warming). The exact implications of this are still unclear and there is an enormous amount that we still don’t know about ice sheet dynamics (and processes have to be parameterized in GCMs without a full understanding of their physics). This means that models are (of course) imperfect. I have written peer-reviewed papers about model uncertainty and the implications of this so I know that they are never going to capture the full variability in the climate system.

    An analogy: we know that smoking causes lung cancer but our predictive knowledge is very poor of which smokers are most at risk and when exactly they will die of lung cancer, and how fast it spreads etc. This does not mean that we can’t base policy on this….and we do which is why minors are not allowed to smoke.

    So all this fake bluster about the fact that we don’t know everything about the climate system is just nonsense. To hear Mr Courtney going on about this you’d almost think that he was an expert! Except, we know of course that he isn’t.

  112. Monty, you say that ‘science is counter-intuitive’…could you give us an example to illustrate that?

  113. Frank K. says:

    Well, I guess I was correct – Monty IS employed by the climate industry. Thought so…

    “Antarctic Peninsular is warming fast, and Steig et al 2009 showed WAIS also warming…”

    I believe Steig et al. 2009 has been debunked. See here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/08/rcs-dr-eric-steig-boreholes-himself-on-antarctica/

    Moreover the recent warming of the Antarctic peninsula is NOT unprecedented. See here:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19348427

    Look I even used the corrupt BBC as a source!

  114. richardscourtney says:

    Monty:

    Your post at November 13, 2012 at 11:57 am makes an ad hom of me but fails to provide the needed apology.

    I expect you to post it now.

    Richard

  115. JJ says:

    Monty says:

    It would appear that JJ (and no doubt others) have misunderstood what ‘AGW’ theory (whatever that means) is. .

    You cannot know that I misunderstand it, if you don’t know what it means. Let us add “illogical” to the various and sundry illiteracies that you suffer from.

    All it says is that adding GHG like C02 to the atmosphere must have a warming effect.

    Sorry, sweetie. AGW theory is much more than that. And you well know it.

    This warming is expected to have an impact on the cryosphere (which is what we see).

    No, that is not what we see. What is expected is, once again:

    Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic under all SRES scenarios.

    That is not what we see. That occupies but one slot on a long list of expected things that are not seen. If you want to claim to have a coherent theory of climate, you are going to have to make a suite of specific predictions that actually happen. Else you are just handwaving.

  116. richardscourtney says:

    Friends:

    The anonymous and scientifically illiterate troll posting as Monty says at the start of his/her/their/its post at November 13, 2012 at 11:57 am

    It would appear that JJ (and no doubt others) have misunderstood what ‘AGW’ theory (whatever that means) is. All it says is that adding GHG like C02 to the atmosphere must have a warming effect.

    So,
    his/her/their/its first sentence admits to not knowing what AGW theory “means”
    but
    his/her/their/its second sentence defines what AGW theory is.

    The dichotomy is typical of this troll who clearly knows nothing about anything on which he/she/they/it chooses to pontificate.

    This behaviour suggests the troll is a representative of SkS.

    Richard

  117. Matt G says:

    “All it says is that adding GHG like C02 to the atmosphere must have a warming effect.”

    The alarmists add collective ideas to show their unsupported views by going further than this. These further ideas are also part of the theory (I mean conjecture) and they are the most important part of the debate. They decide whether this is alarmist nonsense or have some support. These additional parts show that this very basic idea quoted do not support that there will be a big rise in future global temperatures. Therefore just this very basic theory is not good enough to dictate what people should do. A policy is not needed whatsoever only based on the very basic idea. Therefore the alarmist theory is more than just this quote, as it requires water vapor feedback etc. Water vapor has decreased globally for decades, despite your spin that it has increased in some areas. (this is really for any casuals that look on here and think that was really the debate)

    What has this got to do with a 20-year change in wind pattern? If your arguing about this and quoting stuff like in this post it adds nothing to the more complex issues.

    P.s. Wow 2 percent of Antarctica was warming fast, must spread that over the rest of the continent to really make that look bad, oh wait.

  118. Monty says:

    Mr Courtney. I didn’t make an ad hom of you…..I am lead to believe that in the past you or others have tried to pass you off as an expert with a doctorate when discussing climate change and energy matters. In other words, suggesting that you are an expert. It now seems that you don’t in fact have a doctorate, (nor any peer-reviewed publications in climate science) and you aren’t an ‘expert’ in climate science. Is this not a fair assessment of the situation?

  119. D Böehm says:

    Monty says:

    “It now seems that you don’t in fact have a doctorate, (nor any peer-reviewed publications in climate science) and you aren’t an ‘expert’ in climate science. Is this not a fair assessment of the situation?”

    No. Monty is making a habit of being wrong.

    Monty, do your homework and fact-checking before you spout off.

  120. Dear Monty, this is from Weather Zone Australia. Today
    Cold and frosty morning for SA, VIC and TAS
    Rob Sharpe, Tuesday November 13, 2012 – 10:18 EDT
    Temperatures plummeted this morning in Australia’s southeast, leading to frost forming on the ground at a crucial time for farmers.

    Westmere in Victoria’s South West fell to one degree this morning, its coldest November morning in three years. Late spring is a bad time of year for frost as it causes damage to winter crops in their maturing stage.

    South Australia had frost forming near Keith and Roseworthy, dropping to one and two degrees respectively.

    Light frost also formed over inland parts of Tasmania this morning near Launceston and Smithton, both recording their coldest November morning in four years.

    All that ‘counter intuitive’ warming must be spreading out from Antarctica eh?

  121. Frank K. says:

    Does “Monty” have a Ph.D.? I do, and have worked for over 20 years in computational fluid dynamics, and have published in the Journal of Computational Physics. Where has “Monty” published? Since “Monty” works in the climate industry (or worse for a government agency that takes taxpayer money for climate “research”), does “Monty” have a vested interest in scaring lay people about the climate? (a rhetorical question, I know…)

  122. Monty says:

    D Boehm. Are you confirming that Richard Courtney does in fact have a doctorate then? And also peer-reviewed publications in climate science?

  123. JJ says:

    Monty says:

    Mr Courtney. I didn’t make an ad hom of you….

    Yeah, ya did. Then you denied it. And then ya did it again.

    Ad hom, ad hoc, ad verecundiam. My, what a complete understanding of “what science means” you have.

  124. Monty says:
    November 13, 2012 at 11:57 am
    It would appear that JJ (and no doubt others) have misunderstood what ‘AGW’ theory (whatever that means) is. All it says is that adding GHG like C02 to the atmosphere must have a warming effect.

    I could list at least 20 ways in which humans affect the climate and doubtless others could add to that list.

    Anthropogenic Global Warming is the claimed aggregate effect of these factors.

    Anthropogenic Global Warming is an unscientific term, because no matter how many AGW factors you identify, there could always be another, yet undiscovered. Thus AGW theory can never make unambiguos predictions. Thus AGW theory can never be falsified.

    If you mean GHG warming or CO2 caused warming, then say so. Don’t introduce a term (AGW) whose only purpose is to obfuscate.

  125. Frank K. says:

    Folks…communicating with “Monty” = communicating with a brick wall. I’ve had enough…I’m out.

  126. Monty says:

    JJ: D Boehm appears to suggest that Richard Courtney does in fact have a doctorate and peer-reviewed publications in climate science. If this is true then I’m more than happy to apologize to him. However, I’m sure it isn’t true and so no apology will be required!

    Frank K. Yes, I do have a PhD and have published about 60 papers in the peer-reviewed literature.

  127. Monty has to have the ‘last word’, it’s exactly the kind of infantile behaviour we’ve come to associate with Warmists.

  128. D Böehm says:

    Monty says:

    “D Boehm appears to suggest that Richard Courtney does in fact… have peer-reviewed publications in climate science. If this is true then I’m more than happy to apologize to him. However, I’m sure it isn’t true and so no apology will be required!”

    Keep digging your hole, Monty. At the right time I will be happy to embarrass you.

    For someone who claims to have been published so many times, you are amazingly ignorant of many basic scientific facts. But that’s life riding the climate gravy train, I reckon.

  129. JJ says:

    Monty says:

    However, I’m sure it isn’t true and so no apology will be required!

    The apology is required for the ad hominem argument. All ad hominem arguments require apology, as all are fallacious.

  130. Jimbo says:

    Monty says:
    …………….
    Jimbo: “Remind me, weren’t both poles supposed to warm due to CAGW because of co2?”.

    No doubt there are others.

    Was that an attempt at a non-answer? Your sentence is full of crap.

  131. Ranging in thickness from less than a metre to several metres, the ice insulates the warm ocean from the frigid atmosphere above.

    Surely you mean insulates the frigid atmosphere from the warm ocean… If you think open water doesn’t open a giant heat gate to space, keep watching what happens in the Arctic.

    Lack of ice will cause ice. Can you say negative feedback?

  132. TonyM says:

    Monty:
    ….So all this fake bluster… Anthony do the science etc.

    Anthony addressed the most fundamental of science question viz: the lack of testable (falsifiable) hypotheses. Yet you assert he is not being scientific. Grow up; science is not simply done in pal reviewed work only.

    We may not have the qualifications of the greatest witchdoctor climatologists – the best of them being Gore, Hansen and Mann – but we and Anthony surely know when science is being screwed.

    Your version of science equips climatologists to go to a casino and predict that a roulette wheel is running hot or equally a share market trend is the goer simply by an observation over a limited period and belief. Yes, do go and base policy decisions on this! That’s how witchdoctors control their flock.

    Argument by analogy with smokers shows how desperate you are in clutching at straws. Studies show clearly a causal relationship on statistical tests on the smoker hypothesis over years. In addition the biochemistry is reasonably well established so that we don’t need to know specific individual predictions to know the relative risks and hence can make sensible policy decisions based on empirical evidence.

    WRT CAGW the only testable and falsifiable hypothesis is in the models and Hansen’s predictions in his 1987 paper – they have been proven false by the empirical evidence of over 15 years of T hiatus given that CO2 has increased.

    This is not a time series as the likes of Santer would have us believe (hence his 17 year test) but a definitive physics that CO2 causes increased global T hypothesis ala Hansen et al. This is contrary to the empirical evidence of this century and much of last century and falsifies the hypothesis that CO2 will cause increased global T.

    It does not need the purported 17 years to be proved wrong. One observation is usually sufficient. Give it some leeway and two such failings suggest the hypothesis has whiskers. The plethora of observations just damns the CAGW hypothesis.

    I have yet to see the bulk of the religious climatology faithful addressing this failed hypothesis except to try and squirm out of facing the scientific method.

  133. RDCII says:

    Monty,

    Tried to take you seriously, even when you responded to me while failing to respond to ANY of the three issues I clearly delineated. I was prepared to walk you back through them.

    But. Then you posted some more.

    Your description of what AGW is,the one that ignores soot, UHI, aerosols, deforestation, changing land use, and EVERYTHING the IPCC says, just shows you to be too uneducated to be on this blog. Not stupid…just uneducated. You’ve only just begun the journey of discovery of CAGW.

    In addition, your complete change of subject when responding to my observations is a transparently obvious dodging tactic to folks on this blog. Some of your arguments, such as your demand that Anthony rebut in a journal when he didn’t even criticize the science at all (yet; maybe he will, but not at the time you made your demand), suggest that you are busy fighting strawman voices in your head. I’m not even convinced you will know what a strawman is.

    The list of quotes you said were saying “Precisely” that lack of warming in the Antarctic proves that AGW is false shows either a lack of reading comprehension, a lack of analytical skill, or again, strawman voices in your head.

    Your statements about having a problem with this blog indicate that you have practically no knowledge of the blog. It’s obvious to everyone that you haven’t done any back-reading, yet think you know this blog inside out. Again, this is transparent to everyone here, which is why some people have suggested you do backreading. But I don’t think you will; It seems to me that you’ve decided you understand the dynamics of this blog from reading a few posts. Among other things, you have no idea at all that Anthony is published, and how hard he’s worked on various projects. Those of us that have been here awhile know how hard Anthony works…but you haven’t given us any reason to think that you work hard enough to demand that anyone else works hard. What have you accomplished? What hard work have you done? Do you run a blog like this?

    Your statement that you don’t like things that some people say on the blog suggests that you’re used to heavily censored environments, where you hear only one clear message. That certainly is not what this blog is; I suggest you’d be a lot happier on RC, where your notions won’t be challenged.

    Finally, your inability to come to terms with the fact that what’s happening in the Antarctic demonstrates that EVERY climate model is wrong is bizarre. It doesn’t prove that CAGW is wrong; it simply proves that the theories that have been the mainstay of CAGW cannot be correct as currently understood, since they do not match what is actually observed. This is a kind of, you know, science thing…observe reality and see whether it supports the theory. The theories are not “settled” (a phrase, btw, that if you’d been at this long, you would know that all the CAGW scientests insist that they’ve never used, it being scientifically absurd and historically unlikely; it was coined by politician Al Gore).

    In short, you need to learn a lot more before you can come here and educate us. Your lack of knowledge of the UHI, soot, land use, etc. aspects of AGW cause the sort of cringe that you get when a public speaker shows up drunk. First, read all the back material here and on http://www.climateaudit.org. Then, read the last IPCC report. Then, you might have a chance at having an equal dialogue here.

    RDCII

  134. Monty says:

    Hi All.
    Still waiting for a confirmation from D Boehm concerning Richard Courtney’s qualifications and papers. Maybe Richard himself could help?

    Thanks.

  135. richardscourtney says:

    Monty:

    I told you I would give you no further help about anything.

    Clearly, you want to discuss anything except the subject of this thread which is that both polar regions are not cooling and that empirical fact demonstrates your pseudoscientific superstition of AGW is plain wrong.

    You started by seeming to think this thread is about you. Now you want it to be about me.
    NO! I WILL NOT PLAY YOUR SILLY GAMES!

    I am willing to discuss the subject of this thread (until another of my frequent absences in some hours time) but nothing else, and certainly nothing of your choosing.

    I still await your apology.

    Richard

  136. Monty says:

    Hi Richard. From your response I guess that you don’t have a PhD, and don’t have any relevant peer-reviewed papers. So that doesn’t make you an expert. Odd then that you appeared to have allowed others in the past to describe you as Dr Richard Courtney.

    Even odder that you have such strongly held views on AGW without having any obvious training or experience in the field!

  137. Monty says:

    Mr Courtney
    Further to my last comment. This is not a game I’m playing….this is rather more serious than that. We know that WAIS and Antarctic Peninsula are warming, what we didin’t know enough about (until the new research) is how winds impact sea ice. This paper is still not the last word on this by any means, but it does represent an intriguing addition to the literature.

    The reason I’m asking about your qualifications is that you pretend that you are an expert. I’m showing any ‘lurkers’ here that you are not and that you (and others) have zero credibility when it comes to pontificating about climate science. I am well aware that I am not going to change the minds of any of the regular posters here (their minds have been made up since the very start)….but to anyone who isn’t decided yet (ie is a proper skeptic), I am showing them that they shouldn’t trust WUWT.
    Thanks.

  138. RACookPE1978 says:

    Sir Monte:

    Are you an expert in anything – other than repeating Gore’s lies and Hansen’s exaggerations and losing Trenberth’s missing heat and that railroad engineer’s lies about Himalayan glaciers and Mann’s “mistakes” about that one tree that cooled off the earth’s suddenly missing Medieval Warming Period? That warm period about 900 years ago that your “scientific” experts found inconvenient that WAS the subject of some 800-odd other peer-reviewed papers?

    There are only positive benefits from an increase in CO2 and improved worldwide access to less expensive energy. Your much-vaunted “precautionary principle” seems to mean “Let’s definitely absolutely positively and with 100% certainty destroy the world’s economies and kill millioins through disease, early death, starvation, illness and bad food and worse crops limited by a LACK of CO2 … rather than risk an unknown AND NEVER PROVEN 1% chance of the world warming 1 degree from natural causes – that we cannot stop under ANY condition regardless of what we do.”

    That you “say” something repeated by the world’s greedy politicians and government-paid “scientific shills” does NOT make “you” an expert either. It merely proves “you” are easily led by lies and emotions, not evidence or scientific logic.

  139. Monty says:

    RACookPE1978: so many mistakes and misunderstandings in such a short post.

  140. richardscourtney says:

    Monty:

    At November 14, 2012 at 3:23 am

    Mr Courtney
    Further to my last comment. This is not a game I’m playing….this is rather more serious than that.

    YES! It is very, very much more serious than that.

    You are an anonymous troll demanding personal information in a public forum from somebody who has no idea who you are. And you are doing it as apart of a propaganda effort to push a political agenda.

    If there is reason to declare a personal interest then I do. Indeed, I have on WUWT within the past week. I notice that you have not declared your personal interest and you hide behind anonymity instead.

    Except when they have a personal interest which honour and integrity demand be revealed, there is no reason for anybody to say anything about themselves in this forum and I will not establish a precedent for people being forced to do it.

    Go away. You are an offensive pest.

    Richard

  141. richardscourtney says:

    Moderators:
    My reply to Monty has gone in the ‘bin’. Please find it.
    Richard

  142. JJ says:

    Monty says:

    The reason I’m asking about your qualifications is that …

    … you cannot counter what he says, and thus you are attacking him with an ad hominem argument.

    I’m showing any ‘lurkers’ here that you are not and that you (and others) have zero credibility when it comes to pontificating about climate science.

    Yes, that is what an ad hominem argument is. More formally:

    An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man”), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent, instead of against the opponent’s argument. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as an informal fallacy, more precisely an irrelevance.

    That sums it up. You cannot counter the arguments made by Richard Courtney, so you attack Richard Courtney personally. You cannot answer the arguments and information presented on WUWT, so you attack WUWT. Your arguments are fallacious and irrelevant.

    Lurkers will note that making fallcious and irrelevant arguments is the stock and trade of the warmist community, and “Monty” provides an excellent example of the tactic. They avoid discussing the science, because they know that CAGW is an unscientific political/religious movement. And not only do they avoid discussing the science, they are very active in trying to prevent others from discussing it as well. Thus the actions such as those of “Monty” here, who hijacks a thread with ad homs – first against Anthony, now against others – to distract people from discussing the science.

    Meanwhile, the most recent IPCC scaremongering report still says this:

    Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic under all SRES scenarios.

    That is from the IPCC AR4 report, specifically the section subtitled “The scientific basis”. Yet the paper above still states that this “scientific basis” is wrong. Lurkers will probably wonder what else about the “scientific basis” is wrong. They will also likely wonder why asshats like “Monty” don’t want them to find out.

    Keep up the good work, “Monty”.

  143. D Böehm says:

    Monty says:

    “Hi All.
    Still waiting for a confirmation from D Boehm concerning Richard Courtney’s qualifications and papers. Maybe Richard himself could help?”

    First off, Richard Courtney is not a braggart, and I have never seen him bother to show that those who say he is not a published, peer reviewed climate author are wrong. I will confirm it for him:

    http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/b2130335764k31j8

    There is your ‘confirmation’. Richard has been heavily into climate science for a long time:

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0102.htm

    He is a widely recognized climate authority:

    http://heartland.org/richard-courtney

    “Monty” is the only one here making an issue of a doctorate. For Monty’s edification, there is a medical doctor by the name of Richard Courtney, which confuses the alarmist crowd. Note that many well respected scientists, such as Prof Freeman Dyson, do not have a PhD. All a PhD means is that an individual continued going to school, learning more and more about less and less.

    Now that Monty has been shown to be wrong, the stand-up thing for him to do is apologize. He could have avoided his embarrassing situation with a simple search, just as I did. Instead, he made a wrong assumption.

    Now, about that apology. We’re waiting.

  144. Monty says:

    Very funny D Boehm. You think a paper in that well-known contrarian and non-ISI rated journal Energy and Environment counts do you? And the Heartland Organization think he’s an authority! Now, I wonder why he doesn’t publish in mainstream journals? Maybe you know the answer?

  145. RDCII says:

    Monty,

    Congrats. You have probably been useful. :)

    When I first was interested in AGW, I was completely convinced that AGW was correct. I went to sites like RC to educate myself further, but soon realized that the comments had to be highly censored. This bothered me.

    So I came to sites like this one, as an undecided lurker. There were many things that made me decide, but one of the things was voices like your own…people that come here with their minds made up, but turn out to have just enough knowledge to be dangerous to their cause, and nothing to contribute but poor logic, such as arguments from authority, ad hominems, and strawmen. That’s helped me realize how much of CAGW is run by faith instead of intelligence and knowledge.

    Your demonstration here provides a valuable contrast between warmists and skeptics for anyone here who is undecided, and it’s a contrast that isn’t favorable for your cause. So, again, you’ve probably been useful. Thanks! :)

    RDCII

  146. JJ says:

    Monty says:

    You think a paper in that well-known contrarian and non-ISI rated journal Energy and Environment counts do you?

    If what the paper says is valid, it counts. That is how science works.

    Let’s see … what refutation of the facts or reasoning presented in the paper does “Monty” offer? None? Huh. Instead, he attacks the journal? That isn’t scientific reasoning.

    Kind of a one-trick pony, ain’t ya “Monty”?

  147. RACookPE1978 says:

    (Replying to my statement above. Well, sort of replying – Monty actually said nothing, and explained nothing, nor showed any reason or facts showing my summary is incorrect.)

    Monty says:
    November 14, 2012 at 5:09 am
    RACookPE1978: so many mistakes and misunderstandings in such a short post.

    I will repeat my original statement above. Perhaps the Monty will actually point out the errors he claims are present, rather than wave his press-release generalities.)

    Sir Monte:

    Are you an expert in anything – other than repeating Gore’s lies and Hansen’s exaggerations and losing Trenberth’s missing heat and that railroad engineer’s lies about Himalayan glaciers and Mann’s “mistakes” about that one tree that cooled off the earth’s suddenly missing Medieval Warming Period? That warm period about 900 years ago that your “scientific” experts found inconvenient that WAS the subject of some 800-odd other peer-reviewed papers?

    There are only positive benefits from an increase in CO2 and improved worldwide access to less expensive energy. Your much-vaunted “precautionary principle” seems to mean “Let’s definitely absolutely positively and with 100% certainty destroy the world’s economies and kill millioins through disease, early death, starvation, illness and bad food and worse crops limited by a LACK of CO2 … rather than risk an unknown AND NEVER PROVEN 1% chance of the world warming 1 degree from natural causes – that we cannot stop under ANY condition regardless of what we do.”

    That you “say” something repeated by the world’s greedy politicians and government-paid “scientific shills” does NOT make “you” an expert either. It merely proves “you” are easily led by lies and emotions, not evidence or scientific logic.

  148. Like all religions Warmism relies on acceptance of ‘authority’. Cardinal Gore, Archbishop Hansen, the mad curate Mc Kibben, Monseigneur Suzuki etc etc. Let’s not forget that they believe in their sacred texts.
    Monty is merely demonstrating his faith and obedience….and persistence!

  149. Monty says:

    RACookPE1978 said: “Are you an expert in anything – other than repeating Gore’s lies and Hansen’s exaggerations and losing Trenberth’s missing heat and that railroad engineer’s lies about Himalayan glaciers and Mann’s “mistakes” about that one tree that cooled off the earth’s suddenly missing Medieval Warming Period? That warm period about 900 years ago that your “scientific” experts found inconvenient that WAS the subject of some 800-odd other peer-reviewed papers?

    “There are only positive benefits from an increase in CO2 and improved worldwide access to less expensive energy. Your much-vaunted “precautionary principle” seems to mean “Let’s definitely absolutely positively and with 100% certainty destroy the world’s economies and kill millioins through disease, early death, starvation, illness and bad food and worse crops limited by a LACK of CO2 … rather than risk an unknown AND NEVER PROVEN 1% chance of the world warming 1 degree from natural causes – that we cannot stop under ANY condition regardless of what we do.”

    This is unbelievable statement and shows why WUWT isn’t a skeptic site. You do realize that the (very) few skeptical scientists (like Patrick Michaels, Dick Lindzen, John Christie) and informed skeptics (Lucia Liljgroen, Steve McIntyre) would all completely disagree with most of what you have written?

    That WUWT allows such unadulterated, hysterical nonsense from its posters speaks volumes.

    This whole debate on this thread concerns that fact that one element of the global climate is not behaving in a way that the 2007 IPCC report suggested it would. It is of NO real significance that relatively small elements of the global climate system are poorly modelled. We KNOW that GCMs don’t capture all the physics of all variables in the climate system.

    We KNOW that at regional scales they don’t capture precipitation variability well and aspects of ice sheet dynamics. I know this….and I have written papers on this! Try reading all the papers on the Sahel drought and West African monsoon.

    You lot aren’t skeptics. The way you allow people like Mr Courtney and Lord Monckton to represent themselves as experts in this field shows that you are just grasping at straws.

    If any of you think that AGW isn’t happening, or that CO2 isn’t a GHG, or that humans aren’t dumping this in the atmosphere….have a chat with Lindzen.

  150. D Böehm says:

    “Monty” says:

    “If any of you think that AGW isn’t happening, or that CO2 isn’t a GHG, or that humans aren’t dumping this in the atmosphere….have a chat with Lindzen.”

    Prof Richard Lindzen shows that the effect of 2xCO2 is negligible. You have ZERO empirical evidence showing any measurable effect from anthropogenic CO2 emissions. All you are doing is making baseless, evidence-free assertions.

    That is not science, that is anti-science; pseudoscience. If your belief system leads you to conclude that “AGW is happening”, you need to provide verifiable, testable, falsifiable data showing conclusively that AGW is the cause of global warming. The fact that you are incapable of posting any such evidence shows that you operate on a belief system, not on testable science.

    Your assertions mean nothing. Unless you can show a direct, measurable link between human GHG emissions and the [natural] rise in global temperature, then your conjecture fails.

    You cannot show that “AGW is happening”. Your impotent assertions are meaningless drivel. You need to start using the scientific method in your responses. The reason you do not use the scientific method is because it would promptly falsify your assertions.

    You are motivated by your seat on the grant gravy train. True science is anathema to people like you. The truth is simply not in you. False assertions are your stock in trade, and pseudo-science is your ‘authority’. I would advise you to man up and be honest, but it is not in your nature or in your character. Money, status, and job security rule you. Scientific truth has no place in your world view.

    If you have any measurable, testable, falsifiable, data-based evidence showing conclusively that AGW exists, post it right here. Otherwise, all you are doing is asserting an evidence-free conjecture; your unscientific opinion. Why should the public fund that??

  151. Monty says:

    D Boehm. earlier, RACookPE1978 said the following:
    1. There are only positive benefits from an increase in CO2″

    2. “Let’s definitely absolutely positively and with 100% certainty destroy the world’s economies and kill millioins through disease, early death, starvation, illness and bad food and worse crops limited by a LACK of CO2″.

    3. “1% chance of the world warming 1 degree from natural causes – that we cannot stop under ANY condition regardless of what we do”.

    Do you accept all these ridiculous notions? If you do, you’re not a skeptic.

    Lindzen would say these are all nonsensical. He and I would only disagree with the likely value of sensitivity. Given you ‘skeptics’ all want a global MCE then you are all arguing for high sensitivity!

  152. RACookPE1978 says:

    1. You, Sir Monty, are determined to destroy the world’s economies and kill millions through disease, early death by sickness, hunger, malnutrition and poor water and bad transportation, no food storage and processing and safety, and reduced opportunities through your faith in CAGW.

    The models can only match 25 years of increased temperature by artificially changing aerosol levels – and that only by artificially changing them differently in every model with no regard to real world measurements of actual aerosol levels between 1950 and 1998! No model has shown 15 years of level temperatures with 15 years of continuous CO2 increases. NONE.

    These are real-world, WORLDWIDE global temperatures that your models absolutely and abjectly FAIL to calculate properly. How then, can you assume they are correct over even 100 years – if they cannot get 50 years, 25 years, or 15 years correct?

    Why do you assume (why does your belief system (religion) require) that global warming – and increased CO2 levels – be harmful? Neither is harmful. Both are healthy, required for growth, required for life.

  153. D Böehm says:

    “Monty”, as usual you are completely changing the subject in order to avoid the central issue.

    I challenged you:

    If you have any measurable, testable, falsifiable, data-based evidence showing conclusively that AGW exists, post it right here. Otherwise, all you are doing is asserting an evidence-free conjecture; your unscientific opinion.

    Post your testable empirical evidence. Otherwise, you are just emitting a baseless opinion. As they say: put up or shut up.

  154. JJ says:

    Monty says:
    This whole debate on this thread concerns that fact that one element of the global climate is not behaving in a way that the 2007 IPCC report suggested it would.

    Sweetheart, we can’t discuss them all in one thread. That’s why there are so many threads.

    It is of NO real significance that relatively small elements of the global climate system are poorly modelled.

    Polar ice cover is of NO real significance? Huh.

    Thanks, “Monty”.

  155. Monty says:

    So, D Boehm, JJ et al.

    I assume that you accept RACookPE1978′s nonsense post then?

    D Boem challenges me: “If you have any measurable, testable, falsifiable, data-based evidence showing conclusively that AGW exists, post it right here. Otherwise, all you are doing is asserting an evidence-free conjecture; your unscientific opinion”.

    Read the detection and attribution literature, and about 170 years of atmospheric physics that shows increasing a GHG MUST result in a warming effect. Lindzen, Michaels, Spencer, Curry, Pielke accept this….strange that you don’t given that they are all your heroes!

  156. D Böehm says:

    Monty says:

    “Read the detection and attribution literature…” & blah, blah, etc.

    Post your empirical evidence, in your own words, providing verifiable, testable, falsifiable citations. All the rest of your nonsense is baseless assertion. You still run from my challenge to provide empirical evidence, showing a direct and verifiable connection between human GHG emissions and global warming. In fact, there is no such empirical evidence.

    Enough prevaricating. Put up or shut up.

  157. Monty says:

    D Boehm. You are clearly unable to do this yourself so I am going to have to help you.

    1. CO2 is a GHG.
    2. Humans are emitting CO2 to the extent that atmospheric CO2 is now higher than for AT LEAST 700 ka.
    3. This CO2 reduces the rate of OLWR.
    4. This means the Earth is accumulating heat.
    5. We can detect this (melting ice, rising global T, ocean T, slr, ecological change, borehole T etc.)
    6. Models (while imperfect) make projections and these suggest AGW will cause net harm to life on earth.

    Now answer these questions: Which bit of the above do you disagree with? Do you recognize that “skeptics” like you are in disagreement with ‘skeptics’ like Lindzen?

  158. JJ says:

    Monty says:

    Read the detection and attribution literature, …

    We do. Above, we read that growing Antarctic ice is detected. This disagrees with the theory of climate that informs the literature that claims to detect ‘global warming’ and attribute it to anthropogenic causes. Garbage in, garbage out.

    Hilariously, you attribute growing Antarctic ice to ‘global warming’ even when the loss of Antarctic ice is supposed to be one of the most worrisome effects of ‘global warming’. When we see you doing things like that, we get the distinct impression that you are just making $#!^ up as you go along.

    … and about 170 years of atmospheric physics that shows increasing a GHG MUST result in a warming effect.

    There is a vast difference between a forcing, and the specific collection of scary effects that comprise CAGW and are alleged to result from that forcing. Among those alleged effects is the one that is the subject of this thread – shrinking Antarctic ice. It ain’t happening.

    Lindzen, Michaels, Spencer, Curry, Pielke accept this….strange that you don’t given that they are all your heroes!

    They are not your heroes, so appealing to them is disingenuous. That is but one of the ways in which ad vericundiam arguments are fallacious. Ad hominem, ad vericundiam, ad hoc – that you use such fallacies so freely and knowingly demonstrates that you simply are not an honest person.

  159. JJ says:

    Monty says:

    1. CO2 is a GHG.

    Given the way you lot are want to equivocate, you would need to provide a very specific definition of GHG before anyone could answer that.

    2. Humans are emitting CO2 …

    With every breath.

    … to the extent that atmospheric CO2 is now higher than for AT LEAST 700 ka.

    Perhaps. Perhaps not.

    3. This CO2 reduces the rate of OLWR.
    4. This means the Earth is accumulating heat.

    Sorry, doesn’t follow. As you say, “climate change is complicated”. One cannot simply jump from a forcing to a net global effect. That is the rub.

    5. We can detect this (melting ice, rising global T, ocean T, slr, ecological change, borehole T etc.)

    LOL. Nope. Not even close. And you demonstrate exactly why.

    What is the first on your list of detection parameters? Melting ice. Yet above, you claim that growing ice indicates that the Earth is accumulating heat. Shrinking ice? Global warming! Growing ice? Global warming! When shrinking ice and growing ice are both taken to be indicators of accumulating heat, then neither is an indicator of accumulating heat.

    Too, ice has been melting and growing (simultaneously in the specific and alternately in the aggregate) since the Earth formed. The same is true of global T (not currently rising, BTW) ocean T (missing heat vs the models), slr (missing acceleration), ecological change (as if), borehole T, etc, etc, etc.

    Anecdotes and ad hoc “just so” stories are not scientific. That is the stuff of superstition.

    In order for any observation to be considered a detection of accumulating heat, you need a comprehensive and coherent theory of climate to provide the mechanism by which observations can be interpreted. The same testable (and tested!) comprehensive theory of climate is necessary to attribute any detected accumulation of heat to a particular cause. A comprehensive, coherent, tested theory of climate does not yet exist. Period. Your furious handwaving over the failure of the IPCC models’ predictions of shrinking Antarctic ice does not counter that fact, it proves it. Do continue. Please.

    6. Models (while imperfect) make projections and these suggest AGW will cause net harm to life on earth.

    Yes, those models certainly do make scary predictions. So do witch doctors, soothsayers, and fearmongering politicians. Any difference whatsoever between those and a climate modeler must be demonstrated by the accuracy of the predictions. Such as:

    Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic under all SRES scenarios.

    Oops.

  160. Monty says:

    JJ. You really don’t know what you are talking about do you. Lindzen, Michaels, Curry, Spencer and all your other heroes accept points 3 and 4. It’s strange that you don’t.

    Globally, glaciers and ice sheets are losing mass in response to AGW. Sea ice in the Arctic has fallen off a cliff. In Antarctica sea ice is growing but not as much as Arctic sea ice has reduced. Therefore, there is a GLOBAL reduction in sea ice. There are clear physical reasons why Antarctic sea ice might increase. These are postulated to be in response to changes in wind regimes, or increased meltwater from the warming WAIS and (probably) warming EAIS.

    That you don’t understand any of this is not my problem. I think you should leave the hard thinking to the scientists….don’t you?

  161. D Böehm says:

    “Monty” certainly is not a stand-up guy, that is evident. He stated unequivocally that Richard Courtney has never been published. But “Monty” wrote that he would apologize if he was wrong. I proved that “Monty” was wrong by linking to Richard Courtney’s published, peer reviewed paper. But like all climate alarmists riding the grant gravy train, “Monty” is a dishonest, disreputable charlatan who has no ethics.

    As numerous comments from others make crystal clear, “Monty” is in way over his head on the subject. JJ is running circles around him, and others have repeatedly shown that “Monty” is ignorant of even the most basic scientific facts. He does not even understand the climate Null Hypothesis, and the fact that it falsifies his belief system.

    Unfortunately, mainstream climate science is filled with scientific know-nothings like “Monty”. They hardly understand the basics of the science, so they constantly change the subject, as “Monty” always does. He avoids answering the questions put to him because he cannot.

    “Monty” mistakenly believes he is knowledgeable, but the rest of us know better. That is why he tucks tail and runs from all challenges and questions. That makes “Monty” a flaming troll, who takes ignorant potshots and moves on. And of course, he has too much false pride to apologize as he promised. “Monty”, like others of his ilk, is a truly despicable character.

  162. Monty says:

    D Boehm.

    Which of these do you disagree with?
    1. CO2 is a GHG.
    2. Humans are emitting CO2 to the extent that atmospheric CO2 is now higher than for AT LEAST 700 ka.
    3. This CO2 reduces the rate of OLWR.
    4. This means the Earth is accumulating heat.
    5. We can detect this (melting ice, rising global T, ocean T, slr, ecological change, borehole T etc.)
    6. Models (while imperfect) make projections and these suggest AGW will cause net harm to life on earth.

    Now answer these questions: Which bit of the above do you disagree with? Do you recognize that “skeptics” like you are in disagreement with ‘skeptics’ like Lindzen?

    Thanks.

  163. D Böehm says:

    As usual “Monty” is dodging questions and challenges. That is because he makes assertions that he cannot support.

    “Monty” says:

    “Globally, glaciers and ice sheets are losing mass in response to AGW.”

    Horse manure. I challenge “Monty” to produce testable, falsifiable, empirical evidence proving that AGW directly causes a reduction in glaciers and ice sheets. Otherwise, “Monty” is making an unfounded assertion; an assertion based on his beliefs, not on scientific evidence.

    So, “Monty”, you made the assertion. Put up or shut up, pseudo-scientist.

  164. Matt G says:

    “Monty” says:

    “If any of you think that AGW isn’t happening, or that CO2 isn’t a GHG, or that humans aren’t dumping this in the atmosphere….have a chat with Lindzen.”

    Boring, using straw man arguments again.

    ———————————————————————————————————————–
    A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.[3] To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[3][4]
    ———————————————————————————————————————–

    You have to show the difference between natural and unnatural and you can’t = FAIL. I can show you that global cloud albedo wipes out the warming from the post 1970′s. I have not seen anything from you that distinguishes between natural and unnatural. The basic doubling of CO2 is around 1c increase not taking feedbacks into account. There are many other factors in AGW from environmental changes up to creating false warming with data changes.

    Remember the main point of this article about polar ice and wind patterns.

    The planet warmed while global cloud levels were declining and stopped when global cloud levels become stable and increased a little.

    “The basic science shows the oceans warmed by decreasing low cloud albedo. What has that got to do with AGW when the change in wind pattern could have easily been caused by this?

    Historically it has been known the poles behave in reverse of each other. Again what is the difference between that natural behavior and a short 20 year change. There is no difference to D/O cycles or bonds events, except much less dramatic version. This paper is just an assumption that can’t be distinguished between natural climate or not.

    A 20 year change in wind patterns mean nothing until it can be shown it has never happened naturally before. The hypothesis early on was that sea ice would decrease at both side of the poles. This would happen despite increased snowfall due to warming at the South pole.” – (changed it a little) Yet you attack people on here for something you can’t even show any evidence in support of this paper.

    With you unable to answer any related questions on the topic and come out with the basic science nonsense and generally straw man arguments that show you for what you are. You are deliberately avoiding the science debate.

  165. Monty says:

    Hi D Boehm.
    I recognise that AGW is inconvenient for you, but I’m afraid that the overwhelming body of scientists and ALL national scientific bodies agree with me, and NONE agrees with you. makes you think doesn’t it? If it is a great big socialist plot, it’s a pretty impressive one!

    The fact that you can only get the likes of Monckton, Courtney etc to agree with you seems pretty telling.

    Matt G. You say: “Historically it has been known the poles behave in reverse of each other”. May I suggest you read the latest literature on this before you make more of a fool of yourself? Do you have any idea of what D-O cycles actually are? Or Bond Cycles? Do you not know the difference? Do they exist now?

    Honestly, skeptics trying to understand climate science is like listening to a bunch of hairdressers debating quantum physics.

  166. mitigatedsceptic says:

    Consensual science is an oxymoron!

  167. JJ says:

    Monty says:

    More fallacious arguments from “Monty”. Dishonest.

    Once again, the matter that you run from with your dishonest ad verecundiam: One cannot simply jump from a forcing to a net global effect. Getting from CO2 absorption spectra to a determination that the Earth is accumulating heat involves the entirety of the climate system, including all of its (currently unknown) variability and feedbacks. As stated above, there exists no comprehensive, coherent, testable and tested theory of climate that can be demonstrated to account for a pissant ~2 watt /m2 forcing that is 0.1% of the total energy budget and much smaller than the estimated error of the estimated value of any of a number of other parameters.

    Furthermore, to the extent that there exists an incomplete and incorrect AGW theory of climate, it predicts more heat should have accumulated on the Earth than can be found on the Earth. Oops.

    Globally, glaciers and ice sheets are losing mass in response to AGW.

    Some are losing mass. Some are gaining. Mass balance of total global ice is currently in the realm of speculation. Attribution of a loss that cannot even be demonstrated is a joke. Attributing unquantified ice loss to AGW during the warming limb of an interglacial? LOL. Absent a coherent theory of climate? That is a very bad joke.

    As a reminder: To the extent that there exists an incomplete and incorrect AGW theory of climate, it predicts shrinking Antarctic ice. Oops.

    Sea ice in the Arctic has fallen off a cliff.

    Yes. Moreso than the models predict. Yet another failure of the incomplete and incorrect AGW theory of climate. Oops.

    And of course, there is the failure of the incomplete and incorrect AGW theory of climate to predict the current lack of warming, sneaking right up on Santer’s 17 year itch. Oops.

    What is happening does not follow the AGW theory. Something else is clearly going on. It is time to look for alternate explanations for why the Antarctic is not melting, the Arctic is, and the planet isn’t warming.

    Here, let me put it in terms to which you can relate: You’ve tossed the last of your virgins into the volcano, and the crops are still failing. Maybe it is time you witch doctors stepped aside, and let the scientists have a go. Ting tang, walla walla bing bang.

    There are clear physical reasons why Antarctic sea ice might increase.

    Says you. IPCC says:

    Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic under all SRES scenarios.

    Funny how all of those thousands of Nobel prize winning sharing claiming climate scientists ignored the “clear physical reasons why Antarctic sea ice might increase” and instead made models that predict unequivocal loss of Antarctic ice.

    I think that we need to find out what other “clear physical reasons” they are ignoring, dont you?

  168. Matt G says:

    Monty says:
    November 15, 2012 at 1:21 pm

    Why have been with Michael Mann and changed history again?

    Why should I answer any of your questions when you don’t [answer] any of mine.

  169. Richard M says:

    It appears Monty does not understand the rule of holes. The more he comments the more ridiculous he looks. By ignoring all the responses and repeating his silly assertions all he does is make all warmists look stupid by association. Congrats Monty, you are doing more damage to your “cause” than any other commenter on this thread.

    BTW, in what social science did you earn your PhD?

  170. pochas says:

    Hi Monty :-)
    How are we feeling today? Nice to see you’re getting around. Just sit down here and we’ll have a nice chat. What’s been bothering you?

  171. D Böehm says:

    Monty says:

    “I recognise that AGW is inconvenient for you, but I’m afraid that the overwhelming body of scientists and ALL national scientific bodies agree with me, and NONE agrees with you. makes you think doesn’t it?”

    Thank you for your appeal to authority, which takes the place of verifiable facts.

    Monty, nobody agrees with you. You constantly make unsupportable statements, then refuse to answer questions. You tuck tail and run from challenges, because you know that you cannot produce testable evidence. You have been told to cut and paste the statements that you are debating, to avoid your constant strawman arguments. If it were not for your strawman arguments, you wouldn’t have much to say.

    Your comment quoted here is a case in point. You deliberately misrepresented my position, which has consistently been that while AGW exists, there are no empirical measurements proving it; the effect of AGW is simply too minuscule to measure. Natural variability fully explains current observations, per the Null Hypothesis. You were challenged to produce verifiable AGW measurements if you think you can, but as usual you changed the subject instead, because you cannot produce any testable, verifiable measurements of AGW per the scientific method.

    You are a pseudo-scientist with an evidence-free belief system. No different, really, than a witch doctor or a palm reader. What you presume to be science in your mind, is actually anti-science. As a result, nobody agrees with your fact-free assertions. Start engaging in a real debate, and you will find out how off-base your beliefs are.

  172. RDCII says:

    Monty,

    The failure of ALL…100%…of the models that are based on the “science” suggests two things.

    1). The failure of EVERY SINGLE ONE of the models suggests that the science they are built on is wrong. It takes a “special” kind of scientific mind to ignore this problem.

    2). The models, when tested against reality, are wrong; therefore, the models cannot be trusted to tell us what affect C02 will have in the future. Again, it takes a “special” kind of scientific mind to demand that we put faith in models that have been proven wrong.

    Additionally, the current 16-year pause in global temperature increase means that the doomsday scenarios predicted by all models are going to require a much, much steeper curve to get to the disasterous consequences the models predict. Not that it couldn’t happen, but each passing year means that things have to go much more steeply wonky rather than gradually wonky. But that’s ok; maybe the models will be wrong about the rate of doomsday too, and the end of the world will still happen.

    You’re truly making your case against your side with every utterance you make. But as I said, that’s useful. Thanks! :)

    P.S. You haven’t apologized to Richard, even though you explicitly stated you would. This means you are not honorable either, but more of a “The end justifies the means” kinda guy, which means no one should trust anything you say, even if you were to actually bring any content to this site. You are, in fact, so poor an example of a pro-AGW guy (we have much better trolls here, actually) that I begin to wonder if you aren’t a skeptic masquerading as a warmist. It’s hard to imagine someone being so consistently wrong and obtuse on every point, or someone so determined to make warmist thinking look so shoddy.

    P.P.S. Again, you seem to have a complaint that this site isn’t heavily censored so that only one consistent view is allowed. This is another self-paradoxical perspective, since if it were heavily censored, you wouldn’t be allowed to post. Perhaps when Anthony gets back, he will grant your wish and start censoring; but I hope he doesn’t, because as I’ve said, you are proving more and more useful with each utterance. :)

    Meanwhile, I repeat, RC is the place for you. That heavily-censored site will provide you with the single-view content that will make you comfortable.

    RDCII

  173. stefanthedenier says:

    Monty says: ”Which of these do you disagree with?” ====== Monty, let me give you correct answers, from a GLOBAL warming denier, BUT believer in constant big / small, good / bad climatic changes; to put you out of misery:

    Q#1. ”CO2 is a GHG.”

    A#1: NO, CO2 &H2O are ”Shade-cloth Effect Gases” – they intercept part of the sunlight during the day; ”high up” where cooling is much more effective = less sunlight on the ground – then at night; because of the proportion in difference of temp between higher atmosphere and on the ground is less -> they slow down cooling at night = cooler days / warmer nights; what do you have against that?

    Q#2. ”Humans are emitting CO2 to the extent that atmospheric CO2 is now higher than for AT LEAST 700 ka”

    A#2: Thanks lord for that, rejoice for having extra CO2. Today are more people – need more wood and food; CO2 &H2O are essential food.for trees and crops. What do you have against more and healthier trees and more food produced?! Around Kyoto city is 1000% more CO2, than in Gobi desert – around Kyoto are the healthiest trees. q] is it better climate in Sahara, or Brazil? If you don’t know what’s good climate, ask the trees! oak-tree has more knowledge and common sense, than all of you combined, from both camps!!! .

    Q#3. ”This CO2 reduces the rate of OLWR”

    A#3: Bullshine! oxygen & nitrogen regulate the temp; they are 998999ppm, not CO2!!!
    .
    Q#4. ”This means the Earth is accumulating heat.”

    A#4: extra heat in the troposphere is NOT cumulative! relax, calm down your nerves; you have being duped by smarter liars than yourself. As soon as troposphere warms up; FOR ANY REASON -> troposphere increases in volume -> releases more heat, and equalizes in a jiffy! the only extra heat is: what energy is stored in new trees. can you dig that?!

    Q#5. ”We can detect this (melting ice, rising global T, ocean T, slr, ecological change, borehole T etc.)”

    A#5: a] the amount of ice on the polar caps has nothing to do with the GLOBAL temp, BUT, everything to do with the “”availability of raw material” to replenish the ice deficit – which is melted by the geothermal heat on land / by salty currents on the sea. (that ”raw material” is badmouthed by both camps) biggest stupidity!!! the polar caps have enough coldness; to build another 10km thick ice on the top of the existing one, in one season!!!
    b] no, GLOBAL temp is not rising – they are monitoring on few places – only for the hottest minute – and on sleazy way are ignoring the other 1439 minutes in 24h. Those minutes don’t go up, or down simultaneously as ”the hottest minute” NOBODY KNOWS WHAT’S THE GLOBAL TEMP, TO SAVE HIS LIFE!!!! Overall global temp is always the same the laws of physics say: parts can get much warmer than normal – only when other parts get colder than normal

    Q#6. ”Models (while imperfect) make projections and these suggest AGW will cause net harm to life on earth”

    A#6: Those ”MODELS” are causing great harm /damages!!! If people did know that H2O controls the climate / CO2 has nothing to do with the phony GLOBAL warming – they would have built more dams, to save more storm-water on dry lands. and improve the climate on the whole planet. Instead, people are coned by those ”models” to avoid solving the real problems. Those ”MODELS” are the ”SMOKING GUN” Can you, or anybody else argue against my real proofs and the laws of physics – or you will keep playing with your own little water pistols on the sandpit, to cool save your planet?!

  174. Monty says:

    [snip. Content-free flaming trolling. Zero science, 100% insults. — mod.]

  175. Monty says:

    Sorry, I should also have included RDC11 in that list of nonsense. There are probably other people I’ve missed too. Apologies if I have.

  176. pochas says:

    Monty says:
    November 16, 2012 at 5:29 am

    “Sorry, I should also have included RDC11 in that list of nonsense. There are probably other people I’ve missed too. Apologies if I have.”

    No apology necessary, Monty. We all enjoy nonsense. That’s why we’re here! :-)

  177. JJ says:

    Monty says:

    Wow! Now I get some feeling what it must be like to be an evolutionary biologist trying to talk to creationists.

    Rather the other way around. You are the religionist here. You are the one who makes illiogical, fallacious arguments and fails to address the science. Instead of dealing with the science (which you clearly do not understand) you call names, make ad hominem attacks, make appeals to authority, make ad hoc arguements – all called back over your shoulder as you run away. This post of yours being a fine example.

    Meanwhile, IPCC still says this:

    Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic under all SRES scenarios.

    And, as shown by the research that is the topic of this post, that still isn’t happening. Just like so many of the AGW predictions …

    There is not enough time to begin to correct some of the nonsense written by D Boehm, stefanthedenier and JJ.

    At some point, you tire of having your hat handed to you, huh? Or was it having your ass handed to you?

    Oh wait. Same thing.

  178. RDCII says:

    Sigh

    Monty, you didn’t even manage to get my signature right. It’s RDC I as In iceberg, I as in iceberg. Your reading comprehension hits a new low. You have responded In no way to anything I’ve said, which means your input is pretty much plugging your ears and saying “I can’t hear you, so I must be right!”
    It would be interesting having a conversation with you, Monty, but first you have to figure out what a conversation means. In the meantime, you continue to represent your side accurately, and therefore continue to be useful.

    Thanks, Monty! :)

    RDCII

  179. TomR,Worc,MA says:

    Anyone else catch that Monty referred to Richard Lindzen as “Dick Lindzen?

    In my mind that could either mean that he knows him personally, or that it is just a sophmoric “dick” joke.

    I know which one I think is more likely.

Comments are closed.