
By WUWT regular “Just The Facts”
A June 16th article in the Economist “The vanishing north” states that;
“Between now and early September, when the polar pack ice shrivels to its summer minimum, they will pore over the daily sea ice reports of America’s National Snow and Ice Data Centre. Its satellite data will show that the ice has shrunk far below the long-term average. This is no anomaly: since the 1970s the sea ice has retreated by around 12% each decade. Last year the summer minimum was 4.33m square km (1.67m square miles)—almost half the average for the 1960s.
The Arctic’s glaciers, including those of Greenland’s vast ice cap, are retreating. The land is thawing: the area covered by snow in June is roughly a fifth less than in the 1960s. The permafrost is shrinking. Alien plants, birds, fish and animals are creeping north: Atlantic mackerel, haddock and cod are coming up in Arctic nets. Some Arctic species will probably die out.
Perhaps not since the 19th-century clearance of America’s forests has the world seen such a spectacular environmental change. It is a stunning illustration of global warming, the cause of the melt. It also contains grave warnings of its dangers. The world would be mad to ignore them.”
However, the Economist’s assertion that “global warming” is “the cause of the melt” is demonstrably false.
There is ample evidence that the Arctic has warmed over the last several decades, e.g.; the RSS Northern Polar Temperature Lower Troposphere(TLT) Brightness Temperature Anomaly;

shows a .337 K/C per decade increase.
However, atmospheric temperatures are just one of numerous variables that are the “cause of the melt”. In fact, the largest influences on Arctic Sea Ice appear to be wind and Atmospheric Oscillations, i.e.:
In this 2007 NASA article “NASA Examines Arctic Sea Ice Changes Leading to Record Low in 2007“;
“Son V. Nghiem of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, said that “the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. “Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,” he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.”
“The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century,” Nghiem said.”
This 2007 paper “Rapid reduction of Arctic perennial sea ice” by Nghiem, Rigor, Perovich, Clemente-Colo, Weatherly and Neumann, found that;
“Perennial-ice extent loss in March within the DM domain was noticeable after the 1960s, and the loss became more rapid in the 2000s when QSCAT observations were available to verify the model results. QSCAT data also revealed mechanisms contributing to the perennial-ice extent loss: ice compression toward the western Arctic, ice loading into the Transpolar Drift (TD) together with an acceleration of the TD carrying excessive ice out of Fram Strait, and ice export to Baffin Bay.”
This 2010 Guardian article “Wind contributing to Arctic sea ice loss, study finds” states that;
“Much of the record breaking loss of ice in the Arctic ocean in recent years is down to the region’s swirling winds and is not a direct result of global warming, a new study reveals.”
This 2011 paper “Recent wind driven high sea ice export in the Fram Strait contributes to Arctic sea ice decline” by L. H. Smedsrud, et al.;
“used “geostrophic winds derived from reanalysis data to calculate the Fram Strait ice area export back to 1957, finding that the sea ice area export recently is about 25% larger than during the 1960’s.”
This 2004 Science Daily article, ”Winds, Ice Motion Root Cause Of Decline In Sea Ice, Not Warmer Temperatures” states that,
“extreme changes in the Arctic Oscillation in the early 1990s — and not warmer temperatures of recent years — are largely responsible for declines in how much sea ice covers the Arctic Ocean, with near record lows having been observed during the last three years, University of Washington researchers say.”
“It may have happened more than a decade ago, but the sea ice appears to still “remember” those Arctic Oscillation conditions, according to Ignatius Rigor, a mathematician with the UW’s Applied Physics Laboratory.”
This 2004 paper “Variations in the Age of Arctic Sea-ice and Summer Sea-ice Extent” by Ignatius G. Rigor & John M. Wallace, found that;
“The winter AO-index explains as much as 64% of the variance in summer sea-ice extent in the Eurasian sector, but the winter and summer AO-indices combined explain less than 20% of the variance along the Alaskan coast, where the age of sea-ice explains over 50% of the year-to year variability. If this interpretation is correct, low summer sea-ice extents are likely to persist for at least a few years. However, it is conceivable that, given an extended interval of low-index AO conditions, ice thickness and summertime sea-ice extent could gradually return to the levels characteristic of the 1980′s.”
This 2010 paper, “Influence of winter and summer surface wind anomalies on summer Arctic sea ice extent” by Masayo Ogi, Koji Yamazaki and John M. Wallace, published in Geophysical Research Letters states that;
“We have shown results indicating that wind‐induced, year‐to‐year differences in the rate of flow of ice toward and through Fram Strait play an important role in modulating September SIE on a year‐to‐year basis and that a trend toward an increased wind‐induced rate of flow has contributed to the decline in the areal coverage of Arctic summer sea ice.”
This 2001 paper, “Fram Strait Ice Fluxes and Atmospheric Circulation: 1950–2000” by Torgny Vinje found that:
“Observations reveal a strong correlation between the ice fluxes through the Fram Strait and the cross-strait air pressure difference.”
“Although the 1950s and 1990s stand out as the two decades with maximum flux variability, significant variations seem more to be the rule than the exception over the whole period considered.”
“A noticeable fall in the winter air pressure of 7 hPa is observed in the Fram Strait and the Barents Sea during the last five decades.”
“The corresponding decadal maximum change in the Arctic Ocean ice thickness is of the order of 0.8 m. These temporal wind-induced variations may help explain observed changes in portions of the Arctic Ocean ice cover over the last decades. Due to an increasing rate in the ice drainage through the Fram Strait during the 1990s, this decade is characterized by a state of decreasing ice thickness in the Arctic Ocean.”
This 2003 paper “Arctic climate change: observed and modelled temperature and sea-ice variability“, by By OLA M. JOHANNESSEN, LENNART BENGTSSON, MARTIN W. MILES, SVETLANA I . KUZMINA, VLADIMIR A. SEMENOV, GENRIKH V. ALEKSEEV, ANDREI P. NAGURNYI, VICTOR F. ZAKHAROV, LEONID P. BOBYLEV, LASSE H. PETTERSSON, KLAUS HASSELMANN and HOWARD P. CATTLE states that;
“The decreases in recent decades, which are also partially due to circulation-driven ice export through the Fram Strait between Greenland and Svalbard (Vinje, 2001), have coincided with a positive trend in the NAO, with unusually high index values in the late 1980s and 1990s. During this period, the variability of ice motion and ice export through the Fram Strait was correlated strongly with the NAO; r∼ 0.86 for the ice area flux (Kwok and Rothrock, 1999) and r∼ 0.7 for the ice volume flux (Hilmer and Jung, 2000), although the relationship was insignificant (r∼ 0.1) before the mid 1970s (Hilmer and Jung, 2000). Deser et al. (2000) analysed a 40-yr gridded data set (1958–97) to determine the association between arctic sea ice, SAT and SLP, concluding that the multidecadal trends in the NAO/AO in the past three decades have been ‘imprinted upon the distribution of Arctic sea ice’, with the first principal component of sea-ice concentration significantly correlated (r∼−0.63) with the NAO index, recently cause-and-effect modelled by Hu et al. (2002). None the less, our calculations and those of Deser et al. (2000) indicate that, even in recent decades, only about one third of the variability in arctic total ice extent and MY ice area (Johannessen et al., 1999) is explained by the NAO index,”
This 2002 paper “Response of Sea Ice to the Arctic Oscillation” by IGNATIUS G. RIGOR, JOHN M. WALLACE and ROGER L. COLONY found that
“Hilmer and Jung (2000) note a secular change in the relationship between the Fram Strait ice flux and the NAO; the high correlation noted by Kwok and Rothrock (1999) from 1978 to 1996 was not found in data prior to 1978. We expect our overall results to be more robust given the strong relationship between the AO and SIM over the Arctic, as compared to the weaker relationship between the north–south flow through Fram Strait and the AO. Even if one ignored the effect of the AO on the flux of ice through Fram Strait, the divergence of ice in the eastern Arctic would be still be ;50% greater under high-index conditions than under low-index conditions, and the heat flux would be ;25% greater.”
”We have shown that sea ice provides memory for the Arctic climate system so that changes in SIM driven by the AO during winter can be felt during the ensuing seasons; that is, the AO drives dynamic thinning of the sea ice in the eastern Arctic during winter, allowing more heat to be released from the ocean through the thinner ice during spring, and resulting in lower SIC during summer and the liberation of more heat by the freezing of the ice in autumn. The correlations between the wintertime AO and SIC and SAT during the subsequent seasons offers the hope of some predictability, which may be useful for navigation along the Northern Sea route.”
This 2000 paper, “Arctic decadal and interdecadal variability” by Igor V. Polyakov and Mark A. Johnson, found that;
”The decadal-scale mode associated with the Arctic Oscillation (AO) and a low-frequency oscillation (LFO) with an approximate time scale of 60-80 years, dominate. Both modes were positive in the 1990s, signifying a prolonged phase of anomalously low atmospheric sea level pressure and above normal surface air temperature in the central Arctic. Consistent with an enhanced cyclonic component, the arctic anticyclone was weakened and vorticity of winds became positive. The rapid reduction of arctic ice thickness in the 1990s may be one manifestation of the intense atmosphere and ice cyclonic circulation regime due to the synchronous actions of the AO and LFO. Our results suggest that the decadal AO and multidecadal LFO drive large amplitude natural variability in the Arctic making detection of possible long-term trends induced by greenhouse gas warming most difficult.
And lastly, in this June 16th, 2012 Economist article “Uncovering an ocean“, which is part of their “Cold comfort” Arctic Special Report, it states that;
“A simultaneous thinning of the sea ice is also speeding up the shrinkage, because thinner ice is more liable to melt. According to Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University, the average thickness of the pack ice has fallen by roughly half since the 1970s, probably for two main reasons. One is a rise in sea temperatures: in the summer of 2007 coastal parts of the Arctic Ocean measured 7°C—bracingly swimmable. The other was a prolonged eastward shift in the early 1990s in the Arctic’s prevailing winds, known as the Arctic Oscillation. This moved a lot of ice from the Beaufort Gyre, a revolving current in the western Arctic, to the ocean’s other main current, the Transpolar Drift Stream, which runs down the side of Siberia. A lot of thick, multi-year ice was flushed into the Atlantic and has not been replaced.”
As such, there is ample evidence that “global warming” is not “the cause of the melt” as the Economist erroneously infers in its article “The vanishing north”. The Economist’s over simplifications, poor reporting and overt alarmism are indicative of the sad state of formerly respected information source.
But isn’t this Graph above at “Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU)”, and which purports to shew the “result” of .337 K/C per decade increase, a product of the “Start Point Fallacy”. If a line is drawn starting say at year 2000 it shown either No Trend or a slight Negative trend. How does this fit in with their so called observation of increased melting of ice sheets and etc.?
Julienne,
Thank you for saying, “I believe…” Got a link to your paper? I would like to see what you believe.
• • •
Jesse Farmer,
Thank you for posting the link to that piece of speculative horse manure. It is a grant-trolling conjecture; nothing more than an opinion.
You say you invite me “to try to prove your statement that there is no downside for more CO2”. As a scientific skeptic, I have nothing to prove. That is the job of those putting forth their conjecture that CO2 is the cause of declining Arctic ice. Their entire argument is based upon the Argumentum ad Ignorantium fallacy: “Since we can’t think of any other reason, then it must be due to human-emitted CO2.” Your link says: “…CO2 is the only variable that can possibly account for the trend of Arctic sea-ice loss.”
The only variable that “can possibly account” for the Arctic ice decline?? Hogwash. That is as close to the scientific method as Scientology. [And keep in mind that over time ≈80% of peer reviewed papers turn out to be in error. No doubt that paper will raise the percentage.] A ridiculous statement like that presumes the authors know all there is to know about the subject. As if.
On the other hand, those claiming any CO2
hypothesisconjecture have the onus of providing convincing, testable, replicable evidence [ie: verifiable data and observations] to support their claims.As definitive proof that they have failed to make their case, witness the wide disparity in the simple question of temperature sensitivity to 2xCO2. Guesstimates range from the UN/IPCC’s preposterous 3º+C, to ±1ºC [Lindzen], to less than 0.5ºC [Spencer, Idso pere & fils, Schwartz, etc.], to 0.00ºC [Miskolczi]. If there were evidence, per the scientific method, confirming the climate sensitivity number, then the human component could be inferred, and the sensitivity question would be decisively answered. The undisputed fact that there is no agreement on the correct climate sensitivity [if any] to 2xCO2 means that CO2=AGW remains a completely unproven conjecture. That is not to say it is not true. But there is no proof. None.
The only hypothesis I have proposed is easily testable [if you don’t know how to test it, ask and I’ll explain]. It is this:
At current and projected concentrations, CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere
So far, that testable hypothesis has withstood all attempts at falsification per the scientific method. The entire runaway global warming scare is based on the belief that CO2 is globally harmful, therefore it must be reduced. But there is no evidence supporting that belief. However, I am always open to new information. If you can falsify that conjecture by using verifiable facts and data, I will sit up straight and pay attention. But so far, all I have heard are opinions based on models, appeals to authority, and arguments from ignorance.
Smokey, wow, just wow. I really do not have the time to address the sort of desperate, fervid ignorance that characterizes your post. I apologize that the notion of a CO2 influence on earth’s climate, continually tested and proven through nearly a century of primary research, is such anathema to your religious-like preconceptions. I would offer you condolences, but myself and the scientific field have none to offer.
For all the poor folk who spent the time to trudge through the garbage you just wrote, however, I offer the following list of reconciliations.
1. The piece of “speculative horse manure” Smokey so dislikes is a piece of peer reviewed scientific literature in a reputable journal. By default, that usurps the accuracy and rigor of any content Smokey has ever produced as a “scientific skeptic”.
2. Smokey’s point about the lack of other reasons is actually not wholly incorrect. Scientists cannot think of a single other forcing that could possibly cause the observed loss in Arctic sea ice, aside from anthropogenic CO2. That does not exclude factors currently unknown to the scientific community, ice-melting unicorns, or other alchemy. Perhaps Smokey himself is up there with a butane torch melting all that ice.
3. The wide disparity of temperature sensitivities is a farce- only one of those sensitivities is widely accepted in the community and is consistent with both reconstructions of past CO2 and climate changes and modeled expectations of such changes- the IPCC #’s. Lindzen’s estimates of climate sensitivity are so laughable that his latest foray into the topic struggled to get published in “Asian Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science” (hint: not a reputable journal). Smokey thinks this is a result of some big liberal conspiracy within the depths of the peer-review system; in reality, the weight of the the scientific evidence is so firmly in support of the IPCC’s climate sensitivity estimate that, even if 80% of the papers turn out incorrect, there is still overwhelming evidence to support a 3°C sensitivity to doubled CO2.
4. To debate the notion that CO2 as a gas traps outgoing infrared radiation, hence leading to a greenhouse effect, is a refutation of basic physics. If you are sitting in your chair reading this, and not floating into outer space, then that physics is correct and you have just proved yourself wrong.
5. I just gave Smokey several papers on CO2 being harmful to the marine biosphere (the largest source of biomass on the planet) via ocean acidification. The potential inhibition of calcifying organisms can in no way, shape, or form be characterized as “beneficial to the biosphere”. If you do not believe that ocean acidification is a real phenomenon, then you have to reject acid rain as a real phenomenon. Unfortunately, acid rain has already demonstrably happened.
Personally, am I incredibly worried about CO2 in the atmosphere imminently leading to an armageddon scenario? No. But that does not mean we should not research the issue at hand, the better to understand any future potential complications at play. In my opinion, that is a much more reasonable approach than Smokey’s “pretend its a conspiracy theory and ignore it” view.
Jesse Farmer
Julienne says: June 19, 2012 at 12:24 pm

In our view, events of 2009/2010 did little to delay the Arctic Ocean’s ongoing transition to a seasonally ice‐free state.
Typically a negative AO phase helps to keep old, thick ice in the Arctic Basin and thus slow summer ice loss. What the paper discussed was that despite the extreme negative AO phase of winter 2009/2010, even more old, thick ice was lost the following summer. In this way the circulation pattern that typically helps to keep ice actually caused more loss of the old, thick ice. All climate model simulations, despite being in their own phase of natural climate variability, show declining sea ice as we increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The external forcing outweighs the natural variability in these model simulations, and all models forecast ice-free summers in the future.
I’ll try not to belabor the point, and understand the pressure you are under to tow the line, but fundamentally said model simulations are unsound, e.g.;
“Many atmospheric general circulation models (GCMs) and chemistry–climate models (CCMs) are not able to reproduce the observed polar stratospheric winds in simulations of the late 20th century. Specifically, the polar vortices break down too late and peak wind speeds are higher than in the ERA-40 reanalysis. Insufficient planetary wave driving during the October–November period delays the breakup of the southern hemisphere (SH) polar vortex in versions 1 (V1) and 2 (V2) of the Goddard Earth Observing System (GEOS) chemistry–climate model, and is likely the cause of the delayed breakup in other CCMs with similarly weak October-November wave driving.”
“In the V1 model, the delayed breakup of the Antarctic vortex biases temperature, circulation and trace gas concentrations in the polar stratosphere in spring. The V2 model behaves similarly (despite major model upgrades from V1), though the magnitudes of the anomalous effects on springtime dynamics are smaller.”
“Clearly, if CCMs cannot duplicate the observed response of the polar stratosphere to late 20th century climate forcings, their ability to simulate the polar vortices in future may be poor.”
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/EGU2009-651.pdf
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010JGRD..11507105H
“It is unclear how much confidence can be put into the model projections of the vortices given that the models typically only have moderate resolution and that the climatological structure of the vortices in the models depends on the tuning of gravity wave parameterizations.
Given the above outstanding issues, there is need for continued research in the dynamics of the vortices and their representation in global models.”
http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/waugh+polvani-PlumbFestVolume-2010.pdf
As for the “greenish” areas, it’s hard to see that clearly from the images you linked to. To me it looks more like melt water on the surface of the ice and thin ice regions. I doubt its the algae blooms.
It looks like a cloud is hanging over the Beaufort Sea at the moment, here is a screen print I grabbed yesterday:
Jesse Farmer says:
June 19, 2012 at 8:30 pm
there is still overwhelming evidence to support a 3°C sensitivity to doubled CO2.
I beg to differ. Right now, the ppm is about 390 and it went up from 280 to 390 and it is going up at about 2 ppm per year. At that rate, the doubling for another 170 ppm would occur in 85 years or around 2100. Since it is presumed the temperature went up by 0.8 C already, it would have to go up by another 2.2 C in 88 years. This amounts to 0.25 C per decade or about 0.38 C in 15 years and 7 months. But look at what happened to the RSS temperatures in the last 15 years and 7 months.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.83/plot/rss/from:1996.83/trend
OK. I cherry picked that one. But the maximum slope that Phil Jones found was 0.166 C per decade. This is by “cherry picking” the best possible slopes of the last 100 years and it is still way short of 0.25 C/decade.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
So exactly where is your “overwhelming evidence to support a 3°C sensitivity to doubled CO2”?
Werner,
Good to see you here again, and as expected, you have easily and politely demolished Jesse Farmer’s argument. Jesse refers to my request to abide by the scientific method as “desperate, fervid ignorance”, My, my. Jesse’s panties are in a twist.
Jesse says, the “speculative horse manure Smokey so dislikes is a piece of peer reviewed scientific literature in a reputable journal.”
No, Jesse, Smokey simply points out that just because something is Pal-Reviewed does not confer credibility. Especially not in this case. There is no scientific rigor in this lame paper. See Popper’s requirements for rigor. It is not present in the citation provided by Jesse.
Next, Jesse says, “Scientists cannot think of a single other forcing that could possibly cause the observed loss in Arctic sea ice, aside from anthropogenic CO2.” Another argument from ignorance: “Since we cannot think of any other cause of Arctic sea ice decline, then it must be due to CO2? As if.
Next, Jesse denigrates MIT’s head of it’s Atmospheric Sciences department, as if Jesse is remotely qualified to pass judgement on what is arguably the finest engineering school in America. What qualifies Jesse to critique Professor Lindzen, whose CV makes Jesse look like the rank amateur that he is?
Next, Jesse ignores the fact that the planet itself is falsifying his failed runaway global warming scare. As CO2 continues to rise, global temperatures are not following. Thus, the CO2=AGW conjecture is being falsified by the ultimate Authority: planet earth herself.
Finally, Jesse’s concern over the bogus problem of ‘ocean acidification’ has been addressed repeatedly here. I recommend to Jesse that he do an archive search on WUWT to convince himself that there is no evidence showing that the oceans are ‘acidifying’. It is just one more scare by the same folks who brought us the runaway global warming scare, based on “carbon”. Surely Jesse is not so stupid that he would fall for another similar scare…
…or would he?
Smokey says:
June 17, 2012 at 7:56 am
Indea,
“……Warmer would mean less ice, no?”
Smokey says:
June 16, 2012 at 7:16 pm
Indea,
“…..The primary causes of Arctic ice loss are wind and currents, not CO2. If it were due to CO2 then the Antarctic would be losing ice, too. But as we know, the Antarctic is gaining ice.”
_____________________________________________________
1- “warmer” = less ice
2-“wind and currents”= primary causes of Arctic ice loss
3- Arctic ice loss~ Antarctic ice gain
Questions:
1- is this Arctic ice loss/Antarctic ice gain (and vice versa) cyclic?
2- are we in little ice age?
3- the differential heating between the equator and the poles causes the winds, when the Arctic/Antarctic is warmer/colder does it mean less/more winds?
Smokey says:
June 17, 2012 at 7:56 am
Indea,
“…… Plus, I provided a graph showing that most of the Holocene was significantly warmer than now. …”
______________________________________
Your evidence suggests that Arctic ice was less than the current situation.
1- Do you have access to the reasons for this situation?
2- What was the situation in Antarctic?
acckkii says:
Questions:
1- is this Arctic ice loss/Antarctic ice gain (and vice versa) cyclic?
I don’t know.
2- are we in little ice age?
We appear to still be emerging from the LIA.
3- the differential heating between the equator and the poles causes the winds, when the Arctic/Antarctic is warmer/colder does it mean less/more winds?
If I answered that I would be speculating. I prefer not to speculate.
• • •
To address one other bit of nonsense posted by Jesse Farmer above, I should point out that “ocean acidification” isn’t discussed much any more, even in the media, because there is no verifiable evidence that the ocean is being “acidified”. That is just another scare story in the very long list of scare stories that have failed under scrutiny.
A search of the WUWT archives [keywords: Middleton; Eschenbach] will produce several articles that falsify the notion of ocean “acidification”. There is no supporting evidence whatever, and the papers refereced by the credulous Jesse Farmer are thoroughly deconstructed. But “ocean acidification” makes a great scare story for the alarmist crowd, so every now and then we see that one trotted out again.
Finally, I note that as usual, Jesse Farmer cannot falsify the testable hypothesis:
At current and projected concentrations, CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere
The alarmist crowd is great at making up scare stories. But when it comes to the scientific method, they all skedaddle.
Werner, your point is well-taken. The last 15 years are, as you say, not supportive of a 3°C CO2 sensitivity. However, for determining CO2 sensitivity, any 15 year period is worthless. The reason why is that the Earth is a highly stochastic/noisy system, so in order to get around large short-term variability, you need records of sufficient length to make any determination quantitatively (statistically) significant. The overwhelming evidence for 3°C sensitivity comes from the long paleo-record, where the glacial-interglacial temperature and CO2 oscillations of the past million years are fully consistent with a 3°C climate sensitivity. And before Smokey even considers pulling the “temperature increased before CO2” misconception, read Shakun et al. (2012) in Nature. Several times.
Smokey, I really wish I had the time to go through all your posts, and indeed many of the posts on WUWT, and point out every fallacy/misconception/mis-quotation. Alas, the days are too short, and I need to perform research so that I can buy food. The scientists over at realclimate.org have done an excellent job pointing out many of these inaccuracies; I can only suggest you go there.
There’s one thing you said I can’t help but comment on: “Pal-reviewing”. HA! That statement makes it obvious that you have never published (or perhaps, you have not published in quite some time, and want to blame your losing streak on a broken system). Otherwise, you would know how brutal the peer review process is, and the checks and balances that prevent abuses of the peer review system. When a paper comes up for review, no author has any friends.
If I understand your argument right, it is that all these papers cannot be credible, because they demonstrate inaccuracies in your own posts. So what gives your posts credibility? Your dogged pursuit of “truth and justice” in the scientific method? Nice try. Here’s an idea- write up some of your criticisms as official comments on those papers, and submit them to the journals. There’s no publication fee; it won’t cost you a dime, and your opinions will gain credibility if published. Heck, I’ll cite you.
That’s just a pipe-dream, though. What will really happen is that you’ll find out all the inaccuracies in your statements in excruciating detail from the cold hand of an anonymous reviewer. A cautionary note- be sitting down when you open up the response email from the editor. It’s not going to be pretty.
Jesse Farmer says:
“‘Pal-reviewing’. HA!”
^That statement is rooted in ignorance. Mr. Farmer needs to get educated, and a great place to start is by reading The Hockey Stick Illusion by A.W. Montford, available on the right sidebar.
Montford shows the seamy underside of climate pal review, with its backstabbing, intimidating journals to publish the pure crap that is laughingly referred to as ‘science’, the money-grubbing, the endless jaunts to holiday venues at taxpayer expense, the conniving to inflate the number of publications, the outright fabricating of data, and on, and on.
The book was finished just as Climategate #1 was leaked, and those emails confirmed everything in Montford’s book. Diogenes couldn’t find an honest ‘Team’ member with a searchlight.
As far as the trumped up pseudo-science goes, the fact is that the long term rising temperature trend since the LIA has not changed. There is no acceleration in the natural global warming trend, despite the ≈40% rise in [harmless, beneficial] CO2.
That leads to an inescapable conclusion: CO2 does not have the effect claimed. People like Farmer are running a scam on taxpayers. They are feeding at the public trough, but they have zero evidence to support their conjectures. Pal review is a circle jerk of back scratching authors citing each other, but without any testable evidence that CO2 causes global warming. None of that relatively small clique of climate charlatans can produce any testable, replicable, empirical evidence, per the scientific method, proving that CO2 will ever result in runaway global warming.
Farmer is living in a bubble, oblivious to the real world. There are really not very many climate charlatans on Mann’s Hokey Team, even though they would like everyone to think there are. For what it’s worth in science [not much], the true “consensus” knows that the climate alarmist scare is fueled by money, politics, and a relatively few scoundrels riding the grant gravy train. OTOH, more than 31,400 scientists and engineers, including more than 9,000 PhD’s – all in the hard sciences – have co-signed the OISM Petition, stating that the rise in CO2 is harmless and beneficial. I think they know a bit more about the subject than Jesse Farmer and the self-serving bunch running RealClimate on the backs of the taxpaying public.
Smokey says:
June 21, 2012 at 1:53 pm
“….A search of the WUWT archives [keywords: Middleton; Eschenbach] will produce several articles that falsify the notion of ocean “acidification”.
______________________________________________
In the Nature, nothing is absolute.
Both acidification and neutralization changes occur in the planet.
Subject to the conditions and how the interaction is dependent on variables involved in it.
I’ve read the following article several times:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/27/the-ocean-is-not-getting-acidified/
Jesse Farmer says:
June 21, 2012 at 3:45 pm
The overwhelming evidence for 3°C sensitivity comes from the long paleo-record, where the glacial-interglacial temperature and CO2 oscillations of the past million years are fully consistent with a 3°C climate sensitivity. And before Smokey even considers pulling the “temperature increased before CO2″ misconception, read Shakun et al. (2012) in Nature. Several times.
OK. You do not want to hear that in the distant past, a warm spell lasting thousands of years caused the deep ocean to finally release the stored CO2. See the following which shows carbon dioxide and methane and temperature on the same graph.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/07/carbon-dioxide-and-temperatures-ice.html
But instead of focusing on the fact that CO2 went up AFTER temperatures went up, note that temperatures went DOWN AFTER CO2 was way up! So I see nothing that is “fully consistent with a 3°C climate sensitivity”.
Climate sensitivity is defined as the average increase of the temperature of the Earth that you get (or expect) by doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere – from 0.028% in the pre-industrial era to the future value of 0.056% (expected around 2100).
Recall that the contribution of carbon dioxide to the warming is expected because of the “greenhouse” effect and the main question is how large it is. The greenhouse effect is nothing else than the absorption (of mostly infrared radiation emitted by the Earth) by the “greenhouse” gases in the atmosphere, mainly water vapor – but in this case we are focusing on carbon dioxide, one of the five most important gases causing this effect after water vapor.