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”

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Juice

But aren’t Antarctic temperatures also decreasing?

John V. Wright

Bipolar disorder – perfect headline, Anthony.

kramer

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.

Monty

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!

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)

P. Solar

” 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.

Coalsoffire

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.

Kev-in-Uk

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!

mitigatedsceptic

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

pat

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.

Mike Bromley the Canucklehead

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!

jaypan

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.

Mike Bromley the Canucklehead

“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)

focoloco

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?

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]

kent Blaker

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.

Climate Weenie

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.

Ed Moran

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.

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

Richard111

-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

Jimbo

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.

temp

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.

Dodgy Geezer

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…..

D Böehm

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.

ColdOldMan

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.

richardscourtney

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

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

ColdOldMan

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

Monty

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!

Jeremy

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.

Jimbo

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.

Jeremy

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.

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.

D Böehm

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”.

markx

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?

Gail Combs

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.

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 !!!!

Kev-in-Uk

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!.

Gail Combs

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?

Jimbo

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.

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.

pdxrod

“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.

bertief

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.

temp

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.

Jimbo

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.

Jimbo

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?

Jimbo

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/

john robertson

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 ?