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

But aren’t Antarctic temperatures also decreasing?

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)

Or …. It’s the AMO.
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2012/09/30/amazing-graph-of-amo-vs-arctic-sea-ice-vs-antarctic-sea-ice/

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.

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

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!

“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)

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]

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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?

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 !!!!

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?

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.

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.

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/

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!!

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.

“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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

“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?

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/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

“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)

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.

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”.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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…)

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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!

“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.

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!

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?

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?!

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.

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.

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.