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”
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.
“Monty” says:
“If any of you think that AGW isn’t happening, or that CO2 isn’t a GHG, or that humans aren’t dumping this in the atmosphere….have a chat with Lindzen.”
Prof Richard Lindzen shows that the effect of 2xCO2 is negligible. You have ZERO empirical evidence showing any measurable effect from anthropogenic CO2 emissions. All you are doing is making baseless, evidence-free assertions.
That is not science, that is anti-science; pseudoscience. If your belief system leads you to conclude that “AGW is happening”, you need to provide verifiable, testable, falsifiable data showing conclusively that AGW is the cause of global warming. The fact that you are incapable of posting any such evidence shows that you operate on a belief system, not on testable science.
Your assertions mean nothing. Unless you can show a direct, measurable link between human GHG emissions and the [natural] rise in global temperature, then your conjecture fails.
You cannot show that “AGW is happening”. Your impotent assertions are meaningless drivel. You need to start using the scientific method in your responses. The reason you do not use the scientific method is because it would promptly falsify your assertions.
You are motivated by your seat on the grant gravy train. True science is anathema to people like you. The truth is simply not in you. False assertions are your stock in trade, and pseudo-science is your ‘authority’. I would advise you to man up and be honest, but it is not in your nature or in your character. Money, status, and job security rule you. Scientific truth has no place in your world view.
If you have any measurable, testable, falsifiable, data-based evidence showing conclusively that AGW exists, post it right here. Otherwise, all you are doing is asserting an evidence-free conjecture; your unscientific opinion. Why should the public fund that??
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!
1. You, Sir Monty, are determined to destroy the world’s economies and kill millions through disease, early death by sickness, hunger, malnutrition and poor water and bad transportation, no food storage and processing and safety, and reduced opportunities through your faith in CAGW.
The models can only match 25 years of increased temperature by artificially changing aerosol levels – and that only by artificially changing them differently in every model with no regard to real world measurements of actual aerosol levels between 1950 and 1998! No model has shown 15 years of level temperatures with 15 years of continuous CO2 increases. NONE.
These are real-world, WORLDWIDE global temperatures that your models absolutely and abjectly FAIL to calculate properly. How then, can you assume they are correct over even 100 years – if they cannot get 50 years, 25 years, or 15 years correct?
Why do you assume (why does your belief system (religion) require) that global warming – and increased CO2 levels – be harmful? Neither is harmful. Both are healthy, required for growth, required for life.
“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.
Monty says:
This whole debate on this thread concerns that fact that one element of the global climate is not behaving in a way that the 2007 IPCC report suggested it would.
Sweetheart, we can’t discuss them all in one thread. That’s why there are so many threads.
It is of NO real significance that relatively small elements of the global climate system are poorly modelled.
Polar ice cover is of NO real significance? Huh.
Thanks, “Monty”.
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!
Monty says:
“Read the detection and attribution literature…” & blah, blah, etc.
Post your empirical evidence, in your own words, providing verifiable, testable, falsifiable citations. All the rest of your nonsense is baseless assertion. You still run from my challenge to provide empirical evidence, showing a direct and verifiable connection between human GHG emissions and global warming. In fact, there is no such empirical evidence.
Enough prevaricating. Put up or shut up.
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:
Read the detection and attribution literature, …
We do. Above, we read that growing Antarctic ice is detected. This disagrees with the theory of climate that informs the literature that claims to detect ‘global warming’ and attribute it to anthropogenic causes. Garbage in, garbage out.
Hilariously, you attribute growing Antarctic ice to ‘global warming’ even when the loss of Antarctic ice is supposed to be one of the most worrisome effects of ‘global warming’. When we see you doing things like that, we get the distinct impression that you are just making $#!^ up as you go along.
… and about 170 years of atmospheric physics that shows increasing a GHG MUST result in a warming effect.
There is a vast difference between a forcing, and the specific collection of scary effects that comprise CAGW and are alleged to result from that forcing. Among those alleged effects is the one that is the subject of this thread – shrinking Antarctic ice. It ain’t happening.
Lindzen, Michaels, Spencer, Curry, Pielke accept this….strange that you don’t given that they are all your heroes!
They are not your heroes, so appealing to them is disingenuous. That is but one of the ways in which ad vericundiam arguments are fallacious. Ad hominem, ad vericundiam, ad hoc – that you use such fallacies so freely and knowingly demonstrates that you simply are not an honest person.
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.
JJ. You really don’t know what you are talking about do you. Lindzen, Michaels, Curry, Spencer and all your other heroes accept points 3 and 4. It’s strange that you don’t.
Globally, glaciers and ice sheets are losing mass in response to AGW. Sea ice in the Arctic has fallen off a cliff. In Antarctica sea ice is growing but not as much as Arctic sea ice has reduced. Therefore, there is a GLOBAL reduction in sea ice. There are clear physical reasons why Antarctic sea ice might increase. These are postulated to be in response to changes in wind regimes, or increased meltwater from the warming WAIS and (probably) warming EAIS.
That you don’t understand any of this is not my problem. I think you should leave the hard thinking to the scientists….don’t you?
“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.
D Boehm.
Which of these do you disagree with?
1. CO2 is a GHG.
2. Humans are emitting CO2 to the extent that atmospheric CO2 is now higher than for AT LEAST 700 ka.
3. This CO2 reduces the rate of OLWR.
4. This means the Earth is accumulating heat.
5. We can detect this (melting ice, rising global T, ocean T, slr, ecological change, borehole T etc.)
6. Models (while imperfect) make projections and these suggest AGW will cause net harm to life on earth.
Now answer these questions: Which bit of the above do you disagree with? Do you recognize that “skeptics” like you are in disagreement with ‘skeptics’ like Lindzen?
Thanks.
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.
“Monty” says:
“If any of you think that AGW isn’t happening, or that CO2 isn’t a GHG, or that humans aren’t dumping this in the atmosphere….have a chat with Lindzen.”
Boring, using straw man arguments again.
———————————————————————————————————————–
A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.[3] To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[3][4]
———————————————————————————————————————–
You have to show the difference between natural and unnatural and you can’t = FAIL. I can show you that global cloud albedo wipes out the warming from the post 1970’s. I have not seen anything from you that distinguishes between natural and unnatural. The basic doubling of CO2 is around 1c increase not taking feedbacks into account. There are many other factors in AGW from environmental changes up to creating false warming with data changes.
Remember the main point of this article about polar ice and wind patterns.
The planet warmed while global cloud levels were declining and stopped when global cloud levels become stable and increased a little.
“The basic science shows the oceans warmed by decreasing low cloud albedo. What has that got to do with AGW when the change in wind pattern could have easily been caused by this?
Historically it has been known the poles behave in reverse of each other. Again what is the difference between that natural behavior and a short 20 year change. There is no difference to D/O cycles or bonds events, except much less dramatic version. This paper is just an assumption that can’t be distinguished between natural climate or not.
A 20 year change in wind patterns mean nothing until it can be shown it has never happened naturally before. The hypothesis early on was that sea ice would decrease at both side of the poles. This would happen despite increased snowfall due to warming at the South pole.” – (changed it a little) Yet you attack people on here for something you can’t even show any evidence in support of this paper.
With you unable to answer any related questions on the topic and come out with the basic science nonsense and generally straw man arguments that show you for what you are. You are deliberately avoiding the science debate.
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.
Consensual science is an oxymoron!
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
winningsharingclaiming 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:
November 15, 2012 at 1:21 pm
Why have been with Michael Mann and changed history again?
Why should I answer any of your questions when you don’t [answer] any of mine.
It appears Monty does not understand the rule of holes. The more he comments the more ridiculous he looks. By ignoring all the responses and repeating his silly assertions all he does is make all warmists look stupid by association. Congrats Monty, you are doing more damage to your “cause” than any other commenter on this thread.
BTW, in what social science did you earn your PhD?
Hi Monty 🙂
How are we feeling today? Nice to see you’re getting around. Just sit down here and we’ll have a nice chat. What’s been bothering you?
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,
The failure of ALL…100%…of the models that are based on the “science” suggests two things.
1). The failure of EVERY SINGLE ONE of the models suggests that the science they are built on is wrong. It takes a “special” kind of scientific mind to ignore this problem.
2). The models, when tested against reality, are wrong; therefore, the models cannot be trusted to tell us what affect C02 will have in the future. Again, it takes a “special” kind of scientific mind to demand that we put faith in models that have been proven wrong.
Additionally, the current 16-year pause in global temperature increase means that the doomsday scenarios predicted by all models are going to require a much, much steeper curve to get to the disasterous consequences the models predict. Not that it couldn’t happen, but each passing year means that things have to go much more steeply wonky rather than gradually wonky. But that’s ok; maybe the models will be wrong about the rate of doomsday too, and the end of the world will still happen.
You’re truly making your case against your side with every utterance you make. But as I said, that’s useful. Thanks! 🙂
P.S. You haven’t apologized to Richard, even though you explicitly stated you would. This means you are not honorable either, but more of a “The end justifies the means” kinda guy, which means no one should trust anything you say, even if you were to actually bring any content to this site. You are, in fact, so poor an example of a pro-AGW guy (we have much better trolls here, actually) that I begin to wonder if you aren’t a skeptic masquerading as a warmist. It’s hard to imagine someone being so consistently wrong and obtuse on every point, or someone so determined to make warmist thinking look so shoddy.
P.P.S. Again, you seem to have a complaint that this site isn’t heavily censored so that only one consistent view is allowed. This is another self-paradoxical perspective, since if it were heavily censored, you wouldn’t be allowed to post. Perhaps when Anthony gets back, he will grant your wish and start censoring; but I hope he doesn’t, because as I’ve said, you are proving more and more useful with each utterance. 🙂
Meanwhile, I repeat, RC is the place for you. That heavily-censored site will provide you with the single-view content that will make you comfortable.
RDCII
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?!