Greg Laden Once Again Expresses Something Other Than Fact

In a recent visit to Steve Goddard’s blog, I came across the post Climate Scientists Always Trying To Rewrite Their Own History. It’s about a Tweet by Greg Laden, in which Laden states:

For those not familiar with Greg Laden, he is a well-known proponent of the hypothesis of human-induced global warming, who writes regularly at ScienceBlogs.

In reality, about Antarctic sea ice, it is Greg Laden who is wrong and confused. Antarctic sea ice has been increasing and climate models say is should be decreasing.

Greg Laden is of course contradicted by the outputs of the CMIP5-archived models. See the post here and the figure below.

And Greg Laden is contradicted by the 5th Assessment Report of the IPCC. See Chapter 9 here, page 6. They write:

Most models simulate a small decreasing trend in Antarctic sea-ice extent, albeit with large inter-model spread, in contrast to the small increasing trend in observations. [9.4.3, Figures 9.22, 9.24]

And on page 45 of Chapter 9, the IPCC writes:

Most CMIP5 models simulate a decrease in Antarctic sea ice extent over the past few decades compared to the small but significant increase observed.

Greg Laden appears to be expressing a belief, not knowledge, which is a common trait among global warming alarmists.

Advertisements

90 thoughts on “Greg Laden Once Again Expresses Something Other Than Fact

  1. increased Antarctic sea ice with increasing CO2 and warming was predicted over 20 years ago by Manabe et al 1991, http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm9101.pdf, page 795.
    Mechanism: an increased supply of fresh surface water from both land-bound ice melt and increased precipitation increases the halocline gradient, reducing upwelling of warmer bottom waters with the air-cooled surface (reducing the effective thermal mass exposed to the air), decreasing sea surface temperature, and thus leading to more sea ice.
    It looks like winds could also play a role.

  2. That twitter feed is interesting. Laden keeps getting clobbered with references refuting his statement and he hasn’t posted anything else.

  3. Remember this: many models and papers are used so they can CHERRY PICK whichever suits their arguments. Less snow? No problemo. More snow? No problemo. This is climate voodoo at its very best. It’s also a con job.

    Unlike in the Arctic, a strong decline in sea ice extent has not been observed in the Antarctic during the period of satellite observations (Section 4.4.2.2). Fichefet et al. (2003) conducted a simulation of Antarctic ice thickness using observationally based atmospheric forcing covering the period 1958 to 1999. They note pronounced decadal variability, with area average ice thickness varying by ±0.1 m (compared to a mean thickness of roughly 0.9 m), but no long-term trend. However, Gregory et al. (2002b) find a decline in antarctic sea ice extent in their model, contrary to observations. They suggest that the lack of consistency between the observed and modelled changes in sea ice extent might reflect an unrealistic simulation of regional warming around Antarctica, rather than a deficiency in the ice model. Holland and Raphael (2006) examine sea ice variability in six MMD 20C3M simulations that include stratospheric ozone depletion. They conclude that the observed weak increase in antarctic sea ice extent is not inconsistent with simulated internal variability, with some simulations reproducing the observed trend over 1979 to 2000, although the models exhibit larger interannual variability in sea ice extent than satellite observations.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-5-5.html

    What a load of horses manure (I wanted to say horseshit but I realised I might be snipped) 🙂
    Read more on the horses’ poop below.
    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/ipcc-on-antarctic-sea-ice/
    http://www.thegwpf.org/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-record-high-ipcc-models-predicted-the-opposite/

  4. In the past, alarmists believed they could just “shout down” the opposition with the help of their buddies in the media, Fenton Communications, Organizing for America, Greenpeace, WWF, IPCC, etc., etc.
    Now comes Ma Nature and her big discharge of cold Arctic air that refutes the weasels
    Shrill is the sound of warmists in denial of facts-on-the-ground

  5. “Shrill is the sound of warmists in denial of facts-on-the-ground”
    True, but facts don’t really mean all that much to the cAGW crowd. It is all well and good if facts happen to line up on their side, but myths, lies, and half-truths do just fine when a fact can not be found. This is a crowd that has not yet made a scientific prediction that came true. Not one. This is a crowd that said as CO2 rose then so would average temperature and yet that has not happened for over 17 years now. (and that with the data tampering that we all know about)
    Hell’s bells. This is a crowd that claimed polar bears could not swim!
    This is a political operation and truth matters little. (See Orwell for details)

  6. markstoval said –
    You are spot-on.
    The only rational response to the shrill alarmists is – LAUGHTER and RIDICULE.
    I’d love to be at some Obama event to laugh out loud in his face at utterances of warmist alarm!

  7. An “expert” who spouts off an opinion as if it’s a fact? Good thing we have copies of the IPCC reports. Next, they’ll be claiming that it is not what the IPCC was saying. They’re good at moving their goal post. Problem is it’s quite apparent.

  8. Current total sea ice anomaly is positive 910,000 Km Sq, or just about the same actual area as the states of Washington, Oregon, California (the entire continental US West Coast) PLUS enough left over to cover New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island.

  9. NevenA says:
    December 20, 2013 at 3:13 pm
    increased Antarctic sea ice with increasing CO2 and warming was predicted over 20 years ago by Manabe et al 1991
    —————
    That’s great, but, do the models predict that as well?

  10. NevenA says:
    December 20, 2013 at 3:13 pm
    increased Antarctic sea ice with increasing CO2 and warming was predicted over 20 years ago by Manabe et al 1991
    —————————-
    You do realize that an increase in Antarctic Sea Ice (as well as a decrease in Arctic Sea Ice) was also predicted by Svensmark as a natural outgrowth of his theories as well?

  11. Click the time and date to see the entire exchange. Or paste this in.
    //twitter.com/gregladen/status/414088959871184896

  12. NevenA says:
    December 20, 2013 at 3:13 pm
    increased Antarctic sea ice with increasing CO2 and warming was predicted over 20 years ago by Manabe et al 1991, http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm9101.pdf, page 795.

    Your right it does predict that, so now why isn’t the Manabe model included as one of the current IPCC models? Perhaps go read the rest of the model and I will give you a hint Liu & Curry (2010) reached the same conclusion on the model …. Houston we have a problem.
    Lets see if you can work out the problem NevenA 🙂

  13. Greg Laden @gregladen
    Follow
    @SteveSGoddard @PeterGleick Global sea ice in December? What a boneheaded move. Coal in your stocking!!!
    ==============
    Did anyone remind Mr Goddard as to what season it is in the Southern Hemisphere? He’s demnstating a decided ‘norte amricano’ prejudice

  14. NevenA says:
    December 20, 2013 at 3:13 pm
    increased Antarctic sea ice with increasing CO2 and warming was predicted over 20 years ago by Manabe et al 1991, http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm9101.pdf, page 795.
    ======================================================
    Yes, too bad that wasn’t what the IPCC relied upon. It’s just another case of the spaghetti *cough* science alarmists do. They predict anything and everything and then try to claim they were right. Warmists, long after Manabe had adopted the view that SH ice would decrease. The fact that they’ve dug up some obscure paper from over 20 years ago doesn’t mean the view of the alarmists isn’t wrong. In fact, it’s testament to the how wrong they’ve been.
    Tell me, is it the warmist’s view that we’ll have more or less snow with global warming? I’m certain you can dig up obscure alarmist views stating both. I know I can. Oddly, in the case of NH snow, both views are wrong. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/climate-reminder-alarmists-predict-both-more-and-less-snow/

  15. Les Johnson
    “1. Hate to break it to you, but there is no Santa.”
    Two words Les, Phil Robertson.
    The MSM has been trying to Media Train the general public with their social engineering political correctness agenda for decades. Then along came Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson to eviscerate mainstream media’s social brainwashing agenda. Decades of mind control down the drain within a matter of days.
    Yes Les, there is a Santa Clause, and his name is Phil Robertson.
    Go pound sand Les.

  16. Steve is a fun guy.
    Over the last 8,000 years, sea level has risen 14 metres, while temperatures steadily declined pic.twitter.com/2QB0bSUh6S
    Bill ‏@Bill_In_DC 14m@SteveSGoddard So there is no correlation between rising temps and sea level? Interesting
    Steve Goddard ‏@SteveSGoddard 5m
    @Bill_In_DC Temperatures fell from 1850 to 1910 according to CRU, yet sea level rose linearly. Obviously there is no correlation.
    =============
    Actually I was wrong, there’s a negative coorelation betwenn temps and sea level rise, at least according to Goddard.

  17. So maddening the way warmists accuse us skeptics of the same thing that they are doing, stating belief rather than fact. 2013 saw some big changes and I think 2014 will be more of the same, cooling globe and below normal hurricane and tornado activity. Bring it on! Hey BTW the solstice is tomorrow!

  18. Goddard kinda cherry picked his starting point for the trend if you ask me.
    Numbers are like people, torture them enough and they’ll tell you anything you want.

  19. Hysterical. At least Laden seems to have taken his own advice and stopped digging, for now.
    He’ll be back of course and hopefully we’ll get to enjoy a equally delicious whipping.
    In the meantime, CO2 in his stocking.

  20. Nevena: Odd that the TAR, AR4, AR5 and CMIP5 models don’t include Manabe in the results. They all show SH ice DECLINE.

  21. Bill Marsh says:
    December 20, 2013 at 5:12 pm
    Goddard kinda cherry picked his starting point for the trend if you ask me.
    Numbers are like people, torture them enough and they’ll tell you anything you want.
    ____________________
    Goddard showed that there was no correlation for the time period shown. Any blanket statements about sea level rise and temps are therefore questionable.
    What is the point of your posts in re Goddard, anyhow?

  22. Bill Marsh says:
    December 20, 2013 at 5:12 pm
    Goddard kinda cherry picked his starting point for the trend if you ask me.
    Gee, I read both of Steven Goddard’s tweets with Laden and I see no reference to a starting point.

  23. Bloke down the pub says:
    December 20, 2013 at 4:06 pm
    Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
    __________________________________________________________________________
    Concise comment. Have a couple on me!

  24. sunshine: Zhang 2007 gives similar results as Manabe. But you are correct. They only quote those papers post hoc.Those papers are not included in TAR, AR4, AR5 or CMIP5.

  25. Taphonomic says:
    “Laden keeps getting clobbered… and he hasn’t posted anything else.”
    That’s because he’s pouting.

  26. NevenA says:
    “increased Antarctic sea ice with increasing CO2 and warming was predicted over 20 years ago by Manabe et al 1991”
    Yes it was, but this was for a play-dough model world where Iceland is eliminated, the Mid-Atlantic Ridge is not as high above the sea floor as observed, the Drake Passage is enlarged to 2000 km, flow through the Strait of Gibraltar is not resolved, and no net flow is permitted through the Bering Strait (Manabe et al. 1991, p. 787). Let me know when our Earth fits these criteria.

  27. So much for the integrity of the alarmists.
    But while they lie all the time, one had to wonder how stupid you have to be to not realize the facts are out there – when it is supposed to be your area of expertise!

  28. I have pictures of the Fortuna Glacier, South Georgia Antarctica with some of the surrounding area and lack of sea ice in December 1984, how do I post these at WUWT?

  29. “Greg Laden appears to be expressing a belief, not knowledge, which is a common trait among global warming alarmists.”
    Dear Mr Laden,
    You’ve been “Peer Reviewed”
    It’s a new day fella. You need to be more careful .
    If you and your brethren are going to express yourselves you better consider how little control you have over who checks your work for accuracy.
    If you can’t back it better keep it to yourselves. Otherwise it ends up in the light of day and “Peer Reviewed” by people who have no allegiance to you.
    Now I am certain your lofty selves scoff at the notion of non-distinguished people critiquing your
    opinions and work but you could just tell the truth if you try harder.

  30. LdB says December 20, 2013 at 4:46 pm
    Your right it does predict that ..

    Eh?
    What does that mean?
    We all have ‘rights’, equal rights as a matter of fact. What does that have to do here?
    OH! Did you mean perhaps: “YOU ARE RIGHT” maybe?
    Whole ‘nother animal … it contracts as shown here: ” you’re “.

  31. NevenA says:
    increased Antarctic sea ice with increasing CO2 and warming was predicted over 20 years ago by Manabe et al 1991,

    Oh look, a mindless wamist sheep can cut and paste from a canned response playbook.
    The problem is, stupid warmists didn’t listen to Manabe. Their models don’t behave the way he said they should. Neither do the warmist modelers behave the way that Manabe said they should. He said things like this:

    “Unfortunately, the projections of future climate change made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Mana, Houghton et al,. 1990) are subject to large uncertainties. These uncertainties reflect our inability to model the various processes that control any future climate change. It is therefore necessary to improve various components of climate models, such as the representation of cloud feedback and land surface processes.”

    Warmist modelers and their fanboys didn’t listen to him about that, either. Which is why two decades on they still cant model cloud feedbacks worth a shit, but they nonetheless feel ever more confident of their predictions. Predictions that the data show are … uh … not predicting. Manabe had something to say about that, too:

    “In addition, it is essential to carefully assess the model’s predictions of future climate change in light of the results obtained by monitoring actual climate changes and the factors causing these changes.”

    Stupid warmists thumb their nose at that bit of advice from Manabe, and at him as well. Had they listened to him, they would be comparing their failed predictions of Antarctic sea ice decline against the observed increase in that ice, and adjusting their confidence in those models downward. Instead, they have the nerve to point at a 22 year old paper by Manabe, and pretend that his prediction somehow cancels the failure of their own.
    Typical ‘climate science’.
    You stupid *@#$tards need to stop cutting and pasting Manabe, and start listening to him.

  32. Wasn’t Manabe 1991 written when it was all the rage to suggest that melting Arctic ice was going to flow over the Atlantic Ocean and shut down ‘the conveyor’?
    The rather preposterous mechanism proposed by Manabe et al is a fairy story where little forces overwhelm large forces. It is not included in the IPCC because the don’t want to get laughed at more than they are.
    Even the term ‘thermal mass’ is not used correctly. They meant to say higher enthalpy. Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.
    – the Bard

  33. Neven,
    Despite the impatience displayed by JJ above, he is absolutely correct: the climate alarmist crowd has been 100% wrong in every prediction made. Every prediction, from runaway global warming, to polar ice cover, to ocean ‘acidification’, to ocean heat content, to being completely unable to predict the lack of global warming for at least the past seventeen years. EVERY alarmist prediction has crashed and burned. NO GCM was able to predict the halt in global warming.
    That being the case [and it is verifiable], why should scientific skeptics [the only honest kind of scientists] give any credence to what the climate alarmist brigade says now?
    Really, I would like an answer. Alarmists have been totally wrong about everything. That is a fact. So why should anyone pay the least bit of attention to anything they say now?
    Please, try to answer that question. If you can.

  34. I was introduced to Greg Laden over at the oddly named “Climate Progress” website. He was quite insulting and self righteous even when wrong. The same self righteous delusion can be seen when he claims the models never predicted decreasing sea ice. As Dr. Laura Landrum, National Center for Atmospheric Research wrote “Antarctic sea ice area exhibits significant decreasing annual trends in all six [model] ensemble members from 1950 to 2005, in apparent contrast to observations that suggest a modest ice area increase since 1979.” Like many CO2-caused warming advocates they simply try to re-write history and then advocate the skeptics should not be allowed to express their view. Greg Laden is one of the many faces advocating new intellectual tyranny by manufacturing “science” and attacking skeptics. Read Laura Landrum, et al. (2012) Antarctic Sea Ice Climatology, Variability, and Late Twentieth-Century Change in CCSM4. Journal of Climate, vol. 25, p. 4817 4838.

  35. Les Johnson says:
    December 20, 2013 at 6:01 pm
    sunshine: Zhang 2007 gives similar results as Manabe. But you are correct. They only quote those papers post hoc.Those papers are not included in TAR, AR4, AR5 or CMIP5.

    Figure 8 in the Manabe et al 1991 paper tells you why they don’t 🙂
    In climate stupidity it would called a lukewarm prediction well down on the official IPCC line. In it the North hemisphere gets a lot hotter than the southern and Taphonomic in the comments above pointed out the other problems.

  36. _Jim says:
    December 20, 2013 at 8:17 pm
    OH! Did you mean perhaps: “YOU ARE RIGHT” maybe?
    Whole ‘nother animal … it contracts as shown here: ” you’re “.

    Do you suffer the same disease Greg does do you Jim … you assume that English is the first language of everyone because it is for you … Let me guess your Americian as well 🙂

  37. ohn Bell says:
    December 20, 2013 at 5:10 pm
    So maddening the way warmists accuse us skeptics of the same thing that they are doing, stating belief rather than fact. 2013 saw some big changes and I think 2014 will be more of the same, cooling globe and below normal hurricane and tornado activity. Bring it on! Hey BTW the solstice is tomorrow!

    It is a psychological condition called ‘projection’
    Projection
    Projection is a defense mechanism that involves taking our own unacceptable qualities or feelings and ascribing them to other people. For example, if you have a strong dislike for someone, you might instead believe that he or she does not like you. Projection works by allowing the expression of the desire or impulse, but in a way that the ego cannot recognize, therefore reducing anxiety.

    http://psychology.about.com/od/theoriesofpersonality/ss/defensemech_7.htm

  38. Of course Greg Laden is right. CMIP5 models do not predict decreasing Antarctic sea ice extent. They project it.

  39. Bill Marsh says:
    December 20, 2013 at 5:12 pm
    Goddard kinda cherry picked his starting point for the trend if you ask me.
    Bill, go back and read the whole of Steve’s blog. The whole of it. “Steve is a fun guy”.

  40. If you believe your own lies, are you still right?
    You might laugh or give a quizzical pause, but there is a whole scientific field based on it.

  41. I know for a fact Greg is wrong and has been well known previously over the years represented in the media about sea ice being supported to decline at both poles. Only source for these claims over the years have been computer models.
    http://www.thegwpf.org/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-record-high-ipcc-models-predicted-the-opposite/
    “The negative SIE trends in most of the model runs over 1979 – 2005 are a continuation of an earlier decline, suggesting that the processes responsible for the observed increase over the last 30 years are not being simulated correctly.”

  42. Bill Marsh says:
    December 20, 2013 at 4:47 pm
    “Did anyone remind Mr Goddard as to what season it is in the Southern Hemisphere? He’s demnstating a decided ‘norte amricano’ prejudice…..”
    Bill , I suggest that you get new glasses or have an eye exam.
    Mr. Goddard’s comment said GLOBAL sea ice.
    Wise up my man.

  43. Greg Laden has replied via Twitter:

    You are right! AGW models do indeed predict reductions in sea ice in the southern oceans. I was referring to the problem of southern sea ice at an entirely different scale; the increase in sea ice related to, according to models, changes in precipitation. This is probably a short term phenomenon. But in a tweet it’s hard to get that all in.
    The gentleman I was cross tweeting with had no interest, though, in having a conversation, so that really didn’t develop. I was also busy doing my hair.
    Merry Christmas!

    Unfortunately for Greg Laden, it appears he shifted topics after he was corrected by Les Johnson. And that’s as far as I need to take it.
    https://twitter.com/LesJohnsonHrvat

  44. AGW promoters have never hesitated to explain away their many failed predictions by simply denying they predictions existed. And typically they turn around and blame the skeptics for pointing out their fibs.

  45. Ian W says:
    December 21, 2013 at 12:12 am
    It is a psychological condition called ‘projection’
    Projection
    Projection is a defense mechanism that involves taking our own unacceptable qualities or feelings and ascribing them to other people. For example, if you have a strong dislike for someone, you might instead believe that he or she does not like you. Projection works by allowing the expression of the desire or impulse, but in a way that the ego cannot recognize, therefore reducing anxiety —————————————————————————
    Or if you’re a liar, cheat and a thief for your cause you assume everybody else would lie, cheat and steal just like you to destroy your cause.
    How un-scientific!
    cn

  46. Wyguy says:
    December 20, 2013 at 5:34 pm
    Bill Marsh says:
    December 20, 2013 at 5:12 pm
    Goddard kinda cherry picked his starting point for the trend if you ask me.
    Gee, I read both of Steven Goddard’s tweets with Laden and I see no reference to a starting point.
    ==============
    You might look at the graphic then.

  47. Greg Laden via Twitter I was also busy doing my hair.
    It’s settled then…it’s worse than we thought.

  48. Instead of his hair, I think Laden been’s working on another piece of his above-the-neck inventory.
    I can hear him now: “I just washed my brain and I can’t do a thing with it.”

  49. Bill Marsh says:
    December 20, 2013 at 5:12 pm
    Goddard kinda cherry picked his starting point for the trend if you ask me.
    ==================
    In science, one single contrary example is all that is required to prove a theory wrong.
    Science is not a voting system. I have a watch that is exactly right twice a day. If you wait long enough this watch will be correct an infinite number of times. Yet no matter how many times it gets the time right, it is still a broken watch.
    This the difference between superstition and science. Superstition is based on counting “right” answers. If it starts raining after you do a dance, it was the dance that caused the rain. Thus rain dancing works.

  50. Greg Laden (via Bob Tisdale):

    I was referring to the problem of southern sea ice at an entirely different scale; the increase in sea ice related to, according to models, changes in precipitation.

    Pretty sure he’s wrong about this too. Low elevations are predicted to lose snow (so loss of sea ice), high elevations are predicted to gain snow due to increased precipitation from the warmer sea waters near the coast. You can’t get this second effect in a model without a loss of sea ice.
    I think it’s also worth emphasizing that the rate of sea ice loss in the Arctic, 2005-now, is not predicted in the models. You can’t use as quantitative confirmation of a model a thing it didn’t predict quantitatively.

  51. I once tried to interact with Greg on his blog. Immediately blocked from access. He lacks the one ingredient that is absolutely necessary in a scientist: an open mind. And, I might add, a curiosity about contrary findings.

  52. Jim: Yes, Greg blocks me once in a while, but then relents and lets me back in. But, I have been thrown out of better places.
    I am always polite, and always back my arguments with facts or peer reviewed work.
    George Marshall, RC, Joe Romm, Greg Laden, Steve Bloom, Peter Gleick; all have blocked me at one time or another.

  53. In reference to Laden’s comment, how is sea ice related to changes in precipitation? Does anyone know what he is talking about? Does he think that there is not enough water in the oceans to freeze without rain or snow falling on it?
    This reminds me of a conversation I had with a warmist on Al Jazeera. In regard to the first snow in Cairo in 112 years, she claimed that AGW predicted more moisture in the air, therefore that extra moisture caused the snow in Cairo. She was able to completely ignore the fact that more moisture simply gets you more rain, unless you have colder air as well.

  54. Wow, that’s some “apology” from Laden. Not enough time, and too busy with hair (was this before or after he did his makeup and nails?).

  55. Unfortunately I’ve lost the link a commenter on another blog provided, but amongst all this Twitter mess, Greg proceeded to tell a skeptic tweeter to “f**k off”.
    Classy….
    Can anyone else find the link?

  56. Greg has deletd the more objectionable tweets. Fortunately, having been in this rodeo before, I screen captured his objective and scientific replies. Amongst other things, he told me to FO, kiss his @ss, and that I was a liar, misanthrope and a sophist.
    https://twitter.com/LesJohnsonHrvat
    You can also still see those replies on my site.

  57. And possibly the strangest response in the history of science, comes in that exchange couretsy of Rob Honeycutt.
    Les Johnson‏@LesJohnsonHrvat37m
    @robhon @gregladen No, I was pointing out Greg’s error. Models projected SH ice decrease. Greg denied the models said this.
    Rob Honeycutt‏@robhon37m
    @LesJohnsonHrvat At which point you killed any chance of substantive discussion.

  58. Cheers Les,
    I’m sorry that you’ve had to face down Greg’s nastiness.
    Greg’s a complete wally, as we say here in the UK.

  59. Greg Laden’s initial response – “AGW Models do NOT predict southern SEA ICE reduction. You are simply wrong.” – precludes there being any possibility that his later answer – “I was referring to the problem of southern sea ice at an entirely different scale; the increase in sea ice related to, according to models, changes in precipitation.” – has any truth to it. By choosing the word “simply” he was saying there is nothing further to consider, no nuances of scale, no misunderstanding. If he thought there was, that later response would have been his 1st.
    SR

  60. Lenin had a succinct description for the Greg Ladens, Phil Plaits, and John Cooks of a movement:
    “Useful idiots.”

  61. Greg Laden’s later response – “The gentleman I was cross tweeting with had no interest, though, in having a conversation, so that really didn’t develop.” – is pure projection, as telling someone they are “simply wrong”, followed by insult, is not a normal method of inviting further conversation. Rather, it appears Greg was the one interested in shutting down the conversation.
    SR

  62. Steve: I did continue the conversation, and remained polite. Greg offered only insults, and could not provide any support whatsoever for his position. He ignored all offered proofs against his position.

  63. the weird thing is that I think the latest IPCC report says that the Antarctic is losing mass very slowly. But the numbers are not really alarming because they are almost in balance if you consider the error bands. It’s like we don’t know.

  64. Extent is not the same as ice volume. I would expect more precipitation in Antarctica because of warmer waters and then more ice as it is till too cold for the ice to melt.

  65. He’s right. A tweet is indeed small enough not to fit his big lies.
    I’ve run into this Laden guy on Twitter. His output is generally topped off with expletives and he has the unerring instinct of choosing losing propositions. Clearly has some issues to work through.

  66. Steve Oregon says:
    December 20, 2013 at 7:06 pm (Edit)
    —————————————————
    That was a great post Steve. It needed saying and it was well said. Damn these twisting twisters.

  67. Global sea ice in December? Not only was Steve making out it was the 2nd highest on record for the time of year, but global sea ice is at it lowest during the SH summer. (between December and February)
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/global-daily-ice-area-withtrend1.jpg
    Global sea ice overall what determines part of the planets albedo, not just what happens in the Arctic. The balance between the two poles is key for the planet, not what just what happens at one pole. We are not going to see a warming in the atmosphere at the poles with ice shielding the warmer ocean/seas. When global sea ice remains high, this new trend if anything could lead to positive feedback and bring back further cooling.

  68. When I was in elementary school back in the good old days, a teacher of mine (actually THE Mrs. Wingo of the cartoon Doug fame, she was a real person and a great teacher), placed this note in my permanent record: “Has trouble discerning what he himself deems correct from proven fact.”
    Truer words have never been spoken, and I relied upon them to balance and temper my thinking for my entire career in science.
    Everyone should have Mrs. Wingo for third grade.

  69. RS that is funny! I’m a teacher and know of several third graders like that. They often argue with a stop sign.

  70. If we had impartial, professional, journalists and an uncontrolled media it would have all been over years ago. As regards Laden (whoever he is)….the lights appear to be on but nobody is at home.
    In case anyone is challenged by this guy the best response starts with the sixth letter of the alphabet and ends in the word off!!!!
    On a more serious note
    Sea levels rise in Holocene’s and fall in Ice Ages….and just to correct things we are talking about where the sea ice anomally is North and South. Compared with the mean 78-08 the answer is 6% down in the Arctic and over 24% up for Antarctica as of todays published figs. Overall making current Global Sea Ice the 7th largest area in the last 35 years.

Comments are closed.