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

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
nigelf

Bob Tisdale, your last sentence sums up most most of the Climate Cabal ®.

NevenA

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.

Taphonomic

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

Jimbo

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/

GeologyJim

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

Bloke down the pub

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

“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)

…climate models say is should be decreasing.

GeologyJim

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!

MAC

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.

Alan Robertson

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.

DC Cowboy

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?

Les Johnson

Greg has resorted to decidely unscientific language. He is also showing himself incapable of admitting error, in spite of massive proof that his assertion is wrong.
https://twitter.com/gregladen/status/414088959871184896

DC Cowboy

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?

Les Johnson

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

LdB

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 🙂

DC Cowboy

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

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/

Alan Robertson

To: Steve Goddard
Sic ’em

@ Bill Marsh says: December 20, 2013 at 4:47 pm
=====================================
I don’t think you’re following the Twitter conversation properly. Go here to see http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/climate-scientists-confused-about-that-down-under-thing/
That wasn’t Steve commenting, that was Laden. Steve responded appropriately by reminding the lunatics that it’s summer down under.

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.

DC Cowboy

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.

John Bell

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!

DC Cowboy

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.

Mike Smith

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.

Les Johnson

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

Alan Robertson

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?

Wyguy

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.

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!

NevenA , one paper? Thats all you could find? And you didn’t find any papers predicting the opposite? Like AR5?
Is the mechanism described actually occurring?

Les Johnson

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.

Les Johnson

Rob Honeycutt is trying to supprt Greg’s position. Badly, I might add.

Louis Hooffstetter

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

Taphonomic

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.

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!

Patrick

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?

Steve Oregon

“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.

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 “.

JJ

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.

Crispin in Waterloo

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

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.

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.

LdB

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.

dogma vs data? – I will take data thanks or maybe the cAGW mob think it is time that the bishops or Rome once again controlled all scientific investigations?

LdB

_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 🙂

Bemused

[snip]

Ian W

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

Berényi Péter

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

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley

Stephen Richards

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”.