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:
.@LesJohnsonHrvat @SteveSGoddard @PeterGleick AGW Models do NOT predict southern SEA ICE reduction. You are simply wrong. And confused.
— Greg Laden (@gregladen) December 20, 2013
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.
Nevena: Odd that the TAR, AR4, AR5 and CMIP5 models don’t include Manabe in the results. They all show SH ice DECLINE.
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?
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?
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.
Rob Honeycutt is trying to supprt Greg’s position. Badly, I might add.
Taphonomic says:
“Laden keeps getting clobbered… and he hasn’t posted anything else.”
That’s because he’s pouting.
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!
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?
“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.
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 “.
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:
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:
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 *@ur momisugly#$tards need to stop cutting and pasting Manabe, and start listening to him.
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.
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?
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 🙂
[snip]
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
Of course Greg Laden is right. CMIP5 models do not predict decreasing Antarctic sea ice extent. They project it.
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”.