Antarctic Sea Ice Area Has Increased More Than 10% Since 1979

Antarctic sea ice area is near a record high for the date, and up more than 10% since 1979.

ScreenHunter_24 Jun. 18 06.03

arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.south.anom.1979-2008

Advertisements

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

181 Responses to Antarctic Sea Ice Area Has Increased More Than 10% Since 1979

  1. omnologos says:

    how long before it closes the Drake Passage?

  2. michael says:

    Steven, I mentioned this last week. Overall ice mass in Antarctica is diminishing. That is, snow is being added onto the continent due to warmer air carrying more moisture. And more glacial ice is sloughing off the shelves into the ocean due to melting. Hence, more sea ice.

    Here’s a concise explanation:

    “While the interior of East Antarctica is gaining land ice, overall Antarctica is losing land ice at an accelerating rate. Antarctic sea ice is growing despite a strongly warming Southern Ocean.
    It’s important to distinguish between Antarctic land ice and sea ice which are two separate phenomena. Reporting on Antarctic ice often fails to recognise the difference between sea ice and land ice. To summarize the situation with Antarctic ice trends: Antarctic land ice is decreasing at an accelerating rate; Antarctic sea ice is increasing despite the warming Southern Ocean”

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm

    If you’re skeptical of skepticalscience (and I know you are) why not just look over the GRACE data yourself?

    • Hopefully you aren’t actually as dense as you pretend to be.

      • michael says:

        Steve, I notice your tendency is to always lead with the ad hominem attack. Is this because you can’t address the issue?

        Let’s look at it this way. Read over the comments thread on any of your articles, for tone and displays of expertise. Okay?

        Now look over the comments thread on this article, the one you appear to be deriding without having actually read it:

        http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm

        Notice the difference? Their readers look to be a lot more informed and engaged with the actual issues, I think anyone would have to say.

        • terrence says:

          Michael – you are NOT pretending to be dense are you? YOU REALLY ARE DENSE! Notice the difference. BTW – you should drop your endless ad hominem attacks.

        • Jimbo says:

          Michael, Here are are a few points.
          The ‘Skeptical Science’ article says: “Last updated on 20 July 2010 by John Cook.” It’s been 3 years on from then and all his references are 2009 or before.

          The ice sheet graph is from April 2002 to August 2005.

          There has been no acceleration in the rate of sea level rise.

          Now here are some recent studies:
          Antarctic contribution to sea level rise observed by GRACE with improved GIA correction
          This study produced in June 2013 has determined that the Antarctic ice melt contributes at the most 0.16 mm/year in terms of global sea level rise. That is significantly less than what the IPCC proposed in its 2007 climate report.

          This study [PDF] published in 2012 says: “We found no significant trend in the 1979–2010 ice sheet integrated SMB components, which confirms the results from Monaghan et al. [2006].”

          The following paper published in February 2013 finds Antarctica has been gaining surface ice mass over past 150 years.
          “A synthesis of the Antarctic surface mass balance during the last 800 yr”
          doi:10.5194/tc-7-303-2013

          The following study published in 2012 says: “…describe the causes and magnitude of recent extreme precipitation events along the East Antarctic coast that led to significant regional mass accumulations that partially compensate for some of the recent global ice mass losses that contribute to global sea level rise….” “an abrupt mass increase in East Antarctica along the coast of Dronning Maud Land in the GRACE satellite data in 2009-2011,”…..”anomalously high precipitation events during the Southern Hemisphere winter.” … “almost 350 Gt from 2009 to 2011,”
          “Recent Snow-Driven Mass Change on the East Antarctic Ice Sheet”
          doi:10.1029/2012gL053316

        • michael says:

          Jimbo, first, thanks for a civil and informative comment.

          One thing this GIA correction (which I hadn’t seen) does is to introduce a lot of uncertainty into the question of Antarctic ice mass balance. To wit, in the conclusions:

          [41] The revised Antarctic mass balance is lowered by 60–120 Gt/yr relative to the past analyses of GRACE time series. The exact value of the reduction in the GIA depends on the details of the GRACE analysis method. Chen et al. [2009], for example, used the CSR RL04 time series and GIA model IJ05 [Ivins and James, 2005] and found Antarctica to be changing by −190 Gt/yr during 2002.25–2009.0 and noted that the loss rate would increase to −250 Gt/yr by using the ICE-5G GIA correction. For a shorter time series (2002.6–2007.0) and using CSR RL04, Peltier [2009] determined positive mass balance for Antarctica (+22 Gt/yr) and then applied correction for ICE-5G GIA to obtain −111 Gt/yr, implying an ICE-5G GIA correction of 133 Gt/yr. The upper bound on the GIA correction determined in this paper is less than half this value. Both the new GPS uplift data and the wealth of new data available to constrain past ice sheet volume and collapse history are key to coming to this conclusion. The new estimate for Antarctic mass balance by GRACE during 2003.0–2012.0 is −57±34 Gt/yr with the improved IJ05_R2-GIA correction. Similar conclusions concerning the lower Antarctic contribution to sea level rise during the GRACE era have also followed from the implementation of the W12a model by King et al.[2012] and by Sasgen et al. [2012], who used a hybrid GPS-GIA model. The reduction in mass contribution to sea level rise from Antarctica is notable. Indeed, for future discussions of closure scenarios for global water transport, it will be important to incorporate this ≅0.23 mm/yr equivalent reduction in Antarctic GIA correction for GRACE, as it is an important component of the total sea level change budget that has been so well recorded over the past two decades [e.g., Masters et al., 2012].

          In other words continental ice loss comes much closer to balancing precipitation than in previous models. However, bottom line, this still points to increased melting. Note this finding once more in the article abstract:

          The new GIA correction increases the solved-for ice mass imbalance of Antarctica to −57 ± 34 Gt/yr.

          Not as accurate, nor as definitive as one would like. But it does appear as though the continental ice burden is melting, and that there is a resulting increase in pack ice. I would suggest to you that this would have a positive effect on sea level rise.

        • I wouldn’t take GRACE too seriously as the measurement uncertainty is huge. Antarctica is loosing huge quantities of ice but it’s also accumulating huge quantities of ice. (This is why Antarctica does not presently extend in height into the stratosphere.) There is no evidence of SMB (surface mass balance) loss (which is what AGW theory predicts). Mass balance loss from the centre of the continent can’t be explained by AGW theory as it is around -50C to -80C there. People try to spin the GRACE measurements into suggesting AGW is somehow implicated, but of course that is just the usual activist nonsense, because there is no physical process that can explain such an mechanism in the context of AGW.

          It’s also worth keeping in mind that the GRACE measurements are so uncertain that Antarctica may even be gaining ice mass according to that sat. However, since we can’t observe SMB it’s unlikely MB is changing significantly in terms of longer term trends.

          And of course we’re observing increases in sea ice around the continent and temperature data suggests a slight cooling for the last 30 years. Although it was colder there, for a decade or so, circa the 1950’s.

        • michael says:

          Will, AGW is not a single theory. It’s a large number of interrelated theories, some more amply demonstrated than others. And I think most researchers would agree that what happens in Antarctica probably doesn’t hold for the rest of the planet. The place has unique weather patterns. Where the planet as a whole is 71% ocean, most of it very deep, the southern pole is covered by a large bench of dry land, topped off with a lot of ice. So its weather is very different.

          Wrapping our head around all that, it’s less than useful to speculate as to what “AGW theory” predicts. Best just to see what we can find there, and learn from it.

          “…temperature data suggests a slight cooling for the last 30 years. Although it was colder there, for a decade or so, circa the 1950′s.”

          I’d like to read your source. Can you find it for me?

        • Marian says:

          Alarmists always quote the GRACE satellite data. Grace satellite data has been shown to be a crock!

          It’s been grossly over exaggerated and falsifying ice loss. In some cases upto a massive 50%..

          So nothing out of the ordinary really going on then.

          And we do get sick and tired of claims of ice loss blamed on warming. When the certain amount of the ice loss had NOTHING to do with warming. It was all natural factors from wind erosion, sea / tidal erosion and currents, etc. And that natural loss keeps being added as warming/melting ice loss.

        • michael says:

          Good to hear from you, Marian. Could you give me references for your contention that the GRACE experiments are a “crock”? And that some of its conclusions have been misstated by up to 50%? We’ve started offering citations, when making bold assertions of fact.

    • omnologos says:

      if there’s more ice it’s because of the warming. if there’s less ice it’s because of the warming. In the 1970s they were talking of ice surges, covering the sea with ice because of the cooling.

      there are simply too many just-so stories

      • Jimbo says:

        When the Antarctic sea ice extent decreases I expect them to say that it’s a sign of cool upwelling waters. 🙂 These people are a bunch of jokers in a pack.

      • Jimbo says:

        And Michael,
        Your comment in no way refutes Steve’s claim at the top of the post. Here it is again:
        “Antarctic Sea Ice Area Has Increased More Than 10% Since 1979″
        Is this a problem?

        • michael says:

          It’s not at all a problem, Jimbo. Nor is it a surprise. My point is that Steve has presented this finding in such a way as to bring the casual reader to the conclusion that it’s getting colder down there– otherwise sea ice area would not be increasing. And that’s simply not the proper conclusion to reach.

      • michael says:

        I know it seems counterintuitive. But it actually does snow more when the air is warmer. That’s due to the fact that cold air has a lessened capacity to hold humidity. As a result one would suspect that a very cold continent might gain more new snow if the air above it were a bit warmer.

        There’s another thing. The water surrounding this continent has been getting quite a bit warmer– so it gives up vastly more moisture, relative to what it gives up in colder times. And much of this moisture precipitates onto the continent.

        More ice on the continent means more weight. And more weight pushes glaciers down whatever slope they may be sitting on. That is, the tendency for benched ice to stay where it is is weakened. And the ice falls off into the sea.

        That’s one reason there is an increase in sea ice around Antarctica, particularly during its warm season.

        • I see the point flew over your head. Whatever observation you find, you can invent a just-so story explaining it away. If the explanation is exceptionally dubious, you begin with, “Now I know this sounds counter-intuitive but…” Or in other words, no observation can ever possibly contradict your theory. That’s why you’re a crank.

        • michael says:

          Okay, Will. Disprove the assertion that cold air holds less humidity than does warm air.

          Also, it can’t have escaped your attention that I said “As a result one would suspect that a very cold continent might gain more new snow…” etc. I did not say it is proven beyond a doubt, etc. My comment was couched as a hypothesis. You chose to treat it instead as an incorrect assertion.

        • omnologos says:

          warm air is lighter than cold air. that’s why the top of Everest is so hot.

        • Billy NZ says:

          It does snow more when the air is warmer.Really?Silly me,all these years I have been believing Dr Viner.So he was wrong.Right?

        • michael says:

          Billy, you can check this yourself by emailing your local weather person. Just ask them whether warm air holds more moisture than cold air does.

          I grew up in Maine. We all knew, when an Arctic air mass came down, that it would very likely be “too cold to snow”.

        • Brian G Valentine says:

          Thank your modern liberal educational system for producing the Michaels of the Western World.

          Science and math education was emphasized in the 1950’s so the Communists wouldn’t dominate the West. Now the educational system has made it easy for the Chinese to do it

        • michael says:

          You’ve caught on to my game, Brian. Studying science and math is just a Communist plot– to rot your brains and pave the way to our Grand Takeover. 🙂

        • gator69 says:

          “The water surrounding this continent has been getting quite a bit warmer– so it gives up vastly more moisture…”

          Wrong again, and again, and again, and again…

          “An analysis of NASA satellite data shows that water vapor, the most important greenhouse gas, has declined in the upper atmosphere causing a cooling effect that is 16 times greater than the warming effect from man-made greenhouse gas emissions during the period 1990 to 2001.”

          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/06/nasa-satellite-data-shows-a-decline-in-water-vapor/

          Stop listening to alarmists, and start reading the science. If warm air made more snow, Death Valley would be a year round ski resort. 😆

        • michael says:

          Considering the source of the comment, gator, I was prepared to scoff at your article. But actually I find it thought provoking. And one dataset I’m looking forward to reviewing once it’s published is the NVAP-M Project set for 1988-2009. 1988-2001 is a little too short to give us the view we’d like to see.

          Of all the data, of course, the only set reflecting sea-surface evaporation in the Southern Ocean would be one restricted to that region, in the lowest of the five atmospheric levels. One wouldn’t expect to see anything relevant in the upper layers of the atmosphere, would one? Or, worse, in an average of the entire southern hemisphere.

          So I’m interested in your source for other reasons. If in fact ATM moisture is going down globally, in all atmospheric layers, that fact would be of tremendous interest. And would be in search of theories to explain it.

          Around here what we’re seeing is that ATM water vapor is just being rearranged. Temperate-zone weather is showing more floods and droughts, relative to “normal” weather. So I would distrust any data that didn’t use hundreds to thousands of data collection points. In fact, looking over the sources for your article I find so much variability from one year to the next as to suspect they’ve been using far too few data points. But that’s just an observation.

        • David says:

          No ther water surrounding Antarctica is not getting warmer. A small portion of the water in one area has warmed. Overall it has cooled, as has much of the interior after certain warmist papers were destroyed. In the winter the sea ice sometimes forms from strong cold, very cold very dry air coming from the interior.

        • tckev says:

          I know it seems counterintuitive…
          Another lazy, assumption with no references. At best you may find correlation but causation is a stretch too far.
          Warmist are just full of it!

        • “Disprove the assertion that cold air holds less humidity than does warm air.”

          A grossly misleading and ignorant remark. It reminds me of the Creationist who declares evolutionary theory is impossible because I cannot show that the second law of thermodynamics is wrong.

        • michael says:

          Will– This seems like pretty basic stuff. Cold air is dry. Hot air is warm. Check this out:

          http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/moisture-holding-capacity-air-d_281.html

    • Billy Liar says:

      Here’s a place showing less snowfall recently in Antarctica:

      Fifty-year Amundsen–Scott South Pole station surface climatology

      Finally, for the period 1983–2010, the average annual snow accumulation is decreasing at a statistically significant downward rate of − 2.9 mm/year.

      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169809512002256

      Now you show me the ones showing increased snowfall.

      • snafu says:

        Tell me Billy. If the Amundsen–Scott South Pole station is recording decreased snow cover, why is it they have built have a new multimillion dollar station which has extendable legs?

        Maybe this is why.

        (hope the links work)

        • Billy Liar says:

          Snowfall is declining year on year – it is not zero but is around 9 inches accumulation per year and it never melts (only sublimes when the sun comes out).

      • michael says:

        First, Billy, I have no theories dependent on there being increased snowfall. Nor do I have theories linked to decreasing snowfall. I would suppose this is one thing that varies from one region of the continent to the next. (I note in passing that your article describes snow accumulation patterns from a single station.)

        So let’s look at the summary:

        “The analysis found slight decreases in the temperature and pressure over the 1957–2010 time period that are not statistically significant. The wind speed, however, does show a significant downward trend of 0.28 m s− 1 decade− 1 over the same period. The seasonal time series of temperature and pressure illustrate how longer term oscillations are superimposed on shorter-term fluctuations. The seasonal mean wind speed over the 54 year period shows a consistent pattern of decreasing speed for all seasons. In contrast to the mean wind speeds, the maximum wind speeds are increasing for the summer and transition seasons, and the increases are statistically significant. Finally, for the period 1983–2010, the average annual snow accumulation is decreasing at a statistically significant downward rate of − 2.9 mm year− 1.”

        Just guessing– but perhaps the changes in wind pattern have something to do with snowfall accumulation. I see they don’t measure falling snow but accumulating snow. And a possible link between the two changing patterns would be tempting to try to prove.

        A hundred miles away from this station and you might see a different picture. But thanks for the input.

        • tckev says:

          Just guessing– but perhaps the changes in wind pattern have something to do with snowfall accumulation…

          Yep, sounds like a warmist to me – correlation but no proof of causation so just guessing.

        • michael says:

          Tckev, what Billy was describing was the readings from a single station. This doesn’t give you a very broad picture, as it would be highly variable. Readings from a transect are the usual procedure, as they give a wider average. In a single spot, higher winds might either blow more snow in or blow more snow away, blurring the reading. In other words, with one collection point your data’s not worth much.

          That was my point.

        • Billy Liar says:

          You need to read a bit more about the place you’re pontificating about. Come back when you learnt something instead of ‘just guessing’.

  3. Argiris Diamantis says:

    The Antarctic land ice cannot melt during sub zero temperatures. This is what I found on the internet: “Around the coasts of Antarctica, temperatures are generally close to freezing in the summer (December–February) months, or even slightly positive in the northern part of the Antarctic Peninsula. During winter, monthly mean temperatures at coastal stations are between −10°C and −30°C but temperatures may briefly rise towards freezing when winter storms bring warm air towards the Antarctic coast. Conditions on the high interior plateau are much colder as a result of its higher elevation, higher latitude and greater distance from the ocean. Here, summer temperatures struggle to get above −20°C and monthly means fall below −60°C in winter. Vostok station holds the record for the lowest ever temperature recorded at the surface of the Earth (−89.2°C)”.
    http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/about_antarctica/geography/weather/temperatures.php
    Michael (Mann?) says: “Antarctic land ice is decreasing at an accelerating rate”
    That is not possible: only during the summer temperatures are – slightly – above zero in a small part of the continent, the northern part of the Peninsula. The rest of the continent is really, really cold. How could land ice be decreasing when temperatures on average are between minus 20
    and minus 6o degrees Celsius?

    • Jimbo says:

      They are lying and fabricating for the cause.

      • michael says:

        Jimbo: They? Would you mean polar researchers? They’re going up there (or down there), pretending to collect data and just publishing BS?

        What a world you must live in.

    • One possible explanation is that you’re dealing with heavy marijuana smokers. 😉 They are not very good at science so when they pretend that they are, what they write turns out absurd. But not to each other.

    • jeffk says:

      Ice can evaporate without melting first, due to lowered humidity and winds. Similar to ann unused icecube tray, the ice slowly shrinks from evaporation and low humidity if the freezer door hasn’t been opened in awhile.
      Ice on coastal, more humid areas is less prone to evaporate and may even expand.
      Antarctic ice is subject to El Niño and La Niña effects on humidity and ocean, air currents.
      All the above is natural and says nothing to support AGW. But it’s used by alarmists nevertheless.

    • michael says:

      “The Antarctic land ice cannot melt during sub zero temperatures.”

      Who could disagree with that? And in fact I’ve never said it did. Read me again.

      “How could land ice be decreasing when temperatures on average are between minus 20
      and minus 6o degrees Celsius?”

      Ice mass could very well decrease due to the pressure of added weight. Remember that ice is always getting pushed off the edges of this continent. More weight behind the push would mean more ice lost.

      • tckev says:

        “Ice mass could very well decrease due to the pressure of added weight…”
        Yes it could but that would be correlation but no proof of causation so just guessing.

      • Glacierman says:

        “Ice mass could very well decrease due to the pressure of added weight.”

        I hope that is a type O. You don’t really believe that? If something is under pressure, it’s mass decreases?

        • michael says:

          Read it again, Glacier. If additional weight presses a mass of any substance down, so that pieces of it fall off the edges, the total mass might very well diminish. Why? If the mass lost at the edges exceeds the amount being added at the center, the resulting sum would be less.

          It’s a possible mechanism, not a conclusion. One thing seems apparent, though. Ice mass, according to the GRACE data, does indeed appear to be diminishing. Also, there is evidence that precipitation is adding mass at the East Antarctic center.

          If you like, form a different hypothesis to explain it.

        • Glacierman says:

          I read it Michael and I understand what you were trying to say, but you did say it very poorly.

      • Ben says:

        RE: michael – “More weight behind the push would mean more ice lost.”

        So the less ice there is, the less ice is lost? Riiiight.

        Excluding GIA (glacial isostatic adjustments), the net ice balance is positive 2.9 gigatons per year, but the resolution is poor, at one tenth the error bound.

        “GRACE monthly solutions from CSR-RL04 release time series from Jan. 2003 through the beginning of Jan. 2012, uncorrected for GIA, yield an ice mass rate of +2.9 ± 29 Gt/yr”

        Any ice mass loss is due solely to GIA

        http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/antarctic-contribution-sea-level-rise-observed-grace-improved-gia-correction

  4. glenncz says:

    Michael,I haven’t read the SS article but will, but your comment doesn’t make sense. As mentioned above Antarctica is really cold all year. The air above the surrounding sea is likely rarely above 40F, usually much colder. How could such air hold more water vapor just because the sea is a degree or two higher. (again I don’t know the SST’s). Then,you say it is snowing more. Well, how could it be snowing more and yet melting more, when the interior is rarely even above zero. If it was snowing more the glaciers would be thickening, as you say. You say the glaciers are thickening enough to create more sea ice, yet they are also loosing mass at the same time??? You theory doesn’t make one bit of common sense. Just like the theory that 1 in 20,000(the change in CO2) parts of the atmosphere is what controls the climate, hurricanes, sea ice, tornadoes, droughts, floods, snow winters, snowy Memorial days, and of course that 1 in 20,000 parts is also going to flood Manhattan.

    • michael says:

      You’ve raised a very serious question, Glenn. How could it be snowing more and yet melting more, when the interior is rarely above zero?

      Answer: it couldn’t.

      It’s snowing more, yes. They do measure precipitation there. And they find a lot of new snow now in the main continent, East Antarctica. Much less new snow, apparently, in the much smaller West Antarctica. But this snow doesn’t melt.

      Look for the ice loss at the margins of the continent, not at the center. The mechanism I would examine first would be the pressure of added weight on top of the glacial mass, pushing ice out at the edges.

      One thing we do find from the evidence though. The continent is losing a LOT of ice now, relative to the historical norm. We see that in annual measurements of the ice pack extent– as Steve points out at the top of this page.

      One could look for articles examining the extent of seasonal refreezing, to see to what degree that would affect sea ice area. My thinking is, you will not find this value increasing over time. But were that to be the case, it would be a great way to refute my grasp of the subject.

      • It’s been doing this for millions of years. (shakes head). For your claim to be even remotely plausible you would have to demonstrate via a data set that atmospheric water vapour content has increased in the troposphere. There is not much evidence of that. So once again you are making up stuff just to sound plausible. But there is little scientific evidence behind such a claim.

        • michael says:

          First, Will, this is not “my claim”. Those who measure such things have found an overall (emphasis) increase in snow accumulation in East Antarctica and a decrease in the smaller West Antarctica. One should first investigate those facts to see where they came from. (Hint: they didn’t just come from me.)

          Assuming that you verify the above, then you might very well want to devise experiments purporting to explain the phenomena. One might be to inquire into whether atmospheric water vapor content in the troposphere is (a) increasing, (b) decreasing, or (c) staying the same.

          Go to it. I hope you can get funding for this, it sounds like a valid way to proceed.

        • I read the actual papers, Michael. Not the blogs like SkS and RC. That’s how I know you’re full of shit,

      • glenncz says:

        michael says:
        June 18, 2013 at 9:14 pm

        One thing we do find from the evidence though. The continent is losing a LOT of ice now, relative to the historical norm. We see that in annual measurements of the ice pack extent– as Steve points out at the top of this page.
        One could look for articles examining the extent of seasonal refreezing, to see to what degree that would affect sea ice area.
        ——————
        Michael, one could find whatever one looks for to prove AGW. There are thousands of papers that will show you which ever way you want the wind to blow to prove your theory.
        One thing I don’t think you get, we are dealing with lying scum who make very complicated calculations to compute stuff like ice mass in Antarctica which could very well be completely fraudulent. I don’t think you grasp the overwhelming fraud and deception in what is termed “climate science”, when for the most part it is simply politics.
        One thing we do know for sure, antarctic sea ice is growing, and it is from either cold water/cold air at the edges or increased snowfall which would give us more ice mass, it’s preposterous to think it is from increased snowfall combined with melting ice.
        Come over to this side, they are not the good guys. Good guys don’t lie and steal – which is what climate science, alternative energy and sustainability is ALL ABOUT.

        • glenncz says:

          RSS says southern polar temp’s have not changed.
          http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
          Another source
          http://www.climate4you.com/ polar temperatures
          not change in s. polar temp.s
          These NASA antarctic stations also show no warming
          http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/find_station.cgi?dt=1&ds=14&name=&world_map.x=300&world_map.y=440
          So it’s snowing more, causing the glaciers to grow and push out to sea, and melting at the same time. Go look for some papers.

        • michael says:

          Here are some obvious facts:

          1) When ice breaks off the continental mass and floats away in the sea, it is subtracted from the total ice mass of the continent;

          2) As it floats away, toward warmer waters, it begins to melt.

          Most people would agree that the Antarctic continent remains a pretty cold place, and has not been growing warmer in recent years. But if it has been snowing more there, one would first suspect that the surrounding air/water interface has been getting warmer (hence giving up more of the sea’s moisture to the air). Let’s take a look.

          1) Southern Ocean Surface Air Temps:

          http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Southern_Ocean_Temp2.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n%3D160&h=246&w=500&sz=11&tbnid=ajS4X1Uo5uRgpM:&tbnh=63&tbnw=128&zoom=1&usg=__9Zhe-_asfLpwZt2V6n_Gv-6fYlA=&docid=MOH8-btLz2O5MM&sa=X&ei=31PEUf6nBdL_4APc3ICoDA&ved=0CGsQ9QEwBw&dur=6976

          The trend, 1979-2004, has been toward warming. Naturally, at any given moment, actual temps may be well above or below the trend line.

          2) Southern Ocean Sea Temp Anomalies:

          http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Southern_Ocean_Temp2.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n%3D160&h=246&w=500&sz=11&tbnid=ajS4X1Uo5uRgpM:&tbnh=63&tbnw=128&zoom=1&usg=__9Zhe-_asfLpwZt2V6n_Gv-6fYlA=&docid=MOH8-btLz2O5MM&sa=X&ei=31PEUf6nBdL_4APc3ICoDA&ved=0CGsQ9QEwBw&dur=7603#imgdii=ajS4X1Uo5uRgpM%3A%3B5W9Axwp1_e1TMM%3BajS4X1Uo5uRgpM%3A

          No apparent trend line. It does jump out, though, that since a high in 2006 the waters have grown sharply colder. Still, a fair degree of correlation with (1).

          3) Here’s that trend again. Upward:

          http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83155

          In summary: no debate over the land temps. It’s cold down there. Sea surface/air temps may show a medium-term trend toward becoming warmer, supporting my thesis that it’s snowing onto the continent more now, hence adding mass at the continental center while mass is being taken away at the margins.

          If we find in fact that the net ice mass loss has been greater in years immediately prior to 2006 than it has been in more recent years, that fact would give us reason to have a high degree of confidence in everyone’s temp records. Thanks for providing them, Google.

          I don’t have time this morning to check it out (driving through the Smokies this weekend). But you might want to check it out. Thanks for the input, Glenn.

        • michael says:

          You might alter your approach slightly, and not seek to “prove” anything– whether AGW or the much more locally popular anti-AGW. Instead, just look at the science and critically evaluate everything.

          From both sides.

          I would also suggest that your opinions concerning the research being conducted– that it all consists of purposeful lies being put forth by “scum”– would be considered paranoid ravings by any normal person looking over your comment. Maybe you should just relax, and use your energies separating the measurable data (that is, the facts) from people’s opinions.

          There are ways of determining whether the conclusions found in research papers are fraudulent– or even just incorrect. And they are summed up quite nicely in the phrase “peer review”. If a paper passes, it gets published.

        • Latitude says:

          “There are ways of determining whether the conclusions found in research papers are fraudulent– or even just incorrect. And they are summed up quite nicely in the phrase “peer review”.”
          =====
          michael, you are confused about what peer review is

        • michael says:

          Glenn, when you say things like “we are dealing with lying scum”, and “the overwhelming fraud and deception in what is termed “climate science”, when for the most part it is simply politics”, etc, you are losing all credibility. You don’t realize that out there in the world, this makes you look like a flying saucer nut?

          Okay, if you prefer… the world of science is controlled by people who want you to believe in some theory that will enslave you to their masters. They want to end life as we know it, so they can take us back to the Stone Age. And the conspiracy is so perfect that not a single one of them has ever come out, to say that he was a part of that conspiracy. If that’s what you believe, go for it.

          I can’t imagine their motive. I can’t swallow the thought that the conspiracy so far has been perfect. And most of all, I don’t share that lurid view of the world.

          I don’t think carbon fuel burning should be stopped. Without a good alternative, that would be disastrous. But I do think we have at least one very good alternative: liquid-fueled thorium reactor technology. It’s safe, we have enough of that fuel to last us several thousand years, it emits no greenhouse gases, it’s affordable and it could replace all our electric generation capability within a generation.

          The United States has its reasons for wanting to suppress this technology, and the fossil fuel industry would certainly endorse those reasons. But other countries, like China, are merrily going ahead with it. So in time it will become a commonplace reality.

          So when it comes to anthropogenic global warming, I have no political agenda. I just note that virtually all the evidenc e thus far is pointing in that direction.

        • Latitude says:

          I just note that virtually all the evidenc e thus far is pointing in that direction.
          =====
          sorry, no it isn’t Michael

          computer models are an epic fail..

          temps are doing what they’ve always done..and the overall trend is down

          temps are not cooperating with the CO2/warming theory…CO2 has steadily gone up….temps didn’t get the memo

        • “The United States has its reasons for wanting to suppress this technology, and the fossil fuel industry would certainly endorse those reasons.”

          Lunatic conspiracy theory alert.

      • tckev says:

        “One could look for articles examining the extent of seasonal refreezing, to see to what degree that would affect sea ice area.”
        So everything written before this is just more BS, correlation but no proof of causation so just guessing.

  5. Norman says:

    Antarctic temperatures sea land or atmosphere have NOT increased provide proof

    • Jimbo says:

      The onus is on those who claim Antarctic meltdown to provide temperatures to try and convince the doubting Thomases of this world.

    • michael says:

      The southern continent is so vast it creates its own weather. And the continent itself is certainly not warming. But it is receiving more snow.

      There are also some unique aspects to what’s going on there, relative to the rest of the planet. For instance, this:

      …Oceanographic data also find that the waters in the Southern Ocean are warming. The waters of the Southern Ocean’s Antarctic Circumpolar Current have warmed more rapidly than the global ocean as a whole. From 1960 to 2000, water temperature increased by 0.068°C per decade at depths between 300 and 1000 metres. This warming trend has increased to 0.098°C per decade since the 1980s (Boning 2008).

      If the Southern Ocean is warming, why is sea ice increasing? There are several contributing factors. One is the drop in ozone levels over Antarctica. The hole in the ozone layer above the South Pole has caused cooling in the stratosphere (Gillet 2003). A side-effect is a strengthening of the cyclonic winds that circle the Antarctic continent (Thompson 2002). The wind pushes sea ice around, creating areas of open water known as polynyas. More polynyas leads to increased sea ice production (Turner 2009).

      Another contributor is changes in ocean circulation. The Southern Ocean consists of a layer of cold water near the surface and a layer of warmer water below. Water from the warmer layer rises up to the surface, melting sea ice. However, as air temperatures warm, the amount of rain and snowfall also increases. This freshens the surface waters, leading to a surface layer less dense than the saltier, warmer water below. The layers become more stratified and mix less. Less heat is transported upwards from the deeper, warmer layer. Hence less sea ice is melted (Zhang 2007).

      Antarctic sea ice is complex and counter-intuitive. Despite warming waters, complicated factors unique to the Antarctic region have combined to increase sea ice production. The simplistic interpretation that it’s caused by cooling is false.

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/increasing-Antarctic-Southern-sea-ice-intermediate.htm

      • Some of this is true, some of this is speculative. The climate models predicted that Antarctica would experience warmer temperatures and sea ice loss. The opposite happened, so Antarctica becomes a special case. Nothing necessarily wrong with that. The problem is that most of the claims concerning AGW predictions now require ‘special case’ explanations. I think we’re probably at the point now where a full rescue package for the theory is not worth the trouble and some of the fundamental assumptions need to be reconsidered.

        • Chewer says:

          Scientific theory? Not!
          AGW is a working hypothesis and has zero chance of becoming scientific theory!

        • michael says:

          I agree totally with your first three sentences. We’re finding that Antarctica is indeed a special case. If I were trying with all my might to “prove” that AGW was real, I would probably not use proofs from this unique continent.

          However I do not observe that “most of the claims concerning AGW predictions now require ‘special case’ explanations”. The data for atmospheric warming, the data for Arctic ice loss (not just ice extent loss, but actual volume loss), for ocean warming, ocean acidification and even factors cooling the atmosphere, such as aerosol dispersal, all fit remarkably well with theory. Data and theory fit into a coherent whole.

          That’s the only reason I find the argument compelling. But I do see I am in good company: that being, 97% of climate scientists.

        • Climate models get the mid troposphere wrong. They get mid latitudes wrong. They get equatorial regions wrong. They get precipitation wrong. They get the south polar region wrong. They get ocean heat content wrong. The only thing they get right is the Arctic region, however, temperature trends in the Arctic are highly cyclical and this is well documented in the literature. So a complex model would be expected to get a few things right, at least by chance.

          Nothing convincing here. Nor is the 97% agreement claim, which is an assertion constructed by a group of activist bloggers who published a junk science paper. Nothing much in that either.

        • Latitude says:

          But I do see I am in good company: that being, 97% of climate scientists.
          ====
          michael, you just completely and totally blew it

      • Brian G Valentine says:

        Crikey, if this junk “explanation” doesn’t sound like Dialectical Materialism/Lysenkoism I don’t know what does.

      • glenncz says:

        Michael says:
        From 1960 to 2000, water temperature increased by 0.068°C per decade at depths between 300 and 1000 metres.

        Oh, now you are trying to school us that someone knew the temperature of of the water at 3,000 ft in 1960??? Ridiculous! They put the bucket down in the water 3,000 feet and pulled it up (real quick!!) , looked at the mercury thermometer, wrote the number in a notebook, corrected for the “canvas” and whalla, we have a paper with the exact measurement to .00C? This is the quackery of the world we live in.
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/25/historical-sea-surface-temperature-adjustmentscorrections-aka-the-bucket-model/

      • T.O.O says:

        Will,
        Below is one of many quotes taken from glenncz’s link. It is clear to any ABOVE average reader that corrections are necessary in processing historical temperature measurements.

        “The largest, positive corrections are in early winter (December) over the Gulf Stream and the Kuroshio, where warm water, cold dry air, and strong winds cause rapid evaporative heat loss from the buckets. The corrections approach 1 °C by 1940 in these regions in early winter. Corrections are also large (around 0.4 °C to 0.5 °C by 1940) in all seasons in the tropics because of the high rate of evaporation when SST is high. Some negative corrections are made in mid latitudes in summer, mainly where the mean air temperature around the bucket exceeds the mean SST.”

        • Latitude says:

          Morning TOO

          There’s no justification for adjusting anything….
          No one “knows”…..it’s all speculation…once you start adjusting, you can justify anything

        • tckev says:

          Justifying the adjustment is that they just keep nailing those correlations together, or in layman’s terms just keep guessing.

        • T.O.O. says:

          Latitude,
          So if measuring instruments change, you wouldn’t adjust for that? What if a stations temperature was taken at 3pm in the 1950’s but now it is taken at 7am — you wouldn’t adjust for that? Or if an airport grew up around the station, or if the station moved, or was housed in different materials — no adjustments would be justified for any of those scenarios?

        • omnologos says:

          it’s one thing to adjust -it’s another to discover most of the warming only AFTER the adjustments

        • Latitude says:

          absolutely not……there’s no way to know what to adjust or how much
          It would all be a guess….

          You’re just stuck with a really sucky past record….

          Which you’d be stuck with even with any adjustments

        • T.O.O says:

          Well Latitude,
          If adjustments to correct historical bias are never justified, what are you left with?

        • Latitude says:

          You seem to have missed the excuse as to adjusted temps having no effect if you average them…….that’s the way it’s done

          What they missed by using that excuse….is that using un-adjusted temps would do exactly the same after averaging

          …so there’s no excuse for adjusting them

          What are you left with?…..the same sucky temp reconstructions we have now

        • TOO confuses legitimate adjustments with adjustments that are orders of magnitude larger than the underlying data and cannot identify one type of adjustment as legitimate and the other nonsense. Adjustments are just adjustments to him. He bounces around from one topic to another constantly, because he has no depth of comprehension of anything he tries to discuss. It’s the hallmark of the crank. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

  6. Billy Liar says:

    Michael,

    See my posts upthread – the South Pole Station and Vostok both have declining snowfall. Kinda shoots a hole in your warmer air, more snow argument doesn’t it?

    Show me some Antarctic accumulation data that’s increasing in recent years.

  7. Olaf Koenders says:

    Michael – The whole problem with the AGW philosophy is they’re trying to tie every little regional change into a global CO2 catastrophe, none of which stack up when you have ever changing ocean currents and jet streams, solar output, Milankovitch Cycles etc.

    The oceans have been rising for tens of millennia, proven by Aussie Abo’s being able to migrate over which is now Torres Strait. There’s still no acceleration of sea levels no matter how much they say Antarctica is melting. Tide gauges resting on land that subsides is a variable, so is Earth’s gravity which changes regionally, not forgetting regional atmospheric pressures.

    We have evidence of ancient man made tools and tree stumps found under retreating glaciers, which most have stopped retreating thanks to record recent snowfalls. 15,000 years ago we were pulled out of a deep ice age that occurs about every 100,000 years and, the interglacials are very short in comparison. Why this is so we still don’t understand and the vast majority of these variables are unpredictable.

    Greenland vikings used to farm that land for some 300 years. Their graves are now in permafrost and it’s obvious why they left an otherwise bountiful place they could fiercely call their own for a climate that could still produce food.

    With all this in mind, does it not seem stupid to stare at every dribbling icicle and call it Man’s fault? It’s plainly obvious the AGW scare can’t be maintained against all the unknown natural variability. It can only be the most low-information voters out there believing and parroting the gubberment lies designed to take more of your money – which is the trail we should be following.

    • michael says:

      It’s looking more and more as though there are significant differences between the way I think and the way your sources tell you “AGW alarmists” are supposed to think.

      The people I read are actually trying to find the truth of the matter, not just beat the drum for one side and try to suppress the other. That approach would be simplistic to the point of stupidity.

      I can’t think of one single legitimate scientist who ignores natural climate inputs. Were he to try, how could he ever fit man-made inputs into the larger picture? I trust you don’t assume there are people who think the climate never changed throughout the history of the planet until internal combustion engines were invented. Everyone is well aware of Milankovitch Cycles, solar variability, the periodic current oscillations, etc. And given that framework, they then seek to find out what’s different than anticipated.

      Most of the information you’ve compiled is pretty good. I would suggest, though, that Antarctica is at most a very minor contributor to sea level rise. Overwhelmingly this is due to the fact that water increases in volume as it warms. Not much has to do with the melting of ice. Yet.

      Want a good overview? Wikipedia has a surprisingly good article, jam packed with scholarly references, entitled “current sea level rise”. Here:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

    • michael says:

      Olaf, I really don’t think climate scientists spend a lot of time trying to “tie every little regional change” to global warming. The material I read usually looks at change over large regions of the planet. And the very readily measurable increase in CO2 is an excellent indicator. At least if you follow the greenhouse theory first put forward by Svante Arrhenius.

      The oceans have in fact been rising for tens of millenia. To be specific, ever since the end of our most recent Ice Age, 11,000 years ago. And mean global sea level has in fact been rising in recent years. Although that’s not from Antarctica melting. Antarctica is not in fact melting. (Pieces of its shelf ice do in fact break off, and melt. But they add very little to the global sea level trend.)

      Also, researchers are quite capable of disentangling mean sea level from a world full of emerging coastlines and subsiding coastlines. They way they do it is quite ingenious. Here’s an excellent introduction:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

      Don’t scorn this because it’s “just” a Wikipedia article, until you’ve looked over their abundant references. It’s an admirable piece of research, with well over a hundred citations, links and suggestions for further reading.

      Also, we do know quite a bit about the cycle of glacial and interglacial periods by now. One thing we know is that were it not for anthropogenic changes in our environment, we would be headed at some certain point into a fresh Ice Age.

      Climate science has no simple answers. Yes, without us the climate would still grow hotter and then colder over the years. But after reviewing the literature for some years, I’ve formed the conclusion that our inputs have overwhelmed the processes we find in the natural world. They are still there, of course. But now so are we.

      • Latitude says:

        michael, you asked this:
        I’ve been kind of hoping someone could offer up something I hadn’t yet considered that threw the commonly accepted models into question. If they were to do so they’d increase my understanding of the science.
        ======
        I answered this:
        this would throw the models…There’s no way to know if even the top 10% of “most accurate” models are because of formulas….or just lucky

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/06/climate-modeling-epic-fail-spencer-the-day-of-reckoning-has-arrived/

        but the underlying premise of global warming is that temps have gone up…
        you can’t get a trend out of this short of a time frame…and that small of a temp change

        Every paleo reconstruction shows temps increasing or decreasing in whole numbers, not fractions, over hundreds of years….when the overall trend is going in the opposite direction
        =====
        and I asked you this:
        bump….Michael I’m interested in which model you would pick…and why?

        and you thoughts on how this small temp change…over this brief period of time….shows a trend
        =========

        I’m waiting for your answer………….

        • T.O.O says:

          lattitude,
          Why is it that the only references cited here are from WUWT or Steve’s own blog? And, of course, these only lead back to some other blogger’s opinion and never to an actual study. How does this add credibility to your arguments?

        • Latitude says:

          I only gave one….from WUWT
          it links to Dr. Spencer’s blog…I don’t know about the “they” you’re talking about
          Figured michael needed all the help and explanation he could get….and that link talks about what he’s looking at

      • Olaf Koenders says:

        Michael –

        “One thing we know is that were it not for anthropogenic changes in our environment, we would be headed at some certain point into a fresh Ice Age.”

        Would you care to prove that? Who is it you refer to when you say “we know”? What are their references and do they have certain evidence of that?

        But you’re just saying “changes”, rather than CO2, which is what gubberment funded science whores declare is the problem, which is why they want to tax us on the CO2 only.

        UHI and land use change are “changes”, but land use change don’t mean squat to nature, it changes that all the time without our help, which is very likely what your gubberment whores are trying to blame on CO2. UHI is barely a problem, because when nature changes a landscape, its “UHI” effect changes with it, not to mention volcanoes and their black lava flows.

        There’s not a single paper that can precisely prove that CO2 is any problem, considering its effects are logarithmic. In light of the lack of evidence to that, fearmongering isn’t science. “We” used to blame witches on bad weather for hundreds of years and were apparently 97% certain of it. I’m afraid “we” haven’t learned anything since then and neither have you.

        • michael says:

          Sorry, Olaf. I keep forgetting that what “we” know (that is, the 97% of us) is not at all the same as what you know.

          Ever since the International Geophysical Year was declared, back in 1958, we’ve been trying to extend our knowledge of how the planet operates. And we’ve built a mountain of data that projects we’re in the middle of a long phase of reaching tipping points, that periodically thrust us into an ice advance and then back out of it. We do actually know quite a lot about this. And our knowledge tells us that there’s no indication of a natural end of that cycle. That is, that we know the last ice age we experienced will not be repeated. Instead it has been anticipated that at some point in the future, absent some intervening force, we will again abruptly plunge into a new ice age. Throughout the 1970s that was the common understanding among most climate scientists.

          However, that was then. Things have been changing rapidly here on Earth. And we’ve been finding that man’s many activities, not to be limited to the burning of fossil fuels but to include altering the very surface and chemistry of the planet, have made such a future increasingly unlikely. We are the intervening force changing the trend of glacial-interglacial oscillations.

        • michael says:

          Olaf, me again. I’m noticing another dimension to your complaint. That is, your obscurantism. You infer that because we once blamed bad weather on witches, it necessarily follows that man can never know anything with any degree of certainty.

          I suppose if that floats your boat and comforts you, it must be true. But if so, it would follow that none of you fellows know any more than do we. Right?

          The other thing is this: “But you’re just saying “changes”, rather than CO2, which is what gubberment funded science whores declare is the problem, which is why they want to tax us on the CO2 only.”

          So your real complaint is a political one. You tend to follow web sites that tell you the science of climate is politically based, and what they really intend doing is not to find out where our climate is headed but to tax you.

          That one’s less easy to address. Why don’t you go out onto the rest of the web– the other 97%, if you please– and see if there’s any connection between the people funding basic science and some malign group of perpetrators who want to destroy civilization by taxing us to death?

          I don’t think there is. THE USA pretty much leads the charge among nations, when it comes to deciding the world’s priorities. And here there’s never been the slightest degree of political will to tax carbon. Not even among Democrats. In real life, it’s a non-issue.

          Check it out. Read it for yourself.

        • Latitude says:

          michael said: I hadn’t yet considered that threw the commonly accepted models into question.
          =====
          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/06/climate-modeling-epic-fail-spencer-the-day-of-reckoning-has-arrived/

          That is all 73 models…..all 73 epic fail

          That’s your climate computer models michael

        • Olaf Koenders says:

          I don’t think you get it Michael. We are certainly heading into another ice age – a major one. They happen every 100,000 years – with or without our interference.

          Back in the 70’s, the “coming ice age” was the theme, then it was “global warming”, now it’s ice age again according to you, but once again, the soothsayers and druids keep wailing it’s all our fault without any scientific evidence. The models have failed completely:

          http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/clip_image002_thumb3.jpg?w=640&h=480

          ..but Mr. Mann continues to lie and say the models have “under predicted” the changes:

          https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/screenhunter_05-jun-19-18-09.jpg?w=513&h=355

          “Why don’t you go out onto the rest of the web– the other 97%, if you please– and see if there’s any connection between the people funding basic science and some malign group of perpetrators who want to destroy civilization by taxing us to death?”

          Borrowing from Eric Simpson:

          The leftist Senator Tim Wirth said in 1993: “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing.”

          It’s amazing how deception is so openly and explicitly called for to achieve their idea of “the right thing.” Their own words:

          “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” -Paul Watson, Greenpeace

          “We have to offer up scary scenarios… each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective [dishonest] and being honest [ineffective].” -Stephen Schneider, lead ipcc author, 1989

          “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of .. how dangerous it is.” -Al Gore

          “Only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention.” -Monika Kopacz, Atmospheric Scientist

          “The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” -Daniel Botkin, ex Chair of Environmental Studies, UCSB

          They’ve got you by the balls Michael. If you believe there’s a “god” that needs prayer to be benevolent and not send floods, be my guest. Has that even worked for anyone yet?

          If you believe a tax can “fix” the climate that’s been doing as it likes for billions of years, even when CO2 was some 20x higher than today – without ever a runaway greenhouse – be my guest and pay my share. There’s still a “hole” in the ozone layer (actually, it’s just a thinning at both poles) – how did banning CFC’s help? It didn’t! Ozone is both created and destroyed by sunlight.

          You’re throwing virgins into volcanoes all over again, sucked in by the ruse of soothsayers and druids mentioned above and in millennia past. We haven’t changed at all in the time since we’ve been afraid of the moon – neither has the weather.

          The doomsayers keep making up lies that never come true, such as Paul Erlich in the 70’s saying the world will be in great famines and humanity will fail by 2000. David Viner said in 2000 that in a few years children won’t know what snow is. So you naturally change tack and say there’s an ice age on the way because it’s warmer.

          What will be your stance if that fails? “However, that was then. Things have been changing rapidly here on Earth..”.

          You’re as much a liar as the rest of them. Embarrassment looks good on you, especially the 97% claim.

        • michael says:

          “I don’t think you get it Michael. We are certainly heading into another ice age – a major one. They happen every 100,000 years – with or without our interference.”

          Olaf: show me the model that predicts this with 100% certainty. You are guilty of the same flaw everyone has been accusing me of– trusting over-much in predictive models.

          We don’t know. We’re pretty sure that if man had not intervened, we’d be heading toward another ice age. But our efforts are impacting the natural climate inputs in major ways. NOAA drew up a good vector analysis diagram some years ago showing the relative strengths of different climate inputs: vulcanism, solar variability, the activities of soil organisms (very important, as it turns out), flatulence in cattle, concrete manufacture, high-altitude aerosols, etc. etc. And if you compare the natural inputs with the new ones– that is, the ones we’ve been adding over the past 250 years or so, you find that our signal is easily as strong now as the sum of the other signals.

          “Back in the 70′s, the “coming ice age” was the theme, then it was “global warming”, now it’s ice age again according to you…”

          No it’s not. You really need to learn how to read for information. What I said was that back in the 1970s the state of our knowledge only included natural climate inputs. THEN they added the man-made ones and the big picture started to change.

          “The models have failed completely:”

          That, in a nutshell, is the only thread you guys have to hang your tale on. It is a certain fact that any model professing to have predictive capabilities MAY BE WRONG! And I’ve said it before, all that means is that predictions shouldn’t be taken very seriously. What I look at is datasets. Actual measurements. And they show a very alarming trend.

          The fact indicating that your side’s arguments are at heart political is the way in which you interpret the uncertainty of ALL models as indicating that ONE side is wrong flat out wrong. While vindicating the other side’s argument, to wit that man’s inputs have been proven to be of no importance and that everything’s just hunky dory.

          It’s not so. When the uncertainty inherent in a given model or in all models induces an uncertainty in all theories based on models, your side fails the test just as surely as does the majority opinion. And the proper outlook this should bring about in your thinking is this:

          As we can’t tell anything about future climate with total certainty, we should adopt an open mind and be watchful for emerging trends that convince us there is a problem. Or that convince us there is NO problem. At present, we;re just not there yet.

          Right? That would be the logical result of your line of thinking. Instead I think you’re saying that your side is 100% right and the other side are all liars.

        • michael says:

          “If you believe a tax can “fix” the climate that’s been doing as it likes for billions of years, even when CO2 was some 20x higher than today – without ever a runaway greenhouse – be my guest and pay my share.”

          Olaf, let me respectfully submit, ONCE AGAIN, that you’ve got the wrong guy. A. I’m not in favor of any carbon tax. It won’t fix a thing. And B. The last time CO2 levels were anomalously high (not 20X) was during the Paleocene-Eocene Climate Maximum. You might recall there was a massive extinction event then, the greenhouse event so severely impacted the environment.

          “There’s still a “hole” in the ozone layer (actually, it’s just a thinning at both poles) – how did banning CFC’s help? It didn’t! Ozone is both created and destroyed by sunlight.”

          You really ought to read more, outside your narrow circle of things you enjoy reading. The effects of chlorine in the upper atmosphere have been thoroughly explored. Tiny amounts in the stratosphere have immense consequences. And nature didn’t put that there– we did.

          Our curbs on chlorine-based coolants are expected to bring about a repair of the ozone layer very slowly, that is, by around 2050. But the science on this is quite solid. I won’t bother looking up refs for you, as I think you’re unlikely to read them.

        • michael says:

          “The doomsayers keep making up lies that never come true, such as Paul Erlich in the 70′s saying the world will be in great famines and humanity will fail by 2000.”

          But we are in a famine– you just don’t notice it because you live in a developed country. There are more people hungry today– around three billion of us– than were alive back in 1955. And is humanity failing to achieve its goals? Just look at any newspaper. Our response to overpopulation and incipient resource collapse is to start wars with one another, worldwide.

          “David Viner said in 2000 that in a few years children won’t know what snow is. So you naturally change tack and say there’s an ice age on the way because it’s warmer.”

          Please learn how to read. I didn’t say that. Go back and take another look.

          “You’re as much a liar as the rest of them. Embarrassment looks good on you, especially the 97% claim.”

          The 97% figure is widely acknowledged to be accurate and the methodology used has been published. Only 3% of peer-reviewed climate papers cast serious doubt on man-made global warming. You can, and should, look that up.

          Oh, I forgot. You know that’s a lie without even thinking.

        • Olaf Koenders says:

          “You are guilty of the same flaw everyone has been accusing me of– trusting over-much in predictive models.”

          Untrue – I rely on history, empirical evidence, obviously which you know nothing about because the charts you read on SKS have all been tampered with or cherry picked as they start from the coldest periods.

          Going by your idea that global warming is why it’s getting colder, what did the Romans do that caused a decline in temps? What did the Vikings do that caused the Maunder Minimum? Was it their SUV boats?

          Trying to free yourself by proclaiming “However, that was then. Things have been changing rapidly here on Earth..” in order to blame Man without empirical evidence is a lie.

          There have always been floods, fires, tornadoes and hurricanes. The empirical evidence shows these are in decline through warming. Fires largely happen now because of firebugs – not warming – although even these are reducing.

          I know where your “team” will take this. Since it’s cooling and more tornadoes etc. occur when it’s cooler, they’ll still proclaim it to be Man’s fault – until the gubberment gravy train goes away – then they’ll shut up. Every time Arctic ice climbs, your team says nothing, until now, when they proclaim cooling because of warming. The stupid – it burns.

          You’re the epitome of the dirty beggar on the street holding up a sign saying the end is near. They’ve been doing it for millennia and have been wrong every time. So will you and your friends.

          Your science doesn’t beat observations, no matter what your team says. You’ll continue to switch between warming and cooling because it happens – thanks largely to the oceans on a regular basis and the sun, on more irregular cycles.

          NASA predicted solar cycle 24 to be as large, if not larger than 23, but the reality is it turned out to be barely a blip. The oceans are also in a cooling cycle right now. Gee.. guess what’s gonna happen?

          When the oceans return to a warming cycle and if such causes temps to rise in the miniscule, you’ll be back proclaiming warming. You’re just a follower of fools, and a liar. I don’t care what you say next because you’ve already proven what a hack you are.

        • Olaf Koenders says:

          “Please learn how to read. I didn’t say that. Go back and take another look.”

          Michael – it’s you who’s guilty of not reading and comprehending. I never said you said that, I was quoting someone else which I made abundantly clear.

        • Olaf Koenders says:

          “Back in the 70′s, the “coming ice age” was the theme, then it was “global warming”, now it’s ice age again according to you…”

          No it’s not. You really need to learn how to read for information. What I said was that back in the 1970s the state of our knowledge only included natural climate inputs. THEN they added the man-made ones and the big picture started to change.

          Back in the 70’s there wasn’t a drive for gubberment handouts for climate related studies, it was then that much of this “green” and “gaia” activism began. Flower-power, ya know? Naturally, once adding the bloated man-made inputs the idealogues came out of the scrub.

          It’s not a state of knowledge these days, it’s all activism for a dollar. However, this is rapidly changing as alarmist predictions are failing dismally, just like the models and empirical evidence in everything BUT CO2 wins out. There’s NO correlation between CO2 and past ice ages. Vast extinctions happen all the time on this planet because its surface is a nasty place to try and exist. CO2 was way higher in the past without a runaway greenhouse, and that’s a fact. Every breath you exhale is 40,000ppm CO2. Stop it already. And stop using electricity and your car.

        • michael says:

          It’s like the Pied Piper has come through your town, Olaf. Let’s agree to disagree on the Vast Government Conspiracy for the moment, shall we?

          One cold winter does not equate to “alarmist predictions are failing dismally”. I think we can both agree that on such a short scale, the sun’s path through the sunspot cycle has a great impact? Well, the solar maximum has failed, this time around. One might surmise that we’d be in for a cold winter, or two or three or nine or ten. You can easily look this up to see current data. This is not climate, it’s weather.

          Secondly, “There’s NO correlation between CO2 and past ice ages.”

          Oh yes there is, and a very interesting one. We’ve all been looking closely at the 800,000 year ice core record from down South. And it shows a pattern with a different signature than what we’re seeing this time around.

          In a “normal” interglacial event, the climate grows sharply warmer first– and is followed by an increase in atm CO2. That suggests that normal ice melts (global warming) are caused by events other than increases in GHGs. And in fact the common thinking is that these events are precipitated by astronomical factors, the Milankovitch Cycles.

          There is a feedback effect, where once the GHGs kick in (possibly as a result of warming increasing biologic activity worldwide) they enhance the melting that’s already underway. What’s different this time is (a) no celestial cycles indicating planetary warming; and (b) an anomalous generation of GHGs by humans with high population and high technology– previously not a feature on our planet.

          So now is not the time to say it’s all very simple. Instead it all seems fairly complicated. But we should take the time to understand it thoroughly before deciding it’s all a bunch of crap.

          Cheers,

  8. David says:

    michael says:
    June 18, 2013 at 9:25 pm
    The southern continent is so vast it creates its own weather. And the continent itself is certainly not warming. But it is receiving more snow.
    =============================================

    An assertion without evidence, and furthermore, evidence against the assertion has been provided. BTW, snow, on the interior, has zero to do with winter sea ice, but is caused by the ocean freezing, and therefore NOTwarming. Under no circumstance does moving warming water create more ice. ( your claim of warming is based on very poor long term study that may have much more to do with “a” either the ocean currents changing, or “B” a lack of consistent meausrements taken at the same point at the same depth over the same season over the course of decades, or “c” both. SSTs surrounding the continent have consistently been cool except in a limited area. Did you smear that limited warmth everywhere like Steig? Overall SST warming is not in the data. Overall air warming is not in the data. More snow is apparently not in the data, and unrelated to sea ice anyway. Plus one million sq K of ocean freezing is likely due to either cooler water, or cooler air.

    • michael says:

      At the moment I have too many windows open to look for it, but you should be able to easily locate an article describing ice formation within polynas in the Southern Ocean.

      However I wasn’t referring to that– nor was I saying that ice at the continental margin melted, ran into the warming ocean and then refroze. Instead the mechanism I describe would cause large ice sheets to spall off the continental edge, floating away intact while gradually warming and thawing into the water. As can be seen every spring in Alaska or Greenland.

      I would agree with you, though, that a major problem plaguing scientists of any persuasion is the lack of consistent measurements over many decades. We could really use some, but they’re just not there. So we only have indirect records for such basic values as the sun’s radiance, prior to the last few years.

      I would like to assess the truth of it, as best as can be determined. I think nothing is served by asserting that as we have no solid, direct records for earlier periods, the science is all wrong. From what we do possess, most scientists have built a strong case for AGW. One thing that brought me here was to see whether anyone could point me to an equally strong case for the other side.

      Still waiting. What I’m finding is nit picking over relatively small contentions regarding data collection or interpretation. No Grand Theory has yet appeared that would convince anyone that the expected inputs from our wholesale changes in the planet’s albedo, ground cover, atmospheric composition, etc, have no impact upon our climate. And believe me, such a theory would be needed.

      • Brian G Valentine says:

        Prove to us that natural variation in albedo does not drown out any possible influence by CO2 composition that could be detected. Then we have a point of departure.

        You people are so DUMB and GULLIBLE that’s why people think you would have made such fine Nazi’s

  9. joe from Australia says:

    Warming ocean 800,1000 meters etc well unknown amounts of hydrothermal vents pumping nice warm water can do wonders.How are the active volcanoes doing down there i wonder??

  10. joe from Australia says:

    Michael it is that cold down there that when ice melts on land it freezes when it hits the water.Fresh water floats on salt water then freezes.What is the active volcano down there doing?? There is a Volcano heating up in the area marked in red. So far as Climate Change goes…EPIC FAIL http://climatestate.com/pure-climate-science/item/first-evidence-of-under-ice-volcanic-eruption-in-antarctica.html

  11. Michael is very good at pretending he knows the subject. The best cranks are. That’s the power of google combined with RC and the SkS activist blogs. Try a little experiment, ask him a question not on their talking point list, and he will be utterly clueless.

    • michael says:

      It should be apparent to anyone here who’s a working scientist that I’m not one. Just an interested amateur who’s been looking at the science (not to mention the debate) for a number of years now. But I do know how science derives its conclusions. Which puts me inside a subset of those offering comment here.

      But try me. I can read. And I’ll give you an honest opinion of anything you might be able to come up with. I’ve been kind of hoping someone could offer up something I hadn’t yet considered that threw the commonly accepted models into question. If they were to do so they’d increase my understanding of the science.

      Your serve.

      • Latitude says:

        this would throw the models…There’s no way to know if even the top 10% of “most accurate” models are because of formulas….or just lucky

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/06/climate-modeling-epic-fail-spencer-the-day-of-reckoning-has-arrived/

        but the underlying premise of global warming is that temps have gone up…
        you can’t get a trend out of this short of a time frame…and that small of a temp change

        Every paleo reconstruction shows temps increasing or decreasing in whole numbers, not fractions, over hundreds of years….when the overall trend is going in the opposite direction

        • Latitude says:

          bump….Michael I’m interested in which model you would pick…and why?

          and you thoughts on how this small temp change…over this brief period of time….shows a trend

        • Latitude says:

          bump

        • michael says:

          Latitude: Many measurable aspects of climate are changing very rapidly. Arctic ice mass is shrinking, marine clathrates are melting, the oceans are both warming and acidifying, the permafrost is rapidly degrading… The fact that something significant is happening on a global scale is not lost on any honest researcher.

          But as it’s harder to measure total therms of contained heat, when averaged over the entire earth’s atmosphere, that’s the proof you will insist upon. And if someone does come up with a figure, you will then demand the impossible, that we compare it to that same parameter over long spans of time.

          Okay, if that’s what you prefer. But one sheds more light on the subject by looking at the evidence that’s glaring and right in our face. Most glaciers worldwide are receding. Many species across all biological families are changing their range in a poleward direction. There’s a mountain of evidence of that nature. Find something equally obvious that’s going the other way.

        • Latitude says:

          …that’s not what I asked you

          bump….Michael I’m interested in which model you would pick…and why?

          and you thoughts on how this small temp change…over this brief period of time….shows a trend

        • Latitude says:

          and it’s not what you asked….

          I’ve been kind of hoping someone could offer up something I hadn’t yet considered that threw the commonly accepted models into question. If they were to do so they’d increase my understanding of the science.

        • Latitude says:

          There’s a mountain of evidence of that nature. Find something equally obvious that’s going the other way.
          ======
          stop giving me the easy ones…..

          There are too many examples of short trends….going in the opposite direction of the larger trend

          Look at all the short trends going up…..when the overall trend is down

        • Latitude says:

          …crickets

        • michael says:

          Latitude, I’m having trouble making sense of your comments thread here:

          “bump….Michael I’m interested in which model you would pick…and why?

          “and you thoughts on how this small temp change…over this brief period of time….shows a trend”

          You’re telling me repeatedly that I’m not addressing what you asked me. Okay. So what is it? Assume I don’t know what’s inside your mind, and ask me a complete question.

        • Latitude says:

          michael said: I hadn’t yet considered that threw the commonly accepted models into question.
          =====
          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/06/climate-modeling-epic-fail-spencer-the-day-of-reckoning-has-arrived/

          That is all 73 models…..all 73 epic fail

          That’s your climate computer models michael

      • Glacierman says:

        You don’t have a reason to question this:

        • michael says:

          All the actual observations appear to be going up in a suspiciously straight line. I would question that.

        • Glacierman says:

          Michael said: “I’ve been kind of hoping someone could offer up something I hadn’t yet considered that threw the commonly accepted models into question. If they were to do so they’d increase my understanding of the science.”

          When showed how pathetically flawed the models are, you change the subject. Quit with the open minded, just trying to learn act. You are a carbon copy of multiple other climate chatterbots that we have all seen before. You are more than likely actually one of them coming back to try under a different name.

        • Latitude says:

          All the actual observations appear to be going up in a suspiciously straight line. I would question that.
          ==========
          nope….

        • Glacierman says:

          Yea Lat. I shouldve known better than to show the graph of the trends that show how far off the models are instead of the running means, which is a much busier graph. Not surprising it was not understood.

        • Latitude says:

          don’t worry,,,he’ll come up with something else
          wouldn’t have mattered one bit

        • michael says:

          G & L: It looks convincing… but what does it say? All the models tend to trend together, while the satellite and balloon datasets show much less variation.

          I’d like to know more about the observations. Where they were taken, how often and so forth. Are these readings averaged for the entire planet? Have all the data been gathered with similar instruments?

          If it’s supposed to be global, I would compare the row of dots depicting “avg2 satellite datasets” with this more illustrative view:

          It looks like there’s strong correlation between surface and mid-troposphere satellite readings. Plus, there’s a definite trend.

          So I’d like to know more about that row of dots telling a story of no trend. Where did they come from?

        • Latitude says:

          michael said: I hadn’t yet considered that threw the commonly accepted models into question.
          =====
          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/06/climate-modeling-epic-fail-spencer-the-day-of-reckoning-has-arrived/

          That is all 73 models…..all 73 epic fail

          That’s your climate computer models michael…epic fail…they are worthless

        • Glacierman says:

          Michael: “I’d like to know more about the observations. Where they were taken, how often and so forth. Are these readings averaged for the entire planet? Have all the data been gathered with similar instruments.”

          Why don’t you do some research and quit playing dumb. You are out of your league.

        • michael says:

          Glacier: Roy Spencer doesn’t leave us a clue as to where or how he came up with that little row of dots claiming to be “avg2 satellite datasets”. We are supposed to believe they come from some authoritative source. Because we believe implicitly in Roy Spencer, and he said it was so.

          But when I compare them to what others know, I find a completely different dataset. The one I gave you the link to.

          Therefore do not accuse me of pretending to be dumb. Look at the file I gave you, and ask yourself why it doesn’t illustrate the same thing as Roy Spencer’s dots.

        • Latitude says:

          uh michael…….that’s global temps from satellites

        • michael says:

          Latitude: You don’t think these dots right here are rising in a suspiciously straight line?

          How come this alleged data doesn’t match anyone else’s global temps from satellites? That’s why I’d like to see more info on exactly where he got it.

          (Hint: only his proctologist knows.)

        • Latitude says:

          michael, why are you looking at a graph that’s labled linear trend….
          …and asking why there are straight lines?

          try this one….it’s exactly the same info…

        • Latitude says:

          ““Note that the observations (which coincidentally give virtually identical trends) come from two very different observational systems: 4 radiosonde datasets, and 2 satellite datasets (UAH and RSS).”

        • michael says:

          Okay! Thank you. It’s an RSS dataset. I’m looking at one right now– monthly temps, 1980 to date. The trend looks up to me.

          http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

          Now let’s take a look at Roy Spencer’s UA-Huntsville datasets. Hmm, I can’t find any for the moment. Maybe you can provide me with a link to them.

          What I do find is this one, called Global Tropospheric Temperature Anomalies (1/1979-12/2006). Same trend:

          http://web.archive.org/web/20070323005914/http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html

          I think Roy Spencer has some ‘splainin’ to do. In your reply, maybe you can address this for him.

        • Latitude says:

          yes michael…and they are exactly the same trend…..you were complaining about it being a straight line

          That’s RSS…now do what they did……

          ““Note that the observations (which coincidentally give virtually identical trends) come from two very different observational systems: 4 radiosonde datasets, and 2 satellite datasets (UAH and RSS).”

          Why are you excited about discovering that???

          The computer games models missed it by a mile….fail……

          It doesn’t matter if temps went up down or sideways….the point is the computer games are totally worthless…don’t forget, the beginning temps that they matched were hide casting..to tune them…they have absolutely no predictive

  12. omnologos says:

    Michael “97%” is just another Appell, parrot of a world (science) he cannot possibly understand

  13. Chewer says:

    Since climatologists to not understand the natural cycles, stimuli for climatological changes/reversals and the subsurface temperatures at -1m, -5m, -20m etc.. or understand the varying upper atmospheric tide magnitudes and variations, including the particle mixtures and EMF interactions, how can we expect them to accurately model our climate with any predictive quality?
    We are still making Neanderthal measurements, yet are expected to believe raw bullshit?

    • michael says:

      The more abstruse and predictive the models become, the shakier the ground they stand on. However I do still note that on a global scale, glaciers are almost all of them rapidly melting now; the Arctic Ocean is coming closer each year to losing all its pack ice; worldwide, plants and animals are extending their ranges north; areas of marginal rainfall are becoming dryer and seasonal weather patterns are showing a much higher degree of volatility now– that is, instead of predictable weather patterns we’re now seeing a statistically higher number of droughts, floods and stalled weather systems.

      All this fits neatly with predictions of what might happen on earth were more heat added to our planetary weather engine. The other line of evidence is, of course, the change in the proportions of greenhouse gases that would point toward just such a heat addition.

      People on sites like this make a great fuss of looking for instances where there is no obvious change, or where the observed change departs from what some or another model predicts it should be. But that’s just quibbling. You’re trying to convince someone it’s not raining while we’re all standing around getting soaking wet.

      • Latitude says:

        michael said: I hadn’t yet considered that threw the commonly accepted models into question.
        =====
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/06/climate-modeling-epic-fail-spencer-the-day-of-reckoning-has-arrived/

        That is all 73 models…..all 73 epic fail

        That’s your climate computer models michael…all worthless….zero predictive power

      • gator69 says:

        “However I do still note that on a global scale, glaciers are almost all of them rapidly melting now; the Arctic Ocean is coming closer each year to losing all its pack ice; worldwide, plants and animals are extending their ranges north; areas of marginal rainfall are becoming dryer and seasonal weather patterns are showing a much higher degree of volatility now– that is, instead of predictable weather patterns we’re now seeing a statistically higher number of droughts, floods and stalled weather systems.”

        Michael, what you are describing, even if true, is called ‘climate change’. It happens. Naturally. Has for over 4 billion years. There is nothing unusual about our current climate, or how we got here. Nothing whatsoever, except that we are now observing and politicising it as never before.

        But now you and the chicken littles suddenly say that natural variability is off the table, and man’s tiny contribution of CO2 is driving the planet to catastrophe.

        “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.

        Where is your extraordinary evidence that man’s tiny increase in CO2 can overcome natural variability?

        • michael says:

          Let’s not trivialize the Keeling Curve, Gate. Since 1958 our atm CO2 has gone up 27%. Further, the Mauna Loa dataset shows it going up at a very regular rate. This is enough to affect or overwhelm many natural forces influencing Earth and its climate.

          For one thing, the excess carbon gets pulled into the oceans. This both warms and acidifies the waters, changing the basis for life there. At some point, if the trend does not reverse,corals and shellfish will be unable to build their shells. So gross changes in our atmospheric makeup are not trivial. All legitimate scientists are doing is keeping an eye on these trends while they’re still in their infancy.

          Do note, of course, that our effect on planetary cycles is not limited to CO2 emissions. Land clearance, pollution, any number of wide-scale human activities are just as important. I think we need to understand these forces we’re unleashing. You don’t. Simple as that.

        • gator69 says:

          Michael you are a dunce. I asked you for the extraordianry evidence that man’s trivial contributiuon to the atmospere’s CO2 is changing the clmate.

          Instead, you hyperventilate the BS talking points about ocean acidification.

          Dummy, do you know how much of a percent change it would take for the oceans to reach ‘neutral’, much less ‘acidify’? 2000 percent! Quit braying. 😆

          I was a climatology student three decades ago, after studying geology for many years. I have followed this subject with great interest since I graduated with a Remote Sensing degree.

          There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our current climate or how we got here. Nothing. Zippo. Nada.

          Please provide even ONE peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent or any global climate changes.

        • michael says:

          Gator, I don’t need to provide you with yet more evidence, in the face of which you will certainly remain intransigent. I get it. Your resistance is total. But I will correct a few of your misstatements.

          First, no one is saying that “natural variability is off the table”. All natural forces affecting climate are still in effect. And I have fifty bucks that say one hundred percent of peer-reviewed papers will not deny that.

          Second, we’re not talking a “tiny increase” in atm CO2. Since measurements began in 1958 it’s been a 25% increase. Not so tiny. Plus, of course, all the CO2 that has entered the oceanic carbon chain.

          Third, “Dummy, do you know how much of a percent change it would take for the oceans to reach ‘neutral’, much less ‘acidify’? 2000 percent!”

          Irrelevant. What we need to know is how much more the ocean needs to acidify before phytoplankton stop making shells. Because when that point is reached, the base of the food chain in the oceans is extinguished.

          Fourth, “Please provide even ONE peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent or any global climate changes.”

          Poorly put. Natural variability contributes to climate change. But if it is “THE” “CAUSE”, point out which natural input has been found to be the sole cause of climate change.

          Dozens of different factors enter into our climate, which occurs in the nexus between all of them. I ask myself the question to what degree solar variability may have influenced climate over the centuries– since the sun provides well over 99% of our heat. But I would ask that question in vain. Because we have no long-term baseline for measuring the sun’s output. We only have a record for 1979-2009, not quite three sunspot cycles. And this record was disrupted by the decision, taken during the Bush administration around 2005, to de-fund a satellite that would calibrate the older readings so they could be accurately compared to subsequent readings. So the potential for error has crept into even that short baseline.

          I would be so happy to find that the sun was responsible for more change than we tiny humans. But so far there’s no way to demonstrate that. All we know is that every eleven years the sun’s heat emissions go up, go down and go back up again. And that over any appreciable term, this averages out.

        • Brian G Valentine says:

          In your opinion, Michael, have any other global influences been left unconsidered?

        • Gator says:

          Michael, you sure type alot without saying a thing.

          Where is the evidence? Produce it or STFU.

        • michael says:

          Brian asks “In your opinion, Michael, have any other global influences been left unconsidered?”

          How many do you want? How about the global browning? High-altitude soot, Sox, Nox, methane from various sources (a significant one), forest burning and land clearance (another big one), urban heat islands? A solid model should examine all of these, plus all of the natural influences, and determine relative intensities for them. Otherwise it’ll be leaving things out that need to be considered.

      • Glacierman says:

        Michael,
        You have asked for evidence that the commonly accepted climate models are wrong and have been given evidence which you dutifully ignore. Here are a couple more things to consider or ignore:
        The climate models – all 73 of them are not capable of hindcasting or forecasting. They function indistinguishably from a simple one-line equation.

        The climate sensitivity calculated from them is nothing more than the ratio of the trends of the input and the output.

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/03/climate-sensitivity-deconstructed/

        The modelers like Trenberth, et al should hang their heads in shame. People who put them up on a pedestal and advocate using their cartoons to transform the global distribution of energy and economies are stupid beyond belief. But at least you have lots of company Michael.

        • michael says:

          You keep repeating the same meme, over and over. But it doesn’t fit. I did not ignore Roy Spencer’s inscrutable comparison of umpteen different climate models with his row of dots. Instead I tried to verify that the dots actually meant something. And what I found was that they don’t appear to. Actual sat reading in the mid-troposphere give a different story.

          Also, you might recall something I said last week in a different thread here. I do not stand behind each and every climate model anyone ever makes. To the degree that a model attempts predictive capabilities it can be proven wrong by reality. Instead, I’m a big fan of actual measurements.

          So jot down this note to self: Michael does not put climate modelers up on a pedestal. All he does is note the degree to which they describe actual reality.

          When my local weatherman says it’s currently 82 degrees I can take that to the bank. But when he says it may rain tomorrow, I take it with a grain of salt.

        • Glacierman says:

          “So jot down this note to self: Michael does not put climate modelers up on a pedestal. All he does is note the degree to which they describe actual reality.”

          So you note the degree to which they describe reality? The answer is 0%.

          You must be thinking about how they describe the Alternate Reality that you live in.

        • michael says:

          Ha ha, that’s really cute.

          I think I know I’m ahead on points when you substitute bon mots for good argument.

        • Latitude says:

          michael said: I hadn’t yet considered that threw the commonly accepted models into question.
          =========
          So jot down this note to self: Michael does not put climate modelers up on a pedestal. All he does is note the degree to which they describe actual reality.
          =====
          which is zero………..

          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/06/climate-modeling-epic-fail-spencer-the-day-of-reckoning-has-arrived/

          That is all 73 models…..all 73 epic fail

          That’s your climate computer models michael…all worthless….zero predictive power

        • michael says:

          So it doesn’t matter what I say… your answer will still be the same.

          I would agree with you (and with Yogi Berra) in one instance: one thing that’s particularly hard to predict is the future. However I would note that those 73 predictive models do seem to agree with the ACTUAL mid-tropospheric sat-data I showed you. The data to which you do not respond.

          That doesn’t give one a good impression of your reasoning capabilities. You are evading the evidence and offering in its stead empty rhetoric.

        • Latitude says:

          “Note that the observations (which coincidentally give virtually identical trends) come from two very different observational systems: 4 radiosonde datasets, and 2 satellite datasets (UAH and RSS).”

  14. gator69 says:

    Just to clear the air of a certain stench, there never was a 97% consensus that man is driving climate change. The original survey asked 2 questions:

    1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

    2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

    Noone really disputes #1, as we have come our of the LIA. As for #2, it does not even mention CO2. UHI and land use changes have regional impacts on climate.

    Then figure in the fact that the online survey started with 10,257 scientists, that were then whittled down to 79, to come to a 97% consensus. Yes only 10,178 of the original set of scientists selected for the survey had to be removed to get their rock solid con-sensus.

    Only a fool would tout this as proof of anything other than fraud.

    • michael says:

      Someone removed all but 79 scientists to come up with that consensus? What utter BS. Give us a reference.

      Also, you misuse the word “proof”. All the study does is illustrate the following:

      “We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. … Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. … Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. … Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.”

      http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/05/22/quantifying-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/

      But if instead there was a study asking the same authors nothing but this one simple question, “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” I think you would come up with the same result. Because that’s the key question.

      • Gator says:

        That is the latest bogus 97 percenter, there was a previous ‘study’ conducted by two chicken littles at the University of Illinois that removed over 99% of participants to create their lie. I see you are referring to the cookie monster’s BS. And here you go..

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/01/tol-statistically-deconstructs-the-97-consensus/

        Now. where is that extraordinary evidence that I keep asking you to produce?

        • michael says:

          Okay, here’s a study by some people at the U of Illinois:

          …The findings appear January 19 in the publication Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union.
          In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute’s Directory of Geoscience Departments.
          Experts in academia and government research centers were e-mailed invitations to participate in the on-line poll conducted by the website questionpro.com. Only those invited could participate and computer IP addresses of participants were recorded and used to prevent repeat voting. Questions used were reviewed by a polling expert who checked for bias in phrasing, such as suggesting an answer by the way a question was worded. The nine-question survey was short, taking just a few minutes to complete.
          Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.
          About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.
          In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming.

          http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm

          Nothing about them throwing out over 99% of the participants. Sorry.

          Now let’s address that “extraordinary evidence” you keep demanding. I think what you want me to find is evidence conclusively proving that natural inputs have nothing to do with changes in our climate. Or did I get that wrong?

          Answer: natural inputs have plenty to do with the way our climate changes.

        • gator69 says:

          How many of those scientists were counted to reach 97%? Hmmmmm?

          Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Quit dancing. 😆

        • gator69 says:

          “In our survey, the most specialized and knowledge- able respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2%
          (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to ques- tion 2.”

          http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

          You see Michael, as I stated, I was a climatology student in the 1980’s, after many years of studying geology. I know how to read the sources, and ignore opinion.

          Now back to that extraordinary evidence. I’m getting bored with you.

  15. Gator says:

    “What we need to know is how much more the ocean needs to acidify before phytoplankton stop making shells.”

    For the edification of the terminally obtuse…

    “In contrast to the ominous and strident claims of the world’s climate alarmists that the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content will lead to a dangerous decrease in seawater pH that will prevent many corals and other marine animals from performing the calcification processes that are needed to create essential body skeletons, Venn et al. (2013) provide a much more upbeat perspective on the subject.”

    http://www.co2science.org/articles/V16/N24/EDIT.php

    Now where is that extraordinary evidence? Hmmm?

    • michael says:

      I agree. To some degree, calcifying organisms can adapt to acidification. That still begs the question as to where the point is where calcification stops. And at several times in the past, it has in fact stopped. We don’t have any more rugose corals now, do we?

      Here’s a better source for that info. Don’t read articles by either of the Idsos, they’ll rot your brain. 🙂

      http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n5/full/ngeo1441.html

      • Chewer says:

        Michael,
        When you mention theory, as in AGW (greenhouse effect = X2+ feedback amplification), you must mean “Working Hypothesis”, as that is the current state of the science.
        Conservative Scientists, Liberal Scientists and Independent Scientists all agree on all Scientific Theories, those that are measureable, repeatable and testable.
        Why is it that the hypothesis of AGW is fiercely disagreed upon by Conservatives and Liberals?
        The answer to that question is AGW in a nutshell.
        The Climatology experts who are now making additional excuses for the hypothesis modeling failures have no choice, as they are looking bad and would be looking much worse if it weren’t for the media continuing to publish their poor work (& calling it credible) and the numerous feeble explanations.
        Criegee intermediates and upper atmospheric content (organic, metallic & other constituents), mixing tides, nucleation processes and cloud seeding within the troposphere and chemical seeding in the layers above are areas the scientists are now looking to study as funding becomes available.
        They are reaching these new areas because their models are missing many inputs and the weighting they’ve applied to the used inputs are demonstrably wrong.

        • michael says:

          Excellent comments, Chewer. This is more like the dialog I’ve been hoping for here.

          Yes, AGW is a working hypothesis. One in which, IMO, there is far more evidence on the pro side than on the con side. But the hypothesis lacks the kinds of absolute verification one might find with a very long database built by closely calibrated readings from sophisticated instrumentation. We’ve only been at this game for the past few decades. Let’s say, since 1872, or 1958, or 1979. Not long enough to establish long-term climatic trends to everyone’s satisfaction.

          The other thing is that climatology lacks the ability to be subjected to experimentation. One can’t devise experiments that describe century-long trends that are measurable, repeatable and testable in a lab the size and composition of the Earth. So I not only admit, I would encourage, a variety if informed opinion.

          Sadly, though, what I’m finding here is something else again. It’s an odd political philosophy that sees Vast Worldwide Conspiracy in the hidden workings of the AGW propaganda machine. Apparently, all those “scientists” are lying! They’re just lackeys of their political masters, who want us to give up our civilization so we can go around in horse and buggies, where we used to be able to drive Hummers. They’re tools, in the service of, oh, I suppose, the horse and buggy lobby up in Washington Dee Cee.

          So I’m having to wade through a lot of specious, tendentious crap to find the occasional nugget of good sense… that you have provided. Thanks for that.

          My final observation is that the superstructure of evidence and hypothesis that is the study of climate change is a young field, a work in progress. What should be surprising is not that working hypotheses must continually be modified in light of new findings, but that so many of the original insights still hold up. In fact, famously (although not on this site), we’re finding that the actual readings in recent years have been coming in at the higher end of predictions from the 1990s, not the lower end. Adverse climate trends would appear to be happening faster than we had originally (and conservatively) projected.

          Obviously on this site, findings get carefully cherry picked. We will not be looking at any charts depicting this sort of evidence. meanwhile, stay tuned for next year’s findings!

        • michael says:

          A further comment, Chewer. You describe “Criegee intermediates and upper atmospheric content (organic, metallic & other constituents), mixing tides, nucleation processes…”

          Not familiar with any of that. Particularly I find “mixing tides” to be ambiguous. Neptune could mix the tides– but only because he was an elemental force. Is someone working on this now?

          “…and cloud seeding within the troposphere and chemical seeding in the layers above are areas” etc. Does this mean you’re open to the notion of terraforming the planet? That approach presupposes one admits the planet is warming, for one reason or another. And I like it. I’m not in the camp that says we must never, ever, mess with climate purposely. Haven’t we been messing with it enough accidentally? I believe we’re capable of proceeding cautiously with a fair understanding of what we’re tinkering with.

          I like the idea, for instance, of putting up high-altitude sulfate aerosols. The preliminary numbers seem like the idea might be feasible, and we could conceivably fit the planet with a set of giant Ray-Bans around the equator at an affordable cost.

          Naturally the keynote is caution. I think we approached the idea of oceanic iron seeding, to stimulate the growth of phytoplankton, with the proper degree of caution. And the consensus was, it didn’t work out.

          I’m less salutory about cloud seeding. Whenever you seed a cloud in one location, you deprive the people down the road of their rain. This would be highly unpopular. Besides, the problems we’re seeing now come largely from stalled weather fronts, that dump all their load of rain in one spot and never get to the next. What we would need would be a tad more control over the jet stream. Not in this century or the next.

          We’re better off desalinating seawater and pumping it to the world’s deserts. Such a program would be both cheaper and more effective than war, as a means of averting worldwide water wars in the coming century.

          Well, I’m off now. I’ll be away from my desk for the weekend. When I return I’ll see what I can find out about the fresh subject matter you’ve suggested above. 🙂

        • michael says:

          Hi again, Chewer. I’m back now, and see you haven’t has a chance yet to respond to my comments. Let me add one more.

          “The Climatology experts who are now making additional excuses for the hypothesis modeling failures have no choice, as they are looking bad and would be looking much worse if it weren’t for the media continuing to publish their poor work (& calling it credible) and the numerous feeble explanations.”

          Science is full of modeling failures– and the normal approach is to refine the models in light of factors not taken into consideration. Isn’t this a good way to proceed? What makes this tantamount to “making excuses”? Wouldn’t a good researcher in any other science do the same?

          For instance back in an earlier decade (the 1990s). climatologists calculated the amount of warming one should find in light of the GHG additions to our atmosphere and saw that it just wasn’t there. So they performed their due diligence and found that it was being counteracted by forces of global cooling they hadn’t considered. Once the factored in the effects of high-altitude sulfates and other aerosols, the numbers came much closer to what they were expecting.

          Is this cheating? I really don’t think so. How about you? (RSVP)

          Another question: what media have been “publishing their poor work”? None that I’ve found, other than professional media like Science or Nature. And “calling it credible”? Ordinary TV and paper coverage admits they aren’t looking to decide who is right. They just publish the claims of both sides and say “You decide”.

    • gator69 says:

      Michael you are a dumbass. I can verify Idsos’ claims, and yet you deny the science. Denier.

      You are a self inflicted moron.

      Either put up or shut up. You have zero science to back your hysteria.

  16. Glacierman says:

    Michael says: “How come this alleged data doesn’t match anyone else’s global temps from satellites? That’s why I’d like to see more info on exactly where he got it.

    (Hint: only his proctologist knows.)”

    It is not alledged data. You don’t understand anything and will not take the time to figure it out. You don’t understand where the satelite data from Spencer comes from? Then you accuse people of pulling it out of their ass?

    You might be the biggest dumbass ever to comment on this blog.

  17. Latitude says:

    michael says:
    June 20, 2013 at 8:35 pm
    Latitude: You don’t think these dots right here are rising in a suspiciously straight line?

    How come this alleged data doesn’t match anyone else’s global temps from satellites? That’s why I’d like to see more info on exactly where he got it.

    (Hint: only his proctologist knows.)
    ================================
    Latitude says:
    June 20, 2013 at 8:41 pm

    michael, why are you looking at a graph that’s labled linear trend….
    …and asking why there are straight lines?

    try this one….it’s exactly the same info…

    ===
    Latitude says:
    June 20, 2013 at 8:43 pm

    ““Note that the observations (which coincidentally give virtually identical trends) come from two very different observational systems: 4 radiosonde datasets, and 2 satellite datasets (UAH and RSS).”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s