CRU Temperature Fraud

The CRU temperature record run by Phil Jones is fraudulent. The case for this is shown clearly below.

In 1922, the US Consul reported a “radical change of climatic conditions in the Arctic” with “unheard of high temperatures.”  “Many old landmarks are so changed as to be unrecognizable.” “Glaciers have … entirely disappeared

2015-12-13-18-35-00

docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

In 1923, the glaciers of Glacier National Park in Montana were rapidly disappearing and predicted to be gone by 1950.

Medford_Mail_Tribune_Sat__Dec_29__1923_

29 Dec 1923, Page 5 – at Newspapers.com

By 1939, all of the glaciers in Eastern Greenland were nearing “catastrophic collapse.

2015-12-14-03-46-06

17 Dec 1939, Page 15 – at Newspapers.com

By 1940, the Arctic had warmed six degrees, and sea ice had dramatically declined in thickness.

2015-12-14-03-29-47

23 Feb 1940 – Townsville Daily Bulletin – p7

2015-12-14-03-37-09

Papers Past — Auckland Star — 14 December 1940 — WARMER ARCTIC

By 1947, a ten degree rise in Arctic temperature was reported, and scientists were worried about sea level rise drowning seaports.

2015-12-13-05-13-11

31 May 1947 – TEMPERATURES RISING IN ARCTIC REGION LOS ANGELES…

By 1952, the glaciers of both Norway and Alaska had lost half their mass. This tells us that the warming was universal across the Arctic.

2015-12-13-05-24-22

18 Feb 1952 – POLAR ICE THAW INCREASING GLACIERS SAID TO [?] M…

The glaciers of Glacier National Park in Montana were still rapidly disappearing.

2015-12-14-04-09-07

5 Sep 1952, Page 33 – at Newspapers.com

Glaciers in the Alps disappeared during the first half of the century.

2015-12-12-13-45-00

National Geographic : 1976 Nov, Page 594

However, a dramatic turnaround occurred, and by 1961 there was unanimous consensus for global cooling.

2015-12-14-03-59-43

SCIENTISTS AGREE WORLD IS COLDER – – NYTimes.com

By 1955, the glaciers of the Pacific Northwest were advancing – “for the first time in about one hundred years.”

PaintImage471

TimesMachine: October 16, 1955 – NYTimes.com

By 1970, the US and Soviet Union were trying to figure out why the Arctic ice was becoming “frigid” and Arctic sea ice was becoming “ominously thicker.”

2015-12-14-04-25-22

TimesMachine: July 18, 1970 – NYTimes.com

In 1976, scientists blamed “freakish weather” on global cooling, and the CIA said global cooling “will become the central issue of every government.”

2015-12-14-04-39-27

16 Jul 1976, Page 4 – at Newspapers.com

In 1976, all of the glaciers in northern Norway were expanding. The climate had cooled dramatically.

2015-12-14-03-52-31

23 May 1976, Page 56 – at Newspapers.com

In 1979, the global cooling since WWII was “indisputable.” NOAA reported 0.5C global cooling”

2015-12-14-04-30-48

Lawrence Journal-World – Google News Archive Search

In 1975, the National Academy of Sciences generated a graph of Northern Hemisphere land surface temperatures which accurately showed the warmth before 1940, followed by half a degree cooling. This graph made sense based on the behavior of the ice across the Northern Hemisphere and Arctic.

2015-12-14-03-10-56

Here is where the problem comes in. The current CRU graph for Northern Hemisphere land surfaces makes no sense. It shows glaciers melting rapidly during a very cold period, and glaciers growing during a warmer period. The sharp cooling after 1940 has been nearly erased.

The CRU temperatures are nonsense.

2015-12-14-03-10-38

HadCRUT4.png (630×728)

The next graph shows how CRU generated their fraudulent graph. They cooled pre-1960 temperatures by about half a degree.

2015-12-14-05-00-15

The CRU fraud is much worse than that, however. Not only did they dramatically cool pre-1960 temperatures, but they dramatically warmed post-1980 temperatures relative to satellite Northern Hemisphere land temperatures (UAH V6) – to create a completely fake hockey stick of warming.

2015-12-14-05-03-58

The 1975 National Academy of Sciences data, combined with the recent satellite data, shows us that there has been little net warming since the 1930’s. The hockey stick is a total fabrication by government scientists. Climategate E-mails confirm that this manipulation of data was the scientists’ intent, and that they intended to cover up their activities..

From: Tom Wigley <wigley@ucar.edu>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer <santer1@llnl.gov>

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt

Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise… Can you also email Gene [Wahl] and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise.
Cheers, Phil

junksciencearchive.com/FOIA/mail/1212063122.txt

Evidence is overwhelming that global warming/climate change is the biggest fraud in history.

About stevengoddard

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

223 Responses to CRU Temperature Fraud

  1. Steve Case says:

    >Evidence is overwhelming that global warming/climate change is the biggest fraud in history.

    Move along,nothing to see here.

  2. lyn208 says:

    I am flabbergasted! Any non-expert can read the stats and see the lies and bad, bad, horribly bad science these ‘experts’ are throwing out….and yet, governments around the world just passed a ‘global’ climate initiative! Well, all I can think to say is…. may G-d bring all the worst climate ever onto the heads only of all such government leaders…very soon, like maybe hail and brimstone!!!!🙂

    • Bob Webster says:

      Spot-on! “Climate Liars” are emboldened by climate data fraudsters in the UK, Australia, and US climate offices who have been systematically “cooking the books”! The US House has asked government agencies who’ve been altering historic climate records to bring their data and explain what they are doing. No response. And, as Steve Case observed, the news media’s attitude is, “nothing to see here”.

  3. gator69 says:

    Grantologists’ Scientific Method

    Step 1 – Observation/Research
    Step 2 – Hypothesis
    Step 3 – Prediction
    Step 4 – Data tampering and erasing of emails
    Step 5 – Conclusion and request for more money

  4. rah says:

    It appears you put a lot of work into this one Tony.

  5. eliza says:

    Please do not give up

  6. John Brehm says:

    The people pushing climate change constantly refer to other who disagree with them as “deniers” and “skeptics”, and this language has made its way into the mainstream. Since it has been proven that they have falsified data, why not mainstream the naming of the as “temperature data falsifiers” or “falsifiers” for short?

  7. desotojohn says:

    Steven

    Something that has always bothered me is the indiscriminate use of Ice Breakers in the name of Artic research. Submarines have been used for years in artic research and the impact of occasional surfacing through the ice is minimal.

  8. cfgjd says:

    It’s warmer now in the arctic than during the 1930’s…

  9. wizzum says:

    This Troll cfgjd continually makes statements like the one above with nothing cited, nothing to back it up and no intent other than to stir the pot.
    When someone does post something with a reference refuting him all he does is say that it is not peer reviewed so is meaningless.

    He needs to be ignored.

    • AndyG55 says:

      No, he needs to be shown as an outright LIAR.

      • Bob Webster says:

        “Climate Liar” is a fitting term for cfgjd. Anyone who uses the term “Climate Denier” is a “Climate Liar” — and it’s not “name-calling” if it’s true, it’s observation and Climate Realists have plenty of evidence to support their accurate labeling of Climate Liars.

    • lyn208 says:

      Concur with wizzum and AndyG55

      • gator69 says:

        We have already established that he is a liar. What we are now doing is finding out just how stupid this troll really is. The longer he keeps making a fool of himself, the lower we can assume his IQ must really be.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Many people read this forum but do not comment.

      The LIES and MISINFORMATION of the likes of cfool and the gorebot cannot be allowed to stand uncontested.

    • Frank K. says:

      I agree with wizzum – he/she/it should just be ignored.

      It’s easy to make a statement like “It’s warmer now in the arctic than during the 1930’s…”. And there’s nothing wrong with postulating this as long as you provide some facts to back it up. Are there scientific studies showing the arctic sea ice extent was much larger in the 1930s than today? Or that the ice volume was definitively larger? Or temperatures much colder? Any newspaper articles, or other evidence, to back up the hypothesis?

      But alas, with cfgjd, we see nothing…

    • cfgjd says:

      If it’s not peer-reviewed it’s not part of the scientific literature and cannot even be cited. Stop being crybabies and publish research.

      • AndyG55 says:

        You are a MORON..

        You know NOTHING about science, and even less about scientific journalism.

        The work is published for all to read.. EVEN YOU.

        That is what really irks you.. its not hidden away behind some paywalled crap agw cult rag.

        • cfgjd says:

          Dude seems ignorant with no scientific training or work in any scientific field.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Yes you do. You have shown yourself to be a total ignoramus when it comes to anyt5hing to do with science, data or anything else to do with climate science.

          And you have also should a total willingness to remain totally ignorant., maybe because you have ZERO ability to comprehend facts and data in any form.. As is obvious from the lack of anything that you actually present.

          Totally empty meaningless rhetoric is all you have.

          Seemingly, you are computer illiterate too.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Poor child.. here is SG presenting you with AMPLE opportunity to actually learn something..

          ….. but you total lack any motivation.

          I had a class of low IQ 14-15 years just like you once.

          Impossible to tell if they were perpetually THICK or just WANTED to remain ignorant.

          I suspect you are both.

        • AndyG55 says:

          You want publication.. How about you create your own WORLD WIDE WEB forum, get a massive audience, magnitudes more than most journals could ever hope to get, and publish some actual science yourself…….. roflmao.. as if !!!

          I’ll repeat that in case you didn’t catch it..

          MASSIVE AUDIENCE …… (how many views are you p to now, SG ??)

          WORLD WIDE WEB.

      • gator69 says:

        If it’s not peer-reviewed it’s not part of the scientific literature and cannot even be cited.

        “Live by the sword, die by the sword”

        There is not a single peer reviewed paper that refutes natural vaiability.

      • catweazle666 says:

        cfgjd: “If it’s not peer-reviewed it’s not part of the scientific literature and cannot even be cited”

        Utter drivel.

        As usual.

        http://jcom.sissa.it/sites/default/files/documents/Jcom0901(2010)A02.pdf

        http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=3706931

        http://jou.sagepub.com/content/12/7/889.short

        You haven’t a clue about science – either climate or any other – and even less about how it is conducted in the era of many-to-many communications AKA the Internet.

        You are a classic example of the old adage “Better to Remain Silent and Be Thought a Fool than to Speak and Remove All Doubt”.

  10. Bob Webster says:

    Outstanding article and collection of historic reports, Steven. I’ve posted a link to this for Tuesday’s edition of WEBCommentary.com. And you can bet I’ll use this widely. Climate liars have no evidence to support their position as compelling as this clear refutation of their claims. Trying to support their climate lies by rewriting the climate record cannot succeed even with billions of dollars in government grants. The true record is too extensive and too widely distributed. How convenient it must be to be a government scientist — when data refutes your claims, just change the data! Meanwhile, “the usual suspects” at Scientific American, National Geographic, Nature, and news media will dutifully ignore the clear fraud and trumpet the cause of climate liars.

  11. Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
    How can this be denied?
    Who are the real deniers?
    ” Evidence is overwhelming that global warming/climate change is the biggest fraud in history. “

  12. cfgjd says:

    According to the in-situ measurements by the Danish Meteorological institute current temperatures are above 1930’s in:

    – Copenhagen (in Denmark)
    – Torshavn (faroe Islands)
    – Narsarsuaq (Greenland)
    – Ilulissat (Greenland)
    – Upernavik (Greenland)

    The capital Nuuk is too close to call but is at least at same level as 1930’s.

    Source:
    http://www.dmi.dk/fileadmin/Rapporter/TR/tr13-04.pdf
    Figure 4.4.1 on page 70.

    The Arctic is warmer than ever before during recorded history.

    • wizzum says:

      Only two of those places are in the arctic.

    • Bob Webster says:

      To cfgjd:

      (apologies to all for this length)

      “cfgjd”, do you know ANYTHING about natural climate variability beyond a blink of time?

      “The Arctic is warmer than ever before during ____________”

      You fill in the blank with “recorded history”. Are you kidding?

      Let’s fill in the blank with “The Medieval Warm Period” (oops, that’s right, according to Climate Liars, the MWP never happened). But, wait a second, the MWP happened during recorded history. Or has that history not been “peer reviewed” sufficiently?

      Or how about we fill in the blank with “The Holocene Interglacial” (oops, can’t do that, it’s untrue and would expose the lies of Climate Liars).

      Or how about we fill in the blank with one of the prior interglacials of the current ice epoch when temperatures soared to levels higher than anything the Holocene Interglacial has seen. No, can’t do that either because, once again, it exposes Climate Liars.

      Even if it were true that today’s climate has warmed to the levels experienced 80 years ago, (a) that’s meaningless and, (b) how would one explain the rationale that pins today’s warming on human activity and the warming of 80 years ago on something entirely different? You don’t have to answer. We know the answer.

      Your quoted statement is completely meaningless and betrays a gross ignorance of natural climate history and a pathetic reliance on cherry-picking data in a desperate attempt to support a discredited theory that denies natural climate variability.

      Climate Liars are compelled to deny the climate record beyond where their agents can conveniently manipulate data to provide the illusion that the data record supports their climate lies.

      A truly scientific approach to climate change would begin with thoroughly understanding natural climate variability supported by known laws of science governing climate physics.

      There has never been a scientific study that has distinguished the human-component of any climate change during any time period. All Climate Liars have are guesses, assumptions, and preposterous claims. That isn’t science, it’s science-fiction loaded with hubris.

      Are you unaware that Earth’s typical natural climate, when not in an interglacial of an ice age cycle within an ice epoch of an ice era is substantially warmer than anything humans have ever known?

      Are you unaware that during Earth’s typical climate there is NO permanent ice anywhere on the planet at sea level?

      Compared with the climate that has prevailed over the vast portion of the time living organisms have existed, both current climate and ocean temperatures are extremely cold, which fact may well account for the very low atmospheric concentration of CO2 (sequestered away in the oceans for much of the past 60 million years, just waiting to be released when the current ice era comes to an end). Ice eras average 50 million years in length. We’re at, what, 60-65 million years since the current ice era began?

      Climate Liars are in the unenviable position of having to deny both the science governing natural climate variability and Earth’s natural climate history that is dominated by climate whose temperatures are typically vastly higher (10˚ C) than anything humans have ever experienced. That denial is essential in order to fabricate a human-caused-climate-change hoax that makes no physical sense and is refuted by both current observation and Earth’s historic typical climate when not dominated by an ice era.

      So it would appear that the real Climate Deniers are, in fact, the Climate Liars, not the Climate Realists!

  13. AndyG55 says:

    Greenland is a tiny fraction of the Arctic.

    And Copenhagen etc are all subject to MASSIVE urban development..

    And recorded history,.. you mean a pitiful 150 years or so

    Tell us what, little child..

    Locate the weather stations in Narsarsuaq, Ilulissat, and Upernavik and show us that they have not also been influenced by urban growth since the 1940’s

    http://www.fredolsencruises.com/Places_We_Visit/Greenland/Greenland_3_original.jpg?nid=c42ab5dd-705a-49ed-af1d-31a3345b6df3

    How about you just IGNORE the first 3/4 or more of the current interglacial.

    Aren’t you SO GLAD we are not STILL in the LIA !!????

    • AndyG55 says:

      Last image url wrong

    • AndyG55 says:

      Lets have a look at Copenhagen…

      oh no UHI effect there.. and its not in the Arctic anyway.

      and Torshavn

      Oh dear.. seems that like all alarmista, the cfool is relying TOTALLY on urban warming effects to say the planet is warming.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Hey, and discounting UHI effects.. look how closely the smaller urabn areas match the AMO..

      You have heard of the AMO, haven’t you cworm ?

    • AndyG55 says:

      Also note that the increase from 1910-1935 is about same slope as from 1990-2010..

      especially if you discount the obvious UHI effects..

      please explain that.

      Seems you again , have absolutely NOTHING to back up your pathetic AGW scam.

      • cfgjd says:

        It’s ridiculous to think that UHI is a factor in these remote tine settlements with airports outside the center. But of course if all data on warming, ice loss and sea-level rise is denied, nothing out of the ordinary is going on. LOL

        • AndyG55 says:

          Show us where the met stations are….. or STFU !!!

          Anyone can see the massive modern expansion in those pictures..

          Anyone who thinks there ISN’T a UHI effect is totally cretinous and ignorant.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Come on.. show us the location of the WEATHER stations… !

          Surely you have checked and know where they are !!

        • AndyG55 says:

          Where has cfool gone.. refusing to do any homework again?

          no wonder he is a FAILURE. !!

        • gator69 says:

          It’s ridiculous to think that UHI is a factor in these remote tine settlements with airports outside the center. But of course if all data on warming, ice loss and sea-level rise is denied, nothing out of the ordinary is going on.

          That would be correct, according to your own definition.

          If it’s not peer-reviewed it’s not part of the scientific literature and cannot even be cited.

          There is not a single peer reviewed paper that refutes natural vaiability.

  14. cfgjd says:

    Ah ok so UHI caused the widespread loss of Arctic Sea Ice volume, Greenland and WAIS mass-loss and global retreat of glaciers? Heh heh nice try, but no bonus.

  15. cfgjd says:

    Also Svalbard is clearly warmer than in the 1930’s

    Source Norwegian Met. Office:

    http://www.hindawi.com/journals/amete/2011/893790/

    So Greenland and Svalbard are clearly warmer now than during the past century. It’s not the whole Arctic admittedly.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Does that say “airport” roflmao !!!

    • AndyG55 says:

      Off you go.. move to Svalbard.. you will be happy there. 😉

    • AndyG55 says:

      Svalbard airport weather station.. roflmao

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/13/where-the-is-svalbards-weather-station/

      You funny child cfool.. FFS do some research first before you star posting even more JUNK

      • AndyG55 says:

        And the UHI effect….. oh dearie me….. cfool becomes cFOOL !!!

        http://climate4you.com/LongyearbyenUHI%2020080331.htm

        “The existence of an urban heat island effect in a relatively small settlement as Longyearbyen may come as a surprise. This is, however, not the first time this has been observed in the Arctic”

        quote… from Ralph..

        “As a pilot, if you were waiting for an inbound aircraft to do an approach, landing and backtrack to vacate the runway, you could be holding next to that Stevenson Screen (engines running) for 10 minutes or so. Great plumes of hot exhaust playing over the screen for 10 minutes. “

      • AndyG55 says:

        And here is Hopen..

        Is that A Helipad I see there, and a concrete pathway., wonder when that was done.?

        Wonder where the Stevenson screen is. ?

    • AndyG55 says:

      Ny-Alesund weather station .. new roads, new buildings, lots more people.. weather station right in the centre.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Odd that the Svalbard Airport record starts 25 years before the airport was created. In fact, the new year-round airport only began regular commercial flights in 1975, right when the recent warming started its uptick. Assuming that the 1915 to 1940 numbers are actual measured temperatures at the same location, we still have a non-airport location morphing into an airport location. Very problematic.

  16. cfgjd says:

    Global glacier decline is happening:

    http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/2015/00000061/00000228/art00011

    “Observations show that glaciers around the world are in retreat and losing mass.”

    UHI did this too? ROTFL

  17. cfgjd says:

    The mass-loss signal given out by Greenland is HUGE and GRACE has no trouble at all seeing it. Same with altimetry and SAR+GMB.

    You can have your own political and religious beliefs but you cannot have your own facts. Find out what is happening by checking out the actual science, not just some blogs by pundits with dubious agendas.

    • AndyG55 says:

      The mass gain signal this year is huge.. and there is no problem seeing it in the data.

      Grace has major error and adjustment issues, as has been shown to you many times before.

      Certainly was TOTALLY WRONG about the Antarctic.. said it was loosing mass, but now we know REALITY has it GAINING mass

      What a monumental cock-up that was from Grace. !!

    • AndyG55 says:

      ” pundits with dubious agendas.”

      You would know all about your employers.

      Why they are wasting funds on someone so, so incompetent, goodness knows..

      A bastard child , perhaps ???

      • cfgjd says:

        No Andy, the last study did not overturn the earlier ones. Most scientist disagree with Zwally.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Poor cfool.. that’s only the PAID alarmista scientists who don’t understand real data.

          Reality beckons.

          Southern oceans have cooled

          Antarctic temps are going nowhere.

          You have been caught LYING yet again.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Do you have a peer-reviewed paper counteracting Zwally ?

          NO??

          Then STFU .. moron !!!

        • AndyG55 says:

          You truly are the most incompetent p.o.s. they could possibly have found to be an alarmista troll.

        • AndyG55 says:

          The way you refuse to respond once you know you have been trounced….

          … its like a worm crawling back into the BS compost.

        • catweazle666 says:

          cfgjd: “Most scientist disagree with Zwally.”

          LIAR.

  18. rah says:

    Yes we’ve seen how accurate GRACE actually is. For example this is what Princeton said about the Antarctic ice mass balance in 2014 from a study using ONLY GRACE data:
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X15000564
    “Abstract

    While multiple data sources have confirmed that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, different measurement techniques estimate the details of its geographically highly variable mass balance with different levels of accuracy, spatio-temporal resolution, and coverage. Some scope remains for methodological improvements using a single data type. In this study we report our progress in increasing the accuracy and spatial resolution of time-variable gravimetry from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE). We determine the geographic pattern of ice mass change in Antarctica between January 2003 and June 2014, accounting for glacio-isostatic adjustment (GIA) using the IJ05_R2 model. Expressing the unknown signal in a sparse Slepian basis constructed by optimization to prevent leakage out of the regions of interest, we use robust signal processing and statistical estimation methods. Applying those to the latest time series of monthly GRACE solutions we map Antarctica’s mass loss in space and time as well as can be recovered from satellite gravity alone. Ignoring GIA model uncertainty, over the period 2003–2014, West Antarctica has been losing ice mass at a rate of −121±8 Gt/yr and has experienced large acceleration of ice mass losses along the Amundsen Sea coast of −18±5 Gt/yr2, doubling the mass loss rate in the past six years. The Antarctic Peninsula shows slightly accelerating ice mass loss, with larger accelerated losses in the southern half of the Peninsula. Ice mass gains due to snowfall in Dronning Maud Land have continued to add about half the amount of West Antarctica’s loss back onto the continent over the last decade. We estimate the overall mass losses from Antarctica since January 2003 at −92±10 Gt/yr.”

    But now, two more recent studies contradict that claim:

    https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

    “A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

    The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

    According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.”

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL065750/abstract?campaign=wlytk-41855.5282060185

    Twentieth century increase in snowfall in coastal West Antarctica
    “Abstract

    The Amundsen Sea sector of the West Antarctic ice sheet has been losing mass in recent decades; however, long records of snow accumulation are needed to place the recent changes in context. Here we present 300 year records of snow accumulation from two ice cores drilled in Ellsworth Land, West Antarctica. The records show a dramatic increase in snow accumulation during the twentieth century, linked to a deepening of the Amundsen Sea Low (ASL), tropical sea surface temperatures, and large-scale atmospheric circulation. The observed increase in snow accumulation and interannual variability during the late twentieth century is unprecedented in the context of the past 300 years and evidence that the recent deepening of the ASL is part of a longer trend.”

    So much for GRACE being the says all and end all for measuring the loss of gain of mass in ice sheets.

  19. rah says:

    Oh BTW GRACE satellites are at the end of their operational life. Due to be shut down in 2016 with replacements, hopefully far more capable, to be launched in 2017.

    • AndyG55 says:

      The new ones will, of course, initially show LESS ice mass.

      But they won’t be able to “adjust” out the gains over the coming couple of decades.

      • rah says:

        As we have seen, it doesn’t really matter what the data is they produce, it’s a matter of who controls that data and what they do to it and with it.

        • richard says:

          Rah, Stalin said the same thing about the wisdom
          of letting the people vote. ” It doesn’t matter how
          they vote, what matters is WHO counts the votes”.
          The warmists have that idea firmly grasped.

        • cfgjd says:

          So there’s a US-German conspiracy to fuddle gravity measurements from space? Yeah, that’s how science works, LOL😀

          Why don’t you just ban measurements from space if the results are often so difficult to accept?

        • AndyG55 says:

          another cfool empty comment.

        • AndyG55 says:

          cfool..

          Please list EVERYTHING that can effect gravitational measurements.

          Especially in volcanic areas like the West Antarctic

          So far in 1000 or so useless comments..

          …..you are batting ZERO !!

  20. cfgjd says:

    So NASA is spending hundreds of millions to re-fly a useless gravity mission? I do not think that makes sense in any universe but I guess it fits with the paranoid narrative where all data about the environment has been faked by a global illuminati of corrupt scientists and engineers😀

    http://gracefo.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/

  21. cfgjd says:

    Andy you basically written GRACE off as a failed mission. It’s not even difficult for it to detect the mass-loss as it has been in the hundreds of gigatonnes per year. Or was this a useless satellite with faked data?

    • AndyG55 says:

      Yes we’ve seen how accurate GRACE actually is. For example this is what Princeton said about the Antarctic ice mass balance in 2014 from a study using ONLY GRACE data:
      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X15000564
      “Abstract

      While multiple data sources have confirmed that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, different measurement techniques estimate the details of its geographically highly variable mass balance with different levels of accuracy, spatio-temporal resolution, and coverage. Some scope remains for methodological improvements using a single data type. In this study we report our progress in increasing the accuracy and spatial resolution of time-variable gravimetry from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE). We determine the geographic pattern of ice mass change in Antarctica between January 2003 and June 2014, accounting for glacio-isostatic adjustment (GIA) using the IJ05_R2 model. Expressing the unknown signal in a sparse Slepian basis constructed by optimization to prevent leakage out of the regions of interest, we use robust signal processing and statistical estimation methods. Applying those to the latest time series of monthly GRACE solutions we map Antarctica’s mass loss in space and time as well as can be recovered from satellite gravity alone. Ignoring GIA model uncertainty, over the period 2003–2014, West Antarctica has been losing ice mass at a rate of −121±8 Gt/yr and has experienced large acceleration of ice mass losses along the Amundsen Sea coast of −18±5 Gt/yr2, doubling the mass loss rate in the past six years. The Antarctic Peninsula shows slightly accelerating ice mass loss, with larger accelerated losses in the southern half of the Peninsula. Ice mass gains due to snowfall in Dronning Maud Land have continued to add about half the amount of West Antarctica’s loss back onto the continent over the last decade. We estimate the overall mass losses from Antarctica since January 2003 at −92±10 Gt/yr.”

      But now, two more recent studies contradict that claim:

      https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

      “A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

      The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

      According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.”

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL065750/abstract?campaign=wlytk-41855.5282060185

      Twentieth century increase in snowfall in coastal West Antarctica
      “Abstract

      The Amundsen Sea sector of the West Antarctic ice sheet has been losing mass in recent decades; however, long records of snow accumulation are needed to place the recent changes in context. Here we present 300 year records of snow accumulation from two ice cores drilled in Ellsworth Land, West Antarctica. The records show a dramatic increase in snow accumulation during the twentieth century, linked to a deepening of the Amundsen Sea Low (ASL), tropical sea surface temperatures, and large-scale atmospheric circulation. The observed increase in snow accumulation and interannual variability during the late twentieth century is unprecedented in the context of the past 300 years and evidence that the recent deepening of the ASL is part of a longer trend.”

      So much for GRACE being the says all and end all for measuring the loss of gain of mass in ice sheets.

    • Ted says:

      Cfgjd you’ve basically written RSS and UAH off as failed missions.

    • dave1billion says:

      Using that paper as a reference and using the author’s conclusion of:

      “We estimate that, between 1992 and 2011, the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets lost 1350 +-1010 and 2700 +-930 Gt of ice, respectively, equivalent to an increase in global mean sea level of 11.2 +- 3.8 mm.”

      … what would be the total sea level rise extrapolated out to a century?

      You’ve testified that you can’t do the math, but the number comes out to an sea level rise over a century of 2.23″ +- .75″, meaning anywhere from:

      1.5 to 3 inches per century.

      Also using the data in the paper you put forth, how long will it take the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets to completely disappear?

      Antarctica = 393,000 years (ignoring the uncertainty, which is HUGE)
      Greenland = 21,100 years (again ignoring the uncertainty)

      More recent PEER REVIEWED AND PUBLISHED studies (so it’s the Gospel truth according to you) have indicated that the Antarctic Ice sheet actually gained mass over the period from 1992-2011 so I am not even granting that the numbers above are accurate. But for the sake of your argument I ran a set of calculations using the conclusions from the paper you put forth.

      I know your go to response on this will be to bring up the apocalyptic (and apocryphal in my opinion) collapse of ice sheets into the ocean that will be caused by the warming ocean water underneath, but if you present a paper as your evidence, you can’t turn around and say it’s meaningless in your next post.

  22. cfgjd says:

    Gravity is just one of the methods detecting mass-loss in Greenland and WAIS. Multiple lines of evidence…

    • AndyG55 says:

      Grace proven wrong in Antarctica.. FAIL !!!

      And always that small VOLCANIC area that is the WAIC..

      Its all you have..

    • AndyG55 says:

      And again you absolutely REFUSE to understand anything about the AMO and the Arctic region

      Are you REALLY that STUPID.. almost certainly YES.

      • cfgjd says:

        Greenland losing mass, WAIS losing mass, Antarctic Peninsula losing mass and ice-shelves, Arctic sea ice volume on a rapidly declining trend.

        Do you have a good reference about AMO and sea ice I should check out?

        • AndyG55 says:

          I’ve posted lots of posts..

          You obviously don’t bother reading ANYTHING..

          Because you WANT to remain an ignorant piece of pus.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Arctic sea ice is now increasing quite rapidly, especially considering the phase of the AMO

          Greenland mass is also increasing rapidly this year.

          You have seen all this data.. but refuse to let it into your brain-wash pee-brain.

          Why do you CONTINUE TO LIE in every post you make?

          Is that really all you are capable of ?

  23. AndyG55 says:

    Shepherd.. isn’t he still stuck in the sea ice? roflmao..

    really .. look at the roll-up for that paper… that’s how much help he needs.

  24. cfgjd says:

    Nobody has claimed EAIS temperatures have changed. Northern Antarctic Peninsula has warmed up a lot which destroyed some ice-shelves recently. WAIS is losing mass due to marine influences to the big ice streams over there.

  25. cfgjd says:

    There’s some recovery in the Arctic Sea Ice Volume but the trend is still down

    • gator69 says:

      That is to be expected during an interglacial.

      There is no refutation of NV in any peer reviewed form, and you have told us repeatedly that if it has not been peer reviewed, it does not exist.

      So why are you blaming man for a perfectly natural phenomenon?

    • wizzum says:

      You warming boys like your models don’t you?

      “Arctic Sea Ice Volume Model from the University of Washington (Note: this is only updated monthly, and is a model output, not a real-time observation”

    • AndyG55 says:

      No, you can clearly see that turn-around in the last years now that the AMO has switched.

      NOTHING is linear in climate..

      Even that slight increase from 1982 to 1985 was linked to the AMO..

      I doubt you will ever even bother to try and comprehend, though.. because you have made it patently obvious you prefer to remain as an ignorant, worthless p.o.s.

  26. cfgjd says:

    So you think it’s a coincidence that Larsen A collapsed early this century after having been stable since the last ice age? I guess that’s a possibility.

    Can you name a good paper that is addressing Natural Variability and its causes?

    • gator69 says:

      It is not my job to defend the null hypothesis, it is the job of the alarmists to disprove NV.

      And as for the ice shelf, ice melts. Ice has melted for billions of years and we are in an interglacial. If you pull a block of ice out of a freezer and place it in a 60F room it will melt, turn the heat down to 50F and it will still melt.

      Please do me two favors.

      1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

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

      There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

  27. cfgjd says:

    So how come skeptics have not managed to produce a climate-model or climate-anything that explains past climate well? It always just hand-waving about “cycles” or “cosmic rays” or “natural variability”. Where is the new science?

    ps. Greenland is losing mass:)

    • lectrikdog says:

      Greenland is losing mass? or Ice-mass? all continents lose mass, it’s called erosion.

      p.s.: Synopsis: http://www.plateclimatology.com/

    • “So how come skeptics have not managed to produce a climate-model or climate-anything that explains past climate well?”

      Lack of funding.

      $29,000,000,000 on one side, $0 on the other.

    • dave1billion says:

      cfgjd, at the rate Greenland is losing mass, how long will it take for the Greenland Ice Sheet to completely disappear?

      I lose mass every time I fart, but that doesn’t mean that I’m in danger of disappearing any time soon.

    • gator69 says:

      How come all the alsrmist models have failed in their predictions? Could it have anything to do with alarmists ignoring NV?

      1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

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

      There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

      Remember this from waaaay back?

      cfgjd says:
      December 9, 2015 at 3:27 pm
      Submit to a Journal or it does not exist…simple rule.

      So refutation of natural variability “does not exist”!😆

    • AndyG55 says:

      Greenland has gained a lot f mass this year.. and will continue to over the coming years.

      It is linked to the AMO. Do try to learn something for once in your moronic life !

    • AndyG55 says:

      Because they are bright enough to know that you cannot model a chaotic cyclic system.

      There are too many known unknowns..

      ….and too many unknown unknowns.

      And there have been quite a few short term predictive models that have been shown to work rather well, far better than anything the government models can manage.

      Piers Corbyn makes a commercial living out of his work, because he is so often correct.. …this is something no government funded climate scammer could ever do.

      The climate models predicted warming.. not happening, no warming for 18+ years (except in the data specifically adjusted to try to get within cooee of the models.. even then they fail miserably). In any other industry they would have been laughed out of town and the modellers would be on the dole and un-employable because of their gross incompetence.

      Real scientists have predicted the real temperatures will start to drop over the next few years. When this happens the poor climate scientists™ and their useless models are going to look even more stupid that they do now..

      ….and you, cfool, will have been shown to be the non-thinking brain-washed little twerp that you are.

      • cfgjd says:

        Who are the “real scientists” wjho are predicting cooling temperatures? Some Russian curve-fitters perhaps? Peer-reviewed reference please.

        • gator69 says:

          Yes! Peer reviewed reference please!

          1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

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

          There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          Remember this from waaaay back?

          cfgjd says:
          December 9, 2015 at 3:27 pm
          Submit to a Journal or it does not exist…simple rule.

          So refutation of natural variability “does not exist”!😆

        • AndyG55 says:

          People who you will never read about on the AGW scammer site you get your only information.

          Do you own research and find out some actual REALITY, you moronic putz. !!

        • AndyG55 says:

          You watch him totally ignore anything to do with actual science… again and again

          Natural cycles RULE until shown otherwise by reproducible peer-reviewed literature, where-ever it appears.

          We already know that the ice in the Arctic is driven by these natural cycles.

          The data about this is unequivocal.

          come on cfool…….. prove otherwise or STFU !!

    • richard says:

      We don’t need a model; we have something better; HISTORY. Climate
      has been changing for longer than men have existed. If it has changed
      naturally in the past, then the burden of proof is with the warmists,
      since they claim that now it’s caused by man.
      P.S. Greenland is a LOT smaller than Antarctica.

  28. catweazle666 says:

    It can be very messy over-feeding trolls, folks.

    I know it takes great self-control and I too admit I cannot always control my primitive urges, but I suggest we all do our level best to refrain in the future – NOTHING upsets a troll more than being ignored and thus being treated with the utter contempt it deserves.

  29. cfgjd says:

    Here’s a really nice illustration of measured Antarctic ice thickness change:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35093980

    Volcanic activity is to blame? Does not look like that to me, nor the experts.

    • gator69 says:

      Human activity to blame? Does not look like it to me or the experts.

      1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

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

      There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

      Remember this from waaaay back?

      cfgjd says:
      December 9, 2015 at 3:27 pm
      Submit to a Journal or it does not exist…simple rule.

      So refutation of natural variability “does not exist”!😆

  30. cfgjd says:

    You do this:

    1) List all feedbacks in the climate system resulting from adding greenhouse-gases into the atmosphere. The change in the spectra of Earth proves that extra GHGs are already working – the only remaining question is thus, how large will the effect be.

    2) Please provide links to peer-reviewed physics-based articles that offer a quantified alternative model that explains recent climate (say from 1900 onwards). Show me the science please.

    • AndyG55 says:

      So.. totally unable to do as Gator requests.

      Trying childish diversionary tactics because you have NOTHING ELSE.

      Natural Cycles RULE. There is no need for any other model.

      Until you can do as Gator requests.. all your posts are totally empty of any relevant content…. as usual.

      End of story.

      • cfgjd says:

        List all the known natural cycles and their causes please. It’s not scientific nor falsifiable if you just claim “cycles did it”. Sloppy thinking.

        • AndyG55 says:

          What a totally PATHETIC act you are..

          You know you can’t produce a list of climate forcings….

          You have NOTHING until you can.

          The NULL HYPOTHESIS of normal climate variability from known and unknown forcings stands until someone proves otherwise. Can you do it ?????

          And the fact that you run and hide and deflect every time you are asked, shows that you are TOTALLY INCAPABLE of producing either a paper or even a basic list of forcings in any sort of order.

          If you, or one of your climate gamers can’t do that….. you have NOTHING !

        • gator69 says:

          Sorry child it doesn’t work that way.

          The null hypothesis (H 0) is a hypothesis which the researcher tries to disprove, reject or nullify. The ‘null’ often refers to the common view of something, while the alternative hypothesis is what the researcher really thinks is the cause of a phenomenon.

          1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

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

          There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          Remember this?

          cfgjd says:
          December 9, 2015 at 3:27 pm
          Submit to a Journal or it does not exist…simple rule.

          So refutation of natural variability “does not exist”!😆

      • AndyG55 says:

        You and your fellow climate scammers are the ones PRETENDING you know the climate forcings and can model them.

        Come on.. you can do it !! NOT !!

    • AndyG55 says:

      The ONLY feedback to increased CO2 is a change is the spectrum….

      A tiny amount at the very edges of the ultra-thin CO2 band, and a balancing increase in all other frequencies..

      Every knows that total outgoing low-wave radiation actually INCREASED by quite a lot over the last few decades.

      This data was posted last week… and AGAIN you totally ignored it.. because it doesn’t fit your brain-washed miasma.

      You are an ignorant fool , unable to comprehend even the most basic science or data.

      • cfgjd says:

        Of course outgoing radiation increases when the planet warms up. Greenhouse-gases have a warming effect, not the question is only how much warming we’re going to get.

        • AndyG55 says:

          So the radiation energy escaped.. THANK YOU.. 🙂 🙂 🙂

          you have again shown just what a moronic twit you are.

          The planet warmed from the series of strong solar cycles.

          But they have finished, and people like you are going to be covered in egg from head to toe when the current El Nino subsides and real temperatures start to drop .

          I hope you have a big crevasse you can crawl into.. or maybe just as Al Gore to bend over. !

    • AndyG55 says:

      “Show me the science please.”

      You would NEVER recognise science.. it is an anathema to you.

      Shows us that you can do at least the basics… ie…

      1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

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

      Until you can do that NATURAL CYCLES RULE.

      AGW remains an UNPROVEN base-level assumption.. not even worthy of the name hypothesis..

      It has NEVER passed even the most basic rules of science… because its politics.. not science.

      Another paper you could try to find.. is one that shows that CO2 causes warming in an open atmosphere. So far that is a MASSIVE failure because anything ever produced totally ignores 2 of the 3 main energy transfer mechanisms.

      • cfgjd says:

        That’s BS. Please list all the natural cycles and their causes, otherwise you’re doing handwaving witchcraft, not science. Skeptics still do not seem to be able to publish much – perhaps there’s a conspiracy stopping them, LOL😀

        • AndyG55 says:

          The only people doing witchcraft are the climate stooges who have no idea what all the climate forcings are.. cannot list or categorise them

          The NULL HYPOTHESIS of NATURAL VARIABILITY has NEVER been disproven.

          End of story.

          Until you can do as Gator says… YOU HAVE NOTHING,

          and no sliming and crawling about can get you away from that FACT.

    • gator69 says:

      Childish deflection of my request, how surprising!😆

      Look child, I do not need to prove a 4,500,000,000 precedent, it’s called the “null hypothesis” for reason.

      The null hypothesis (H 0) is a hypothesis which the researcher tries to disprove, reject or nullify. The ‘null’ often refers to the common view of something, while the alternative hypothesis is what the researcher really thinks is the cause of a phenomenon.

      So, the alarmists who have put forward the hypothesis of CAGW musy first disprove the known common view that nature changed the climate. We know for a fact that nature causes climate change, so in order to advance a new idea, you chicken littles must first show us beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is not the case this time. I have nothing to prove.

      So get busy child.

      1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

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

      There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

      Remember what you proclaimed?

      cfgjd says:
      December 9, 2015 at 3:27 pm
      Submit to a Journal or it does not exist…simple rule.

      So refutation of natural variability “does not exist”!😆

  31. cfgjd says:

    BTW I’d like to underline again that Greenland and Antarctica (at least WAIS + AP) are losing ice. This is clearly visible from space and on the ground.

  32. AndyG55 says:

    Antarctic is NOT loosing mass.. The most recent paper SHOWS it is actually GAINING

    You know this….

    but you continue to LIE.. because LYING is all that you are capable of.

    Greenland has gained massively this year.. even more than would be expected with the NATURAL CYCLES that drive sea ice in that area.

    • cfgjd says:

      WAIS is losing mass without a doubt as well as Greenland and AP are. Jury is still out on EAIS, science does not work as you seem to think.

      • AndyG55 says:

        OMG, but you are IGNORANT.

        WAIS is a relatively tiny area, over a volcanic region.

        There is absolutely NOTHING GLOBAL about it. !!!

        But as its all you have.. you may as well keep using it and making a massive FOOL of yourself.

        • cfgjd says:

          The effects of unstabilising WAIS are certainly global as it will raise sea levels with several meters. This will probably take a couple of centuries but it will probable happen. Some scientists have argued the process has already started. i don’t think we can do much about it though, except adapt.

        • AndyG55 says:

          roflmao.. nothing to do with global warming

          DO
          YOU
          UNDER
          STAND

          Prove that very localised loss from the WAIS is to do with global warming… bet you can’t.

          The southern oceans are cooling, as shown in earlier data.. which you again ignored because it was so, so inconvenient.

          And there has been ZERO warming in the Antarctic for the whole of the satellite data

          So NO WARMING from climate.

          But keep making a fool of yourself.🙂 You cannot erase the internet.😉

        • AndyG55 says:

          This is cfool’s idea of “global” 😉

        • AndyG55 says:

          And his idea of Antarctic warming

        • AndyG55 says:

          And WARMING southern oceans

  33. cfgjd says:

    Correct, the mass-loss in the Amundsen sector in Antarctica is caused by a relatively warn ocean current melting the ice-streams from below.

  34. AndyG55 says:

    Again the total IGNORANCE of cfool as to what is actually going on..

    ZERO knowledge.. ZERO understanding

  35. cfgjd says:

    Funny, but try to find a glaciologist who argues that the recently started ice-loss on AP and WAIS 2500+ km long coast is caused by “volcanic activity”. Don’t hold your breath while you’re doing it.

    (scientists know it’s the ocean temperature at depth, what what do you care)

    • AndyG55 says:

      Very much volcanic.

      Ignore the facts .. ignore that reality.. Its all you have.

      Any climate scientist trying to ague that there is global cause would look even more foolish as you.. because people expect them to think rationally. (not you though.. never)

    • AndyG55 says:

      Gotta laugh when peer-review studies in a not climate scammer controlled journal step in

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015JB012455/abstract

      And the Antarctic is GAINING mass everywhere EXCEPT right over this active ridge of volcanoes.

      But of course.. that’s all due to GLOBAL warming.. right 😉

    • AndyG55 says:

      And of course sea temps off west Antarctic are falling.

      And imagine how much that moving mantle rock would stuff up gravimetric readings..

      No wonder GRACE made such a cock-up in the Antarctic.

  36. cfgjd says:

    So can you find a glaciologist or geologist that argues that volcanism has caused the recent ice -loss? Or is this pure skeptic fantasy based on some dude drawing conclusions after thinking reald hard for ten seconds? Where are these fabled volcanoes, do you have a map? Which ones are active now – data? Did you even bother to roughly calculate if it’s possible for volcanism to heat up an ocean current at depth in sufficient amounts?

    • AndyG55 says:

      Ignore the volcanoes.. ignore the falling sea temperatures..

      ignore REALITY. Its all you have

      Many volcanoes.. and right under the ONLY warming area in the Antarctic.

      Nothing GLOVAL about this at all.

      • cfgjd says:

        Thanks for the maps. So can you find a geologist or glaciologist that argues volcanoes did it? No?

        Is it common that a whole volcanic arc suddenly becomes much more active? Are you predicting a SUPERVOLCANO?

        • AndyG55 says:

          NOTHING GLOBAL ABOUT IT.

          LOCALISED ONLY..

          And the rest of Antarctic is either COOLING or doing nothing !

          Actually.. Its GAINING MASS.. as shown by the latest peer-reviewed study from the alarmista camp.

        • AndyG55 says:

          http://www.techtimes.com/articles/8278/20140610/underwater-volcanoes-climate-change-reason-melting-west-antarctic-ice.htm

          follow link to http://www.pnas.org/content/111/25/9070.abstract

          and a significance article. (my caps)

          “Thwaites Glacier is one of the West Antarctica’s most prominent, rapidly evolving, and potentially unstable contributors to global sea level rise. Uncertainty in the amount and spatial pattern of geothermal flux and melting beneath this glacier is a major limitation in predicting its future behavior and sea level contribution. In this paper, a combination of radar sounding and subglacial water routing is used to show THAT LARGE AREAS AT THE BASE OF THWAITES GLACIER ARE ACTIVELY MELTING IN RESPONSE TO GEOTHERMAL FLUX CONSISTENT WITH RIFT-ASSOCIATED MAGMA MIGRATION AND VOLCANISM. This supports the hypothesis that heterogeneous geothermal flux and local magmatic processes could be critical factors in determining the future behavior of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. “

        • gator69 says:

          Yep, found them. Now your turn…

          1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

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

          There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          Remember this from waaaay back?

          cfgjd says:
          December 9, 2015 at 3:27 pm
          Submit to a Journal or it does not exist…simple rule.

          So refutation of natural variability “does not exist”!😆

    • AndyG55 says:

      cfool is again prove base-level ignorant.

      http://www.pnas.org/content/111/25/9070

    • AndyG55 says:

      Deception Island.. (end of the West Antarctic peninsular)

      “Deception Island exhibits some wildly varying microclimates. Some water temperatures reach 70 °C (158 °F). Near volcanic areas, the air can be as hot as 40 °C (104 °F).”

      Nah.. no volcanic warming around the West Antarctic. 😉

      • AndyG55 says:

        Hey.. can anyone tell me…

        …is water at 70 °C enough to melt ice.??

        ..or is an air temp of minus10°C or so required?

        • cfgjd says:

          And what is the volume of water you can heat up by 1C with the amount of heat available? I have a feeling that the current circling Antarctica is hyooge compared with any volcano. Just do the math ok.

          ..so can you find any expert who think volcanism has changed recently and is now causing ice-loss in Antarctica?

        • gator69 says:

          He already showed you experts who said this. Now your turn…

          1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

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

          There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          Remember this from waaaay back?

          cfgjd says:
          December 9, 2015 at 3:27 pm
          Submit to a Journal or it does not exist…simple rule.

          So refutation of natural variability “does not exist”!😆

        • AndyG55 says:

          can you show how the only tiny LOCALISED place in the Antarctic that has any warming at all just happens to be slap-bang over those volcanic hot spots.

          It seems this is the only place your mythical warm currents have any effect.

          Nowhere else along the Antarctic coastline.. Just where the volcanoes are….

          I guess you will work it out some day… but not today.. obviously

        • AndyG55 says:

          Ahhh.. the mythical warm currents that heat ONLY the part just above the volcanoes.

          And exist despite that ssts dropping markedly over that last several years.

          These currents were so mythical that over the last couple of years the snuck in under the largest Antarctic sea ice extent in recorded history, without melting it. Very clever of them.😉

        • AndyG55 says:

          And now cfool has to provide measurements that show that the mythical warm current has actually got warmer.

          Come on cfool .. data. ! (not models)

    • gator69 says:

      Yep, we can!

      Now…

      1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

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

      There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

      Remember this from waaaay back?

      cfgjd says:
      December 9, 2015 at 3:27 pm
      Submit to a Journal or it does not exist…simple rule.

      So refutation of natural variability “does not exist”!😆

      • cfgjd says:

        Extra CO2 has already changed the radiative balance between Earth and space. Why don’t you refute that Mr. Broken record?

        • gator69 says:

          Sorry child, but by your own metric, CO2 has not changed the climate because you have not disporoven NV. Until NV is disproven it is only speculation that CO2 has changed anything. Nice attempt at building a strawman!

          1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

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

          There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          Remember this from waaaay back?

          cfgjd says:
          December 9, 2015 at 3:27 pm
          Submit to a Journal or it does not exist…simple rule.

          So refutation of natural variability “does not exist”!😆

        • pmc47025 says:

          Cf, you are illiterate, immune to logic, or here to stir the $hit pot. Fess up.

        • gator69 says:

          The “Mr Broken Record” bit really gave me a chuckle. Facts, logic and the child’s own words are a “broken record”.😆

          The child may have forgotten that he once claimed that AR5 answered my queries. “Mr Broken Record” proved him wrong then, and “Mr Broken Record” proves him wrong now.😆

        • AndyG55 says:

          Yes.. there has been an INCREASE in the total OUTGOING long wave radiation..

        • AndyG55 says:

          Seems that CO2 must be acting to INCREASE outgoing radiation. 😉

  37. cfgjd says:

    Just trying to remind the crowd here about established facts…like that the sea-levels are rising and land-ice diminishing. Of course of all datasets produced with public or private money are faked, one might as well divine scientific “facts” from the old testament.

    • gator69 says:

      Just reminding the child that all of his claims fall within NV. So the claims of man made disaster are indeed fake.

      1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

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

      There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

      Remember this from waaaay back?

      cfgjd says:
      December 9, 2015 at 3:27 pm
      Submit to a Journal or it does not exist…simple rule.

      So refutation of natural variability “does not exist”!😆

    • pmc47025 says:

      Land ice has been diminishing since the end of the last glacial period, which causes sea levels to rise. Sea levels have been rising since the end of the last glacial period, about 360 feet (!) in total. The rise rate over the tide gauge period (late 1800s to present) has been relatively constant – human generated CO2 doesn’t seem to have changed the tide gauge measured rate.

    • wizzum says:

      Cfgjd, I don’t think that anyone on this site refutes that sea levels are rising or that some glaciers are retreating. What is very much refuted is that man is responsible for it.
      real honest to goodness facts are tricky too in how they are presented.

      Take “Ocean Acidification” The oceans aren’t getting acidified, they have become less alkaline and as you well know (you seem to know everything else) there is a world of difference between less alkaline and more acidic. It’s like saying water is less frozen at -15 than at -20.
      Saying that a less alkaline solution will dissolve calcium is straight up horse shit but there are many “peer reviewed” papers that claim exactly this.
      Then taking this false fact and extrapolating that all corals are going to disolve when they evolved with Co2 levels having been many many times what they are now during the last 500 million years in more “peer reviewed” bullshit.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Sea levels have been rising at a steady rate since measurements started..

      There is NO ACCELERATION unless you carry out the scientific fraud/incompetency of grafting the new “adjusted” satellite data onto the tide gauge data.

      NOT ONE TIDE GAUGE AROUND THE WORLD SHOWS ANY ACCELERATION.

      That means there is absolutely NO CO2 WARMING SIGNATURE in the sea level trend… NONE WHATSOEVER.

  38. cfgjd says:

    I’m not claiming anything about the effects of CO2 on environmental change. Just want to point out that large parts of the Arctic are warmer than even in recorded history (and probably longer as Little Ice Age does exist), Greenland, mountain glaciers globally, WAIS+AP as well as arctic sea ice are all losing ice mass. Looks like the planet is warming up, lets see what future brings.

    • gator69 says:

      There is currently more ice in the Arctic than the average of the last 9000 years.

      And you cannot claim that what we are seeing isn’t perfectly natural.

      • wizzum says:

        Gator, you got that for your scrap book: “I’m not claiming anything about the effects of CO2 on environmental change.”

    • AndyG55 says:

      That’s right, just ignore the first 3/4 of the Holocene, when the Arctic was considerably warmer than it is now.
      So you go ahead and concentrate just on a short period of natural variability, as we finish climbing out of the coldest period in the last 10,000 years. We are actually still only just a bit above that cold period, and not as warm as most of the rest of the current interglacial.

      Here’s the guys who actually do the science.. they will tell you… but will you actually learn??
      I very much doubt it… your child-mind does not have the ability to comprehend or learn anything.

    • AndyG55 says:

      And large parts off the Arctic are NOT warmer, except in Gavin’s smeared fabrications.

      Reality is very different.

      2013 and 2014 had the shortest periods above “freezing” of the whole of the DMI record back to 1958

      http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

    • AndyG55 says:

      Arctic sea ice is NOT loosing mass.. It has gained rapidly this year.

      Even more rapidly that the change in the AMO would dictate.

      The planet is NOT warming up.. it hasn’t done so this century

      You are always throwing in these little LIES of yours aren’t you……

      That’s because LIES is all you have to work with.

    • AndyG55 says:

      For those interested in real data.. here is the UAH Arctic temps over the last years

      As you can see.. COOLING except for the effect of the 2010 NON-CO2 forced El Nino.

      Its all NATURAL VARIABILITY.. something which cfool has yet to provide one piece of evidence against.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s