>The apparent trend line that you see is a result of fluctuations over short time scales. It's not real!
you are seeing a pattern that is not there.

Fine, take the trend line out of the graph and look at the monthly data.



Still been heading generally downwards since 2003. A succession of lower and lower peaks and troughs. That's what the data shows. How you spin and interpret it is up to you, but please stop trying to tell me up is down, black is white, and cold is hot.

>3. The second graph is infamous. It is based on sea heat data that is *known* to be wrong. The instruments were broken. They gave invalid readings. When the guy (at NASA I think) whose job it was to analyse the data realised this, he issued corrected data. But by then, people had jumped on the incorrect data and produced graphs like the one you show here. IT'S WRONG and it's been known to be wrong since 2007. Check your facts.

Wrong. The data shown is that produced after Josh Willis corrected the ARGO data. - Check your facts.

>show me a single piece of analysis to support your statement that it is getting cooler.

The graphs show that the planet has been getting cooler, no analysis needed. How long that might continue is another matter, but for now, my statement holds good, whether you like it or not.

>The data does speak for itself. But you need knowledge of maths and statistics to understand what it is saying.

I hold a degree in science and a diploma in engineering. Please stop trying to browbeat me.

Okay, so you don't know how to identify trends in time series, you don't want to learn, and you keep repeating the same provably wrong statements.

Eyeballing a graph is *not* a substitute for analysis. That's why we need the analysis - because humans are really bad at eyeballing data. Your statements are false, they have been proven to be false, and your refusal to accept that is just sad.

You may have a science degree, but you are no scientist. I'll leave this thread alone now. You are more to be pitied than scorned.

Hi Cary,
>A more recent study, based on reprocessed and improved data between 2003 and 2008, reports an average trend of 195 cubic kilometres (46.7 cubic miles) per year.

Wow. The numbers sound big, but to put them into context, the reduced figure is consistent with the quotes I provided saying the accelerated glacier output had stopped, and in any case, more snow is arriving on top of the Greenland icepack than is disappearing out of the glaciers into the sea.

Even if it stopped snowing, and the glaciers continued to melt at the rate of 46.7 cubic miles per year, it would take thousands of years for Greenlands ice to melt. One scare story said it might all slide off into the sea with a big splash. This is utter nonsense. Greenlands icecap sits in an anticline.

You need to be careful about the way the media spins the facts.

No answers to my questions about how the man made global warming theory fits the data between 1945 and 1975 then?

Avoiding it with a spurious claim that the data isn't as plain as the nose on your face?

Just when I was getting to like your insulting, question avoiding, arrogant style. Ah well, bye then.

Some more detail for those more interested in science than rhetoric:

"temperature measurements of the upper 700m of the ocean from the ARGO array show no increase from 2003 through 2008. Willis calculates a net loss of -0.12 (±0.35) x 10^22Joules per year (Pielke, Physics Today,55) from mid-2003 to the end of 2008 (Dr. Pielke received permission from Josh Willis to extend the ARGO data to the end of 2008).

According to a recent analysis of ARGO data by Craig Loehle, senior scientist at the Illinois-based National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, the loss is -0.35 (±0.2) x 10^22Joules per year from mid-2003 to the end of 2007 (see Loehle, 2009: “Cooling of the global ocean since 2003.″ Energy & Environment, Vol. 20, No. 1&2, 101-104(4)). Loehle used a more complex method than Willis to calculate this trend, enabling him to reduce the margin of error."

Edited by tallbloke on 05/07/2009 04:53:19 MDT.

there is considerably less ice now than there was 10 years ago

there was considerably less ice 10 years ago than there was 20 years ago

there was considerably less ice 20 years ago than there was 100 years ago

there was considerably less ice 100 years ago than there was 300 years ago

you are picking and choosing data, some of it erroneous, some of it misrepresented or misinterpreted

i read several articles and data analysis of greenland's recent ice situation & the majority of experts there agree the ice is still melting faster than accumulating. Most also attribute the increased precipitation to global warming trends, as warmer air carries more moisture. most agree that a catastrophic melting inside of 100 years is unlikely, but their models still point to increased melting inside of 100 years & significant melting fairly fast, but the timeline is under question - not enough physics in the models yet. none i've read seemed to suggest it would take thousands of years on the long side - more like hundreds; however, most agree the direct polluting of the planet is of greater concern than the secondary effects of it via ice melting and ocean rise. the conclusion is the same either way: if we don't rein in our polluting ways soon, things will be increasingly bad.

is a timber industry tool, heavily biased towards pro growth & development


their membership, who provide all their funding:

"Any U.S. company that manufactures pulp, paper, or solid wood products is eligible to apply for membership in NCASI, as are companies that own or manage industrial timberlands. Currently, NCASI's U.S. Membership numbers approximately 75 companies, which represent more than 90% of the paper and paperboard produced, nearly 70% of the wood panels produced, and more than half of industrial timberland acreage in the U.S."

some of his other conclusions:

"the evidence of a human fingerprint on the global and regional climate is incontrovertible as clearly illustrated in the National Research Council report and in our research papers (e.g. see http://climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-258.pdf)."

"Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate. These assessments have also not communicated the inability of the models to accurately forecast the spread of possibilities of future climate. The forecasts, therefore, do not provide any skill in quantifying the impact of different mitigation strategies on the actual climate response that would occur. [3]"

Hi Cary,

As you're in California, you might be interested in this (draft) report on our future water supply. It's quite the read.

http://tinyurl.com/cpumga

As to further interactions with Mr. T, I can only cite Jonathan Swift:

“It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

Best regards,

Rick

Cary says:

there is considerably less ice now than there was 10 years ago

there was considerably less ice 10 years ago than there was 20 years ago

there was considerably less ice 20 years ago than there was 100 years ago

there was considerably less ice 100 years ago than there was 300 years ago

But he provides no data to back up these assertions.

> their models still point to increased melting inside of 100 years & significant melting fairly fast, but the timeline is under question - not enough physics in the models yet.

Indeed, as Roger Pielke Sr points out.

I agree with what you say about pollution, but don't agree that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. It's close to a 500 million year low and the trees would like more of it.

> As to further interactions with Mr. T, I can only cite Jonathan Swift

Jackboots fitting a little tightly today Rick? ;-)

Here's another couple of Jonathon Swift quotes for you:

"Censure is the tax a man pays to the public for being eminent."

"A man should never be ashamed to own that he has been in the wrong, which is but saying... that he is wiser today than yesterday."

> is a timber industry tool, heavily biased towards pro growth & development.

Are you accusing Craig Loehle of being a dishonest scientist?

Do you think similarly of the scientists in the pay of the multi-million dollar global warming industry?

even though he was such a barbarian as to eat out of the narrow end of an egg...

thanks for the link/pdf - checking it out

california is in a heap of trouble i think (haven't read your link yet)

i had a grad seminar on swift, during which a french source (inspiration) for gulliver's travels came up - apparently a few years prior, some french guy was trying to present his completely made-up book as genuine travel biography, replete with descriptions of strange flora, fauna, natives, etc. (can't remember the name off hand). anyway, i became almost obsessed with finding a copy of this obscure text from the 1700s - found a copy for i think $100 or so at a rare book store in England & had it shipped over. Surprised my professor with it as a gift after the class was over (he insisted on paying for it, which was actually a good thing, since i was a poor student).

present data as favorably as possible for his organization's position and refute data that is unfavorable to his organization's position

most of the scientists i've read are not attached to a particular industry - they work for universities & government organizations, but i'm sure some if not all of them have pressures at times to support or denounce certain positions

while i assume all science is corrupted to some degree, i see it as a question of relativity & i trust data and analysis relatively more from non-business funded science

Fair enough, but you should take a closer look at the way science works at the universities. For example Stanford. The senior climate research professors their are on regular world tours promoting the cause.
Stephen Schneider is on record as saying to a conference full of young climatologists:

"We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest."

> Stephen Schneider is on record as saying to a conference full of young climatologists

Therefore, all climatologists are exaggerating and making things up. Hasty generalization, anyone?

Edited by ashleyb on 05/07/2009 18:05:13 MDT.

As Cary and Skots said, let's keep an eye on the ice.

Last week, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon warned that “polar ice caps were melting far faster than expected just two years ago“

Here's the Arctic ice extent.



As you can see, it's very close to the thirty year average and is melting more slowly than usual this year.

Here's the Antarctic sea ice extent.



This is well above the thirty year average. Just like it was last year and the year before, and the year before that.

Someone is lying. Is it the National Snow and Ice Data Centre or the politicians?

Roger,

Your charts do nothing to address this claim:

Last week, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon warned that “polar ice caps were melting far faster than expected just two years ago“

In order to do, the charts would need to include the how fast melting was expected to occur. They do not. (i.e. Ban Ki-Moon did not say they were melting faster than they did just two years ago, but that they were melting far faster than expected just two years ago. There is a difference).

Edited by Rezniem on 05/08/2009 01:06:00 MDT.

Roger,

You do have this uncanny ability to create false equivalences and post as evidence data that is nearly on-point but not quite.

Take your response to Cary's contention that the climate change denialists are funded by industry think-tanks. You respond that some Stanford University professor said this:


"We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest."

How is this equivalent at all? Cary's contention calls into question the motives of the denialists, as they are funded by industries that have a financial interest in stymieing climate change regulation. Your contention is that some professor said, in what is clearly a passionate call to arms, that garnering political support was more important than telling the 100 percent unadulterated truth. While disturbing, I suppose, it doesn't call into question the scientists motives for believing in the evidence for climate change. Whereas industry scientists have a financial incentive to only promote evidence that counters climate change theory, university scientists do not.

Or at least that quote does nothing to show that they do.

Quite the contrary, that the scientist quoted feels so strongly about the need for action to stop climate change that he would be willing to forsake the pure objectivism of science in pursuit of a political goal speaks strongly for how sincerely held his beliefs are that climate change is real and dangerous.

The evidence to him must be fairly conclusory and urgent.

(I'm wholly unconvinced by the fact that he spoke of doubt. This is an old canard used by denialists of all stripes--creationists come to mind. That there is disagreement among climatologists about the particulars and doubt as to the complete accuracy of the models is exactly what you'd expect in science. It wouldn't be science if researchers weren't "in doubt" to some extent. But the point remains--the scientific community is convinced that climate change is real, just as they are convinced that evolution occurred.)

Edited by Rezniem on 05/08/2009 01:07:55 MDT.

Nate, this is nonsense. Two years ago they were telling us it was getting hotter, faster, and would continue doing so. The top scientists at the NSIDC were predicting an ice free arctic by 2014. Since that time we have had two very cold winters and two miserable summers. This year, the spring is so cold in California the tomatoes aren't setting fruit.

So to say that they were expecting the melting to be anything but accelerated is wrong. Politicians are full of weasel words, but they will have a hard time pulling the wool over the public's eyes this time.

Nate,
It's not just what Club of Rome member Schneider said, it's the multi-millions of dollars in grant money which keep the scientists on message. Those who do not toe the line are frozen out, their work isn't published, and their grants are cut off.

There is very big money at stake here. Obama is relying on carbon tax revenue to rescue the US economy. Gore has invested $35million of his own money into the carbon trading scam. Even as the evidence that the man made global warming theory is wrong mounts up, they cannot deviate from the cause, they have too much invested.

* Oceans cooling for the last 6 years.
* Sea ice levels normal or above average.
* No tropical tropospheric hotspot to cause increased water vapour(the only strong greenhouse gas)
* Glaciers growing again in many areas
* Low temperature records being broken worldwide
* Record snowfalls in many areas of the US and worldwide the last two winters.
* Sea levels falling since 2005
* Global surface temperature falling rapidly since 2007
* Public belief in man made global warming dropping fast in the polls.
* More retiring public service and university scientists coming out of the woodwork to say they didn't believe in it but kept quiet while they were on the payroll
* Cold induced harvest disasters starting to happen.

The public will really wake up to reality when the price of food skyrockets later this year. Plant some food in your backyard now! Hardy varieties of potato and leek are good.

Edited by tallbloke on 05/08/2009 01:38:59 MDT.