Again you're setting up a straw man. Judith Curry does not "deny man made global warming". The argument is not over whether or not man's activity warms the planet. The argument is about how much.
Polar Temps... warming... all guesswork
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
Again you're setting up a straw man. Judith Curry does not "deny man made global warming". The argument is not over whether or not man's activity warms the planet. The argument is about how much.
This is alarmist BS. If you actually read the reports of the scientists who keep track of these things, what's going on is that ice is building up in the Antarctic, and decreasing in the Arctic. The total ice is staying relatively constant.
The National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) keeps track of total ice coverage here:
The red shows the deviation from average for that time of year (anomaly). As you can see, total sea ice was decreasing until around 2013 but since has recovered. There has been no net loss in sea ice since 1979.
By the way, starting the graph at 1979 is rather unfair to the skeptics as it was then that the current warming period began. Between 1940 (when the Arctic was so warm that the Nazis sent commerce surface raiders into the Pacific through the Arctic just north of the Soviet Union) and 1970, temperatures were decreasing.
Now the NSIDC gets its money from the government so they play the government tune. That is, they talk about global warming as if it is a huge danger to society that can only be understood and controlled by giving money to scientists (them). So their website is heartily alarmist:
http://nsidc.org/
Here's their latest press release. Notice that it talks about the melting north pole and ignores the situation with the freezing south pole:
Arctic sea ice maximum reaches lowest extent on record
March 19, 2015, NSIDC
...
Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its maximum extent for the year on February 25 at 14.54 million square kilometers (5.61 million square miles). This year's maximum ice extent is the lowest in the satellite record.
NSIDC will release a full analysis of the winter season in early April, once monthly data are available for March.
http://nsidc.org/news/newsroom/arctic-sea-ice-maximum-reaches-lowest-extent-record
What's been going on, for most of 30 years, is that the alarmists give us only the bad news. One of my friends told me that he realized that the alarmists were full of it when he noticed that they never said there was anything good coming from higher temperatures. They're claiming that global warming is bad for everyone. This is not science, it is politics.
Scientists, just like the rest of the society of which they are members, spend most of their efforts making sure that they get paid. For the global warming / climate folks, the way they get paid is to scare the public. Sure the oil companies and Koch industries spend a few million dollars on climate research. But this is dwarfed by the thousands of millions of dollars spent by the government. And everyone knows what the government wants. It wants power and the way it gets power is by scaring the public into giving up freedom.
So now go back and look at the chart showing that the sea ice extent is the same now as it was in 1979. And tell me why no news organization is telling you the good news. Still clueless? Let me explain. The purpose of the news is to get you to watch advertisement. It is not to provide you with truthful information. Their objective is to help car companies sell cars and insurance companies to sell insurance. News that nothing is happening and that we are all safe does not sell soap so the media does not publicize it.
When you reach a certain age, you become wise by seeing the media do this over and over again in different areas. The media is very easily manipulated by those with an agenda. And the politics of journalists tends toward the left wing so they have a marked tendency to believe left-wing BS rather than right-wing BS.
P.S. By the way, the most famous Nazi commerce raider that sailed the northern passage along the USSR coast was the Komet. This was before Hitler invaded the USSR in 1941. The wikipedia article on the Komet has some information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_auxiliary_cruiser_Komet
The thing to note here is that when the planet's temperature changes, it changes the most at the Arctic. This is why the Greenland ice cores give such nice estimates of ancient temperatures. And so a warm arctic is not something that is new to man. It's just new to this generation; the WW2 generation saw similar stuff.
Sea ice, oh deluded one, sea ice. And only in the Antarctic, and it's due to global melting.
Ice mass totals? Way down and rapidly decreasing.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/
Last edited:
Bullshit. Deniers deny and that is all they do. You are one of them.
And this is how much....
Bullshit. Deniers deny and that is all they do. You are one of them.
And this is how much....
(1) The above chart is from 2001. It's out of date and is an embarrassment to the IPCC because it includes the predictions of future temperatures that were shown to be false by the next 14 years of temperature measurements.
(2) The sharp measured temperature data on the right hand side of the graph are not compatible to the smoothed proxy data on the left hand side. When you butt two data sets together, one smoothed and the other not, you're going to get the appearance that things have changed between the two data sets.
(3) Unlike most of the global warming crapola, this one actually includes error bars. And the error bars show that the present temperatures are less than the peak temperatures of the medieval warm period, after taking into account the errors. I'll draw them for you:
(4) And the proxy data used for the first 850 years of the above is under dispute. For example, during the MWP it's well known that England exported wine. Sorry but it still hasn't gotten warm enough for that.
(5) The proxy data has been cut off at roughly 1850. This is done because the proxy data after that date doesn't match the measured temperatures. To imagine that it matched the data previously requires one to be silly. It is this problem with the proxy data that led to the famous "hide the decline" email (which was released in 2009).
By the way, the alarmists typically sidestep the issue with the "hide the decline". They claim it was necessary because the modern temperatures are known to be rising and hence are better than the modern proxy data. But the point is not that modern temperatures are declining (they're not). The point is that the modern data show that the proxies don't work for modern temperatures, and so should not be trusted for ancient temperatures. And the inevitable result of averaging over a bunch of randomly wrong proxies is to eliminate any significant temperature excursions. Which is what they wanted in the effort to make the modern temperatures look hot.
(1) The above chart is from 2001. It's out of date and is an embarrassment to the IPCC because it includes the predictions of future temperatures that were shown to be false by the next 14 years of temperature measurements.
(2) The sharp measured temperature data on the right hand side of the graph are not compatible to the smoothed proxy data on the left hand side. When you butt two data sets together, one smoothed and the other not, you're going to get the appearance that things have changed between the two data sets.
(3) Unlike most of the global warming crapola, this one actually includes error bars. And the error bars show that the present temperatures are less than the peak temperatures of the medieval warm period, after taking into account the errors. I'll draw them for you:
(4) And the proxy data used for the first 850 years of the above is under dispute. For example, during the MWP it's well known that England exported wine. Sorry but it still hasn't gotten warm enough for that.
(5) The proxy data has been cut off at roughly 1850. This is done because the proxy data after that date doesn't match the measured temperatures. To imagine that it matched the data previously requires one to be silly. It is this problem with the proxy data that led to the famous "hide the decline" email (which was released in 2009).
By the way, the alarmists typically sidestep the issue with the "hide the decline". They claim it was necessary because the modern temperatures are known to be rising and hence are better than the modern proxy data. But the point is not that modern temperatures are declining (they're not). The point is that the modern data show that the proxies don't work for modern temperatures, and so should not be trusted for ancient temperatures. And the inevitable result of averaging over a bunch of randomly wrong proxies is to eliminate any significant temperature excursions. Which is what they wanted in the effort to make the modern temperatures look hot.
No, the predictions were NOT shown to be false by the next 14 years. Not at all. What IS shown by your saying that is that you are indeed deluded. How's the grass over there on the right? Where do YOU get your climate science? Fox News? WSJ ? Forbes ? lol
I'm not even going any further since your very first statement about this still valid prediction is laughably wrong
Last edited:
Temps are well within model predictions.
Looks like the world's air temps are still increasing. No real change in trend here.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/201501_gistemp/
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/201501_gistemp/
Looks like the world's air temps are still increasing. No real change in trend here.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/201501_gistemp/
Alberta is way above average lately.
And we're below, though the winter was warmer than usual. All of which is okay by me.
We'll see how the summer plays out.
(and no locusts this year
)