Alaska Glaciers - key indicator of climate change

[Old Rocks]

Here we go again. All the scientist in all the nations in the world are in on a conspiracy to decieve poor Bent.

Same old fantasy. Are you really so stupid that you can't differentiate between the political head of an organization and the body? Guess you are. Nothing like all of the scientists in the world are on the bandwagon. The fact is that you would have a hard time finding any who are who don't depend on grant money for their daily bread and those are the vast minority rocks. Sorry to break it to you.

Do you belong to any Scientific Societies? Because I do. And every time there is a leadership position open, there is a vote on who will fill that position. So, if so many scientists are skeptics, as you claim, why are not the votes showing this?

The simple fact is that most scientists that have studied the evidence state that AGW is a fact and a clear and present danger. And this is true of scientists from around the world. In every nation and every political system.

I have challenged you and every other 'sceptic' on this board to find one National Academy of Science that states that AGW is not a fact. Even if that National Academy of Science is in Outer Slobovia. No takers so far.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. That shows a decreasing trend? Can you read a graph at all?

Why, yes I can. See the curving line? That is the trend. The trend is down. Sorry you can't. Blame the educational system.

You are truly a stupid fuck.


UAH Global Temperature Update for April 2012: +0.30°C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.


The corresponding April anomaly from RSS, using a common baseline period of 1981-2010, is considerably cooler at +0.21°C. The 3rd order polynomial fit to the data (courtesy of Excel) is for entertainment purposes only, and should not be construed as having any predictive value whatsoever.

 

[wirebender]

Do you belong to any Scientific Societies? Because I do. And every time there is a leadership position open, there is a vote on who will fill that position. So, if so many scientists are skeptics, as you claim, why are not the votes showing this?

I belong to medical societies and you are a liar. You have acknoledged over and over that you are not educated. Belonging to a society requires exactly what you have admitted to not having.

Maybe you are thinking that the algore fan club is an actual scientific society. Sorry rocks, it isn't. The Mickey Mouse club carries more clout.

 

[wirebender]

LOL. That shows a decreasing trend? Can you read a graph at all?

Why, yes I can. See the curving line? That is the trend. The trend is down. Sorry you can't. Blame the educational system.

You are truly a stupid fuck.

Obviously not as stupid as you. The trend line on that graph is clearly on the decrease. Again, my condolences to anyone unfortunate enough to associate with such an idiot as you.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here we go again. All the scientist in all the nations in the world are in on a conspiracy to decieve poor Bent.

Same old fantasy. Are you really so stupid that you can't differentiate between the political head of an organization and the body? Guess you are. Nothing like all of the scientists in the world are on the bandwagon. The fact is that you would have a hard time finding any who are who don't depend on grant money for their daily bread and those are the vast minority rocks. Sorry to break it to you.

Do you belong to any Scientific Societies? Because I do. And every time there is a leadership position open, there is a vote on who will fill that position. So, if so many scientists are skeptics, as you claim, why are not the votes showing this?

The simple fact is that most scientists that have studied the evidence state that AGW is a fact and a clear and present danger. And this is true of scientists from around the world. In every nation and every political system.

I have challenged you and every other 'sceptic' on this board to find one National Academy of Science that states that AGW is not a fact. Even if that National Academy of Science is in Outer Slobovia. No takers so far.

Yes, the Flat Earth Society was popular too at one point

 

[IanC]

Really now, does this graph look like a cooling or stalled trend?

This graph?

This graph shows a clearly decreasing trend. You have shown us before that reading graphs isn't really your thing, but see that black line curving downward, that is the trend line and the trend is obviously down. Thanks for the graph, it shows clearly how either congenitally dishonest, or abysmally ignorant you are.

Spencer specifically states that the curved polynomial fit is for 'entertainment' purposes. it may or may not mean anything. if the sceptical side just imitates the warmers' bad manners and unfounded conclusions why should the public believe us over them?

 

[Saigon]

That really is a terribly childish response.

Is there a left wing position and a right wing posiition on gravity?

You were the one who suggested that it must be true because european conservative politicians were on the bandwagon.

I have to say - you seem to have a good head for science and good knowledge of the science relating to this topic, but responses like this do you no favours.

Again - you can not claim climate change is a left wing conspiracy when almost every right wing party outside the US disagrees with you. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I just do not believe science is being falsified, twisted, faked or anything else.

I met a Professor in Physics a few weeks back and talked to him at length about the research he is doing on cloud formation. The guy has devoted his life to this subject, and speaks about it with real passion and integrity.

To suggest he fakes all that as part of some evil plot strikes me as simply paranoid.

 

[IanC]

That's an easy one. Take a look at the respective warm periods over the past 10K years and tell me how a warming period of the magnitude of the Minoan could possibly be local, or hemispherical in nature. And again, the minoan signal in the graph below is from the Vostok ice cores. Tell me how you believe such a warming compared to today could not result in retreating glaciers.

There is such a thing as common sense here and looking at a warming of that magnitude and claiming that it wouldn't have resulted in glaciers retreating to a greater extent than today pushes the notion of common sense. Further, didn't I give you an article describing archaeological finds dating back to the minoan warming in peru? The glacier had to be absent for the find to be laid down.

I do think this is a good post (which is why I wanted time to read it more carefully), and I do think you make a good point here about the Minoan Period very likely having a global impact.

But given the Minoan Period is largely associated with sunspot acitivty - why do you feel it is relevant to the situation we face today?

What makes you think that the current warming is not the result of solar activity?

saigon wants to believe his trust in science and scientists is fully supported by their work and character. he just doesnt get that climate science has crapped the bed.

on another thread he admitted that the latest paper trying to prove that CO2 ended the last ice age was flawed and made conclusions that were not supported by the data provided. yet he turns around and says that a handful of bad papers dont disprove the general case for AGW. if you look at Shakur2012 the one thing that no one is disputing is that temperatures have been dropping for the last 5000 years while CO2 levels have been rising. a clear case of cognitive dissonance for saigon.

the CAGW crowd likes to screech over glaciers disappearing. most of the ice mass loss happened in the 1800's. how on earth can they actually believe that ongoing melting for hundreds of years was natural up to 1950 and then magically became the fault of CO2?

if you hear something often enough, and then dont really think about it to see if it is logically consistent, it is easy to believe that it not only could be true but that it probably is true.

the historical temperature records in Iceland have been bouncing around like a pinball this last year. when you see years where lots of ice formed and crops were lost due to the cold but the temperature record says it was warm, which source do you believe? who has time or the life history to check into all the crazy adjustments being made to temperature databases. we just look at the graphs and hope that the mistakes average out. unfortunately for temperature and climate change the mistakes are almost all completely in the same direction of increase.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Really now, does this graph look like a cooling or stalled trend?

This graph?

This graph shows a clearly decreasing trend. You have shown us before that reading graphs isn't really your thing, but see that black line curving downward, that is the trend line and the trend is obviously down. Thanks for the graph, it shows clearly how either congenitally dishonest, or abysmally ignorant you are.

Spencer specifically states that the curved polynomial fit is for 'entertainment' purposes. it may or may not mean anything. if the sceptical side just imitates the warmers' bad manners and unfounded conclusions why should the public believe us over them?

Sure don't look like an overall warming trend

 

[Saigon]

What makes you think that the current warming is not the result of solar activity?

I would be more interested in why he thinks that there is current warming considering that world temps have been flat, if not going down slightly for the past decade and a half.

Most experts in solar acitivity have been fairly clear that the current changes in temperature can not be solely attributed to solar activity.

They seem to have people like the British Academy of Sciences and US Society of Physicists in their camp, and I'm comfortable with that.

The decade eding 2009 was the hottest on record, despite the fact that the rate of warming was higher in the 1990s. I don't see anything very newsworthy there.

 

[IanC]

What makes you think that the current warming is not the result of solar activity?

I would be more interested in why he thinks that there is current warming considering that world temps have been flat, if not going down slightly for the past decade and a half.

Most experts in solar acitivity have been fairly clear that the current changes in temperature can not be solely attributed to solar activity.

They seem to have people like the British Academy of Sciences and US Society of Physicists in their camp, and I'm comfortable with that.

The decade eding 2009 was the hottest on record, despite the fact that the rate of warming was higher in the 1990s. I don't see anything very newsworthy there.

the missing variable gambit. many climate scientists point to a very general measure of the Sun's output, TSI, and say that it cannot account for all the changes and then ignore it. the Sun's output in UV is much more variable and those changes as well as magnetic changes have an unknown but possibly profound effect on climate. if the paradigm was solar activity instead of CO2 we would have a different view of climate right now

 

[Saigon]

IanC -

Your position seems to be based on the assumption that scientists either have not considered the solar question thoroughly, or are distorting their findings to downplay the solar factor.

I just don't find either point terribly credible - at least not with major universities and research units.

The idea that a good 50 - 60 research units around the world would all be secretly working together to ensure that their research produced complimentary results implies the involvement of thousands of people in dozens of countries. It would be a conspiracy far greater than anything we have ever seen - and it would occur without a single person talking to a journalist.

I tell you, if the Rector of the University of Helsinki called me tomorrow and said he'd been asked by government to put pressure on the sciences boys to produce particular research outcomes, it would be the biggest news story of the year, right around the world. And yet - it just does not happen.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That is complete and utter garbage.

I have never heard ANYONE suggest that CO2 emitted by man was the only cause. There will always be variations in natural cycles of CO2 release, plus volcanic activity etc etc.

Um, tell it to East Anglia, IPCC, NASA and Old Rocks

And once again you are full of shit, Frankie Boy. The words that I have used are the same as those used by the scientists studying the changing climate. The primary driver of todays warming are the GHGs emitted by mankind. However, never fear, if we warm the Arctic enough, we will take a back seat to the CH4 and CO2 emitted by the permafrost and ocean clathrates in that region.

I'm convinced you're full of crap. You say "The primary driver of todays warming are the GHGs emitted by mankind" as if it's a fact. But you never have any evidence to back it up.

You point to isolated weather events both hot and cold and say, "See that?! Manmade global warming!"

You're a joke

 

[IanC]

saigon- you are new on this board, and have missed hundreds of topics. I am not a conspiracy theorist or even against much of the science that is done or even climate modelling. as long as the uncertainties are realistically presented. climate science is a victim of 'group think', 'mission creep', and over zealousness in trying to convince the public that disaster is just around the bend. the cornerstone papers in changing the null hypothesis have been shown to be seriously lacking but the damage has already been done. proving that MBH98,99 were trash does little to unconvince the people who came to believe that the world was warming uncontrolably in 2001 via the IPCC short report. people remember the flashy first headlines not the rebuttals

 

[IanC]

IanC -

Your position seems to be based on the assumption that scientists either have not considered the solar question thoroughly, or are distorting their findings to downplay the solar factor.

I just don't find either point terribly credible - at least not with major universities and research units.

The idea that a good 50 - 60 research units around the world would all be secretly working together to ensure that their research produced complimentary results implies the involvement of thousands of people in dozens of countries. It would be a conspiracy far greater than anything we have ever seen - and it would occur without a single person talking to a journalist.

I tell you, if the Rector of the University of Helsinki called me tomorrow and said he'd been asked by government to put pressure on the sciences boys to produce particular research outcomes, it would be the biggest news story of the year, right around the world. And yet - it just does not happen.

“Expert review” of the First Order Draft of AR5 closed on the 10th. Here is the first paragraph of my submitted critique:


My training is in economics where we are very familiar with what statisticians call “the omitted variable problem” (or when it is intentional, “omitted variable fraud”). Whenever an explanatory variable is omitted from a statistical analysis, its explanatory power gets misattributed to any correlated variables that are included. This problem is manifest at the very highest level of AR5, and is built into each step of its analysis.

Like everyone else who participated in this review, I agreed not to cite, quote or distribute the draft. The IPCC also made a further request, which reviewers were not required to agree to, that we “not discuss the contents of the FOD in public fora such as blogs.”

Given what I found—systematic fraud—it would not be moral to honor this un-agreed to request, and because my comments are about what is omitted, the fraud is easy enough to expose without quoting the draft. My entire review (4700 words) only contains a half dozen quotes, which can easily be replaced here with descriptions of the quoted material.

Omitted variable fraud: vast evidence for solar climate driver rates one oblique sentence in AR5 | Watts Up With That?


I am not saying this guy is totally correct but the IPCC certainly has a long track record of ignoring view points that are not in the 'concensus', and changing the scientists' actual wording of their reports to come into agreement with the short report.

 

[code1211]

Greg's TSI Page

Because the TSI is lower now than it was 30 years ago.

The current warming started as the ending of The Little Ice Age. This was in about 1600. This is also when the current trend of rising TSI started.

Hmmm...

I wonder if there might be a connection there?

A cause with a demonstrable effect?

This is certainly not the kind of science accepted the AGW crowd. We probably need to ignore this.

Code, you know exactly what the story is there. It is called the Meander Minimum. And it involved a period in which there were far fewer sunspots, with a lower TSI. Something we just saw in the last solar cycle. Nor did the Little Ice Age end in the 1600's. As you well know!

The Little Ice Age

The Little Ice Age was a time of cooler climate in most parts of the world. Although there is some disagreement about exactly when the Little Ice Age started, records suggest that temperatures began cooling around 1250 A.D. The coldest time was during the 16th and 17th Centuries. By 1850 the climate began to warm.
During the Little Ice Age, average global temperatures were 1-1.5 degree Celsius (2-3 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than they are today. The cooler temperatures were caused by a combination of less solar activity and large volcanic eruptions. Cooling caused glaciers to advance and stunted tree growth. Livestock died, harvests failed, and humans suffered from famine and disease.

You really need to start documenting your yap-yap. Your veracity is descending to Frankie Boy's level.

Why do I need to document it when you have done so for me?

The Little Ice Age was a period of cooler temperatures and, Yes, you are right that it did not end until the 1800's or so.

However, the period during which it stopped cooling and STARTED warming was in about the period of 1580 to 1600.

I would assume that you know this and are just being disingenuous stated in the kindest term possible.

Do you agree that the warming started before the Little ice Age ended or is it your thesis that one day it was the little ice and and the next the global temperature jumped up by about a degree?

When you distort the evidence like this, what do you think the reaction of those who know even the slightest bit about this will be?

 

[code1211]

Here we go again. All the scientist in all the nations in the world are in on a conspiracy to decieve poor Bent.

Same old fantasy. Are you really so stupid that you can't differentiate between the political head of an organization and the body? Guess you are. Nothing like all of the scientists in the world are on the bandwagon. The fact is that you would have a hard time finding any who are who don't depend on grant money for their daily bread and those are the vast minority rocks. Sorry to break it to you.

Do you belong to any Scientific Societies? Because I do. And every time there is a leadership position open, there is a vote on who will fill that position. So, if so many scientists are skeptics, as you claim, why are not the votes showing this?

The simple fact is that most scientists that have studied the evidence state that AGW is a fact and a clear and present danger. And this is true of scientists from around the world. In every nation and every political system.

I have challenged you and every other 'sceptic' on this board to find one National Academy of Science that states that AGW is not a fact. Even if that National Academy of Science is in Outer Slobovia. No takers so far.

That's all well and good.

Care to produce that 30 year prediction that is accurate?

 

[code1211]

That really is a terribly childish response.

Is there a left wing position and a right wing posiition on gravity?

You were the one who suggested that it must be true because european conservative politicians were on the bandwagon.

I have to say - you seem to have a good head for science and good knowledge of the science relating to this topic, but responses like this do you no favours.

Again - you can not claim climate change is a left wing conspiracy when almost every right wing party outside the US disagrees with you. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I just do not believe science is being falsified, twisted, faked or anything else.

I met a Professor in Physics a few weeks back and talked to him at length about the research he is doing on cloud formation. The guy has devoted his life to this subject, and speaks about it with real passion and integrity.

To suggest he fakes all that as part of some evil plot strikes me as simply paranoid.

How did he feel about the CERN idea that cosmic radiation affects the formation of clouds?

 

[code1211]

What makes you think that the current warming is not the result of solar activity?

I would be more interested in why he thinks that there is current warming considering that world temps have been flat, if not going down slightly for the past decade and a half.

Most experts in solar acitivity have been fairly clear that the current changes in temperature can not be solely attributed to solar activity.

They seem to have people like the British Academy of Sciences and US Society of Physicists in their camp, and I'm comfortable with that.

The decade eding 2009 was the hottest on record, despite the fact that the rate of warming was higher in the 1990s. I don't see anything very newsworthy there.

Does it matter to you why you don't?

 

[code1211]

IanC -

Your position seems to be based on the assumption that scientists either have not considered the solar question thoroughly, or are distorting their findings to downplay the solar factor.

I just don't find either point terribly credible - at least not with major universities and research units.

The idea that a good 50 - 60 research units around the world would all be secretly working together to ensure that their research produced complimentary results implies the involvement of thousands of people in dozens of countries. It would be a conspiracy far greater than anything we have ever seen - and it would occur without a single person talking to a journalist.

I tell you, if the Rector of the University of Helsinki called me tomorrow and said he'd been asked by government to put pressure on the sciences boys to produce particular research outcomes, it would be the biggest news story of the year, right around the world. And yet - it just does not happen.

How much grant money is made available to research things that are of absolutely no consequence and will pose absolutely no threat to anything?