Antarctic and Arctic gaining ICE.. Not Melting...

[Old Rocks]

The radiative imbalance at the ToA is not model data. It says the world is accumulating heat.

Since data has become available, it shows the Arctic is losing ice. The mass loss trend indicates an ice free summer in no more than 10 to 20 years from now. Humans have never seen the Arctic ice-free. These are not models, they are facts.

As the Arctic has lost ice, it has also lost albedo - a positive feed back. That is not an assumption built into a model, it's a fact.

The rate of mass loss in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets has increased multifold, enough to start raising sea level. That is not a model, that's a fact.

The WAIS is crumbling into the sea. It cannot stop and when complete will have raised the ocean many meters. That is not a model, that's a fact.

Here is a site with real facts: Charctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis

Why yes, that has the real levels on it. Note that the present level is close to two standard deviations low for this time of year.

Charctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis

 

[Freewill]

The radiative imbalance at the ToA is not model data. It says the world is accumulating heat.

Since data has become available, it shows the Arctic is losing ice. The mass loss trend indicates an ice free summer in no more than 10 to 20 years from now. Humans have never seen the Arctic ice-free. These are not models, they are facts.

As the Arctic has lost ice, it has also lost albedo - a positive feed back. That is not an assumption built into a model, it's a fact.

The rate of mass loss in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets has increased multifold, enough to start raising sea level. That is not a model, that's a fact.

The WAIS is crumbling into the sea. It cannot stop and when complete will have raised the ocean many meters. That is not a model, that's a fact.

Here is a site with real facts: Charctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis

Why yes, that has the real levels on it. Note that the present level is close to two standard deviations low for this time of year.

Charctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis

What significance do you place on that?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Polar Ice Caps More Stable Than Predicted, New Observations Show

Levi Winchester
THE North and South Poles are “not melting”, according to a leading global warming expert. In fact, the poles are “much more stable” than climate scientists once predicted and could even be much thicker than previously thought. For years, scientists have suggested that both poles are melting at an alarming rate because of warming temperatures – dangerously raising the Earth’s sea levels while threatening the homes of Arctic and Antarctic animals.

But the uncertainty surrounding climate change and the polar ice caps reached a new level this month when research suggested the ice in the Antarctic is actually growing.

And there could even be evidence to suggest the polar bear population is not under threat.

Well so much for the alarmist drivel. Even one of their own now admits IT ISNT HAPPENING!

The poles are not melting according to a global warming expert Dr Benny Peiser Nature News Daily Express
Source

that is suckie news for the man made global warming cultists

--LOL

 

[IanC]

OK, Ian, links to real scientists articles supporting what you have stated, from real peer reviewed journals, not yellow rags like WUWT.

why the fuck would I respond to you! you are the absolute worst for ditching any thread where you have been proven wrong, I suppose so you can repeat your same bullshit at a later date and pretend that you didnt know better. how many times did Mann2008 get debunked in direct response to you, only to have you post it up again?

 

[Old Rocks]

My, my. The Mann graph has been confirmed by more than a dozen independent studies by many scientists.
What evidence is there for the hockey stick

Figure 2: Original hockey stick graph (blue - MBH1998) compared to Wahl & Ammann reconstruction (red). Instrumental record in black (Wahl 2007).

Figure 3: Global surface temperature change over the last five centuries from boreholes (thick red line). Shading represents uncertainty. Blue line is a five year running average of HadCRUT global surface air temperature (Huang 2000).

Figure 4: Northern Hemisphere annual temperature reconstruction from speleothem reconstructions shown with 2 standard error (shaded area) (Smith 2006)

Figure 5: Global mean temperature calculated form glaciers. The red vertical lines indicate uncertainty.

Of course, these examples only go back around 500 years - this doesn't even cover the Medieval Warm Period. When you combine all the various proxies, including ice cores, coral, lake sediments, glaciers, boreholes & stalagmites, it's possible to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures without tree-ring proxies going back 1,300 years (Mann 2008). The result is that temperatures in recent decades exceed the maximum proxy estimate (including uncertainty range) for the past 1,300 years. When you include tree-ring data, the same result holds for the past 1,700 years.

Figure 6: Composite Northern Hemisphere land and land plus ocean temperature reconstructions and estimated 95% confidence intervals. Shown for comparison are published Northern Hemisphere reconstructions (Mann 2008).

Paleoclimatology draws upon a range of proxies and methodologies to calculate past temperatures. This allows independent confirmation of the basic hockey stick result: that the past few decades are the hottest in the past 1,300 years.

Notice that the differant lines are from differant scientific studies? Not just Mann.
Now, if you wish, I can go to Google Scholar and present a whole bunch of papers confirming the above. Would you like me to do that?

 

[Old Rocks]

The radiative imbalance at the ToA is not model data. It says the world is accumulating heat.

Since data has become available, it shows the Arctic is losing ice. The mass loss trend indicates an ice free summer in no more than 10 to 20 years from now. Humans have never seen the Arctic ice-free. These are not models, they are facts.

As the Arctic has lost ice, it has also lost albedo - a positive feed back. That is not an assumption built into a model, it's a fact.

The rate of mass loss in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets has increased multifold, enough to start raising sea level. That is not a model, that's a fact.

The WAIS is crumbling into the sea. It cannot stop and when complete will have raised the ocean many meters. That is not a model, that's a fact.

Here is a site with real facts: Charctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis

Why yes, that has the real levels on it. Note that the present level is close to two standard deviations low for this time of year.

Charctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis

What significance do you place on that?

You are the one that stated that was a site with real facts. So you tell us why you said that, and why you are questioning what the site says now?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Polar Ice Caps More Stable Than Predicted, New Observations Show

Levi Winchester
THE North and South Poles are “not melting”, according to a leading global warming expert. In fact, the poles are “much more stable” than climate scientists once predicted and could even be much thicker than previously thought. For years, scientists have suggested that both poles are melting at an alarming rate because of warming temperatures – dangerously raising the Earth’s sea levels while threatening the homes of Arctic and Antarctic animals.

But the uncertainty surrounding climate change and the polar ice caps reached a new level this month when research suggested the ice in the Antarctic is actually growing.

And there could even be evidence to suggest the polar bear population is not under threat.

Well so much for the alarmist drivel. Even one of their own now admits IT ISNT HAPPENING!

The poles are not melting according to a global warming expert Dr Benny Peiser Nature News Daily Express
Source

First of all, one has to understand the difference between annual ice and permanent ice.

First of all only one region is showing loss of permanent ice, as the article points out. Second, one must retract ones head for ones ass to see the facts.

 

[Billy_Bob]

My, my. The Mann graph has been confirmed by more than a dozen independent studies by many scientists.
What evidence is there for the hockey stick

Figure 2: Original hockey stick graph (blue - MBH1998) compared to Wahl & Ammann reconstruction (red). Instrumental record in black (Wahl 2007).

Figure 3: Global surface temperature change over the last five centuries from boreholes (thick red line). Shading represents uncertainty. Blue line is a five year running average of HadCRUT global surface air temperature (Huang 2000).

Figure 4: Northern Hemisphere annual temperature reconstruction from speleothem reconstructions shown with 2 standard error (shaded area) (Smith 2006)

Figure 5: Global mean temperature calculated form glaciers. The red vertical lines indicate uncertainty.

Of course, these examples only go back around 500 years - this doesn't even cover the Medieval Warm Period. When you combine all the various proxies, including ice cores, coral, lake sediments, glaciers, boreholes & stalagmites, it's possible to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures without tree-ring proxies going back 1,300 years (Mann 2008). The result is that temperatures in recent decades exceed the maximum proxy estimate (including uncertainty range) for the past 1,300 years. When you include tree-ring data, the same result holds for the past 1,700 years.

Figure 6: Composite Northern Hemisphere land and land plus ocean temperature reconstructions and estimated 95% confidence intervals. Shown for comparison are published Northern Hemisphere reconstructions (Mann 2008).

Paleoclimatology draws upon a range of proxies and methodologies to calculate past temperatures. This allows independent confirmation of the basic hockey stick result: that the past few decades are the hottest in the past 1,300 years.

Notice that the differant lines are from differant scientific studies? Not just Mann.
Now, if you wish, I can go to Google Scholar and present a whole bunch of papers confirming the above. Would you like me to do that?

More discredited Michal Mann and his fraud.... You need new material. every single paper that attempts to give man credibility has been shown fraudulent by either out right deception or manufacturing data.

 

[Freewill]

The radiative imbalance at the ToA is not model data. It says the world is accumulating heat.

Since data has become available, it shows the Arctic is losing ice. The mass loss trend indicates an ice free summer in no more than 10 to 20 years from now. Humans have never seen the Arctic ice-free. These are not models, they are facts.

As the Arctic has lost ice, it has also lost albedo - a positive feed back. That is not an assumption built into a model, it's a fact.

The rate of mass loss in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets has increased multifold, enough to start raising sea level. That is not a model, that's a fact.

The WAIS is crumbling into the sea. It cannot stop and when complete will have raised the ocean many meters. That is not a model, that's a fact.

Here is a site with real facts: Charctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis

Why yes, that has the real levels on it. Note that the present level is close to two standard deviations low for this time of year.

Charctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis

What significance do you place on that?

You are the one that stated that was a site with real facts. So you tell us why you said that, and why you are questioning what the site says now?

i did no such thing, you brought it up apparently you think it significant, why?

 

[PredFan]

Again, we are debating the wrong question. Are the ice caps melting? If yes, is it normal ebb and flow? Are the seas warming? Are the polar bears disappearing? I don't think we know either way, and you certainly cannot trust the government, it's media outlets, or 99% of the scientists. All of these are THE WRONG QUESTIONS. The correct question is: "Is it caused by the actions of man?"

We do not have an answer to that.

 

[jc456]

OK, Ian, links to real scientists articles supporting what you have stated, from real peer reviewed journals, not yellow rags like WUWT.

why the fuck would I respond to you! you are the absolute worst for ditching any thread where you have been proven wrong, I suppose so you can repeat your same bullshit at a later date and pretend that you didnt know better. how many times did Mann2008 get debunked in direct response to you, only to have you post it up again?

It is amazing, all the links and graphs and charts this dude has, he can't produce one that backs his story legitmately. regurgitated posts, one after the other, then the infamous post requiring everyone else to answer his question after he deflects all of the questions asked to him! Simply a lefty loser. Nice work!!!!

 

[Crick]

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Mann et al. 2008 Temperature Reconstructions

Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia

Mann et al 2008 Proxy-based reconstructions of hemisphericand global surface temperature variationsover the past two millennia

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/MannetalPNAS08.pdf

and a good commentary on Marcott and Shakun's work at
The two epochs of Marcott My view on climate change

As far as I can see, the only person who thinks there are any problems with MBH 2008 is Steven McIntyre. But he doesn't seem to have convinced PNAS or any of the several other journals that published MBH 2008 to withdraw it or even to issue a corrigendum.

 

[Billy_Bob]

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Mann et al. 2008 Temperature Reconstructions

Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia

Mann et al 2008 Proxy-based reconstructions of hemisphericand global surface temperature variationsover the past two millennia

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/MannetalPNAS08.pdf

and a good commentary on Marcott and Shakun's work at
The two epochs of Marcott My view on climate change

As far as I can see, the only person who thinks there are any problems with MBH 2008 is Steven McIntyre. But he doesn't seem to have convinced PNAS or any of the several other journals that published MBH 2008 to withdraw it or even to issue a corrigendum.

Mann Et Al.....

Junk science on steroids..

 

[Crick]

But, as JC456 pointed out, just sayin' it don't make it so.

 

[jc456]

But, as JC456 pointed out, just sayin' it don't make it so.

I stand by those words. So when will you present the lab work?

 

[IanC]

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Mann et al. 2008 Temperature Reconstructions

Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia

Mann et al 2008 Proxy-based reconstructions of hemisphericand global surface temperature variationsover the past two millennia

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/MannetalPNAS08.pdf

and a good commentary on Marcott and Shakun's work at
The two epochs of Marcott My view on climate change

As far as I can see, the only person who thinks there are any problems with MBH 2008 is Steven McIntyre. But he doesn't seem to have convinced PNAS or any of the several other journals that published MBH 2008 to withdraw it or even to issue a corrigendum.

Does it give you more faith, or less, that Mann was not forced to correct Mann08 for the upsidedown Tiljander fiasco?

Do you honestly believe that a proxy that has such a big impact on a reconstruction can be used in the wrong orientation and still trust the product? If you can then I don't think you are working from scientific principles but are just arguing for 'your side'.

 

[Crick]

I think there are mistakes and there are mistakes. MBH made a mistake with their original hockeystick, but the correction did not change the conclusions drawn from that work; neither did correcting Tiljander. The mistake of thinking that the world is not getting warmer at a dangerous rate, that the oceans are not growing acidic at a dangerous rate or that neither of those phenomena are the result of human activity - those are serious mistakes.

 

[jc456]

I think there are mistakes and there are mistakes. MBH made a mistake with their original hockeystick, but the correction did not change the conclusions drawn from that work; neither did correcting Tiljander. The mistake of thinking that the world is not getting warmer at a dangerous rate, that the oceans are not growing acidic at a dangerous rate or that neither of those phenomena are the result of human activity - those are serious mistakes.

and yet you have no evidence that the world is warming at a dangerous rate. How in the hell do you know what the dangerous limitations are, when you can't justify any of your claims with lab work. I'm asking because I am not a scientist. I want them to show me they do in fact have solid evidence. I see nothing but mumbo jumbo, I see conflicts over the math, so in the end to push your agenda it is imperative to prove your sky is falling accusations. You sir have failed everyday I've been on this board. All you do is rehash, and rehash material that you've been told doesn't solve your problem of providing lab work. Again, please finish with that and stop playing tag.

 

[IanC]

MBH98,99 turned climate history on its head. No MWP, no LIA. Every correction that has been forced on climate science kicking and screaming has brought the MWP and LIA back closer to what they were when the climate gate mafiosi sent them to swim with the fishes. At every stage they say their new results are 'consistent with' their old ones. By the time we are back to the starting line they will be saying "we said it all along".

 

[IanC]

My, my. The Mann graph has been confirmed by more than a dozen independent studies by many scientists.
What evidence is there for the hockey stick

Figure 3: Global surface temperature change over the last five centuries from boreholes (thick red line). Shading represents uncertainty. Blue line is a five year running average of HadCRUT global surface air temperature (Huang 2000).



Notice that the differant lines are from differant scientific studies? Not just Mann.
Now, if you wish, I can go to Google Scholar and present a whole bunch of papers confirming the above. Would you like me to do that?

thanks Rocks! I had been meaning to look into boreholes for a while now, and you lead me into a great topic.

first I looked at the provenance of this graph and the ridiculous uncertainty of the borehole portion of the graph. I checked out lots of papers on boreholes (non paywalled).

I remembered seeing a different graph, and luckily I found it

--caption--The three curves show the data with different weights assigned to it, the red being the strongest and the blue being the weakest that the authors think is merited


how odd! same authors, 3 years apart?

in true climate science fashion here is a note from the author of that graph when he tried to get the data-

Just Facts wrote to Shaopeng Huang to obtain the data shown in Figure 2, but he informed us that he would be out of the country for a few months and thus unable to provide it. Hence, we obtained the data from Ross McKitrick (on 6/22/11), who had obtained it from Huang at an earlier date. The curves produced by this data visually match the curves in Figure 2 of the paper.

what could make such a big difference? ahhh, I think I found it. 1997- over six thousand samples, 2000- just 600. the old cherrypicking trick. if I just use 10% of the data, I can make it say just about anything trick. sound familiar? it should.

after jumping around for a while longer I found out that there was a third graph by the same guys in 2008! and they arent much of a match either.

hahahahahaha. crick and old rocks have unshakeable faith in the accuracy and precision of proxies. I dont. of course climate science politics may have had something to do with the 'evolution' of borehole temps.


http://www-personal.umich.edu/~shaopeng/97GL01846.pdf
A comparison of five different analyses in the interpretation of five borehole temperature data sets
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-02.pdf page 132 figure 2.19
Reconstruction of remote climate changes from borehole temperatures
Climate change of the last 2000 years inferred from borehole temperatures data from Finland
Climate changes of the last millennium inferred from borehole temperatures Results from the Czech Republic Part I
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~peter/Resources/Seminar/readings/Huang_boreholeTemp_Nature'00.pdf
The message from boreholes JoNova
Global Warming - Just Facts interesting webpage

some of the links left up, mostly pdfs