Climate Change Deniers Are Lying

[Old Rocks]

Fig.3 Monthly Sea Ice Volume from PIOMAS for April and Sep.

Polar Science Center PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Reanalysis

Well, looks like ol' Al is closer to correct than the shills flappin' yap about nothing happening at all.

 

[flacaltenn]

No way those Arctic projections Gore quoted were backed by a majority of the scientific community. Not even the Climate Science community. In fact, I'll wager the ACTUAL PAPERS gave a range of time and Gore just selected the scariest SHORTEST TIME that appeared.. That in itself is devious and dishonest.

Look -- I don't do sea ice because i was involved in the early LandSat programs and know how iffy some of these "sea ice" estimates actually are. They aren't counting pristine ice -- they are counting any ocean area that has 30% or more "ice cubes" floating in it. That definition is so weak and fleeting that it is BOUND to vary a whole lot from season to season. Makes for a lot of cheerleading on both sides. Like I said, ice melts at 32degF -- so 300 days of the year it sits there and maybe grows. You can melt the same amount of ice with 1 degree over freezing for 10 days --- or 0.1degF over freezing for 100 days.. Tells you NOTHING specific about the pattern of warming and whether it was weather related or Climate related. I DO follow most everything else.

Usually they're not counting sea ice at all. They're counting ice which sits on top of ice which sits on top of ice. No sea crystals at all.

No way they were backed by a majority huh? How many people from the scientific community backed him then?

Don't know if you checked -- but there is no land-based ice in the Arctic Ocean. And how I described the count to you is VERY MUCH how it's done.. Ice CUBES floating in open water are counted as sea surface FULLY ICED.. (with that 30%, IIRC -- qualifier) Go check me after you read the quote in my footer...

Look -- no offense-- enjoyed your conversation -- respect that you are one of few that WANT to discuss Global Warming. But I get ill every time I bump this thread because of the title and the trolling nature of it.

So PLEASE join us (and me) in other threads and PLEASE keep posing those good questions. But I'm not bumping this troll thread ever again....

 

[Crick]

I don't think he was talking about land-based ice. I think he was talking about multi-year ice.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I don't think he was talking about land-based ice. I think he was talking about multi-year ice.

Crick is the USA part of the globe or not and does your answer depend on if the pre-altered date shows the US temperature to be cooling

 

[bripat9643]

And you wonder why your treatment of Mann and Hansen makes us less than giddy.

They are both a couple of con-artists. Both are guilty of fraud. They belong in prison.

 

[Crick]

They are both good scientists who have suffered absurd and undeserved persecution at the direction of the fossil fuel industry's disinformation campaign. The people who selected them for this treatment are the ones who should go to prison.

What crime, Paddie, do you believe Hansen and Mann have committed?

 

[IanC]

This is a graph that has been posted many times here. Is it a warmers' misrepresentation or an honest prediction?

Does this type of graph give a more realistic impression of what's happening?

Death spiral or downward trend? Of course the last couple of years has thrown a monkey wrench into the doomsday scenarios but was this reasonable reporting at the time? A different version of the first graph had a prediction of an ice free Arctic in December by 2020. Did anyone actually believe that or was it just scaremongering?

 

[Crick]

Of course the last couple of years has thrown a monkey wrench into the doomsday scenarios

No, the last couple of years have not thrown any monkey wrenches into Arctic ice extent projections.

but was this reasonable reporting at the time? A different version of the first graph had a prediction of an ice free Arctic in December by 2020. Did anyone actually believe that or was it just scaremongering?

The appropriate question is whether or not you believe that data support that projection. What you do not do not believe was the motivation of the person presenting the data is irrelevant. That PIOMAS data is valid and it shows a trend approaching zero in the foreseeable future. Do you disagree?

 

[IanC]

Well.....first off let's not get too uppity over PIOMAS 'data'. After all it's only a computer program spitting out 'reanalysis'.

Have we gone through a whole cycle of Arctic ice wax and wane? Were the big drops in ice extent caused by temperature or prevailing weather patterns and storms blowing ice out into warmer waters?

There have been a whole lot of assumptions and predictions made on very little actual measurements. And then there is the case of Antarctica being opposite to expectations.

And I'm not sure what the big deal is with low ice levels is anyway. A proxy for global temps? Obviously not albedo changes because no one is making a fuss over Antarctic increased ice at a much more effective latitude.

 

[Vigilante]

It's simple...

 

[Crick]

Well.....first off let's not get too uppity over PIOMAS 'data'. After all it's only a computer program spitting out 'reanalysis'.

That's a really stupid comment. It's a computer program taking ice area data and ice thickness data and calculating ice volume.

Have we gone through a whole cycle of Arctic ice wax and wane?

Do you have any reason to believe such cycles exist? If what we have witnessed just since the beginning of the satellite era were a portion of a sinusoidal cycle, the Arctic would have been ice free repeatedly during human culture, yet such a thing has never been witnessed and no evidence suggests it has been ice free in millions of years.

Were the big drops in ice extent caused by temperature or prevailing weather patterns and storms blowing ice out into warmer waters?

Did the Arctic undergo a significant weather pattern change coincident with the beginning of satellite observation? Has such a pattern as you describe been dominant for the last 40 years? No and no.

There have been a whole lot of assumptions and predictions made on very little actual measurements.

You don't think the petabytes of data from 40 years of satellite observations are sufficient data? The bogus assumption being made here is the denier strategy that attempts to say anything short of perfect knowledge is no knowledge at all. You and yours here frequently attempt to suggest that given only partial knowledge, a conclusion directly opposed by the evidence collected is just as likely as one supported by it. Sorry, dude, but that is complete and utter hogwash.

And then there is the case of Antarctica being opposite to expectations.

And then there is the case of false denier statements regarding Antarctica. The expectation from 30 years back had always been that increased temperatures would bring increased precipitation and since temperatures are still well below freezing, that means more ice. Warmed ocean waters have caused MORE melt than was ever predicted and temperatures in WAIS have been consistently up.

And I'm not sure what the big deal is with low ice levels is anyway. A proxy for global temps? Obviously not albedo changes because no one is making a fuss over Antarctic increased ice at a much more effective latitude.

1) The growth of ice surrounding Antarctic is certainly not from colder temperatures. Antarctic temperatures, on land and in the surrounding oceans, have gone nowhere but up.
2) The area of increased ice surrounding Antarctica is a small fraction of the lost ice at the opposite pole. And, of course, the entire continent will remain ice bound for many years, putting a lower limit on albedo that the Arctic has already passed.
3) The increase of ice in Antarctica is strongly tied to the dramatic and likely unstoppable loss of land ice on the continent.

 

[Kosh]

You have to remember that the AGW faith is based solely on computer models:

 

[IanC]

You and I have been alive for about the same amount of time. I have learned that new science papers, like new fads, need to pass the test of time. You believe in every new proxy reconstruction and theirs stated certainty, I look at the individual proxies and see that the timing and magnitude and often even the direction is at odds with the final graph.

I understand your willingness to believe every new sensational result. But I have learned the hard way that most of them are crap. The first IPCC report had most of the basic information but because it was not fully politicized at that time most of the catastrophic predictions were missing. Since then the IPCC has acted more like an overzealous prosecuting attorney than an evenhanded arbitrator of the truth.

You have chosen who you want to believe and that is your right. I don't particularly believe anyone. I especially am Leary of conclusions based on equivocal data. You have read that Antarctica is warming up. Is it? West Antarctica and the Peninsula are but the main continent isn't. The Southern Ocean SSTs are trending down, apparently, so why is it a surprise that there is more sea ice?

Have you been putting too much stock in the latest doomsday scenarios built on few or no data points?

I am a big believer in serendipity. Evidence for something that comes from a source with no dog in the fight may still be wrong but at least it won't be purposely biased. Historical writings of the MWP give strong evidence that it was real, Mann's use of the upsidedown Tiljander cores doesn't make it go away.

 

[mamooth]

Goddard's fudged graph again? It's kind of insulting that Kosh won't even expend the energy to repeat some new frauds.

Arctic sea ice extent going back to 1900. Note:

1. No oscillations.
2. No "ongoing melt from the little ice age", as 1900-1950 extent is fairly constant.
3. 1979, the start of the satellite measurements and most sea ice graphs, is part of the downward trend, and is not an especially high year. That shoots down the "you cherrypicked the high year of 1979!" denier claims.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/SEAICE/timeseries.1870-2008

 

[mamooth]

I am a big believer in serendipity. Evidence for something that comes from a source with no dog in the fight may still be wrong but at least it won't be purposely biased

Given that every single denier is a membe of a right-wing extremist political group, you've just declare all denier arguments are biased and untrustworthy.

Historical writings of the MWP give strong evidence that it was real,

And local to northern Europe. It takes some epic level cherrypicking to claim otherwise.

Mann's use of the upsidedown Tiljander cores doesn't make it go away.

Stoat pretty much buries that CultOfMcIntyre babbling here.

Tiljander Stoat

 

[Crick]

That was beautiful. For those who don't follow links, allow me to post the text of MBH's response to McIntyre & McKittrick found at Mamooth's last link.

Reply to McIntyre and McKitrick: Proxy-based temperature reconstructions are robust

1. Michael E. Mann1,
2. Raymond S. Bradley and
3. Malcolm K. Hughes

McIntyre and McKitrick (1) raise no valid issues regarding our paper. We specifically discussed divergence of “composite plus scale” (CPS) and “error-in-variables” (EIV) reconstructions before A.D. 1000 [ref. 2 and supporting information (SI) therein] and demonstrated (in the SI) that the EIV reconstruction is the more reliable where they diverge. The method of uncertainty estimation (use of calibration/validation residuals) is conventional (3, 4) and was described explicitly in ref. 2 (also in ref. 5), and Matlab code is available atwww.meteo.psu.edu/∼mann/supplements/MultiproxyMeans07/code/codeveri/calc_error.m.

McIntyre and McKitrick's claim that the common procedure (6) of screening proxy data (used in some of our reconstructions) generates “hockey sticks” is unsupported in peer-reviewed literature and reflects an unfamiliarity with the concept of screening regression/validation.

As clearly explained in ref. 2, proxies incorporating instrumental information were eliminated for validation and thus did not enter into skill assessment.

The claim that “upside down” data were used is bizarre. Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors. Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds. Potential nonclimatic influences on the Tiljander and other proxies were discussed in the SI, which showed that none of our central conclusions relied on their use.

Finally, McIntyre and McKitrick misrepresent both the National Research Council report and the issues in that report that we claimed to address (see abstract in ref. 2). They ignore subsequent findings (4) concerning “strip bark” records and fail to note that we required significance of both reduction of error and coefficient of efficiency statistics relative to a standard red noise hypothesis to define a skillful reconstruction. In summary, their criticisms have no merit.


That was full and total PWNAGE of the Nth Degree. In the face of that sort of take down, to maintain that Steven McIntyre is a significant statistician is simply bald-faced lying.

 

[jc456]

That was beautiful. For those who don't follow links, allow me to post the text of MBH's response to McIntyre & McKittrick found at Mamooth's last link.

Reply to McIntyre and McKitrick: Proxy-based temperature reconstructions are robust

1. Michael E. Mann1,
2. Raymond S. Bradley and
3. Malcolm K. Hughes

McIntyre and McKitrick (1) raise no valid issues regarding our paper. We specifically discussed divergence of “composite plus scale” (CPS) and “error-in-variables” (EIV) reconstructions before A.D. 1000 [ref. 2 and supporting information (SI) therein] and demonstrated (in the SI) that the EIV reconstruction is the more reliable where they diverge. The method of uncertainty estimation (use of calibration/validation residuals) is conventional (3, 4) and was described explicitly in ref. 2 (also in ref. 5), and Matlab code is available atwww.meteo.psu.edu/∼mann/supplements/MultiproxyMeans07/code/codeveri/calc_error.m.

McIntyre and McKitrick's claim that the common procedure (6) of screening proxy data (used in some of our reconstructions) generates “hockey sticks” is unsupported in peer-reviewed literature and reflects an unfamiliarity with the concept of screening regression/validation.

As clearly explained in ref. 2, proxies incorporating instrumental information were eliminated for validation and thus did not enter into skill assessment.

The claim that “upside down” data were used is bizarre. Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors. Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds. Potential nonclimatic influences on the Tiljander and other proxies were discussed in the SI, which showed that none of our central conclusions relied on their use.

Finally, McIntyre and McKitrick misrepresent both the National Research Council report and the issues in that report that we claimed to address (see abstract in ref. 2). They ignore subsequent findings (4) concerning “strip bark” records and fail to note that we required significance of both reduction of error and coefficient of efficiency statistics relative to a standard red noise hypothesis to define a skillful reconstruction. In summary, their criticisms have no merit.


That was full and total PWNAGE of the Nth Degree

Nice. All that garbledy goo says absolutely nothing. I will wait on McIntyre to reply.

 

[Crick]

Perhaps you can get a grownup to read it to you and sound out all the big words. And that same grownup could read you the fucking date from the piece. That response was written in October of 2009. McIntyre has had nigh on six years to get back on those points. Running a little late, isn't he?

BTW, when McIntyre and McKittrick work on something together, it's McKittrick that's in charge. He's the one with the real education - though I know you can't tell from this.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well.....first off let's not get too uppity over PIOMAS 'data'. After all it's only a computer program spitting out 'reanalysis'.

Have we gone through a whole cycle of Arctic ice wax and wane? Were the big drops in ice extent caused by temperature or prevailing weather patterns and storms blowing ice out into warmer waters?

There have been a whole lot of assumptions and predictions made on very little actual measurements. And then there is the case of Antarctica being opposite to expectations.

And I'm not sure what the big deal is with low ice levels is anyway. A proxy for global temps? Obviously not albedo changes because no one is making a fuss over Antarctic increased ice at a much more effective latitude.

The increased ice in the Antarctic is there when there is little to no sun. The decrease in the Arctic is there when there is the most sunlight. Now which do you think has the most affect on albedo? Come on, Ian, you are beginning to sound like Billy Bob and Crusader Frank.

 

[IanC]

The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fisherman, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas about Spitzbergen and the eastern Arctic, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto underheard-of high temperatures in that part of the earth's surface.

In August, 1922, the Norwegian Department of Commerce sent an expedition to Spitzbergen and Bear Island under the leadership of Dr. Adolf Hoel, lecturer on geology at the University of Christiania. Its purpose was to survey and chart the lands adjacent to the Norwegian mines on those islands, take soundings of the adjacent waters, and make other oceanographic investigations.

Ice conditions were exceptional. In fact, so little ice has never before been noted. The expedition all but established a record, sailing as far north as 81° 29' in ice-free water. This is the farthest north ever reached with modern oceanographic apparatus.

The character of the waters of the great polar basic has heretofore been practically unknown. Dr. Hoel reports that he made a section of the Gulf Stream at 81° north latitude and took soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters. These show the Gulf Stream very warm, and it could be traced as a surface current till beyond the 81st parallel. The warmth of the waters makes it probable that the favorable ice conditions will continue for some time.

In connection with Dr. Hoel's report, it is of interest to note the unusually warm summer in Arctic Norway and the observations of Capt. Martin Ingebrigsten, who has sailed the eastern Arctic for 54 years past. He says that he first noted warmer conditions in 1918, that since that time it has steadily gotten warmer, and that to-day the Arctic of that region is not recognizable as the same region of 1868 to 1917.

Many old landmarks are so changed as to be unrecognizable. Where formerly great masses of ice were found, there are now often moraines, accumulations of earth and stones. At many points where glaciers formerly extended far into the sea they have entirely disappeared.

An old report from 1922. After I read it I looked to find it in ice extent records. It wasn't there. Not in temp records either. I looked in a lot of places when I first read that article. Perhaps it is in the Pooh flinging monkey's graph.