JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Antarctic Sea Ice hits another record: 900,000 square kilometers above average

Antarctic Sea Ice has hit it’s 23rd daily record for the year. (Thanks to Sunshine Hours for tracking these things.)

2013 is the red line.  (click to enlarge)

In terms of the number of daily records in a year, the Big Year for sea-ice was 2008 where records occurred on 125 days. 2010 was nearly as “big” when records occurred on 118 days. 2013 is currently in  fifth spot. If the tally rises to 28 records this year, it will leap to third place.

Not that any of this matters, of course.

“Sea ice in the Arctic and around Antarctica responds directly to climate change and may, if properly monitored, become increasingly important for detecting climate change.”

IPCC Third Assessment Report, Cryosphere Processes, Box 7.1

 

“The sea-ice albedo effect is an important contributor to the amplification of projected warming at high latitudes.”

IPCC Third Assessment Report, WG1, 7.5 Cryosphere Processes and Feedbacks, Box 7.1

The impacts of this climate change in the polar regions over the next 100 years will exceed the impacts forecast for many other regions and will produce feedbacks that will have globally significant consequences.

 IPCC Assessment Report 4, WG 2, Chapter 15

Only the trends count. And on that the Antarctic sea ice extent is not shrinking. An indicator of climate change maybe?

What happened to Polar Amplification?

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.5/10 (89 votes cast)
Antarctic Sea Ice hits another record: 900,000 square kilometers above average, 8.5 out of 10 based on 89 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/m9cyfdw

412 comments to Antarctic Sea Ice hits another record: 900,000 square kilometers above average

  • #
    Winston

    It’s obvious you naysayers. It’s a signature sign of a warming world. Just watch my you tube video for incontrovertible proof. Remember look at the screen, and repeat after me: “More ice is warming, more ice is warming…….you are getting sleepy……”

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z2Oqacs-Ct8

    330

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Okayyyy that’s enough now, Winston.
      That’s not funny!
      Stop it Winston, you’re scaring me.

      Haha, j/k. I knew it was the real you because you used too many words, not enough exclamation marks, and one word was longer than three syllables.

      90

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      So basically if the ice is receding, its proof of AGW, if its growing, then its simply us cherry picking data?

      Long as we have that straight lol…

      120

    • #
      Peter Miller

      Alarmists obviously concentrate on what is happening in the Arctic, while sceptics prefer to look at what is unfolding in the Antarctic.

      Alarmists try to peddle the idea that a relatively ice free Arctic Ocean is a modern man made phenomenon, which is solely the result of CO2 emissions. The fact the Royal Navy almost reached the North Pole nearly 200 years in a sailing ship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Edward_Parry) is just one example of exposing this theory as being complete nonsense.

      What we have to realise is the Antarctic ice sheet is a far better better proxy for the state of the planet than the Arctic, as it is an open sea, pretty much impacted by the same factors year after year.

      On the other hand, the Arctic is almost a closed ocean, where all of the following can have an effect on the amount of mid-summer ice.

      1. River flows (there are no rivers in the Antarctic) – there are several huge rivers feeding the Arctic ocean, such as the Yenisey, Ob, Lena, Mackenzie and Yukon So the salinity of the Arctic ocean is constantly changing seasonally, annually and locally.

      2. The complex layers of salinity in the Arctic Ocean can be dramatically affected by currents, winds and large storms – when more saline water is brought closer to surface it is more difficult to freeze.
      Also, it should be remembered were it not for the fact the near surface salinity of the Arctic Ocean is significantly less than other oceans (fresh water is less dense than sea water), the Arctic Ocean would have much less ice.

      3. Soot – most of man’s industrial and fuel burning activities take place in the Northern Hemisphere, so not surprisingly the amount of heat absorbing soot present on the surface of the Arctic ice is many times that on the Antarctic ice.

      The factors affecting the extent of the Arctic ice cap are far more complex than those in the Antarctic. Needless to say, these factors are routinely ignored by alarmists, just as they like to ignore what is happening in Antarctica.

      122

      • #
        John Knowles

        For years I’ve maintained that sub-sea volcanic activity needs including in climate models. Anthony Watts posted an article recently about a chain of volcanoes between Greenland and Svalbard, with one peak being only 20m from the surface.
        Years ago while flipping through Arctic satellite photos I found one with a massive circular hole of open water in the white ice. Size estimation was difficult but my guess is that it was between 50 and 100 km across and almost a perfect circle. Subsequently it was missing from the series so I was unable to print it out. My suggestion is that it depicted ice-melt due to hydro-thermal venting or volcanic activity and would have undermined any attempt to pin ice-loss on humans.

        30

        • #
          Peter Miller

          John

          That’s a very good point. At first I thought the tectonically active Mid Atlantic Ridge must go under the Arctic Ocean, but it seems there is a major transgressive feature which makes its identification problematical in polar regions.

          To my surprise, it seems there are three major tectonically (and therefore hydrothermally) active areas under the Arctic Ocean – see below. I have never seen a word written about this, presumably because no government wants to fund something which could easily debunk one of the cornerstones of ‘proof’ for the AGW theory.

          http://www.acadiau.ca/~raeside/quizzes/quiz-11clue.html#canadabasin

          20

      • #
        Ace

        I believe in the “Bomber” Harris approach. Attack the Evil Empire in their heartland.

        Hence I believe in knee-capping their “strong horse” first. Go for the Arctic.

        Thats why I love touting the fact that Russia (oops, I nearly wrote the USSR) is INCREASING its Ice-Breaker fleet at huge expense. They are building colossal nuclear powered vessels to add to the ones they have. Other countries like Finland are also increasing their conventional ice-breaker fleets. These are vessels that have zero purpose except to break ice to make waters navigable. Not for rare excursion across the pole but for everyday merchant activity along Northern coasts and Arctic rivers. So, patently, the need for these vsseld is a direct reflection of the fact that the notion of a shrinking Arctic ice extent is totally, absolutely a lie. Thse ships take years to construct. That they are extending the fleet now indicates they calculate the ice is not expcted to dissapear in any sense in the foreseeable future. The Finnish have even invented and constructed an entirely new type (it breaks sideways).

        Simple ideas are the most potent. This increase in Ice-breaking fleets is a simple idea that its easy to circulate. But it could be in polemical terms the equivalent of the simple idea that determined how many incendiaries to drop per square mile to create a fire-storm.

        And look what happenned at Dresden.

        20

        • #
          Ace

          Heres another interesting fact. Merchant fleets are mulling the long-term construction of submersible freighters able to cross beneath the Arctic ice. Does it sound like they have believe the meme about a dissapearing ice cap?

          Who gives a snip-crass…the IDEA that they dont buy it is the important thing for your purposes.

          00

      • #

        [Snip repeat - Jo]

        10

  • #
    Sceptical Sam

    Well what do you know?

    Winston has phagocytized Blackbladder.

    Who gets the youtube dividend now I wonder?

    80

  • #
    TinyCO2

    It’s also worth pointing out that one theory to explain a lack of melting of Antactic sea ice was that the ozone hole was somehow keeping it cold down there.

    http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/

    However the ozone hole has been shrinking in recent years and many of the record ice extent has been during months were there is no hole at all. Another theory bites the dust.

    180

    • #
      Ace

      No tiny, they concocted a new one. Melting ice decreases the salinity of surrounding sea water which results in a lowering of its freezing point. ergo, melting ice causes sea to freeze.

      I know, I know, I know….dont blame the messanger.

      In 1974 the philosopher Imre Lakatosh gave an excellnt outline of how practitionrs of psudo-science rationalise away all evidence that contradicts their predictions. He invented the concpt of a “protective belt of sub-tnding theoris”. That is, if th core hypothsis is not supportd by the facts you create new hypothess to “xplain” why th facts dont match th thory. If any of ths also fail to fit, you create new hypothses to explain that also. essntially, no such theory can ever eb disproven, because the number of potential sub-theories is quite literally infinite and can never be exhausted.

      Is not that what AGW enthusiasts do continuously? Is not the snip-crass dumb ass salinity hypothesis a fckerin perfect example?

      172

    • #
      Olaf Koenders

      Hey TinyCO2, any lack of Ozone is likely due to the US EPA trying to reduce levels from 84ppb to a ridiculous 60. Considering trillions were spent globally to virtually ban CFC’s and save Ozone, they’re now trying to kill it!

      Ozone is created by one wavelength of sunlight and destroyed by another. There will always be Ozone in the atmosphere. Don’t these idiots know that? Wait.. stupid question.

      Story here:

      http://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2013/08/03/ozone-mozone-and-nozone-n1649367/page/full

      51

  • #
    fenbeagle

    This is becoming alarming. The ice from the Arctic is making its way down to the Antarctic due to global reforming.

    440

    • #
      TinyCO2

      So you’re saying that CO2 might cause climate to be confused and lose direction? OMG is there nothing that evil CO2 can’t do?

      170

      • #
        Ace

        Well I can just about blieve Superman can induuece the earth to rotate in the wrong direction but why would that make time go backwards?

        70

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Because, if the earth rotated in the opposite direction, the new measure of solar time would become the Yad, consisting of 24 Ruohs, each with 60 Etunims, where each Etunim had 60 D’noces (please notice the dipthong).

          Oh, and Ace, you really should to do something about that bit of fluff you have caught under your “e” key. The lack of an “e” (being the most frequently used letter in the English language) makes your “mssags hard to rad”.

          ;-)

          160

          • #
            jeffthe

            “The lack of an “e” (being the most frequently used letter in the English language) makes your “mssags hard to rad”.”

            Thank you “rare whacker”, for the belly laugh! (really)

            30

            • #
              Ace

              Hhhhhhhh!
              Yeah I askd folks her to recommnd a sensibly pricd keyboard that works a while ago. Thers no urgh snip-crass under th key, it was lik it straight out of the box. The S, th shift and th sppace aint much better. The nrxt one will probably produce Chinese characters anyway. I’ll hav to go around my nighbours asking thm to interpret for me.

              Also, anyone have any ida why none of three keyboards Iv tried can get a British Pound sign out of this PC? # is what you get. But hit the ky for that and its \.

              Heres another weeeerd on (ha, that gotcha when you werent xpcting it) the @ key produces a ” and the ” key producs a @ (think about that, its a bit lik Rareks backwards tim thing). Thre keyboards, one PC the common denominator.

              Also, any of you folks trid the Internetty on a German keyboard without instruction on how to get the symbol?

              Hhhhhh what a laugh h.

              50

              • #
                crakar24

                Apart from getting a new keyboard you need to change the language from US to UK(English) to get the right symbols working.

                For XP it is in control panel/regional and language then scroll down to English UK

                61

              • #
                Ace

                Well fecker me pants off Crakar, who’d a thought Id get an xplanation lik that. I man I know there are a lot of IT boffins around this manor but I thought youd prefer to sit back and laugh at my ineptitude.

                Thanks.

                BUT…you still aint explaind how to get th @ on a Grman system. Thats something I do know. A Japanse girl had to show me. These Grmans are darned cunning little critters, with their bandit faces and bushy tails running up and down the chimney to raid folks pantry.

                50

              • #
                MemoryVault

                Ace,

                As one who uses a keyboard continuously and destroys them with monotonous regularity, I can assure you the old adage applies: “you gets what you pays for”.

                These days I tend to stick with small-factor Logitech wireless units. They have a good “feel” in the keys and can take a lot of abuse (shiraz, tea, coffee, crumbs from toast, strands of tobacco from when I “roll” one, plus the resultant ash, melted ice cream and chocolate from grandkids’ treats etc), before they roll over and eventually die.

                60

              • #
                crakar24

                It was through my own ineptitude that i learnt how to do it, i could not just sit back and laugh at a fellow ineptudinal suffer they way you are.

                Also it is good to see my red thumbed fetish friend is back i did miss them so.

                By the way the keyboard will be made in China so i dont get why the germans would be a problem.

                Cheers

                30

              • #
                Ace

                Oh Crakar you is the flaterer. But you missed a coupl of points. Id alrady mad the Chinese referenc. And even when made in China, keyboards in Germany have NO KEY for the @ symbol. None. You will look til the Racoons raid your larder (coming down the chimny most likely, bushy taild and bandit facd).

                So how do they conjur up th @ symbol?

                20

              • #
                Ace

                Thanks memory vault. But I should add I have problms with my hands and have to whack a kyboard with a heavy implemnt as a stylus. So thy need to be robust.

                31

              • #
                Ace

                Whats the red thumbs about…I dont get that bit.

                41

              • #
                Backslider

                anyone have any ida why none of three keyboards Iv tried can get a British Pound sign out of this PC? # is what you get

                You need to change the keyboard language in your OS. I have a Spanish keyboard and if I try to change it to English it goes all wonky and weird. It still types English just fine. I’ve been programming on it for a long time now and I would be quite lost on an English keyboard for all my special programming characters as they are in different places.

                10

          • #
            crakar24

            he should change his name to incoherent rambler………..the2nd of course.

            20

    • #
      Annie

      The ice is doing a flip in time with the sun’s magnetic poles doing a flip?! Sorry…couldn’t resist linking the two after reading WUWT earlier today.

      40

    • #
      sophocles

      The ice from the Arctic is making its way down to the Antarctic due to global reforming.

      … and I thought it was just taking a summer holiday.

      30

  • #

    For Antarctic conditions, I’ve sometimes referred readers here to the Antarctic Weather site at the following link.

    Antarctic Connection

    There’s so many menu links to follow, both across the top there, and also the menu at right under Weather Pages. One of the good links across the top is by clicking on Stations, and also Science.

    At the top left, note the average mean temperatures, and even in Summer it’s Minus 5 to Minus 31, so none of the ice would melt anyway.

    Just a couple of things I’ll quote here are these:

    Because of the tilt of the earth’s axis relative to its orbit around the sun, the sun does not shine at the South Pole for six months of the year. When the sun does shine, much less solar energy actually reaches the ground at the Pole because the sun’s rays pass through a thicker layer of atmosphere than at the Equator. Also, due to the predominance of ice and snow covering Antarctica, most of the sun’s rays that do reach the ground are reflected back into space.

    and this:

    The thickest ice found is in Wilkes Land, where it reaches a depth of 15,669 feet (4,776 meters ).

    Now, see at the top right, that small icon showing the current temperature. (currently Minus 48C) Just click on that and a new page will open giving the current weather at Amundsen Scott, and, scrolling down, the 7 day forecast.

    Umm, notice the sunrise sunset, err, and lower down, the sun does not rise.

    All up, it’s just a really cool site. (Excuse bad pun)

    Tony.

    120

    • #

      Thanks Tony. Another good link added to the collection.
      Many to be found here on the WUWT “Sea Ice page”.
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/

      40

    • #
      John Knowles

      Good link.Thanks.
      Given the near absence of water vapour over Antarctica in August it would be interesting to study the LWR output of the ice and the proportion of LWR reaching space to see if CO2 really does “trap” much. Near surface temps of ~225K and stable since 1958 suggest some LWR trapping effect but non-dependent upon CO2 density which has increased significantly during the past 50 years.
      If anything, continental Antarctica has cooled slightly which might suggest a non relationship between CO2 density and temperature as John Christy has often pointed out.

      10

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    What happened to Polar Amplification?

    Penguins!

    It’s technical, so you climate deniers may not understand but I’ll try to explain anyway!
    All the global warming at the south polar region is making the penguins swelter in the heat. The penguins of Antarctica, such as Emperor penguins, have black backs and sides and so they absorb all the CO2 radiative forcing much more easily. Under such conditions you and I would do as the Arabians do and put on bright white clothes to reflect away the sunlight and stay cool, but the penguins don’t have this option. The penguins are just passing out in the heat and falling over backwards, which leaves their bright white bellies facing upwards. With so many comatose penguins passed out floating on the sea it has increased the overall albedo of the Antarctic coastline, which creates a negative feedback effect that reduces the amount of sunlight absorbed by the sea. I assure you that CO2 is still heating the planet everywhere else, but the passed-out penguins are temporarily masking the effect of global warming on local temperatures at the South Pole.
    So it is really so simple that even a climate denier could understand it.
    There’s a record high sea ice extent in Antarctica because the Emperors have no clothes.

    521

    • #
      Mark Hladik

      I’d write a reply if I could stop laughing … … …

      70

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I thought all the penguins were being eaten by the Polar Bears? It said so on television, when they told us the Arctic would be going away real soon now.

      70

      • #
        Greebo

        I thought all the penguins were being eaten by the Polar Bears?

        When the penguins pass out on their backs, only the white bits are up, so the polar bears can’t see ‘em, so they’ll all starve. Can’t wait for someone to tell manbearpig; he’s down to his last few billion.

        00

      • #
        Joe V.

        That’s why there’s no penguins in the Arctic.

        00

    • #
      Annie

      Well, I can go to bed on a really cheerful note after reading that. Wonderful! Thank you for that. The Emperors reign.

      60

    • #
      AndyG55

      That was EXTREMELY well explained.. Well done.

      And makes way more sense than the “CO2 is a blanket” fairytale I’ve heard elsewhere.

      90

    • #
      sophocles

      But what about the extra CO2 from the penguin flatulence? All those
      fish and krill …

      30

    • #
      Ace

      Thb Penmguin will nver b defated. He has th power of the umbrella!

      30

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      “All the global warming at the south polar region”

      Ah Andrew, you only get 9 words into your nonsense and you have undone any shred of cred you might have retained without even getting to your point yet lol.

      Global warming/polar warming ? What part of “global” dont you understand buddy ?

      20

  • #
  • #

    My neighbour is in the psychology department at UNE Armidale and she’s convinced that the Antarctic ice mass is melting;attempts to suggest she look further proved futile: it’s true apparently!Anyways I gather she heads off for 6 months sabbatical which includes UWA.Her study is about….. You guessed it. I eagerly await her return.

    100

    • #
      Backslider

      she’s convinced that the Antarctic ice mass is melting

      Just agree and say “Yes, it is….. but, its also being replenished, so much so in fact that it is growing.”

      20

    • #
      Brian G Valentine

      Encourage her to trek across he continent with a camera and do some reporting on the meltdown.

      20

  • #
    blackadderthe4th

    ‘Antarctic Sea Ice hits another record:’

    But mean time in the Arctic!

    Arctic ice grows darker and less reflective

    ‘Arctic ice is losing its reflective sheen. It’s common knowledge that each summer, more and more of the ice melts leaving the dark waters of the ocean uncovered – a process that accelerates global warming by reducing the amount of solar radiation reflected back into space. Now it turns out that the surviving sea ice is also becoming darker and less reflective.

    For the first time, a detailed analysis of 30 years of satellite data for the Arctic Ocean has quantified how much the albedo, or reflectivity, of Arctic ice is diminishing. Aku Riihela of the Finnish Meteorological Institute told New Scientist he estimates that darker ice means the Arctic Ocean’s albedo at the end of the summer is of the order of 15 per cent weaker today than it was 30 years ago.’

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23994-arctic-ice-grows-darker-and-less-reflective.html#.UgElmm1TsRw

    223

    • #
      Ace

      “For the first time, a detailed analysis of 30 years of satellite data for the Arctic Ocean has quantified how much the albedo, or reflectivity, of Arctic ice is diminishing.”

      Thats only area not thickness, which no sattelite can measure and which for a kknownb fact is thicker now than thn. And thats the feckin Arctic, this is the ANtarctic, numb nut.

      Oh yeah, pillock, if 100% of Arctic ice melted it would result in a reduction in sea level not an increase and as for the Gulf Stream being pushed South, well this summer it went further NORTH, creating exceptional tmperatures on the UK mainland.

      None of the facts match your Eco crap. Get a proper hobby. try SNIP-CRASS for a change.

      130

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        Its been a favorite topic of mine for a while now when dealing with the “headline” AGW disciples. The ones that know the “headline” of the latest Tim Flannery nonsense vomit, but havnt read the detail.

        So next time you encounter one of these types, just lead them to their intellectual deaths, they will follow willingly as they cant resist.

        Me “So tell me, are the polar ice caps melting rapidly”

        Disciple “of course they are, dont you know anything!”

        Me “right and how much of the poles do you think remains?”

        Disciple “bugger all of course, the polar bears are swimming for their lives”

        Me “so where are the catastrophic sea level rises that accompany polar melts in your reality?”

        Disciple “YOU JUST HATE DOLPHINS YOU RED NECK TIMBER WORKER!!!”

        I usually have a cigarette and bask in the after glow about now…

        40

        • #
          Ace

          Here we have “chuggers” who REALLY ARE Trolls. They stand vabout trying to engage people in conversation and get their bank details for such “charities” as Greenpeace. That business about bank details…its incredible that its legal!

          Anyway, in my expperience they are all trained to laugh and walk away. So I stopped engaging with them years ago. However, on was recently sen trying to get some guys bank details and had a brochure about the Arctic out. i paused in passing and loudly declared that the Arctic…blah,. blather, blah…

          The guy couldnt walk away. He was trapped. Instead his intended victim had a big smile at Save The World guys expense. The eco guy tried to cope with the dissonanc by actually agreing with mebut I walked on before h could spin it.

          00

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      ‘Darker Ice’ !
      Would that be ice used to explain the supposed heat imbalance that cannot be explained – except by pretending its gone straight into the deep ocean ?
      Like ‘Dark Matter ‘ & ‘Dark Energy’ are used to account for the different between throretical hypotheses and observational evidence in Astrophysics ?

      80

    • #
      Backslider

      It’s common knowledge that each summer, more and more of the ice melts leaving the dark waters of the ocean uncovered

      Wrong, you missed the link posted by janama right above your own post.

      Along with anything to do with climate, sea ice extent varies. There is more sea ice this year than last for example, a fact you CANNOT refute.

      The alarmists also fail to take into account hydrothermal vents, which are abundant in the Arctic.

      Another fail for you Blackudder.

      140

    • #
      handjive

      The only arctic sea ice record blackadderthe4th can lay claim to is the record amount of FAILED melting predictions from fellow climate frauds:

      google: “ice free by” – 384,000 results

      Each prediction a failure or un-proveable, only to fail when time arrives.

      6. August 2013:
      Danish Meteorological Institute: Arctic Sea Ice Now 1.7 Million Square Kilometers Over Last Year!
      That’s 19,000 Manhattans. Arctic open sea water is in a death spiral!

      Accountability please: Man fined for dud doomsday warning
      .
      Record cold and snowy winter across much of South America

      “Many climatologists blame the new ‘La Nina’ colder sea-surface temperature event in the waters of the east-central Pacific Ocean for the harsh winter of 2013 across South America.

      It’s my climatological opinion, however, that a colder Antarctic continent is responsible. But, once again, only time will tell.”

      Cliff Harris is a climatologist who writes a weekly column for The Press
      .
      Alfred Wegener Institute Deputy Director, Veteran Polar Scientist: “We Have A Light Cooling Trend”
      In the clip Prof. Heinrich Miller is working down at the Antarctic Neumayer III station and is interviewed by NDR.
      Miller says (emphasis added):

      “Here almost nothing has changed.
      At least not near the surface.
      The average annual tempertures have remained the same.
      There are of course large fluctuations from year to year.
      If anything over the last 30 years we have a slight cooling trend.
      And this flies in the face of what is always immediately claimed: ‘The climate is warming and the Antarctic is melting’.”

      It’s Official: Alfred Wegener Institute Neumayer Station III: Antarctic Cooling Over The Last 30 Years!

      60

    • #
      Ian Hill

      Cooksey says that the sun has nothing to do with climate change. So why all this talk about albedo?

      70

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        Very good point. But you forget that observational evidence is only valid if it supports AGW theory. Observational evidence that does not support the theory is called “cherry picking”

        20

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        Although the sun is the only source of energy in this picture, it’s not the only source of radiation. At all latitudes the backradiation from CO2 is descending from all directions (like a scene from Alfred Hitchcock’s The Birds only more boring) onto the ice all of the time, strength subject to Arctic temperatures.
        Subject to latitude, the sun’s daily maximum altitude ranges between 26 and 56 degrees during the summer and in winter shows above the horizon between 2.5 hours per day or not at all.

        A lower albedo (due to ponds or open water) absorbs more insolation in spring/summer and more GHE radiation all year, but emits more radiation when the Arctic is cooling in autumn/winter. Ice is a good insulator, so more ponds may warm the air but will have little overall effect until they become deep enough to connect to the ocean underneath. But less overall sea ice cover lets the ocean cool and refreeze faster in Autumn. Which of these contrary effects prevails over a year I do not know, but the warmists won’t get far by considering only one of them and ignoring the other.

        Personally I’d assume the downtrend in Arctic ice was mainly due to energy supplied through the ocean from a decrease in cloud cover at lower latitudes, and not from the CO2 over the pole.

        For all the fuss being made, this is what it looks like on the North Pole webcam. It’s a couple of ponds, people, sheesh.
        And how do they count the sea ice extent by satellite – with a technique they admit has 10% error, and they claim a 15% reduction over 30 years. It’s barely significant. And the trend is about to change.

        10

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Arctic ice grows darker and less reflective

      That will be due to all the environmentalists clomping about on it, in their grubby boots, trying to find the penguins.

      130

    • #
    • #
      crakar24

      By the way Backsplatter do you think your overlords will take this into consideration next time they postulate about ice free summers?

      http://iceagenow.info/2013/08/12218/

      just so you know they talk about new found undersea vents up to 1200C in the arctic circle

      81

      • #
        Ace

        “backsplatter” oooh, euch, you Oxxies and your lovely way of bing out about things no civil Englishman would mention.

        20

        • #
          Ace

          Anyway, time again to wheel out those Russian ice-breakers.

          As mentioned previously, they are virtually doubling the size of thir fleet of nuclear powered behemoths. Funny to think they would b going to such efforts if the ice was retreating.

          60

      • #
        WheresWallace

        You missed the part where you explain why they just started heating up the ocean much more than usual in the last few decades.

        07

        • #
          crakar24

          Wally,

          Ummmm…good question…..maybe because previous to the last few decades we where not measuring the temp of the ocean? Just a thought.

          60

          • #
            • #
              crakar24

              Now you see Wally this is what i was alluding to in my previous comment,how was the OHC measured back in 1960? I will tell you, they used XBT’s a very poor way to measure OHC, not as near as accurate as ARGO and most importantly the coverage was very low, they were mostly dragged behing ships in shipping channels etc but yet you read this and go running off waving your hands in the air screaming AGW.

              Why do you allow yourself to be [snipped]?

              20

              • #
                WheresWallace

                I agree XBT data may not be as accurate as Argo, however uncertainty works both ways. That means the older data could well have overestimated OHC back then. The increase could be even worse.

                So what was your point?

                Oh, that’s right, you were about to deliver the data that showed how undersea vents have become more active and are causing the recent warming.

                Any

                Minute

                ……..

                01

              • #

                WheresWallace – I suppose you’ll be able to provide data on undersea vents showing that they have not gotten more active?

                Or would this be yet another source of uncertainty in the field of science where the debate is over?

                11

              • #
                WheresWallace

                The onus of proof is on crakar24. I accept that they could have warmed or cooled. But I find it unlikely, though still possible, that they warmed at exactly the same geological time as we emitted CO2 into the atmosphere – I’m not a fan of coincidence. And I’m yet to be shown how the known absorbtion property of carbon has been nullified.

                01

              • #

                You want our money.
                You say the science is settled.

                You agree we don’t know what’s going on in the deep oceans.

                The onus is on you Mr-convinced.

                10

              • #
                WheresWallace

                No I don’t want your money.
                No I don’t say the science is settled.
                I agree that YOU have no evidence that the deep ocean from 4000 meters down is coming up towarm the upper 2000 meters.
                Your idea, your onus.
                The ocean is warming, that much we do know.
                http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

                00

              • #

                Wally, look at the heat content in degrees C. Then admit even NOAA doesn’t have the equipment to measure that kind of tiny change with any degree of certainty.

                And I’ll believe you don’t want my money when I see your letter to your MP saying that the government should not be using taxpayers money to reduce CO2.

                00

              • #
                crakar

                Come on Wally you agree XBT data is not accurate it could be worse it could be better, you accept we know virtually nothing about ocean vents/volcanos/how many/where etc…………but you see Wally these are *MY* debating points to show just how uncertain all this is.

                I do not raise these points to show that you are wrong i raise them with the intent of showing you that everything you state/believe in is based on guesswork.

                Your link to OHC 9.8.2.1 shows the oceans have warmed by a measly 0.18C since 1955, this information was handed to you on a platter by Heywood but as the true warmbot you are you completely ignore this and simply respond by saying

                The estimates continue upwards. The warming of the oceans continues.

                This is not debate!!!!! This is childish dummy spitting tantrums, evidence shows you your thoughts are flawed but you deny it and then just to add credence to the theory that you are nothing more than a childish warmbot you try and run the useless graph passed us again (9.8.2.1.5)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                Heywood had already expertly demolished your argument once….what did you think he was not watching? Sorry old friend but i have already informed him of your childish behaviour, he will be along shortly to give you another spanking because thats what you do with naughty obstanent children you spank them.

                20

            • #
              Heywood

              Nice link Wally.

              You do realise that the graph you linked to isn’t a measure of temperature at all, but of total heat content in Joules of the ocean calculated using a computer model? (Levitus et al 2012)

              “We provide updated estimates of the change of ocean heat content and the thermosteric component of sea level change of the 0–700 and 0–2000 m layers of the World Ocean for 1955–2010. Our estimates are based on historical data not previously available, additional modern data, and bathythermograph data corrected for instrumental biases. We have also used Argo data corrected by the Argo DAC if available and used uncorrected Argo data if no corrections were available at the time we downloaded the Argo data”

              Note the bold.

              Nothing measured about it. They take old and new data, stretch it, convert it and modify it and out pops a figure.

              As for temperature,

              “The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–700 m layer increased by 16.7 ± 1.6 × 1022 J corresponding to a rate of 0.27 W m−2(per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.18°C

              0.18°C since 1955, a whopping 0.031°C/Decade. Safe to say that the temperature anywhere in the upper ocean varies by more than than that on a daily if not hourly basis.

              40

              • #
                WheresWallace

                The estimates continue upwards. The warming of the oceans continues.

                02

              • #

                Anything that warms the planet would warm the oceans.
                Any significant warming in the oceans would probably melt some sea ice.

                The estimates about the warming oceans are not remotely significant.

                And yet you believe…

                20

              • #
                Heywood

                “The estimates continue upwards”

                A whopping 0.031°C/Decade. Estimated. Modelled. Massaged.

                Are we even capable of measuring that small a temperature change globally?

                00

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                Off course they can measure such a small change, and for the ocean, which is the majority of the surface of the planet and then goes many thousands of metres deept, that is a huge amount. Like the atmosphere, where a mere 6 deg globally is the difference between an ice age and an interglacial, small changes in the ocean can have huge effects globally.

                Measuring, adjusting and correcting is how science in the natural world works. How do you think they measure the distance from us to our nearest star besides the sun, work out its composition, determine what are the components of an atom, how much they weigh, etc etc. Science of the natural world works like that. Does not make them wrong.

                Science works by what it knows. It knows the greenhouse effect is real, it knows the likely physics of how it works and what the consequences are likely to be. It examines and measures and has confirmed that most of those consequences are occurring and mostly faster than predicted. They don’t make up excuses, like undersea volcanos, and then conclude uncerttainties are to high to make desicions. Science would crawl to a close. If you want to propose an excuse like undersae volcanos, you then need to go and find some data that then proves that they exist and that their activity has increased to cater for the warming and the increase in CO2. Otherwise it is just guesswork that is not relevent.

                [check your e-mails. You've been sent a message about changing your name. We moderators are manually changing it to Michael2. There is another Michael that has been posting here for several years. To avoid confusion, change your posting name to something different.] ED

                00

        • #
          John Knowles

          Volcanic/seismic activity is affected by solar variables. Piers Corbyn has been on about this for years and he uses detailed solar magnetic data in his weather forecasting. Pulses in the Sun’s radio flux usually precede a southward kick in the NH jet-stream. A widely meandering southerly tracking jet-stream has marked climatic effects over Europe.
          We do not yet understand the observed relationship between solar variables, volcanic activity and weather patterns and ocean temperature.
          We know that when the four big Kamchatka volcanoes go off and reach the stratosphere we then see colder winter weather resulting from H2SO4 and fine particulates in the polar air cell. The extra heat from these eruptions is rapidly lost to space but during under water eruptions it is lost to the oceans where it slowly rises to the surface and probably affects local climate.

          10

    • #

      Dear old blackie the adder, (but somehow I think Maths is a little beyond his bailiwick) I found a video (and it’s peer reviewed actually) that shows all of us here exactly how we think about you and your wonderful little video tomes.

      Now blackie, dear fellow, think of yourself as the soldier with the little fishies.

      We’re the big soldier on the left.

      Oh, and at the very end, note the fishie that eats you up.

      The Fish Slapping Dance

      Tony.

      71

    • #
      Streetcred

      Arctic ice grows darker and less reflective

      Yes, this is a common occurrence … it’s called night-time. In the summer the night-times are short in duration but in the winter, the Arctic ice is dark and reflects little or no light for a long period of time, sometimes many months at a time.

      40

  • #

    the Arctic Ocean’s albedo at the end of the summer is of the order of 15 per cent weaker today than it was 30 years ago.’

    Oh just as it is beginning to go dark up there each year then. Does that mean that the darker sea ice will radiate better (as darker does) out to space all winter or just for a short time? Wow that is a huge negative feedback. Good find!

    The authors of the new paper have not yet calculated the effect of their findings on those predictions.

    Hmmm can’t wait to know how much negative feedback is caused by darker ice as the long Arctic night begins.
    It would seem from the paper that they call this effect “increasing light transmittance” except that they measured how much light is reflected from underneath. That would be like measuring how much light is reflected from the bathroom mirror from the other side of the wall,…outside the bathroom! What type of minds does it take to come up with methods like this?
    Wonder what “Correction to” means?
    Still it may help us to understand what cosmic dust does.

    60

    • #
      blackadderthe4th

      Whoops! ‘Does that mean that the darker sea ice will radiate better’ just about 100% wrong! As you are aware, you know it means less reflecting of the Suns rays, hence warmth, which equals more warming and melting! Otherwise, methinks you think 2+2=5!

      125

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      Correction to = adjusting empirical data to conform with the model.

      120

    • #
      AndyG55

      People who think that Arctic water absorbs more energy than Artic ice need to do some research on a little optics thing called “total external reflection”.

      20

      • #

        Total external reflection will not alter how the darker areas radiate outward better. So during the long Arctic night albedo does not have anything to effect other than back radiation but outward going radiation would increase unhindered by the angle of the sun. Thus a darkening causes cooling which I have called a negative feedback above because the Artic area becomes more like an ideal blackbody radiator.

        10

    • #
      AndyG55

      The reason that even shallow Arctic ponds look dark is because very little sunlight penetrates to the underlying ice.

      If you see photos taken from the other side of the pond from the Sun, you will understand why.

      21

      • #

        The open water will have waves that will confound this external reflection a bit as the average angle will not have an equivalent effect to still water due to nonlinearity at the total reflection angle but this will not matter much at night.

        10

    • #
      AndyG55

      ps. Anyone who is a surfer, or goes out in boats etc will know just how much UV is reflected off water even when the sun is nearly overhead.

      The percentage of total reflection is dependant on wavelength and angle of incidence.

      If the angle of incidence is low (eg in the Arctic or at sunrise or sunset), nearly total reflection of ALL wavelengths occurs.

      21

      • #
        Ace

        Not many people realise that Leo Tolstoy, author of War and Peace was a surfer. Yes, its a fact, right there in cold, cold Russia he owned serfs!

        30

      • #

        “The percentage of total reflection is dependant on wavelength and angle of incidence.”
        I agree with you AndyG55 but…
        This is confounded a bit by atmospheric refraction having an opposite type effect. Due to the angle of the sun the light is refracted inwards toward the surface UV is refracted more than IR. The sun will also often be at an angle that can illuminate the bottom of some clouds directly. High altitude clouds like noctilucent clouds will even delay this into the Arctic night.

        Anyone who works on roofs or goes out on the sandy desert will also know about the reflection of UV.

        Again none of this matters much during the long Arctic night, The only effect that seems significant is the increase in outward radiation due to the darker surface.

        10

  • #
    Doug Proctor

    Increases in Antarctic sea ice occur during the Antarctic winter: the albedo change is irrelevant as the amount of sunlight being received is nil to small. The loss of this ice is substantial and rapid, so during the Antarctic summer, the residual effect is small.

    There is a circumpolar oceanic current that swirls around Antarctica and doesn’t join the rest of the world as much as it once did, possibly due to the rising of an underwater volcanic chain. This means that changes in the near-Antarctic surface waters stay in the Antarctic and do not result in changes in the rest of the world except through mathematical averaging (a result of which is what I call Procedural Truth vs Representational Truth: the average goes down by number but not by experience or consequence).

    Changes in the Arctic, however, last well into the Arctic summer and when the sun is high in the sky. As well, there is a good West-East circulation of water that causes both Pacific water entering the Arctic and Atlantic water mixing with the water exiting the Arctic to suffer the effects of changes in stand-alone Arctic conditions.

    Apples and oranges. Except by mathematics.

    60

  • #
    Grant (NZ)

    I note that 2008 and 2013 correlate to droughts in NZ and an Australia. I wonder if Antartica sucked all the moisture out of here over the summer.

    30

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    I don’t expect any response to this news from the usual sources of noise

    Dead silence

    60

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Well the dead silence may be due to the fact that the referred to page loads, and then aborts, at least using the Safari browser under Windows 7.

      Going after the title, using a specialised search tool, I arrive at a page on the Industry Search site that contains this little gem:

      Melting sea ice contributes to rapid temperature rises in the Arctic, which in turn causes an ice loss from the Greenland ice sheet and global sea level rises, he said.

      “This poses risks for coastal communities, infrastructure and ecosystems right around the world including in Australia,” Prof Flannery said.

      I would love to hear Flannery explain the causal relationships in the first paragraph.

      I would also be interested in hearing how the thermal transfer works between the two hemispheres.

      80

      • #

        It’s fairly well-documented, Rereke, and as Flannery is not an expert on Arctic sea ice, he is relying on the work of the relevant experts, as we all should.

        The loss of ice in the Arctic is causing 0.4mm/year of sea level rise.
        http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183

        And its effect on Greenland isn’t controversial, so far as I know,
        http://www.sciencemag.org/content/297/5579/218.abstract

        Your comment about “thermal transfer” may stem from your misinterpretation of Flannery’s statement, which refers to sea level rise, which indeed has an effect on communities, infrastructure and ecosystems globally.

        It seems Flannery is as usual fulfilling his stated role as the person the Australian layman can rely on to relay current information about our state of knowledge about climate science.

        13

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Well done Margot.

          You have just confirmed a long held suspicion of mine.

          I work as an Independent Advisor to a number of Government and Parliamentary Agencies, in several countries, so I get to read a lot of bureaucratese.

          The phrase, “… is as usual fulfilling his/her stated role as the person the … can rely on to relay current information about …”, is directly off the standard crib sheet.

          My bet is that you are a Ministerial Press Officer, presumably assigned to keep an eye on “those annoying skeptics.” How delightful!

          It would also explain why some of the articles or facts you cite to make your point, aren’t really relevant to the actual discussion, and therefore appear somewhat discordant, in a generic sort of way.

          As an example, and in case you didn’t do math as part of your journalism degree, 0.4mm per year, equates to 4mm per decade, or 28mm, or about 1 inch, per average life time. Will anybody notice?

          41

          • #

            You could just say, “Thanks for the info, I didn’t know that”, instead of the creepy pseudo-stalking thing you chose to do.

            The 0.4mm per year contributed by the Arctic is in addition to the 0.2mm/year from the Antarctic, plus contributions from melting glaciers, (minus any increased dam storage), plus thermal expansion is what adds up to the current accelerated rate of 3.2mm/year.
            Obviously, that rate is likely to increase further, and yes, on a decadal scale, that becomes a fairly noticeable change for which we will have to develop expensive mitigation strategies.

            12

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              Ah, but I did know that, Margot.

              And as for the “creepy pseudo-stalking thing”, all I do is connect the dots. I don’t make the dots, but when they start forming pattern, it is impossible to avoid seeing them.

              You have a motivation for commenting here, I was curious to know what it is. And since you haven’t denied it, I now know.

              But back to business. From your statement, we can now say that we have total of 3.2mm per year or 32mm per decade or 224mm, or slightly less than 9 inches per average lifetime. Again, I ask you, will anybody notice?

              Will anybody notice in 40 years time that the mean sea level has risen by 128mm (about 5 inches)?. The Great Barrier reef will have got a bit higher, and water will lap one brick higher on the sea wall.

              And how many billions of dollars will be spent in making long-term (multiple decade) investments in trying to prevent or mitigate this? On the figures you present, it is a non-problem, and that is the spooky stuff.

              I have to say, Margot, my BS meter is going off the scale with these figures. Whoever is producing your script deserves to be fired. Seriously.

              20

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      The title, by the way is, “Artic sea ice levels “significant wake-up call”: Flannery

      40

  • #

    [...] Antarctic Sea Ice hits another record: 900,000 square kilometers above average [...]

    10

  • #
    soldier

    Let’s get this melting ice thing into perspective!

    How much energy would be really required to melt the Antarctic ice sheet?
    The ice temperature varies with depth, but it is typically at –5 degrees C, that is 5 degrees below freezing point.
    Any melting requires each portion of ice to be raised to zero (0 degrees C) then more heat applied (latent heat of fusion) to convert it to melt water at 0 degrees C. This is what is required for the melting process.

    For each 1 tonne (1,000kg) of ice: a. energy required to raise it to 0 degrees C = 17 MJ
    b. latent heat of fusion to melt the ice = 334 MJ

    Therefore the energy required to melt the ice cap from its present condition = 351 MJ/tonne
    Total mass of the ice sheet = 30 million x 0.917 x 10E+9 = 27.5E+15 tonnes (the SG of ice is 0.917)
    To melt the entire ice sheet would require 351 x 27.5E+15 = 965.3E+16 MJ heat energy.

    But, the entire world’s proven energy reserves of oil, gas and coal in total have an energy content of only 2.87E+16 MJ and these reserves will last us for hundreds of years at current consumption rates.
    What this means is that it would take 336 times the energy in all the planet’s fossil fuel reserves to melt the Antarctic ice sheet. (Check the data and do the maths yourself – it’s quite a revelation.)
    Expressed another way, if we were silly enough to squander all our energy reserves right away and we focused all that energy onto the Antarctic ice sheet it would melt only 1/336th portion of it (or 0.3%) and the sea levels would rise only 18cm (or 7 inches). And then we wouldn’t have any energy left to keep warm, or cook, or communicate, or travel, etc.
    Those alarmist rising sea level claims are nonsense!
    Don’t worry about your beachfront property; it’s likely to be safe for quite a while.

    142

    • #
      WheresWallace

      Not all scientists are bound by the same limited thinking as yourself.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120919103610.htm

      113

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Well, at least we know that you don’t do physics or math.

        What Soldier explains is well established physics – like it’s been around for at least a century, Duh!

        Whereas the opinion piece you refer us to, has this to say:

        … tested high-resolution model simulations against reconstructions of the Antarctic ice sheet from 20,000 years ago, during the last glacial maximum.

        Simulations, reconstructions, twenty millennia ago?

        I guess when he shops playing games, he goes back to doing some real work?

        70

        • #
          MemoryVault

          .
          Besides which, the work WeeWillyWanker’s link was based on, was rebutted a few of months after it was published, and has subsequently been withdrawn.

          I remember reading an article on it a couple of months ago, probably at either WUWT or No Tricks Zone, but WeeWilly isn’t worth the effort to track it down – he wouldn’t read it anyway.

          71

        • #
          Brian G Valentine

          We wouldn’t be in this preposterous situation we find ourselves now if people didn’t “simulate” any scenario they pleased.

          The entire reaction to AGW is the response to simulation. The basis of that is as realistic as defying gravity.

          50

          • #

            Isn’t gravity “just a theory”, “based on modelling”?

            16

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              No Margot,

              It is a theory based on mathematics.

              There is a difference, and it is a big difference.

              Mathematics is a language used to express physical concepts, based on established physical laws.

              Modelling is a numerical technique used to ask “what-if” questions, in order to explore a concept or idea, and determine what it is that you do not know. Models do not create knowledge, but if used correctly, they can reduce ignorance.

              40

            • #
              Mark D.

              Isn’t gravity “just a theory”, “based on modelling”?

              Even if you believe that, there is a rather large difference between gravity and AGW. You see Margot, gravity doesn’t require a web site and acolytes like those Craptical Seance to sustain it.

              00

              • #
                Michael

                there is a rather large difference between gravity and AGW

                Yes there is. With AGW they can actually perform laboratory experiments to measure the effect of CO2 on IR radiation, they can measure the effect in the air and from satelites. As far as I am aware they have not measured a gravity wave yet.

                00

              • #
                Michael

                Also Plate tectonics, the theory of relativity, quantum physics, evolution etc are also just all theories.

                00

              • #
                Mark D.

                With AGW they can actually perform laboratory experiments to measure the effect of CO2 on IR radiation, they can measure the effect in the air and from satelites.

                You are missing something: in the “laboratory” are they able to measure the total effect of water (in all forms) globally? If not, how do you know whether it is a net + feedback or net – feedback?

                One does need to quantify the entirety of the climate system before making the claims Warmists make. With gravity, we can easily measure and quantify the effects at least on Earth.

                00

              • #
                Backslider

                With AGW they can actually perform laboratory experiments to measure the effect of CO2 on IR radiation, they can measure the effect in the air and from satelites. As far as I am aware they have not measured a gravity wave yet.

                Try this Michael:

                Grab yourself a 20kg lead ball. Hold it in front of you and drop it onto your foot.

                That’s gravity in action sonny.

                10

    • #
      Myrrh

      There is a programme on Earth from Space, which said that the Antarctic puts on ice during the winter the size of Australia and loses it in the summer.

      http://natgeotv.com/uk/earth-from-space

      Absolutely stunning , putting together info from various satellites in continous time flow to show weather patterns around the world – a must see, but especially for those who think a trace carbon dioxide has any say in it..

      31

    • #
      Joe V.

      Thanks Soldier, I’d wondered about that one for a while.

      That melting is going to absorb an awful lot of heat, while delaying temperature change.
      Is it suitable to compare it to the energy capacity of fossil fuel reserves though, when most of melting heat will come from the Sun ?

      30

  • #
    tonestar

    During winter when there is less solar influence. So what? “NEXT 100 YEARS” hasn’t happened yet! Sheesh, does this really need explaining?

    00

  • #
    RoyFOMR

    Let’s just put 900,000 sq.Km. into context.
    No, forget about mathematical trivia like a square of side 950Km or a squintillion Manhattans or even how many Welshmen and their sheep could inhabit such an area without breaking into song.
    This is the real context:
    The Warmist Script:
    To form water-ice one needs to:
    (a) reduce water to its freezing temperature (Psyientific terminology = Coldification) and
    (b) change its state from liquid to solid (Psyientific terminology = Cubification)
    This process requires MegaMegaHiroshima amounts of Nega-Heat (Psyientific terminology = Heat but without that pesky vertical bar in the sign) to be added to the wet stuff to make it go stiff (Psyientific terminology = Bambification)

    Climate Science informs us that this Nega-Heat is a direct consequence of Anthropogenic CO2 (Psyientific terminology = Durdy Carbon) spewifications into Earths ephemeral and loving blanket.
    We are further assured that the 97% (Psyientific terminology = The Golden Number of Gaia) of our sweet Planet’s plant-loving, soft exhalations plays no part in our unfolding tragedy.
    This Nega-Heat causes surface warmth to move into the oceanic depths thereby building up its evil forces so as to bloodily slay our grandchildren as soon as the protective shield force-field of funding has been switched off by greedy, imperialistic, fossil-fuelled war-dogs.

    The Rationalist Script:
    HaHaHaHah…
    HeeHeeHeeHee…
    (Repeat until ROTFL becomes painful – Warning: Danger of Death)

    101

  • #
    KR

    Antarctic sea ice maximums are increasing slightly – counter-intuitive under the observed global warming, but likely due to changes in CircumPolar winds (less mixing with middle latitudes) and increased precipitation (freshening surface waters, increasing the halocline [salinity density gradient], and reducing mixing with relatively warmer deep waters). The latter, incidentally, was predicted by Manabe et al 1991, pg. 795.

    Meanwhile, Arctic ice extent has reduced by perhaps 3.5x as much as the Antarctic gain, and Antarctic land ice continues to decline at accelerating rates.

    Increases in Antarctic sea ice maximum extent are small, consistent with global warming despite being nonintuitive, and certainly do not represent a “get out of jail free card”. Global ice is decreasing, temperatures (and ocean heat content) still continue to rise, despite regional variations like these.

    416

    • #
      crakar24

      There is always an excuse…….always

      102

      • #
        • #
          crakar24

          whats my what? Excuse? Sorry i am not the one defending the indefensible

          52

          • #
            WheresWallace

            If your position is “defensible”, then please respond accordingly and provide evidence why you are not cherry picking.

            13

            • #
              crakar24

              Wally,

              What are you crapping on about now, i have already dismantled KR and their shitty papers about Antarctic sea ice extent (took all of 5 minutes) and KR has not been seen since probably trawling the internet for “another” paper that uses simulated SST data.

              If you have somethind specific to show then go ahead until then you can shove your [snip]

              21

              • #
                WheresWallace

                I’m “crapping on” about the link that you obviously were blind to. Here it is again. Let’s see if you notice it this time.

                http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/oops-same-climate-models-produce-different-results-on-different-computers/#comment-1301245

                11

              • #
                KR

                Actually, crakar24, I did reply, noting that you had indeed pointed out the specific predictions in the paper, and noting that – despite your off-hand and quite unsupported dismissal of SSTs – the salinity profiles in the Antarctic support the Manabe et al predictions as well.

                I hadn’t bothered to point you to additional information, as your complaints were quite frankly -not worth consideration-, but if you are interested in actual information I would suggest Bintanja et al 2013, “Important role for ocean warming and increased ice-shelf melt in Antarctic sea-ice expansion”, reviewing the increased extents with warming and suggesting updates in models to properly track this behavior, as well as pointing out some other concerns such as potential for even faster sea level rise.

                To summarize a bit: over 20 years ago models with sufficiently detailed physics predicted a counter-intuitive result (expanding Antarctic sea ice extent with global warming), decades later those predictions match current observations in great detail, and therefore it appears those models represent a better understanding of these regional effects. This is accompanied by suggestions that some of the -less- complex models be reviewed to include the correct physics.

                You have responded by claiming one portion of the temperature data is too uncertain in some fashion (incorrect, not to mention neglecting other data such as salinity) and by dismissing models (despite accurate multi-decadal predictions of counter-intuitive phenomena), all while presenting zero evidence. It isn’t clear whether you are attempting to argue “it’s not happening”, “it’s not bad”, or something else regarding warming, but it is patently clear that you have failed to make any case whatsoever.

                You have, rather, simply been obnoxious and juvenile.

                Adieu.

                12

              • #
                crakar24

                Obnoxious and juvenile? Well i am sorry KR but i was not the one that provided a paper in support of my beliefs, a paper that used SIMULATED SST DATA to claim AGW is causing the Antarctic ice cap to expand.

                If you wants erious debate i suggest you produce serious science not something from a trumped up climatology student.

                Thats real theories supported by real world data KR do you get the distinction???????

                32

              • #
                Backslider

                These guys have really won me over… the globe is warming, more than ever you know!!?? Thus its clear that the Antarctic ice cap would expand.

                Heat cause expansion, proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by the wamrists.

                10

              • #
                Backslider

                Here is one for you KR:

                If what you reckon is happening in the Antarctic is as you say (heat causes expansion of ice), then why is it not happening in the Arctic?

                I’ll let you run back to daddy Cook for the answer to that one….

                10

            • #
              Backslider

              Do you mean this bit Lost Your Willy?

              When faced with the fact that Antarctic Mass, which include land based ice, is in decline

              What is YOUR explanation for using glacier calving to pump up the numbers for so called loss of mass?

              Please show us all pictures of the meltwater from this supposedly melting land based ice.

              00

      • #

        I think the problem for you here Craker is that this was predicted and is not a post-hoc cover up.

        44

        • #
          crakar24

          Where, when and by whom GA, i do believe the poles were supposed to be the first place AGW would rear its ugly head next time you make stupid statements please back them up with stupid facts.

          32

        • #
          MemoryVault

          I think the problem for you here Craker is that this was predicted and is not a post-hoc cover up.

          First sentence in the Introduction to the paper linked to by KRudd:

          It is well-known that oceans spread the heat trapped by greenhouse gases downward, thereby reducing the rate of warming of the oceanic surface.

          Any “scientific” paper that starts with the physics equivalent of “Once Upon a Time”, is probably capable of “predicting” the exact moment of the Big Bang, and the Second Coming of Christ, and everything in between.

          .
          Fascinating what can be done with computer models these days.

          104

          • #
            KR

            This predicted and observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent is also discussed in Zwally et al 2002, and in fact Liu and Curry 2010, although there are some issues with their references being incomplete.

            That said, the increase in Antarctic ice is quite non-intuitive, and not everyone in the field thought it would occur. This is science in action: competing hypotheses and predictions that find support (or not, as the case may be) in the data.

            210

            • #
              crakar24

              KR,

              This is a joke right?

              Lets look at the Curry paper.

              They start by saying the SST in the Sth ocean is sparse then progress to tell us how much the SST has gone up (based on sparse data).

              We confine the analysis to
              the period 1950–1999 due to large uncertainty associated with
              sparse in situ SST samplings in the Southern Hemisphere for
              the first half of the 20th century (9)

              Although the Southern Ocean is critical to the Earth’s climate
              system, detailed analyses of sea surface temperature (SST) variability
              have been hampered by limited observations (2–4).

              They then talk about what models they used

              To increase confidence in the interpretation of simulated SST
              variability, we restrict our analysis to models that perform well in
              simulating the Southern Ocean climate:

              So they get their “simulated” SST amd plug it into only some models because the rest produce absolute junk, how do they know they all dont produce junk?

              And from this they conclude

              The corresponding principle component
              (PC) (Fig. 2A) has a substantial upward trend (0.33 per
              decade, statistically significant at the 99% confidence level).
              The dominant spatiotemporal SST variability of ERSST is similar
              to that of HadISST (Fig. 1B and Fig. 2A). Thus, the observed
              SST pattern in the Southern Ocean during the second
              half of the 20th century is dominated by a broad-scale warming
              that accounts for one third of the total variance (28% for
              HadISST and 29% for ERSST).

              and

              Over the course of the second half of the 20th century, strong
              warming in the middle latitudes of the Southern Ocean with weak
              cooling in the high latitudes is hypothesized here to lead to an
              enhanced hydrological cycle in the Southern Ocean, whereby
              evaporation is enhanced and the moisture content of the lower
              troposphere increases in the middle latitudes of the Southern
              Ocean. This additional moisture is transported poleward by
              the meridional circulation (Ferrel Cell), resulting in an increased
              precipitation, and a freshening of surface water in the high latitudes
              of the Southern Ocean

              Ergo,

              The increased freshwater input in the high latitudes of the
              Southern Ocean would decrease the upper ocean salinity (density),
              leading to a more stable thermohaline stratification and
              weakened convective overturning. This reduces the upward ocean
              heat flux available to melt sea ice. Because of the reduced upward
              ocean heat transport, the simulated SST under sea ice in the
              1990s was ∼0.2 °C colder than that in the 1950s (Fig. 4A). In a
              weakly stratified Southern Ocean, the ocean heat flux induced
              ice melt decreases faster than the ice growth, allowing an increase
              in the net ice production (20). Compared to the 1950s, the simulated
              total precipitation (liquid precipitation and snowfall) is
              increased in much of the high latitudes of the Southern Ocean
              in the 1990s (Fig. 4E), which is primarily contributed by the increase
              of snowfall there (Fig. 4C), because the magnitude of the
              snowfall increase is comparable to that of the total precipitation
              increase

              Now KR lets not forget the SST is simulated and actual SST data is sparse and we have cherry picked models to produce what can only be described as complete and utter rubbish.

              This is science in action: competing hypotheses and predictions that find support (or not, as the case may be) in the data.

              It is nothing of the sort, what science is used here? This is real science……..due to the sparse SST data we are not in a position to make any judgments as to why Antarctic sea ice is expanding except to state the obvious that every 6 months it gets really, really cold.

              You are a joke

              173

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Nicely done, and absolutely correct.

                A nice example of theoretical science in the esoteric field of funding continuation.

                101

              • #
                KR

                crakar24 – You have, indeed, identified some key sections of that paper describing the hypothesized mechanism leading to increased Antarctic sea ice.

                In terms of raw data, which you seem to be suspicious of, you might find it interesting to look at Boyer et al 2005:

                The salinity trends in the Pacific Ocean are confined to shallower depths than in the Atlantic Ocean. … The exception is the deep freshening south of 70S. This is the Ross Sea and coastal Antarctica. (emphasis added)

                This is direct evidence of a stronger halocline, leading to both reduced convection via stratification and an increase in sea ice extent.

                No joke – actual data.

                33

              • #
                crakar24

                KR,

                How does this relate let alone explain and then justify this mob “simulating” SST data and then scaring little children with their outrageous claims?

                Good try but you have still failed, better luck next time.

                10

              • #
                Backslider

                This is real science……..due to the sparse SST data we are not in a position to make any judgments as to why Antarctic sea ice is expanding except to state the obvious that every 6 months it gets really, really cold.

                Exactly. And as I popinted out to all three, all of who were waving around their latest proof, the only science I found in their paper was the statement:

                There remains poor agreement between estimates of ice sheet mass balance from 3 techniques

                Which again shows, as you say: we are not in a position to make any judgments.

                00

      • #
        Ace

        See my earlier comment: its an example of the Lakatoshian “protective belt of sub-tending hypotheses”. An infinite regression of fresh hypothsese to account for the failure of each preceding hypothesis to accord with the data.

        40

    • #
    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      And the empirical demonstration of cause and effect is … where, exactly?

      What all these papers1, 2 do, is follow an age-old technique, of pointing out some change or other in nature, and then immediately descend into hand waving and hysterics.

      No where do they demonstrate the links between the cause and the effect, and prove that the cause was man-made, and that the effect could not just have occurred naturally or at random.

      It is not science. It is even not good propaganda. But it is all being documented, and the patterns are emerging, and there is going to be a lot of broken careers, when the book comes out.

      1 I deliberately omit the prefix “scientific”
      2 All of the papers refer to a finite and self contained, and self supporting body of literature. Very little is based on the laws of physics, and even less is based on repeatable experimentation.

      60

    • #
      Brian G Valentine

      counter-intuitive …

      To a 3 year old observing an ice cube melt in a glass of water you nincompoop

      21

    • #
      cohenite

      KR’s GRACE paper from 2009 has been superseded; GRACE in 2009 was still afflicted by IGA. Zwally et al’s 2012 paper shows the Antarctic land mass is increasing.

      That puts the kibosh on Antarctica being the source of the fresh water to increase the halocline and cause the increase in sea ice.

      21

      • #
        KR

        Are you referring to Zwally et al 2012, “A Reconciled Estimate of Ice-Sheet Mass Balance”? Stating: “We find that there is good agreement between different satellite methods… Greenland, East Antarctica, West Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by –142 ± 49, +14 ± 43, –65 ± 26, and –20 ± 14 gigatonnes year−1, respectively”?

        Because that paper certainly shows Antarctic land ice decreasing overall, by ~71 GT over about 20 years. Or were you just speaking of the -small- increase in the East Antarctic mass as a cherry-pick in isolation?

        I will note that increased precipitation, as well as increased melt, is a contributor to the observed Antarctic coastal freshening.

        01

        • #
          Backslider

          We find that there is good agreement between different satellite methods

          I don’t know WHO wrote the abstract (I know that you guys only read abstracts) however the paper itself in fact states:

          There are 3 different satellite geodetic techniques for measuring ice sheet mass imbalance

          (1) Altimetry measures ice sheet volume change

          (2) InSAR measures iceberg calving

          (3) Gravimetry measures changes in Earth mass

          There remains poor agreement between estimates of ice sheet mass balance from 3 techniques

          That makes it abundantly clear that the so called “abstract” is a fabrication.

          13

          • #
            KR

            Backslider

            Your continued quotations of that section indicate only that you are the one who has not read the work.

            That statement is the motivation for the paper, not the conclusions. The paper describes reconciling the various measures and data – by cross calibrating over common periods and regions – to obtain a more accurate estimate of overall ice balance as reported in the abstract and conclusions. Here is a presentation of their methods, which it states in the summary section:

            “* When domains match, techniques concur and are complementary…
            * Ends 20-year disagreement
            * 2/3 from Greenland, 1/3 from Antarctica…
            * Combined losses have accelerated…
            * Now losing 3 times as in 1990’s”.

            (I will point out that they estimate the Antarctic ice loss at 42% lower than the AR4 numbers, although still a loss, and accelerating)

            In other words, your statements are a serious (and false) misrepresentation of the Zwally work. Antarctica is losing land ice.

            12

            • #
              Backslider

              Antarctica is losing land ice

              Of course it is. It has glaciers which calve icebergs into the ocean.

              The fact that these are measured to pump up the numbers for “ice loss” points clearly at the lack of science involved here. The only objective is to try and confirm the warmist meme.

              Nobody can show that Antarctic land ice is melting. It’s not.

              The paper describes reconciling the various measures and data – by cross calibrating over common periods and regions – to obtain a more accurate estimate of overall ice balance as reported in the abstract and conclusions

              Translation: We fudge the numbers to make them fit our foregone conclusions.

              This is not science, it’s crap.

              02

            • #
              Backslider

              That statement is the motivation for the paper, not the conclusions.

              No. It’s the only thing truthful about the paper – an admission that the techniques used do not agree with each other.

              Out come the number fudgers to make it all fit…. oh wow….. (not even an exclamation).

              02

      • #
        KR

        Note: The Zwally work re: ICESAT (apparently referred to by cohenite above) was from preliminary results in July 2012, while the Zwally paper linked above is from November 2012 – a later and presumably more up to date paper.

        01

        • #
          Backslider

          a later and presumably more up to date paper

          That is an idiotic assumption.

          Please take the time to learn how the whole process of “scientific papers” works.

          Just because a paper has been published does not mean that it’s “findings” are valid.

          It is the fashion these days to make all kinds of assumptions and predictions, however the only thing of value is MEASURABLE and REPEATABLE science.

          When a paper has been published it generally takes a number of YEARS before other scientists have had the opportunity to falsify findings.

          Get with it.

          12

          • #
            KR

            You have completely misrepresented the Zwally paper, which is indeed a confirmation of and improvement upon years of repeated measurements preceding it.

            “Please take the time to learn how the whole process of “scientific papers” works.” – I would suggest you take your own advice.

            11

            • #
              Backslider

              You have completely misrepresented the Zwally paper

              No, I have not.

              I have pointed to an admission in the paper that the measuring techniques used do NOT agree with each other.

              Consider how ridiculous it is to measure iceberg calving to estimate “ice loss”….. idiotic!

              02

            • #
              Backslider

              which is indeed a confirmation of

              bias…..

              02

  • #
    WheresWallace

    From science published in 2002

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2000JC000733.shtml

    The observed increase in Antarctic sea ice cover is counter to the observed decreases in the Arctic. It is also qualitatively consistent with the counterintuitive prediction of a global atmospheric-ocean model of increasing sea ice around Antarctica with climate warming due to the stabilizing effects of increased snowfall on the Southern Ocean.

    310

    • #
      MemoryVault

      WeeWillyWanker,

      I challenge you to explain your above quote, in your own words, such that the average layman could understand it.

      101

      • #
        Ace

        MV its exactly the same crap I spoke about up at the top of the thread in reply to Tiny.

        61

        • #
          MemoryVault

          .
          I’m well aware of what it’s supposed to mean, Ace.
          I want to see if WeeWilly understands it enough to translate the actual quote into ordinary-speak.

          51

      • #
        WheresWallace

        All you guys do on here is make childish remarks.

        Try challenging the science for once.

        19

        • #
          MemoryVault

          Try challenging the science for once.

          Okay.

          CO2 induced CAGW “theory” claims:

          C02 UP = Temp UP + Temp UP + Temp UP . . .

          Observed data shows:

          CO2 UP = Temp UP + Temp DOWN + Temp UP + Temp DOWN . . .

          Therefore CO2 induced CAGW “theory” falsified.

          Q.E.D.

          .
          Next

          112

        • #
          Heywood

          The alternative is to start your own blog and demand whatever discussion you want.

          60

        • #
          crakar24

          OK, from the preamble

          ““Sea ice in the Arctic and around Antarctica responds directly to climate change and may, if properly monitored, become increasingly important for detecting climate change.”
          IPCC Third Assessment Report, Cryosphere Processes, Box 7.1

          ““The sea-ice albedo effect is an important contributor to the amplification of projected warming at high latitudes.”

          IPCC Third Assessment Report, WG1, 7.5 Cryosphere Processes and Feedbacks, Box 7.1

          The impacts of this climate change in the polar regions over the next 100 years will exceed the impacts forecast for many other regions and will produce feedbacks that will have globally significant consequences.
          IPCC Assessment Report 4, WG 2, Chapter 15

          I CHALLENGE THE SCIENCE PRODUCED BY THE IPCC (YOUR OVERLORDS)

          92

        • #
          Ace

          When youve ben answering idiots for years Wally it gets to where you realise theres no point trying to enlighten the kind of idiots who dont actually know what “science” is to start with.

          10

      • #
        crakar24

        MV,

        Lets try and deconstruct this gibberish

        The observed increase in Antarctic sea ice cover

        Acknowledgement that the antarctic sea ice has increased

        is counter to the observed decreases in the Arctic

        Acknowledgement the Arctic sea ice has decreased

        It is also qualitatively consistent with the counterintuitive prediction of a global atmospheric-ocean model of increasing sea ice around Antarctica with climate warming due to the stabilizing effects of increased snowfall on the Southern Ocean.

        This is the tough bit but here goes, the increasing and decreasing sea ice observed is consistent with the inverse of the prediction made by computer models of increasing sea ice in Antarctica and………

        This is because we have snowfall in the sth ocean which counter acts the inverse of the prediction which makes it all consistent with what we thought.

        Ergo AGW causes the Arctic sea ice to melt and the Antarctic sea ice to increase, any questions?

        83

        • #
          MemoryVault

          .
          Thankyou for making the effort to demonstrate how clever you are, Crakar.
          Regrettably, the point of the exercise – which you have now annulled – was for WeeWilly to prove how clever he is.

          Or not, as the case may be.

          81

          • #
            crakar24

            MV,

            You did not seriously think Wally would have responded did you?

            72

            • #
              MemoryVault

              No.

              But if it had been left alone until he commented further down the thread, ignoring this post, (as he always does), it would have created an ideal opportunity to put the boot into his “credibility” – again.

              60

            • #
              Ace

              Crakar, you are testing MVs minefield by stepping on the mines. Thats not very helpful. Is it OK between friends to say that makes YOU the Wally ;-)

              20

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      And what makes that anything but a natural phenomenon?

      In what way is it different to normal inter-seasonal variations?

      The observed changes may have happened before, multiple times, but nobody was there to notice. How do you demonstrate that it hasn’t?

      20

    • #
      Winston

      qualitatively consistent with the counterintuitive prediction

      It sounds like a lyric from HMAS Pinafore:

      “I am the very model of the modern major general……..

      I’m very well acquainted, too, with matters mathematical

      I understand equations, both the simple and quadratical

      and Qualitatively consistent with predictions unnatural,

      Contrary intuitions that render all my models skewed

      About binomial theorem I’m teeming with a lot o’ news

      With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse.”

      Who knew climatologists drew such inspiration from G&S.

      60

    • #
      Peter Miller

      Only a climate computer model could predict that increasing snowfall ‘around Antarctica’ could increase the extent of the ice there. Predicting the thickness of the ice on Antarctica, as a result of increased snowfall, is another matter altogether.

      “prediction of a global atmospheric-ocean model of increasing sea ice around Antarctica with climate warming due to the stabilizing effects of increased snowfall on the Southern Ocean.”

      11

  • #
    Ace

    Will The Thing ever be found in all that ice?

    I wonder if the first version was inspired by th constrution of Thule base? It was set up there, not in Antarctica like the re-make.

    In truth of course, all you would find undr th Antarctic are frozen NAZIs, we all know that. The ons abandond whn th rest fld to the moon.

    20

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    It is all about energy. The warmists explain this as:

    The poles are like refrigerators, the need energy to work the fridge.

    20

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    That should have been “they”.

    OT. the Libs are preferencing the greens in Melbourne. It seems they are determined to keep the warmists represented in parliament.

    10

    • #
      Ace

      s one incohernt rambler vto another (according to Crakar, see above) I wouldnt worry about a missing “y” between frinds.

      That there missing “y” of yours is the least of what the reader will hav to contend with. And no, Im not making this up.

      10

      • #
        crakar24

        Ace,

        The IR the 2nd comment was a joke because you are missing so many letters it is hard to comprehend what you say (funny as it is).

        In regards to the Germans not having an @ symbol is most likely why they lost the war(s) i have a HP keyboard and it has an @ symbol, model # KU-0316 you should try and buy one of them next time.

        21

        • #
          Ace

          Crakar, fecker me dufus but I took it for a gag, ….Im retarded not stupid.

          But you are dodging the qustion. It has a real answer. Keyboards made for the German market have no @ symbol. How do they summon the symbol.

          At least Yonniestone tried to ID Water World before the cataract of clues made it obvious. But as you may have missed his crackaring th code, I should bung you that on as well. Do you agree Water World is a snip-crass-hole?

          Aaargh, theres another one, why is Grrzirrer so grumpy?

          00

      • #
        Backslider

        You should find a toothpick and dislodge that piece of toast, pizza, booger or whatever it is under you “e” key :P

        20

        • #
          handjive

          They aren’t boogers, those are “nose goblins.”

          20

        • #
          Backslider

          under you “e” key

          Dang, looks like I have one of those nose goblins under my “r” key….. (it was one of the children, really it was!)

          10

          • #
            Dave

            Everyone with keyboard problems:

            Product: Mosa CO2 High Power Keyboard Blower, inc 2 x 16g Non-Threaded Cartridges
            RRP: $39.95
            Was: $29.95
            Now: $24.95
            Description: Product Information Replaces aerosol dusters with simple, safe 100% high velocity CO2 gas.
            - Non-flammable, non-toxic. No CFCs or HCFCs.
            - Non-corrosive.
            - Safe on plastics.
            - Leaves no residue or spotting.
            - Ideal for use on Camera lenses, keyboards, workbenches etc.
            - Uses 3/8 – 24UNF Non-Threaded cartridges 16gm ONLY.
            - Includes 2 x 16gm NT CO2.

            Carbon Dioxide being sold by Mosa, is the reason all the data is being phargued up.

            It’s not fossils fuels it’s this monster CO2 Blower being used by Climate Scientists all over the world (at least 97% of them).

            Solution: Ban Climate Scientists.

            00

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    Interestingly we also have this…

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/scientists-record-year-for-ice-melt-greenhouse-gases/story-e6frg8y6-1226692541283

    My favourite bit is…

    “Globally, according to four independent analyses cited by the study “2012 ranked as the eighth or ninth warmest year since records began in the mid-to-late 1800s.”

    8th or 9th ? LOL

    30

    • #
      Backslider

      eighth or ninth warmest year

      NO! NO! NO! 2012 was the hottest year on record!!!!

      It was…. I see it in the news almost every day!

      30

  • #
    Backslider

    If we are to believe CAGW alarmism, the hockey stick etc. etc. then EVERY year should be the hottest year on record…. because, if the globe is warming then it must be hotter, right?

    40

    • #
      Philip Shehan

      No. Only an idiot fails to understand that long term trends are what matters.

      And the loss of arctic sea ice is much greater than the gain in antarctic sea ice. 2.5 million sq km since 1980 compared with 1.2 million sq km.

      http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png

      Sea ice levels are affected by ocean currents and fresh water inflows. The arctic ocean is water surrounded by land whereas the the antarctica is land surrounded by water. Different local dynamics are at work.

      The real story is the melting of the land based ice caps of Greenland and antarctica, both of which are loosing ice massand directly affect sea levels.

      Between 1992 and 2011, the ice sheets of Greenland, East Antarctica, West Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by –142 ± 49, +14 ± 43, –65 ± 26, and –20 ± 14 gigatonnes year−1, respectively. Since 1992, the polar ice sheets have contributed, on average, 0.59 ± 0.20 millimeter year−1 to the rate of global sea-level rise.

      http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183

      219

      • #
        Mark D.

        Only an idiot fails to understand that long term trends are what matters.

        Right you are to admit it. The long term (say 10,000 years) historic trends indicate what?

        The real story is the melting of the land based ice caps of Greenland and antarctica, both of which are loosing ice massand directly affect sea levels.

        Real story huh? You know sea level rise is slowing not accelerating?

        By the way, the word is “losing” and poor spelling says what about the idiot writer?

        91

        • #

          Real story huh? You know sea level rise is slowing not accelerating?

          WHy would anybody “know” that, when it isn’t true?

          http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html

          This data has shown a more-or-less steady increase in Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) of around 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/year over that period. This is more than 50% larger than the average value over the 20th century. Whether or not this represents a further increase in the rate of sea level rise is not yet certain.

          12

          • #
            Heywood

            Oh dear.

            ” In this brief communication, the predictions of Rahmstorf (2007) are validated against the experimental evidence over a 20 year period. The University of Colorado Sea Level satellite monitoring shows that the rate of rise of the sea level is not only well below the values computed in http://climatecommission.govspace.gov.au/files/2011/05/4108-CC-Science-Update-PRINT-CHANGES.pdf (2011) and Rahmstorf (2007, 2010), but actually reducing rather than increasing (http://sealevel.colorado.edu/, 2011b; 10,11)”

            Boretti, A.A. 2012. Short term comparison of climate model predictions and satellite altimeter measurements of sea levels. Coastal Engineering 60: 319-322.

            20

            • #

              OK, so we can either believe CSIRO, or we can believe ex-automotive engineer and amateur scientist Boretti, whose work was investigated with the following conclusion:

              Unfortunately, his claim is based more on flawed qualitative reasoning than on quantitative analysis. We replicate Boretti’s methodology of fitting quadratic functions to tide-gauge observations from Fremantle and Sydney, in order to estimate the sea-level acceleration. However, we also evaluate the uncertainty in these estimates (a crucial step, omitted by Boretti), and thereby show that the observed accelerations are statistically consistent with the projections of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Our finding is the same when we repeat this analysis using two data sets which have smaller uncertainties, one from satellite altimeters and the other from a sea-level reconstruction. We therefore conclude that Boretti’s claim is without foundation.

              http://ecite.utas.edu.au/84347

              CSIRO have also published their opinion of Boretti’s inept work.

              ——————————
              REPLY: Margot, try to get over the fallacious ad homs. The anonymous commenter poking fun at Boretti’s qualifications is a bore, you are just showing how you can’t reason, and follow the herd like a sheep. The original raw satellite sea-level data was almost flat until it was “adjusted”. Watson shows in Australia the fastest rises were before 1960. Plus sea-levels were rising before man-made CO2 was an issue. Any form of warming causes sea-level rise.

              11

          • #
            • #

              In that case, I look forward to somebody explaining to CSIRO why they have it all wrong and to seeing CSIRO correct their advice.

              Unfortunately, the “there is no sea level rise” continues to be put forward, without any valid arguments, by unqualified non-experts who contradict the science without offering any alternative science of their own. Dodgy graphs with cherry-picked periods on them is about the best these people can do, and for some reason CSIRO, the reputable professional scientific body we rely on isn’t buying into it. That’s pretty reassuring.

              11

              • #
                Mark D.

                Margot, you are unable to comprehend at even a second grade level.

                “there is no sea level rise” continues to be put forward,

                Where did I put that forward?

                10

      • #
        Backslider

        Only an idiot fails to understand that long term trends are what matters.

        And the long term trend is what? Oh! That’s right, it’s cooling. Care to dispute that?

        60

      • #
        Backslider

        the loss of arctic sea ice is much greater

        No sonny. If you care to look at the data you will find that the sea ice loss in the Arctic is decreasing.

        50

      • #
        Backslider

        Also, only an idiot is unable to recognise a tongue in cheek comment. There is actually a better word… it starts with “pr” and ends in “ck” with another letter in the middle. Yep, that’s you.

        70

      • #
        AndyG55

        And only a REALLY DUMB IDIOT thinks that trends are linear and can be extrapolated. !!

        21

      • #
        Philip Shehan

        The long term context we are considering here is the rise in temperature since the industrial revolution

        http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/AMTI.png

        which started rising about 3 decades after the rise in CO2 concentration

        http://tinyurl.com/aj2us99

        giving this direct correlation between temperature and log CO2 concentration:

        http://oi46.tinypic.com/29faz45.jpg

        111

        • #
          Backslider

          The long term context we are considering here is the rise in temperature since the industrial revolution

          Right. So you are yet another who believes that The Industrial Revolution pulled the World’s climate out of the LIA.

          You do not have a shred of science in support of that guff.

          Are you aware that the period from 1935 to 1975 shows a cooling trend? Why is that Philip, considering that this was a time when CO2 emissions really ramped up?

          A forty year cooling trend is significant Philip, as is the most recent since 1998.

          Can you tell us what caused the warming during the MWP, a period that was warmer than today? Why did the climate then change and bring us to the LIA? Do you deny these periods as global trends?

          51

          • #
            Philip Shehan

            I thought backslider that you wrote:

            “If we are to believe CAGW alarmism, the hockey stick etc. etc. then EVERY year should be the hottest year on record…. because, if the globe is warming then it must be hotter, right?”

            and then claimed

            “Also, only an idiot is unable to recognise a tongue in cheek comment. There is actually a better word… it starts with “pr” and ends in “ck” with another letter in the middle. Yep, that’s you.”

            So which is it?

            Do you understand that anthropogenic contributions to temperature are superimposed on natural forcings in which case short term spikes dips plateaus and declines are inevitable or not?

            Do you understand that the periods you speak of the LIA and MWP clearly reflect changes in “natural” forcings.

            And like so many “skeptics who resort to abuse. You are a coward who does not have the guts to append his/her real name to his attacks.

            Who are you, you coward?

            14

            • #
              Backslider

              Do you understand that the periods you speak of the LIA and MWP clearly reflect changes in “natural” forcings.

              Do you understand that the current warming clearly reflects changes in “natural” forcings?

              And like so many “skeptics who resort to abuse.

              Ummm… Philip, it is YOU who started with the abuse. That you are a prick should be self evident to you.

              31

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                So tell us who you are coward.

                04

              • #
                Backslider

                So tell us who you are coward.

                Should I call the police since you clearly are stalking?

                21

              • #

                Do you understand that the current warming clearly reflects changes in “natural” forcings?

                Completely untrue.

                Solar activity is at a minimum, insolation is not gowing, but greenhouse gases have increased.
                You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

                11

              • #
                Backslider

                Solar activity is at a minimum

                Yes… and we are in a cooling trend.

                You clearly have no idea what is happening around you.

                00

            • #
              Backslider

              You are a coward who does not have the guts to append his/her real name to his attacks.

              No, I am not a coward. Would you like me to look you up and tell you face to face?

              11

            • #
              Ace

              Give us your address and we’ll come round to establish who is the coward.

              The trouble with your kind of bullying is theres always someone bigger. Or someone with a bigger baseball bat. You are just a snip-crass hole

              31

        • #
          Winston

          Philip,
          The log CO2 correlation with temperature, even disregarding the totally artificial nature of “global average temperature” and the validity or otherwise of pre-1956 CO2 measurements, actually provides compelling evidence against CAGW with high climate sensitivity due to water vapor amplification.

          Without realizing it you have, through the perfect correlation with CO2 you contend is valid, you’ve proven that water vapor amplification does not exist, that climate sensitivity has no negative but equally no positive feedback mechanism otherwise the later readings would diverge above the trend. Therefore the lukewarmers like Jo are correct, and costly ecomony wrecking switch to renewables is NOT, repeat NOT justified since the most we can be looking at is another 0.7degC rise by 2100.

          I would point out also that the correlation is equally apparent and at precisely the same rate before any anthropogenic component (post 1945) was significant (by alarmists own admission) even assuming it is valid to apply a linear trend over an oscillating data set with arbitrary end points.

          Also being logarithmic CO2 comparator means any correlation in the last 10 to 15 years has greater difficulty in separating from the long term trend even if it actually was significantly deviating away in reality, so would require more data beyond for another 10 to 20 years to give any confidence in the latter data being robustly adherent to the alleged trend.

          In summary then, there is no anthropogenic signal in the data, and no water amplification signal either. Therefore CAGW, IMHO, is falsified by your own “evidence” even without accounting for the other sundry lines of evidence inconsistent with your belief system.

          51

          • #
            Philip Shehan

            Winston,

            There is no basis to your assertion that the graphs show that the anthropogenic CO2 only became significant post 1945.

            The graphs for CO2 and temperature show that CO2 begins to rise after 1850 and temperature starts to rise about 3 decades later, which is a perfectly reasonable delay given the thermal inertia of the system in the case of the relationship being one of cause and effect.

            Nor is there any basis to the assertion that the data is incompatible with amplification by H2O. This amplification factor is calulated to give a “sensitivity” (the rise in temperature with a doubling of CO2 concentration) of betweeen 2 and 4.5 degrees with the most likely figure of 3 degrees.

            The CO2 rise since 1850 is from 280 to 400ppm. The temperature rise is 0.9 degrees. That gives 0.075 C/ppm. So with a further 400 ppm rise in CO2 concentration, the temperature rise is calculated to be 3.0 ppm. this agrees with the theoretical most likely value of 3 C.

            In other words the observed amplification due to H2O matches the theoretical value. What the temperature rise by 200 depends on what the CO2 concentration will be, and that depends on what steps are taken to rein in the current exponential rise evident in the graphs.

            Calculations based on data do not constitute a belief system.

            05

            • #
              Ace

              First rule of real science is “correlation is not causation”.

              Philip Shehan says:

              “Calculations based on data do not constitute a belief system.”

              Ie, correlations.

              That one line of his demonstrates perfectly his complete, absolute ignorance of what distinguishes science fro other …uh…epistemolgies or, “belief systems”.

              Scince requires a falsifyable hypothesis. Feck this is High School basic. Any data is opn to potentially infinite interpretation. Only by testing the hypothesis by means of predicted outcome can the validity of any interpretaion be stablishd.

              oh why waste my time. Hs obviously either fifteen years old or has the mental age of a fifteen year old and the intellectual insight of a sheep.

              20

            • #
              Backslider

              and temperature starts to rise about 3 decades later, which is a perfectly reasonable delay given the thermal inertia of the system

              What is this “thermal inertia” that supposedly takes 30 years?? More guff. We only need to take a look at seasonal temperature variations to see that the planet’s thermal intertia takes very little time for change to take effect. In fact, if you just look at the difference between night and day we see that it’s in fact very very quick.

              If CO2 goes into the atmosphere and does what you think it does, then we will notice the difference essentially immediately. But we don’t.

              You are preaching that The Industrial Revolution pulled the Earth’s climate out of the LIA…. but you do not have a skerrick of science to back that up.

              What we actually see if we look at the temperature data is a rise in temperature from the 1800′s… then a spike in the early 20th century, with cooling from around 1935 to 1975 (that’s 40 years sonny), then another spike from 1975 to 1998… then cooling again to the present day.

              This falsifies your “thermal inertia” hypothesis.

              In all this time CO2 emissions have been rising. The temperatures HAVE NOT followed the rise in CO2. What we in fact see is natural temperature variation following a PATTERN which can be traced back thousands of years.

              20

        • #
          MemoryVault

          The long term context we are considering here is the rise in temperature since the industrial revolution

          So, the “long term trend” is the warming period from the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA) to now, which just happens to conveniently coincide with the Industrial Revolution.

          How about an even LONGER term trend, and include the cooling from the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) down into the LIA?

          Or the even LONGER trend that includes the warming period from the Dark Ages Cold Period (DACP) up into the MWP?

          Or the even LONGER trend that includes the cooling period from the Roman Warm Period (RWP) down into the DACP?

          Or the even LONGER trend that includes the warming period up into the RWP?

          .
          You cherry pick a trivial and routine 150 year warming period out of 2,200+ years of routinely cyclical warming and cooling, and claim it is the long term trend?

          .
          You Sir, are a total berk.

          81

          • #
            Winston

            Spot on MV,
            That would be one of those other sundry lines of evidence I was referring to. They seem to think that such a short term correlation, with lots of adjustments to make it fit mind you, actually means anything.

            I would add that I really don’t think Philip’s log CO2 graph has any validity whatsoever, but I just wanted to point out that it doesn’t really say what he thinks it does, in my reading of it anyway. In climate science, the data is so sketchy and cobbled together in frankengraphs from so many different highly subjective sources that you just have to formulate a narrative and then mold the data to fit the story, and viola!

            30

            • #
              Philip Shehan

              Winston,
              The validity of the temperature/log CO2 plot stems from the logarithmic nature of warming/CO2 concentration relationship.

              http://knowledgedrift.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/log1-co2.jpg

              I don’t accept that global temperature data is “sketchy” as different data sets match very closely.

              The temperature data is however noisy due to non anthropogenic forcing factors and short term weather effects, but the correlation coefficient R is a very good 0.91 and the probability of no correlation betweeen the plotted quantities is less than 0.0001

              14

          • #
            Philip Shehan

            And you sir/madam are also an abusive coward

            15

            • #
              Backslider

              You Sir, are a total berk.

              A very apt description.

              And you sir/madam are also an abusive coward

              You started it Philip. If you cannot take it, then don’t dish it out. You do not have any link with your name “Philip Shehan”. Do you know how many people there are in this World who are unfortunate enough to have that name? If you were so “brave”, you would include a link so we know exactly who you are.

              21

            • #
              Ace

              Well…I wouldnt say it bfore cos there are some nice folks I see here do use their “real” name …but really, I think for anyone to do that in ANY context online is extremely foolish.

              I think “Philip Shnan” is entitled to be reckless with his own security as are others who do that, but it is preposterous to demand others do the same. Especially given all the industry of data abuse that is so frequently illustrated by Facbook.

              It adds to my imprssion of him as either very young or else very naiive for his years.

              20

            • #
              MemoryVault

              And you sir/madam are also an abusive coward

              Ignore the issue and go straight to the ad-hom, eh berk?

              Why abusive?
              Because I demonstrated that you were a cherry-picking berk, and then called you one?

              Why a coward?
              Because I choose to post under a screen name?
              There are lots of reasons for doing that, apart from anonymity.

              I can assure you berk, there is not a regular reader here, neither fellow traveler nor troll, who does not know my real name, where I live (suburb), my past works, or my current hopes, plans and tribulations.

              The fact that you are one of the very few who doesn’t merely establishes you as a drive-by troll, who never sticks around long enough to actually debate any of the garbage you post.

              40

        • #
          Safetyguy66

          There is also a very strong correlation between rising temperatures in the same time period and subscriptions to pay television. Temperature rises have basically moved in lockstep with the rise in pay television subscriptions, so how do we know its not foxtel causing it?

          10

          • #
            Backslider

            I think you have a very solid point there Safetyguy!

            Pay T.V. leads to millions of people sitting in front of the box, drinking beer and farting.

            All that methane *phew!!*. Yep, very strong correlation there!!

            00

      • #
        Backslider

        Philip Shehan – Did you even LOOK at this so called paper?

        It consists of a bunch of graphs with very little at all in the way of scientific observation, with the exception of:

        There are 3 different satellite geodetic techniques for measuring ice sheet mass imbalance

        (1) Altimetry measures ice sheet volume change

        (2) InSAR measures iceberg calving

        (3) Gravimetry measures changes in Earth mass

        There remains poor agreement between estimates of ice sheet mass balance from 3 techniques

        In other words, they don’t really know at all.

        81

        • #
          MemoryVault

          Philip Shehan – Did you even LOOK at this so called paper?

          Don’t be silly, Backslider.

          Philip is an acolyte of the John Crook Cook Church of Septic Skientology.
          As such, he has no need of anything as complicated as actually reading scientific papers.

          Philip divines wisdom from worshiping at the alter of the Sacred Scrolls of SKS.
          Why on earth would he want or need “science”?

          61

        • #
          Philip Shehan

          http://research.easybib.com/research/index/search?ft=contributor_full&search=%20%20%22B.%20Philip%20Shehan%22&medium=all_sources

          And very few people share my name as Shean with one E is a very unusual spelling.

          As you may gather I not only know how to read a scientific paper I know how to write one.

          I did not read the full paper as it is paywalled.

          And you cannot read an abstract at all.

          The authors write:
          “We find that there is good agreement between different satellite methods”

          which you translate as

          “There remains poor agreement between estimates of ice sheet mass balance from 3 techniques”

          Delighted to continue this discussion face to face. Name a time and place in the Melbourne metropolitan area. But I doubt someone who is too cowardly to give his real name would have the guts to show.

          13

          • #
            Backslider

            And very few people share my name as Shean with one E is a very unusual spelling.

            Hmmm…. “Shean”? So, you cannot even spell your own name. Now we know for sure it’s fake.

            30

          • #
            Backslider

            I did not read the full paper as it is paywalled.

            LMAO!!!! It took me two seconds to find a copy of the “paper” and only a few minutes to read it (yes, it has that little in it!).

            The fact is Philip that you are just another copy and paste troll from SkS who follows the meme but in fact knows very little and couldn’t be bothered to actually read the stuff they quote.

            As I noted above, the final analysis on that “paper”, in their own words, is:

            There remains poor agreement between estimates of ice sheet mass balance from 3 techniques

            That’s not a translation, its actually from the paper itself. It’s pretty clear what whoever wrote the “abstract” also did not read the “paper”. At least I did.

            50

      • #
        Joe V.

        That’s would appear to be an aggregate -213 +/-132 Gigatonne per year.
        That’s about 8ppm of the 30 000 000 cubic km or so per year, maybe.

        Or 62,500 years at that rate, until its half gone.

        I’ll not hold my breath.

        30

      • #
        Ace

        There IS no loss in Arctic ice, its contracted in places, expandd in others, increased in thickness relative to area and the net volume has INCREASED.

        Now I am NOT looking up and cut-n-pasting the references as sheep-shearing is not my hobby.

        See above, Russia and Northern European countries are all increasing the number, size and variety of ice breakers as a necessary move to maintain the navigability of Arctic littorals.

        There is no net loss of Arctic ice.

        20

  • #
    el gordo

    Antarctica is growing sea ice and the Arctic is now retaining it.

    http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/DMI-Arctic-sea-ice.gif

    Could this be the tipping point into global cooling?

    61

  • #
    pat

    not the “norm”, jo!!!

    7 Aug: ABC: Climate report warns extreme weather events are now the norm
    By North America correspondent Ben Knight, AFP
    The American Meteorological Society has released its annual snapshot of the world’s climate, which concludes disastrous weather events like Hurricane Sandy in the US and droughts and floods in Australia, Africa and South America will become more frequent.
    The report lists a raft of indicators that show a continuously warming planet where ice sheets and glaciers will keep shrinking, and sea and land temperatures will keep rising to record levels.
    Last year was a record-breaking year for the world’s climate, with new extremes for sea levels, temperatures, snow coverage and ice melts.
    Arctic ice levels reached record lows in 2012, and the polar region is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the planet, however on a positive note at the other end of the world, Antarctica’s climate remained relatively stable and sea ice cover reached a record maximum…
    Some 384 scientists from 54 countries contributed to the report, covering all aspects of the planet, from the depths of the oceans to the stratosphere…
    ‘Planet as whole becoming warmer place’
    “The findings are striking,” Kathryn Sullivan, acting administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) told AFP.
    “Our planet as a whole is becoming a warmer place.”
    Michael Mann, a leading US climatologist at Pennsylvania State University who was not involved in the research, added: “It’s hard to read the report and not be led to the conclusion that the task of reducing carbon emissions is now more urgent than ever.”…
    Scientists say the data should be of concern to people living in coastal areas and that weather patterns from the past can no longer be used to predict the future.
    The peer-reviewed report did not go into the causes for the trends but experts said it should serve as a guide for policymakers as they prepare for the effects of rising seas and warming weather on communities and infrastructure…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-07/climate-report-warns-extreme-weather-events-are-now-norm/4869646

    11

    • #
      Speedy

      Evening/Morning All.

      The alarmists are getting predictable. Here’s one we made earlier…

      If the ABC was Relevant Pt 25.
      (The Merchant of Doom.)

      Bryan: Greens Senator Christine Milne, welcome to the program.

      John: Cheers Bryan.

      Bryan: Senator Milne, what is your reaction to the Gillard government’s proposed flood levy?

      John: Disappointed Bryan. Bitterly disappointed.

      Bryan: You mean at a government’s cynical and opportunistic tax grab to prop up a wasteful and popularist agenda?

      John: Quite the opposite Bryan. The Flood Levy is a sorry saga of lost opportunities.

      Bryan: Including the opportunity to trim wasteful government spending and deliver value to the Australian taxpayer?

      John: No Bryan. Delivering value to the Australian taxpayer is not Greens policy.

      Bryan: Pardon?

      John: Delivering value to the Australian taxpayer is not Greens policy.

      Bryan: Why not?

      John: Because delivering value to the Australian taxpayer is almost as bad giving people money Bryan.

      Bryan: What’s wrong with that?

      John: [Exasperated.] Because if you give people money, Bryan, next thing you know, they’ll be spending it – on things!

      Bryan: But don’t people need things?

      John: Allow us to be the judge of that Bryan.

      Bryan: What’s wrong with “things”?

      John: The Environment, Bryan. The Environment. “Things” require other things to make them. And even other things to package, deliver and distribute those things. Whereas government spending is almost always environmentally neutral.

      Bryan: How come? Don’t governments spend money on things as well?

      John: Sometimes Bryan. But we get it right most of the time.

      Bryan: Then what does government spend money on?

      John: Invest, Bryan. Invest. Governments invest. In policies, initiatives, forums, programs, enquiries, reports and commissions. None of which produce any thing.

      Bryan: That’s terribly unproductive.

      John: Thank you Bryan.

      Bryan: ???

      John: But the very last programs that this government should be slashing are the greenhouse initiatives.

      Bryan: Why?

      John: Because it was global warming that caused the floods in the first place Bryan.

      Bryan: So no global warming, no floods?

      John: The floods were caused by global warming.

      Bryan: How? What’s the connection?

      John: Scientists believe that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing significant and harmful warming of the planet. Higher temperatures increase the rate of evaporation. More evaporation means a more humid atmosphere. More humidity means more rainfall. More rainfall means more flooding. QED Bryan.

      Bryan: But doesn’t global warming cause drought? Tim Flannery, the BOM and the CSIRO et al all say so…

      John: And they are absolutely right Bryan. Which is why governments have invested in desalination plants instead of water catchment dams.

      Bryan: So global warming causes both drought and flood?

      John: Yes Bryan. It’s worse than we thought.

      Bryan: How does it do that Senator?

      John: Scientists believe that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing significant and harmful warming of the planet. Higher temperatures increase the rate of evaporation. More evaporation means a drier landscape. A drier landscape means drought. QED Bryan.

      Bryan: So global warming causes both floods and drought?

      John: I’ve already told you so Bryan.

      Bryan: So there’s no chance that the rain can occur during a drought?

      John: Of course not Bryan – it wouldn’t be a drought then, would it?

      Bryan: But what happens when it’s not flooding or droughting Senator?

      John: If man continues to recklessly emit dangerous levels of greenhouse gases, then floods and droughts will become commonplace. And what we now know as “average” climate will be a novel and exciting event. And this novelty will itself generate a fresh hazard.

      Bryan: A fresh hazard?

      John: Yes Bryan. It’s called DNC.

      Bryan: DNC?

      John: Dangerously Normal Climate. Which is a direct result of global warming.

      Bryan: How can normal climate be considered dangerous?

      John: Consider this scenario Bryan. In the course of a perfectly commonplace drought, a dangerously normal shower of rain occurs. Since it’s not a flooding rain, you neglect to dress appropriately. You go outside, get wet, catch a cold, and die. This is typical of the tragedy that could be repeated millions of times each year in the eastern states alone.

      Bryan: That sounds serious.

      John: It is Bryan. Which is why we must take urgent action now.

      Bryan: So what is being done to combat DNC?

      John: Even as we speak, Bryan, top scientists at Our CSIRO are preparing a robust and definitive report, clearly demonstrating the potential for conclusive links that could connect man-made CO2 emissions to Dangerously Normal Climate.

      Bryan: And when did the CSIRO first become aware of this new and deadly threat to our very existence?

      John: Just as soon as I tell them Bryan. Lend us a phone?

      Cheers,

      Speedy

      60

  • #
    pat

    ***70 percent??? WATCH YOUR SUPER…

    6 Aug: Bloomberg: Andrea Vittorio: Investors See Climate Change as Risk That Influences Decisions: Report
    About 81 percent of asset owners and 68 percent of asset managers said they view climate change as a material risk across their entire investment portfolio in the third annual Global Investor Survey on Climate Change…
    The report, based on survey responses from 84 investors representing more than $14 trillion in assets, was released by the Global Investor Coalition on Climate Change. Members of the coalition include the European Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, the North American Investor Network on Climate Risk, the Australia/New Zealand Investor Group on Climate Change, and the Asia Investor Group on Climate Change…
    ***About 70 percent of asset owners and 60 percent of asset managers reported low-carbon investments, such as renewables, according to the report…
    The report said the majority of public policy engagements continues to come from the Global Investor Coalition on Climate Change, which represents the international investment community to policymaking bodies such as the Group of 20 governments and the World Economic Forum.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-06/investors-see-climate-change-as-risk-that-influences-decisions-report.html

    00

  • #
    pat

    lengthy, worth reading all. goldman sachs of course wants coal out to make way for “carbon trading”. but coal is still king:

    7 Aug: Bloomberg: Mark Drajem: Coal at Risk as Global Lenders Drop Financing on Climate
    The world’s richest nations, moving to combat global warming, are cutting government support for new coal-burning power plants in developing countries, dealing a blow to the world’s dominant source of electricity…
    While the pull back is unlikely to have a direct impact on China, the world’s top user of coal, it could curb construction of new plants in countries such as South Africa and Vietnam and dampen new export markets for coal mined in the U.S., Indonesia or Australia by companies such as Peabody Energy Corp. (BTU) and Alpha Natural Resources Inc. (ANR)
    “We’ve never seen a cascading sentiment that coal is not acceptable like we’re seeing happen right now,” Justin Guay, the head of the Sierra Club’s international climate program, said in an interview. “It’s a snowball running downhill.”…
    Supporters of the fuel source say it’s a low-cost way for poor nations to provide light, refrigeration and air conditioning to their people…
    The move by lenders against coal turns “our backs on millions without electricity and chooses not to help them achieve a better standard of living,” said Nancy Gravatt, a spokeswoman for the National Mining Association in Washington, which represents producers such as Alpha and Arch Coal Inc. (ACI)…
    Gregory Boyce, chief executive officer of Peabody, the largest U.S. coal producer, noted that German and Japanese coal use is climbing as they cut nuclear-power generation…
    “China and India imports have risen year-to-date and are on a pace to increase 15 percent this year to new record levels as the trends to urbanize, industrialize and electrify continue,” Boyce said in a conference call with analysts on July 23.
    Goldman Sachs Group Inc. offers a less buoyant outlook…
    Coal is now used to generate 40 percent of the world’s electricity, and its use has grown more than 50 percent in the past decade, according to EIA…
    1,200 Plants
    According to an analysis by the World Resources Institute in Washington, 1,200 coal-fired plants are proposed globally, with more than three-quarters of those planned for India and China alone. If all are built, which WRI says is unlikely, that would add more than 80 percent to existing capacity.
    China can finance its projects on its own, and India has only relied on export financing in a few cases. As a result, the recent changes are likely to impact other nations in Africa and Asia, which don’t have the same access to credit. Each group said in some instances it would still finance coal, and activists are worried about those exceptions…
    There’s also the possibility that other lenders, especially export-credit agencies from Japan or China, could step in and replace the World Bank, U.S. and Europe. Japan’s Bank for International Cooperation, its export financing body, has provided more than $10 billion in financing for overseas coal projects, more than any other individual nation, according to the WRI report.
    And now China, which wants to export coal-plant technology, may ramp up support as well, said Ailun Yang, the author of the WRI report…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-05/coal-at-risk-as-global-lenders-drop-financing-on-climate.html

    20

  • #
    ExWarmist

    Me – I’m just waiting for Sanity to show up and ruin the CAGW party.

    30

  • #
    pat

    ExWarmist -

    sanity? why are some of these people being locked up for being totally insane?

    6 Aug: UK Telegraph: Peter Dominiczak: Lib Dems: ban petrol and diesel cars from UK roads by 2040
    The Liberal Democrats want to ban millions of ordinary cars from Britain’s roads
    Nick Clegg’s party has unveiled proposals to only allow ultra-low carbon vehicles on UK roads by 2040.
    The controversial measures would mean millions of petrol and diesel cars being forbidden.
    Only electric vehicles and ultra-efficient hybrid cars would be allowed on UK roads under the Lib Dem plans.
    However, petrol and diesel vehicles would still be allowed for freight purposes.
    The plans will be voted on by members at the upcoming Lib Dem conference in Glasgow and could become party policy if approved…
    The Lib Dems also want to replace air passenger duty with a “per-plane duty, charged in proportion to the carbon emissions created by that journey”.
    As part of the party’s plans to create a “zero-carbon” Britain, the Lib Dems could also embrace ***nuclear power and shale gas exploration…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/10224801/Lib-Dems-ban-petrol-and-diesel-cars-from-UK-roads-by-2040.html

    ***when will the Greens realise thay’ve been taken for a nuclear ride?

    20

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Pat:
      The Lib Dems also want to replace air passenger duty with a “per-plane duty, charged in proportion to the carbon emissions created by that journey”.

      Well, that stuffs up those 12-14,000 people going on junkets to the Climate Conferences. I bet they put in a loophole.

      00

  • #
    Michael

    “The sea-ice albedo effect is an important contributor to the amplification of projected warming at high latitudes.”

    This is just one of those non events into a mountain tricks.
    Firstly It is winter in Antarctica, you don’t get a lot of albedo effect in Antarctica in winter. What they were talking about is the loss of albedo in the Arctic where the minimum sea ice extent in SUMMER has fallen over 50%
    http://nsidc.org/icelights/files/2013/07/Arctic_baseline_plot-300×191.jpg

    In contrast the Antarctica is a mere 7% different and was never expected to be melting yet, considering how cold it is. They are 2 vastly different situations. Look in the IPCC weather document and you see Antarctica not shifting until about 2050. Polar amplification is alive and well and was referring to the ARCTIC where conditions are different.
    1. The Arctic is ice surrounded by land, land warms faster than ocean.
    2. Antarctica is land based ice surrounded by water, water takes a long time to warm.
    3. The Arctic is melting considerably faster than expected
    4. Antarctica is melting faster than expected (ice volume) as is glaciers and greenland.
    5. Antarctica is melting form underneath with its ice sheets being destabilised due to the warmer oceans, especially in West Antarctica, one of the fastest warming places on earth.

    Therefore the problems with the cryosphere are worse than expected, in marked contrast to the impression this post was trying to convey. Another attempt at science by graph without any science or context, just like the cherry picked temperature argument.

    012

    • #
      Peter C

      Miachael,
      Where have you been? Post 401!

      30

    • #
      MemoryVault

      1. The Arctic is ice surrounded by land, land warms faster than ocean.

      1. The Arctic is ice surrounded by land, land warms and cools faster than ocean. In fact, overnight the land LOSES all the heat it accumulates in the day, more or less making it neutral in the grander scheme of things.

      2. Antarctica is land based ice surrounded by water, water takes a long time to warm.

      2. Antarctica is land based ice surrounded by water, water takes a long time to warm and a long time to cool down. Which is why/how the oceans act as a buffer to both warming and cooling, a fact denied by the climatstroligists when it was warming, but now enlisted as an “explanation” now that it is not warming.

      3. The Arctic is melting considerably faster than expected

      3. The Arctic is was melting considerably faster slower than expected predicted. And now it is slowing even further. Various theories have been put forward, each more ludicrous the the previous, but that’s “climate science”.

      4. Antarctica is melting faster than expected (ice volume) as is glaciers and greenland.

      4. Antarctica is was allegedly melting faster than expected (ice volume) as is glaciers and greenland, but the paper claiming this was rebutted a couple of months after it was put out, and so it has now been withdrawn.

      5. Antarctica is melting form underneath with its ice sheets being destabilised due to the warmer oceans, especially in West Antarctica, one of the fastest warming places on earth.

      5. The sea ice off the coast of Antarctica is melting form underneath with its ice sheets being destabilised due to the warmer oceans, probably caused by the belt of underwater volcanoes recently discovered there especially in West Antarctica, one of the fastest warming places on earth, according to the rebutted paper mentioned in (4) above.

      .
      There, Michael. Fixed and translated for the unwary. No, don’t thank me, just send money.

      100

      • #
        Michael

        In fact, overnight the land LOSES all the heat it accumulates

        Well this is both the main point and is not entirely true. Studies of bore holes have found that the land is heating up over time. But by warming so quickly and then releasing all that energy as infra red is what drives the greenhouse effect heating up the atmosphere around it.

        water takes a long time to warm and a long time to cool down. Which is why/how the oceans act as a buffer to both warming and cooling, a fact denied by the climatstroligists

        Well the problem being is that the water can and does take the energy in to the lower depths. This will still drive sea level expansion and means that depending on the cycle it will come back to haunt us in several ways. One ocean cycles mean the energy can come back to the top and it will also slow down in absorbing CO2, another way in which it is helping out. Never denied by climate scientists, it is just known as a double edged sword.

        The Arctic is was melting considerably faster slower than expected predicted

        What? Your graph is upside down!!! From the latest NOAA report for 2012…
        “Arctic sea ice minimum extent (1.32 million square miles, September 16) was the lowest of the satellite era. This is 18 percent lower than the previous record low extent of 1.61 million square miles that occurred in 2007 and 54 percent lower than the record high minimum ice extent of 2.90 million square miles that occurred in 1980. “http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2013/20130806_stateoftheclimate.html

        probably caused by the belt of underwater volcanoes recently discovered there especially in West Antarctica

        probably? opinions are not science.
        “The record reveals a linear increase in annual temperature between 1958 and 2010 by 2.4±1.2 °C, establishing central West Antarctica as one of the fastest-warming regions globally. We confirm previous reports of West Antarctic warming, in annual average and in austral spring and winter, but find substantially larger temperature increases.” http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1671.html

        “We find that there is good agreement between different satellite methods—especially in Greenland and West Antarctica—and that combining satellite data sets leads to greater certainty. Between 1992 and 2011, the ice sheets of Greenland, East Antarctica, West Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by –142 ± 49, +14 ± 43, –65 ± 26, and –20 ± 14 gigatonnes year−1, respectively. Since 1992, the polar ice sheets have contributed, on average, 0.59 ± 0.20 millimeter year−1 to the rate of global sea-level rise.”
        http://m.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183

        “In spite of warmer air, the climate of rest of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet remains colder than the Peninsula, so the rise in temperatures has not led to much summertime melting. There, the main culprit is warmer ocean currents. New ocean circulation patterns are bringing much warmer water to the ice edges along the coast. This is rapidly thinning the thickest glaciers at their base, and causing them to speed up. Consequently, glaciers in West Antarctica are also losing ice, in much larger amounts than glaciers along the Peninsula.”
        http://nsidc.org/icelights/2012/11/14/arctic-melt-versus-antarctic-freeze-is-antarctica-warming-or-not/

        06

        • #
          Backslider

          We find that there is good agreement between different satellite methods—especially in Greenland and West Antarctica—and that combining satellite data sets leads to greater certainty.

          The paper which you link to, as did Philip Sheehan says exactly this:

          There are 3 different satellite geodetic techniques for measuring ice sheet mass imbalance

          (1) Altimetry measures ice sheet volume change

          (2) InSAR measures iceberg calving

          (3) Gravimetry measures changes in Earth mass

          There remains poor agreement between estimates of ice sheet mass balance from 3 techniques

          How funny that you can say exactly the opposite…..

          70

        • #
          Backslider

          Are you aware Michael that estimates of so called “melting of ice sheets” includes glaciers calving? Have you considered at all just how ridiculous that is? It assumes that when “things were good” that glaciers did not calve.

          Please show to us all the temperature data for where you purport that ice sheets are “melting”. Some nice photos of all that meltwater running into the ocean would also be good.

          30

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Hello again.  :|

      >3. The Arctic is melting considerably faster than expected

      So you’re in favour of repealing the prices on CO2 then? Because the price is based on mitigating scary predictions, their scary predictions are based only on computer models, the models are programmed according to the scientist’s expectations, and you’ve just told us their expectations are not accurate to the reality.
      We could just pack up and go home now, but there’s more.

      >4. Antarctica is melting faster than expected (ice volume)

      [Citation needed.]
      Halley station is near the coast and daily high temperatures are rarely above zero. Casey station is right on the coast and average highs are above zero in just two months of the year. Anywhere further south is colder. Only on the tip of the thin peninsula, where average highs are over zero for 4 months of the year, can you get ice melting with any regularity.
      The dry valleys of Antarctica have had a long term cooling trend whilst at the same time permafrost has been melted on occasions. Presumably we should take note of the long term trend of COOLING and not get too alarmed about a few warm days of 3°C.

      Besides, according to ICESAT and Zwally “During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gt/yr (2.5% of input), as derived from ICESat laser measurements of elevation change.”

      Crucially, an increase in ice melt is only a sign of increasing temperature which could come from ANY cause, man-made or natural. The climate changes all the time.

      50

      • #
        Michael

        So you’re in favour of repealing the prices on CO2 then? Because the price is based on mitigating scary predictions, their scary predictions are based only on computer models, the models are programmed according to the scientist’s expectations, and you’ve just told us their expectations are not accurate to the reality.

        Only you guys base AGW on models. Models are merely projections of certain scenarios to help us prepare and mitigate and adapt. The science is based on the physics, experiments, data and observations. It is a climate with many forcings upon it both natural and anthropogenic. Nobody (accept you guys) expect to be able to predict anything precisely. The fingerprints of AGW plus the broad predictions are all occurring, that most of them are worse than expected is extremely worrying.
        * Atmospheric warming, yep
        * first decade of the 21st century hottest on the instrumental record on EVERY continent
        * Ocean warming, yep
        * Sea levels rising, yep
        * Arctic melting faster than everywhere else (and still melting, record reached last year), yep
        * Globally ice volume falling, yep
        * Acidification in oceans increasing, yep
        * Extreme weather increasing, yep
        * day heat records beat cold records 3 to 1 and increasing
        * night heat records beat cold records 5 to 1
        * Observations show increased extreme precipitation by 7% for every degree increase in temps
        * Increase in storm surges, and some research is showing an increase in hurricane intensity

        08

        • #
          Heywood

          Mods – How long can this idiot get away with constant repetition of this post. Jo even warned Michael here

          ” Links to articles with lists of changes which could be due to any form of warming are also pointless. We are way beyond this. Haven’t we already gone through this circle before, are you a different “Michael” using the same email address, or are you just repeating a meme hoping to wear out the patience of the audience, and draw out angry replies??”

          50

          • #
            Michael

            Wow that is pretty low is it not? Scared of honest debate? Considering that most of the arguments are related to a so called pause in warming, then proof of warming seems to be entirely relevant. If I am not allowed to point to the consequences of warming, of which there are no scientifically accepted natural factors to account for this warming accept anthropogenic, then it would seem only fair that people saying it hasn’t warmed (and even arguments of cooling) should be similarly banned.

            [There is a difference between "honest debate" and what you indulge in here, which is not honest, and does not allow any contrary opinion. In future, argue your point using logic, and polite rhetoric, whilst acknowledging the value of counter opinions, and you can continue to comment here. Failure to do those things will get you banned. -Fly]

            14

            • #

              You’re calling for US to be banned.

              Are you off ya rocker?

              Tell ya what Michael. Go start your own blog instead of polluting Joanne’s.

              You get a far better run here than any of us get at the warmist religion blogs. At least your comments get posted here, lies and all!

              Tony.

              20

              • #
                Michael

                You’re calling for US to be banned.

                Not at all, I was asking for consistency. I have many arguments with posters on things like whether it is warming at all, or even cooling, whether the carbon cycle exists, whether the greenhouse theory exists, whether the increase in CO2 is from humans, etc etc. I only respond with arguments towards those posts, it would be unfair to restrict mine in that context.

                I agree that I get a fairer run here than in most skeptic blogs and facebook pages (I am normally blocked the minute I post science), so I do think that things are very fair here. I try to do the right thing by not calling people deniers and trying to restrain myself from any personal attacks or anything of that nature (though I am subjected to plenty). There is a vast range of opinions here and I try to respond to posts with arguments that match. I find that is a big part of the problem, the science side is fairly consistent and everybody is on the same page, where skeptics are all over the place and just rejecting a lot of stuff for the sake of rejecting it. So no I am not advocating for anybody to be banned. I am quite happy to accept the abuse while being allowed to put forward my arguments, I realise I am the ‘other side’ here.

                13

            • #
              Heywood

              “Scared of honest debate?”

              No. Just sick of the same posts cut and paste into each topic ad nauseum. It is not much different to BA4 repeatedly linking his YouTube videos under each subject.

              As for honest debate, it really doesn’t matter what we say. If it somehow disagrees with your ‘bias’, it is conveniently ignored, a strawman argument is returned, whatever we link to isn’t the right format and/or you ‘don’t have time’ to address the points.

              You really are an arrogant annoying d[snip]d.

              42

            • #
              Backslider

              there are no scientifically accepted natural factors to account for this warming accept anthropogenic

              False.

              You maintain that the warming since The Industrial Revolution is caused entirely by anthropogenic GHGs. I have asked you repeatedly to provide the scientific proof for that, but you have not.

              It is you who denies natural factors.

              What is happening with the sun right now Michael?

              Do you realise that you quoted a so called “abstract” the other day (in this thread) which was completely at odds with what the paper itself had to say?

              What is the justification for measuring ice berg calving to pump up the numbers for ice loss?

              Again, I could go on all day.

              30

        • #
          Carbon500

          Michael: Regarding ‘acidification of the oceans’ – according to the IPCC in ‘Climate Change 2007 – the Physical Science Basis’ (p405), the mean pH of surface waters ranges between 7.9 and 8.3 in the open ocean.
          Given this, can you give me references for any research papers that present observations or experimental data in support of the view that humans are altering ocean pH?
          I ask this because on the same IPCC page cited above is the statement ‘a decrease in surface pH of 0.1 over the global ocean was calculated from the estimated uptake of anthropogenic carbon between 1750 and 1994.’
          Calculated from an estimated uptake!
          I’m interested in seeing a research paper citing actual oceanic pH measurements, and since the pH is variable anyway, I would like to know how the conclusion has been reached that humans have caused permanent changes.

          30

          • #
            Michael

            Sure, i will help you out.
            Graph showing the correlation between rising CO2 in the oceans and rising CO2 in the atmosphere.
            http://pmel.noaa.gov/co2/file/Hawaii+Carbon+Dioxide+Time-Series

            “This pH is probably lower than has been experienced for hundreds of millennia and, critically, at a rate of change probably 100 times greater than at any time over this period.”
            http://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2005/ocean-acidification/

            “The oceans may be acidifying faster today than they did in the last 300 million years, according to scientists”
            http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=123324&org=NSF

            “Since the industrial revolution, ocean acidity has increased by 30%. Is increased CO2 to blame for this increased acidity?”
            http://serc.carleton.edu/eslabs/carbon/7a.html

            02

            • #
              Carbon500

              Michael: Thank you for the references on ocean acidification. I look forward to reading them over the next day or two, since there is quite a lot here to digest.

              20

            • #
              Carbon500

              Michael: an observation on the NOAA graph showing ‘the correlation between rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere at Mauna Loa with rising CO2 levels in the nearby ocean at Station Aloha.’
              I can’t agree with the way they’ve put a straight line through all the seawater pH data points.
              To me, there is a clear levelling off which begins about 2000 and continues to 2007, where the data finishes (have they updated this?).
              Ditto the pCO2, yet atmospheric CO2 levels continue to rise.

              20

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                What bit don’t you understand? The concept of a trend line? or natural variations? The only thing that is constant in this whole debate is mans emissions of CO2, everything else has multiple factors involved that muddy short term trends. This is basically a feeble excuse to sow doubt

                01

            • #
              Carbon500

              Michael: re. ‘ocean acidification’ – I’ve now looked at the National Science Foundation (NSF) reference you suggested I look at.
              It’s awful, absolute rubbish.
              For example: ‘the oceans act like a sponge to draw down excess carbon dioxide from the air’, and also ‘the gas reacts with seawater to form carbonic acid, which over time is neutralized by fossil carbonate shells on the seafloor.’
              There’s more, but I think this tells me plenty about the NSF. I sincerely hope people don’t read this nonsense and believe it.

              21

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                Again, what but don’t you understand or like? The way they wrote it, or actual science? Just posting some comments without explanation does not translate to those comments or the rest of the article being wrong.

                01

            • #
              Carbon500

              Michael: you might regard statements such as ‘the gas reacts with seawater to form carbonic acid, which over time is neutralized by fossil carbonate shells on the seafloor’ as true and acceptable, but I don’t.

              20

          • #
            Michael

            Some observations

            “One affected species, foraminifera, a sand grain-sized plankton, is responsible for the sequestration of 25 to 50 percent of the carbon the oceans absorb and thus plays a major role in keeping atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations at much lower levels than they would be otherwise. Now scientists have learned that foraminifera (forams) shells are much thinner in oceans made more acidic by the enormous volumes of CO2 released in the burning of fossil fuels.”
            http://www.ipsnews.net/2009/03/climate-change-acid-oceans-altering-marine-life/

            “Until recently, we really didn’t think that having fewer carbonate ions would affect sea creatures for a century or more. Unfortunately, we were wrong.

            Late in 2012, it was reported that one particular sea creature was actually having its shell dissolved by the increasing acidity of the ocean. It’s the pteropod — a free-swimming sea snail that moves about thanks to wings like a butterfly. It lives for two years or longer and grows to have a shell about 1 centimetre in diameter.

            Down in the Antarctic, it is the main sea creature that makes calcium carbonate. In fact, over the whole planet, these sea butterflies account for some 12 per cent of the entire flux of carbonate on our whole planet.”
            http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/12/11/3650065.htm

            03

      • #
        WheresWallace

        You are citing a presentation made by Zwally, not peer-reviewed science. A paper by numerous scientists, including Zwally, found that Antarctica is melting.

        http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183.abstract

        We combined an ensemble of satellite altimetry, interferometry, and gravimetry data sets using common geographical regions, time intervals, and models of surface mass balance and glacial isostatic adjustment to estimate the mass balance of Earth’s polar ice sheets. We find that there is good agreement between different satellite methods—especially in Greenland and West Antarctica—and that combining satellite data sets leads to greater certainty. Between 1992 and 2011, the ice sheets of Greenland, East Antarctica, West Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by –142 ± 49, +14 ± 43, –65 ± 26, and –20 ± 14 gigatonnes year−1, respectively. Since 1992, the polar ice sheets have contributed, on average, 0.59 ± 0.20 millimeter year−1 to the rate of global sea-level rise.

        01

  • #
    pat

    5 Aug: Denver Post: Mark Jaffe: Arizona solar battle, a glimpse of things to come in Colorado?
    Across the country utilities are questioning the cost of incentives for rooftop solar. Xcel Energy has just raised the issue in Colorado, but the battle is already in full-swing in Arizona.
    The argument that utilities are making is that the incentives and credits homeowners receive — particularly net metering which gives a credit for every kilowatt-hour of electricity a rooftop array puts on the gird — vastly outweigh the benefits to the overall system.
    In a filing to the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, Xcel calculated while homeowners with rooftop solar receive 10.5 cents for every kilowatt-hour they put on the grid (equal of the base rate charged to residential customers) they are only providing 4.6 cents of benefits…
    Arizona Public Service calculates that its solar rooftop customers are getting $16 for every $3 in value they put into the system…
    APS does, however, have a proposal before the Arizona Corporation Commission that would either keep the net metering credit but add a charge for use of the grid or give a credit for solar electricity put on the grid at a reduced rate…
    In California, the state public utilities commission has order an independent study of the costs and benefits of rooftop solar, which is scheduled to be completed this fall…
    http://blogs.denverpost.com/thebalancesheet/2013/08/05/solar/10461/

    29 July: Ryan Randazzo: ArizonaCentral: Costs of rooftop solar out of reach for many in Arizona
    Although every utility customer in the state pays a monthly fee that goes toward offsetting the cost of rooftop solar, generally only those in higher-income brackets can afford the up-front cost, or have the credit to take on a lease…
    Solar customers still use the APS power grid for electricity at night, or when their solar panels are not making enough electricity for all of their appliances to run at once. But because their monthly bills are so low, they pay little of the cost of running the grid, building new transmission lines and paying for other improvements. That cost increasingly is pushed onto non-solar customers who can’t afford solar, can’t pay for the down payment for a leased system, or live in homes too rundown for rooftop panels.
    Rooftop-solar companies contend that it is not wealth that matters, but good credit, with low-income customers qualifying for solar leases so long as their credit is in good shape…
    http://www.azcentral.com/business/consumer/articles/20130726arizona-solar-costs-high.html?nclick_check=1

    00

  • #
    pat

    increasing the GST is being pushed big time yet again. Shepherd was on Sky Business Channel this morning pushing the idea, but so far Rudd & Abbott deny they’ll up the rate. however, business & MSM have been pushing this for months, & it’s turning into the “carbon tax” of the 2013 election. cut spending instead:

    7 Aug: Australian: Damon Kitney/Blair Speedy: ‘Non-volatile’ GST the key, says business
    BUSINESS Council of Australia president Tony Shepherd is urging a “broadening and deepening” of the GST, warning that government revenue is excessively reliant on too many “volatile taxes”, as big business welcomed Tony Abbott’s pledge to cut the company tax rate by 1.5 percentage points at a cost of $5 billion…
    “There is no doubt Australia would be better off in the long term if we have a higher GST, lower company tax and lower income taxes,” said Commonwealth Bank director Andrew Mohl.
    The Coalition has pledged to develop a white paper on tax reform in its first term.
    “Broader tax reform is a conversation we have to start now,” said Asciano chairman and BHP Billiton director Malcolm Broomhead. “The GST has to be part of that debate but cherry picking is dangerous — we need to look at the whole tax system.”…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/election-2013/non-volatile-gst-the-key-says-business/story-fn9qr68y-1226693039743

    7 Aug: Australian: Sally Jackson: Fairfax Media chairman Roger Corbett calls for tax review
    Mr Corbett, who has previously described Australia as an undertaxed nation, said there were “pros and cons” to the question of whether the GST should be broadened…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/fairfax-media-chairman-roger-corbett-calls-for-tax-review/story-e6frg996-1226692967184

    00

    • #
      Michael

      increasing the GST is being pushed big time yet again.

      Considering the high spending policies of the libs and the removal of taxes it would seem upping the gst is the only way they can pay for their non policies. Unless they are going to surprise us and actually release some costings anytime soon.
      No carbon tax or ets money.
      No Mining tax.
      Tax cut for business.
      Expensive rich person parental leave scheme.
      Expensive (and ineffective) direct action policy.
      …and much more.

      08

      • #

        Unless they are going to surprise us and actually release some costings anytime soon.

        Unlike the ALP prior to the 2007 election, releasing their costings on the Friday lunch time the day before the election Saturday.

        Selective hypocrisy ….. yet again, Michael.

        Tony.

        41

        • #

          But will the auditors of the Liberals’ policy costings be required once again to front a disciplinary committee in order to explain why they failed to identify the dodgy figures those costings contained?

          http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australias-most-wasteful-spending-came-in-howard-era-finds-imf-20130110-2cj38.html

          AUSTRALIA’S most needless wasteful spending took place under the John Howard-led Coalition government rather than under the Whitlam, Rudd or Gillard Labor governments, a study has found.

          The International Monetary Fund study bills itself as the first to examine 200 years of government financial records across 55 leading economies.

          It identifies only two periods of Australian “fiscal profligacy” in recent years, both during Mr Howard’s term in office – in 2003 at the start of the mining boom and during his final years in office between 2005 and 2007.

          Makes a mockery of the rusted-on Liberal supporters’ anti-evidencial beliefs about the Liberals’ supposed financial responsibility, really.

          16

          • #
            llew Jones

            Nothing wrong with a government spending if and only if its actual revenue exceeds its spending.

            In Howard’s situation his government was able to return substantial revenue to taxpayers, while at the same time paying off the previous ALP government’s debt and still ending up with surpluses.

            Martin (SMH) is not the brightest button on the block. He confirms the widely held view that economists are about as skilful in interpreting numbers as climate scientists are in their understanding of climate/weather data.

            31

            • #
              Michael

              llew they wasted an opportunity to really put away for a rainy day (that was obviously not as far away as they thought) and to upgrade deteriorating infrastructure, schools, technology etc to set Australia up for the future, by going on a vote buying spending spree. It took Labor to think of the future needs of the country and get us through the GFC at the same time.

              14

          • #
            Safetyguy66

            Having the money to spend is a big part of being able to spend it.

            Oh one sec sorry, I forgot your part of the mindset that says spending it when you don’t have it is a better idea.

            Don’t have to be a math professor to work out which is responsible and which is not.

            Who left a surplus? Who spent that surplus then left a deficit? (this is where you get to blame the GFC because its always someone else’s fault that socialism isn’t working…. aaaaand…… go!)

            20

            • #
              Michael

              So lets see. The libs tell us we are in a budget crisis, right? They also tell us that having a surplus as soon as possible is the main priority.

              So what do they do?
              Get rid of the carbon tax and the mining tax while retaining the compensatory tax cuts.
              Instigate an expensive (and ineffectual) direct action policy.
              Instigate an expensive and unnecessary rich mans parental leave scheme

              Can you spell hypocrite?

              02

  • #
    Brad

    There was a thread on another web site talking about ice melting in the Antarctic and how it causing a huge amount of algae and seaweed to grow around the continent. In the comments when increasing sea ice was brought up, the AGW crowd would say oh contraire, sea ice is growing but land ice is thinning. They used Grace, I think, to prove the point. And then the usual finger pointing and hand waving commenced about who was more anti science than the other. The usual “denier”, “republicans are stupid”, “only we, liberals, want to save “or care about the planet” and so on and so forth. Quite redundant.

    20

    • #
      Michael

      Well the science does say that overall ice volume is falling. The Antarctica rise is only about 7% compared to Arctics fall of 54%. Antarrctica is still within the natural variability range, Arctic is not. There are also reasons due to changes in climate. Links below.

      06

  • #

    [...] ice extent recently hit a high record at 900,000 square km above the [...]

    00

  • #
  • #
    RoHa

    A professor of Oceanography, no less, was being interviewed on TV last night. I caught part of it. To my surprise, the interviewer asked about the “pause” in Global Warming.

    Prof: “Only seems that way because 1998 was exceptionally hot. Trend is still going up, though slowly at the moment.”

    RoHa’s secret thoughts: “But Jones said that the stasis began in 1995, and Monckton tells us that the trend has been slightly down since 2000. How can this be?”

    The interviewer asked about Antarctic ice.

    Prof: Something to the effect that the ice cap was melting and the run-off was freezing in the water, so the sea ice was spreading because of Global Warming. (This may not be what he actually said. Family conversations and cat jumping on me made it difficult to follow.)

    RoHa’s secret thoughts: (After cat has been stroked and played with.) “But if the air above the sea is cold enough to freeze the run-off, surely the air above the land would be colder, since it is both higher and farther South. So the ice cap wouldn’t melt and there wouldn’t be any run off.”

    Can any of you people in receipt of fat cheques from Deutsche Bank, UBS, Morgan Stanley, CBA, Citi, HSBC, Macquarie, etc., tell me why I am wrong?

    Alternatively, can those in receipt of fat cheques from Exxon and the Koch Brothers assure me that my doubts are justified?

    10

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      For checking claims as basic as those you can check them yourself. There’s not much wiggle room for opinion on recent SST3 (sea surface temperature) and UAH (satellite) data. (It’s the land record in GISTEMP and CRUTEM that worries us.)
      This should help you get started.
      The definition of climate is a 30 year average (or 30 year trend), so technically the climate is still warming because we haven’t had 30 years of stasis yet. About 17 years of no “significant” warming will be enough to disprove the IPCC TAR models completely, so there’s still 4 years to go before it is indisputable.

      20

      • #
        Michael

        You have to know somebody has something to hide and is trying to decieve when you see a range of graphs like that with specific dates. 1990 or 1995? Cherry picking games galore, science by graph, out of context and science absent.

        So lets tell the truth here. It is a natural system with many natural fluctuations, The long term record contains ups and down and pauses of various ranges. But the trend is obviously up. The 2001 – 2010 decade was the hottest on the record globally ON EVERY CONTINENT, on both hemispheres and for the ocean and the land. 2011 and 2012 were the hottest la nina affected years on record. Other measurements show that the ocean to 2000m has been accumulating heat, the Arctic is in a death spiral having lost over 50% of its surface ice since the 70′s and greenland last year had nearly 100% surface melt. Species in NH have been moving northward and up, sea levels are rising, oceans are acidifying, droughts and floods are on the rise and with higher intensities, heat records are beating cold records over 3 to 1 etc etc. Seriously look at the science, and the data and the observations with a truly skeptical mind rather than looking for ways to confirm your bias.

        http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

        “A decade is the minimum possible timeframe for meaningful assessments of climate change,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “WMO’s report shows that global warming was significant from 1971 to 2010 and that the decadal rate of increase between 1991-2000 and 2001-2010 was unprecedented. Rising concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are changing our climate, with far reaching implications for our environment and our oceans, which are absorbing both carbon dioxide and heat.”
        “Natural climate variability, caused in part by interactions between our atmosphere and oceans – as evidenced by El Niño and La Niña events – means that some years are cooler than others. On an annual basis, the global temperature curve is not a smooth one. On a long-term basis the underlying trend is clearly in an upward direction, more so in recent times” said Mr Jarraud.
        http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html

        Latest NOAA state of the climate report
        http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/state-climate-2012-highlights
        ““Many of the events that made 2012 such an interesting year are part of the long-term trends we see in a changing and varying climate—carbon levels are climbing, sea levels are rising, Arctic sea ice is melting, and our planet as a whole is becoming a warmer place,” said acting NOAA Administrator Kathryn D. Sullivan, Ph.D. “This annual report is well-researched, well-respected, and well-used; it is a superb example of the timely, actionable climate information that people need from NOAA to help prepare for extremes in our ever-changing environment.”"

        07

        • #
          Heywood

          AAD, are you a broken record or what. Everyone here acknowledges that it has warmed but you are still spamming us with the same links. You do know that nobody cares what you have to say don’t you??

          50

          • #
            Michael

            Read the post above. The science is the same, there just seems to be a lot of people not getting it.

            05

            • #
              Heywood

              ” there just seems to be a lot of people not getting it.”

              And why do you think it’s up to you to ram it down their throats? Who do you think you are?

              “Read the post above”

              I assume you are talking about Andrew McRae’s post. There is nothing he said in that post which denies that it has warmed over the last century. In fact he even says “so technically the climate is still warming”.

              40

              • #
                Michael

                Andrew said “The definition of climate is a 30 year average (or 30 year trend), so technically the climate is still warming because we haven’t had 30 years of stasis yet. About 17 years of no “significant” warming will be enough to disprove the IPCC TAR models completely, so there’s still 4 years to go before it is indisputable.”

                So basically he says that it is technically warming but he does not really believe it. I used logic and reason to prove that it is still warming, no technical about it. As a member of the human race I think I have every right to correct people who are encouraging delay and inaction that will, and is already, cause people to suffer unnecessarily.

                04

              • #
                Heywood

                “but he does not really believe it”

                What are you a mind reader?? Think you know what he believes? Typical arrogance from AAD.

                He even mentions significance, just like your pal Phil Jones,

                “BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

                Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level.”

                Funnily, UK MET have a different figure, albiet for slightly different years.

                “The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period”

                I know what you want to say. Yeah yeah cherry picking blah blah. Don’t bother. Phil Jones is happy to acknowledge basically the same as what Andrew said, but you won’t. How unusual.

                “As a member of the human race I think I have every right to correct people”

                Only one of such arrogance would believe that.

                30

              • #
                Michael

                What he said in full, and completely consistent with what I was saying.

                BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

                Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

                BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

                Phil Jones: I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

                04

              • #
                Heywood

                NOBODY IS DENYING THAT IT HAS WARMED [SNIP]!

                Get it through your thick activist skull!

                30

              • #
                Heywood

                “What he said in full, and completely consistent with what I was saying. “

                So you acknowledge that there has been a period of non statistically significant warming (about 14-17 years)??

                This is also consistent with what Andrew was saying above.

                Funny, you denied it in an earlier thread. Called it cherry picking and had a laugh at those who showed it in a graph. Hypocrite.

                40

              • #
                Michael

                Funny, you denied it in an earlier thread.

                Not that I am aware off.
                Please reread my posts, you are misunderstanding them.

                Andrew said “The definition of climate is a 30 year average (or 30 year trend), so technically the climate is still warming because we haven’t had 30 years of stasis yet. About 17 years of no “significant” warming will be enough to disprove the IPCC TAR models completely, so there’s still 4 years to go before it is indisputable.”

                Seriously do you read Andrew statement as he believes it is still warming? or that he is waiting for any excuse to say that it is not occurring. In contrast Phil said that 100% it has warmed, is caused by humans but that on short time scales the trend is not at the 95% significance level. This is the problem with the arguments here, rather than look at the broad science, the data and the observations in the context of a large planetary system with natural factors, you guys look for any technical excuse or minor issue to deny that it is occurring.

                02

              • #
                Backslider

                This is the problem with the arguments here, rather than look at the broad science, the data and the observations in the context of a large planetary system with natural factors, you guys look for any technical excuse or minor issue to deny that it is occurring.

                I am glad that you have finally realized your own problem Michael.

                Things to consider:

                Nobody here denies there has been warming since the 19th century.

                We look at the the data and the observations in the context of a large planetary system with natural factors.

                We do not acknowledge the unproven claim that the warming in not mostly natural and is caused by the trace gas CO2. We await the science to show that, however it is not forthcoming from warmists.

                We see warmists jumping up and down screaming death and destruction over every single fluctuation in climate, while they do not recognize that our climate has had numerous warming and cooling trends in the past, with periods warmer than today which did not result in death and destruction.

                We are appalled that warmists must stoop to deny things such as the MWP and LIA because they do not fit with the warmist meme.

                We find it curious that warmists must ignore things like the cooling trend between 1935 and 1975 and the current cooling trend since 1998, instead all the time jumping up and down screaming “We are gonna fry, we are gonna fry!!!” and showing us bullshit graphs that only point up.

                We find it unacceptable that warmists ignore, for the most part, what the sun is doing.

                I could go on all day, but essentially, you simply do not comprehend the very basics.

                40

              • #

                Backslider seems to be saying the theory of greenhouse gases is not true.

                He also claims there is a “cooling trend since 1998″.

                Both of these things reveal that he does not understand either physics, nor real-world observations.

                24

              • #
                Backslider

                Backslider seems to be saying

                Listen Maggot, you pathetic little troll, you demonstrate only a miserable lack of comprehension.

                He also claims there is a “cooling trend since 1998″.

                So, you also are in denial of the “real-world observations”.

                And you people have the gall to call us deniers.

                20

        • #
          Mark D.

          Michael, STOP with the Arctic DEATH SPIRAL BULL CRAP!

          Did you notice the NSIDC just recently changed the Arctic average from 1979/2000 (a cherry pick) to 1981/2010? What do you suppose that does to all your scaremongering Arctic anomaly figures?

          http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2013/07/a-new-average-for-arctic-sea-ice/

          Go hug a polar bear.

          40

          • #
            Michael

            Did you read your own link?
            “June is a transition period for Arctic sea ice as 24-hour daylight reigns, and melt reaches towards the North Pole. Thus it is an appropriate time for NSIDC to transition to a new 30-year baseline period, also called a “climate normal.” The satellite record is now long enough to allow NSIDC to match current National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and World Meteorological Organization (WMO) standard baselines of 1981 to 2010 for weather and climate data. Full details of the changes and the implications for NSIDC sea ice statistics are described in the NSIDC Sea Ice Index.”

            It doesn’t seem to help as the anomalies seem to be reduced a bit now they have moved the baseline. So obviously valid reasons not designed to hide anything. It would only have taken a moment for you to check rather than to promote the impression that something underhand was going on. But I suppose conspiracy beats truth everyday.
            http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/baseline-change.html

            07

            • #
              Mark D.

              Michael, what exactly did you read in my post regarding NSDIC that could be construed as conspiracy, underhanded or “designed to hide anything”?

              I think you are projecting or maybe you know something…..

              40

              • #
                Michael

                Did you notice the NSIDC just recently changed the Arctic average from 1979/2000 (a cherry pick) to 1981/2010? What do you suppose that does to all your scaremongering Arctic anomaly figures?

                Firstly you called it a cherry pick, and then you asked what the change does to the ‘scaremongering Arctic anomaly figures’. Well rather than making veiled excuses you could have read your own link and answered the questions with actual facts.

                03

              • #
                Mark D.

                Michael, you again demonstrate a comprehension problem. You yourself claim that 20 years is a cherry pick based on your own ongoing challenges to Backslider. So I was simply saving you the time. Secondly, it is YOUR scaremongering that the NSIDC change limits. How many times have you posted the Arctic ice graph and in doing so scare people into thinking it’s a “death spiral”? Today, after the change NSIDC made, you can’t be as scary can you.

                Dumbass, I did read the link, and there are no “veiled excuses” except your not comprehending why I posted the link.

                10

    • #
      Michael

      Can any of you people in receipt of fat cheques from Deutsche Bank, UBS, Morgan Stanley, CBA, Citi, HSBC, Macquarie, etc., tell me why I am wrong?

      I am not any of the above but I can point you to some resources.

      “The data make clear that the changes in Arctic and Antarctic sea ice cover are not remotely comparable. While Antarctic sea ice is high, it is barely outside of what would be considered normal based on the 1978-2000 period. Arctic sea ice, on the other hand, is barely half of what it was three decades ago.”
      http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2012/10/slightly-increased-2012-antarctic-sea-ice-levels-no-match-for-arctic-declines/

      Ocean waters melting the undersides of Antarctic ice shelves are responsible for most of the continent’s ice shelf mass loss, a new study by NASA and university researchers has found. “
      http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20130613.html

      “The largest increase has been in autumn when there has been a dipole of significant positive and negative trends in the Ross and Amundsen-Bellingshausen Seas respectively. The autumn increase in the Ross Sea sector is primarily a result of stronger cyclonic atmospheric flow over the Amundsen Sea. “
      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL037524/abstract

      “Here we show that accelerated basal melting of Antarctic ice shelves is likely to have contributed significantly to sea-ice expansion. Specifically, we present observations indicating that melt water from Antarctica’s ice shelves accumulates in a cool and fresh surface layer that shields the surface ocean from the warmer deeper waters that are melting the ice shelves. “
      http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1767.html

      07

      • #
        Backslider

        Michael, you are in denial.

        You deny that there was a cooling trend from 1935 to 1975.

        You deny that there has been a cooling trend since 1998, a trend that is now seeing less decline in Arctic sea ice.

        You deny the extent of Antarctic sea ice, insisting that it’s in meltdown.

        You deny the MWP and LIA.

        This is typical alarmist speak:

        While Antarctic sea ice is high, it is barely outside of what would be considered normal

        True translation: “Antarctic sea ice is at higher than average levels” (there is no such thing as “normal”).

        Why should we listen to anything you have to say when you deny basic facts and call it “cherry picking”, while you cherry pick to your heart’s content?

        41

        • #
          Safetyguy66

          Isnt “normal” whatever it was before humans started breaking wind ?

          I think everyone accepts that the planet was like in like harmony with itself maaaaan before us dirty like industrial, corporaty types with our desires for longer life spans, lower infant mortality rates, less starvation and more education and that kind of capitalist red neck garbage came along.

          All we have to do maaaaan is like stop killing mother earth maaaaan

          10

          • #
            Backslider

            Did you look at the “paper” all three of them are touting?

            Not a scientific paper at all, but rather just a whole bunch of lovely graphs with an admission that they had to fiddle the numbers to get it all to agree with each other.

            NO presentation whatsoever of the methods used or the data for that matter.

            “Oh! Let’s measure icebergs calving to get an estimate of Antarctic ice loss!!”.

            How frerkin’ stupid is that??

            Show me the land ice MELTING boys….

            31

  • #
    RoHa

    O.K. So melting ice-shelves create a layer of cold water between the warm water and the air, so the surface water in contact with the air freezes. The ice spreads. But that means that the ice-shelves are shielded from the warm water by their own melt water, so they will melt very slowly. So there will be only a little bit of melt water, which won’t be enough to shield the surface water from the warm water. So ice won’t form on the surface. But it does. My brain hurts, Brian.

    Has anyone actually produce evidence for this scenario, or is it just an ad-hoc computer model?

    10

    • #
      Backslider

      Has anyone actually produce evidence for this scenario, or is it just an ad-hoc computer model?

      In warmist land you only need to think of something, couch it within “scientific” language and everybody will nod their heads and then gasp “Oh the horror! That nasty evil CO2 pollutant!!!”

      Once it’s published in a pal reviewed journal, all the alarmist army can then take it and wave it around screaming “The science is settled!!! I have peer reviewed proof, so it MUST be correct and you are all wrong!!!”.

      Never mind giving other scientists time to review and test the nonsense. If its “the latest” paper (which follows the meme), the warmists consider it the “most correct”. They simply do not understand the process of scientific papers and review.

      10

  • #
    • #
      Backslider

      We can’t possibly be considering that the numbers for ice decline are taken from cherry picked data.

      It’s not cherry picking when it supports the meme.

      10

    • #
      Mark D.

      Thank you Slimething! The link provides a perfect opportunity to further trash Michael’s “well understood” science.

      10

    • #
      Michael the Realist

      Boy, you guys are so desperate you will try almost anything. Shame on you. Comparing a map from national geographic with a satelite of ice extent is clearly ridiculous. You provide no context on how and on what basis the map was created, what time of year etc.

      Also no context on the satelite picture, what time of year, it talks about May, so May is 4 months away from the normal minimum extent.

      They are not remotely comparable in any way shape or form, basic cherry picking.

      02

  • #

    [...] on a similar U.S. effect anytime soon, but just in case, we offer a climate fact in case it helps: Antarctic ice (it;s winter down there) has expanded by 900,000 square kilometers above its historic average, [...]

    00

  • #
    craig666

    The plant was ice once. Now its been melting for a long time now. So now there is little ice left to melt. So if you get a glass of water and put ice in it, it will slowly melt, but the less ice in the glass. The faster it will melt. Till there is no ice. Its ment melt for changes in the future.co2 makes for rain, The people wont starve. That’s a good thing. But cancer is on the high. I guess we just have to take the good with the bad.

    10

    • #
      Michael the Realist

      Idiot. The planet started as a swirling ball of flames. It has been much hotter for most of the time of the planet, (and much less habitable). It has had several ball of ice moments, where it is theoried to have come out off due to CO2. It has had many large scale extinction events. Over the last several million years it has had cyclic ice ages due to planetary orbital changes. The planet reacts to whatever forcings are put on it, it is not recovering from anything, it does not have a stable natural state that it always wants to come back to. If forcings build up energy it will warm, if forcings make the planet lose net energy it will cool. It is a scientific fact that it is currently building up energy due to increasing greenhouse gases due to mans emissions of previously locked away fossilized CO2.

      Get over it. [Snip] when will people [Snip again. Your response at this point has nothing that relates to the comment you are responding to. When will you learn that you're ideology of flawed science won't pass through unchallenged?] ED

      02

      • #
        Heywood

        Idiot?

        If you can call Craig an idiot, I’ll take that as a free kick to call you a dic&head. So, dic&head, when will YOU realise we don’t give a $hit what your opinion is. Why don’t you lead by example and turn off unnecessary appliances, starting with your computer, right now.

        10

      • #
        Michael the Realist

        Lol, thats nearly as silly as what Craig said. I want a focus on a renewable future, with power coming from renewables. Your actions will send us back to the caves, a sustainable future is the only one that will last.

        Ed, it is sad that you do not accept the science as accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community, that the data and observations are consistent with and is currently tragically affecting Australia due to the hottest 12 months, winter, month day etc contributing to current conditions and consequences. Also sad that you need to censor my responses as you are to scared for your fragile community to make up their own mind with all the facts.

        02

        • #
          Backslider

          I want a focus on a renewable future, with power coming from renewables.

          So tell me Michael. How many solar panels or wind turbines will it take to run a typical aluminium smelter?

          How about this Michael: That you forthwith lead by example and disconnect yourself from the durdy coal power grid, stop driving a car, flying in planes, catching trains, buying your food from anywhere other than a market garden (must be 100% organic), stop using textiles etc. that require either durdy coal generated electricity or filthy petroleum products to produce?

          How about it?

          20

        • #

          Micheal the Realist says here:

          I want a focus on a renewable future, with power coming from renewables.

          This is what Michael believes to be his way of the future.

          For the life of me, I just cannot see how these wind plants get approval for their proposals every time.

          If anything else in any other area was proposed with the same operational capabilities as wind power, it would be laughed out of existence immediately.

          Here in Australia at the moment we have 2660MW of Wind Power. This equates to around 1100 to 1200 or so of those huge towers.

          Now, on average, the fans attached to the nacelles, are stationary (in other words, not moving) for 17 hours out of every 24 hour day, 365 days a year for (hopefully) 25 years but more likely 15 years, and even if still in operation after that 15 years, then they are stationary for even longer periods of time.

          That’s 1100 to 1200 of those towers stationary for 17 hours of every day on average, generating absolutely nothing.

          Design something else that does nothing for up to 70% of the time, and see if you can get approval for that, and yet, wind power gets the tick of approval every time.

          It makes you wonder, and you think someone would surely ask questions about it, eh!

          How about you Michael the Realist. Any observations on this?

          Tony.

          10

          • #
            Gee Aye

            Tony the wind farm proposals don’t have to meet the criteria you suggest for operational capabilities as they are proposed following guidelines for wind farms ie wind power per se is basically pre-approved through legislation and regulations. They just have to show they will be safe and that the land holders are happy to host them.

            02

        • #
          Heywood

          “you are to scared for your fragile community to make up their own mind with all the facts”

          …and of course by ‘making up their own minds’ you mean changing their mind and supporting your particular point of view. Funnily enough, most people here have already made up their own minds, and think you’re just an activist tosser. It really gets under your skin that some people prefer energy security to intermittent and unreliable ‘renewable’ energy sources.

          “I want a focus on a renewable future, with power coming from renewables. Your actions will send us back to the caves, a sustainable future is the only one that will last.”

          More leftard rhetoric from AAD the Activist. I want a focus on not flying around the world to 36 countries in CO2 belching airplanes and then preaching emissions reduction to everyone else.

          00

  • #
    crakar24

    Michael,

    Just out of curiosity what is your definition of renewable? What sources of energy would consider to of a renewable kind eg solar and wind any more?

    10

    • #
      Backslider

      This is the thing. Coal and oil are in fact bio-fuels. This fact cannot be denied.

      10

      • #
        Heywood

        Depends on what you mean by bio-fuels. If you mean in the literal scientific sense, then you are correct. But if you are talking in the new-age, enviromental activist, latte sipping, cafe dwelling, Greens voting, Michael the Activist, BilB, Brookes sense, then it isn’t Bio-fuel at all. ;)

        10

        • #
          Backslider

          But if you are talking in the new-age, enviromental activist, latte sipping, cafe dwelling, Greens voting, Michael the Activist, BilB, Brookes sense, then it isn’t Bio-fuel at all.

          And they call us deniers?……

          30

          • #
            crakar24

            Well if you believe the Russians then oil comes from deep within the earth and is not based on biological sources, if so then it cannot be a bio fuel can it?

            20

    • #
      Michael the Realist

      In essense renewables are ways of producing energy that comes from sources that are self replenishing. Such as solar, wind, wave, geothermal, tides etc.

      All other personal attacks and assumptions of the type of person i am are a typically pathetic and weak way to progress a discussion. As previously discussed I am for the progression of the human species and our way of life and that it is entirely more likely that you people will have us back in caves as the extreme weather continues to accelerate, sea levels continue to rise and the stress on our oceans and crops make sustaining a population of 7 billion plus progressively more difficult.

      fossil fuel from oil, coal, gas etc was fossilised CO2 sequestered away millions of years ago over a process that took millions of years ago that has given us the atmosphere and climate that 7 billion people developed and prospered in. To think that taking the composition of our atmosphere back to where it was millions of years ago over the space of a couple of hundred years would not have consequences is the epitome of destructively simple short term thinking.

      02

  • #
    MemoryVault

    .
    You guys can’t help yourselves, can you?

    The Master Baiter is feeling all lonely and unloved so he pops into a two and half month old thread – as is his wont – drops a smelly little pile of his quasi-religious unscientific mumbo-jumbo cr*p, and you guys are falling over yourselves to go roll in it.

    10

    • #
      Heywood

      G’day MV,

      I never miss an opportunity to remind AAD that he is a dic&head. But you are right, we really shouldn’t be feeding the troll.

      10

      • #
        crakar24

        Yes i must agree Heywood, we all have our jobs to do i see my main role here is belt the crap out of the trolls and run defence whilst the more refined debate the finer points.

        Oh and sometimes i like to throw in a bit of comedy which invariably blows up in my face like a bad trick cigar.

        20

      • #
        MemoryVault

        .
        Debating with trolls is good, healthy, and necessary for the sake of casual readers seeking the truth.

        The Master Baiter, DribbleBladder the 4th, and BilB-o are not trolls.

        The are fanatical religious fruitcakes hell-bent on proselytizing their own warped version of their Green Gospel, which is infallible, immutable, and unchallengeable, having been delivered direct from the bosom of Mother Gaia Herself, by the Al Goracle, unto the Anointed Ones – Jones, Hansen, Mann, Schmidt, Briffa, Flannery et al.

        30

    • #
      Michael the Realist

      The Master Baiter is feeling all lonely and unloved so he pops into a two and half month old thread

      Actually I have been busy being a real skeptic and doing a course at the University of British columbia on climate change science. The one I offered all you guys but nobody was willing to actually be a real skeptic and expand their knowledge. Hence I have hardly been making comments and definately not ticking the subscribe box. But as I was still subscribed to this thread and I got that outrageously ridiculous unscientific, incorrect post from Craig, I could not resist commenting. What can I say, always a teacher and cannot allow ignorance to stand without trying.

      01

  • #
    crakar24

    Whilst i sit and wait for AAD to provide his list

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/record-winter-ice-cover-in-antarctica/story-e6frg6xf-1226745602870

    They have a bob each way and then decide to back the field just in case it runs last.

    11

  • #
    Andrew

    The arrogance of mankind. How can we expect everything on earth to be exactly the same day after day, year after year. We live on a tiny speck of rock with the moon orbiting around us, in a group of planets orbiting around a sun which is travelling at 675,000 km/h through our galaxy.

    Our planet/weather is subject to millions of constantly changing variables both internally and externally. The Earth’s core is still changing. The moon’s orbit around us is never exactly the same. Our orbit around the Sun is never exactly the same. Our path through the universe is never exactly the same. The effects of gravitational pull from other planets and our Sun is always changing. The Sun’s solar storms are constantly bombarding us (enough to knock out our telecommunications). The Earth’s magnetic field “flips” every few thousand years. The Sun’s magnetic field “flips” every few decades and has an influence far beyond Pluto.

    We still don’t truly understand how the universe started or where it is going.

    Yes, humans do have an effect of our planet, but there are an infinite number of forces we don’t know about, and can’t/don’t measure which probably have a greater effect. I put it to you that the history of this earth (in terms of climate change) is an educated guess at best.

    All of this and we expect the temperatures, rainfall, etc for summer this year to be similar to last year, and the year before? How can we say weather is “unseasonal” and becoming more extreme when we’ve only been recording basic information for 2,000 years and more accurate information for the last few hundred years in Earth’s 4.5 billion year lifespan.

    This is right up there with people who build houses right next to the beach, then are surprised when the changing coastline threatens their house.

    The climate is changing. Always has. Always will. Adapt and survive, or don’t and die. Or move.

    30

    • #
      Michael the Realist

      but there are an infinite number of forces we don’t know about, and can’t/don’t measure which probably have a greater effect.

      The height of ignorance. So basically because you cannot accept the basic science which says that increasing a greenhouse gas by 40% over 100 years or so is going to have consequences you are ready to invent a INFINITE number of other things that we don’t know about that has a bigger effect.

      Lol, the height of arrogance is to think that you can do whatever you like, damn the consequences.

      10

      • #
        Heywood

        ———————————————————————————————————-

        20

      • #
        Michael the Realist

        I noticed while watching the BBC news that they showed our illustrious Prime Minister saying that the bushfires had nothing to do with climate change. They finished the segment by saying that most of the world would not agree with him.

        So we have gone in the worlds eyes from a good and honest government that saw us through the global financial crisis and envied our success and our actions on climate change, to a laughing stock of corrupt, secretive and scientifically illiterate leader. What a come down. Maybe somebody should explain to our leader that increasing energy by increasing CO2 is going to warm the planet and give us many more years like the one we have just had, and that will create the conditions for early and record breaking bush fire seasons. Otherwise he should reinstate a minister for science and rehire all those scientists he fired.

        ———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

        04

        • #
          Backslider

          This is typical of you Michael. You sneak in here when you know nobody else is watching and drop one of you moronic thread bombs…. always in an old thread in the hope that you will have the last say.

          You simply do not have the balls to post in the relevant thread and on topic. Your comments have nothing to do with Antarctic sea ice and I hope that a moderator simply removes your post as OFF TOPIC.

          Tony Abbott is 100% correct in saying that the bushfires have nothing to do with climate change. You warmists at one point in history always told us that “weather is not climate” (which is true), yet now in your desperation you all point at anything you can and squark “Climate change” Climate change!!”.

          You are in fact unable to show that the weather in Australia has been anything unusual and cannot possibly establish any link whatsoever between “climate change” and the bushfires. None.

          I am perfectly happy for you warmists to continue squarking as you do. It is funny to watch your desperation. Your rants daily become more and more ridiculous…….. they are good for a giggle and they clearly show to the world the distinct lack of science you all have..

          20

  • #
    Michael the Realist

    You are in fact unable to show that the weather in Australia has been anything unusual

    “Australia’s record for warmest 12-month period has been broken for a second consecutive month. This continues a remarkable sequence of warmer-than-average months for Australia since June 2012. ”
    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/

    Are EVER going to open your eyes? The link between bushfires, floods and droughts and climate change is well established and global climate conditions are unusual. You guys are losing as actual reality is kicking in as the consequences become more and more undeniable, unfortunately I worry that the response is to slow.

    I did not select an old thread to bomb, I got a comment from one of you guys on an old thread and responded to the absolute ignorance displayed. So you have cause and effect totally the wrong way around. As I have actually been skeptical and gone and are doing an actual climate change science course, I have not had time to follow inaccurate science posts. Remember? the course I invited you to but you prefer to stay ignorant. Week 4 was on the carbon cycle, you remember where you were totally confused at how CO2 and carbon work together.

    02

    • #
      Backslider

      Australia’s record for warmest 12-month period….. blah blah blah

      Show us all Michael exactly WHICH days this October have had record temperatures. Which?

      Do you know how “warmest” is measured? I think not.

      Show us all WHAT about the weather this October in Eastern Australia has been in any way extreme.

      10

      • #
        Michael the Realist

        “In the past 12-month period a large number of mean temperature records have fallen across Australia including:

        Australia’s warmest month on record (January)
        Australia’s warmest September on record
        Australia’s largest positive monthly anomaly on record (September)
        Australia’s warmest summer on record (December 2012 to February 2013)
        Australia’s warmest January to September period on record
        Australia’s warmest 12-month period on record (broken twice, for the periods ending August and September)
        Indeed, Australia’s warmest period on record for all periods 1 to 18 months long ending September 2013

        Two significant daily maximum temperature records were also set this year:

        Australia’s hottest summer day on record (7 January)
        Australia’s warmest winter day on record (31 August) ”
        http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/#tabs=Climate-updates

        02

      • #
        Michael the Realist

        Most people discussing the fires have regarded as logical, realistic and common sense that higher mean average temperatures over a long time frame would result in stronger, longer and earlier fires in a bush fire prone area. But hey thats just most people, if you suffer from confirmation bias facts have no place.

        02

        • #
          Backslider

          Michael. You forgot the “It was the warmest October on record!!!!”………. oh wait, it wasn’t.

          The fact is Michael that it is you who suffers from the bias. The weather in Eastern Australia has been nothing remarkable. Just average.

          You also have forgotten one of the key warmist memes:

          WEATHER IS NOT CLIMATE

          I’m sure that you still bleat this whenever we have RECORD COLD…….

          00

        • #
          Backslider

          Michael trusts the BOM’s ACORN data….. *snigger*

          00

  • #
    Mark D.

    The link between bushfires, floods and droughts and climate change is well established and global climate conditions are unusual.

    Add pathological liar to your list of personality traits. NO link except those in your groupthink tweaked warmist ideations.

    I’m not even arguing with you any more, not feeding the troll either. I refuse to let you say this kind of shit unfettered by reality.

    10

    • #
      Michael the Realist

      I will let some facts speak for themselves and leave the name calling to those without evidence.

      “The world experienced unprecedented high-impact climate extremes during the 2001-2010 decade, which was the warmest since the start of modern measurements in 1850 and continued an extended period of pronounced global warming.

      Precipitation and floods: The 2001-2010 decade was the second wettest since 1901. Globally, 2010 was the wettest year since the start of instrumental records.
      Most parts of the globe had above-normal precipitation during the decade. The eastern USA, northern and eastern Canada, and many parts of Europe and central Asia were particularly wet.
      According to the WMO survey, floods were the most frequently experienced extreme events over the course of the decade. Eastern Europe was particularly affected in 2001 and 2005, India in 2005, Africa in 2008, Asia (notably Pakistan, where 2 000 people died and 20 million were affected) in 2010, and Australia, also in 2010.”
      http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html

      Explaining Extreme Events of 2011 from a Climate Perspective
      http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00021.1

      The New Climate Dice: Public Perception of Climate Change
      http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_17/

      “Statistical studies have shown that extremely warm monthly and seasonal temperatures associated with persistent heat waves can now largely be attributed to the observed climatic warming over the last 50 years (Hansen et al 2012, Coumou et al 2013), which has been about 0.5 ° C (Betts et al 2011). In the 1960s summertime extremes of more than three standard deviations warmer than climatology were practically absent, covering less than 1% of the Earth’s land surface. Now such extremely hot seasonal temperatures typically cover about 10% of the land area (Hansen et al 2012). At the same time, the number of record-breaking monthly temperatures increased strongly, in agreement with the increase expected by a shift in the mean towards warmer values (Coumou et al 2013).”
      http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/3/034018/article

      02

      • #
        Mark D.

        Ignoring that you provide no link between co2 and wildfires……..

        The only “Extreme events” are the extremely vacuous extremely propagandistic, extremely biased, extremely cherry picked, extremely adjusted, extremely pal reviewed, extremely regular crap.

        Lay off the laxatives, crap is leaking from every of your orifices.

        00

        • #
          Michael the Realist

          The only “Extreme events” are the extremely vacuous extremely propagandistic, extremely biased, extremely cherry picked, extremely adjusted, extremely pal reviewed, extremely regular crap.

          As usual I provide real science and data from genuine scientific organisations and you provide basic, factless, conspiracy theory arguments. Very poor.

          00

      • #
        Backslider

        The world experienced unprecedented high-impact climate extremes during the 2001-2010 decade

        Which “unprecedented” climate extremes were they? Please list them.

        00

        • #
          Michael the Realist

          Which “unprecedented” climate extremes were they? Please list them.

          The quote came with a link to a full report on the changing state of the climate. You may not be skeptical enough to actually do a course on the science but at least read something every now and again. Total ignorance is not a pretty look.

          00

          • #
            Backslider

            I asked you Michael. If you wish to quote it as authoritative, then I want you to answer to show that you have an understanding of it.

            Now, please list these “unprecedented” climate extremes.

            00

            • #
              Michael the Realist

              Lol, nice try but I don’t relly have the time to spoon feed a tryhard that would never prove their own statements with anything authoritative at all. You still owe me about 5 answers. I suspect you have trouble with big words.

              00

              • #
                Backslider

                Right, so the fact is that you do not know.

                This is a blog for discussion. Clearly you have no point to make, you just like to thread bomb.

                You still owe me about 5 answers.

                What would you like me to answer Michael?

                00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            The quote came with a link to a full report on the changing state of the climate.

            Well actually, it doesn’t. The link takes you to a WTO Media release (Number 976), which carries the caveat:

            For use of the information media
            Not an official record[My emphasis]

            In turn, this “not official record” points to the PDF version of a WTO Report (with the “official” printed version behind a pay-wall), that contains the following further caveat:

            Many of these events and trends can be
            explained by the natural variability of the climate
            system.
            Rising atmospheric concentrations of
            greenhouse gases, however, are also affecting
            the climate. Detecting the respective roles
            being played by climate variability and humaninduced [sic]
            climate change is one of the key
            challenges facing researchers today.

            [Also my emphasis]

            So the weasel words in the report say (1) There is natural variability in the climate, and (2) we notice that CO2 is also going up.

            The author of the report goes to great lengths to avoid definitively stating that the two are causally linked. They are often juxtaposed, as in this example, but nowhere, that I have seen, is there any statement made, that one causes the other.

            10

            • #
              Backslider

              Yes, however when we have exclamations like “unprecedented high-impact climate extremes” then its perfectly worded to suit the warmist meme.

              Michael of course is unable to provide any evidence of “unprecedented” high-impact climate extremes.

              Sure, we have high-impact (the dash makes it more powerful) climate extremes. We have had those since the year dot. It’s the “unprecedented” part which is total hogwash.

              If Michael could name just ONE climate extreme which is unprecedented then I would accept the statement. The fact is that he cannot.

              00

      • #
        Backslider

        The world experienced unprecedented high-impact climate extremes during the 2001-2010 decade

        Well there you have it folks. Typical alarmist diatribe about so called “unprecedented high-impact climate extremes” but not a single shred of evidence to back it up. All we have are references to various weather events of the type that have been happening since the year dot.

        There is absolutely NOTHING unprecedented. Nada.

        When asked to list them, all we hear are crickets chirping……….

        00