Right on time, the David Rose of the Daily Mail has published his annual “Arctic Ice is Growing” article – which we can expect to see every year that the Arctic sea ice does not set a new record low. 2012, of course, was a stunning record low following 30+ years of steady decline in both area and volume of arctic sea ice, and sea ice globally. 2013, and 2014, it appears, will not set new low records – a pattern much like the dead cat bounce we saw after 2007’s crushing record low year.
Last year’s bogus ice post made the rounds of the usual suspects before humiliating errors and omissions were highlighted by the science community. Being caught out in error and misinformation, is, of course, of no consequence to the denialist cadre – once their bogus memes go viral, they’ve done their job, since few of their target audience has the wit or inclination to double check the claims.
The Mail on Sunday reports that Arctic summer ice is on the increase, disproving the “myth of Arctic meltdown”.
But the article, by journalist David Rose, acknowledges a declining trend in summer Arctic sea-ice. And scientists tell us the increase in ice is natural year-to-year variation.
Climate change is warming the Arctic, and scientists think it will make the region ice-free in summer at some point this century – points that despite the hyperbolic headline, the Mail on Sunday notes.
Ice gain or loss?
The Mail article reveals “how melt has slowed over ten years” using the graph below, showing Arctic sea ice extent from 2004 to 2014.
Arctic sea-ice extent 2004-2014. Mail on Sunday
However, taking a longer view shows a different picture. The graph below is from the NSIDC (National Snow and Ice Data Centre) at the University of Colorado, and plots data for the past 60 years.
The pink line shows the average area of Arctic sea-ice each year, compared with the long-term average – what’s called the sea ice ‘anomaly’.
While the amount of ice increases and decreases from year to year, the long term trend is clearly downwards.
Arctic sea-ice anomalies 1953-2013. NSIDC
In 2014, the amount of sea ice remains well below average.
The map (shown below) compares Arctic sea-ice extent from last weekend (30th August 2014) with the 30-year average, shown by the orange line.
Arctic sea-ice extent for 30th August 2014 (white areas) with long-term average (orange line) NSIDC
The latest IPCC report, which offers the most considered scientific view of how the climate is changing, states that “Arctic sea ice summer extent has decreased by between 9.4 to 13.6% per decade.”
The Mail article also suggests that Arctic sea-ice is thickening. It may be the case that the ice is thicker this year than last, but again, looking at more than a couple of years suggests that overall the volume of sea-ice is decreasing.
PIOMAS assessment of Arctic sea ice volume, from modelling based on measurements of the Arctic sea ice. Polar Science Center
In 2012, a mix of unusual causes created conditions where the minimum reached a record low, far below normal. The next year, in 2013, the ice didn’t reach quite so low a minimum extent, and this year looks very much the same as 2013. But saying the ice is “recovering” is, to put it delicately, what comes out the south end of a north-facing bull. You can’t compare two years with a record low the year before that was due to unusual circumstances; you have to look at the average over time.
Of course, if you do, your claims that global warming isn’t real melt away.
The black line is the average for 1981–2010. The gray region shows the ±2 standard deviation extent for that average; statistically speaking it’s an expected range of extent (it’s actually more subtle than that, but that’s enough to understand what’s going on here). The dashed line shows the 2012 ice extent, and is clearly very low, well outside the expected range. The brown line is 2013, and the light green line is this year, 2014, up to late August. Notice 2014 follows the year before pretty closely.
Note also they are well below average, near the bottom of the expected range. If you look at any recent year’s ice it’s below average; you have to go back to 2001 to find an ice extent near the average.
So the claim that the ice is “recovering” is made based on the wrong comparison. Compare the past two years to the overall trend and they fit in pretty well with overall decline.
Also, that “recovery” claim cannot be made with only two data points. Two years is not a trend. There have been many times ice has gone up over a year or two in the Arctic, only to drop once again over the long run.
The Mail on Sunday’ is facing humiliation after two articles published earlier this month which attacked the evidence for climate change were revealed this week to contain embarrassing errors.
The two stories on Arctic sea ice and the forthcoming report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were written by David Rose, who has been assigned by the newspaper’s editor and deputy editor, Geordie Greig and Gerard Greaves, to undermine the science of climate change through a campaign called ‘The Great Green Con’.
But the campaign is now is disarray as the newspaper has been forced to admit that Rose’s Arctic ice story was based on a typographic error, and the other article contained major mistakes and misrepresentations.
On 8 September, ‘The Mail on Sunday’ published an article by Rose on page 13 under the headline ‘Record return of arctic ice cap as top scientists warn of global COOLING’.
The opening paragraph stated: “A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent”.
The story was quickly copied by other newspapers in the UK, such as ‘The Daily Telegraph’ as well as other media abroad. Meanwhile, climate change ‘sceptics’, such as Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation, eagerly reproduced the article on their blogs and websites as evidence that global warming has stopped.
Rose told me by e-mail that the source of his claim that the ice extent was 60 per cent higher this year was an announcement posted on the website of the United States National Snow and Ice Data Center on 4 September: “August 2013 ice extent was 2.38 million square kilometers (919,000 square miles) above the record low August extent in 2012. The monthly trend is –10.6% per decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 average.”
Elsewhere on its website, the NSIDC indicated that the average Arctic sea ice extent in August 2012 was a record low figure of 1.82 million square miles. This should have led Rose to claim that the Arctic sea ice was 50.5 per cent higher last month, but further faulty reasoning led him to conclude the difference was 60 per cent.
However, the NSIDC confirmed to me yesterday that the main figure used by Rose for his article was mistyped and that the mistake was corrected on 10 September, showing that Arctic sea extent in August 2013 was only 29 per cent higher than was recorded for the same month last year.
In an email to me yesterday, Natasha Vizcarra, the media liaison for NSIDC, stated: “When we published the report, it contained a typographical error in the difference between the August 2013 monthly ice extent and the record low August extent in 2012 (and the corresponding square mile conversions). If you subtract the August 2012 extent of 4.72 million square kilometres from the August 2013 extent of 6.09 million square kilometers, you get 1.38 million square kilometers, not 2.38 million square kilometers. Our readers noticed the error and we corrected the typographical error on September 10. There are no plans to make a statement on the change because it was not an error in the data.”
Although Rose obviously did not realise that the NSIDC figures were in error, other parts of his article were deliberately misleading.
For instance, he failed to point out that the August 2013 average sea ice extent was the sixth lowest figure for that month since satellite records began in 1979, and lower than any August before 2007.
And nowhere did he admit that the August 2013 average extent of 2.35 million square miles was almost 15 per cent less than the 30-year average between 1981 and 2010 of 2.75 million square miles, and consistent with the measured rate of decline of more than 10 per cent per decade.
So even allowing for his unfortunate blunder in using a typographic error as the main source for his story, it was completely misleading for Rose to create the impression that the Arctic sea ice extent is at a record high, rather than close to record low levels.
In addition, Rose wrongly implied that annual global average surface temperature shows cooling over the past 15 years. In fact, the Met Office’s data shows that the linear trend between 1997 and 2012 was a warming of 0.05 centigrade degrees per decade. And the trend in global surface temperature does not, in any case, explain why Arctic sea ice extent was lower in August 2012 than last month.
Apparently the writer of this article thinks NOAA is some kind of organization of mental midgets. It happens to be one of the government organizations which keep and publish the ice data. Last year the seasonal low which is measured in September by satellite returned to normal average after several years of being below normal and this year in august it was well above normal average. If you are a reporter and report this fact you are a silly person, if you say the sky is falling and we must clothe ourselves in ashes and stop using carbon you are Gods answer to mankind. Never mind 800000 years of data from the ice core studies, CO2 level changes never caused a climate change, never mind the current Mauna Loa NOAA study since 1959 shows zero correlation between CO2 level changes and climate. Never mind that the giss data set used by IPCC among others shows no climate change in the past 16 years. Never mind a similar hiatus in warming occurred per that same giss data from 1940 to 1980. Never mind the temperature per that same data dropped from 1880 to 1915. Never mind that a recent study of troposphere mid and lower shows no upward trend in temperature for the last 55 years. Never mind that is was hotter in 900-1000 AD than today. Never mind NO
AA data shows the hottest US year on record was 1936, 78 years ago and since 1998 the average US temperature has fallen a bit. and finally, never mind that the little ice age low in about 1625 means we had more ice out there and some of it is still there as we are colder than in 1000 AD.
MB, you are welcome to participate in this forum – but simply reeling off talking points without citation or context won’t get you respect here.
why not cite a source for one of your talking points, – Fox News does not count – and begin a discussion?
Try NOAA, and the ice core studies, you are able to google both, try the 2000 year temperature reconstructions, you can also google them. there are at least two. try the sea sediment studies reconstruction of temperature, there are a whole bunch. If you refuse to actually look up the data then we are not having a discussion, we are in church worshiping the great god of climate change. The only person saying Fox news is you which is a typical response from liberals when the science they refuse to read contradicts the PC line. Take NOAA arctic sea ice data, it is on the NOAA site. The same site has US temperatures and a graft apt which allows you to graft average temperature to date from 1895. If you put in 1998 to 2014 you see a slight temperature drop. The ice data shows your ice extent data is flawed in that it ignores current ice extent which comes from satellite data taken every September per the NOAA site. The NASA site has the giss data set which IPCC uses among others, you can simply put giss in the search box and there it is back to 1880. The hiatus from 1940 to 1980 is very clear even without a bunch of math modeling. The hiatus in the last 16 years , from 1998, is less clear but if you simply draw a straight line horizontally from 1998 to the present you can see the data is averaging out with zero or no increase. If you want the IPCC take, go read the fifth report where they admit the climate has not changed.
There are a number of medications that can help alleviate “tenseness” and “unwrap” those like Mobee who are wrapped way too tightly around the axle of denialism. If the meds fail, there’s always electroshock and lobotomy.
Loading...
A bit of Dunning-Kruger going on here? If you have such fantastic proof that every scientific organ of significance is wrong, why don’t you write a paper about it and get it peer-reviewed?
LOL The Denier Trolls like Mobeeleven have a different definition of “publishing peer-reviewed research” than those of us who think rationally and understand the ways of science.
They simply flip through their “Encyclopedia of Climate Change Horsepucky” and parrot those cherry picked arguments that fit what they WANT to believe. The “peer reviewed” part comes in when the rest of the circular firing squad of climate change deniers (or conservative anal orifices that hate Al Gore) dutifully quote them ad infinitum until they have all convinced themselves they have found “truth”. What they do is ideological brainwashing and propagandizing, not science, and you waste your time suggesting that they “do it right”.
It is illustrative of the mindlessness of the deniers that Mobeeleven would comment on this particular posting, which is loaded with so much good info and excellent graphics that only a fool would argue against it. I remain convinced that the paid deniers and FUD spreaders have a “circuit” they make through the sites where people are having rational discussions on any topic. Has anyone kept track of Mobeeleven’s “appearances” on Crock? Does he show up every 28 days?
You folks are just ignoring the data which is public over at NOAA and NASA. Why not look it up yourself instead of saying anybody who disagrees is a troll. It is your life and the lives of your kids should you have some which will be affected by this debate. Carbon taxes are supposed to make the world cooler by limiting CO2 emissions. There is a problem with that. The ice core studies, there are two, google them, say the CO2 level changes never changed the climate for 800000 years. The climate changed and then the CO2 level changed hundreds of years later. That means the CO2 was not the driver of climate change. If you go and google the Mauna Loa CO2 study it shows quite clearly the CO2 levels have risen since 1959 when the study started. However that rise does not correlate with climate change warming as even the IPCC admits in the fifth report which you can google and download. It is about 160Mb so be prepared for a lot of download and printing time. The flaw in the IPCC model is enormous if you actually read the report. the model cuts off data before 1951 and after 2012. That is deliberate as the giss data used in that model does not contradict the model trend line in that tiny period. The giss data shows a hiatus in warming from 1940 to 1980 and a downward trend from 1880 to 1915. Also ignored are a whole bunch of other studies on temperature and CO2 which have reconstructed both back year by year at least 2000 years, studies you can google. The IPCC goes on and on about its confidence levels which you can argue from here to eternity and bring in all the statistics you want but I would remind you that NASA did the same thing with shuttle safety levels and look how that turned out.
“The climate changed and then the CO2 level changed hundreds of years later.”
Here’s where it helps to watch the video series I’ve produced – since I actually interview the author of the study you distort here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nrvrkVBt24
remember, I’m here to help.
Loading...
More mindless parroting of the same distortions and unsupported bald assertions from the Denier Troll’s Handbook. And Mobee says we can go and download a 160 MB document and spend all that time to prove to ourselves that Mobee is FOS? LOL. Does he not understand that we have already examined the IPSS report AND heard the distorted horsepucky about it from the deniers AND seen the debunking of the deniers on Crock and other sites AND therefore know that Mobee and friends are not honest people (or are terminally deluded)?
PS I love it when people throw in non-sequiturs as closing crushing arguments. “…..you can argue from here to eternity and bring in all the statistics you want but I would remind you that NASA did the same thing with shuttle safety levels and look how that turned out”. WHAT? Omno could not have said it better.
Mobee apparently loves non sequiturs, since he also injected these—-“It is your life and the lives of your kids should you have some which will be affected by this debate”, and this—-“Carbon taxes are supposed to make the world cooler by limiting CO2 emissions”. DUH!
Loading...
You claim – among other parroted gobbets of risible easily falsified nonsense – that:
“Last year the seasonal low which is measured in September by satellite returned to normal average”
Whereas a mere twenty seconds of checking your claim at The National Snow and Ice Data Centre archive record for September last year reveals”
“…This year’s minimum was 1.12 million square kilometers (432,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average minimum.
The minimum ice extent was the sixth lowest in the satellite record, and reinforces the long-term downward trend in Arctic ice extent…”
Why do you do it? What is the point?
Why tell such obvious lies when it is literaly a matter of a few seconds checking to prove they are complete and utter junk?
Do you imagine no-one will check the info?
Do you think we are all just stupid?
I just don’t get deniers at all – it’s like a form of mental illness.
It’s not “like” a form of mental illness, it IS a form of mental illness. (Or at least habitual lying and denial of truth is associated with several types of mental/personality disorders such as antisocial personality disorder or delusional disorder).
Denial is in fact a sort of mental illness – we all suffer from it now and then, especially when it comes to admitting and doing something about our bad habits even though our rational mind really tells us that we got to get our act together. For some though, the part of the brain that seeks instant reward (and rewards us with dopamine) is in total dominance – and behaviour changes into a fierce defense state if someone tries to challenge the things you like. Its one thing to try to admit to yourself that you might be wrong about something, but its a different thing when some other dude tell you are wrong. In the case of AGW the majority of scientists are telling a vast majority of people in denial that they are wrong… what could possibly go wrong? 🙂
Generally stepping out of the “bubble” and looking at ones own behaviours and how they relate to others can give you an idea that even though we are alone in our heads, our actions really affect every living thing around us in some way. It requires a certain amount of empathy and compassion really to get there. I believe many people in deep denial are struggling with their self image and constantly feel the need to assert themselves (hence the frequent Dunning-Kruger tendencies in many denier comments). Although the vast majority is probably more tuned into their instant-reward monkey-brains, and is constantly tricked by their brains to think that their behaviour is good for them.
The Skeptical Neurologist by Steven Novella is a pretty good lecture on this, you can find it on youtube.
The mets office is the British equivalent of our NOAA agency and the weather service. The claim it shows .05 degree warming is nonsense as all that warming is well within the error range. The Brits Mets has a lot of Mann supporters in it and they per the email reveals do not appear adverse to bending the data to support the claims. In any case the giss data set does not show any such warming as the IPCC admits in its fifth report saying the sky is falling and we must repent.
Wind Mobeeleven up and watch him walk back and forth parroting the same old denier crap that has been debunked so many times over. He wastes our time. Anyone know where I can get a Mobeeleven bobblehead doll to put on my dashboard?
(PS What’s a “normal average”? I have a fair amount of science and math knowledge, but I must have been sleeping in that class.)
(PPS Mobee? You’ve been noticed—-check it off on your troll scorecard and go away)
The troll over at NOAA defines the arctic ice low as the data taken by satellite in September, They measure the sq KM, when you do that you come up with several years and if you add them together you get an average. I suggest you google the NOAA ice data set and see what they consider average which I defined as normal which makes me bad and a troll. The problem with that average low ice number is where do you start and where do you end. If you looked at the ice in 1625 at the low of the little ice age the average would be a look bigger than if you looked at the period 2000 to date.
Not to pick on your grammar, but the “baited-bated” breath thing is a very common error. In the case of Mobeeleven, “baited” is actually OK, because he obviously subsists on a diet of worms (as in “nobody loves me, everybody hates me, think I’ll eat some worms”, as the children’s rhyme goes). Or maybe that bad smell that follows his “logic” around is caused by a diet of dead fish heads, a “bait” of a different sort?
More mindless attempts at justifying bad logic. Google the NOAA ice data? Why? There are several graphs right in front of our eyes in this post that give “ice data”, and only the WIFI’s (willfully ignorant functional illiterates) like you will deny what they show. They show a clear decline in arctic sea ice extent and volume over the last 30 years. What was going on in 1625 is irrelevant.
PS You have still not defined “normal average” for us, and your failure to do that does indeed “make you bad and a troll”.
Nothing has changed in the underlying input to the physics involved – so why should this “hiatus” be any different to the 4 preceding ones up to this? Do you have any magical new science or black hole where the energy disappears?
David Rose well and truly debunked yet again by Carbon Brief, I’m surprised anyone gives him any media space at all after his catastrophic and misleading performances during the Iraq war.
Also the sea ice extent articles are completely ignore the thickness of the sea ice, which has been tracked for over a century now. Sea ice thickness has declined by just over 56% in the last 50 years West and North of Alaska (good job this is not adding to the accelerating sea level rise). How much longer do you think that ice will last with the documented temperature rise happening around the Arctic. ? Shipping and fossil fuel interests poised to take advantage of ice free seas.
A link to a University of Washington news release on sea ice thickness. (via reportingclimatescience)
I. Extent of Arctic sea ice is not a good indicator of the current warming. Ocean reacts with a considerable delay on the warming. It is of c. 20 – one hundred years (most of effects of “energy”).
I. Whether we (currently) have warming and “no pause”?
I suggest citations from this paper:
McKitrick, R. (2014) HAC-Robust Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series. Open Journal of Statistics.:
“In the surface data we compute a hiatus length of 19 years, and in the lower tropospheric data we compute a hiatus length of 16 years in the UAH series and 26 years in the RSS series.” “Overall this analysis confirms the point raised in the IPCC report [1] regarding the existence of the hiatus and adds more precision to the understanding of its length.”
The main problem is that the AGW theory does not explain (acceptably) the current pause. The current CO2 emissions are too large to (according to this theory) pause occurred and was so long.
„Since 1990, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose from 354 ppm to just under 400 ppm, a 13% increase. [1] reported that of the 114 model simulations over the 15-year interval 1998 to 2012, 111 predicted warming. [5] showed a similar mismatch in comparisons over a twenty year time scale, with most models predicting 0.2˚C – 0.4˚C/decade warming. “ (ibidem)
If the energy is stored in the deep ocean (most likely explanation – next to the volcanic aerosols) it is “off the system”. (probably hundreds or even thousands of years).
Realclimate, Gavin Schmidt:
“… whether the changes in deep ocean heat content have any direct impact other than damping the surface response to the ongoing radiative imbalance. The deep ocean is really massive and even for the large changes in OHC we are discussing the impact on the deep temperature is small (I would guess less than 0.1 deg C or so). This is unlikely to have much of a direct impact on the deep biosphere. Neither is this heat going to come back out from the deep ocean any time soon (the notion that this heat is the warming that is ‘in the pipeline’ is erroneous).”
(http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/10/global-warming-and-ocean-heat-content/)
thanks for the link to Gavin’s piece.
I think the point you are missing is that continued sea level rise due to thermal expansion, i.e. the effect of heat storage in the ocean, continues unabated, and is the best indicator of a planet continuing to warm.
Per NASA planning and funding budget requests, that agency is planning for a sea level rise of 15 cm by 2100, that is not the end of the world even if the ocean is expanding from external heat absorption.
get used to offering citations when making assertions as above. That would be an actual URL, not suggesting that someone “look it up”.
if you’ve done the work, this should be easy, and would simplify discussion.
re sea level,
again, best to watch the vids. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaD3ax2j3Ks
Yes, I too would like to know where the “15 cm sea level rise by 2100” came from. I suspect it’s PFTA or PFAO (Plucked From Thin Air or Anal Orifice—-take your pick). That’s only 5.9 inches, and is at the very low end of any recent predictions, many of which say 2 feet or more and some of which go as high as 5 or 6 feet if the SHTF. Any revisions to the predictions are onkly in the upward direction, and all stress how hard it it to make predictions, since there are so many factors involved, particularly with the melting of the Greenland and East Antarctic ice sheets. Perhaps Mobeeleven has a crystal ball that reveals “truth” only to those who deny reality?
Loading...
McKitrick, R. latest paper on the troposphere mid and lower says there is no warming trend for the last 55 years, so the guy is showing the statistics used in a bunch of models is bogus. You can find must of that stuff at the climateaudit.com site. As a further note the claim the current change are much faster than in the past I suggest you read this for starter.Palaeoclimate: Lags within the Younger Dryas, Ana Moreno
Nature Geoscience 7, 87–88 (2014) doi:10.1038/ngeo2072 Published online 19 January 2014
Citations to McKitrick? And in another comment to McIntyre and climateaudit.com? Lord love a duck!
M & M are charlatans and deniers with NO credentials in climate science. McIntyre in particular has been described as a “persistent amateur who had no credentials in applied science before stepping into the global warming debate”. M & M are economists and Heartland favorites. You show your extreme bias by referring to either of them as if they had any credibility.
Here’s my challenge to David Rose.
http://youtu.be/eEiqR1XM7a4
Apparently the writer of this article thinks NOAA is some kind of organization of mental midgets. It happens to be one of the government organizations which keep and publish the ice data. Last year the seasonal low which is measured in September by satellite returned to normal average after several years of being below normal and this year in august it was well above normal average. If you are a reporter and report this fact you are a silly person, if you say the sky is falling and we must clothe ourselves in ashes and stop using carbon you are Gods answer to mankind. Never mind 800000 years of data from the ice core studies, CO2 level changes never caused a climate change, never mind the current Mauna Loa NOAA study since 1959 shows zero correlation between CO2 level changes and climate. Never mind that the giss data set used by IPCC among others shows no climate change in the past 16 years. Never mind a similar hiatus in warming occurred per that same giss data from 1940 to 1980. Never mind the temperature per that same data dropped from 1880 to 1915. Never mind that a recent study of troposphere mid and lower shows no upward trend in temperature for the last 55 years. Never mind that is was hotter in 900-1000 AD than today. Never mind NO
AA data shows the hottest US year on record was 1936, 78 years ago and since 1998 the average US temperature has fallen a bit. and finally, never mind that the little ice age low in about 1625 means we had more ice out there and some of it is still there as we are colder than in 1000 AD.
MB, you are welcome to participate in this forum – but simply reeling off talking points without citation or context won’t get you respect here.
why not cite a source for one of your talking points, – Fox News does not count – and begin a discussion?
Try NOAA, and the ice core studies, you are able to google both, try the 2000 year temperature reconstructions, you can also google them. there are at least two. try the sea sediment studies reconstruction of temperature, there are a whole bunch. If you refuse to actually look up the data then we are not having a discussion, we are in church worshiping the great god of climate change. The only person saying Fox news is you which is a typical response from liberals when the science they refuse to read contradicts the PC line. Take NOAA arctic sea ice data, it is on the NOAA site. The same site has US temperatures and a graft apt which allows you to graft average temperature to date from 1895. If you put in 1998 to 2014 you see a slight temperature drop. The ice data shows your ice extent data is flawed in that it ignores current ice extent which comes from satellite data taken every September per the NOAA site. The NASA site has the giss data set which IPCC uses among others, you can simply put giss in the search box and there it is back to 1880. The hiatus from 1940 to 1980 is very clear even without a bunch of math modeling. The hiatus in the last 16 years , from 1998, is less clear but if you simply draw a straight line horizontally from 1998 to the present you can see the data is averaging out with zero or no increase. If you want the IPCC take, go read the fifth report where they admit the climate has not changed.
I do not think one can read the IPCC report and come away with “the climate has not changed”.
You seem a little tense.
He’s a “LITTLE tense”? LOL
There are a number of medications that can help alleviate “tenseness” and “unwrap” those like Mobee who are wrapped way too tightly around the axle of denialism. If the meds fail, there’s always electroshock and lobotomy.
A bit of Dunning-Kruger going on here? If you have such fantastic proof that every scientific organ of significance is wrong, why don’t you write a paper about it and get it peer-reviewed?
LOL The Denier Trolls like Mobeeleven have a different definition of “publishing peer-reviewed research” than those of us who think rationally and understand the ways of science.
They simply flip through their “Encyclopedia of Climate Change Horsepucky” and parrot those cherry picked arguments that fit what they WANT to believe. The “peer reviewed” part comes in when the rest of the circular firing squad of climate change deniers (or conservative anal orifices that hate Al Gore) dutifully quote them ad infinitum until they have all convinced themselves they have found “truth”. What they do is ideological brainwashing and propagandizing, not science, and you waste your time suggesting that they “do it right”.
It is illustrative of the mindlessness of the deniers that Mobeeleven would comment on this particular posting, which is loaded with so much good info and excellent graphics that only a fool would argue against it. I remain convinced that the paid deniers and FUD spreaders have a “circuit” they make through the sites where people are having rational discussions on any topic. Has anyone kept track of Mobeeleven’s “appearances” on Crock? Does he show up every 28 days?
You folks are just ignoring the data which is public over at NOAA and NASA. Why not look it up yourself instead of saying anybody who disagrees is a troll. It is your life and the lives of your kids should you have some which will be affected by this debate. Carbon taxes are supposed to make the world cooler by limiting CO2 emissions. There is a problem with that. The ice core studies, there are two, google them, say the CO2 level changes never changed the climate for 800000 years. The climate changed and then the CO2 level changed hundreds of years later. That means the CO2 was not the driver of climate change. If you go and google the Mauna Loa CO2 study it shows quite clearly the CO2 levels have risen since 1959 when the study started. However that rise does not correlate with climate change warming as even the IPCC admits in the fifth report which you can google and download. It is about 160Mb so be prepared for a lot of download and printing time. The flaw in the IPCC model is enormous if you actually read the report. the model cuts off data before 1951 and after 2012. That is deliberate as the giss data used in that model does not contradict the model trend line in that tiny period. The giss data shows a hiatus in warming from 1940 to 1980 and a downward trend from 1880 to 1915. Also ignored are a whole bunch of other studies on temperature and CO2 which have reconstructed both back year by year at least 2000 years, studies you can google. The IPCC goes on and on about its confidence levels which you can argue from here to eternity and bring in all the statistics you want but I would remind you that NASA did the same thing with shuttle safety levels and look how that turned out.
“The climate changed and then the CO2 level changed hundreds of years later.”
Here’s where it helps to watch the video series I’ve produced – since I actually interview the author of the study you distort here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nrvrkVBt24
remember, I’m here to help.
More mindless parroting of the same distortions and unsupported bald assertions from the Denier Troll’s Handbook. And Mobee says we can go and download a 160 MB document and spend all that time to prove to ourselves that Mobee is FOS? LOL. Does he not understand that we have already examined the IPSS report AND heard the distorted horsepucky about it from the deniers AND seen the debunking of the deniers on Crock and other sites AND therefore know that Mobee and friends are not honest people (or are terminally deluded)?
PS I love it when people throw in non-sequiturs as closing crushing arguments. “…..you can argue from here to eternity and bring in all the statistics you want but I would remind you that NASA did the same thing with shuttle safety levels and look how that turned out”. WHAT? Omno could not have said it better.
Mobee apparently loves non sequiturs, since he also injected these—-“It is your life and the lives of your kids should you have some which will be affected by this debate”, and this—-“Carbon taxes are supposed to make the world cooler by limiting CO2 emissions”. DUH!
You claim – among other parroted gobbets of risible easily falsified nonsense – that:
“Last year the seasonal low which is measured in September by satellite returned to normal average”
Whereas a mere twenty seconds of checking your claim at The National Snow and Ice Data Centre archive record for September last year reveals”
“…This year’s minimum was 1.12 million square kilometers (432,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average minimum.
The minimum ice extent was the sixth lowest in the satellite record, and reinforces the long-term downward trend in Arctic ice extent…”
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2013/09/
Why do you do it? What is the point?
Why tell such obvious lies when it is literaly a matter of a few seconds checking to prove they are complete and utter junk?
Do you imagine no-one will check the info?
Do you think we are all just stupid?
I just don’t get deniers at all – it’s like a form of mental illness.
It’s not “like” a form of mental illness, it IS a form of mental illness. (Or at least habitual lying and denial of truth is associated with several types of mental/personality disorders such as antisocial personality disorder or delusional disorder).
Denial is in fact a sort of mental illness – we all suffer from it now and then, especially when it comes to admitting and doing something about our bad habits even though our rational mind really tells us that we got to get our act together. For some though, the part of the brain that seeks instant reward (and rewards us with dopamine) is in total dominance – and behaviour changes into a fierce defense state if someone tries to challenge the things you like. Its one thing to try to admit to yourself that you might be wrong about something, but its a different thing when some other dude tell you are wrong. In the case of AGW the majority of scientists are telling a vast majority of people in denial that they are wrong… what could possibly go wrong? 🙂
Generally stepping out of the “bubble” and looking at ones own behaviours and how they relate to others can give you an idea that even though we are alone in our heads, our actions really affect every living thing around us in some way. It requires a certain amount of empathy and compassion really to get there. I believe many people in deep denial are struggling with their self image and constantly feel the need to assert themselves (hence the frequent Dunning-Kruger tendencies in many denier comments). Although the vast majority is probably more tuned into their instant-reward monkey-brains, and is constantly tricked by their brains to think that their behaviour is good for them.
The Skeptical Neurologist by Steven Novella is a pretty good lecture on this, you can find it on youtube.
The mets office is the British equivalent of our NOAA agency and the weather service. The claim it shows .05 degree warming is nonsense as all that warming is well within the error range. The Brits Mets has a lot of Mann supporters in it and they per the email reveals do not appear adverse to bending the data to support the claims. In any case the giss data set does not show any such warming as the IPCC admits in its fifth report saying the sky is falling and we must repent.
Wind Mobeeleven up and watch him walk back and forth parroting the same old denier crap that has been debunked so many times over. He wastes our time. Anyone know where I can get a Mobeeleven bobblehead doll to put on my dashboard?
(PS What’s a “normal average”? I have a fair amount of science and math knowledge, but I must have been sleeping in that class.)
(PPS Mobee? You’ve been noticed—-check it off on your troll scorecard and go away)
The troll over at NOAA defines the arctic ice low as the data taken by satellite in September, They measure the sq KM, when you do that you come up with several years and if you add them together you get an average. I suggest you google the NOAA ice data set and see what they consider average which I defined as normal which makes me bad and a troll. The problem with that average low ice number is where do you start and where do you end. If you looked at the ice in 1625 at the low of the little ice age the average would be a look bigger than if you looked at the period 2000 to date.
I suggest you Google the ice data sets and report back to us about Arctic ice VOLUME. We will all wait with baited breath.
Not to pick on your grammar, but the “baited-bated” breath thing is a very common error. In the case of Mobeeleven, “baited” is actually OK, because he obviously subsists on a diet of worms (as in “nobody loves me, everybody hates me, think I’ll eat some worms”, as the children’s rhyme goes). Or maybe that bad smell that follows his “logic” around is caused by a diet of dead fish heads, a “bait” of a different sort?
More mindless attempts at justifying bad logic. Google the NOAA ice data? Why? There are several graphs right in front of our eyes in this post that give “ice data”, and only the WIFI’s (willfully ignorant functional illiterates) like you will deny what they show. They show a clear decline in arctic sea ice extent and volume over the last 30 years. What was going on in 1625 is irrelevant.
PS You have still not defined “normal average” for us, and your failure to do that does indeed “make you bad and a troll”.
What if we apply the same reasoning to surface temperatures vs models?
This really does not need any more explanation than “The escalator” :
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47
Nothing has changed in the underlying input to the physics involved – so why should this “hiatus” be any different to the 4 preceding ones up to this? Do you have any magical new science or black hole where the energy disappears?
David Rose well and truly debunked yet again by Carbon Brief, I’m surprised anyone gives him any media space at all after his catastrophic and misleading performances during the Iraq war.
Also the sea ice extent articles are completely ignore the thickness of the sea ice, which has been tracked for over a century now. Sea ice thickness has declined by just over 56% in the last 50 years West and North of Alaska (good job this is not adding to the accelerating sea level rise). How much longer do you think that ice will last with the documented temperature rise happening around the Arctic. ? Shipping and fossil fuel interests poised to take advantage of ice free seas.
A link to a University of Washington news release on sea ice thickness. (via reportingclimatescience)
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/snow-has-thinned-on-arctic-sea-ice.html
I. Extent of Arctic sea ice is not a good indicator of the current warming. Ocean reacts with a considerable delay on the warming. It is of c. 20 – one hundred years (most of effects of “energy”).
I. Whether we (currently) have warming and “no pause”?
I suggest citations from this paper:
McKitrick, R. (2014) HAC-Robust Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series. Open Journal of Statistics.:
“In the surface data we compute a hiatus length of 19 years, and in the lower tropospheric data we compute a hiatus length of 16 years in the UAH series and 26 years in the RSS series.” “Overall this analysis confirms the point raised in the IPCC report [1] regarding the existence of the hiatus and adds more precision to the understanding of its length.”
The main problem is that the AGW theory does not explain (acceptably) the current pause. The current CO2 emissions are too large to (according to this theory) pause occurred and was so long.
„Since 1990, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose from 354 ppm to just under 400 ppm, a 13% increase. [1] reported that of the 114 model simulations over the 15-year interval 1998 to 2012, 111 predicted warming. [5] showed a similar mismatch in comparisons over a twenty year time scale, with most models predicting 0.2˚C – 0.4˚C/decade warming. “ (ibidem)
If the energy is stored in the deep ocean (most likely explanation – next to the volcanic aerosols) it is “off the system”. (probably hundreds or even thousands of years).
Realclimate, Gavin Schmidt:
“… whether the changes in deep ocean heat content have any direct impact other than damping the surface response to the ongoing radiative imbalance. The deep ocean is really massive and even for the large changes in OHC we are discussing the impact on the deep temperature is small (I would guess less than 0.1 deg C or so). This is unlikely to have much of a direct impact on the deep biosphere. Neither is this heat going to come back out from the deep ocean any time soon (the notion that this heat is the warming that is ‘in the pipeline’ is erroneous).”
(http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/10/global-warming-and-ocean-heat-content/)
thanks for the link to Gavin’s piece.
I think the point you are missing is that continued sea level rise due to thermal expansion, i.e. the effect of heat storage in the ocean, continues unabated, and is the best indicator of a planet continuing to warm.
Per NASA planning and funding budget requests, that agency is planning for a sea level rise of 15 cm by 2100, that is not the end of the world even if the ocean is expanding from external heat absorption.
get used to offering citations when making assertions as above. That would be an actual URL, not suggesting that someone “look it up”.
if you’ve done the work, this should be easy, and would simplify discussion.
re sea level,
again, best to watch the vids.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaD3ax2j3Ks
Yes, I too would like to know where the “15 cm sea level rise by 2100” came from. I suspect it’s PFTA or PFAO (Plucked From Thin Air or Anal Orifice—-take your pick). That’s only 5.9 inches, and is at the very low end of any recent predictions, many of which say 2 feet or more and some of which go as high as 5 or 6 feet if the SHTF. Any revisions to the predictions are onkly in the upward direction, and all stress how hard it it to make predictions, since there are so many factors involved, particularly with the melting of the Greenland and East Antarctic ice sheets. Perhaps Mobeeleven has a crystal ball that reveals “truth” only to those who deny reality?
McKitrick, R. latest paper on the troposphere mid and lower says there is no warming trend for the last 55 years, so the guy is showing the statistics used in a bunch of models is bogus. You can find must of that stuff at the climateaudit.com site. As a further note the claim the current change are much faster than in the past I suggest you read this for starter.Palaeoclimate: Lags within the Younger Dryas, Ana Moreno
Nature Geoscience 7, 87–88 (2014) doi:10.1038/ngeo2072 Published online 19 January 2014
the paper does not even come close to supporting your case.
Citations to McKitrick? And in another comment to McIntyre and climateaudit.com? Lord love a duck!
M & M are charlatans and deniers with NO credentials in climate science. McIntyre in particular has been described as a “persistent amateur who had no credentials in applied science before stepping into the global warming debate”. M & M are economists and Heartland favorites. You show your extreme bias by referring to either of them as if they had any credibility.