Dear all, thanks for your patience – moving is quite an ordeal, and it has taken far longer than I anticipated. I’m still lacking a home internet connection which has made it hard to post or even check email these past two weeks. If you’ve tried to reach me via email, please resend.
Thanks
Watching the Deniers 
Antarctica wind modelling correct
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121111153813.htm
After the flipflop – apparently climate scientists possess secret time travel technology, which allows them to gloss over their past mistakes.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/antarctic-concensus-flips-warmer-water-means-more-sea-ice/
The Modelling was done two decades ago but was only speculative at the time,
maybe the IPCC should have had more faith in the ability of modelling?
“Flip-flop” = dumbnialist rhetoric.
The sum of Antarctic knowledge is not defined by Jo’s ignorance…what Jo describes as a flip-flop is just her transparent attempt to play catch up.
Flipflop = completely reversing your previous position, while pretending you supported your new position all along.
The Antarctic Flipflop = pretending the consensus was that Antarctic ice would increase.
And now I have a new term to add to my lexicon:-
Out of date = the weird selective amnesia which allows alarmists to believe that inconvenient facts which contradict their narrative were always the consensus prediction.
No eric it is you that cherry picked one sentence out of this
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-2-4.html
How dumb is Nova
Ice shelves are retreating in the southern section of the Antarctic Peninsula due to climate change. This could result in glacier retreat and sea-level rise if warming continues
Could sea ice increase, and ice shelves melt?
yes Nova, you have not got a clue
John you’re hilarious – you’re predicting melt This could result in glacier retreat and sea-level rise if warming continues and more ice that increase is suggested by models as a response to the Antarctic ozone hole and increasing greenhouse gases. at the same time.
In other words, no matter what happens to the Antarctic, it is consistent with and validates your climate models.
The models cannot be falsified by studying ice extent, because any change in ice extent up, down, or even no change at all, is consistent with model predictions.
Eric,floating winter sea ice in conditions well south of zero can expand if factors spreading it [stronger wind outflow from frozen continent] manifest. IOW winter over the southern ocean can get warmer and still be below zero,while powerful katabatic winds can cause a net increase in average winter extent by physical push and spread.
Stronger outflow of air from Antarctica is a sign of a more energetic atmosphere.
At the same time,ice shelves [generated as I’m sure you know by outflow of land ice via glaciers] can retreat because of system warming…and that is precisely what is being observed. That is a process peaking in summer. The timing of coupling between shelf collapse and glacier retreat is looser, but it is a coupling nonetheless
Retreat/downwasting of glaciers feeding floating ice shelves which then retreat is a sign of a more energetic atmosphere
So WINTER sea ice,SUMMER glacier retreat. Glaciers and Ice shelves are not sea ice. Get it?
To clarify the modes for land ice /ice shelf coupling. The collapse of ice shelves–caused by warming from beneath,SLR and storminess–allows contributing land ice sources to flow faster and downwaste. In the past this collapse would be an irregular threshold process, followed by the reestablishment of the shelf,the ‘damming’ of the contributing glaciers and their subsequent thickening.an d around again. But the shelves are collapsing further south…and not reestablishing,and thus allowing contributing glaciers to retreat further to new equilibria,probably temporary.
Observed Hemispheric Asymmetry `1997
From November 1978 through December 1996, the areal extent of sea ice decreased by 2.9 ± 0.4 percent per decade in the Arctic and increased by 1.3 ± 0.2 percent per decade in the Antarctic. The observed hemispheric asymmetry in these trends is consistent with a modeled response to a carbon dioxide–induced climate warming.
You have been fed a load of crap from Nova
When will we get the post from Nova that the IPCC is probably out by four decades for the seasonal ice free Arctic? .
Gary Plyler says:
12 Jun 2008 at 11:06 AM
Last southern hemisphere winter, the sea ice extent was the greatest since the invention of sattelite mounted cameras. This year, this date, the southern hemisphere sea ice extent is 1-million square kilometers ahead of last year (about 6 percent of last years record). http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
Is there some global climate model that predicts anything like that occuring?
[Response: The overall SH trends are not significant notwithstanding some big years recently. Trends in the different sectors are though. There has been a decrease to the west of the Antarctic peninsula, and an increase to the east – conceivably associated with a long term positive trend in the Southern annular mode (SAM). That increase is suggested by models as a response to the Antarctic ozone hole and increasing greenhouse gases. Significant decreases in SH sea ice are not expected yet – but I haven’t examined the ensemble of model runs to see what their variability is like in SH sea ice. – gavin]
At least NASA and the British Antarctic Survey seem to be starting to take the Antarctic ice paradox seriously, and don’t seem to be trying to kid anyone that it was “predicted”.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/12/antarctic_ice_growth_investigated/
You are an idiot, the registar story is their take on the paper at the top which I posted
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121111153813.htm
Poor old Eric, Mitt Romney’s loss in the US has left him befuddled…
Paradox? A paradox only exists in conditions of low to nil knowledge of process. Necessarily ,a paradox is a function of superficial understanding.
Once you understand that land ice and sea ice are two very different things born of differing processes,the paradox evaporates..
Once you honestly accept that the southern winter sea ice variation from the mean is trivial,barely significant then the paradox is seen to be contrived. Current area is within 1% of the mean,and it has never been more than 6 or 7% above it. This is not anything like the all season decline observed in the north.
Mike while you are having troubles moving in, Mitt, the GOP and all the other Sandy-deniers is having trouble moving on —- things could be worse …..
Eric’ nonsense claim is that models are wrong
from the paper
Lead author, Dr Paul Holland of BAS says: “Until now these changes in ice drift were only speculated upon, using computer models of Antarctic winds.
The paper confirms the model findings, The IPCC AR4 acknowledges the uncertainty in projections of Antarctica sea ice,
eric needs to cherry pick one sentence from a page of the IPCC AR4 to maintain his confirmation bias.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-2-4.html
As stated, the reduction of Antarctica sea will lag that of the Arctic, then look at the graphs and model runs.
.
You guys are still missing the point.
If they held their hands up and said “hey, we got it wrong, but we now think we know what is going on”, Nova wouldn’t have had anything to post about.
Instead, the scientists Nova cited are making misleading statements, attempting to maintain the myth of infallibility, of settled science. Settled science doesn’t produce surprises, geddit? Settled science can never be wrong, because it is settled – there is nothing new to discover, or if there are any new discoveries, they simply extend and reinforce the settled core narrative.
If Nova had been following the science then she would not have had to post anything either, It is a complete fabrication based on one cherry picked sentence that is built up into being the IPCC final word on the matter
FFS eric read all the relevant information in AR4 WG1 and then you will have the right to comment
You do not even understand which part of the science is settled, Please give a link to where science claims that everything is settled,
,
I see – so Antarctic ice growth was expected, but the IPCC AR4 got it wrong.
Doesn’t surprise me – after Glaciergate, anything is possible.
You obviously have no understanding of the difference between sea ice extant, area and volume,
As we saw in the Arctic sea ice extent was little changed for the years up to 2005 meanwhile the volume was falling off a cliff.
science has acknowledged that the models regarding the Arctic ice loss underestimated the loss, So your crap that the science claims to never get it wrong is therefore unsupported.
you are using the dramatic loss seen in the Arctic to gauge the antarctic by,
without that dramatic loss Nova would not have even bothered to search 10,000 pages of the IPCC.
we have been happy to write about the Antarctic eric. you do not even wish to acknowledge that we even have an Arctic that is in a death spriral.
I don’t acknowledge that there is a “death spiral”. There is plentiful evidence of substantial contractions and expansions of Arctic ice even over the past few hundred years. So scientists who suggest that a 30 year downward trend is “proof” of a “death spiral” are on thin ice, when considering the broader context of arctic variation.
Here’s a news article from 1923 painting a picture of radical melting of the North Pole.
CLICK HERE – North Pole Melting – in 1923
Once again all your fears are for events in the future – you have to trust the models, to arrive at the point of panic.
Eric this refers to an actual peer reviewed study in the exact area of your old newspaper clipping.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/27/climate-arctic-idUSL5E8KRDR220120927
Highest in 1800 years? That just means we’ve surpassed the MWP warming, and are now approaching the peak of the Roman Warming.
Given the sun recently experienced a grand maximum greater than anything seen since the dawn of civilisation, hardly a surprise.
“Panic”? FFS,Eric,you’re the one whose frantically avoiding the evidence. Models of Arctic sea ice loss underpredicted the developments we have seen,Eric.
If you want to know where 1923 stands as a measure of summer ice extent you need to download Walsh and Chapman 2001 who have reconstructed back to 1870 using charts ship logs photographic archives and aerial work. Let me just tell you that 1923 summer ice extent may have been relatively low compared with 1910-1920,but it was about 4,500,000 km2 greater than recent summers!!
As the link John helpfully supplied suggests, we’re still not out of the bounds of natural variation – higher than the viking warming (maybe – though Briffa’s paper suggests that at least in some places we are at a similar temperature), but not yet higher than the Roman Warming, let along the Holocene Optimum.
Panic stations – not.
“whose”-who’s…tut,tut
Timewasting, Eric. You’re deliberately misapplying the settled science meme. No-one said Antarctica was a settled subject in terms of unfolding details at an annual or decadal level. The ‘sufficiently settled’ theme refers to the fact that we know enough about the GLOBAL picture to advocate and delineate responses.
“hey,we got it wrong” presumes a position that was never actually taken. Scientists are not involved in continually PRing their work.. They actually produced,and are producing, a lot of research with a variety of conclusions and possible developments. I suggest you sit yourself down and read IPCC AR4 without prejudice. Rid yourself of the facetious nonsense by Nova and her ilk. They are ideologues,with very poor knowledge of the subject,who are agenda-driven quote miners and perception managers.
Read a chapter from start to finish,take notes,follow references. Know your subject. That way you won’t be a pushover for the shills.
Your argument is a statement of faith Nick. You believe you know what is happening because of the models, even though the models don’t agree well with observations. You believe in the models, despite the evidence – that is your starting point.
You’re asking the world to believe that we are at the brink of catastrophe, and that only major personal sacrifices – such as Obama’s skyrocketing power bills – will save us. Your only evidence for this future catastrophe is scientific models which keep getting the details wrong.
Is it any wonder that the world has failed to heed your warning?
I don’t believe in the models. My starting point is the basic physics and the measured realities of GHG accumulation and sinking,plus observational evidence of real change in the system. Models are necessary for testing hypotheses in lieu of ‘control’ planets. I make sure I know how they work,their inputs and their limitations. Models are just tools,just one part of the knowledge base,and are just as useful for their ‘misses’ as their ‘hits’. Models do not keep getting the details wrong…that’s Watts/Nova framing a la Goebbels ‘Big Lie’. Fortunately,I can read for myself so I can see them coming a mile off.
The world has failed to heed a lot of warnings on many scales [such as the recent ash fungus dieback in the UK],basically because of established money wanting to keep doing their short-term fantasy thing. Politicians everywhere are demanding sacrifices from taxpayers for a variety of reasons. CC has to join the queue for their attention. Given it is a large scale issue with a multi-generational payout,it’s inevitably a difficult sell. I see a lot of deniers are ultimately moved by the ‘too big,too hard’ thing to trash their own comprehension skills and reject the science.
The basic physics says CO2 by itself should produce about 1c warming / doubling.
What happens next is the area of dispute – thats where you need models.
And a huge area of uncertainty which no model can deal with well is clouds.
IPCC models which have high climate sensitivities suggest that CO2 forcing is amplified by increased water vapour trapping more heat – water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas, much better at trapping heat than CO2, and much more abundant.
“Denialists” like Lindzen suggest that the weak CO2 signal is lost in the noise of the hydrological cycle – any increase in water vapour due to CO2 warming simple increases cloud cover a little, counteracting any CO2 warming by bouncing more sunlight back into space.
So the physics is far from clear.
What we do know for sure is that Earth’s biosphere has prospered under far higher CO2 levels than the present, such as the Mesozoic age, which ended 70 million years ago, during which CO2 around 2 – 3 times higher than today. The age of dinosaurs and vast jungles was not known for its paucity of life.
But a distinct lack of civilization
I see – so if the tropical zone expands, our civilisation won’t be able to cope with the higher food productivity?
Come on John, you claim to be a farmer, or have farming experience – you know there are a large number of high calorie food crops which only grow in tropical conditions. The age of dinosaurs shows us that highly productive tropical conditions can coexist with high CO2 levels.
We are most of the way to 1C with just a 40% increase in CO2,Eric.
It is also clear from developments in the Arctic that methane is entering the atmosphere at elevating rates. It is clear from palaeoclimate that feedbacks operate at different scales and times and duration in response to net warming or cooling from any source
‘Denialists like Lindzen would suggest that the weak signal of CO2 is lost in the hydrological cycle’….that is a very amusing framing. Something partly concealed or obscured is not lost. The hydrological cycle will always be noisy-and highly visible- because of water. Water exists in all three phases in the atmosphere. But it would be a very different distribution without CO2,which does not freeze and fall out. CO2 is well mixed three dimensionally up through the entire atmosphere.
The physics is clearer than you will allow…once again you seek to proceed by confusing your ignorance with the sum of general knowledge,knowledge that is too inconveniently straightforward and uncontroversial at times for you.
Raising the Mesozoic as some kind of parallel is nonsensical.It is a very very long period with a very different continental distribution and consequently a different oceanic circulation,plus enormous variation within the period that would no doubt not have suited sea-level nuclear power stations at all times. Have you got any better analogs?
Your assumption is that CO2 is the main driver of climate Nick. We also just experienced a solar grand maximum greater than anything seen for the last 8000 years.
I also know that many crops require a chill factor, a number of hours below a fixed temperature to initiate flowering, this has already stuffed up almond growers in marginal areas and as the world warms more then current less prone farms will also enter the marginal range, it aint rocket science eric, can we develop varieties quick enough that have a higher temp chill factor? how long can we keep ahead of the warming?
Two answers:-
a) we’re not going to die if almonds are no longer available. But of course this won’t happen – any area region which can no longer grow almonds will be matched by a region which used to be too cold to grow almonds. The world is a big place, and much of it is uselessly cold.
b) if global warming ever rises to such an extreme it threatens to prevent almonds from growing anywhere, by then GM technology will be advanced enough to fix things.
My understanding is that CO2 is the main,in fact the only significant change in, forcing factor[s] at the moment. In the greater picture it is indeed an ‘anchor’ for water on a planet this size this distance from this sun wit these orbit characteristics. CO2 is not a ‘driver of climate’ in an absolute sense—all planets have climates– but it gives us a liveable,human friendly climate.
Lindzen’s iris hypothesis was not supported by observations.and you have not even read that judging by your comment
. here plain and simple is some latest on the subject of CS
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/12/22/394496/climate-sensitivity-higher-organic-aerosol-feedbacks-researchers-find/
If eric does not even understand his own side of the debate, what hope is their for him understanding anything?
Eric “any increase in water vapour due to CO2 warming simple increases cloud cover a little, counteracting any CO2 warming by bouncing more sunlight back into space.”
Lindzen
The iris hypothesis is a hypothesis proposed by Professor Richard Lindzen in 2001 that suggested increased sea surface temperature in the tropics would result in reduced cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earth’s
atmosphere
Given that global temperatures have not increased significantly for 15 years, despite a 10% increase in CO2, something must be counterbalancing the increased CO2 forcing.
It is known as noise or natural variation, the AGW trend has not changed in three decades
If you look at the temperature series for the last 150 years or so, you will notice long flat periods lasting 40 years or so. We’re likely in another flat, so your linear trend is nonsense.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl
Now apply the linear trend to the data eric,
What strange pathology drives eric to display his ignorance? Again and again and again …
zoot, just ignore Eric. As I said before how sad and lonely do you have to be when your only social interaction is trolling wtd?
I’m ignoring him from now on. I’ve had more intelligent reponses from a hills hoist.
This one last week
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121108142746.htm
What a surprise – Trenberth trying to hype up the alarmism, after complaining the next IPCC report was unlikely to yield the scare story he wanted.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-scientist-loses-faith-in-the-ipcc-20121011-27fk8.html
Schmittner et al paper 2011
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/11/ice-age-constraints-on-climate-sensitivity/
Eric, you are like a game of swat the mole,every thread you repost the same rebutted nonsense, do you ever actually learn anything?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
Pell’s eyes do not look to good
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-13/pell-accuses-press-of-exaggerating-catholic-abuse/4369214
hope he hasn’t fucked his pupils
.
Cardinal Pell showed reporters a booklet entitled Sexual Abuse which he said contained the church’s procedures for dealing with abuse cases.
Here is a new booklet for you Pell, one sentence, REPORT IT TO THE POLICE
spot on.
Lets wait another decade or so of flat temperatures.
The global temp this year will be interesting but America is already in line for it;’s warmest year on record, the rest of the year will have little influence on the outcome
This will further enlighten the population of the US that action is required.
Had noticed that with the double whammy La Nina’s now gone, the plotted temp is headed back into the middle of the 95% confidence range.IPCC 20C model
Not a chance. Copenhagen was your high point, your last chance to inflict your religion on the world. All you will get now and in the future is a bit of lip service.
Because even if you’re right, the country which cuts CO2 and opts for more expensive energy will always be at a catastrophic economic disadvantage to countries which ignore CO2. And in the new globalised world economy, with ever fiercer competition, structural economic disadvantage is unendurable – as Europe is rapidly discovering.
Back to the science/religion meme…yawn. Need some new perspectives Eric
Even if temps stay relatively flat for another decade,the cryosphere–which responds slowly to temp change— will keep melting,changing albedo. Sea-level,another lagging indicator,will continue to rise,weakening ice shelves and increasing their tributary glaciers flow—another feedback.
another common creationist tactic is equating science with religion, it may sound ironic but I can give plenty of examples, debating a real atheist some years ago he never once claimed that climate science was a religion, It is something that is just common to the fundies themselves
Why bother answering this peanut? He’s not even very good as a denial troll.
Eric Worrall says:
November 13, 2012 at 4:24 am
Two answers:-
a) we’re not going to die if almonds are no longer available. But of course this won’t happen – any area region which can no longer grow almonds will be matched by a region which used to be too cold to grow almonds. The world is a big place, and much of it is uselessly cold.
b) if global warming ever rises to such an extreme it threatens to prevent almonds from growing anywhere, by then GM technology will be advanced enough to fix things.
One reply. you obviously think that we will be able to take the soil and rainfall requirements with you to these new locations, in short eric you ain’t got a clue. it affects all stone fruits.
then you have the problem of day length plants and temperature hatched insects.
These are just a few of the things that are coming,
Eric “GM technology will be advanced enough to fix things”
was just reading a paper on the limits of GM technology, what eric is asking for is the equivalent of using GM to make a coconut bear nuts in tasmania, just won’t happen.
learn a bit more eric before engaging brain