Global Climate Change Science News

[JimC]

"Our government is infested with communists"

"The people in the flat above me are beaming evil radio messages into my mind"

"ISIS is a creation of zionist intelligence agencies"

"Every morning, I wake up with a sore arse after those cheeky aliens have had another probing session"

In most cases, a tinfoil helmet will help...

[Ian]

In most cases, a tinfoil helmet will help...

They're obsolete. We've found a way through them.

[JimC]

In most cases, a tinfoil helmet will help...

They're obsolete. We've found a way through them.

[mistermack]

Your sources suck.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opini ... .html?_r=0

He's a liar then. He wouldn't be the first to falsely claim to have ''converted''.
Christian fundies do it all the time. They think it boosts their credibility. Maybe it does, with the gullible.
According to wikipedia, he wrote this in 2004 and I quote :

He went on to state "If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick.

That was after he discredited Michael Mann's hockey stick. He makes it quite clear that he is no sceptic, he was just criticising false and misleading science.
How does that tally with ''CALL me a converted skeptic'' ?

In any case, his whole approach is bollocks. On such a wishey washey theory, with such weak evidence, every scientist should be a sceptic.
That doesn't mean you accept or reject MMGW. It means you evaluate the evidence.

I personally think the evidence is weak. I'm happy to be a sceptic, and think that anyone who isn't, is fucking stupid in that regard. That doesn't mean I've made my mind up.
If you've made your mind up, you're an idiot, which describes Muller exactly.

[Tero]

In any case, his whole approach is bollocks.

You have no numbers or analysis. Show us the work and Professor Climate will give you credit on the exam.

[piscator]

Your sources suck.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opini ... .html?_r=0

He's a liar then. He wouldn't be the first to falsely claim to have ''converted''.
Christian fundies do it all the time. They think it boosts their credibility. Maybe it does, with the gullible.
According to wikipedia, he wrote this in 2004 and I quote :

He went on to state "If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick.

That was after he discredited Michael Mann's hockey stick. He makes it quite clear that he is no sceptic, he was just criticising false and misleading science.
How does that tally with ''CALL me a converted skeptic'' ?

In any case, his whole approach is bollocks. On such a wishey washey theory, with such weak evidence, every scientist should be a sceptic.
That doesn't mean you accept or reject MMGW. It means you evaluate the evidence.

I personally think the evidence is weak. I'm happy to be a sceptic, and think that anyone who isn't, is fucking stupid in that regard. That doesn't mean I've made my mind up.
If you've made your mind up, you're an idiot, which describes Muller exactly.

Well, you have your standards...
But what you don't have is an alternative explanation that matches the observations nearly as well as anthropogenic carbon dioxide, so your strict standards and a pound note might buy you a cup of coffee that meets your standards. Probably not, though.

[mistermack]

Well, you have your standards...
But what you don't have is an alternative explanation that matches the observations nearly as well as anthropogenic carbon dioxide, so your strict standards and a pound note might buy you a cup of coffee that meets your standards. Probably not, though.

Demanding an explanation is rather missing the point.
I'm perfectly happy to admit that humans can not predict climate. Yet.
That's why nobody predicted a twenty year pause in the claimed warming. All of those multi-million dollar models were totally useless.
So why the fuck do you expect an explanation from me?
You know perfectly well that modern science, in spite of billions spent on people, hardware and research, can't forecast the weather more than a few days ahead.
It's not forecastable at present. People know it and accept it, but somehow, they can't accept that the climate can't be forecast. Yet.

These wankers claim that they have an accurate explanation of PAST climate changes.
Amazing, Holmes.
It's like saying, '''I knew that'', when the winning lottery numbers are announced. Anybody can do it.
But try picking the numbers for NEXT week's draw. If you can do that, then I WILL be impressed.

[piscator]

Well, you have your standards...
But what you don't have is an alternative explanation that matches the observations nearly as well as anthropogenic carbon dioxide, so your strict standards and a pound note might buy you a cup of coffee that meets your standards. Probably not, though.

Demanding an explanation is rather missing the point.
I'm perfectly happy to admit that humans can not predict climate. Yet.
That's why nobody predicted a twenty year pause in the claimed warming. All of those multi-million dollar models were totally useless.

You have to ignore sea temps to whack off like that. That doesn't make you rational, that just makes you a whackoff.

So why the fuck do you expect an explanation from me?

I don't, really. But you should expect an alternative explanation that matches the observations nearly as well as anthropogenic carbon dioxide from the liars and dickheads, cocksuckers and shiteaters that inform your skepticism.

You know perfectly well that modern science, in spite of billions spent on people, hardware and research, can't forecast the weather more than a few days ahead.
It's not forecastable at present. People know it and accept it, but somehow, they can't accept that the climate can't be forecast. Yet.

Sure it can. Just save your 6-sigma shit for company pep rallies and things that can actually be measured to that order of accuracy. Climate forecasts may have to settle for the 2drms range of confidence intervals until physics can go back in time and calibrate a bunch of fkn thermometers.

These wankers claim that they have an accurate explanation of PAST climate changes.
Amazing, Holmes.

Well, what they have is quite a bit better than what you have, so you could just shut up about it until you can do better.

It's like saying, '''I knew that'', when the winning lottery numbers are announced. Anybody can do it.
But try picking the numbers for NEXT week's draw. If you can do that, then I WILL be impressed.

No. It's not like that. And your lack of impression is impressive, I'm sure.

[Seth]

Daily Caller News Foundation
Antarctic Sea Ice Did The Exact Opposite Of What Models Predicted
11:55 AM 03/02/2015



Photo of Michael Bastasch
Michael Bastasch

See All Articles
Send Email
Subscribe to RSS

Climate models can be good tools for predicting future sea ice levels — unless, of course, they are completely wrong.

In the case of Antarctica, the climate models were dead wrong, according to a new study by Chinese scientists published in the journal Cryosphere. The study found that most climate models predicted Antarctic sea ice coverage would shrink as the world warmed and greenhouse gas levels increased.

The opposite happened. Most climate models analyzed in the study predicted Antarctica would shrink between 1979 and 2005, but instead south pole sea ice levels increased during that time. Going a step further, sea ice levels have only increased since 2006, hitting all-time highs for sea ice coverage in September of last year.

“For the Antarctic, the main problem of the [climate] models is their inability to reproduce the observed slight increase of sea ice extent,” researchers wrote in their study.

“Both satellite-observed Antarctic [sea ice extent] and [satellite measured] Antarctic [sea ice volume] show increasing trends over the period of 1979–2005, but [climate models’] Antarctic [sea ice extent] and [sea ice volume] have decreasing trends,” researchers added. “Only eight models’ [sea ice extent] and eight models’ [sea ice volume] show increasing trends.”

Chinese scientists only looked at sea ice projections until 2005. Had they kept going, they would find more than a trend of “slightly increasing” sea ice levels. Last year was the first year on record that Antarctic sea ice coverage rose above 7.72 million square miles.

By Sept. 22, 2014, sea ice extent reached its highest level on record — 7.76 million square miles. Antarctica is now in its melt season, but even so, sea ice levels were very high for late December and early January.

The same can’t be said for Arctic sea ice coverage. The Chinese study notes that for the Arctic “both climatology and linear trend are better reproduced.” Climate models predicted Arctic sea ice extent and volume would decrease as the world warmed, which it has.

In January 1979, sea ice extent averaged about 6 million square miles for the month. By 2006, sea ice extent averaged above 5.2 million square miles for January — one of the lowest sea ice levels for January on record.

Since 2006, however, the Arctic has stabilized and has even increased slightly. Sea ice extent for January 2015 was 19,000 square miles above the record low extent in January 2011. The National Snow and Ice Data Center reported that “Arctic sea ice extent for January was the third lowest in the satellite record. Through 2015, the linear rate of decline for January extent over the satellite record is 3.2% per decade.”

[Tero]

Overall, any increase in Antarctic ice is miniscule compared to Arctic loss. You have to balance the check book. You do that, right?

[piscator]

Antarctic Sea Ice Did The Exact Opposite Of What Models Predicted

Anthony Watt (hence the Daylie C4lla) is a liar and a fraud who knows his audience is too goddamn dumb to check up on him. Increases in Antarctic sea ice were modeled as a consequence of AGW almost 25 years ago:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10. ... 2.0.CO%3B2

[Rum]

13 billion tonnes of Co2 into the atmosphere in 2012. FFS.

[Seth]

Antarctic Sea Ice Did The Exact Opposite Of What Models Predicted

Anthony Watt (hence the Daylie C4lla) is a liar and a fraud who knows his audience is too goddamn dumb to check up on him. Increases in Antarctic sea ice were modeled as a consequence of AGW almost 25 years ago:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10. ... 2.0.CO%3B2

The opposite happened. Most climate models analyzed in the study predicted Antarctica would shrink between 1979 and 2005, but instead south pole sea ice levels increased during that time. Going a step further, sea ice levels have only increased since 2006, hitting all-time highs for sea ice coverage in September of last year.

[piscator]

Antarctic Sea Ice Did The Exact Opposite Of What Models Predicted

Anthony Watt (hence the Daylie C4lla) is a liar and a fraud who knows his audience is too goddamn dumb to check up on him. Increases in Antarctic sea ice were modeled as a consequence of AGW almost 25 years ago:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10. ... 2.0.CO%3B2

The opposite happened. Most climate models analyzed in the study predicted Antarctica would shrink between 1979 and 2005, but instead south pole sea ice levels increased during that time. Going a step further, sea ice levels have only increased since 2006, hitting all-time highs for sea ice coverage in September of last year.

Great. So we all agree that the current observations of thickening Antarctic sea ice was correctly modeled by Manabe, et al in 1990 in the world's foremost journal of climatology. That's a good step forward for all of us!

[Seth]

Antarctic Sea Ice Did The Exact Opposite Of What Models Predicted

Anthony Watt (hence the Daylie C4lla) is a liar and a fraud who knows his audience is too goddamn dumb to check up on him. Increases in Antarctic sea ice were modeled as a consequence of AGW almost 25 years ago:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10. ... 2.0.CO%3B2

The opposite happened. Most climate models analyzed in the study predicted Antarctica would shrink between 1979 and 2005, but instead south pole sea ice levels increased during that time. Going a step further, sea ice levels have only increased since 2006, hitting all-time highs for sea ice coverage in September of last year.

Great. So we all agree that the current observations of thickening Antarctic sea ice was correctly modeled by Manabe, et al in 1990 in the world's foremost journal of climatology. That's a good step forward for all of us!