Poll: global warming

[SaigonSaddler]

Saigon - that 'warmest' data'll be the data based on the HADCRUT3 temperature databse, which is the one that's been mangled beyond belief by the scientists in charge of it. I don't trust that in the slightest, given that it's creator, Phil Jones, has been stood down under investigation after the Climategate email scandal, with his repeated suggestions to other scientists not to co-operate with Freedom Of Information Act requests, his threat to delete data rather than reveal source and his ugly relationship with his peers to manipulate journals and peer reviewed papers to his advantage. He's even stated on record that he's lost the original, unadjusted, data so nobody can check his methodology. He's no scientist, he's a political beast with an agenda. Note also that in your linked paper, graphs show CO2 lags behind temperature increase by up to 800 years, suggesting that higher temperatures lead to higher CO2 concentrations, not the other way round.

Can't recall if I posted this before, but here's a paper all about forecasting, and how inadequate it is in the IPCC:
http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/fi ... udit31.pdf

No doubt saigon can find something in realclimate to refute this. Realclimate, as I'm sure I've mentioned before, is a partisan blog site and meeting place for members of the Church Of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Only you continually link to blogs Exile, so I'll add Realclimate to the long list you said I couldn't link to, including Nature, the BBC etc. It's a good job I haven't got a list for you really, otherwise it would be a very one sided debate wouldn't it?

Anyway, what's this - some unconvincing political assassination and a load of rhetoric about conspiracy at the pinnacle of science. Heard it before. I want to hear more about ice coverage in the Southern ocean, and more about how you think science works. That was funny.

Still harking back to scientific flim-flam that has been addressed long ago. I would explain again if you hadn't completely discredited yourself with the ice fiasco.

Can we expect the breakdown of the global warming party now that glacier incident has come out? Hasn't blown on the broadcast media yet in any big way. Maybe Obama is preparing a statement...

[Neuromantic]

I'm dreading putting my publication on here at the end of the year (under peer review at the mo) for fear of the saigon journal police! =D

[Exile]

I'm dreading putting my publication on here at the end of the year (under peer review at the mo) for fear of the saigon journal police! =D

The Tetris Effect: On Brain Frying and Colour Dreams. Author: Rhodes, D. Journal Of Childhood Memories Vol 1.

Close? :D

[Cully]

I'm dreading putting my publication on here at the end of the year (under peer review at the mo) for fear of the saigon journal police! =D

I'm looking forward to it, please don't be modest.

[SaigonSaddler]

Here's a paper discussing data adjustment in temperature sets. it can't be done for UK based data as the data as been lost/mangled/denied to scientists thus interrupting scientific best practice.

What was done
The authors examined and compared trends among six different temperature databases for the coterminous United States over the period 1930-2000 and/or 1979-2000.

What was learned
For the period 1930-2000, the RAW or unadjusted USHCN time series revealed a linear cooling of 0.05°C per decade that is statistically significant at the 0.05 level of confidence. The FILNET USHCN time series, on the other hand - which contains adjustments to the RAW dataset designed to deal with biases believed to be introduced by variations in time of observation, the changeover to the new Maximum/Minimum Temperature System (MMTS), station history (including other types of instrument adjustments) and an interpolation scheme for estimating missing data from nearby highly-correlated station records - exhibited an insignificant warming of 0.01°C per decade.

Most interestingly, the difference between the two trends (FILNET-RAW) shows "a nearly monotonic, and highly statistically significant, increase of over 0.05°C per decade." With respect to the 1979-2000 period, the authors say that "even at this relatively short time scale, the difference between the RAW and FILNET trends is highly significant (0.0001 level of confidence)." Over both time periods, they also find that "the trends in the unadjusted temperature records [RAW] are not different from the trends of the independent satellite-based lower-tropospheric temperature record or from the trend of the balloon-based near-surface measurements."

What it means
In the words of the authors, the adjustments that are being made to the raw USHCN temperature data "are producing a statistically significant, but spurious, warming trend in the USHCN temperature database." In fact, they note that "the adjustments to the RAW record result in a significant warming signal in the record that approximates the widely-publicized 0.50°C increase in global temperatures over the past century."

In short, if you adjust the data to show a warming, it'll show a warming.

And yet the ice continues to retreat. How very odd. :idea:

[SaigonSaddler]

I'm dreading putting my publication on here at the end of the year (under peer review at the mo) for fear of the saigon journal police! =D

Nothing to fear Daz. Just get everything below the 0.0001 probability threshold. :wink:

[Exile]

And yet the ice continues to retreat. How very odd.

Does it though? Apart from the ice shelves in one very, very small (but photogenic and accessible) part of the Antarctic continent, does it? proof please.

We went through glacial shortening some pages ago and I pointed out that the response rates of glaciers to things like precipitation, temperature and the like are often separated temporally by large margins, so what's happening now would have been set up tens or hundreds of years ago (like, perhaps returning to a new equilibrium after the little ice age?). Do keep up.

[SaigonSaddler]

And yet the ice continues to retreat. How very odd.

Does it though? Apart from the ice shelves in one very, very small (but photogenic and accessible) part of the Antarctic continent, does it? proof please.

We went through glacial shortening some pages ago and I pointed out that the response rates of glaciers to things like precipitation, temperature and the like are often separated temporally by large margins, so what's happening now would have been set up tens or hundreds of years ago (like, perhaps returning to a new equilibrium after the little ice age?). Do keep up.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[SaigonSaddler]

Oh well, I suppose I had deliver said proof:

Summary, temperatures increasing, losing ice density (that's thickness), increasing speed of glaciers towards the sea, thinning out by 59% in the West

The team used measurements taken with the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, or GRACE, to conclude the Antarctic ice sheet is losing up to 36 cubic miles of ice, or 152 cubic kilometers, annually. By comparison, the city of Los Angeles uses about 1 cubic mile of fresh water annually.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 022806.php

In West Antarctica, widespread losses along the Bellingshausen and Amundsen seas increased the ice sheet loss by 59% in 10 years to reach 13260 Gt yr-1 in 2006.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2 ... 3365.shtml

Between 1996 and 2007, Pine Island Glacier sped up 42% and ungrounded over most of its ice plain. Smith Glacier accelerated 83% and ungrounded as well.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n ... eo102.html

Here we show that significant warming extends well beyond the Antarctic Peninsula to cover most of West Antarctica, an area of warming much larger than previously reported. West Antarctic warming exceeds 0.1 °C per decade over the past 50 years, and is strongest in winter and spring...the continent-wide average near-surface temperature trend is positive.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 07669.html

:| Hope it's enough

[Neuromantic]

I'm dreading putting my publication on here at the end of the year (under peer review at the mo) for fear of the saigon journal police! =D

I'm looking forward to it, please don't be modest.

:D

It's on the 'Attentional Blink' and Global Synchrony - very interesting!

I'll try and not be too modest lover xxx

[Exile]

(1) Summary, temperatures increasing, losing ice density (that's thickness), increasing speed of glaciers towards the sea, thinning out by 59% in the West

The team used measurements taken with the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, or GRACE, to conclude the Antarctic ice sheet is losing up to 36 cubic miles of ice, or 152 cubic kilometers, annually. By comparison, the city of Los Angeles uses about 1 cubic mile of fresh water annually.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 022806.php

(2) In West Antarctica, widespread losses along the Bellingshausen and Amundsen seas increased the ice sheet loss by 59% in 10 years to reach 13260 Gt yr-1 in 2006.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2 ... 3365.shtml

(3) Between 1996 and 2007, Pine Island Glacier sped up 42% and ungrounded over most of its ice plain. Smith Glacier accelerated 83% and ungrounded as well.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n ... eo102.html

(4) Here we show that significant warming extends well beyond the Antarctic Peninsula to cover most of West Antarctica, an area of warming much larger than previously reported. West Antarctic warming exceeds 0.1 °C per decade over the past 50 years, and is strongest in winter and spring...the continent-wide average near-surface temperature trend is positive.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 07669.html

:| Hope it's enough

Not really enough, saigon, sorry. I'd reference all the papers but that'd take too long.

In short:

1 - GRACE measurements too short term to reflect any form of trend and recent analysis suggests that ice loss was grossly overestimated. The authors of that paper readily admitted their shortcomings. Best wait till better data is available, and correctly analysed.

2 - WAIS retreat is balanced by EAIS being completely in balance, and decrease in rate of rise of sea levels over the last century suggests mass is being put on both ice sheets as well as Greenland.

3 - Pine Island glacier is responding, as glaciers do, to climate input from decades and centuries ago - essentially reaching equilibrium following the last glacial maximum. This is true for most of the WAIS which, sticking up on a promontory from central Antarctica, is more prone to ocean currents and warming (centuries-long warming in the current interglacial, not just the odd point something of a degree from the last 2150 years).

4 - You missed out the words "using a simulation and a general circulation model". Given the authors I'm not surprised.

Statistically, Antarctica is showing no discernible trend to warm or cool over the last 50 years. Over the lasyt 500 it's showing a warming trend, but that predates AGW theories of CO2 so nobody mentions it in the papers you cite, instead pointing to dramatic ice shelf collapses. Newsflash: it's happened before and it'll happen again, and this feature of the Antarctic is common in interglacial periods such as the one we live in. Ocean temperatures (that's the ocean, not the surface) would have to rise by more than 5 degress kelvin for catastrophic break up of the Antarctic ice mass itself. Those increases require timescales in the order of centuries to achieve, and the resultant collapse (if it ever happens, which it hasn't done for 12,000,000 years) would take further thousands of years (Pollard & Deconto, 2009).

In a nutshell, any ice loss is easily within natural parameters, results from a rebound from the last glacial maximum and the little ice age and is nothing to do with AGW.


All very humdrum in the grand scheme of things, really. A bit like climate change - the only people worried about it are the ones who think in timescales that are too short to comprehend true climate on Earth.

[Exile]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

"The (IPCC) report read: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.""

"Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, has previously dismissed criticism of the Himalayas claim as "voodoo science"" Sounds like someone else we know :wink: Dismissing criticism out of hand, with a sneer and a put down.

"Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC.....admits he knows little about glaciers. "I am not an expert on glaciers.and I have not visited the region"

These are the "scientists" we are meant to trust then?

Indeed. the problem was apparently caused by an innocent (sure!) transposition of two digits. There's a vast difference between glaciers disappearing by 2035 (catastrophic) and 2350 (subject to extrapolation of temperature range by computer model from computer projections based on computer input of computer-generated variables and an insufficient baseline). Garbage in, garbage out.

As an aside, despite this being in the Himalayas, just up the road from the head of the UNIPCC (Raj Pachauri), he took full advantage of this "mistake" and nobody bothered to correct it till it was pointed out.

[Exile]

I'm quaking. Speaking of which, I'm sure it's only a matter of time before global warming is blamed for the earthquake in Haiti.

The unfortunate use of the Haiti earthquake as a football in our debate is deeply regrettable and I’m sure that it wasn’t meant to trivialise the sad deaths of many 1000s of people. I would hope that it is not used in future.

Indeed I did not mean to trivialise, just to show that some idiots can try to link anything to AGW.

True to form: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/1 ... 25160.html

[aaaae]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

"The (IPCC) report read: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.""

"Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, has previously dismissed criticism of the Himalayas claim as "voodoo science"" Sounds like someone else we know :wink: Dismissing criticism out of hand, with a sneer and a put down.

"Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC.....admits he knows little about glaciers. "I am not an expert on glaciers.and I have not visited the region"

These are the "scientists" we are meant to trust then?

Indeed. the problem was apparently caused by an innocent (sure!) transposition of two digits. There's a vast difference between glaciers disappearing by 2035 (catastrophic) and 2350 (subject to extrapolation of temperature range by computer model from computer projections based on computer input of computer-generated variables and an insufficient baseline). Garbage in, garbage out.

As an aside, despite this being in the Himalayas, just up the road from the head of the UNIPCC (Raj Pachauri), he took full advantage of this "mistake" and nobody bothered to correct it till it was pointed out.

I nearly posted this quote before -

"Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either." - Albert Einstein

But the ice is still melting, comes the refrain. It's been melting for 10,000 effing years! I wonder how all those corries and valleys in Wales, Scotland and the Lake District where created? Where have those darned glaciers gone??

[SaigonSaddler]

1 - GRACE measurements too short term to reflect any form of trend and recent analysis suggests that ice loss was grossly overestimated. The authors of that paper readily admitted their shortcomings. Best wait till better data is available, and correctly analysed.

How about we look seriously at the data on offer, it’s not as if you can supply any of your own or anything is it? It’s only NASA though. I suppose I can’t link to them either now. A weak and dismal attempted rejection of an advanced analysis that clearly shows a reduction in ice gravity.

2 - WAIS retreat is balanced by EAIS being completely in balance, and decrease in rate of rise of sea levels over the last century suggests mass is being put on both ice sheets as well as Greenland.

Sorry what? Do you know what you mean here? Suggests? You’ll need to be a bit more scientific than that to convince the policy makers and also adjust your unique fabrications on glacial morphology and flow.

3 - Pine Island glacier is responding, as glaciers do, to climate input from decades and centuries ago - essentially reaching equilibrium following the last glacial maximum. This is true for most of the WAIS which, sticking up on a promontory from central Antarctica, is more prone to ocean currents and warming (centuries-long warming in the current interglacial, not just the odd point something of a degree from the last 2150 years).

I think you mixed up 2 and 3. Easily done I hear. ‘Essentially reaching equilibrium’ wonderful gloss there, but utterly banal attempt at science speak I’m afraid.

4 - You missed out the words "using a simulation and a general circulation model". Given the authors I'm not surprised.

Oh right, ignore that one then because it concludes something that completely undermines your unsubstantiated premise, even though it appeared in Nature.

How did I know it wouldn't be enough?

It’s either because you are a respected scientist in this area with a great deal of knowledge or you have an ego driven agenda that you are compelled to follow irrespective of the weight and quality of evidence running contrary to it.

It simply must be the first option. But no, wait. Didn’t you try and link sea ice area to total ice mass? :lol:

You have a very limited knowledge of how ice operates and about this area of science in general, judging by those comments. I've known that for some time though, evident by the holes in your knowledge being filled by copy and paste rebuttals from your favourite pseudo-science blog sites.

"essentially reaching equilibrium"

Absolute pap. Anyone with a head not befuddled with attempting to discern an elbow from a backside looking at those papers can see they are robust. The fact that they appear in respected peer reviewed journals (unlike your constant links to 'musings are us.com') must give you pause for thought before reaching for the stock answer in 'simple answers to awkward questions.org'. Your constant and spurious reliance on some global conspiracy are merely a reflection of the depth of your scientific argument.

Oh and by the way, any links to published papers disputing that data/conclusions, or are we expected to, yet again, accept your word over scientists in the field?

You are either scientifically challenged in the cerebral cortex department, or are keen to deliberately misinterpret information due to some egotistical fancy. I think I know which one, although some of your more bizarre theories are causing some internal debate.

Information has been supplied, as requested, fresh from analysis on the only continent not showing warming until recently (the only one you could question, the rest are all clearly warming) and it is rejected as being unfit. Why - because you don't like it.

Again.

Still, the real world rolls on without you. Feel free to pay us a visit sometime when that floaty cloud of misinformation begins to coalesce into something more tangible.

[SaigonSaddler]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

"The (IPCC) report read: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.""

"Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, has previously dismissed criticism of the Himalayas claim as "voodoo science"" Sounds like someone else we know :wink: Dismissing criticism out of hand, with a sneer and a put down.

"Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC.....admits he knows little about glaciers. "I am not an expert on glaciers.and I have not visited the region"

These are the "scientists" we are meant to trust then?

Indeed. the problem was apparently caused by an innocent (sure!) transposition of two digits. There's a vast difference between glaciers disappearing by 2035 (catastrophic) and 2350 (subject to extrapolation of temperature range by computer model from computer projections based on computer input of computer-generated variables and an insufficient baseline). Garbage in, garbage out.

As an aside, despite this being in the Himalayas, just up the road from the head of the UNIPCC (Raj Pachauri), he took full advantage of this "mistake" and nobody bothered to correct it till it was pointed out.

I nearly posted this quote before -

"Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either." - Albert Einstein

But the ice is still melting, comes the refrain. It's been melting for 10,000 effing years! I wonder how all those corries and valleys in Wales, Scotland and the Lake District where created? Where have those darned glaciers gone??

It's the pace of change that reflects the speed of temperature rise. Simple really.

[Exile]

Yet again, proof that the world is not on the edge of absolute catastrophe, but is merely doing what it does in an interglacial...

[SaigonSaddler]

This can't be right.....melting all over the place :?:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ap ... -antarctic

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... sheet-nasa

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... sheet-melt

All 2009 :wink:

[SaigonSaddler]

Yet again, proof that the world is not on the edge of absolute catastrophe, but is merely doing what it does in an interglacial...

Can we see the whole of that spurious graph please?

Anyway, off to play football now. Hopefully give you time to have fun playing with your fantasy websites.

[Exile]

Correct. it can't be right.

Wilkins Ice Shelf - ooh, look! It's done it again!
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/A ... eShelf.htm

Antarctica warming? Don't think so:
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/RS_Antarctica.htm

I'm glad one of your links referenced the Pollard & DeConto study, about rising sea temperatures causing melting in Antarctica. What the Guardian does not point out (in between all the 'coulds' and 'maybes' liberally scattered throught that rubbish report) is the timescales involved. To warm ocean temperatures up 5 degrees would take centuries, centuries, of sustained warming, and melting would take thousands of years to occur after this warming. You won't see it in your lifetime, but if it does happen, by no means certain, then they're saying that it happened before in the Pliocene. I don't recall reading about how mankind was using carbon lots three to five million years ago, what technology replaced it to prevent global warming, or how we lost that technology in the intervening millions of years. Or maybe it was just natural.

[Exile]

Can we see the whole of that graph please?

Sure thing - it's here:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress. ... mage51.png

Apologies for it being hosted on a blog site, but as you can see it's based on a NOAA analysis of a greenland ice core, so you ought to trust it (given that you trust their number for temperature rise predictions).

[Exile]

This can't be right.....melting all over the place

It can't possibly be right! December 2009 (latest results) show total ice extent anomaly of +300,000km^2 compared to 30yr average. Freezing all over the place!
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/imag ... _hires.png

[Exile]

Speaking of the Arctic, which I know we weren't, here's a handy comparison for sea ice concentration. Looks like it's really thinned and melted in the last twenty years...

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/tes ... 18&sy=2010

[ShyTallKnight]

1 - GRACE measurements too short term to reflect any form of trend and recent analysis suggests that ice loss was grossly overestimated. The authors of that paper readily admitted their shortcomings. Best wait till better data is available, and correctly analysed.

How about we look seriously at the data on offer, it’s not as if you can supply any of your own or anything is it? It’s only NASA though. I suppose I can’t link to them either now. A weak and dismal attempted rejection of an advanced analysis that clearly shows a reduction in ice gravity.

2 - WAIS retreat is balanced by EAIS being completely in balance, and decrease in rate of rise of sea levels over the last century suggests mass is being put on both ice sheets as well as Greenland.

Sorry what? Do you know what you mean here? Suggests? You’ll need to be a bit more scientific than that to convince the policy makers and also adjust your unique fabrications on glacial morphology and flow.

3 - Pine Island glacier is responding, as glaciers do, to climate input from decades and centuries ago - essentially reaching equilibrium following the last glacial maximum. This is true for most of the WAIS which, sticking up on a promontory from central Antarctica, is more prone to ocean currents and warming (centuries-long warming in the current interglacial, not just the odd point something of a degree from the last 2150 years).

I think you mixed up 2 and 3. Easily done I hear. ‘Essentially reaching equilibrium’ wonderful gloss there, but utterly banal attempt at science speak I’m afraid.

4 - You missed out the words "using a simulation and a general circulation model". Given the authors I'm not surprised.

Oh right, ignore that one then because it concludes something that completely undermines your unsubstantiated premise, even though it appeared in Nature.

How did I know it wouldn't be enough?

It’s either because you are a respected scientist in this area with a great deal of knowledge or you have an ego driven agenda that you are compelled to follow irrespective of the weight and quality of evidence running contrary to it.

It simply must be the first option. But no, wait. Didn’t you try and link sea ice area to total ice mass? :lol:

You have a very limited knowledge of how ice operates and about this area of science in general, judging by those comments. I've known that for some time though, evident by the holes in your knowledge being filled by copy and paste rebuttals from your favourite pseudo-science blog sites.

"essentially reaching equilibrium"

Absolute pap. Anyone with a head not befuddled with attempting to discern an elbow from a backside looking at those papers can see they are robust. The fact that they appear in respected peer reviewed journals (unlike your constant links to 'musings are us.com') must give you pause for thought before reaching for the stock answer in 'simple answers to awkward questions.org'. Your constant and spurious reliance on some global conspiracy are merely a reflection of the depth of your scientific argument.

Oh and by the way, any links to published papers disputing that data/conclusions, or are we expected to, yet again, accept your word over scientists in the field?

You are either scientifically challenged in the cerebral cortex department, or are keen to deliberately misinterpret information due to some egotistical fancy. I think I know which one, although some of your more bizarre theories are causing some internal debate.

Information has been supplied, as requested, fresh from analysis on the only continent not showing warming until recently (the only one you could question, the rest are all clearly warming) and it is rejected as being unfit. Why - because you don't like it.

Again.

Still, the real world rolls on without you. Feel free to pay us a visit sometime when that floaty cloud of misinformation begins to coalesce into something more tangible.

Why do you have to rely on sarcasm and personal insult when you are debating with Exile? This is usually a sign of weakness both in the argument and and your personality. Grow up and debate properly even if you have differing views.

[aaaae]

Why do you have to rely on sarcasm and personal insult when you are debating with Exile? This is usually a sign of weakness both in the argument and and your personality. Grow up and debate properly even if you have differing views.

It's par for the course for those that believe in anthropological global warming.

Take this discussion document

http://www.moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/MoEF%20Discussion%20Paper%20_him.pdf

Himalayan Glaciers - A State-of-Art Review of Glacial Studies, Glacial Retreat and Climate Change

Which was written by a guy who had been studying Himalayan glaciers since the 1950's and contradicted the IPCC report.

What was the IPCC response? They called it "unsubstantiated" likening it to "school boy science" by "climate change deniers".

In light of the facts that have turned up subsequently, it's pathetic.

[sj]

This sums up the interesting debate on here, worth a read.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/ ... icle/7967/

[aaaae]

This sums up the interesting debate on here, worth a read.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/ ... icle/7967/

Cheers SJ. Some interesting links in there too.

[SaigonSaddler]

Why do you have to rely on sarcasm and personal insult when you are debating with Exile? This is usually a sign of weakness both in the argument and and your personality. Grow up and debate properly even if you have differing views.

Firstly, welcome back!

A casual peruse of the website will introduce you to various accusations and personality assassinations, so I’d invite you to remember that it’s only a website.

Secondly, how I choose to tackle someone with a constant stream of spuriosity is up to me really. There is an argument to suggest that I may alienate certain people on the board with such an approach. I’m not in a position where I need to influence anyone though. If the whole of UTS were to treat me as some kind of social leper it would have zero effect on the policies being taken in this area, or on the quality of the science being produced. The ‘deniers’ are referred as such for a valid reason, as they are in a painfully obvious minority in the areas that matter.

Think of how you would react if someone in your field of expertise were to start shouting the odds about this and that. Any red blooded person would feel justified in reacting robustly and it pales into insignificance against other contributions. Take the moral highground though if it helps. I know Exile will, despite having attempted to lambast me in earler posts - don't worry, I'm not offended. :wink:

The difference where you and PJD are concerned is that you are not exporting internet concoctions and blog tittle-tattle as fact. You have expressed that you don’t understand all of the science. Fair enough. You are entitled to an opinion about anything with that remit.

I will continue with my reaction to things I know are either falsehoods, erroneous or deliberately misconstrued. I invite you to participate in the debate in whatever way you see fit.

As I expressed to the subject in a cordial PM, I am both annoying and tenacious. I forgot rude. But if you’re going to pollute science with abject nonsense then you have to accept the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Enjoy the ride.

[SaigonSaddler]

Correct. it can't be right.

Wilkins Ice Shelf - ooh, look! It's done it again!
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/A ... eShelf.htm

Antarctica warming? Don't think so:
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/RS_Antarctica.htm

I'm glad one of your links referenced the Pollard & DeConto study, about rising sea temperatures causing melting in Antarctica. What the Guardian does not point out (in between all the 'coulds' and 'maybes' liberally scattered throught that rubbish report) is the timescales involved. To warm ocean temperatures up 5 degrees would take centuries, centuries, of sustained warming, and melting would take thousands of years to occur after this warming. You won't see it in your lifetime, but if it does happen, by no means certain, then they're saying that it happened before in the Pliocene. I don't recall reading about how mankind was using carbon lots three to five million years ago, what technology replaced it to prevent global warming, or how we lost that technology in the intervening millions of years. Or maybe it was just natural.

Stock answers from a sceptic blog.
Scientific value - meaningless.
Peer review - none.
Shock value - none.

Why on earth would you attempt to negate scientific analysis with rubbish like that?

Forgot the 'Exile.com' monologue.

[SaigonSaddler]

Can we see the whole of that graph please?

Sure thing - it's here:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress. ... mage51.png

Apologies for it being hosted on a blog site, but as you can see it's based on a NOAA analysis of a greenland ice core, so you ought to trust it (given that you trust their number for temperature rise predictions).

Graph given in support of what exactly? Great analysis!