The warmers are becoming skeptics

[BeAChooser]

Honesty doesn't play much part in the American Liar...

Except your graph actually corroborates EXACTLY what the AmericanThinker article said: "Indeed the March sea-ice extent is now well within two standard deviations of the "baseline" set in the period 1979-2000." So where's the lie, GreyICE? Or did you just not understand the English they wrote or do you not understand what the graph you linked shows?

 

[GreyICE]

Except your graph actually corroborates EXACTLY what the AmericanThinker article said: "Indeed the March sea-ice extent is now well within two standard deviations of the "baseline" set in the period 1979-2000." So where's the lie, GreyICE? Or did you just not understand the English they wrote or do you not understand what the graph you linked shows?

Did you understand it's far under the 2 standard deviations in every other month, in fact setting record lows in February, so using 1 month of variation to imply that the sea ice is 'within two standard deviatiopns' is incredibly dishonest?

Or did you miss that? I understand if the incredibly complex concept that February comes before March is hard for you

 

[BeAChooser]

Did you understand it's far under the 2 standard deviations in every other month, in fact setting record lows in February

Really? Record lows?

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Arctic sea ice extent averaged for February 2010 was 14.58 million square kilometers (5.63 million square miles). This was 1.06 million square kilometers (409,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average for February, but 220,000 square kilometers (85,000 square miles) above the record low for the month, which occurred in February 2005.

Who is the one being dishonest here?

 

[GreyICE]

Really? Record lows?

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/



Who is the one being dishonest here?

Aww, I misspoke. If I were publishing a magazine, and my editor or I didn't catch that, why yes, that would be terrible.

Are you suggesting the American "thinker" is comparable in publishing level to a public forum? If so, I'd agree.

 

[BenBurch]

The denial-bots fail to comprehend what a multi-year average is, and how the events of a single year simply do not change it from a warming trend to a cooling trend. I blame our schools.

 

[BeAChooser]

Are you suggesting the American "thinker" is comparable in publishing level to a public forum?

I'm suggesting the American Thinker didn't lie about anything in their article as you initially claimed. What they actually stated is exactly what your gotcha chart shows.

 

[BeAChooser]

The denial-bots fail to comprehend what a multi-year average is, and how the events of a single year simply do not change it from a warming trend to a cooling trend.

What was that Phil Jones said about no global warming since 1995?

 

[GreyICE]

I'm suggesting the American Thinker didn't lie about anything in their article as you initially claimed. What they actually stated is exactly what your gotcha chart shows.

What they claimed that their statement showed is in no way what reality shows. The melt is far outside the 2 sigma away from average line that the chart has. That one month wanders into a 2-sigma zone is hardly a big surprise. That most of the months are outside the 2-sigma zone tells you that the zone has shifted, one month trickling back to the lower end of it doesn't change that.

The American "Thinker" might as well be a few kids in an internet forum, for all the dedication to unconvering the truth and telling the whole story they show. "We scored some points, neener, neener, neener!' Nevermind what the truth is - and it's rarely like what they think it is.

When one allows ideology to determine facts, one creates an alternate reality. Sadly, it's simply a fantasy.

 

[BeAChooser]

This article is a rather good summary of the state of things.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,686697,00.html

04/01/2010

A Superstorm for Global Warming Research

Plagued by reports of sloppy work, falsifications and exaggerations, climate research is facing a crisis of confidence. How reliable are the predictions about global warming and its consequences? And would it really be the end of the world if temperatures rose by more than the much-quoted limit of two degrees Celsius?

Too bad the American mainstream media hasn't the journalistic integrity to publish the same sort of articles. They are still too busy trying to sell Cap and Trade to the ignorant masses.

 

[lomiller]

He also fails to note that it’s been an unusually warm year in the Arctic. The problem is that Arctic sea ice is largely bounded by the land around it. Year to year winter variation comes entirely from a small area near Alaska and a slightly larger area near Greenland that is always the first to melt, which occurs around March.

If you look at the last few years, there is always a spike in sea ice anomaly around this time because the ice in these swing areas is melting quickly, but the much larger area bounded by land has yet to begin melting. Well, in a normal year it wouldn’t have started yet, but this year the ice in the artic basin and Northwest Passage already seems to be breaking up.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png

 

[lomiller]

What was that Phil Jones said about no global warming since 1995?

He said that 1995+ wasn’t long enough to establish statistical significant. 1994 and earlier is long enough to establish statistical and shows warming that is right in line with predications.

So, do have any more pseudoscience you want to regurgitate?

 

[lomiller]

Too bad the American mainstream media hasn't the journalistic integrity to publish the same sort of articles.

The mainstream media certainly has bought into the “sell the controversy strategy” being undertaken by the right, but at least they haven’t gone as far as the Fake News sources you seem to get your information from. Multiple inquiries have already shown the allegations made in your political article have no basis in fact. The latest being the UK parliamentary inquiry.

http://www.desmogblog.com/phil-jones-exonerated-british-house-commons

 

[bobdroege7]

Check out the animation in this

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Greenland-ice-mass-loss-spread-to-northwest.html

and compare it to this

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.4.html

and this

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.5.html

I wonder how much of the mass lost from the Greenland ice sheet is affecting the amount of floating ice up there.

 

[cienaños]

Consider this, on February 6 it was 10 degrees. Today it hit almost 80. At this rate, by August it will be 220 degrees. - Stephen Colbert

If you do not understand this in the context of the "duh-bate", well, here's your helmet. Wait, let's get your leash on too. And, no, wait, get your tongue out of the electrical socket please, that's a good boy, yes you are!

 

[Hallo Alfie]

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-new...ced-climate-change-manmade-20100507-uhdf.html

Two out of three Australians are not convinced climate change is man-made, and even those who do believe it is aren't prepared to pay much to fix it, a new poll shows.

"This reveals why Kevin Rudd has run away from what he had previously described as the greatest moral challenge of our times," he said in a statement.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/07/02/lawrence-solomon-catastrophism-collapses/

July 2, 2010

… snip …

Last week’s G8 and G20 meetings in Toronto and its environs confirmed that the world’s leaders accept the demise of global-warming alarmism.

One year ago, the G8 talked tough about cutting global temperatures by two degrees. In Toronto, they neutered that tough talk, replacing it with a nebulous commitment to do their best on climate change — and not to try to outdo each other. The global-warming commitments of the G20 — which now carries more clout than the G8 — went from nebulous to non-existent: The G20’s draft promise going into the meetings of investing in green technologies faded into a mere commitment to “a green economy and to sustainable global growth.”

Meanwhile … Obama is apparently Stuck on Stupid.

 

[lomiller]

Meanwhile … Obama is apparently Stuck on Stupid.

speaking of stuck on stupid...

Apparently american thinker should have thought a little more before writing the article you linked to a little higher on the page. just 2 months later arctic sea ice extents are the lowest on record and plummeting rapidly. (for pretty much the reason I outlined at the time btw)

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

Oh that inconvenient arctic ice...

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2010/june

The June Outlook for arctic sea ice in September 2010 shows reasonable arguments for either a modest increase or decrease in September 2010 sea ice extent compared to the last two years (5.4 million square kilometers in 2009 and 4.7 million square kilometers in 2008).

 

[bit_pattern]

http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2010/june

I enjoyed the way you truncated the important qualifier in the paragraph you quoted

The June Outlook for arctic sea ice in September 2010 shows reasonable arguments for either a modest increase or decrease in September 2010 sea ice extent compared to the last two years (5.4 million square kilometers in 2009 and 4.7 million square kilometers in 2008). However, it is important to note that the June 2010 Outlook indicates a continuation of the overall trend in long-term loss of summer arctic sea ice, with no indication that a return to historical levels of the 1980s/1990s will occur.

 

[BeAChooser]

Oh that inconvenient arctic ice...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/07/revised_ice_loss_estimates/

Greenland ice loss rates 'one-third' of what was thought

… snip …

The rate at which ice is disappearing from Greenland and Western Antarctica has been seriously overestimated, according to new research.

… snip …

Thus it is that since 2002, NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite data has been used to make an estimate of ice melt from Greenland and Western Antarctica. (The rest of Antarctica doesn't seem to be melting at all - indeed Antarctica as a whole is actually gaining ice area rather than losing it - but some regions in the West are melting. The reasons for this are under investigation.)

The original GRACE-based estimates indicated as much as 1,500 billion tonnes ice loss just from Greenland in the period 2003-2009 - equivalent to a global sea-level rise of over 4mm on its own. However it has since become clear that these numbers weren't properly corrected for the phenomenon of "rebound", where the Earth's crust rises as ice is removed. GPS precise-location devices fixed to bedrock outcrops in Antarctica showed this last year, but nobody was sure how bad the errors were.

Now a team of researchers based at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and in the Netherlands say they have the answer.

Vermeersen and his colleagues' calculations show that as little as 500 gigatonnes of ice or even less could have melted from Greenland during 2003-2009, translating into less than 2mm of sea-level rise. In the case of Greenland, it could be that the current estimates are triple what they should be.

http://www.physorg.com/news203066251.html

Climate: New study slashes estimate of icecap loss

September 7, 2010 by Richard Ingham

Estimates of the rate of ice loss from Greenland and West Antarctica, one of the most worrying questions in the global warming debate, should be halved, according to Dutch and US scientists.