[Stephen Wilde]

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/TRENDAPRIL.jpg

[Miyazaki]

6 years hardly represents a trend IMO.

If you took off the last 18 months you could argue that there isn't even a trend.

Again, 1 set of data hardly warrants a definitive statement from anyone, besides the fact that it doesn't offer any correlation to any other data.

[Miyazaki]

In fact that has given me a brainwave for a lesson on bad science. Cheers

[Stephen Wilde]

Originally Posted by Games Guru

6 years hardly represents a trend IMO.

If you took off the last 18 months you could argue that there isn't even a trend.

Again, 1 set of data hardly warrants a definitive statement from anyone, besides the fact that it doesn't offer any correlation to any other data.

If you ignore the past 18 months it would be best described as flat after dropping a bit from the 1998 El Nino peak.

For a flat spell to be followed by a fall rather than a resumed rise is not helpful to AGW.

I have said many times that it will take a few more years to establish the truth.

[Miyazaki]

Therefore the only data that is interesting is what has been collected over the last 18 months. This really doesn't tell us anything at all.

[Stephen Wilde]

Er, no.

If AGW theory was right a rise after the plateau was more likely.

The fall renders AGW rather questionable not only in terms of it's existence at all but also as to degree and timescale.

Not being a denier I await the future real world observations but at present they are moving against AGW.

If real world observations were to support AGW I would have no problem accepting it .

[Miyazaki]

As I have already said

18 months of data is i n s i g n i f i c a n t

[Stephen Wilde]

Originally Posted by Games Guru

As I have already said

18 months of data is i n s i g n i f i c a n t

If you say so.

Bye.

[nickbat]

Stephen,

For me, this link undermines much or the arguments put forward by the IPCC and other alarmists. A direct comparison between April 1980 and April 2008 shows that April 2008 had 46% greater Antarctic sea ice extent and 70% greater sea ice concentration than 28 years earlier. That is a direct contradiction to the climate modellers who claim that AGW will be most pronounced at the poles. If the Antarctic ice has not been reduced with the last 28 years of increased CO2, why should it go in the next 28 years? Especially when the net greenhouse effect of CO2 diminishes with increased concentration.

http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist.p...ields=no_panel

Nick

[Stephen Wilde]

Originally Posted by nickbat

Stephen,

For me, this link undermines much or the arguments put forward by the IPCC and other alarmists. A direct comparison between April 1980 and April 2008 shows that April 2008 had 46% greater Antarctic sea ice extent and 70% greater sea ice concentration than 28 years earlier. That is a direct contradiction to the climate modellers who claim that AGW will be most pronounced at the poles. If the Antarctic ice has not been reduced with the last 28 years of increased CO2, why should it go in the next 28 years? Especially when the net greenhouse effect of CO2 diminishes with increased concentration.

http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist.p...ields=no_panel

Nick

Thanks Nick.

The Antarctic ice growth has been a problem for the AGW chaps for some time but they explain it by saying that the Antarctic is so far below freezing point that even with the expected warming the main body of ice does not melt and the extra warmth and moisture enhances precipitation to increase the total ice volume.

Others, however, ignore the problem and bang on about the decrease in size of the West Antarctic ice shelf which has been decreasing since first discovered due to the fact that ice movement from the main ice mass has pushed it out into warmer seas.

To me the important feature is the recent increase in both total ice mass and sea ice extent combined with colder global temps since 1998.

The Arctic is a different matter.It is the Arctic sea ice which is expected to disappear but only in summer. The problem with that is that the Arctic sea ice was much reduced in the 1930's but we weren't then able to measure the extent as a comparator.

Another problem with the Arctic sea ice is that it is very responsive to warm winds or warm sea currents from the south and since warm ingress to the Arctic builds up during a natural (possibly solar induced) warm spell the Arctic is usually still warming by the time the rest of the globe goes into a cooling mode as may be the case now.

I'm a sceptic not a denier so I do take alarmist points seriously. It's just that on investigation they don't match real world observations as you say.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

For a flat spell to be followed by a fall rather than a resumed rise is not helpful to AGW.

None of the previous flat spells followed by falls (1992, 1988, 1962) seem to have been "not helpful to AGW":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...ure_Record.png

As we are still adding CO2 (a known greenhouse gas) in significant quantities to the atmosphere, I see no reason why the underlying trend will not still be upwards, even if temporarily offset by lower solar activity as predicted over the next couple of solar cycles.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by nickbat

That is a direct contradiction to the climate modellers who claim that AGW will be most pronounced at the poles.

Your unsubstantiated allegation is wrong.

The much derided models predict that the Antarctic will cool slightly over the next few years. For the story overall see Syukuro Manabe and Ronald J. Stouffer (2007) Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan 85B: 385-403.

[nickbat]

Originally Posted by andykn

Your unsubstantiated allegation is wrong.

The much derided models predict that the Antarctic will cool slightly over the next few years. For the story overall see Syukuro Manabe and Ronald J. Stouffer (2007) Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan 85B: 385-403.

Maybe I should have said that the effects of AGW are predicted to be most dramatic at the poles. I accept that some models do indeed suggest nil warming, or cooling, in Antarctica, but the fact remains that there have been many limelight-seekers who have made dramatic forecasts about a melting South Pole.

Indeed, in 2005, there was a conference of them!

LONDON, UK, October 18, 2005 (ENS) - "The melting of the ice contained in West Antarctica would lead to a sea level rise of five or six meters around the world, or sufficient to cause effects such as the inundation of much of the state of Florida," said Dr. Tony Payne Monday at a conference of Antarctic climate experts. A five to six meter rise means seas would rise 16 to 19 feet above their present levels.

Scientists are using new satellites and observation systems to monitor disappearing ice shelves and moving glaciers. One 10,000 year old ice shelf in the Antarctic peninsula recently melted in just three weeks, according to NASA scientist Eric Rignot.

Richard Hindmarsh, an ice sheet modeller at the British Antarctic Survey, presented the results of his calculations about the stresses inside Antarctic ice sheets. They imply that the removal of ice shelves due to climate change will cause more ice to flow off the Antarctic land mass and into the ocean, leading to a significant rise in sea levels across the globe.

"These glaciers are melting much faster than we thought," said Rignot, principal scientist for the radar science and engineering section at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

Extracts from http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2...5-10-18-02.asp


All I am saying is that nothing much has happened (other than more ice) in the last 28 years, despite the rise in CO2. Therefore I take the alarmist predictions made above with, at the very least, a pinch of salt.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by nickbat

Maybe I should have said that the effects of AGW are predicted to be most dramatic at the poles. I accept that some models do indeed suggest nil warming, or cooling, in Antarctica, but the fact remains that there have been many limelight-seekers who have made dramatic forecasts about a melting South Pole.

Indeed, in 2005, there was a conference of them!

LONDON, UK, October 18, 2005 (ENS) - "The melting of the ice contained in West Antarctica would lead to a sea level rise of five or six meters around the world, or sufficient to cause effects such as the inundation of much of the state of Florida," said Dr. Tony Payne Monday at a conference of Antarctic climate experts. A five to six meter rise means seas would rise 16 to 19 feet above their present levels.

Scientists are using new satellites and observation systems to monitor disappearing ice shelves and moving glaciers. One 10,000 year old ice shelf in the Antarctic peninsula recently melted in just three weeks, according to NASA scientist Eric Rignot.

Richard Hindmarsh, an ice sheet modeller at the British Antarctic Survey, presented the results of his calculations about the stresses inside Antarctic ice sheets. They imply that the removal of ice shelves due to climate change will cause more ice to flow off the Antarctic land mass and into the ocean, leading to a significant rise in sea levels across the globe.

"These glaciers are melting much faster than we thought," said Rignot, principal scientist for the radar science and engineering section at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

Extracts from http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2...5-10-18-02.asp


All I am saying is that nothing much has happened (other than more ice) in the last 28 years, despite the rise in CO2. Therefore I take the alarmist predictions made above with, at the very least, a pinch of salt.

This doesn't say what you think it does.

Dr Payne's quote is about the effect of IF the Antarctic melts MUCH later this century.

More of the article containing Rignot's quote:

But some scientists have suggested that overall annual snowfalls on the Antarctic ice sheet appear roughly to be balanced by the loss of ice due to melting or the breakup into icebergs.

Rignot presented data that shows ice shelves and glaciers in East Antarctica are thinning and losing mass, even though ice in that area is thought to be thickening overall due to increased amounts of snow and rainfall.

Shows that he is only talking about one part of Antarctica and that the rest of it is in line with the 20 year old model.

[nickbat]

...but they're still banging on about melting icecaps as we speak:

From the Climate Change Forum hosted last Friday by the Philippine National Red Cross at the Manila Hotel:
+++
World Wildlife Fund Climate and Energy Program head Naderev Saño said that "this generation the last chance for the human race" to do something and ensure that humanity stays alive in this planet. According to Saño, while most members of our generation will be dead by the time the worst effects of climate change are felt, our children will be the ones to suffer.

How will Filipinos survive climate change? Well, first of all, they have to be made aware that climate change is a problem that threatens their lives.

The easiest way to do this – as former Consultant for the Secretariats of the UN Convention on Climate Change Dr. Pak Sum Low told abs-cbnews.com/Newsbreak – is to particularize the disasters that it could cause.

Talking in the language of destruction, Pak and other experts paint this portrait of a Philippines hit by climate change: increased typhoons in Visayas, drought in Mindanao, destroyed agricultural areas in Pampanga, and higher incidence rates of dengue and malaria.

Sañom said that as polar ice caps melt due to global warming, sea levels will rise, endangering coastal and low-lying areas like Manila. He said Manila Bay would experience a sea level increase of 72 meters over 20 years. This means that from Pampanga to Nueva Ecija, farms and fishponds would be in danger of being would be inundated in saltwater."
+++

72 meters over 20 years? I'd be amazed if it was even 1/100th of that. Still, as long as your business is frightening people, who cares about a bit of exaggeration, eh?

[nickbat]

Sorry, forgot the link:

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage...StoryId=118533

[andykn]

Originally Posted by nickbat

Sorry, forgot the link:

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage...StoryId=118533

Originally Posted by nickbat

...but they're still banging on about melting icecaps as we speak:

"they", the mark of the conspiracy nutter. Its one unspecified bloke, in a publication of unknown provenance. I don't think it's an official IPCC pronouncement.

72 meters over 20 years? I'd be amazed if it was even 1/100th of that.

As would the IPCC.

As the article gets Naderev M Sano's name wrong, I suspect the accuracy of the rest of it's reporting. I can find no corroborating evidence on the WWFs own website, indeede the only mention of Naderev Sano is as a member of staff in the Phillipines.

For the WWFs own position on the Philippines:

http://www.wwf.org.ph/about.php?pg=wwd&sub1=00021

NM "Yeb" Sano appears to be a Phillipines WWF Project Director:

http://www.wwf.org.ph/newsfacts.php?pg=det&id=103

i.e. not a climate scientist. Why do people have trouble with listening to climate scientists but will listen to any old rubbish purporting to come form somewhere else?

You really shouldn't believe everything (anything) you read in the papers.

[splatz]

Originally Posted by andykn

You really shouldn't believe everything (anything) you read in the papers.

Goes without saying really. Newspaper journalists invented a new career - "Environmental Journalism". Unfortunately because this job involves writing about the effect that mankind has on global warming these enviro journalists constantly have to write new stories.

As you know, global warming isn't something that happens overnight (2 or 5 degrees C over the next 50 - 100 years, etc. depending on the study) so it isn't the sort of topic that would produce lots of interesting stories on a regular basis.

But these enviro journalists constantly have to write new stories otherwise they would be out of a job so they have to make the stories bigger and better than the previous one - so they make the stories sound more extreme. Further more, they pick up on any new study that gets published, even if that study has been ridiculed by peer review (assuming it has been peer reviewed to start with), or published by people not affiliated with any recognized scientific body. Even more disturbing is the dumbing down of information to fit their target audience.

Bottom line, do not trust what you read in the newspapers - not only is it bad science, it is bad journalism too.

[johntheexpat]

Like most things today, Journalism has one sole objective. To sell the newspaper or magazine. Nothing else really counts. Truth, trust, privacy, all count for very little. Even with the broadsheets. They have to sell, so the nonsense is just as inaccurate, but perhaps slightly better written.
By reporting Climate Change and Global Warming the way they have, instead of making people aware of the potential downside, they just bore everyone into a state of rebellion. In the charity world, they have a phenomenon called 'compassion saturation' ie oh no not another damned earthquake/flood/famine/ etc etc, to the extent that people just stop giving. I think we have reached that stage with the GW debate. Everyone is fed up to the back teeth with the garbage put out and blamed on GW, to the extent that they are starting to object to the very phrase.

[andykn]

One of the joys of the internet is that, when a story comes out, it is quite easy to check the source directly.

Too many people post news articles on here without looking at the underlying facts.