Antarctic sea ice reaches record high while IPCC models predicted the opposite

[Dubya]

If it is true that CO2 is a "powerful" greenhouse gas, then you should be able to show at least one experiment that proves that raising the amount of that gas in an open atmosphere will cause temperatures to rise. We both know, however, that you can't and never will be able to because it simply doesn't happen.

Someone on one of your denier cult blogs told you that particular myth but it is not true. Sadly, you've shown yourself to be much too stupid to understand the science and too ideologically blinded to even try. But here's a good summary of the relevant experiments anyway for those who maybe have more than just two brain cells to rub together.

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

Which part of that op ed do you believe is proof of anything other than climate science's willingness to perpetrate a hoax for enough money and your gullibility in believing them?

You want to call other people gullible, well, let's just look at the facts!

In the United States, our original climate data was funded by the Commerce Department and the Department of Defense. Our main interest was to protect shipping and surfacing a submarine carrying nuclear weapons in the arctic. With shipping the interest is tracking icebergs and make sure the ship doesn't run into one. With subs, it's how to quietly surface and deliver nuclear weapons.

The original nuclear submarines carried nuclear weapons launch with cruise missiles and one of the first exercises was to learn how to surface in the arctic, but the arctic had various thicknesses of sea ice. Early technology was developed to measure the thickness of the sea ice with sonar, but there was a problem. Sending out sound signals gives away the location of the ship and the enemy can detect it. Since nuclear submarines are very expensive and governments wanted to protect them against attack, they looked for other options.

One of the options was to measure sea ice thickness from space. We were well into the MAD generation by then and MAD meant Mutually Assured Destruction. We had mostly three lines of defense, land based ballistic missiles, bombers that needed to roam to not be located and those nuclear submarines. The idea was rather simple, if the USSR does a first strike against us, we have so many nukes to convert all their cities and productive areas to dust.

But lo and behold, the Cold War came to an end, so people started looking back on the data, but again, let me paint the true picture! By that time it wasn't just the US and the USSR having nuclear weapons, because the UK had subs under the arctic and France did their thing. The US and the USSR weren't the only ones having subs under the arctic carrying nuclear weapons, because I know the UK had them there and technology to allies managed to find a path.

During the Cold War games, a fact became evident and the arctic was changing it's stripes. Areas in the arctic that once had thick sea ice were disappearing and by that time we had satellite coverage to watch it.

So you think the world has spent billions of dollars to make a hoax and there is no rational reason to want to know the thickness of arctic sea ice! Why are governments now putting satellites to even monitor other areas of the world, if they didn't discover a problem? That doesn't make sense!

 

[IanC]

The graph in the SkeptialScience article is very similar to what the IPCC publishe d. If so, then it is very misleading because they used two different sets of climate models to show the 'before' and 'after' results. Why didn't they use the same models and same input parameters to show the differences?

 

[SSDD]

So you think the world has spent billions of dollars to make a hoax and there is no rational reason to want to know the thickness of arctic sea ice! Why are governments now putting satellites to even monitor other areas of the world, if they didn't discover a problem? That doesn't make sense!

I don't guess you saw the memo from NOAA and others stating that the loss of ice in the arctic is due to wind, not warming. If you believe you have some actual proof that an increase in a trace atmospheric gas is responsible even though government agencies have acknowledged that it isn't warming, then lets see it.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2012/20121010_arcticwinds.html

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Someone on one of your denier cult blogs told you that particular myth but it is not true. Sadly, you've shown yourself to be much too stupid to understand the science and too ideologically blinded to even try. But here's a good summary of the relevant experiments anyway for those who maybe have more than just two brain cells to rub together.

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

Which part of that op ed do you believe is proof of anything other than climate science's willingness to perpetrate a hoax for enough money and your gullibility in believing them?

You want to call other people gullible, well, let's just look at the facts!

In the United States, our original climate data was funded by the Commerce Department and the Department of Defense. Our main interest was to protect shipping and surfacing a submarine carrying nuclear weapons in the arctic. With shipping the interest is tracking icebergs and make sure the ship doesn't run into one. With subs, it's how to quietly surface and deliver nuclear weapons.

The original nuclear submarines carried nuclear weapons launch with cruise missiles and one of the first exercises was to learn how to surface in the arctic, but the arctic had various thicknesses of sea ice. Early technology was developed to measure the thickness of the sea ice with sonar, but there was a problem. Sending out sound signals gives away the location of the ship and the enemy can detect it. Since nuclear submarines are very expensive and governments wanted to protect them against attack, they looked for other options.

One of the options was to measure sea ice thickness from space. We were well into the MAD generation by then and MAD meant Mutually Assured Destruction. We had mostly three lines of defense, land based ballistic missiles, bombers that needed to roam to not be located and those nuclear submarines. The idea was rather simple, if the USSR does a first strike against us, we have so many nukes to convert all their cities and productive areas to dust.

But lo and behold, the Cold War came to an end, so people started looking back on the data, but again, let me paint the true picture! By that time it wasn't just the US and the USSR having nuclear weapons, because the UK had subs under the arctic and France did their thing. The US and the USSR weren't the only ones having subs under the arctic carrying nuclear weapons, because I know the UK had them there and technology to allies managed to find a path.

During the Cold War games, a fact became evident and the arctic was changing it's stripes. Areas in the arctic that once had thick sea ice were disappearing and by that time we had satellite coverage to watch it.

So you think the world has spent billions of dollars to make a hoax and there is no rational reason to want to know the thickness of arctic sea ice! Why are governments now putting satellites to even monitor other areas of the world, if they didn't discover a problem? That doesn't make sense!

Billions of dollars?

Hoax?

Where do I sign on?

 

[RollingThunder]

So you think the world has spent billions of dollars to make a hoax and there is no rational reason to want to know the thickness of arctic sea ice! Why are governments now putting satellites to even monitor other areas of the world, if they didn't discover a problem? That doesn't make sense!

I don't guess you saw the memo from NOAA and others stating that the loss of ice in the arctic is due to wind, not warming. If you believe you have some actual proof that an increase in a trace atmospheric gas is responsible even though government agencies have acknowledged that it isn't warming, then lets see it.

Arctic summer wind shift could affect sea ice loss and U.S./European weather, says NOAA-led study

It is just amazing what nonsense and lies a gullible little retard like you can be duped into believing, even when the actual facts are right in front of you. Once again you demonstrate that you are too moronic to understand the stuff you cite to supposedly support your braindead claims. LOL. So no, halfwit, NOAA did not state "that the loss of ice in the arctic is due to wind, not warming".

Here's what the scientists are actually saying in that NOAA article you cited.

"“Our research reveals a change in the summer Arctic wind pattern over the past six years. This shift demonstrates a physical connection between reduced Arctic sea ice in the summer, loss of Greenland ice, and potentially, weather in North American and Europe,” said Overland, a NOAA research oceanographer.

The shift provides additional evidence that changes in the Arctic are not only directly because of global warming, as shown by warmer air and sea temperatures, but are also part of an “Arctic amplification” through which multiple Arctic-specific physical processes interact to accelerate temperature change, ice variability, and ecological impacts. "

 

[Dubya]

The graph in the SkeptialScience article is very similar to what the IPCC publishe d. If so, then it is very misleading because they used two different sets of climate models to show the 'before' and 'after' results. Why didn't they use the same models and same input parameters to show the differences?

The IPCC reports are way to conservative to even have value. It's the nature of science to be conservative and I know that from being a scientist. The things happening now are happening so fast that computer models and even scientific minds can't keep up with it. A scientist first looks for observational data, but he's only human and can only get the data available.

Here is what's going to happen in the near future. The loss of arctic sea ice and Northern Hemiphere snow cover will cause that ice sheet on Greenland (GIS) to melt and not on a once every 150 year cycle. That ice sheet has been there since the Pliocene Epoch, let's say around 5 million years ago, when sea levels were 25 meters high than today. The western antarctic ice sheet called WAIS is also going to start melting faster, but the eastern antarctic ice sheet called EAIS will hold for awhile. The world's next larger ice sheet is in Patagonia, is land locked and has already split it two, so it isn't going to contribute much to sea level rise as it slowly melts away. The loss of glacier fed water in many locations are going to create problems with hydroelectric dams and agricultural areas.

Ice doesn't conform to delta temperature to melt, because it moves with gravity without temperature consideration. The ice sheets that exist have grounded themselves, often at the edge of an ocean and the glaciers that feed that area can be sped up many orders of magnitude if the anchor or buttress is destroyed. That means we're going to flood every major city on the coasts of this world, in a very short period of time and past sea level changes will be meaningless to the present and future. Of course, people are smart enough to leave areas and not be drowned, but the economic hardship will be severe. We're also going to change the way the jet stream behaves and have done so already, causing it to stall and give extreme weather events to poplulated areas in the Northern Hemisphere. The probability of disrupting a major food production area in the Northern Hemisphere, like our bread basket is very likely.

There's the near future for a creature given an advanced brain and not having the capacity to use it! None of that was necessary and could have been avoided by using existing technology that usually predates the oldest of people on Earth. Of course, game now is to stick your head in the sand and pretend it isn't happening.

 

[RollingThunder]

Where do I sign on?

It is a sign of progress, CrazyFruitcake, when you can ask for help. Good for you.

Now, in your case, where you would "sign on" would be the nearest mental hospital, using a process called 'self-commitment'. Here's some info on that subject that you might find useful.

Voluntary Commitment and Mental Health Law

I wish you luck in your struggles to regain at least some minimum level of sanity. Too bad the retardation thing is incurable though.

 

[Dubya]

Where do I sign on?

It is a sign of progress, CrazyFruitcake, when you can ask for help. Good for you.

Now, in your case, where you would "sign on" would be the nearest mental hospital, using a process called 'self-commitment'. Here's some info on that subject that you might find useful.

Voluntary Commitment and Mental Health Law

I wish you luck in your struggles to regain at least some minimum level of sanity. Too bad the retardation thing is incurable though.

Damn!!!

Isn't that a carbon atom in your avatar?

 

[IanC]

The graph in the SkeptialScience article is very similar to what the IPCC publishe d. If so, then it is very misleading because they used two different sets of climate models to show the 'before' and 'after' results. Why didn't they use the same models and same input parameters to show the differences?

The IPCC reports are way to conservative to even have value. It's the nature of science to be conservative and I know that from being a scientist. The things happening now are happening so fast that computer models and even scientific minds can't keep up with it. A scientist first looks for observational data, but he's only human and can only get the data available.

Here is what's going to happen in the near future. The loss of arctic sea ice and Northern Hemiphere snow cover will cause that ice sheet on Greenland (GIS) to melt and not on a once every 150 year cycle. That ice sheet has been there since the Pliocene Epoch, let's say around 5 million years ago, when sea levels were 25 meters high than today. The western antarctic ice sheet called WAIS is also going to start melting faster, but the eastern antarctic ice sheet called EAIS will hold for awhile. The world's next larger ice sheet is in Patagonia, is land locked and has already split it two, so it isn't going to contribute much to sea level rise as it slowly melts away. The loss of glacier fed water in many locations are going to create problems with hydroelectric dams and agricultural areas.

Ice doesn't conform to delta temperature to melt, because it moves with gravity without temperature consideration. The ice sheets that exist have grounded themselves, often at the edge of an ocean and the glaciers that feed that area can be sped up many orders of magnitude if the anchor or buttress is destroyed. That means we're going to flood every major city on the coasts of this world, in a very short period of time and past sea level changes will be meaningless to the present and future. Of course, people are smart enough to leave areas and not be drowned, but the economic hardship will be severe. We're also going to change the way the jet stream behaves and have done so already, causing it to stall and give extreme weather events to poplulated areas in the Northern Hemisphere. The probability of disrupting a major food production area in the Northern Hemisphere, like our bread basket is very likely.

There's the near future for a creature given an advanced brain and not having the capacity to use it! None of that was necessary and could have been avoided by using existing technology that usually predates the oldest of people on Earth. Of course, game now is to stick your head in the sand and pretend it isn't happening.

we obviously have different opinions about a lot of things. you dont have a lot of posts here so I dont really know your position but I think you are buying into the catastrophic conclusions that have the least amount of evidence to support them.

the IPCC consistently exaggerate findings. I am willing to concede that doubling CO2 will theoretically increase surface temperature by ~1C. I am not willing to agree with positive feedbacks tripling that number. every new study is showing smaller feedbacks and I think eventually the feedback will be negative.

I think you are over reacting if you think 1C will put the world past the tipping point. 1C temperature increase will improve human conditions like it has in the past.

sea levels have risen by ~2mm/yr since we have been measuring. you seem to think that ice caps will collapse and drown the coasts. they didnt collapse during the medieval warm period or the Roman warm period, etc.

you may think that mankind is evil and needs to be punished. your opinion is your own. I do not think that squandering trillions of dollars on useless regulations, taxes and ineffective energy sources is the way to proceed. I would prefer to let technology go forward and bring other solutions. I am 100% in favour of reducing pollution but I dont consider CO2 as pollution.

the IPCC and climate science has made a lot of statements that make little sense to me. eg solar variation has been highly correlated with climate for hundreds and thousands of years although we dont know the mechanisms. along comes increased CO2 and that correlation is ignored, actually worse still it is given to CO2 !! omitted variable fraud.

the certainty assigned to many aspects of climate science is wildly exaggerated and we need to put computer climate models back into their rightful place as useful tools not skillful predictors!

enough ranting for now

 

[Dubya]

The graph in the SkeptialScience article is very similar to what the IPCC publishe d. If so, then it is very misleading because they used two different sets of climate models to show the 'before' and 'after' results. Why didn't they use the same models and same input parameters to show the differences?

The IPCC reports are way to conservative to even have value. It's the nature of science to be conservative and I know that from being a scientist. The things happening now are happening so fast that computer models and even scientific minds can't keep up with it. A scientist first looks for observational data, but he's only human and can only get the data available.

Here is what's going to happen in the near future. The loss of arctic sea ice and Northern Hemiphere snow cover will cause that ice sheet on Greenland (GIS) to melt and not on a once every 150 year cycle. That ice sheet has been there since the Pliocene Epoch, let's say around 5 million years ago, when sea levels were 25 meters high than today. The western antarctic ice sheet called WAIS is also going to start melting faster, but the eastern antarctic ice sheet called EAIS will hold for awhile. The world's next larger ice sheet is in Patagonia, is land locked and has already split it two, so it isn't going to contribute much to sea level rise as it slowly melts away. The loss of glacier fed water in many locations are going to create problems with hydroelectric dams and agricultural areas.

Ice doesn't conform to delta temperature to melt, because it moves with gravity without temperature consideration. The ice sheets that exist have grounded themselves, often at the edge of an ocean and the glaciers that feed that area can be sped up many orders of magnitude if the anchor or buttress is destroyed. That means we're going to flood every major city on the coasts of this world, in a very short period of time and past sea level changes will be meaningless to the present and future. Of course, people are smart enough to leave areas and not be drowned, but the economic hardship will be severe. We're also going to change the way the jet stream behaves and have done so already, causing it to stall and give extreme weather events to poplulated areas in the Northern Hemisphere. The probability of disrupting a major food production area in the Northern Hemisphere, like our bread basket is very likely.

There's the near future for a creature given an advanced brain and not having the capacity to use it! None of that was necessary and could have been avoided by using existing technology that usually predates the oldest of people on Earth. Of course, game now is to stick your head in the sand and pretend it isn't happening.

we obviously have different opinions about a lot of things. you dont have a lot of posts here so I dont really know your position but I think you are buying into the catastrophic conclusions that have the least amount of evidence to support them.

the IPCC consistently exaggerate findings. I am willing to concede that doubling CO2 will theoretically increase surface temperature by ~1C. I am not willing to agree with positive feedbacks tripling that number. every new study is showing smaller feedbacks and I think eventually the feedback will be negative.

I think you are over reacting if you think 1C will put the world past the tipping point. 1C temperature increase will improve human conditions like it has in the past.

sea levels have risen by ~2mm/yr since we have been measuring. you seem to think that ice caps will collapse and drown the coasts. they didnt collapse during the medieval warm period or the Roman warm period, etc.

you may think that mankind is evil and needs to be punished. your opinion is your own. I do not think that squandering trillions of dollars on useless regulations, taxes and ineffective energy sources is the way to proceed. I would prefer to let technology go forward and bring other solutions. I am 100% in favour of reducing pollution but I dont consider CO2 as pollution.

the IPCC and climate science has made a lot of statements that make little sense to me. eg solar variation has been highly correlated with climate for hundreds and thousands of years although we dont know the mechanisms. along comes increased CO2 and that correlation is ignored, actually worse still it is given to CO2 !! omitted variable fraud.

the certainty assigned to many aspects of climate science is wildly exaggerated and we need to put computer climate models back into their rightful place as useful tools not skillful predictors!

enough ranting for now

Mankind isn't evil, but a few people may be, though I haven't met them. The IPCC reports are way too conservative to predict what will happen and they're every 5 years. That's just the nature of science, because a scientist wants to cover his ass and not be proven wrong. What happens when the time scale is jacked up and 5 years of looking at the past trends loses meaning?

I see evidence we have already changed our climate and if you don't see it, I'm not going to call you names or stupid for not seeing what I see. You have a right and a brain to see your world and so do I. I'm just one old man who has taken part of his life to study our Earth and that was around the mid '70s before global warming concerns.

I also see evidence that the shits going to hit the fan sooner than the experts say, but again, that's just my opinion. Who wants to listen to an old man anyway?

 

[Trakar]

In response to the barrage of recent posts by a certain member of this board, the vast majority of which reflect, and discuss nothing more than the output of computer models, I am going to post some recently published papers based on actual observation. The contrast is remarkable.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

This paper, recently published in the Journal of Climate finds that most of the climate models predicted, in error, that the Antarctic Sea Ice extent would decrease over the past 30 years. This is a considerable deviation from actual observation as the Antarctic sea ice is currently 2 standard deviations above the 1979 - 2000 average. More evidence of the abject failure of climate models.

The paper you cite has little to do with the statements you attribute to it. (CMIP5 - Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5) is a relatively new protocol of testing - it is not a climate model nor even a study of existing climate models, it is simply a framework created to help researchers in the field find ways to standardize and unify their testing procedures and the results produced by various types of climate models so that the results can be meaningfully compared. So far the protocol (CMIP5) is still a work in progress, so I'm really not sure why you are speaking of it as though it were some linchpin in general climate science understandings?

CMIP5 - Overview

"CMIP5 is meant to provide a framework for coordinated climate change experiments for the next five years and thus includes simulations for assessment in the AR5 as well as others that extend beyond the AR5. CMIP5 is not, however, meant to be comprehensive; it cannot possibly include all the different model intercomparison activities that might be of value, and it is expected that various groups and interested parties will develop additional experiments that might build on and augment the experiments described here.


CMIP5 promotes a standard set of model simulations in order to:

• <LI class=txt2>evaluate how realistic the models are in simulating the recent past, <LI class=txt2>provide projections of future climate change on two time scales, near term (out to about 2035) and long term (out to 2100 and beyond), and
• understand some of the factors responsible for differences in model projections, including quantifying some key feedbacks such as those involving clouds and the carbon cycle "

If these researchers have identified some areas where they feel that the methods of comparison that the CMIP5 system applies in comparing certain GCM, RCP or any of the range of simple, intermediate or complex Earth System Models is weak or needs improvement, then I congradulate them, nothing that I see in their work, however, indicates that they are refuting the data or findings of previous climate researches or studies.

 

[IanC]

what parts do you consider too conservative? I have looked at the evidence and seen exaggerations everywhere.

 

[Dubya]

what parts do you consider too conservative? I have looked at the evidence and seen exaggerations everywhere.

The arctic sea ice predictions are way off. We can easily lose that summer sea ice in a couple years. The sea level predictions are also way off, but let me post June snow cover trends to show why my logic is correct.

Here is a chart of June snow cover anomalies in the Northern Hemisphere. When you are down around 6 million square miles, compare that to the remaining arctic sea ice in summer and the area of Greenland! That's nearly three times the area of either one. Now, picture the wind blowing across areas that have snow or don't. Picture the sun rising and the difference of it reflecting off of snow or warming the ground without snow! That changes the temperature of the air and when that air blows over other ice covered areas, it's much warmer.

We're going to have those 150 year Greenland melts on a regular basis, unless the trend reverses and there is more white to reflect sunlight.

What is suppose to reverse that trend? I don't think wishful thinking will do it.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Are these the same people that fudged the global warming numbers?

 

[westwall]

The graph in the SkeptialScience article is very similar to what the IPCC publishe d. If so, then it is very misleading because they used two different sets of climate models to show the 'before' and 'after' results. Why didn't they use the same models and same input parameters to show the differences?

The IPCC reports are way to conservative to even have value. It's the nature of science to be conservative and I know that from being a scientist. The things happening now are happening so fast that computer models and even scientific minds can't keep up with it. A scientist first looks for observational data, but he's only human and can only get the data available.

Here is what's going to happen in the near future. The loss of arctic sea ice and Northern Hemiphere snow cover will cause that ice sheet on Greenland (GIS) to melt and not on a once every 150 year cycle. That ice sheet has been there since the Pliocene Epoch, let's say around 5 million years ago, when sea levels were 25 meters high than today. The western antarctic ice sheet called WAIS is also going to start melting faster, but the eastern antarctic ice sheet called EAIS will hold for awhile. The world's next larger ice sheet is in Patagonia, is land locked and has already split it two, so it isn't going to contribute much to sea level rise as it slowly melts away. The loss of glacier fed water in many locations are going to create problems with hydroelectric dams and agricultural areas.

Ice doesn't conform to delta temperature to melt, because it moves with gravity without temperature consideration. The ice sheets that exist have grounded themselves, often at the edge of an ocean and the glaciers that feed that area can be sped up many orders of magnitude if the anchor or buttress is destroyed. That means we're going to flood every major city on the coasts of this world, in a very short period of time and past sea level changes will be meaningless to the present and future. Of course, people are smart enough to leave areas and not be drowned, but the economic hardship will be severe. We're also going to change the way the jet stream behaves and have done so already, causing it to stall and give extreme weather events to poplulated areas in the Northern Hemisphere. The probability of disrupting a major food production area in the Northern Hemisphere, like our bread basket is very likely.

There's the near future for a creature given an advanced brain and not having the capacity to use it! None of that was necessary and could have been avoided by using existing technology that usually predates the oldest of people on Earth. Of course, game now is to stick your head in the sand and pretend it isn't happening.

Too conservative? They bear no resemblence to reality (well other than the first which was actually pretty good. It hadn't been politicised at that time) and you think they are too conservative? Wow, you really don't have a clue do you.

 

[westwall]

what parts do you consider too conservative? I have looked at the evidence and seen exaggerations everywhere.

The arctic sea ice predictions are way off. We can easily lose that summer sea ice in a couple years. The sea level predictions are also way off, but let me post June snow cover trends to show why my logic is correct.

Here is a chart of June snow cover anomalies in the Northern Hemisphere. When you are down around 6 million square miles, compare that to the remaining arctic sea ice in summer and the area of Greenland! That's nearly three times the area of either one. Now, picture the wind blowing across areas that have snow or don't. Picture the sun rising and the difference of it reflecting off of snow or warming the ground without snow! That changes the temperature of the air and when that air blows over other ice covered areas, it's much warmer.

We're going to have those 150 year Greenland melts on a regular basis, unless the trend reverses and there is more white to reflect sunlight.

What is suppose to reverse that trend? I don't think wishful thinking will do it.

And yet there is no way in heck that this rendevous could occur today. Also here is a nice chart showing the vast majority of the ice loss occurred when CO2 levels were much lower and all before 1900.

 

[Dubya]

Are these the same people that fudged the global warming numbers?

Here is what you are saying. The world's largest archive of weather data is the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) founded in 1934 and is presently located in Asheville, North Carolina. It's a division of NOAA, which is a division of the United States Commerce Department. They collect weather data throughout the world and temperatures are just part of that data. In America, when they make global maps called GISS they use a facility in Maryland which is part of NASA. The satellite temperature maps called UAH use the University of Alabama at Huntville to process the data. Do you see this chart?

The NSIDC is the National Snow and Ice Data Center and you can read about it's history if you really want to know something. The sea ice information it receives comes from the United States Navy, who process the information daily for navigational purposes, but err on the side of there being sea ice. The NSIDC uses resources at the Univerity of Colorado.

Notice a consistent theme of our government using university facilities to get things done cheaply, because universities can get volunteer workers to help in the processes that often require many hours of painstaking work!

Where is the conspiracy involved in lying about such data? The data is reported to them from other countries and those countries have a record of what they report. The same applies to the HadCRUT maps made over in the UK, which are created by the UK Met Office, Met means it's their National Meteorological Organization. Again, since they only collect data throughout the world, how can they change that data without it being noticed?

In order for this conspiracy to happen, NASA, all those countries and organizations would have to be involved. Don't you think some country might object to having it's past meteorological data altered? Unless the whole world is in on such a conspiracy, the conspiracy can't exist and it can't be logical to think it does exist.

 

[Dubya]

what parts do you consider too conservative? I have looked at the evidence and seen exaggerations everywhere.

The arctic sea ice predictions are way off. We can easily lose that summer sea ice in a couple years. The sea level predictions are also way off, but let me post June snow cover trends to show why my logic is correct.

Here is a chart of June snow cover anomalies in the Northern Hemisphere. When you are down around 6 million square miles, compare that to the remaining arctic sea ice in summer and the area of Greenland! That's nearly three times the area of either one. Now, picture the wind blowing across areas that have snow or don't. Picture the sun rising and the difference of it reflecting off of snow or warming the ground without snow! That changes the temperature of the air and when that air blows over other ice covered areas, it's much warmer.

We're going to have those 150 year Greenland melts on a regular basis, unless the trend reverses and there is more white to reflect sunlight.

What is suppose to reverse that trend? I don't think wishful thinking will do it.

And yet there is no way in heck that this rendevous could occur today. Also here is a nice chart showing the vast majority of the ice loss occurred when CO2 levels were much lower and all before 1900.

I don't know what you are talking about.

Do you have a clue what 6 million square miles is? That's more than three times the Greenland ice sheet and it's all in the Northern Hemisphere and rather recently during June, when the summer starts and the sun is most directly over the surface of the Earth.

The difference between snow covered and not creates a lot of heat.

 

[Old Rocks]

Are these the same people that fudged the global warming numbers?

Lordy, lordy, lordy, look who we have here. Hay Gats, are you going to do as well here as you did predicting the outcome of the election? Gonna present us with some 'unskewed' temperatures?

 

[Trakar]

Are these the same people that fudged the global warming numbers?

Can you cite or reference compelling evidences that such has occurred?