Clearest indication yet that polar ice sheets are melting fast

[RollingThunder]

while I am impressed with your ability to do a hatchet job, I am confused as to why that has anything to do with why the IPCC is not citing Weather and climate analyses using improved global water vapor observations. I dont see Mims name listed on the paper. why do you have a problem with a NASA dataset? are you just complaining that the IPCC found Mim's credentials were sufficient to become a reviewer? or do you think that the revised NASA dataset shouldnt be used?

I have no problem with "NASA datasets". I do have a problem with the lies told by denier cultists who try to mislead and distort the science on that moronic denier cult blog called WattsUpMyButt...or something. You uncritically swallow every lie and bit of twisted pseudo-science that appears on that sinkhole of stupidity and fossil fuel industry sponsored propaganda.

Here's a good review of that particular episode of distorted facts and outright lies that you quoted.

'No trend in global water vapor', another WUWT fail
Saturday, 15 December 2012
(excerpts)
Anthony Watts just published a guest post by Forrest M. Mims III with the title: "Another IPCC AR5 reviewer speaks out: no trend in global water vapor". I have no special expertise in this area, but I am privileged being able to read the [original NASA] article that is discussed. This is sufficient to see that the article and its [WUWT] post are two different worlds. First, note that being a "expert reviewer" does not say much. There are over a thousand reviewers, even Anthony Watts himself is an IPCC "expert reviewer". The post discusses a paper by Vonder Haar et al. (2012) on the NASA Water Vapor Project (NVAP) dataset. The main piece of information missing from the post is that this dataset without trend, is only 22 years long. Almost any climatological measurement will not have a statistically significant trend over such a short period, but the story is even weirder. Just as in the misleading post on homogenization of climate data earlier this year, Anthony Watts again proves to have a keen eye in finding the best misinformation. Mims added a list with all the comments of his review. In this list, Watts found this comment: This paper concludes, “Therefore, at this time, we can neither prove nor disprove a robust trend in the global water vapor data. Non-specialist readers must be made aware of this finding and that it is at odds with some earlier papers." The complete citation from the Geophysical Research Letters article is: "The results of Figures 1 and 4 have not been subjected to detailed global or regional trend analyses, which will be a topic for a forthcoming paper. Such analyses must account for the changes in satellite sampling discussed in the auxiliary material. Therefore, at this time, we can neither prove nor disprove a robust trend in the global water vapor data." In other words, they cannot say anything about the trend, because they have not even tried to compute it and estimate its uncertainty. Especially estimating the error in the trend will be very difficult as the dataset uses different satellites for different periods of the dataset, which invariably creates jumps in the dataset that should not be mistaken for true climate variability or trends.

The paper is also not at odds with earlier papers. These earlier papers studied longer periods and probably datasets which were more homogeneous and consequently did find a statistically significant trend. There is thus no contradiction. Furthermore the post claims that "Climate modelers assume that water vapor, the principle greenhouse gas, will increase with carbon dioxide". This is wrong or at least misleading: humidity is expected to follow the temperature, in as much as temperature follows carbon dioxide, humidity will indirectly follow carbon dioxide. In one of the comments of Mims, he complains about the line: "Thus water vapour at the surface and through the troposphere has very likely been increasing since the 1970s." in the Second Order Draft of the upcoming IPCC report. And he claims: "This conclusion is contradicted by the 2012 NVAP-M paper discussed in the rows immediately above." However, the NVAP-M dataset started in 1988 and there is thus no contradiction.

 

[skookerasbil]

"CO2 is decreasing"?????? LOLOLOLOL. Not on this planet, you poor retarded crackpot. Try learning to read. Ooops, that's right, you're retarded so you are incapable of comprehending what you read. Too bad for you. Here's a clue - CO2 emissions in one country decreasing slightly over previous years does not equal decreasing worldwide atmospheric CO2 levels.

Source: Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Mauna Loa?...You mean that great big CO2 spewing volcano?

Now anthropogenically generated CO2 is causing volcanoes to emit more CO2?

Serially?

"Serially?"????? Geeez but you're soooo 'seriously' retarded. LOLOL.

As for the ignorant denier cult myths you're 'spewing'/parroting.....LOLOLOLOL....such a clueless, bamboozled retard...

How reliable are CO2 measurements?
(excerpts)

The denier argument..."CO2 measurements are suspect" -
"The Keeling curve, which is widely used to show the increase in CO2 emissions, is based on data from the top of Mount Mauna Loa in Hawaii. Mauna Loa is a volcano and it doesn’t seem to me that a volcano is the best place to be taking CO2 measurements"

What the science says...CO2 levels are measured by hundreds of stations scattered across 66 countries which all report the same rising trend.

The following graph shows atmospheric CO2 levels over the last 10,000 years. It includes ice core data for CO2 levels before 1950. For values after 1950, direct measurements from Mauna Loa, Hawaii were used.

Figure 1: CO2 levels (parts per million) over the past 10,000 years. Blue line from Taylor Dome ice cores (NOAA). Green line from Law Dome ice core (CDIAC). Red line from direct measurements at Mauna Loa, Hawaii (NOAA).

Mauna Loa is often used as an example of rising carbon dioxide levels because its the longest, continuous series of directly measured atmospheric CO2. The reason why it's acceptable to use Mauna Loa as a proxy for global CO2 levels is because CO2 mixes well throughout the atmosphere. Consequently, the trend in Mauna Loa CO2 (1.64 ppm per year) is statistically indistinguishable from the trend in global CO2 levels (1.66 ppm per year). If global CO2 was used in Figure 1 above, the result "hockey stick" shape would be identical. Satellite data is consistent with surface measurements and present a fuller picture of global CO2 concentration.

Figure 2: Global atmospheric CO2 (NOAA) versus Mauna Loa CO2 (NOAA).

Nutters like this guy ^^^ never get it. They call everybody else "retards" and "fucking deluded" and "cult-denialist assholes", but a closer look reveals that still..........the environmental radicals and all of their consensus sciene isnt adding up to dick............

Year.........after year.........after year...........after year............after year............the same bozo links and the same bozo insults.



As Ive been saying on here for years............nobody cares about the science.


But who here, is not winning????

 

[RollingThunder]

As Ive been saying on here for years............nobody cares about the science.
But who here, is not winning????

As has been pointed out many times, only utterly retarded and rather insane idiots like you "don't care" about the environment or the science that is warning us that the world is facing a climate change catastrophe that we've collectively caused.

The one here that is never winning is you, despite your wacked out delusions to the contrary. You're just too retarded to even know where the goal posts are.

 

[skookerasbil]

As Ive been saying on here for years............nobody cares about the science.
But who here, is not winning????

As has been pointed out many times, only utterly retarded and rather insane idiots like you "don't care" about the environment or the science that is warning us that the world is facing a climate change catastrophe that we've collectively caused.

The one here that is never winning is you, despite your wacked out delusions to the contrary. You're just too retarded to even know where the goal posts are.

meh............getting hysterical about shit you cant control is gay.


Dont care Im retarded...........but the retards are winning s0n!!! All I give a shit about.

 

[westwall]

As Ive been saying on here for years............nobody cares about the science.
But who here, is not winning????

As has been pointed out many times, only utterly retarded and rather insane idiots like you "don't care" about the environment or the science that is warning us that the world is facing a climate change catastrophe that we've collectively caused.

The one here that is never winning is you, despite your wacked out delusions to the contrary. You're just too retarded to even know where the goal posts are.

What was that Bozo?

 

[RollingThunder]

As Ive been saying on here for years............nobody cares about the science.
But who here, is not winning????

As has been pointed out many times, only utterly retarded and rather insane idiots like you "don't care" about the environment or the science that is warning us that the world is facing a climate change catastrophe that we've collectively caused.

The one here that is never winning is you, despite your wacked out delusions to the contrary. You're just too retarded to even know where the goal posts are.

meh............getting hysterical about shit you cant control is gay.
Dont care Im retarded...........but the retards are winning s0n!!! All I give a shit about.

Nope, wrong again kookster, the retards, like you especially, are just sooooooo retarded that they falsely imagine that they are "winning" when, in fact, they don't have the slightest idea what is going on, let alone just what 'game' it is that they are supposedly winning. But it makes the retards feel better when they hold on tight to their delusions of 'victory' so what can you do but debunk their myths and mock their baffled confusion. Retards like the kookster are immune to rational argument and scientific evidence due to their unfortunate mental disabilities so, in responding to one of their posts, you're actually debunking their nonsense for the benefit of any other people who may be reading this. The true retards like the kookster are extremely gullible so they are often deeply brainwashed and bamboozled by whatever idiotic and usually illogical propaganda memes they're they been targeted with by those political and economic entities, like the GOP and Exxon, that take advantage of the mentally handicapped for political purposes.

 

[skookerasbil]

Rhine River, January 2012.......first time frozen over in almost 80 years!!!!

 

[RollingThunder]

A few times in my life, while walking around some big city, I've come across some poor insane raggedy homeless street person, perhaps drunk or on drugs or just simply insane, waving his arms about wildly and arguing loudly with himself, as passers-by gave him a wide berth. All of these characters seemed to think that they were winning their argument.

Coming across one of the kookster's exceptionally retarded, very pointless, and completely off-topic posts is a lot like that. Also reminiscent of inadvertently stepping in cat poop.

 

[SSDD]

A few times in my life, while walking around some big city, I've come across some poor insane raggedy homeless street person, perhaps drunk or on drugs or just simply insane, waving his arms about wildly and arguing loudly with himself, as passers-by gave him a wide berth. All of these characters seemed to think that they were winning their argument.

Coming across one of the kookster's exceptionally retarded, very pointless, and completely off-topic posts is a lot like that. Also reminiscent of inadvertently stepping in cat poop.

Pretty good description of your self what with all your large type and red letters and never a word of your own....it could well be that you will be the last person on earth to realize that the wheels are falling off of the AGW bandwagon.

 

[IanC]

while I am impressed with your ability to do a hatchet job, I am confused as to why that has anything to do with why the IPCC is not citing Weather and climate analyses using improved global water vapor observations. I dont see Mims name listed on the paper. why do you have a problem with a NASA dataset? are you just complaining that the IPCC found Mim's credentials were sufficient to become a reviewer? or do you think that the revised NASA dataset shouldnt be used?

I have no problem with "NASA datasets". I do have a problem with the lies told by denier cultists who try to mislead and distort the science on that moronic denier cult blog called WattsUpMyButt...or something. You uncritically swallow every lie and bit of twisted pseudo-science that appears on that sinkhole of stupidity and fossil fuel industry sponsored propaganda.

Here's a good review of that particular episode of distorted facts and outright lies that you quoted.

'No trend in global water vapor', another WUWT fail
Saturday, 15 December 2012
(excerpts)
Anthony Watts just published a guest post by Forrest M. Mims III with the title: "Another IPCC AR5 reviewer speaks out: no trend in global water vapor". I have no special expertise in this area, but I am privileged being able to read the [original NASA] article that is discussed. This is sufficient to see that the article and its [WUWT] post are two different worlds. First, note that being a "expert reviewer" does not say much. There are over a thousand reviewers, even Anthony Watts himself is an IPCC "expert reviewer". The post discusses a paper by Vonder Haar et al. (2012) on the NASA Water Vapor Project (NVAP) dataset. The main piece of information missing from the post is that this dataset without trend, is only 22 years long. Almost any climatological measurement will not have a statistically significant trend over such a short period, but the story is even weirder. Just as in the misleading post on homogenization of climate data earlier this year, Anthony Watts again proves to have a keen eye in finding the best misinformation. Mims added a list with all the comments of his review. In this list, Watts found this comment: This paper concludes, “Therefore, at this time, we can neither prove nor disprove a robust trend in the global water vapor data. Non-specialist readers must be made aware of this finding and that it is at odds with some earlier papers." The complete citation from the Geophysical Research Letters article is: "The results of Figures 1 and 4 have not been subjected to detailed global or regional trend analyses, which will be a topic for a forthcoming paper. Such analyses must account for the changes in satellite sampling discussed in the auxiliary material. Therefore, at this time, we can neither prove nor disprove a robust trend in the global water vapor data." In other words, they cannot say anything about the trend, because they have not even tried to compute it and estimate its uncertainty. Especially estimating the error in the trend will be very difficult as the dataset uses different satellites for different periods of the dataset, which invariably creates jumps in the dataset that should not be mistaken for true climate variability or trends.

The paper is also not at odds with earlier papers. These earlier papers studied longer periods and probably datasets which were more homogeneous and consequently did find a statistically significant trend. There is thus no contradiction. Furthermore the post claims that "Climate modelers assume that water vapor, the principle greenhouse gas, will increase with carbon dioxide". This is wrong or at least misleading: humidity is expected to follow the temperature, in as much as temperature follows carbon dioxide, humidity will indirectly follow carbon dioxide. In one of the comments of Mims, he complains about the line: "Thus water vapour at the surface and through the troposphere has very likely been increasing since the 1970s." in the Second Order Draft of the upcoming IPCC report. And he claims: "This conclusion is contradicted by the 2012 NVAP-M paper discussed in the rows immediately above." However, the NVAP-M dataset started in 1988 and there is thus no contradiction.

really? you use some unknown blog as a reference? WUWT is a well known site that discusses all the latest news in the climate field. does it have a slant? of course but definitely less that pro-AGW sites like SkepticalScience. you are bitching because Anthony Watts posted a guest comment from an IPCC reviewer who pointed out that the latest version of a NASA dataset wasnt being used because it didnt agree with the 'story'. just like you guys bitched about every other person who complained about data, data availability, methodologies, methodology availability, etc,etc. if WUWT and other skeptical sites hadnt complained about Gergis et al then it would still be published rather than withdrawn. if WUWT had been around to rebut MBH98 immediately then we wouldnt be in this stupid position of having to claw back incident after incident of faulty climate science.

 

[skookerasbil]

A few times in my life, while walking around some big city, I've come across some poor insane raggedy homeless street person, perhaps drunk or on drugs or just simply insane, waving his arms about wildly and arguing loudly with himself, as passers-by gave him a wide berth. All of these characters seemed to think that they were winning their argument.

Coming across one of the kookster's exceptionally retarded, very pointless, and completely off-topic posts is a lot like that. Also reminiscent of inadvertently stepping in cat poop.

Pretty good description of your self what with all your large type and red letters and never a word of your own....it could well be that you will be the last person on earth to realize that the wheels are falling off of the AGW bandwagon.

Indeed.


These nuts know they are losing big........which is why every year the MO just becomes to scream a little louder.


Very satisfying for the retards............

 

[IanC]

A few times in my life, while walking around some big city, I've come across some poor insane raggedy homeless street person, perhaps drunk or on drugs or just simply insane, waving his arms about wildly and arguing loudly with himself, as passers-by gave him a wide berth. All of these characters seemed to think that they were winning their argument.

Coming across one of the kookster's exceptionally retarded, very pointless, and completely off-topic posts is a lot like that. Also reminiscent of inadvertently stepping in cat poop.

Pretty good description of your self what with all your large type and red letters and never a word of your own....it could well be that you will be the last person on earth to realize that the wheels are falling off of the AGW bandwagon.

These nuts know they are losing big........which is why every year the MO just becomes to scream a little louder.


Very satisfying for the retards............

hahahaha

global warming......climate change......climate disruption......extreme weather......what will they call it next? each label needs less evidence and proof than the one before it.

 

[SSDD]

hahahaha

global warming......climate change......climate disruption......extreme weather......what will they call it next? each label needs less evidence and proof than the one before it.

The second law and entropy at work. Even warmists find that they must move from more organized to less organized. How much more vague can it get than "extreme weather"?