More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[Billy_Bob]

Skooks- your logic is failing you. One season of warming conditions and storms can flush out a lot of the multi-year ice. By definition it takes years to rebuild it.

But I get your point. A change in prevailing conditions can easily lead to more ice.

Yep.....but Ian.....look at the ice expanse in 2012 compared to 2013.......significant increase in ice area in just one year.

there are big swings every year. I am not sure why people fixate on minimums and maximums at the expense of looking at the overall picture.

GLOBAL albedo % and sea ice cover have more to do with heat retention and reflection than the snow itself. The area affected will have long reaching effects on other global systems as well. The fact that one hemisphere has a low ice volume is important to that hemispheres overall climate but the earth remains in balance despite CO2 levels which are far lower than the global mean over the last 450 million years of approximately 1200ppm. Yet some how our addition of 120ppm (which can not be confirmed as 'only' caused by man) has little or no effect when we look at the empirical evidence. Recent studies show that CO2 may infact be a negative forcing, not a positive one and that is why the alarmists refuse to acknowledge them.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Skooks- your logic is failing you. One season of warming conditions and storms can flush out a lot of the multi-year ice. By definition it takes years to rebuild it.

But I get your point. A change in prevailing conditions can easily lead to more ice.

Yep.....but Ian.....look at the ice expanse in 2012 compared to 2013.......significant increase in ice area in just one year.

there are big swings every year. I am not sure why people fixate on minimums and maximums at the expense of looking at the overall picture.

GLOBAL albedo % and sea ice cover have more to do with heat retention and reflection than the snow itself. The area affected will have long reaching effects on other global systems as well. The fact that one hemisphere has a low ice volume is important to that hemispheres overall climate but the earth remains in balance despite CO2 levels which are far lower than the global mean over the last 450 million years of approximately 1200ppm. Yet some how our addition of 120ppm (which can not be confirmed as 'only' caused by man) has little or no effect when we look at the empirical evidence. Recent studies show that CO2 may infact be a negative forcing, not a positive one and that is why the alarmists refuse to acknowledge them.

Remember, they're now claiming that 90% of the warming is absorbed by the oceans. There's less accurate reading in the oceans

 

[Billy_Bob]

Skooks- your logic is failing you. One season of warming conditions and storms can flush out a lot of the multi-year ice. By definition it takes years to rebuild it.

But I get your point. A change in prevailing conditions can easily lead to more ice.

Yep.....but Ian.....look at the ice expanse in 2012 compared to 2013.......significant increase in ice area in just one year.

there are big swings every year. I am not sure why people fixate on minimums and maximums at the expense of looking at the overall picture.

GLOBAL albedo % and sea ice cover have more to do with heat retention and reflection than the snow itself. The area affected will have long reaching effects on other global systems as well. The fact that one hemisphere has a low ice volume is important to that hemispheres overall climate but the earth remains in balance despite CO2 levels which are far lower than the global mean over the last 450 million years of approximately 1200ppm. Yet some how our addition of 120ppm (which can not be confirmed as 'only' caused by man) has little or no effect when we look at the empirical evidence. Recent studies show that CO2 may infact be a negative forcing, not a positive one and that is why the alarmists refuse to acknowledge them.

Remember, they're now claiming that 90% of the warming is absorbed by the oceans. There's less accurate reading in the oceans

0.02 deg C..... with error bars at +/-0.2

And if you include equipment used just 10 years ago that number expands to +/-0.5 deg C.

Their warming is fictional and can not be proved with any accuracy nor can it be disproved, Its quite the racketeering game they got going.. Karl Et AL screws with the land temps and this screws with the ocean temps and whala... Hottest year EVA....

 

[jc456]

Skooks- your logic is failing you. One season of warming conditions and storms can flush out a lot of the multi-year ice. By definition it takes years to rebuild it.

But I get your point. A change in prevailing conditions can easily lead to more ice.

Yep.....but Ian.....look at the ice expanse in 2012 compared to 2013.......significant increase in ice area in just one year.

there are big swings every year. I am not sure why people fixate on minimums and maximums at the expense of looking at the overall picture.

GLOBAL albedo % and sea ice cover have more to do with heat retention and reflection than the snow itself. The area affected will have long reaching effects on other global systems as well. The fact that one hemisphere has a low ice volume is important to that hemispheres overall climate but the earth remains in balance despite CO2 levels which are far lower than the global mean over the last 450 million years of approximately 1200ppm. Yet some how our addition of 120ppm (which can not be confirmed as 'only' caused by man) has little or no effect when we look at the empirical evidence. Recent studies show that CO2 may infact be a negative forcing, not a positive one and that is why the alarmists refuse to acknowledge them.

Remember, they're now claiming that 90% of the warming is absorbed by the oceans. There's less accurate reading in the oceans

0.02 deg C..... with error bars at +/-0.2

And if you include equipment used just 10 years ago that number expands to +/-0.5 deg C.

Their warming is fictional and can not be proved with any accuracy nor can it be disproved, Its quite the racketeering game they got going.. Karl Et AL screws with the land temps and this screws with the ocean temps and whala... Hottest year EVA....

Simple question to Karl et al, did you adjust datasets? Then I'll follow up, why?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Skooks- your logic is failing you. One season of warming conditions and storms can flush out a lot of the multi-year ice. By definition it takes years to rebuild it.

But I get your point. A change in prevailing conditions can easily lead to more ice.

Yep.....but Ian.....look at the ice expanse in 2012 compared to 2013.......significant increase in ice area in just one year.

there are big swings every year. I am not sure why people fixate on minimums and maximums at the expense of looking at the overall picture.

GLOBAL albedo % and sea ice cover have more to do with heat retention and reflection than the snow itself. The area affected will have long reaching effects on other global systems as well. The fact that one hemisphere has a low ice volume is important to that hemispheres overall climate but the earth remains in balance despite CO2 levels which are far lower than the global mean over the last 450 million years of approximately 1200ppm. Yet some how our addition of 120ppm (which can not be confirmed as 'only' caused by man) has little or no effect when we look at the empirical evidence. Recent studies show that CO2 may infact be a negative forcing, not a positive one and that is why the alarmists refuse to acknowledge them.

Remember, they're now claiming that 90% of the warming is absorbed by the oceans. There's less accurate reading in the oceans

That is the way it has always been! If the land warms = the oceans have to warm and they hold a hell of a lot more energy!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Yep.....but Ian.....look at the ice expanse in 2012 compared to 2013.......significant increase in ice area in just one year.

there are big swings every year. I am not sure why people fixate on minimums and maximums at the expense of looking at the overall picture.

GLOBAL albedo % and sea ice cover have more to do with heat retention and reflection than the snow itself. The area affected will have long reaching effects on other global systems as well. The fact that one hemisphere has a low ice volume is important to that hemispheres overall climate but the earth remains in balance despite CO2 levels which are far lower than the global mean over the last 450 million years of approximately 1200ppm. Yet some how our addition of 120ppm (which can not be confirmed as 'only' caused by man) has little or no effect when we look at the empirical evidence. Recent studies show that CO2 may infact be a negative forcing, not a positive one and that is why the alarmists refuse to acknowledge them.

Remember, they're now claiming that 90% of the warming is absorbed by the oceans. There's less accurate reading in the oceans

0.02 deg C..... with error bars at +/-0.2

And if you include equipment used just 10 years ago that number expands to +/-0.5 deg C.

Their warming is fictional and can not be proved with any accuracy nor can it be disproved, Its quite the racketeering game they got going.. Karl Et AL screws with the land temps and this screws with the ocean temps and whala... Hottest year EVA....

Simple question to Karl et al, did you adjust datasets? Then I'll follow up, why?

Yes to question 1.

They wont justify them to answer question 2...

Then we look at a new paper; Cheng et al. (2015) Global Upper Ocean Heat Content Estimation: Recent Progress and the Remaining Challenges. We find that they almost doubled the rate of sea warming without justification as well..

NODC already adjusted the data up prior to Cheng twisting it more.

Isn’t that amazing? Using the “NODC-mapping” method, Cheng et al. show a warming rate for the global oceans of +0.0045 deg C/year for the period of 1970-2005, but the reconstruction for the same depths of 0-700 meters directly from the NODC website show a warming rate of only +0.0033 deg C/year. Now consider that the outcome of Cheng et al.’s new method of infilling the oodles and oodles of missing data in the depths of the oceans shows the global oceans warming at a rate of +0.0061 deg C/ year. In other words, for the period of 1970 to 2005, Cheng et al. have almost doubled the warming rate of the basic NODC reconstruction for the depths of 0-700 meters.

The deceptions continue... the ramp up to the Paris Power Grab continues.

Source

 

[jc456]

there are big swings every year. I am not sure why people fixate on minimums and maximums at the expense of looking at the overall picture.

GLOBAL albedo % and sea ice cover have more to do with heat retention and reflection than the snow itself. The area affected will have long reaching effects on other global systems as well. The fact that one hemisphere has a low ice volume is important to that hemispheres overall climate but the earth remains in balance despite CO2 levels which are far lower than the global mean over the last 450 million years of approximately 1200ppm. Yet some how our addition of 120ppm (which can not be confirmed as 'only' caused by man) has little or no effect when we look at the empirical evidence. Recent studies show that CO2 may infact be a negative forcing, not a positive one and that is why the alarmists refuse to acknowledge them.

Remember, they're now claiming that 90% of the warming is absorbed by the oceans. There's less accurate reading in the oceans

0.02 deg C..... with error bars at +/-0.2

And if you include equipment used just 10 years ago that number expands to +/-0.5 deg C.

Their warming is fictional and can not be proved with any accuracy nor can it be disproved, Its quite the racketeering game they got going.. Karl Et AL screws with the land temps and this screws with the ocean temps and whala... Hottest year EVA....

Simple question to Karl et al, did you adjust datasets? Then I'll follow up, why?

Yes to question 1.

They wont justify them to answer question 2...

Then we look at a new paper; Cheng et al. (2015) Global Upper Ocean Heat Content Estimation: Recent Progress and the Remaining Challenges. We find that they almost doubled the rate of sea warming without justification as well..

NODC already adjusted the data up prior to Cheng twisting it more.

Isn’t that amazing? Using the “NODC-mapping” method, Cheng et al. show a warming rate for the global oceans of +0.0045 deg C/year for the period of 1970-2005, but the reconstruction for the same depths of 0-700 meters directly from the NODC website show a warming rate of only +0.0033 deg C/year. Now consider that the outcome of Cheng et al.’s new method of infilling the oodles and oodles of missing data in the depths of the oceans shows the global oceans warming at a rate of +0.0061 deg C/ year. In other words, for the period of 1970 to 2005, Cheng et al. have almost doubled the warming rate of the basic NODC reconstruction for the depths of 0-700 meters.

The deceptions continue... the ramp up to the Paris Power Grab continues.

Source

Judith Curry caught it, I'm proud of her.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Skooks- your logic is failing you. One season of warming conditions and storms can flush out a lot of the multi-year ice. By definition it takes years to rebuild it.

But I get your point. A change in prevailing conditions can easily lead to more ice.

Yep.....but Ian.....look at the ice expanse in 2012 compared to 2013.......significant increase in ice area in just one year.

there are big swings every year. I am not sure why people fixate on minimums and maximums at the expense of looking at the overall picture.

GLOBAL albedo % and sea ice cover have more to do with heat retention and reflection than the snow itself. The area affected will have long reaching effects on other global systems as well. The fact that one hemisphere has a low ice volume is important to that hemispheres overall climate but the earth remains in balance despite CO2 levels which are far lower than the global mean over the last 450 million years of approximately 1200ppm. Yet some how our addition of 120ppm (which can not be confirmed as 'only' caused by man) has little or no effect when we look at the empirical evidence. Recent studies show that CO2 may infact be a negative forcing, not a positive one and that is why the alarmists refuse to acknowledge them.

Remember, they're now claiming that 90% of the warming is absorbed by the oceans. There's less accurate reading in the oceans

That is the way it has always been! If the land warms = the oceans have to warm and they hold a hell of a lot more energy!

No land warming for 2 decades now

Time for a new theory

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Skooks- your logic is failing you. One season of warming conditions and storms can flush out a lot of the multi-year ice. By definition it takes years to rebuild it.

But I get your point. A change in prevailing conditions can easily lead to more ice.

Yep.....but Ian.....look at the ice expanse in 2012 compared to 2013.......significant increase in ice area in just one year.

there are big swings every year. I am not sure why people fixate on minimums and maximums at the expense of looking at the overall picture.

GLOBAL albedo % and sea ice cover have more to do with heat retention and reflection than the snow itself. The area affected will have long reaching effects on other global systems as well. The fact that one hemisphere has a low ice volume is important to that hemispheres overall climate but the earth remains in balance despite CO2 levels which are far lower than the global mean over the last 450 million years of approximately 1200ppm. Yet some how our addition of 120ppm (which can not be confirmed as 'only' caused by man) has little or no effect when we look at the empirical evidence. Recent studies show that CO2 may infact be a negative forcing, not a positive one and that is why the alarmists refuse to acknowledge them.

Remember, they're now claiming that 90% of the warming is absorbed by the oceans. There's less accurate reading in the oceans

That is the way it has always been! If the land warms = the oceans have to warm and they hold a hell of a lot more energy!

It's takes far more energy to warm the oceans. Where does that energy come from?

 

[jc456]

Yep.....but Ian.....look at the ice expanse in 2012 compared to 2013.......significant increase in ice area in just one year.

there are big swings every year. I am not sure why people fixate on minimums and maximums at the expense of looking at the overall picture.

GLOBAL albedo % and sea ice cover have more to do with heat retention and reflection than the snow itself. The area affected will have long reaching effects on other global systems as well. The fact that one hemisphere has a low ice volume is important to that hemispheres overall climate but the earth remains in balance despite CO2 levels which are far lower than the global mean over the last 450 million years of approximately 1200ppm. Yet some how our addition of 120ppm (which can not be confirmed as 'only' caused by man) has little or no effect when we look at the empirical evidence. Recent studies show that CO2 may infact be a negative forcing, not a positive one and that is why the alarmists refuse to acknowledge them.

Remember, they're now claiming that 90% of the warming is absorbed by the oceans. There's less accurate reading in the oceans

That is the way it has always been! If the land warms = the oceans have to warm and they hold a hell of a lot more energy!

No land warming for 2 decades now

Time for a new theory

Hahahaha

 

[ScienceRocks]

Yep.....but Ian.....look at the ice expanse in 2012 compared to 2013.......significant increase in ice area in just one year.

there are big swings every year. I am not sure why people fixate on minimums and maximums at the expense of looking at the overall picture.

GLOBAL albedo % and sea ice cover have more to do with heat retention and reflection than the snow itself. The area affected will have long reaching effects on other global systems as well. The fact that one hemisphere has a low ice volume is important to that hemispheres overall climate but the earth remains in balance despite CO2 levels which are far lower than the global mean over the last 450 million years of approximately 1200ppm. Yet some how our addition of 120ppm (which can not be confirmed as 'only' caused by man) has little or no effect when we look at the empirical evidence. Recent studies show that CO2 may infact be a negative forcing, not a positive one and that is why the alarmists refuse to acknowledge them.

Remember, they're now claiming that 90% of the warming is absorbed by the oceans. There's less accurate reading in the oceans

That is the way it has always been! If the land warms = the oceans have to warm and they hold a hell of a lot more energy!

It's takes far more energy to warm the oceans. Where does that energy come from?

The sun and readmitted Ir Radiation off the green house effect.

 

[jc456]

there are big swings every year. I am not sure why people fixate on minimums and maximums at the expense of looking at the overall picture.

GLOBAL albedo % and sea ice cover have more to do with heat retention and reflection than the snow itself. The area affected will have long reaching effects on other global systems as well. The fact that one hemisphere has a low ice volume is important to that hemispheres overall climate but the earth remains in balance despite CO2 levels which are far lower than the global mean over the last 450 million years of approximately 1200ppm. Yet some how our addition of 120ppm (which can not be confirmed as 'only' caused by man) has little or no effect when we look at the empirical evidence. Recent studies show that CO2 may infact be a negative forcing, not a positive one and that is why the alarmists refuse to acknowledge them.

Remember, they're now claiming that 90% of the warming is absorbed by the oceans. There's less accurate reading in the oceans

That is the way it has always been! If the land warms = the oceans have to warm and they hold a hell of a lot more energy!

It's takes far more energy to warm the oceans. Where does that energy come from?

The sun and readmitted Ir Radiation off the green house effect.

Not proven. Try again.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

there are big swings every year. I am not sure why people fixate on minimums and maximums at the expense of looking at the overall picture.

GLOBAL albedo % and sea ice cover have more to do with heat retention and reflection than the snow itself. The area affected will have long reaching effects on other global systems as well. The fact that one hemisphere has a low ice volume is important to that hemispheres overall climate but the earth remains in balance despite CO2 levels which are far lower than the global mean over the last 450 million years of approximately 1200ppm. Yet some how our addition of 120ppm (which can not be confirmed as 'only' caused by man) has little or no effect when we look at the empirical evidence. Recent studies show that CO2 may infact be a negative forcing, not a positive one and that is why the alarmists refuse to acknowledge them.

Remember, they're now claiming that 90% of the warming is absorbed by the oceans. There's less accurate reading in the oceans

That is the way it has always been! If the land warms = the oceans have to warm and they hold a hell of a lot more energy!

It's takes far more energy to warm the oceans. Where does that energy come from?

The sun and readmitted Ir Radiation off the green house effect.

Is the Sun warmer because of AGW?

 

[jc456]

Just wish for once, These warmers had some fact. Effect. That would really be out there though. As stated by Ebby Calvin Larouche in bull Durham

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Surface temperature each decade since 1880 compared to the twentieth-century (1901-2000) average (dashed line at zero). Each of the last three decades was the warmest on record at the time, and each was warmer than the last. Data courtesy of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Surface temperature each decade since 1880 compared to the twentieth-century (1901-2000) average (dashed line at zero). Each of the last three decades was the warmest on record at the time, and each was warmer than the last. Data courtesy of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.

Your chart is total bullshit

 

[CrusaderFrank]

there are big swings every year. I am not sure why people fixate on minimums and maximums at the expense of looking at the overall picture.

GLOBAL albedo % and sea ice cover have more to do with heat retention and reflection than the snow itself. The area affected will have long reaching effects on other global systems as well. The fact that one hemisphere has a low ice volume is important to that hemispheres overall climate but the earth remains in balance despite CO2 levels which are far lower than the global mean over the last 450 million years of approximately 1200ppm. Yet some how our addition of 120ppm (which can not be confirmed as 'only' caused by man) has little or no effect when we look at the empirical evidence. Recent studies show that CO2 may infact be a negative forcing, not a positive one and that is why the alarmists refuse to acknowledge them.

Remember, they're now claiming that 90% of the warming is absorbed by the oceans. There's less accurate reading in the oceans

That is the way it has always been! If the land warms = the oceans have to warm and they hold a hell of a lot more energy!

It's takes far more energy to warm the oceans. Where does that energy come from?

The sun and readmitted Ir Radiation off the green house effect.

Matt, does CO2 make the Sun hotter?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Surface temperature each decade since 1880 compared to the twentieth-century (1901-2000) average (dashed line at zero). Each of the last three decades was the warmest on record at the time, and each was warmer than the last. Data courtesy of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.

Your chart is total bullshit

The chart is from NOAA..your comments are from "stupid and Ignorant" you and the rest of detached from reality thruthers are a pathetic bunch....we depend on NOAA for weather warnings etc...you are nothing at all..a nobody

 

[evince]

time to trash the fact adverse in this country

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Surface temperature each decade since 1880 compared to the twentieth-century (1901-2000) average (dashed line at zero). Each of the last three decades was the warmest on record at the time, and each was warmer than the last. Data courtesy of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.

Your chart is total bullshit

The chart is from NOAA..your comments are from "stupid and Ignorant" you and the rest of detached from reality thruthers are a pathetic bunch....we depend on NOAA for weather warnings etc...you are nothing at all..a nobody

It's still a total bullshit chart