Really? What climate scientist, even those who have major disputes with IPCC projections, questions whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas? My goodness, that was established in the 19th century.

You seem to miss the point. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and can contribute to GW. The question is by how much – and since it has apparently never lead “warming” in the past what other factors may be more important that we know little or nothing about.

Then the imperfect “models” try to tie together the idea that CO2 is the main driver for GW and the degree to which it will happen to the year 2100.

As I have posted

I don’t buy it.


“Dr. Arthur Robinson: Yes, but the temperature is only going up 0.5° C per century. Moreover, this increase is not being caused by human activity.
TNA: Those who blame mankind for causing global warming would respond to that point by saying that the Earth is the warmest it’s been in 400 years, and that’s significant.
Dr. Robinson: They’re right, but they only show you the data from the last 400 years. If the data for a longer time interval is considered, temperatures today are seen to be not especially warm. The current temperature is about average for the past 3,000 years. It was much warmer during the Medieval Climate Optimum 1,000 years ago (see Figure 1). The climate, as we know from historical records, was just fine during that warm period. In fact, it was a little better. So, yes, it is the warmest in 400 years.
Moreover, the temperature, which is going up very slowly, is correlated with the sun’s activity, not hydrocarbon use (see Figure 3).
TNA: Those same people would say that science has spoken, that CO2 is the cause. What do you say?
Dr. Robinson: Gore, et al., tell us that CO2 is a pollutant, and that humans have caused this terrible problem. But actually the atmosphere contains lots of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide, water, and oxygen are required for life. Without these substances in the atmosphere, life would not be possible. All of the carbon in our bodies originates as atmospheric carbon dioxide. Plus, we’re only adding moderately and temporarily to CO2 levels. Carbon dioxide moves through the atmosphere on its way to the oceans and biosphere. Human use has caused a transient increase during the past century — from about 0.03 percent to 0.04 percent of atmospheric molecules. Man is producing about 8 gigatons per year, and yet there are 40,000 gigatons in the biosphere and oceans.”
http://inpursuitofhappiness.wordpress.com/...l-warming-push/

http://bridgetdgms.wordpress.com/2008/02/2...ming-alarmists/

It seems to me if CO2 is a greenhouse gas then it has to by definition initiate some GW. There is no contradiction in warming releasing some CO2 stores and the additional CO2 trapping light and creating additional warming, releasing further CO2 and so it goes. . They clearly work in tandem.

So Ted what's your estimate of how much warming will be driven by AGW by they year 2100 - ballpark? 1 deg. C?


That's not what I've read. My understanding is that we have surpassed the Medieval Climate Period at the present time for the earth as a whole.

Moving on, some folks have made much of the recent Jan. downturn, suggesting that it heralds even a coming ice age or at least a return to earlier temperature norms. I think that is jumping the gun because the time frame is too short. Well with new data coming in one can see why one should not jump so quickly. Heard about the climate in Northern Europe recently? First off let me say this does imply any long term trend but hopefully it will supply a little damper to a certain denialist frenzy I detected.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_8449896

Dingo, your Mercurynews.com link appears to be broken or their server is down.

I haven't tried to do much refutation of the "cold winter means the end of global warming suggestion." It's just too preposterous and will soon be overwhelmed by new data. However, the deniers will then jump on something else.

It is also important to continue to point out that it is the climate instability that GW generates that is part of the threat, not just increases in temperature. For example, here is an account of the consequences of an unusually warm spring in 2007 followed by a freeze.

(See this Science Daily Article).

I have seen no definitive evidence of the mechanism you propose above. Post something please.

And my est. would be .5 C or possibly, if the solar radiance folks are right, a swing to cooling this century.


I agree and your warmer Scandinavia is as meaningless as the one month cold snap.

As they say …………………Only time will tell

What part of warming increases CO2 and CO2 increases warming etc. etc. don't you get? Seems pretty much 2+2=4 to me.


And who is your authority on this prediction that so thoroughly disagrees with the IPCC's projections. I wonder how you would have answered that question in 1980, projecting a 2000 temperature. I suspect you would have been totally off the mark, probably predicting a down trend.


I already said as much.


Try it again. I just checked it and it was fine.

Your climate instability point was a good one. I wonder if there is a measurement for more dramatic swings in temperature as the earth warms. Checking the temperature difference between high and low on a monthly basis would seem to be a good marker.

I keep saying it and you don’t get it. HOW MUCH is strictly CO2 related? Since CO2 doesn’t “start” warming what does and does that other factor or factors play the dominant role even as CO2 increases with the warming. We don’t know the answer and the “models” don’t tell us do they?


The IPCC is using the “modes” and projecting into the future. If the model is wrong or inaccurate then the projections are wrong – as I have said above.

Which “projection” do you like?


The only way “climate instability” has any meaning is if we can see that we are way out of the normal variance over some very long period of time. How can we do that?

In the past the major initiators of both long term cyclical warming and cooling have been orbital changes. Other shorter term initiators would include direct solar radiation changes and volcanic action which in the latter case could in fact have carbon gasses initiating change. As to the percentage roll CO2 would play in global warming it would vary based on the presence of other forcings, but it would play a roll. It happens that in the last century or so AGW has played the principal roll based on human addition of GHG and secondarily the cutting down of forests. If you read the IPCC Report you will see they are quite precise in their determination of the role each forcing plays, including solar radiation.


I'll stick with the IPCC until a more scientifically vetted source comes along. By the way, you didn't offer your source for your 0.5 deg. C projection.


Well if they had the data and it showed there was direct correlation between temperature increase and increased monthly temperature swings over a few decades I think that would be a strong indicator of a relationship between temperature rise and instability.

Dude,
You seem not to get that correlation does not equal causation. If turning on a heater makes it warmer, being warmer doesn't turn on the heater. This is the kind of sloppy logic that makes us question these things. In the distant past, the Earth got warmer and CO2 went up, and yet there was no evil America with our fossil fuels. Correlation, not causation.

If warming causes CO2 AND CO2 increases warming, then there is nothing at all we can do, other than find a way to cool the Earth independent of CO2. Given the pace of scientific development, I have no doubt that America, suitably motivated, will find a way to do exactly that well before Bangladesh succumbs to 20-foot sea rises.

How do you know turning on the heater results in heat? Your logic.


A positive solution is in fact directed at diminishing the quantity of CO2; sequestration of CO2.

And I don’t buy it. What forests? Did you know that New England which is today heavily forested (80% forests – 20% open land) was exactly the opposite in 1700.


And I will decline to do that since I see that they activey stifle other views, “vetted” or not.

By the way you never told me which of the IPCC scenarios you favor and why.


BINGO – good point. Do you know Dingo there is a high correlation between the use of cell phones and and increase in brain cancer – are they cause and effect?

It's winter. When I get in my car, I turn on the heat and it gets warmer. Every time.

When it's summer, and it's already hot in my car, that heat in the car does not turn the heater on.

I must be missing your point.


Again, if CO2 causes warming, and warming causes CO2, those two are working together, and we need to find some other change agent to interrupt your co-dependent warming system.

I'm sure this more than makes up for the clear cutting of the Amazon rain forests.


I accept their predicted future range as the best science can presently offer.


You two put your heads together and no doubt you'll generate the logical heights of a tulip.



Wow, that's a pretty high precision correlation. Some correlations aren't quite as high like the CO2 switch because it lives in a world of lots of switch turners, like sun spots, orbital changes, clouds, aerosols, La Ninas, etc. Maybe if you had 5 switch turners in there each competing to turn the switch off or on you might get a feeling for CO2's poor problems.

Just a little note. CO2 is a GHG and as such acts in the manner of a GHG. This was established in the 19th century and I know of no subsequent dispute on this point. That means more of it provides a one way switch - more heat trapping.


More or less to repeat, the human way of interrupting that co-dependent warming system is first to stop putting more fossil fuel into the environment and then begin sequestering or storing in the bowels of the earth as much CO2 as is necessary. Some folks take their cue from the late Dr. Teller and think depositing little sparklies in the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun back is the way to go.

I understand your point regarding less CO2. But you are the only person that has ever told me that warming causes CO2 AND CO2 causes warming. I realize that they are correlated, and I'm not completely devoid of logic (despite your insults and namecalling) but how can both of these things be the cause AND the effect? I am confused. If they truly cause each other, we seem to be in a doom loop already.

- Burning things, moose farts and lack of plant photosynthesis creates excess "greenhouse gases."
- CO2 is a small part of the various greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, including things like water vapor.
- AGW theory posits that a buildup of these gases creates heat trapping, ergo warmth in the atmosphere, and that man's contribution to excess CO2 is the primary cause of the excess.
- How does that warmth create more CO2 exactly? (Do moose fart more when it's warmer?)

The fact that many studies of the ice record indicate that CO2 increases lagged temperature increases at the end of glaciations does not conflict with the consensus view that human released CO2 and other GHGs are now driving temperatures higher. Rather the consensus view is independently derived from physical principals and quantum mechanics and predicted the temperature increases that would result well in advance of observation verification. The paleoclimate record merely offers a platform upon which to validate climate models. Only by including the increases CO2 levels released by a warming ocean and increased vegetation can interglaciations be reasonably modeled. The fact that the beginning rise in CO2 was induced by changes in the orientation of the earth to the sun and helped along by chances in the earth's albedo, doesn't detract from the fact that the forcing of the added CO2 is necessary to explain the total temperature rise.

To be edited.

First off where did I engage in name calling? I made a little fun, that's all. As far as the reciprocal enhancing effect of GW and CO2 well now you can add TedH5 to the list of those who have told you. In fact I can't think of any serious article on the subject that has said otherwise. For instance as it gets warmer the ocean gives up some of its dissolved gasses, including CO2. The CO2 in turn traps some of the sun rays. It's not a doom loop naturally presumably because absent an external driver like a continuing change of orbit or unusual numbers of volcanoes over an extended period the CO2 and GW, as I understand it, stabilize eventually at an equilibrium. Right now WE are the necessary catalyst for the doom loop as we push more and more gasses into the atmosphere.

TedH5 apparently is going to expand on the subject. He's the expert around here and will no doubt let us know where I mispoke.


Sorry, don't know the answer to that one.

No doubt about it sir.


Which one of the 4 or 5 do you prefer?



Come on “quantum mechanics” – are you serious – post a source.

The range takes in all of them. Kind of hard to refine it even further when we don't know how the human race is going to handle their fossil fuel use.

When you edit this, can you please explain how warming creates CO2. I understand very well that it is the consensus view that "human released CO2 and other GHGs are now driving temperatures higher." Other than warming oceans (which result from the Earth's core temperature and underwater volcanoes as far as I know), I don't see where you have said that warming actually increases CO2, not vice-versa. I understand that they correlate, and I think it's fairly obvious that greenhouse gas buildup could conceivably contribute some to warming the Earth by trapping heat. But I don't see where warming creates excess CO2.

Sorry to butt in but maybe you are hung up on the word create. Try to substitute release. He's said it and I've said it, among other sources dissolved CO2 is released by a warming ocean.

The theory goes that warmer oceans have a lower carbonate (carbonic acid and its derivatives) level cap, which means that the ocean will absorb relatively less CO2 because the mechanism of CO2 absorbtion by the ocean is the imbalance of partial pressures of CO2 between the atmosphere and the ocean. In general, cooler waters absorb more CO2 while warmer waters (such as near the equator) actually outgas CO2 into the atmosphere.

Sorry I wasn't successful in editing my last post but, as I've explained before, my satellite web connection is not reliable when it rains. The main thrust of my edit was to refer to this
Realclimate Article on CO2 and its links for a comprehensive discussion of the subject.



Here's one reference.



And Here's a Wikipedia Article relating the study of Black Body Radiation to Quantum Mechanics.



And Here is a Wiki Article on radiation and greenhouse gases:



There are a lot more technical reference in books that I can refer you to but not available digitally.

Quantum mechanics is one hell of a lot more than black body radiation theory. And while this is interesting I fail to see the connection to the super complex climate system of this planet. Needless to say the earth is not a "black body" - not even close.





What I do see is typical of the GW crowd – I call it cure fitting. We take data and then tweak the “model”, which by its very nature is woefully incomplete at predicting the world climate, so that it looks like the model fits the data pattern.

Bad science at best.

Ted, this is a perfect example of your unwillingness to concede even an obvious point making it unproductive to try and converse with you. I stated that AGW theory was based on quantum mechanics (and other established physics), you said give me a cite, I gave you 2, and you chose one and launched into a meaningless rant about the earth not being a black body.

For those with more open minds, I encountered this Article which discusses the differences in the temperature records kept by GISS, NCDC, and HadCRU. It also discusses ways to test for a continuation of the increase in the temperature trend or for its leveling off as some skeptics have contended.



Of course Tamio's test implies that we can wait until 2015 before taking serious steps to reduce GHG releases, we can't. This is highlighted by the release of Ominous Studies in 2 separate journals.

No clue what you are talking about TedN5. Black body radiation may be related (distantly) to quantum mechanics, which by the way is the study of the very small – physics on the subatomic scale, but I fail to see the connection to global warming. The earth is NOT a black body in any way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics


Gee temperature records agree – did I ever dispute that there has been warming? The question is the CAUSE and imo that has not been established yet. Add to that the fact that without knowing the cause with certainty it is clearly inappropriate to draw trend lines into the future – simply because you don’t know definitively why the warming is occurring.

And as for this joke:

Scientists: World Must Go "Zero Carbon" Soon
Carbon Output Must Near Zero To Avert Danger, New Studies Say

"The task of cutting greenhouse gas emissions enough to avert a dangerous rise in global temperatures may be far more difficult than previous research suggested, say scientists who have just published studies indicating that it would require the world to cease carbon emissions altogether within a matter of decades."
HOW do you propose we do this – even if money was no object and even if China and India agreed and …………………

So since we clearly cannot avoid “danger” lets start spending money to deal with what may happen or start saving money to use later if/when warming becomes a problem.

Ted, this whole discussion of the relationship of quantum mechanics to global warming theory is just ridiculous. The whole theory (fact) of greenhouse warming is based on the absorption of radiation of some frequencies transparent to the atmosphere and re-radiation at other frequencies (infra red) that are partially absorbed by different greenhouse gases. At a fundamental level, this is almost entirely a quantum mechanics process. As I stated previously, it is difficult to find digital based material that discusses this fully but HERE is a short article that touches on the subject. (Emphasis added is mine).



The article discussing the relationship of temperature records was specifically not directed at you. I linked it because of the earlier discussion in this forum about the (lack of) meaning in the temperature records for January 2008 and because the denier blogesphere has been raising the issue of a discrepancy between the records. It is entirely appropriate to extend the temperature trend lines and suggest that if temperatures fall within certain confidence limits of the projected trend that it is evidence that the consensus view is correct. If not, barring a major tropical volcano, it is evidence that there is some problem with the theory.

As for the other studies, would your reaction be the same if scientists discovered a major astroid on a collision course with earth in 50 or 100 years or would you favor major expensive efforts to devise a way to divert the collision?

Fine TedN5 the “beginning” of quantum theory. Wonderful.

Do you want to address the other issues above – like the ludicrous idea we can eliminate all “carbon emissions” in a few decades? And even if we did by some miracle then we are left with methane next – from all those animals we eat and from ourselves.


No it’s a prediction without a definitive cause – speculation at best

"When discussing changes (or the lack thereof) in Antarctica, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) most clearly states in their 2007 summary report “Antarctic sea ice extent continues to show inter-annual variability and localized changes but no statistically significant average trends, consistent with the lack of warming reflected in atmospheric temperatures averaged across the region.” Furthermore, IPCC just as clearly states “Current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall.” It would take anyone with internet access no more than a few seconds to download the summary from the IPCC website, but once again, the facts are too inconvenient regarding what is reportedly happening in Antarctica according to the greenhouse advocates."

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...9t-cooperating/

Mann still lying and covering up.

“But today I want to discuss something quite different and something that has really annoyed me for a long time. For all the huffing and puffing by Mann and Tamino about Preisendorfer’s Rule N being a “standard selection rule” or a “correct” way of doing things, Mann failed to produce the source code for the Preisendorfer tree ring calculations when asked by the House Energy and Commerce Committee for MBH98 source code, even though it was a highly contentious issue where implementation errors had already been alleged. Worse, as shown below (re-visiting a point made in early 2005), it is impossible to reproduce the observed pattern of retained PCs shown for the first time in the Corrigendum SI of July 2004. MBH98 itself made no mention of Rule N in connection with tree ring networks, referring instead to factors such as “spatial extent” which have nothing to do with Rule N:”
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2852

There is nothing settled about the GW issues.

OK, got it. But what if the oceans aren't getting warmer?


So, the sea level rise isn't related to warming? That kind of makes the Al Gore movie scenario ... inconvenient, no?

Not really, but I can see that you're trying...

The planet is an extremely complicated system. Scientists have long conceded that their models/projections cannot take into consideration all of the variables, because all of the variables are not known. Dismissing global warming because a single expected event did not happen makes about as much sense as declaring global warming as scientific fact because a single expected event did happen.

I'm certainly not dismissing AGW theory (entirely). I'm only dismissing statements like "the science is settled" or "the sea will rise 20 feet this century" which are often presented as certainties. It's a complex system. The relationships between all of these variables are really complicated and can't be explained simply. I advocate reducing carbon emissions and being responsible. I'm sometimes told (in this thread even) that this won't be enough and "millions of species are going to disappear" because we can't ACT NOW! Which is silly.

If the species living in Champaign, Illinois are OK and the average temp there is a couple degrees higher than Chicago, then it's a bit alarmist to say that none of these species will be able to a) walk/fly/swim to Chicago if and when it's a couple degrees warmer (over 100's of years), b) grow less hair/feathers via evolution over the centuries or c) be just a bit warmer, like I am when I go somewhere warm, or a warm day blesses Chicago. Birds and sea life seem to go where they are comfortable ... not sure why this wouldn't continue. I am oversimplifying to make a point, but then again so is Al Gore and his giant tidal wave.

Can you provide a reference to a scientific paper from which this NPR article was summarized? I would be satisfied with an abstract reference or news release from a credible scientific institution. I couldn't find anything but the usual denier blogosphere blurbs. Can you at least provide some indication about what part of the oceans were being measured. Was it above or below the thermocline? Temperatures tend to stay constant below about 400 meters where surface waters are not mixed.

I did find This National Science Foundation Press Release which indicates the possibility of a natural thermostat regulating surface temperatures in a key part of the tropical Pacific. However, it clearly accepts that the oceans have warmed world wide. Since it was released in February of this year, one would think they would mention the information of such staggering import as that contained in the NPR transcript.

The NPR piece is at least partially inaccurate when it states:



This NSA GIS Blog contradicts this in part, pointing out that as of January we were still experiencing the opposite phenomena of an El Nina that begin in February of 2007. (This was the chief reason Hadley blew it when they forecast 2007 to be a record setting year).

(See GIS Blog).

Even if the NPR piece is an imperfect representation of real measurements, ultimateJoe is entirely correct to point out the need for a little patience. Remember how long it took to discover the orbital decay systematic errors in satellite measurements of troposphere temperature !

It's upper-ocean data. From the Argo Project



Here is a lengthy discussion (PDF) of ocean warming trend models and how they are affected by sampling error. They use the Argo data's massive sample to error-check the models.

carlitoswhey, I am familiar with this buoy system and I am also familiar with Dr. Josh Willis of NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. He was a co-author with James Hansen on the paper that Hansen claims definitiveiy pinned down the earth energy balance. In September of 2006 he did release information that there had been some upper level ocean cooling but that the trend line continued to be significantly elevated. What I'm not familiar with is any new paper or even news release that he has issued recently that would prompt NPR to put out something like the transcript you referenced. I have looked at the NASA news release site. Try for yourself at the NASA News Site. You can search it using his name.

Typical that you even doubt NPR and of course the “deniers” have no clue and cannot even report the truth right?

Here is the NASA site - http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/sep/H...an_Cooling.html
"Researchers found the average temperature of the upper ocean rose by 0.16 degrees Fahrenheit from 1993 to 2003, and then fell 0.055 degrees Fahrenheit from 2003 to 2005. The recent decrease is a dip equal to about one-fifth of the heat gained by the ocean between 1955 and 2003. They analyzed data from a broad array of ocean moorings, floats and shipboard sensors, and supported their results with data from NASA's Jason and Topex/Poseidon satellites"

So total rise 1993-2003 = .105 F - and the drop gave back 20% of all the rise since 1955 (48 years) in TWO YEARS.

BTW

You ducked my last post – you buddy Mann is still trying to cover his lies and bogus results.

Nice try Ted, referring me to my own source.

From my last post:



From the article you referenced which is dated September 21, 2006 with the same Dr. Wallis referred to the author of the study:

(See Ted's 2006 NASA News Release).

Nowhere here or elsewhere have I seen any indication that Dr. Wallis has questioned his earlier work with Jim Hansen. As far as I known, he remains firmly a part of the AGW consensus view. So far I have seen nothing to justify the tone or timing of the NPR transcript from March 19, 2008. If Richard Harris was referring to this 2 year old study, he should have said so. It would also have been instructive to make Dr. Wallis' own views more specific.

As for trusting NPR, they still do some good work but you would have to have been living under a rock to be unaware of the Bush Administration's efforts to politicize them. They're also not immune for pressures from big corporations. Here is a 2005 NYT editorial that discusses the issue.

A part of the view that needs further explanation. The non linear temperature rise here – not at all linked to man made CO2 needs to be explained and not dismissed since the ocean temperature is a key part of the AGW fanatics argument. So this is not settled.

As I have said – this and other data lead me to believe we have a lot more to learn here – and liars like Mann falsifying his data tell me we have lots of folks who are going to do what they can to push their “view” of the issue – and tweak the data and its interpretation to match.

Speaking of politicizing science, HERE is an article discussing the American Association for the Advancement of Science awards to NASA's Jim Hansen and Bob Watson, the former head of the International Panel on Climate Change, for standing up to political pressure.



And from the AAAS news release:



And continuing from the article:



As a thought provoker, HERE is an introductory article and a Slideshow recently presented by Dr. Hansen indicating his current thinking about why we need to bring CO2 down to 350 ppm fairly soon and then reduce it somewhat from there. Much of this is based on evidence that has been released after the literature period covered by the IPCC's AR4.

Apparently the authors of that study showing an ocean temp. drop between 2003-2005 are having some second thoughts.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channe...-change/dn11664





Well here's Mann's beautiful hockey stick updated to 2007. If you don't properly respect it and admit that it makes AGW a slam dunk then I will have to go fetch RealClimate's debunk of the debunk. Just say uncle.

http://environment.newscientist.com/data/i...11648-2_726.jpg

Quite right, Dingo, Ted always wants the last word no matter how ridiculous and extraneous it is to the subject being discussed. Mann is not a liar and people like Ted should be sued for libel. (One sometimes wishes for an American version of British libel laws). We have pointed Ted to solid defenses of Mann's work, a number of similar proxie temperature record reconstructions that result in similar graphs, and to the fact that such studies are not fundamental to AGW theory but only additional evidence that what was predicted is happening.

Did you look at the article regarding Dr. Hansen's current position on what constitutes a seriously dangerous level of CO2 and other GH gases? I seem to remember that you don't have a high speed hookup so you were probably unable to access the slide show.

Hansen's position, as I understand it, is that recent evidence regarding the cryosphere (ice) and species extinction make it likely that CO2 has already exceeded the level that will create fundamental changes in our world resulting in mass extinctions and vast dislocations of human populations if GH gas levels are not first stabilized and then reduced. He wants to target carbon blacks, methane, and other GH gases while stabilizing CO2 at 350 ppm before reducing it to a long term value of 300 ppm. As you know CO2 is now over 380 ppm (Hansen uses 385) and the IPCC has been using 450 ppm as the tipping point for a dangerous climate.

I have been trying to have an open mind about things lately but there are some things that just don't pass the smell test to me.

Sample size is a very large factor in any experiment or research. The earth is around 4.5 billion years old. How can any good scientist come to a conclusion on data that is not even 1/100th of a percent on sample size?

I am somewhat familiar with Hansen's tipping point views. The Gaia guy, Lovelace, has even more disastrous runaway scenarios.

As far as bandwidth I only have dialup. I'd need about an hour and a half to download your slideshow, which nevertheless I may still do.

One observation, your copy of my hockey stick graph link clicks error. Don't know what the problem is there but I thought I'd bring it to your attention.

Did you catch the correction on Ted's cooling ocean? I guess we all have to be reminded that early data needs time for a recheck.

Dingo, I am familiar with Professor Lovelace's views but having a mainstay of establishment climate science like Hansen move as far as he has is staggering in its implications.

Yes, I noted the New Scientist article correcting the impression the 2006 study left. I take the New Scientist but must have incompletely read the issue. I'm also surprised I didn't discover a peer reviewed correction in my Google searches. Both ultimatejoe and I had cautioned against drawing any immediate conclusion from the NPR piece even before I concluded that it was probably an industry instigated rehash of the 2006 paper.

Dingo, I think we both meant Professor Lovelock when we said Lovelace.

Getting back to the subject of this post, another sea shelf has broken off the Antarctic Peninsula threating an even larger shelf. This happen while peripheral sea ice is more extensive than usual around the rest of the continent and far sooner than climate scientists had predicted. (See this Guardian Article at Common Dreams).

So the scientists were wrong, but they were wrong in the right direction?

Sorry, wrong is wrong. A bad prediction means that you did not understand what was going on in the first place, it does not mean "OMG things are worse than we thought!!"

News story on the Antarctic break up



Happening more frequently in "recent decades"? How can we possibly know that? Have we had satellite cameras tracking the ice sheets before "recent decades"?

Scientists are not even sure how old the Wilkins ice shelf is. They speculate it is a few hundred years old at least. Of course, why it wasn't there a thousand years ago and why it formed are anybody's guess (not really, but rhetorically). The collapse of the ice shelf that wasn't there a thousand years ago is either (pick one):

A. A return to an earlier, less human infested, time.
B. The signs of a dire future that is inescapable.
C. An event that is neither predictive nor a return to equilibrium.
D. None of the above.

Ah yes, handing by a thread. Earth in the balance. Impending doom. Color me skeptical, but I think that Miami is safe from flodding for a hile.

link

It's true that the expert your article quotes, Duncan Wingham, has suggested some alternative explanations for the break off of ice shelves from the Antarctic Peninsula; however, if your going to quote him as an expert to rely on you need to accept his full view. (See This PDF Document).

In a way I sympathize with your point Amlord. When the arctic melt rate was found to be outside scientific estimates it was stated to be faster than the fastest estimate and was indicated as such. Later previously unknown natural causes were factored in to help explain the increased acceleration of the melting. Vaughan's comment suggest's a single target prediction which strikes me as very unscientific. Here he compounds it.



I wonder if he was using short hand and saying it was faster than the median point of the predicted range. In any case his comment strikes me as unscientific, more simply conventional conversation. I remain wondering whether the Wilkens breakup was outside the range of predicted possibilities. By itself being faster than any predicted scenario would I agree be no proof of anything long term. But by being integrated into a larger long term pattern it could be of great significance and of course encourage new projection models.

Again you duck the questions – as expected. He refuses to share his software even when asked by Congress. His “stick” is defended by the fanatics regardless.

Let me post it again so that perhaps you can explain it to me:

Mann still lying and covering up.

“But today I want to discuss something quite different and something that has really annoyed me for a long time. For all the huffing and puffing by Mann and Tamino about Preisendorfer’s Rule N being a “standard selection rule” or a “correct” way of doing things, Mann failed to produce the source code for the Preisendorfer tree ring calculations when asked by the House Energy and Commerce Committee for MBH98 source code, even though it was a highly contentious issue where implementation errors had already been alleg