Sea Level Rise During The Hottest Year Ever
ftp://ftp.aviso.oceanobs.com/According to NASA’s Dr. Hansen, 2010 was the hottest year ever, and Greenland temperatures were also the hottest ever. We are told this led to record melt in Greenland, which caused massive amounts of water to pour into the ocean. Additionally, thermal expansion from the record heat caused the oceans to get much deeper.
Satellite data shows us that sea level has been falling steadily since the start of 2010, which tells us that the missing water and the missing heat must be hiding at the bottom of the ocean – along with the missing intelligence and integrity of government scientists.
Add comment
Before posting a comment, please read the Terms of Service (click here). Long links are shortened but still work.
PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to administrator' link. If you find your post gone, it's because you violated the TOS.
Comments
Just wait for the rebound!
Wait for it... wait...
How are you doing?
www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-fall-2010.htm
A number of climate not-so-skeptics have been exploiting global sea level data in their latest attempt to hide the incline. Skeptical Science readers will be very familiar with the tactics the "skeptics" use to make this argument:
1. Cherrypick a very small amount of data during which the short-term noise has dampened the long-term incline
2. Ignore the long-term trend
3. Refuse to examine the reasons behind the short-term change
More Sks BS!
Envisat also shows a decline.
And let's finally have that peer reviewed paper refuting NV. I've only been asking for a week now.
Quit dodging the key issue here.
Try the post down below for natural varaibilty. I'm ready for that discussion with you. But I don't think you can do it. I promise to go easy on you.
You were discussing black bodies, Gator gave you a quote, you tried to refute it with the first thing you found in a google search which in fact supported Gator rather than you.
We've seen who the cheerleader here is RG, how's that skirt fit?
How many more posts are you going to make proving you don't understand what you are talking about while claiming it is everyone else who doesn't?
Don't worry, we'll give you plenty of time to run over to SkS to ask them what to say.
Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.
It is called projecting.
Take for example point 3, and your refusal to examine any information presented to you by others far more qualified than you (such as Richard) because the results don't support your beliefs.
Figure 1: University of Colorado global mean sea level data with a 12-month running average, and short-term declines.
#######################
Steve Goddard loves the short term data.
Damn that long term data.
Don't be a denier.
The Earth is @ 4,500,000,000 years old.
Why cherrypick the last 40?
Enough distractions.
Enough prattle.
Show me peer reviewed science that disproves NV.
No models.
No guesses.
No paper, no AGW, no kidding.
And BTW, here is what 130 years of dangerous sea level looks like...
Empiricalevidence trumps guesswork!I'll check on your failures later,
Gator.
Show me peer reviewed science that disproves NV.
###################
What I have provided is many examples of NV has not caused AGW. All of them come to the same conslusion. There are doubters that can run circles around me. But Gator you are just not one of them.
How's that bluffing working for you?
So how's that bluffing working for you? No one here is buying it.
All you have shown is your vast ignorance of science, and your familiarity with SkS. They go hand in hand.
Every single paper you cited is pure soeculation, and that is exactly what the peer review process proved. Peers said, "Yep, that's sure is a purty model there doc'.
Models reflect the thoughts of their creators. Warmists think warm thoughts and create warm models.
I showed you where CO2 residency estimates by the warmists are off by a factor of at least 200. And you still cannot figure out why all of their models continue to fail?
GIGO!
You have no idea what you are speaking of.
Quote:Are you saying Climatology = Physics?
Really, you must try harder, Gleick is not happy!
Yep it seems RG fails once again. In no way are they held to the same standards. The so called "Science" of Climastrology would not be any where near meeting an acceptable standard in particle pysics.
www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-fall-2010.htm
A number of climate not-so-skeptics have been exploiting global sea level data in their latest attempt to hide the incline. Skeptical Science readers will be very familiar with the tactics the "skeptics" use to make this argument:
1. Cherrypick a very small amount of data during which the short-term noise has dampened the long-term incline
2. Ignore the long-term trend
3. Refuse to examine the reasons behind the short-term change
Hey RG
Perhaps you might be interested in this debunking of that SkS article
theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/10/sea-level-update-the-oceans-in-decline/
Quote:It's amazing how easily the arguments on that website can be torn to pieces with simple logic.
RG you keep trying, yet you fail every time.
Figure 1: Net human and natural percent contributions to the observed global surface warming over the past 50-65 years according to Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), and Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange). This has been added to the SkS Climate Graphics Page.
www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-review-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html
Multiple lines of evidence coming to the same conslusion.
Epic fail again, when will you learn that SkS + BS?
If you read through the whole link this comes from 5 different science papers approaching the same subject from a variety of different methods. That is the power of good science.
If I were pulling off your little scam here and someone caught me like I have you, I would actually feel embarisment
I read the papers and know their flaws, you do not.
Modeled BS.
Read and learn
Buh-bye.
Huber and Knutti (2011)
Huber and Knutti 2011 implemented a very interesting approach in their study, utilizing the principle of conservation of energy for the global energy budget to quantify the various contributions to the observed global warming from 1850 and 1950 to the 2000s. Huber and Knutti took the estimated global heat content increase since 1850, calculated how much of the increase is due to various estimated radiative forcings, and partition the increase between increasing ocean heat content and outgoing longwave radiation. More than 85% of the global heat uptake has gone into the oceans, so by including this data, their study is particularly robust.
Huber and Knutti estimate that since 1850 and 1950, approximately 75% and 100% of the observed global warming is due to human influences, respectively.
You still haven't proven a thing, can't refute anyone with any credibility, and can only manage things like the above.
Better run off to SkS now and ask them what to do next. We'll be here.
No one needs to "do better than that" as that is sufficient. It accurately states why you are here, how little you know, and who you have to run to for help.
Obviously you are not, as I have just repeatedly demonstrated on this thread.
We don't play with broken models here.
Oh my. TTHe Gator expert has spoken. Get rreal.
You lose again!
Find that paper!
Models are tools is why the scientists use them. How well the calculated values match up with reality is the comparison. If it was a total fail they would stop using them. Instead they write bigger and better programs to understand what is happening. Based in mostly physics.
But can an archaeologist call his shovel evidence?
Computers get faster and faster because the information we can obtain is valuable. Otherwise thsoe millions of dollars would not of been spent on them.
And what 'evidence' have models given?
None. Zero. Zip.
In fact they have all failed.
Why?
Because they are using guesswork.
They are incapable of doing anything correctly until we undferstand what drives climate.
The archaeologist's shovel cannot tell him where to dig or what he has uncovered. That requires a functioning human brain, and knowledge of the subject.
Actually it's Billions wasted not millions.
I like to do the ideas in little short bursts.
www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-review-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html
Tett et al. (2000)
Tett et al. (2000) used an "optical detection methodology" with global climate model simulations to try and match the observational data. The inputs into the model included measurements of GHGs in the atmosphere, aerosols from volcanic eruptions, solar irradiance, human aerosol emissions, and atmospheric ozone changes (ozone is another greenhouse gas).
Tett et al. applied their model to global surface temperatures from 1897 to 1997. Their best estimate matched the overall global warming during this period very well; however, it underestimated the warming from 1897 to 1947, and overestimated the warming from 1947 to 1997. For this reason, during the most recent 50 year period in their study (shown in dark blue in Figure 1), the sum of their natural and human global warming contributions is larger than 100%, since their model shows more warming than observed over that period. Over both the 50 and 100 year timeframes, Tett et al. estimated that natural factors have had a slight net cooling effect, and thus human factors have caused more than 100% of the observed global warming.
You claim to Amrilach that you "think you understand" what he is saying but will let him explain it is a classic giveaway that you don't understand what he is saying (when he was actually asking you a question to get your explanation) so you have nothing to say.
Better ask John how to respond, we know you can't manage it yourself.
By the way Robert. Its really nice of you to come to Gator's defense. He can't handle this.
You know one of the things you keep failing to address.
I was curious if there was an update to her previous post.
There is a link on this page. motls.blogspot.com/2010/06/judithgate-ipcc-relied-on-one-solar.html "Kremlik's Extended Version written in English". Should take you right to it. I like the letters of protest from Doug Hoyt and Richard C.Willson.
RG thinks Avatar was real!
'Turtles all the way down!'
Find me that paper!
"Their best estimate matched the overall global warming during this period very well; however, it underestimated the warming from 1897 to 1947, and overestimated the warming from 1947 to 1997."
Sorry RG but for a model to be valid it must predict every period every time. No "Best Estimates" will do.
Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999), and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002), as well as over 140 scientific papers. Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992.
She majored in physics.
Gee, who else studied climatology and remote sensing? Hmmmmm.
Hey RG
If the folks at SkS were so sure that the models work so well, please explain why they did not respond to Roger Pielke Sr's very reasonable scientific challenge?
pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/two-questions-to-skeptical-science-regarding-i-the-relation-of-global-warming-to-climate-change-and-ii-the-predictive-skill-of-multi-decadal-global-climate-models/
Always happy to be of help.
hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/06/dr-nicola-scafetta-there-is-little-hope.html
Quote:
Meehl et al. (2004)
Meehl et al. 2004 used a similar approach to Tett et al., running global climate model simulations using various combinations of the different main factors which influence global temperatures (GHGs, solar activity, volcanic aerosols, human aerosols, and ozone), and comparing the results to the temperature data from 1890 to 2000. They found that natural factors could account for most of the warming from 1910 to 1940, but simply could not account for the global warming we've experienced since the mid-20th Century.
Meehl et al. estimated that approximately 80% of the global warming from 1890 to 2000 was due to human effects. Over the most recent 50 years in their study (1950-2000), natural effects combined for a net cooling, and thus like Tett et al., Meehl et al. concluded that human caused more than 100% of the global warming over that period. Over the past 25 years, nearly 100% of the warming is due to humans, in their estimate.
Since you have a reading disorder I thought you might want to see (not that you can) the "quality" of your sources:
nigguraths.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/skeptical-quote-surgery-pat-michaels/
Fraudulent misrepresentation appears to be all they can manage. Then when they are busted for it they just remove the article and pretend it never happened.
Kind of like you actually, no wonder you like it there.
Meehl et al. estimated that approximately 80% of the global warming from 1890 to 2000 was due to human effects.
Here is the point Robert. The science
is showing so far that we are even over a 100% above natural variability. NV was actually found to be negative. The AGW has overwhelmed that and still coninued to warm beyond the NV
You know Gator owes you a beer.
So keep spamming the site with nonsense, no one that actually does understand science considers SkS reliable.
Those with agendas rely upon it to support them.
Big difference not that you would understand it.
You're feeble attempts have been shown wrong every time you make one. No one here will take your seriously as long as you keep spamming for SkS.
Since that is all you can manage for science, you have nothing to discuss.
I like discussing the science. IF I Learn something from you that's great. You are attacking the messenger and not the science. Poke holes in it. Let's see where it goes.
I have watched a few people present you with much more detailed evidence and arguments than you can manage only to see you go "la, la, la, la, la, la...." respond with the same crap you started with which they just finished proving wrong and act like you've accomplished something.
That isn't science and I have a life that keeps me busy, busy enough that there is not further time for wasting on someone like you.
When you can act like a reasoning adult let us know, until then bother someone else.
Keep going Gator. You owe these guys a case of beer apeice. Somebody has to do your work, because bascially you are science cripple.
Appeals to authority are for the church.
It's called the scientific method. Look it up then tell Gleick about it!
Stone et al. (2007)
Stone et al. actually published two studies in 2007. The first paper examined a set of 62 climate model simulation runs for the time period of 1940 to 2080 (the Dutch Meteorological Institute's "Challenge Project"). These simulations utilized measurements of GHGs, volcanic aerosols, human aerosols, and solar activity from 1940 to 2005, similar to the Tett and Meehl studies discussed above, and then used projected future emissions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to project future global warming. Whereas Tett and Meehl examined the climate response to each individual factor (and/or combinaton of factors), Stone compared these 62 climate model runs to a series of energy balance models, each representing the climate's response to a different effect. Over the 60 year period, Stone et al. estimated that humans caused close to 100% of the observed warming, and the natural factors had a net negative effect. As with Stott, their model did not fit the data perfectly, though they had the opposite result, underestimating the observed warming.
In their second 2007 paper, Stone et al. updated the results from their first paper by including more climate models and more up-to-date data, and examining the timeframe of 1901 to 2005. Over that full 104-year period, Stone et al. estimated that humans and natural effects had each contributed to approximately half of the observed warming. Greenhouse gases contributed to 100% of the observed warming, but half of that effect was offset by the cooling effect of human aerosol emissions. They estimated that solar and volcanic activity were responsible for 37% and 13% of the warming, respectively.
Lean and Rind (2008)
Lean and Rind 2008 used more of a statistical approach than these previous studies, using a multiple linear regression analysis. In this approach, Lean and Rind used measurements of solar, volcanic, and human influences, as well as ENSO, and statistically matched them to the observational temperature data to achieve the best fit. Analyzing what is left over after summing the various contributions shows whether the most significant contributions are being considered.
LR08 did this over various timeframes, and found that from 1889 to 2006, humans caused nearly 80% of the observed warming, versus approximately 12% from natural effects. As with the previous studies discussed, this doesn't add up to exactly 100% because the statistical fit is not perfect, and not every effect on global temperature was taken into consideration. From both 1955 and 1979 to 2005, they estimated that humans have caused close to 100% of the observed warming.
www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9790-please-global-warming-alarmists-stop-denying-climate-change-and-science#comment-32851
www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/index-publications.html
Stott et al. (2010)
Stott et al. (S10) used a somewhat similar approach to LR08, but they used their statistical multiple linear regression results to constrain simulations from five different climate models. S10 calculated regression coefficients for greenhouse gases, other human effects (dominated by aerosols), and natural effects (solar and volcanic), and estimated how much warming each caused over the 20th Century. The average of the five models put the human contribution at 86% of the observed warming, and greenhouse gases at 138%, with a very small natural contribution.
Stott et al. also corrobarated their results by looking not only at global, but also regional climate changes by reviewing the body of scientific literature. They note that human influences have been detected in changes in local temperatures, precipitation changes, atmospheric humidity, drought, Arctic ice decline, extreme heat events, ocean heat and salinity changes, and a number of other regional climate impacts.
Stott et al. (2010)
Stott et al. (S10) used a somewhat similar approach to LR08, but they used their statistical multiple linear regression results to constrain simulations from five different climate models. S10 calculated regression coefficients for greenhouse gases, other human effects (dominated by aerosols), and natural effects (solar and volcanic), and estimated how much warming each caused over the 20th Century. The average of the five models put the human contribution at 86% of the observed warming, and greenhouse gases at 138%, with a very small natural contribution.
Stott et al. also corrobarated their results by looking not only at global, but also regional climate changes by reviewing the body of scientific literature. They note that human influences have been detected in changes in local temperatures, precipitation changes, atmospheric humidity, drought, Arctic ice decline, extreme heat events, ocean heat and salinity changes, and a number of other regional climate impacts.
Foster and Rahmstorf (2011)
Foster and Rahmstorf (2011; FR11) implemented a very similar statistical approach to that in Lean and Rind (2008). The main difference is that FR11 examined five different temperature data sets, including satellites, and only looked at the data from 1979 to 2010 (the satellite temperature record begins in 1979). They also limited their analysis to the three main natural influences on global temperatures - solar and volcanic activity, and ENSO. What remains once those three effects are filtered out is predominantly, but not entirely due to human effects. For our purposes, we will classify this remainder as the human contribution, since FR11 removed the three largest natural effects.
Using the temperature data from the British Hadley Centre (which was used by LR08, and is the most frequently-used temperature data set in these studies), FR11 found that the three natural effects in their analysis exerted a small net cooling effect from 1979 to 2010, and therefore the leftover influence, which is predominantly due to human effects, is responsible for more than 100% of the oberved global warming over that timeframe.
One key aspect of this type of study is that it makes no assumptions about various possible solar effects on global temperatures. Any solar effect (either direct or indirect) which is correlated to solar activity (i.e. solar irradiance, solar magnetic field [and thus galactic cosmic rays], ultraviolet [UV] radiation, etc.) is accounted for in the linear regression. Both Lean and Rind and Foster and Rahmstorf found that solar activity has played a very small role in the observed global warming
Gillett et al. (2012)
Similar to S10, Gillett et al. applied a statistical multiple linear regression approach to a climate model - the second generation Canadian Earth System Model (CanESM2). They used data for human greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions, land use changes, solar activity, ozone, and volcanic aerosol emissions. In their attribution they grouped some of the effects together into 'natural', 'greenhouse gas', and 'other'. The authors estimated the effects of each over three timeframes: 1851-2010, 1951-2000, and 1961-2010. For their attributions over the most recent 50 years, we took the average of the latter two, and used their 'other' category as an estimate for the influence of human aerosol emissions (which will result in somewhat of an underestimate, since most 'other' effects are in the warming direction).
Gillett et al. estimated that over both timeframes, humans are responsible for greater than 100% of the observed warming.
First try addressing the questions you ran from.
Surely, a rational thinking person would not 'want' or 'seek out' hypothetical disaster scenarios?
Don't these scientists realise that 'normal' people no longer buy into the global warming scare! By 'normal', I mean people who critically and fully think through matters as opposed to just 'believing' them!
Only instead of screen upon screen ob bible quotations he's going to fill the site with screen upon screen of SkS links.
Nothing surprising there, we all know your only purpose here is to get attention and stir shit up.
And it would be preferable if you didn't try and be all "palsy" with me, the name is Robert. Too difficult for you?
I don't care about me, lets discuss the science.
Until you understand what science is and actually have some there is nothing to discuss.
Models aren't so grand.
Red Jeff
Here is an example where a model is wrong and also right. The neg trend of the slope is correct, the value of the negative isn't large enough. The people working on this model need to identify more of the mechanisms that melt artic ice at its higher rate than the modle predicts.
But of course, you are unaware of this fact, because like everything else you think you know about climate, this came from SkS.
GIGO!
You think because it failed in the direction you like it is somehow valid?
Models that have no predictive skill are of zero value no matter what the outcome.
Somebody does not know the difference between fantasy and reality!
Every one of the papers you referenced above uses models, estimates and BS (Blameologist Speculation) as the basis of their claims.
Next to these papers, 'Star Wars' is historic fact!
RG, you really do need to start your education over at grade one. Have your mommy or someone else explain to you that 'Models, 'Scenarios', and 'Estimates' are not hard science.
As I whispered to Adam a few days ago, you cannot tell science fiction from science fact.
This is why you repeatedly fail to bring any real science to bear here, because there is no real science that refutes NV!
I sent you on a fool's errand and you gladly accepted!!!!
Run RG run.
Run to SkS RG.
See RG cut and paste.
Don't eat the paste RG!
Yes Gator. The model is wrong and I have said that. Too bad you can't get the nuance out of life itself. The observations exceed the models predictions of melt.
Since you are this supremely important person on this site, why doesn't this model get it more accurately?
Hint: bullshit your way out gat.
RG your whole argument is a strawman. Whether the ice is melting even more than the models predict says absolutely nothing about the effect of carbon dioxide on Arctic climate. All the fact simply shows is that the models are unable to replicate observed arctic climate change or the mechanisms that drive it. RG isn't it perfectly plausible that Sea ice is simply much more sensitive to natural fluctutations such as oceanic oscilations, than the models previously thought? Which is why the ice is meting faster.
Or please explain how your argument supports the claim that Arctic climate change is driven by CO2?
Wouldn't it best better to look at the history of arctic temperature change and see if there is any link to co2? And there isn't if you compare graphs of arctic temp to co2, you will see that there is no correlation whatsoever.
www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Arctic:
Absence of evidence for greenhouse warming over the Arctic Ocean in the past 40 years
(Nature, Volume 361, Number 6410, pp. 335-337, January 1993)
- Jonathan D. Kahl
Actual and insolation-weighted Northern Hemisphere snow cover and sea-ice between 1973–2002
(Climate Dynamics, Volume 22, Issue 6-7, pp. 591-595, June 2004)
- Roger A. Pielke Sr. et al.
Accounts from 19th-century Canadian Arctic Explorers' Logs Reflect Present Climate Conditions
(Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 84, Issue 40, pp. 410-412, 2003)
- James E. Overland et al.
Arctic air temperature change amplification and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 36, Issue 14, July 2009)
- Petr Chylek et al.
Arctic sea ice thickness remained constant during the 1990s (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 28, Issue 6, pp. 1039-1042, March 2001)
- P. Winsor
Driftwood in Svalbard as an Indicator of Sea Ice Conditions
(Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography, Volume 64, Number 1/2, pp. 81-94, 1982)
- Anders Haggblom
Has Arctic Sea Ice Rapidly Thinned? (PDF)
(Journal of Climate, Volume 15, Issue 13, pp. 1691-1701, July 2002)
- Greg Holloway et al.
Historical variability of sea ice edge position in the Nordic Seas
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 111, Issue C1, January 2006)
- Dmitry V. Divine et al.
Holocene fluctuations in Arctic sea-ice cover: dinocyst-based reconstructions for the eastern Chukchi Sea (PDF)
(Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Volume 45, Number 11, pp. 1377-1397, November 2008)
- J.L. McKay et al.
Holocene Sea-Ice Variations and Paleoenvironmental Change, Northernmost Ellesmere Island, N.W.T., Canada
(Arctic and Alpine Research, Volume 15, Number 1, pp. 1-17, February 1983)
- Thomas G. Stewart et al.
Holocene sea-ice variations in Greenland: onshore evidence (PDF)
(The Holocene, Volume 14, Number 4, pp. 607-613, 2004)
- Ole Bennike
(Quaternary Science Reviews, Volume 23, Issues 5-6, pp. 529-560, March 2004)
- D. S. Kaufman et al.
Holocene Treeline History and Climate Change Across Northern Eurasia
(Quaternary Research, Volume 53, Issue 3, pp. 302-311, May 2000)
- Glen M. MacDonald et al.
Observationally based assessment of polar amplification of global warming (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 29, Issue 18, pp. 25-1, September 2002)
- Igor V. Polyakov et al.
Sea-ice decline due to more than warming alone
(Nature, Volume 450, Number 7166, pp. 27, November 2007)
- Julia Slingo et al.
Solar Arctic-Mediated Climate Variation on Multidecadal to Centennial Timescales: Empirical Evidence, Mechanistic Explanation, and Testable Consequences (PDF)
(Physical Geography, Volume 30, Number 2, March-April 2009)
- Willie H. Soon
Summer retreat of Arctic sea ice: Role of summer winds (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 35, Issue 24, December 2008)
- Masayo Ogi et al.
Temporal and spatial variation of surface air temperature over the period of instrumental observations in the Arctic (PDF)
(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 20, Issue 6, pp. 587-614, May 2000)
- Rajmund Przybylak
The regime shift of the 1920s and 1930s in the North Atlantic (PDf)
(Progress in Oceanography, Volume 68, Issues 2-4, pp. 134-151, February-March 2006)
- Kenneth F. Drinkwater
Variability and Trends of Air Temperature and Pressure in the Maritime Arctic, 1875-2000 (PDF)
(Journal of Climate, Volume 16, Issue 12, pp. 2067-2077, June 2003)
- Igor V. Polyakov et al.
Variability of the Intermediate Atlantic Water of the Arctic Ocean over the Last 100 Years (PDF)
(Journal of Climate, Voume 17, Issue 23, pp. 4485-4497, December 2004)
- Igor V. Polyakov et al.
Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record of the past 130 years (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Issue 16, August 2005)
- Willie H. Soon
Variations in the age of Arctic sea-ice and summer sea-ice extent (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 9, May 2004)
- Ignatius G. Rigor et al.
Global Warming and the Greenland Ice Sheet (PDF)
(Climatic Change, Volume 63, Numbers 1-2, pp. 201-221, March 2004)
- Petr Chylek et al.
Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Air Temperature Variability: 1840–2007 (PDF)
(Journal of Climate, Volume 22, Issue 14, pp. 4029–4049, July 2009)
- Jason E. Box et al.
Greenland warming of 1920–1930 and 1995–2005 (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 33, Issue 11, June 2006)
- Petr Chylek et al.
Ocean regulation hypothesis for glacier dynamics in southeast Greenland and implications for ice sheet mass changes (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 115, Issue F3, August 2010)
- T. Murray et al.
Rapid Changes in Ice Discharge from Greenland Outlet Glaciers (PDF)
(Science, Volume 315, Number 5818, pp. 1559-1561, March 2007)
- Ian M. Howat et al.
Recent cooling in coastal southern Greenland and relation with the North Atlantic Oscillation (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 30, Issue 3, February 2003)
- Edward Hanna et al.
Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland
(Science, Volume 310, Number 5750, pp. 1013-1016, November 2005)
- Ola M. Johannessen et al.
Remote sensing of Greenland ice sheet using multispectral near-infrared and visible radiances (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 112, Issue D24, December 2007)
- Petr Chylek et al.
Surface mass-balance changes of the Greenland ice sheet since 1866 (PDF)
(Annals of Glaciology, Volume 50, Number 50, pp. 178-184, March 2009)
- L.M. Wake et al.
Survey of Greenland instrumental temperature records: 1873–2001 (PDF)
(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 22, Issue 15, pp. 1829–1847, December 2002)
- Jason E. Box
The IPCC has a page of about 40 or 50 known GHG's. I'll stick with talking about models, NV and artic melt for now. I have limited time unfortunatly.
Then please alert the IPCC!
Because according to AR4, chapter 2.9.1 on 'Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing', they have an admitted 'low' to 'very low' understanding of 13 out of 16 identified climate forcings.
Tell me Doc, how does one quantify that which is nearly 80% misunderstood?
Still waiting on you to provide that paper. Not models based upon 80% ignorance!
You keep dodging the issue.
Sucks to be you!
Mother nature is doing what she has always done, and you are completely at a loss to explain otherwise.
I have nothing to prove, I am not making unsupportable claims.
Where is that paper RG?
I will be sharing these 'funnies' of yours with my coworkers this morning, and we will all have a good belly laugh at your expense.
Cheers!
If you want to see RG make an epic fail twice in a row see
www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9790-please-global-warming-alarmists-stop-denying-climate-change-and-science#comment-33026
and my replies
I'm thinking of creating a model that proves I am a rock star, and then presenting it to EMI for a recording contract!
Care to review it and be my drummer, pal!
He and Gleick both did alot of non-reading to form their opinions.
It's like trying to convince a catholic priest that there's no God.
That's funny coming from the guy who does not understand the scientific method or Ockham's Razor!
Where is the paper refuting NV?
You are continuing to fail miserably.
Models are tools, not evidence.
This is a total crock of Sch1t. (The German kind)
They are measuring warming in the oceans. Water expansion is a significant part of sea level rise.
Look up the coefficient of seawater expansion. It is extremely low, on the order of a fraction of a millimeter expansion per vertical meter per degree change. The IPCC assumes that expansion affects the entire ocean volume, but truthfully, it only concerns the uppermost 200-500 meters of the oceans.
Thermal expansion throughout history probably only accounts for about 2-3 inches of total sea level change at most and that's a generous figure.
Figure 2: Gillett et al. time series of global mean near-surface air temperature anomalies in observations and simulations of CanESM2. Black lines show observed global mean annual mean temperature from HadCRUT3, and thin coloured lines show global mean temperature from five-member ensembles of CanESM2 forced with (a) anthropogenic and natural forcings (ALL), (b) natural forcings only (NAT), (c) greenhouse gases only (GHG), and (d) aerosols only (AER). All anomalies are calculated relative to the period 1851–1900, and ensemble means are shown by thick coloured lines.
www.skepticalscience.com/gillett-estimate-human-and-natural-global-warming.html
In B box the natural forcing vs observed, you can easily see that the observation of temperature easily exceeds natural forcing
You still don't get it, do you?
Yeah, funny that. I'm just kinda weird when it comes to, oh say 4,500,000,000 years of precedence.
But you've got like, almost 30.
So where is this paper that over turns 4,500,000,000 years of empirical evidence?
Hmmm?
Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.
ure 1: Time series of anthropogenic and natural forcings contributions to total simulated and observed global temperature change. The coloured shadings denote the 5-95% uncertainty range.
#########################
Here again is natural vs observed temperatures. There is pretty strong agreement so far that natural variation does not explain the observed temperture trend.
RG loves garbage.
Renewable garbage!
www.skepticalscience.com/lean-and-rind-estimate-man-made-and-natural-global-warming.html
I'm hoping that the whole table will fit across the page. These values represent change in temperature/decade are laid out based on different time frames.
Temperatures are below scenario C, total cessation of anthro CO2. This alone proves that CO2 sensitivity estimates are way out of bound.
Models lose again
Now where is that paper RG?
I've got a feeling that RG is about to link to SkS again.
He is very likely going to claim that Hansen's B prediction was correct, of course ignoring the fact that was only if co2 emissions stabilised.
I suggest RG you read these links before citing that SkS article (even though you won't read them and link to it anyway)
stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/skeptical-science-cheating-4x/
wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/17/a-response-to-skeptical-sciences-patrick-michaels-serial-deleter-of-inconvenient-data/
Can't you read?!
Lean and Rind have been refuted in the peer reviewed literature
www.fel.duke.edu/%7Escafetta/pdf/Scafetta-JASP_1_2009.pdf
This has been pointed out to you many times, you just completely ignored it.
Why do you keep spamming the same SkS links over and over again?
Why don't you actually read what we provide you?
www.skepticalscience.com/pics/KnuttiAttributionBreakdown.png
www.skepticalscience.com/huber-and-knutti-quantify-man-made-global-warming.html
In Figure 2, Huber and Knutti break down the anthropogenic and natural forcings into their individual components to quantify the amount of warming caused by each since the 1850s (Figure 2b), 1950s (2c), and projected from 2000 to 2050 using the IPCC SRES A2 emissions scenario as business-as-usual (2d).
#########################
Again the different components of our energy balance that directly realates to temperature on earth. And from the graphs you can see that the natural forcings are insignicant.
Quit trifling and find that paper rg.
www.skepticalscience.com/pics/FR11_All.gif
www.skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-measure-global-warming-signal.html
Figure 3: Temperature data (with a 12-month running average) before and after the exogeneous factor removal
#################################
removing enso, volcanic eruptions, and solar variablity, we are left with a continuous increse in temperature anomalies.
God?
I showed you how Foster and Rhamstorf's paper was flawed, but you just completely ignored it and the arguments presented
wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/14/tisdale-on-foster-and-rahmstorf-take-2/
That trait, and wilfull ignorance and a loud mouth, make him our greatest asset. We need only point out the likes of him to others to illustrate the complete loss of integrity in the warmist camp.
Folks like RG do more damage to 'the cause' than they will ever know.
It's like the painted naked hippies marching in the streets of San Francisco. You know, the people that push too far and too hard, like this...
... and this...
Now one may have issues with police tactics or US policies, but when confronted with scenes like this, suddenly cops and America seem pretty swell. That lunacy may play to a small crowd on the left coast, but it does not translate well to the 99%.
The environuts have pushed too far, and they just keep pushing, not realizing the damage they are doing to their own agenda. The public has had enough and if the greens keep pushing, they will find themselves further and further from relevance and public support.
Maybe if they had just stuck with hard facts and science, and not huffed and puffed so much,maybe they could have made some headway. Maybe.
Nature rules again, how sweet.
Now it's time to kick back, and look forward to RG illustrating the lunacy of this hypothesis, as it drives people to realms of fantasy.
He is our best ally in creating more skeptics.
Well, and Al Gore too!
1 - He picks 3 areas of "science" (quoted because I don't see any indication he actually understands science) that he is willing to discuss.
2 - Everything related to those 3 areas that he posts comes directly from SkS, he can't debate it, argue it much less refute it without having them to do the "thinking" for him.
3 - With regards to his "science" he has on at least two occasions claimed that black body theory "is the most successful physics theory." When asked to support this by listing other physics theories, demonstrating why they are not as successful or equally successful, and backing up his claim with proof he provides nothing other than his claim that it is.
4 - Adam, Amirlach, Richard, et. al. have provided him detailed analysis of why things he claims are incorrect. Rather than address them in an equally detailed reply (which he claims he can do) he just spams more SkS charts or graphs and claims that is sufficient proof that he is right and can therefore ignore the much more detailed responses of others.
As others here have noted, there is no point "debating" the matters with him as he doesn't know how to.
Therefore we can conclude that his only purpose here it to get attention and spam the creative writing of SkS across the site as though he is presenting science.
But unlike his source of disinformation where behavior such as his would result in deleted posts or banning, we get to read his bullshit on a daily basis.
In the end that is probably a good thing as he has no clue as to the the damage he does to his own credibility whenever he posts.
Now I have code to work on, u-joints to replace on my rear drive shaft, coursework to do, etc. so I'll leave RG to his claims satisfied with the observation that he doesn't know (and doubtfully ever will) what the hell he is talking about.
with some decent rebuttals. Laughing and mocking doesn't change reality. SKS is so successful at what they do, that there are now a lot of rebuttals to sks on Anthony Watts. That is acknowledge of sks and its efforts.
The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change has this to say about your missinformation spewing idol. Oh my! SkS is the sole site listed in the "Unreliable" Section?
Unreliable*
■Skeptical Science – John Cook
* Due to (1) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (2) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting. But we all ready covered this point, and RG just covered his eyes and ears and went "La-La-La..."
One must "Refute" them elsewhere because they edit and censor any comments they cannot answer.
Since your only rebuttal to the truth is the worn out meme of calling your opponents "deniers" you have again show you cannot reason like an adult.
Go bother someone else junior, I have coursework to address where I actually have educated people to converse with.