What global warming?


World’s sea ice is back to 1979 levels 2014 10  Global sea ice

Click on graph to enlarge

Source: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

When scientists are lying in order to keep their jobs, the way to stay informed, not disinformed, is to look at the data (above).

When the data is tampered with (remember Climategate and the “hide the decline” (of temperatures) scandal?) the way to proceed is to evaluate the severity of winter with your own senses, and to take your own notes.

Resist the lies!


If an ad appears below, it’s from WordPress. Nothing to do with this blog.


14 thoughts on “What global warming?

  1. There’s a certain irony to the “no more lies” rhetoric, and the scientists are hiding things from you, along side a very carefully picked graph showing global ice area. Global = artic and antarctic combined (so hiding the important details), and area as opposed to the more important volume. So what happened? Did you come through all these graphs indicating accelerating climate change until you found this one (which you’ll note ‘lying’ scientists have published on line) and then publish just that one in a blog, with no discussion of the science. And it’s the scientists who are lying?! See here for a proper discussion :http://www.skepticalscience.com/arctic-antarctic-sea-ice.htm

    • I disagree.
      Surface is more important than volume, because of its effect on the planet’s albedo. Besides, it’s only natural that it will take longer to restore the volume, after a decade of thawing. But it is impressive that the global sea ice surface is back to where it was 35 years ago.

      I well understand your desire to muddy the waters by going into “the details”, i.e. talk about the Arctic, or the antarctic peninsula. But my purpose in this blog is to untangle the messy debate with “warmers” of religious zeal by having people look at the global picture. And that picture speaks for itself. It doesn’t need to be debated.

      Yes, I am surprised that NOAA* isn’t cooking the figures like NASA under climate guru James Hansen or U. of Anglia’s CRU of “hide the decline” fame. It’s to NOAA’s credit. Not all climate scientists are crooked, but as most are working for governments, it’s difficult for them to resist the pressure to become “politically correct”.

      * “Snow and ice data provided by the National Center for Environmental Prediction/NOAA, NSIDC, U. Bremen”

      • Why do you care about albedo? Are you interested in one of the many feedback loops that exist? If so why not look at actual albedo measurements? You were appearing to make the case that global warming is not a big deal because global sea ice area was constant. If that’s your purpose, volume would be (obviously) a better measure. So what are you trying to say?

        You say you’re trying to make people look at global measures, as though that will give them enough information to ignore the experts? Unfortunately the devil is in the details, and presenting something at this level without comment or expertise does nothing to help explain the science. In fact it would appear to be a case of trying to support a pre-defined position. Is pseudoscience.

      • I can well understand that, for global warming zealots, it is quite a disappointment to see that ice has come back to cover as much sea surface as in 1979. For this proves that “the experts” on your side of the fence (biased scientists like Michael Mann, Phil Jones, and James Hansen – and “biased” is an understatement) have put both feet in their mouths with their trick modelling. Global Warming has been a flash in the pan, and climate is now cooling, all in accordance with cycles in the sun’s radiation: https://nomoreliesblog.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/the-global-warming-flapdoodle/

        Nothing to do with CO2 – see:

      • Okay, so you are trying to use global sea ice area as an indicator of global warming. So the albedo point was just a distraction. I’m glad we cleared that up.

        Now, why do you think that the area of the global sea ice is the relevant metric? I mean volume is obviously a better measure of heat content, so why not look at that? Why not look at land ice too? Why do you think you can look at the global total and instantly infer something in the complete absence of explanation or context?

        I wouldn’t say it’s a ‘disappointment’. It’s not at all the good news you seem to think it is (which is an armchair luxury you can afford by glossing over the details). Two separate mechanisms, both caused by global warming result in the graph you see.

        The “it’s the sun” argument is risible. We’ve just had the hottest decade on record, in the midst of a solar minimum. That’s not at all good news.

        The scientists are all “dishonest” or “politically correct” is also laughable. Scientists have tenure, meaning they can say what they like and not lose their jobs. The only thing they could lose their jobs for is academic dishonesty. You’re asking us to believe that there’s a global conspiracy of more that 95% of the world’s climate scientists to do the only thing that could jeopardize their position, when they have a set of skills that could earn them far more money in industry or banking. Not only that, but, if they wanted to continue to protect their jobs they wouldn’t be saying, in effect, ‘we know enough: the focus now needs to be on action.’

        What level of CO2 do you think would be safe?

      • You wrote: “… climate scientists … have a set of skills that could earn them far more money in industry or banking.”
        In banking? Oh really? 🙂

        “Why do you think that the area of the global sea ice is the relevant metric?”
        – Why do warming scaremongers use arctic sea ice as a relevant metric?

        “We’ve just had the hottest decade on record”
        Hottest on record? Why did you misleadingly forget the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm period, and most of the Holocene?
        And if you’re talking about the last 1000 years only, the warming trend has stopped since 1998, and now cooling has started.

        I realise that this puts politically correct zealots such as yourself ill at ease. But please, get a hold of yourself, and remember John Maynard Keynes: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

      • I’m not sure why the name calling is necessary?

        I do know plenty of physicists who’ve got jobs in industry and banking, myself among them (though I’m not a climate scientist). People who are working with some of the biggest computer models ever made are going to be in demand in the world of big data.

        Why do scaremongers care about artic sea ice? Are you saying you don’t care about artic sea ice? If only it were only the artic sea ice. It’s not. It’s ocean temperatures, climate temperatures, land ice, sea level and CO2 levels among others.

        Why do you choose 1998? What makes you think that it’s been cooling since then? It hasn’t. It’s continuing to heat up, if anything faster than before. Are you really saying that you think it’s cooling? What of the greenhouse gas effect? How do you marry the cognitive dissonance?

  2. Sea ice surface has returned to 1979 levels. You don’t deny it, but try instead to digress into any other subject.

    You lie too, when you say: “It’s continuing to heat up, if anything faster than before”. Why don’t you try and prove this with a graph published by a reputable institution?

    • Pretty quick to call me a liar there. Here’s a link showing ocean heat content anomaly over time: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
      I used one from a source you recognized earlier, so I assume it’s reputable enough for you. If so I assume you’ll retract your accusation.

      I’m not trying to digress. I’m pointing out that global sea ice area is not the right metric for a general measure of global warming. It’s like if I pointed out that your car was overheating according to the temperature gauge, and the steam coming out of the engine, and you say “it can’t be because my GPS indicates that we’re headed North”. Your GPS is simply not measuring the car’s temperature. But there are plenty of indications. Global sea ice volume is clearly better than area, so why don’t you show that?

      By finding graphs that *appear* to support your position and showing only those, you are misrepresenting the truth. Odd behaviour, considering that you seem to be so keen on “no more lies”.

      • Funny that you should attack me because I use global sea ice surface to reassure the public. You warmists have been using arctic sea ice surface for scaring the public over the past decade. 🙂

      • Your so-called reassurance is really just an ignorant and irresponsible spreading of misinformation. Presenting data to illustrate a broader context is very different from what you’re doing. Artic ice is decreasing in both volume and area, and the region is warming up. Antarctic ice is decreasing in volume and is thinning out, while the region is increasing in temperature. Despite this the area is growing. In no sense is this reassuring. Making it appear so goes against your admirable ‘no more lies’ sentiment.

        You seem to have an expectation that your 10 seconds of effort should be enough to dismiss the combined strengths of years of study by the academic community. Did you understand the context of the global sea ice area graph you presented but decided to present it anyway, or did it confirm something you already believed and so you didn’t look any further?

  3. You wrote: “the combined strengths of years of study by the academic community”.
    You should have written: “the combined weakness of years of manipulation of the Summary for Policy Makers by Greenpeace, WWF, a train engineer and a defeated candidate to the White House, since become a billionaire though scaremongering.

    You wrote. “Despite this the (sea ice) area is growing. ”
    Yes indeed! Despite all your misrepresentations, the facts refuse to bend themselves to fit the theory of AGW. No surprise there!

    A real scientist will put facts before modelling predictions. But corrupt scientists afraid to lose their grants will stick to modelling and deny the facts. Or as you are doing now, will misrepresent other realities in order to bring doubt on a global fact.

    • So you come all the way back to your initial point, like a stuck record, new information notwithstanding. You keep repeating your conspiracy theories about corrupt scientists, and harping on about global sea ice area, even though you can’t say why that’s important. You mentioned albedo, but that’s clearly a distraction, and you mentioned heat content, in which you were flat wrong.

      The hallmark of pseudoscience is that the conclusion is determined and the facts fitted into that. This very string has an example of you doing that. You said that I wouldn’t be able to give you a credible link saying that global temperatures continue to increase. Presumably you believed they were decreasing. I give you a link from a source you presumably found credible, since you quoted it in the first place, and instead of changing your mind, you simply repeat your initial position completely ignoring the new information.

      • Albedo, a distraction? You forget this is the main argument of AGW groupies when talking about the Arctic! – Good for the goose but not for the gander? You guys are decidedly disingenuous.

        What new information? The news that, by cooking the data, mendacious scientists have published graphs that pretend to prove that 2014 will be the hottest year on record? We’ve grown used to their doctoring, what with the Hockey Stick graph, Climategate and the false alarm on the meltdown of the Himalaya glaciers!

        Here is a very informative webpage, showing a hiatus between reliable satellite-measured temperatures (RSS-MSU and UAH-MSU) and those measured by cherry-picked land and sea weather stations (GISS, NRDC and HadCRUT4). See the first 5 graphs.

        Interesting too is the 6th graph, showing the effects of “administrative adjustments” made by NRDC. The curious thing is that all this tinkering has been mostly upwards, rarely downwards. Coincidence? See the net result: 0,5ºC upwards since 1915. http://www.climate4you.com/Text/Climate4you_October_2014.pdf

        And what about the adjustment from HadCRUT3 to HadCRUT4, shown on graph 3, resulting also in a hike (compare the (old) red line with the (new) blue line. http://www.climate4you.com/Text/Climate4you_October_2014.pdf

        Finally, what about the 7th graph from UAH and RSS data, showing a cooling trend for the past 10 years?

        You accuse me, commenting on the graph showing that global sea ice surface is back to what is was 35 years ago : “even though you can’t say why that’s important”.
        Well, my dear, if you can’t see why that’s important, there is no point for me wasting any more of my time with such a closed mind. Goodbye!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s