NewsBusters reported Sunday that the media's fascination with record low ice in the Arctic ignored history while relying on satellite data that's only been around since 1979.
At the same time, the press have totally boycotted news from the Southern Hemisphere where ice and snow levels are currently at their highest since data have been collected.
Pretty convenient wouldn't you agree?
Meteorologist Joe D'Aleo wrote at IceCap Tuesday (emphasis added throughout, h/t Marc Morano):
While the news focus has been on the lowest ice extent since satellite monitoring began in 1979 for the Arctic, the Southern Hemisphere (Antarctica) has quietly set a new record for most ice extent since 1979.
Yet, that's not all the media are hiding from you about this region:
While the Antarctic Peninsula area has warmed in recent years and ice near it diminished during the Southern Hemisphere summer, the interior of Antarctica has been colder and ice elsewhere has been more extensive and longer lasting, which explains the increase in total extent. This dichotomy was shown in this World Climate Report blog posted recently with a similar tale told in this paper by Ohio State Researcher David Bromwich, who agreed "It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now".
Indeed, according the NASA GISS data, the South Pole winter (June/July/August) has cooled about 1 degree F since 1957 and the coldest year was 2004.
As such, this is yet another instance of media deciding what is and isn't newsworthy.
How disgraceful.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Comments Policy
Send In Algore
September 12, 2007 - 14:07 ET by mattmThe problem is that Algore has been spending his time in the northern hemisphere. Send him south of the equator and maybe his hot air will warm up that half of the globe.
Cute but wrong
September 12, 2007 - 14:12 ET by RottenHamDo you know why Anarctica is colder and has thicker ice? The ozone hole. One of the researchers who did the original work you cite wrote an op-ed in which he decried exactly the kind of deception you engage in here. From "Cold, Hard Facts" (NYT, 7/26/2006):
The media is ignoring this story not because of some tinfoil hat conspiracy but because 1) it's old news; and 2) it's due to unique circumstances around Antarctica that are not really relevant for the globe as a whole.
Rotten...do you support Kyoto?
September 12, 2007 - 14:16 ET by LionKingAccording to this, Kyoto is responsible for destroying Ozone.
LK -- if the Kyoto Treaty is
September 12, 2007 - 14:29 ET by Jack BauerLK -- if the Kyoto Treaty is so good, I wonder why the Democrat controlled Senate doesn't ratify it right now? I assume it could do this?
Not really. It says certain
September 12, 2007 - 14:38 ET by RottenHamNot really. It says certain projects are ill-conceived. This is an argument against HCFC 22 production, not Kyoto.
Read the Title
September 13, 2007 - 01:07 ET by PopularTechIt clearly says:
Kyoto projects harm ozone layer: U.N. official (Reuters)
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
If you read the article, it
September 13, 2007 - 09:38 ET by RottenHamIf you read the article, it discusses one particular project, not ALL projects.
That is irrelevant
September 13, 2007 - 10:20 ET by PopularTechThe project is related to Kyoto thus Kyoto induced.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Question:
September 12, 2007 - 14:22 ET by HelenS"...it's due to unique circumstances around Antarctica that are not really relevant for the globe as a whole."
So, what - or should I say where - defines the globe as a whole? If these pesky examples of non-conformist areas of the globe as a whole keep cropping up, then can't it be said that the globe as a whole isn't doing anything? That whatever is going on anywhere is no indication of what is going on anywhere else?
Therefore, Global ANYTHING, is a myth. And then we're back to regions and hemispheres, and areas, and seasons, and whatever else but certainly NOT a global phenomenon.
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" - Shakespeare
Bump, Pass, KILL! I am
September 12, 2007 - 14:27 ET by dvdaughtryBump, Pass, KILL!
I am not for diversity. I am for what works.
No sale
September 12, 2007 - 14:36 ET by RottenHamNo, you can't say "the globe as a whole isn't doing anything." On average, the globe is warming. This is entirely consistent with the rise of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. However, regional effects will vary due to their unique circumstances. Trying to argue that increased ice in Antarctica is evidence against global warming simply displays ignorance or mendacity about the climate system. If the guy who did the original research on Antarctic ice trends says you're wrong, maybe you should listen to him.
"If the guy who did the
September 12, 2007 - 14:57 ET by HelenS"If the guy who did the original research on Antarctic ice trends says you're wrong, maybe you should listen to him."
On the other hand, in the research presented by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery - "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years" - there is a pattern of warming and cooling that repeat at measurable frequencies and that none of the previous warming trends (for instance, the Medieval Warming) were caused by humans.
We may be in a warming trend but the attempt to tie it to mankind's activities is ignorant and arrogant.
Just two things to ponder:
Wow, what a croc!
Crocs are not sand dwellers. Nor do they tend to hike any distance into the desert, away from water. I’m just sayin’
Ancient lakes of the Sahara.
Makes you wonder just what nefarious activities these scruffy little ancients were up to that dried up their environment like that!
Damn SUV driving, fossil fuel burning, primitives!
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" - Shakespeare
Did Singer and Avery ever
September 12, 2007 - 15:04 ET by RottenHamDid Singer and Avery ever publish their findings in a peer-reviewed scientific journal? Yeah, thought not. You can find an excellent debunking of their nonsense here.
If deniers want to claim that modern warming is natural, they have to demonstrate a verifiable cause. "Warming happens" doesn't cut it. They tried to blame it on the Sun for a few years but research proved that wasn't it. It's not volcanoes, either. The only explanation that is consistent with all observations and the known laws of physics is warming due to manmade greenhouse gases.
Contraventionist
September 12, 2007 - 17:07 ET by allanfRotten
If you want to use the word denier then I think its fair to call you a contraventionist. You are trying to contravene the truth.
The only evidence of significant man made global warming I've seen so far is the hot air eminating folks like Al Gore and the media.
If you want to use the word
September 12, 2007 - 17:22 ET by RottenHamQuite the opposite. I embrace the truth and all of the evidence supporting it. Unfortunately for you, the evidence shows that modern global warming is driven by human activities. That's the truth even if conservatives don't want to hear it.
Al Gore has the evidence on his side. Deniers don't.
Embrace the Truth
September 12, 2007 - 17:26 ET by allanfYou don't seem to be embracing the truth. I just detect a snarky person who has so far failed to marshal one significant argument.
The word denier is meant to inflame and fool the simple minded. So if we want to play the propaganda game, you are are contraventionist.
You don't seem to be
September 12, 2007 - 18:08 ET by RottenHamOnly if by "truth" you mean "right-wing lies about the climate."
I've marshalled several. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention. Anyway, this argument is already over. Deniers lost it in the scientific literature years ago. Some just haven't gotten the word.
DirtyPig
September 12, 2007 - 23:34 ET by RESTLESS 1From your link
If your hero here wants to sound like he knows what HE is talking about, perhaps he should work on HIS grammar. HINT: the word "is" is missing. What is it about liberals and that word anyway?
"Hint: if you want to sound like you know what you're talking about, the accent on the fourth syllable of foraminifera, not foraminifera."
Peer-Reviewed
September 13, 2007 - 01:09 ET by PopularTechActually Singer Published at least two papers disputing the models:
Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L13208, 2004)
- David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
QUOTE
We have found that while the models generally agree with each other, they
disagree with the observations. In particular, the three state-of-the-art greenhouse models (Hadley, DOE PCM, and GISS SI2000) examined here show positive temperature trends that increase with altitude, reaching values greater than the near-surface trends by as much as 50 to 100 percent. However, the existing observational data sets show decreasing as well as mostly negative trends since 1979.
Disparity of tropospheric and surface temperature trends: New evidence
(Geophysical Research Letters, VOL. 31, L13207, 2004)
- David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer, Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
I think it's hilarious that
September 13, 2007 - 09:41 ET by RottenHamI think it's hilarious that the site that hosts your first link contains a devastating critique of the first paper:
This is why deniers rarely publish in the literature. You have to provide your data and explain your methods. When deniers' methods are exposed, the flaws become readily apparent. Real climate scientists see through this BS.
I find it hilarious that
September 13, 2007 - 10:35 ET by PopularTechI find it hilarious that you just tried to change the argument after you have been proven wrong about Dr. Singer and Peer Review.
A comment from a Blog post disproves nothing in the paper.
And the "denier" comments are getting old.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
On average
September 12, 2007 - 15:44 ET by scamorama"On average, the globe is warming."
That's another misleading statement I often hear. The SH is NOT warming; if anything, it is cooling. Warming in the NH halted almost 10 years ago.
But, "on average", over the last 15 years, "the globe is warming".
But then, according to Hansen, the trends in North America, Antarctica, Africa, and South America are "insignificant", leaving "Global Warming" to be a European phenomenon.
That's another misleading
September 12, 2007 - 16:01 ET by RottenHamIncorrect. If you look at IPCC AR4 WG1 Ch. 3 p. 243, every study shows warming in the southern hemisphere over land with a range of +0.091C/decade to +0.220C/decade from 1979-2005. NO study shows cooling.
Also wrong. The same page gives a range of +0.301C/decade to +0.328C/decade for the same time period over land in the northern hemisphere.
Hansen has never said global warming is a European phenomenon and the evidence doesn't support it.
Oops
September 12, 2007 - 16:54 ET by allanfSorry Rotten
First off, Antarctica is about 10% of the earths land surface, so it’s a pretty big anomaly.
There is far too much noise even in modern temperature measurements to make any accurate statements in the range of tenths of a degree celcius per decade. That is a hundredth of a degree per year.
Oops yourself
September 12, 2007 - 17:15 ET by RottenHamNot all of Antarctica is cooling so you can't claim that full 10%. Plus, most of the Earth is ocean so 10% of the land surface is a much smaller percentage of the Earth's total surface area. So, it's not that big of an anomaly.
So how can you claim Antarctica is cooling? If the temperature record is so inaccurate, you can't claim Antarctica is cooling. Are you arguing that Antarctic temperature records are more accurate than any others elsewhere on the globe? Attacking the temperature record cuts both ways.
Cooling
September 12, 2007 - 17:33 ET by allanfI don't claim Antartica is cooling or warming. There were reports of record ice. That was the topic of Noel's article.
I really detect someone who is more interested in proving points though bluster than engaging in a serious discussion.
I've asked you a number of times for your technical background, so I'll supply mine. I have a doctorate in mathematics, thirty years of scientific experience, dozens of peer reviewed papers, and have been on the faculty of outstanding institutions.
I'd like a little of your technical background ...
Allan, they have no
September 12, 2007 - 17:46 ET by bassndudeAllan, they have no technical background. Your talking to AlGores parrot.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Noise
September 12, 2007 - 18:07 ET by allanfI'm not sure Rotten understands "margin of error" in scientific calculations. A number of .09 C/decade is very hard to validate because the accuracy of each temperature measurement is only within few tenths of a degree.
Quantitative statements about temperature are very hard to validate. The NRC Report on Surface Temperature Reconstruction did yield some trends.
So we cooled until about 1850 and then began to warm. The 1930s were very hot. Possibly hotter than now. (Again exact measurments are very problematic). The period from 1940 to 1975 was a cool period.
In fact Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day 1970 said
However since 1975 there has been a warming trend. .
I'm not sure Rotten
September 12, 2007 - 18:10 ET by RottenHamMy point is: this cuts both ways. If I can't tell you the Earth is warming, you can't tell me "Antarctica is cooling."
Don't Get It
September 12, 2007 - 18:39 ET by allanfRotten, I think you've compeletely and utterly missed my point. Qualitative words such as warming and cooling are far different than quantitative rates of growth souch as .091C/decade.
Rotten, I think you've
September 12, 2007 - 19:16 ET by RottenHamI understand the difference between qualitative and quantitative. So what? The article clearly says that Antarctica is cooling. It even has a BIG temperature graph illustrating it! If you're going to argue that the temperature record is too imprecise to measure trends, then you need to tell Noel Sheppard to throw away that graph.
I don't believe the temperature record is as bad as deniers claim, but they can't have it both ways.
Rotten
September 12, 2007 - 20:12 ET by allanfOnce again you appear firmly to have not understood. Where did I argue that temperature records were too imprecise to measure trends?
Skeptics
September 12, 2007 - 20:28 ET by azholmesI think you meant to use the term "skeptics". "Deniers" is already taken, and I see no mention of the Holocaust here.
On margin of error
September 12, 2007 - 22:58 ET by cleverpigWhether or not 0.9 C/decade is or is not hard to validate depends on a number of factors, including the accuracy of instruments involved and the number of data points used. Scientists have statistics that determine whether or not the conclusion is valid, and any peer-reviewed paper has to have those statistics in order. You can't just dismiss them out of hand because the number looks small to you.
Peer Review Process
September 13, 2007 - 08:02 ET by allanfThere is nothing "statistical" about a single temperature measurement. The accuracy of the reading depends on the accuracy of the equipment and surrounding conditions. Each reading has a built in margin or error. You might say the temperature at a single point and time is 85F with an error plus or minus .1F.
Each weather station presents a time series of readings. From that time series you can compute an average temperature for an interval at a particular location. The average temperature will also have a margin of error. That error reflects the discreteness of your readings and the inherent inaccuracy of the thermometer and the bias of its surroundings.
Next you need a method of combining readings from weather stations of different types and accuracy into a single “average” reading. You will probably create a correction factor so that you can combine readings from non homogenous weather stations. For example of one station just reports a high and low, and another station has a reading every 10 minutes, you might attempt to estimate the time series for the first station.
Since you have only a limited number of weather stations, and you are attempting to get an average reading over a large area, you have introduced another error. You need a methodology to estimate that error also.
If your desire is just trend analysis, you can get some interesting qualitative results. However if you want to make a quantitative statement that the average temperature over an area is plus or minus one tenth of a degree, you have a very nasty estimation problem. Just showing that ordinary statistical error tests apply would be challenging.
Be careful how you interpret this data. Trend is one thing. Ascribing quantitative growth rates is a whole other ball game. If the models were accurate to a precision of a tenth of a degree, all the temperature estimates would agree. That does not happen.
Since you have only a
September 13, 2007 - 09:47 ET by RottenHamYou do understand that such methods exist and have been published in the literature for years, right?
If you look at the temperature graph at the bottom of Noel Sheppard's article above, you'll see numbers on the y-axis indicating temperature. I'm waiting for you to apply all of this criticism to Sheppard's graph. You seem to only be concerned about this since I quoted the IPCC AR4. You've said nothing about Sheppard's graph. Do so now.
Missed it Again Rotten
September 13, 2007 - 10:40 ET by allanfOnce agan you appear to have not understood the point. There is inherent error and bias in any measurement.
Now Noel Sheppard does not have any graphs. He merely presents the work of others. The graph shows a cyclical temperature variation between -56 degrees and -63.5 degrees. That's pretty cold. It also shows greater extremes in recent years with a trend towards more extreme lows.
It would be helpful if the y axis were labeled. It should indicate the scale used. Are these daily mean temperatures, hourly mean temperatures, monthly mean temperatures? It would also be nice of the x axis had some indication of scale. Without a clear explanation of what kind of time series the data represents, I'd be very reluctant to try to distill the information into a definitive statement on the deriviative of temperature with respect to time.
The chart does support the statement:
"It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now".
You can also see from the chart is that there is a big difference between a degree of variation and a tenth of a degree
Allan, they have no
September 12, 2007 - 19:22 ET by RottenHamAnd what is Noel Sheppard's technical background again?
Rotten
September 12, 2007 - 20:21 ET by allanfRotten, I'm not interested in Noel technical background.
I am curious about yours .....
Your arguments seem like debate society points . Science is not the debate team. Stocastic processes are complicated phenomena, not easy to comment on. So enlighten us as to your background.
I know you're curious but I
September 13, 2007 - 08:29 ET by RottenHamI know you're curious but I don't care. If you're so familiar with "debate society" tactics, then I advise you to avoid the ad hominem route. I'm not going to tell you my background because I want to talk about Antarctic ice, not my our your resume.
Scientific debates are resolved through the weight of evidence. By that standard, deniers lost long ago.
So...
September 13, 2007 - 08:50 ET by HelenSAs I suspected. A dog walker.
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" - Shakespeare
Scientific "debate" is not
September 13, 2007 - 09:08 ET by Jack BauerScientific "debate" is not resolved through "weight of evidence"
Scientific theories and hypothoses are refuted and falsified by scientists taking a skeptical stand on all such theories and hypothoses.
Your assertion is easily refuted and simply shows you really have no idea what you are talking about.
Scientific theories and
September 13, 2007 - 09:49 ET by RottenHamSimply "taking a skeptical stand" does not prove or disprove anything. You need evidence to resolve these disputes and that evidence does not work in your favor.
Scientific theories and
September 13, 2007 - 09:50 ET by RottenHamDuplicate.
I've asked you a number
September 12, 2007 - 18:13 ET by RottenHamThen you should know that most of the climate science faculty at "outstanding institutions" accept the reality of manmade global warming.
Hmmm
September 12, 2007 - 18:30 ET by allanfI didn't know that Rotten. You cannot build scientific theory by consensus.
By the way, I also believe in man made global warming. Every time I light I match, I have just warmed the earth. My contribution is not measurable.
Whether the rest of man's combined contributions is measurable is far from a settled issue.
I didn't know that
September 12, 2007 - 19:18 ET by RottenHamOf course not. You build it on the evidence and the strength of that evidence leads to consensus.
Maybe not in the math department but it sure is in the Earth sciences.
Actually, rottenham, the "peer-reviewed, scientific consensus"
September 12, 2007 - 18:32 ET by RJyou rely so heavily on is a false construct, just like the entire AGW scam.
"The IPCC would have us believe that its reports are diligently reviewed by many hundreds of scientists and that these reviewers endorse the contents of the report. An analysis of the reviewers' comments for the scientific assessment report by Working Group I show a very different....story."
"...very few scientists were actually directly involved in the creation and review of any given chapter of this critical Summary, and dissenting opinions were not only not included, but seemingly ignored."
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/09/what-media-won-t-tell-you-about-u-n-climate-panel
Perhaps those dissenting
September 12, 2007 - 19:21 ET by RottenHamPerhaps those dissenting opinions were groundless. Given that this analysis came from a right-wing website populated by the usual crowd of deniers (Idso, Soon, Carter), I'm very skeptical.
Now who's the denier, Rotten?
September 12, 2007 - 19:40 ET by RJThe report rips the cover off the carefully constructed IPCC/AGW scam, and all you can offer in rebuttal is to dismiss it and to label any dissenting opinions as "groundless"....
It's you who behaves like a lame knee-jerk "denier", Rotten. ;^>
Contrarventionist
September 12, 2007 - 20:01 ET by allanfRotten loves that word denier. Seems once again, Rotten is just a contraventionist. Now who takes contraventionists seriously?
The report rips the
September 13, 2007 - 09:53 ET by RottenHamNonsense. The "report" makes a whole bunch of unsubstantiated charges. It's written by a fringe group of deniers--many with industry ties--whose work is regularly trashed in the peer-reviewed literature when they bother to publish there at all.
RottenHam, you play the role of Chief Denier very well
September 13, 2007 - 10:04 ET by RJThroughout this thread, anything you disagree with, and report, any fact, is just labeled as "groundless", "false", "fringe", "industry ties", etc, etc. Not once have I seen you actually refute a disagreeing report or study with facts.
Pretty transparent, Chief Denier.
RJ -- isn't that his tribal
September 13, 2007 - 10:17 ET by Jack BauerRJ -- isn't that his tribal name? Chief Denier.
Nonsense. You are
September 13, 2007 - 10:22 ET by Jack BauerNonsense.
You are revealing more and more of yourself as just an ignorant hack who does not understand that skepticism is the default position of science.
The fact that you cannot bear the thought of any skeptitism over a particular theory or hypothosis simply proves that you look at issues from an unscientific perspective.
It's very tedious to read your disconnected ramblings and faulty though provcesses. You must try harder to achieve joined up thinking, especially over the way science progeresses by falsification and refutation.
Rotten - Perhaps you will
September 12, 2007 - 20:10 ET by Free StinkerRotten - Perhaps you will accept this list. Just please don't tell us that USA Today is a Conservative paper.
Fred Thompson and Ann Coulter walk into a bar. The bar is instantly destroyed because that much awesome cannot be contained in one building.
Free,
September 12, 2007 - 20:32 ET by Dave ROnce again, you have outdone yourself, which is far more than this rotten cretin deserves.
Let's face it, RottenSwine here, aside from probably being a product of government "education," is really nothing more than a seriously p*ssed-off, pot-smoking social utopian, who is clearly none too happy that he and his fellow freedom-hating brethren have had their last chance of bringing the bliss of "Marxism to the masses," short of force, of course, shot down before their very eyes.
"I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!”- Rick Roberts
Dave,
September 12, 2007 - 20:42 ET by BlondeI've read most of the posts to this new little piglet....and wondered why we post to these new trollish little fools.
I've grown supremely bored with the trolls. Particularly these new ones.
Wow, what's up with that?
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde, LOL
September 12, 2007 - 20:51 ET by Dave RMy guess is that RottonPorcine here doesn't make it to the weekend.
I'm not yet sure, but his/her/its ramblings are beginning to remind me of someone.
It may come to me a little later.
"I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!”- Rick Roberts
OK Dave,
September 12, 2007 - 20:53 ET by BlondeAll of us here know your, um, "proclivities".
We're waiting for you to roast him, and toast him....
Over mesquite, of course.
LOL.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Once again, you have
September 13, 2007 - 10:06 ET by RottenHamSo all of those half-truths and sophistry were just for me? I feel special.
I'm not "p*ssed-off" but you certainly sound like it. Take a pill and calm down.
Antarctic Ice
September 13, 2007 - 10:04 ET by RottenHamWe've already discussed this one. Only some of the Antarctic ice is growing and it's because of the ozone hole. Antarctica's unique circumstances cannot be generalized to the rest of the globe.
If you read the ESA press release on this, it says:
Warmer air holds more water which increases precipitation which leads to more ice at higher elevations. This is entirely consistent with a warming world.
Mount Shasta is seeing the same thing as Greenland. From your own link:
The rest of your examples are basically the same thing. There are isolated cases of growing glaciers due to unique local circumstances. Overall, glaciers are shrinking rapidly around the world. Your cherry-picked examples do not present an accurate picture of the global situation.
Everything Proves Global Warming, even Global Cooling
September 13, 2007 - 14:30 ET by Free StinkerOverall, glaciers are shrinking rapidly around the world.
I await your citations/links with breathless anticipation...
. . . and no matter how horrific the terrorist attack, it's conducted by losers. Winners don't need to hijack airplanes. Winners have an Air Force. --P.J. O'Rourke
Here you go:
September 13, 2007 - 14:49 ET by RottenHamHere you go: http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/
So they're basing this on
September 13, 2007 - 15:27 ET by Free StinkerSo they're basing this on 30 glaciers?
How many total glaciers are there in the world? Do these 30 represent 10%, 1%, or 0.0000001% of the world's glaciers?
68 reviewers per chapter IS
September 12, 2007 - 23:02 ET by cleverpig68 reviewers per chapter IS NOT "very few scientists." Anyone who has submitted an academic article for review could only shudder at the prospect of incorporating the comments of 68 reviewers. Imagine the years of your life that would be devoted to getting that monster published...
Cleverpig, are you related to RottenHam?
September 13, 2007 - 09:54 ET by RJCoincidence???? In any event, your role as "Assistant Denier" is duly noted.
"A total of 308 reviewers commented on the Second Revision, which was the penultimate draft, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and just five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters.
At the other end of the scale, 143 reviewers (46%) commented on just one chapter and a further 71 (23%) on two. This would be acceptable if they had provided numerous detailed comments, but 53 of these 214 reviewers made fewer then five comments and 28 reviewers made fewer than three comments."
The point is, Cleverpig, that the overall report was reviewed, primarily, in little segments....like an assembly line, where everyone knows their small piece. Yet, you Warmers claim consensus on the entire structure. And let us not forget that disagreements were ignored.
Just because there were
September 13, 2007 - 10:16 ET by RottenHamJust because there were disagreements doesn't mean they were valid. They were probably the same lame long-refuted denier arguments that we've all heard before.
Never said it!
September 12, 2007 - 20:39 ET by scamoramaOver land?
That's called "cherry-picking".
I'm talking about the hemispheres! Take a look at this (from Hansen himself) and try to claim there is net warming in the SA over the last 10 years:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A3.lrg.gif
Now, read this and then claim that Hansen doesn't say South America and Africa are insignificant:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_peakrevandgistemp_070907.pdf
Over land? That's
September 13, 2007 - 10:15 ET by RottenHamIf you look at temperatures over the oceans, they show warming, too. Check out AR4 WG1 Ch3 and see for yourself.
The 5-yr mean clearly shows warming. There will always be interannual variablity. The 5-yr mean is on the graph to differentiate long-term trends from the yearly effects of La Nina/El Nino and other such cycles.
You misunderstand his point. Hansen is saying that South America and Africa show trends similar to the rest of the globe. Removing them from the dataset due to their spotty coverage doesn't change the overall trend in any significant way.
Additionally, the GCMs of
September 12, 2007 - 16:32 ET by dscottAdditionally, the GCMs of the polar areas indicate they are supposed to warm the most. Hasn't happen? Sounds like a problem with AGW to me. Claiming the ozone or lack there of is what's keeping the Antarctic cooler is just another excuse by the AGW cult believers to disregard the evidence staring them in the face. I find it fascinating to watch the mental gymnastics these people engage in to maintain their belief system.
dscott's postulate: The degree to which someone exaggerates or deceives is inversely proportional to the merit of the advocated position.
Additionally, the
September 12, 2007 - 16:42 ET by RottenHamNot really. It just means that Antarctica has a larger local cooling forcing at work. It's really not that hard to understand if you try.
It's quite the opposite. It's a plausible explanation that is consistent with observations. If you really want to consider all of the evidence, then you must consider the effect the ozone hole has on local conditions in Antarctica.
I could say the same thing about deniers. They've lost every scientific point. They're nowhere to be found in the professional literature. Their arguments are based on demonstrable falsehoods which were debunked years ago. Yet, they cling to their belief system despite all of the evidence to the contrary. Fascinating.
Makes you wonder why there's so much deception about global warming on this website.
They ignored it because
September 12, 2007 - 14:26 ET by dvdaughtryThey ignored it because they are the "gatekeepers" of information.
They use and reuse stories all the time.
Stick around, you'll see over and over that it is bias, not journalism.
I am not for diversity. I am for what works.
I'm not big on conspiracies.
September 12, 2007 - 14:42 ET by RottenHamI'm not big on conspiracies.
No? You seem big on GW. I
September 12, 2007 - 14:49 ET by dvdaughtryNo? You seem big on GW.
I am not for diversity. I am for what works.
GW isn't a conspiracy unless
September 12, 2007 - 15:05 ET by RottenHamGW isn't a conspiracy unless you think the absorption and emission spectra of carbon dioxide are plotting against you.
"emission spectra of carbon
September 12, 2007 - 15:54 ET by MightyMouth"emission spectra of carbon dioxide are plotting against you."
I doubt they are but an elite group of scam artists are certainly plotting against us to try and pry all the money they can from our already over taxed wallets. Where did you think the billions of AGW scam money was going to come from?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I doubt they are but an
September 12, 2007 - 16:03 ET by RottenHamThose black helicopters require a lot of fuel and maintenance! LOL!
LOL all you want, but you
September 12, 2007 - 16:09 ET by MightyMouthLOL all you want, but you didn't answer the question: Who do you think is going to foot the bill for all the AGW hysteria?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
The same people who will