OT: This is why there are "denialists"...

LOL...does your foot taste good?

TMT

SNIP

Global sea ice is not far from normal.

Southern antarctic gains are broadly balancing arctic losses.

If global warming is an issue I would expect to see a global loss of sea ice.

Like the global temperature global sea ice is close to the 1979-2000 mean level.

The area may have recovered, but the thickness isn't what it was.

You are comparing apples and pears. Antartic sea is what has slid off the Antarctic ice sheet recently, and the Grace satellites show that the ice sheet is losing ice rapidly. It isn't surprising that the area of sea ice around Antarctica is unusually extensive. Artic sea ice has to freeze in situ. Greenland's ice sheet is also shedding ice rapidly, but that that seems to drift south rather than north.

Until you started thinking about where the sea ice was coming from.

Your bizarre data from the University of Alabama at Huntsville may show that some satellite measurement of a global temperature might not be higher than it was in 1979. Most of the indices - things like Harcut3 which record actual surface temperatures - show some 0.3C warming.

I'm afraid that you are just one more cherry-picking denialist, clutching at snippets of ostensibly anomalous data and ignoring the bulk of the evidence.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

You tell me. You're the one trying to chew it off. The diabetes will take them one day, anyway.

SNIP

Hadcrut has a different referance period, 1961-1990 compared to UAH,

How to make a hockey-stick graph:

Start with a data set:

Cherry-pick a piece of it:

And extrapolate:

Cheers! Rich

In , Bill Sloman wrote, in part:

Antarctic sea ice is mostly formed at sea. The Wiki article on "polar ice packs" says that Antarctic sea ice is mostly "first year ice", which means formed after the previous summer. The article also says that ice is "up to 1 meter thick". That is not ice sliding off the continent, but ice formed at sea.The ice on the continent, even if sliding off faster than before, is still moving at basically a glacial pace.

Having seen color-coded maps at various times in the past year or so, for decadal trends in temperature of the lower and middle troposphere, provided by RSS, it appears to me that the Antarctic has cooled very slightly, while the Arctic warmed a lot and the rest of the world warmed somewhat.

I would attribute the post-1990's slight cooling of the Antarctic to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation entering a phase of shifting heat northward. 30 (maybe 35) years from now, with the AMO likely to be shifting heat southward, the Antarctic/nearby will probably be setting record lows for sea ice extent and area, and the Northwest Passage may still have yet to be getting/being passable to ships other than icebreakers every August.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS says in a recent interview:

Some models suggest very strongly that the American Southwest will dry in a warming world; some models suggest that the Sahel will dry in a warming world. But other models suggest the exact opposite. Now, let's just imagine that the models have an equal pedigree in terms of the scientists who have worked on them and in terms of the papers that have been published ? it's not quite true but it's a good working assumption. With these two models, you have two estimates ? one says it's going to get wetter and one says it's going to get drier. What do you do? Is there anything that you can say at all?

Simulating strongly nonlinear chaotic systems, in order to predict future states, is a total waste of time. When you don't understand the basic dynamics or the external forcing functions, it's much worse.

John

hypothesis.

I had fun last weekend, watching my nephew go through a copy of "An Inconvienent Truth" taking notes and LOL! He is a junior in meteorology at a southern institution noted for its program, and said that their entire faculty feels that AGW is just another political boondoggle!

Charlie

hypothesis.

My niece has been a meteoroligist for over 10 years. She takes the AGW line for work, not to agree causes problems with clients such as HM Government. In private, after a drink or two, she is on the skeptical side of the argument.

The problem is that someone else's nephew spent the weekend going through "An Inconvenient Book" also taking notes and LOL...

tes

Now Mikey plays the pity card.

You were the one who picked the fight.

As I and others said in RCM, lighten up.

Wanna start over?

I am over...Hi I am TMT.

TMT

ty

s ( and

ypothesis.

And as a junior he would know each and every opinion of each faculty member?

Liar.

TMT

hypothesis.

Cheers! Rich

She knows better, but does it anyway? That's really chilling. She pays lip service to the truth, but serves as a propagandist for the Church of Warmingism?

She's the worst kind of hypocrite.

Thanks, Rich

RSS satellite data also down. 0.075C anomaly for June.

I do note the care in siting equipment to measure surface temperature the requirement being:

Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (

One possible indicator of quality of surface stations worldwide (although also of other things) is a comparison between a surface index and a satellite index of global temperature, where both exclude either the same regions of the globe or none of it.

As far as I know, the best global coverage match between a major surface index and a major satellite one is between GISS (covers the whole world) and UAH (exclusions mainly "pole holes" within 7.5 degrees of each pole).

As it turns out, GISS is the fastest-warming of the three surface indices, mainly due to covering polar regions excluded by the other two.

And UAH is warming slower than RSS, in part by including Antarctic areas excluded by RSS (within 70 degrees of South Pole is mostly close to the 3 kilometer surface elevation limit, above which there is not much "lower troposphere" and so is excluded, while that area is being reluctant to warm, and while the fast-warming Arctic is included.)

(However, since UAH shows the "south polar" region having a .19 degree/decade trend lower than the globe as a whole, and RSS had a trend .028 degree/decade higher than UAH, and only about 4% of the globe is within the Antarctic Circle, about half of the difference between UAH and RSS is for other reasons.)

According to the Wiki article on "satellite temperature record" a few months ago, in the 1979-2008 stretch UAH showed warming at an average (or maybe least-squares best-fit straight line?) rate of .13 (maybe .128) degrees C per decade. GISS showed .161 degree/decade. The diference is .031-.033 degree/decade.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

( and

pothesis.

No facts that Graham can understand There are quite a few that are blindingly obvious to people who studied physics after they left high school.

This frustrates him. and incites him to intemperate and unjustified claims

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen