EXTREME WEATHER: The world will face more risk of natural disasters as a result of ongoing climate change.
Image: Flickr/FEMA 17238
Climate change is bringing more droughts, heat waves and powerful rainstorms, shifts that will require governments to change how they cope with natural disasters to protect human lives and the world economy, a new U.N. report says.
The 592-page analysis by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released yesterday, also makes clear the uneven toll extracted by extreme weather, because its effects can be magnified by a lack of resources to plan for disasters and cope with their aftermath.
Between 1970 and 2008, the report says, more than 95 percent of deaths caused by natural disasters occurred in developing countries, while the largest economic losses from climate extremes have been recorded in richer, developed nations.
But no region of the globe will remain unaffected by changing weather patterns, the IPCC report says.
"One of the striking things, when you look at the report, is that there is disaster risk almost everywhere," said Christopher Field, a Stanford University professor who led the IPCC's working group on climate change impacts. "A focus on disaster risk and a focus on reducing disaster risk should be a priority in every country in every region."
That includes the United States, which suffered $55 billion in disaster-related damage last year, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That includes 14 extreme weather events that each caused more than $1 billion of damage.
"The assessment has clearly shown that the U.S. is not an exception to the global changes that we see in projecting extreme events into the future," said Thomas Stocker of the University of Bern, co-chairman of the IPCC's physical science working group.
Some areas may become uninhabitable
Those changes include "substantial warming" through the end of the century, with longer, stronger and more frequent heat waves over most of the Earth's land area, more frequent heavy rainfall events, and more intense and longer droughts in large swaths of Europe and Africa.
Some of the shifts are already evident, the report says, including an overall dip in the number of cold days and nights and a rising number of warm days and nights since the middle of the last century.
But the effects of those changes are influenced by different communities' ability to adapt, said IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri.
"There are huge disparities in terms of the impacts of very similar events and disasters in different parts of the world."
Some areas may be rendered uninhabitable by changing patterns of extreme weather, says the new report, which identifies small island states and large coastal cities threatened by sea level rise as likely examples.
"When you look around the world, there are lots of places that are marginal for one reason or another," Field said. "Climate change can impose additional stresses on top of the stresses that are already occurring, and the indications are that for areas that are kind of close to the border line, additional stresses might make them uninhabitable."
'Achingly difficult' choices ahead
For Mumbai, India, vulnerability comes from its location on the Arabian Sea coast, where the mega-city has spread into areas that were once marshland. But it is magnified by "development failures" small and large -- from trash that clogs many of the city's storm drains to the extreme poverty that has given rise to sprawling slums, the new report says.
An extreme rainstorm that hit Mumbai in July 2005 killed more than 1,000 people, mostly slum residents, and disrupted the city's water, sewer, road, rail, power, air transportation and telecommunications systems, the report notes.
The city is one of several listed in the report as the largest, by population, at risk of future flooding, along with Kolkata, India; Dhaka, Bangladesh; Guangzhou and Shanghai, China; Bangkok; Rangoon, Myanmar; Miami; and Ho Chi Minh City and Hai Phòng, Vietnam.
Warnings about the fate of Mumbai's dense, low-lying slums in a planet with more extreme weather hint at the hard choices the world will face as the climate changes, experts said yesterday.
"As we look toward the future, probably the most difficult decisions are going to involve whether there should be a large-scale migration or mobilization of communities," Field said. "The decision about whether or not to move is achingly difficult, and I think it's one the world community is going to have face with increasing frequency in the future."
The IPCC released a summary of the new report in November, but the full report was not released until yesterday. The science panel also plans to release earlier drafts of the report, plus comments by scientific and government reviewers and the responses from IPCC authors.
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
154 Comments
Add CommentAnd let the anti-science denialism begin......
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFull report can be downloaded here:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpecial Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX)
http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-All_FINAL.pdf
Notice that a whopping *95%* of deaths from natural disasters happened in the developing world, i.e. what used to be called the Third World.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn other words, if we're concerned about climate change potentially increasing the severity or frequency of natural disasters, the easiest and most effective way of almost entirely eliminating fatalities from them is to encourage industrialization and economic growth in the Third World.
But, no... of course we'd rather spend hundreds of billions to slightly slow average temperature increases which will reduce net fatalities much less than allowing that capital to be directed towards investment and production. And thus allow more human deaths and then call ourselves, self-righteously, pro-science.
False dichotomy. Existing technology, if implemented quickly, can reduce our carbon footprint by about 60%.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIndustrialization and economic growth have shown themselves to be the source of far more problems than they solve. Creating more toxic waste and making capitalist greed a part of everyone's life is not a solution. Education is the solution. Education is tied directly to improvements in life in all cultures.
Simply because you make the claim that GHG reduction efforts will only "slightly slow average temperatures" does not make it so, but even if that were the case business as usual (as you are advocating) is guaranteed to make things much worse.
Easiest and most effective? I think not. Easier than building industrialization is to move populations. [as in Bangladeshis, or Pacific Islanders] But who is willing to uproot themselves when they believe themselves to have a history tied to the geographical place of their accidental birth? Who would be willing to take these populations?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGot it! Let's kick the Palestinians off their land, and voila! lots of free space for these poor, unfortunate displaced people.
So now the warmists are claiming global warming is sentient and capable of targeting the developing nations? Ok, I dont believe this myself but that is what it sounds like. How about reality. The developing world is where the population density is. They also have terrible building standards, assuming they use a standard and of course they fill up their cities with such a high population density that any sort of storm, monsoon, hurricane is going to do more damage and kill more people. NOT because the storms are stronger as the warmists claim, it is because the targets for the storms to hit are larger and fragile. The reason this does not happen in the developed nations as often and with less impact is because these nations actually have building codes that are effective and they are not producing 10 kids per woman and packing them all in at 10k people per square mile living in a building that is a light breeze away from collapsing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo even if your global warming caused by evil humans is true, well only the humans in America, Europe and Japan and this computer model fantasy climate prediction of more powerful storms is also true, the developed world will still not see much damage from it, in comparison to the third world. The developed world will continue to improve building codes as they always have.
Lets sum this up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRich nations are effected more monetarily by national disasters than poorer nations.
Poor people are effected by having death and more poverty inflicted on them by national disasters.....
I guess you can not argue with any of that.Hmmmm I wonder how
much money they spent to reach these conclusions.
And your point is???
No where in any of this is there a bit of new info or any
evidence of global warming causing any one of these disasters...let alone all of them....
This is Scientific American?
This is a Joke.
The only joke is your willful ignorance of the article, did you even bother glancing at the report?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYOU summed it up, so any money spent in reaching that [false] conclusion is whatever you happened to spend.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, people who actually know what they're doing will continue uninterrupted by your idiocy.
There's one aspect of this subject that I haven't seen covered in any of the literally thousands of articles on AGW I've read over the past year or so: what's the take of the insurance industry, including the huge global re-insurers? The insurance industry probably has far more riding on climate change than even the oil industry, the products of which will always be in demand even if we take serious steps to de-carbonize.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would strongly imagine that the top people in insurance both very much need and very much want (and probably already have) the best, most accurate information and predictions about how climate change will affect disasters worldwide. At the same time they probably don't want to publicize their real conclusions and beliefs so as not to alienate the large portion of the U.S. population that doesn't believe in AGW. In fact, right this minute (3/29/12), there's a convention of top risk managers happening in New York. What are the odds that there won't be a single presentation on climate change? Anyone brave enough to infiltrate themselves into the hotel(s) where this is taking place and report on presentations?
I don't get it. This latest IPCC report has backed off this kind of "climate porn" shtick about extreme weather events being caused by AGW. There is "medium evidence and high agreement" that there has been no AGW influence on any hurricane, flood, drought or cyclone activity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDid you guys actually read any of the report? If you did, you would see that they cleverly discussed the various dangers of extreme weather without actually expressly attributing it now or in the future to human activities. I guess they knew they could count on True Believers to infer a causal connection that the science does not actually support.
You might also recognize that "high agreement" means that there is now an IPCC-sanctified Consensus such that this article is not supported by the science. How does it feel to be part of the flaky, science-hating fringe?
You tell me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe head of the IPCC said he expected this sort of denialist ranting, and he clearly got another prediction right.
What a joke and you call yourself scientists. You obviously can not consider more than 3 things at a time. One too many humans doing what humans do using rssources. Natural disasters would not be disasterous if too many humans living where human should not be living. Factsd are that our environment is constantly changing and nothing we can do will ever change that. but for a bunch of scientists calling to stop environment change is like asking mother nature to kill you, becase an environment that does not change is an environment that humans can not live in.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI love reading the comments by the deniers, they are soooo funny. Pity they have to use personal denigrations to try and make their points, but then they have 99.9% of the SCIENCE against them so they are running out of ammo fast. Personally I think some of the science will be wrong but a lot will be right, as is always the case when there are so many variables to be considered. Time will certainly show who is the winner (or will we all be losers!)in this great debate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCannot wait to read the next 'moronic experts' reasoning for why the people who have spent their lives studing climate and weather are totally wrong and they are totally right.
My grin grows larger.......
The report makes suggestions on what to do about the effects of climate change (assuming that it is a given), and prioritizes action to mitigate the effects, rather than to reduce the causes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe insurance industry moved out of the denier camp a long time ago. Climate change is routinely included in risk assessment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am with you, but do not share the cynical attitude that you appear to relish in, and there really has not been a debate for some time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWarmist - denier - what has gotten lost in this ad hominem finger pointing is some basic physics and geology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBasic physics says CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. When infrared radiation is absorbed - atmospheric temperature increases. Basic physics says that changes in solar activity have not been enough to significantly change the overall atmospheric temperature over the last century.
Geologic data shows that the climate has indeed varied over time - and so have atmospheric CO2 levels and that there is a causal relationship between the two.
The last 800,000 years or so have shown vast climactic swings as tectonic shifts in continental position and changes in earth's orbit have triggered glacial advance and retreat (yes, and this was caused by solar input variations induced by orbital changes) - and that modern human civilization grew during remarkably stable climate during the most recent interglacial.
Geologic data shows that when atmospheric CO2 levels spike rapidly in geologic terms - extinction events and species migration are the result. Case in point - the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) event that occurred 56 MYA. GHG levels increased 1000 ppm over background levels in a few thousand years. Granted, background levels of GHGs were much higher then and overall temperatures were much warmer than today to start with - but life had adapted to that environment over millions of years.
At the rate we are going - the atmospheric levels of CO2 will be 1000 ppm above 1900 levels by year 2200.
Humans are taking carbon that has been sequestered in geologic formations for hundreds of millions of years and putting it back into the atmosphere in a time period 10 times faster than at the PETM.
Not one computer model is needed to show any of this.
Bottom line is that the Earth will still be here no matter what we do to it. Whether this planet will be as hospitable to us (and all other extant life) as it has been for the last couple of thousand years is another question - given the changes we are making to the atmosphere in a mere instant in geologic time.
The rest of this discussion is just so much ideological nonsense.
Well done, Scrat. You are one of the few, if any on this site, that have pointed out that orbital variations, and not solar intensity, have been responsible for temperature swings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKudos.
You are correct I am a cynic and I do grin when I read the dribble. I have put up with dribble for years from morons about so many things. (my own bit of added personal denigration).eg smoking doesn't cause cancer, ozone depletion isn't happening, human induced climate change isn't happening to name a few. Those who go against the science on these and other issues are being manipulated by powerful vested interests and are moronic because they are not thinking for themselves nor questioning the validity of the 'evidence'. The media is owned/controlled by those with huge investments in climate damaging industries. Just as the tobacco industry financed so many studies that demonstrated the benign nature of smoking. These same vested interests seem to care little for anything other than $$$.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh and you are also correct regarding the 'debate'. There has been NO debate within the scientific community about the reality of human induced climate change. But there has and still is considerable debate in the media....mostly by the mis-informed, fueled by vested interests.
Word.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIsn't this the same IPCC that was found to be claiming that the glaciers in the Hymalyas, that 4 years ago would be the year with the highest number of Hurricanes in History, that the Greenland ice pack and South Polar ice packs would be rapidly shrinking right now? So far, that's 4 for 4 wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMind you, I'm not denying that human activity has an effect. It does. But, this group has a long history of grossly exaggerated claims. they seem to only weakly examine the evidence. It's an excellent example of Science Politicized.
They are just after funds. Rushing these unproven and un-veted reports is why they have no credibility. they are just giving the 'Deniers' more ammunition.
I wish that scientists would go back to science.
The truth is that they can't make accurate predictions yet. When you have a 5 year track record of accuracy, get back to me. That's true for BOTH sides of this.
I observe generalized ineptitude of the human beings in making something good for itself, imagines then for the Planet… entering into an alliance it exaggerated greed, the consequences already 'll be horrible, you finds that changes of Behavior will occur? Never! It is known that we are in the missed direction, having the possibility and all the resources to change the trajectory but the necessity of accumulation of wealth say high more than the proper life! Excepting the three percent of decent people, the Flora and Fauna, will be comic to see The End and the politicians, kings and Majestys, bankers, entrepreneurs and all the group of the Capitalism, running in its Ferraris overloaded of gold, trying to save of the beast - human of the Apocalypse!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNO WHERE WAS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT COMMMON SENSE WOULDN'T TELL
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYOU AND NO WHERE WAS THERE ANY CONNECTION TO THE WEATHER AND GLOBAL WARMING........!!!!!!!!
Well except for the fact that climate change is at the
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisroot of all this ,everything in this article is common sense...
are we really so stupid we need people to tell us this...
One thing about climate...it is constantly changing and if
a tornado hits a populated city in the U.S, it will do a lot
of financial damage and it hits in a third world country a lot
of people living on the edge of existence will will suffer or die....If you bought me a drink in a bar I would have told you this.....lol
I was going by the report and the interpretations of the people who wrote it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd only lunatics post all in caps.
You are right...much of the science will be wrong and much of
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisit will be right...I fervently believe that. But when I see people attributing everything that comes along to climate change , I have to laugh. I was raised on a farm. I know what climate is. It is working for a whole year for nothing because your crops were destroyed by a thunderstorm. It is having a windfall every
5 yrs or so that allows you to keep farming. Mother nature is
a cruel mistress.People that set in an ivory tower are afraid of it because they don't understand it..And they are foolish enough to think they can change it...those of us that live with it embrace it and don't fear it and so we don't see a boogie man here...it is just mother nature doing her thing so get over it.
@Old Hoya,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have not read it all of it. Yet, from what I can ascertain it in no way resembles your description of, "... various dangers of extreme weather without actually expressly attributing it now or in the future to human activities."
Here are some some samples from the report:
"It is very likely that there has been an overall decrease in the number of cold days and nights,3 and an overall increase in the number of warm days and nights,3 at the global scale, that is, for most land areas with sufficient data. It is likely that these changes have also occurred at the continental scale in North America, Europe, and Australia. There is medium confidence in a warming trend in daily temperature extremes in much of Asia" Page 8
"There is evidence that some extremes have changed as a result of anthropogenic influences, including
increases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. It is likely that anthropogenic influences have led
to warming of extreme daily minimum and maximum temperatures at the global scale. There is medium confidence that anthropogenic influences have contributed to intensification of extreme precipitation at the global scale. It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic influence on increasing extreme coastal high water due to an increase in mean sea level."
Page 9
Now take a look at what they say about future extreme weather events:
"Models project substantial warming in temperature extremes by the end of the 21st century. It is virtually
certain that increases in the frequency and magnitude of warm daily temperature extremes and decreases in cold
extremes will occur in the 21st century at the global scale. It is very likely that the length, frequency, and/or intensity of warm spells or heat waves will increase over most land areas."
Page 13
So it patently obvious that you did not read the report. Even more manifest is that you are parroting talking points like a good little stooge.
IPCC...ya reallly...send billions of hard earned dollars to tinpot third world dictators.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIPCC...GO AWAY!
@Geojellybrain,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou know, the more you howl about conspiracies and ignore reality the more you appear to be insane.
GEO - You hit the nail on the head there!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can't believe they are still trying to use the inflated sea level rising theme:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/the_great_sea_level_humbug.pdf
Have a nice evening!
Dearest anti-warmists, climate-change-deniers and keepers
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisof the faith... It must warm the cockles of every pol,
lobbyist and oil exec to know that their mighty efforts
have not gone in vain. That you stalwarts, untainted and
unfettered by the ungodly lies of grant-greedy scientists
and their evil minions, hold high the torches and banners
of faith-based superheroes like Bush, Cheney and Limbaugh.
It just gives me goosebumps. No one can pull the wool
over your eyes! And when the climate s--t finally does
hit the fan, and trillions of dollars worth of damage
is the order of the day.. when tens of millions of men,
women and children are dying on virtually every continent,
you, Bush, Cheney and Limbaugh can simply say, "See!
God is finally punishing the wicked heretics and unbelievers of the sinful liberal left!! Rapture must
be just moments away!! Long live the archangels Newt
and The Donald!!"
There... I think I just got goosebumps again.
Climate change (global warming or global cooling) has always occurred throughout the Earth's history. Human habitation is just a speck in time and apparently human over population will result in mega-deaths during climatic changes. The Earth exists and humans are occupy just one tiny segment in time. So why are humans so vain as to attempt to "control" the Earth's climate? Is this "science" or a new religion? This (fad) too will pass.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe head of the IPCC also said humans were causing tsunamis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCOIMBATORE: Given that human actions are increasingly interfering with the delicate balance of nature, natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes and tsunamis will occur more frequently, said Dr Rajendra K Pachauri, director general of TERI, and the chief of the inter-governmental panel on Climate Change. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-03-14/coimbatore/28687815_1_harmony-green-drive-renewable-energy-sources
Hi Postman1. Beautifully presented & clear enough for all but the dim whits who see no sign of intellectual corruption in the email scandal or the Peter Gleik affair. Those two tests of integrity are easily performed & usually show instant results. I have run the test on MARCHER & Trent1492 with the expected results. They are both Denialists .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour quote " it is likely" ??????
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"it is likely"?
Climate models.....?????
This sounds a lot like someones opinion ...I don't see any
facts.
There is a very good discussion on sci am about the built in
bias of any type of modeling..not just climatary. Google it.
It is an interesting read.
Would you like to hear a couple climate jokes
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPhil Jones and Peter Gleik....so much for scientific documentation and climate reasearch.All the "proof you guys
point to has been denied by these guys when they got their
hands caught in the cookie jar.
same twats denying climate change as usual: claiming things they don't back up, quoting reports they didn't read, stating facts they can't source, same idiotic comments, same tired old garbage, same litany of rubbish
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistypical example: somewhere I read a one-neuron comment about "would you like to hear a couple climate jokes" and then cites the names of people who showed how climate deniers falsify facts and research.
You really want to hear climate jokes, look up all the denier comments here, they provide a perfect selection of the most laughable garbage in the known universe.
for climate denial satire central search for "heartlind institute"
an illustration of how deniers fabricate their garbage:
http://climatecrocks.com/
for an explanation of the stupidity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
"The debate is over."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat statement of dogma in itself shows how climate science has devolved into left wing pseudo-science, or worse, Global Warming Religon.
the debate is over, has been for years and not to accept that is moronic; the whistle blew, the game is over, you can now cry and whine and blame your parents for breeding an amoeba, the debate is over. Period.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisif you were intelligent you could argue sceptically but that would require two neurons.
as is your foot shot your mouth; fortunately no harm was done, the bullet was lost in empty space.
go play with the other deniers in the ice-bear cage.
@Rodestar,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you had a ounce of curiosity you would know that "likely" in this context has a very specific meaning. It is defined as meaning between 66%-90%.
And why you are whining about models? One your fellow cohorts made the claim that the IPCC had no models that predicted increased extremes. That is demonstratively false by the quotes I provided.
Why it you lot have the curiosity and the intellectual integrity of a concussed squirrel?
Carly Says: The head of the IPCC also said humans were causing tsunamis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: No he did not. Even your link does not provide a direct quote. You know this. Why lie? You have been challenge on this multiple times and have never ever provided a direct quote from a speech, paper or interview. If this is something that Pachuri actually believes then you would be able to find multiple examples of him saying it.
Back in Post 18, I laid out the case for anthropogenic climate change in pretty straightforward terms. I find it interesting that not one of you folks who don't think climate change is occurring took issue with what I said, but continued what I consider ad hominem attacks on the IPCC, climate scientists and the so-called warmist/alarmist crowe. I think this makes the case pretty clearly to me and others who agree with me that when the evidence does not support your pre-conceived notions - just ignore it and scream louder. I really wish that the people who don't think we are causing climate change would spend some time with the technical literature on the subject before making accusations that this is all a crock. However, it is probably to much to hope for. As the old saying goes - "It's easy to argue when you don't know what you are talking about."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's a widespread belief amongst intelligent people that one can reason with believers. Believers are the opposite of thinkers and not to be convinced by argument but one can NOT argue with fanatics or there would be no war in Afghanistan and Pakistan would be a country at peace.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOr show me a single denier who finally gave in to fact and science.
Use deniers for what they are good for. Make them blather so that those who are undecided and stumble through the comments section have a simple choice. Do they want to side with the deniers (stupid and clueless) or warmists (who use facts)?
Deniers will stay deniers, theirs is a monorail brain, it's the undecided, the climate newbies I want to help along and the deniers help me perfectly to do just that.
And anyway, deniers are a rapidly dwindling minority. The quantity of denier comments here is not representative of the denier proportion of the population.
(And I think deniers are the funniest thing that happened to science in a long time. They beat flat-earthers and creationists by lengths.)
This is a link to the index of Teri in the news from the organisations own records. If it was false, why would the organisation that he heads not also show links to where he refuted it? It is another example of you people trying to bluster & hide the truth. Your brand of science. It was widely reported at the time. He also made claims about the Himilayan glaciers melting that he knew to be untrue. He has become a millionaire on the back of AGW. Just have a look at the TERI organisation he heads.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.teriin.org/index.php?option=com_teriinnews&task=details&sid=1358
How would you know what inteligent people think? Give us a break :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd also like to remind those who believe from the goodness of their heart that reasoning can convince deniers of this article:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-cyber-bullying
When will scientists understand that real life is NOT modeled after the wishful thinking of social therapists? You don't reason with fanatics, at best do you try to neutralize them and when you can, rub their noses in the crap they're spreading. Being nice with fanatics is like trying to fight fire with gas, it only makes them believe they are even more right. You don't fight stupidity and bad will with a lecture on Freud and Ghandi. Why are so many scientists helpless against bullies? Reason defeating them? As if intelligence ever averted a war? Gotta fight the idiots!
Ladies and gentlemen:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"How would you know what inteligent people think?"
Not that I usually mind typos but this one is a Freudian slip if I ever saw one.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the typical denier. If there is one word in the world he claims describes him perfectly and he even gets that wrong.
Although to his credit, he is also the typical denier inasmuch as he never backs up his statements with fact, gets the meaning of every report he quotes sideways and generally is too obtuse to realize that the links he uses generally prove the contrary of what he wants to say, to the point where even Australian sea cucumbers refuse to grant him intellectual asylum, not that he'd care about the Great Barrier reef one way or the other (or maybe because of that).
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/sea-cucumbers-may-save-great-barrier-reef-20120130-1qowc.html
(but then, in his view, the Sidney Morning Herald is of course a communist paper).
Unfortunately, in the US, the morons have the same power as those who are informed, in terms of voting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are not on the same wavelength as inteligent people. You deliberately tune us out :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"You are not on the same wavelength as inteligent people."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSame typo twice? Seems like more of a Freudian slip after all. :)
Carlyle, you seem to have confused the term intelligent with delusional, irrational or illogical.
Interesting article, thanks for the link.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyep, same the world over, the very reason why we need to convince the undecided, and our best help are the idiots who deny climate science. Their rubbish is the best argument FOR AGW as nobody wants to side with the morons after reading their comments!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd talking of morons, check the next comment - THE SURFING CUCUMBER HAS DONE IT AGAIN!
Obviously didn't read comment nr 48 unless his spelchecker failed him again.
yep, same the world over, the very reason why we need to convince the undecided, and our best help are the idiots who deny climate science. Their rubbish is the best argument FOR AGW as nobody wants to side with the morons after reading their comments!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd talking of morons, check the next comment - THE SURFING CUCUMBER HAS DONE IT AGAIN!
Obviously didn't read comment nr 48 unless his spelchecker failed him again.
I entered it twice, give him a second chance to spot his hippo.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlthough, when he claimed repeatedly without any proof ever that climate didn't warm a bit in the last ten years and I linked a dozen times to proof of warming, he never got that either. How does he do it, surviving on empty? ... a typing prokaryote?
Re Post #48. More than a little hilarious when one who lambasts me over a spelling error refers to Sidney Morning Herald. Try Sydney.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGone quiet on my links for tsunamis I notice. Does anyone else notice that those who scream about ad homines think it is OK when they use them?
What ever is going on in the Arctic & Antarctic? This does not show up in the models. Never mind. They will think of something. Does not matter anyway. The believers are convinced regardless of evidence.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
@Carlyle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have been repeatedly challenged on the tsunami lie and found exposed for the propagandist you are. That is why you can not meet the demand of finding a quote directly attributable to Pachuri from a speech, paper or interview.
I am so glad that you find the National Sea Ice Data Center a trustworthy source. So let us take a look at what they have to say about Arctic sea ice:
"This year’s maximum ice extent was the ninth lowest in the satellite record, slightly higher than the 2008 maximum (15.24 million square kilometers or 5.88 million square miles) Last year, 2011, was the lowest maximum on record, 14.64 million square kilometers (5.65 million square miles). Including this year, the nine years from 2004 to 2012 are the nine lowest maximums in the satellite record."
Gee, that sounds like nothing to celebrate to me. At what point are you going to realize that you are entirely credulous to the propaganda being reported by the folks at "Watts Up With That?"
In reaction to the sea cucumber's big Freudian: it found one (hard to miss the Aussie one) missed one (-> spelchecker) (wot? never mind!)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTypos are normally alright but when someone who believes to be the climate Einstein does a double take on "inteligent" it does make the reader think.
And the result of that cogitation is: that intelectual has become a major bore.
Which led to a rather more serious discussion on the watch, what are the reasons for climate change denial. They are obviously not scientific. Climate sceptics sometimes ask interesting questions, the reason being that sceptics in general know what they are talking about except that they have differing opinions on the conclusions, such as rate of change or consequences.
Climate deniers OTOH never ask, their opinions are detached from reason or logic and as many have observed more like religious convictions of the fanatical kind. Never argue with religious fanatics is one thing. We then searched for "climate change reasons for denial" and found a number of interesting links, some more, some less. This piqued our curiosity. Denial comes obviously in two main categories: industrial interests using tactics known from the tobacco industry and other brain-washing techniques and people fanatically opposed to climate science and whose behaviour is linked to an individual's or a group's psychological profile, IOW driven by the emotional and/or the irrational.
The industrial/corporate approach is transparent, pay whomever will accept the job, be that something like the Heartland institute or a pay-per-spin professional or company.
But does anyone have an opinion or even a wild guess what may possible drive a denier besides the obvious psychological motive?
I personally believe that a lot of denial is a secondary effect from sinking educational levels and ever dumber mass media. The strangest thing IMO is that this is most noticeable in the industrialized countries and there mainly amongst the urban population. Where I would believe that denial is made easy because these people are those most cut off/least in touch with nature. (City kids completely don't connect milk to dairy farming as "milk comes from the supermarket" or German kids believing that cows are purple because the main TV advertiser for chocolate has been using a purple cow for decades.)
Anyone have a take on that? Another suggestion?
I always found it similar to the US Tea Part mentality during the debt ceiling issue last summer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPoint out that a failure to raise the debt ceiling would have been catastrophic and the only responses you get are irrelevant comparisons to individuals personal finances or suggestions that the person saying this is part of some elaborate conspiracy.
Some say its a reaction to people having been lied to before, or a branch of our countries anti-intellectual history or just a general war against reality.
I favor the final theory.
Look at the link & repeat after me: Ice extent in both the Arctic & Antarctic continue to increase. Average ice extent in the Arctic is at a Five Year high for the past twelve months to the present.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisForget what people said back in Feb or March. Have a look at the graph for yourself. While you are at it, tell me where this was predicted. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
There will be an updated report in about a week. Perhaps I am actually understating the increase.
Your disclaimer re the tsunami claim by the head of the IPCC ranks right up there with your claims about the emails. There were dozens of reports about it at the time with letters to editors & blogs from warmists pleading with him to retract his statement. You could always provide us with a link to a retraction. Why not do that? The last link I provided went straight to the index of items in the news concerning Teri. This is the Teri site. The head of the IPCC is also the head of Teri.
Have a look folk. Of course if you can read the emails from East Anglia without comprehension, you will not see anything here either. http://www.teriin.org/index.php?option=com_teriinnews&task=details&sid=1358
Arctic sea ice has been declining at a rate of 7 percent per decade over the last 3 decades. The Antarctic increase is statistically insignificant, as warming trends have increased snowfall in the Antarctic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUse your brain. . . An increase in temperature will most likely result in an increase in snowfall in higher elevations and in climates that are are well below the freezing temperature.
Well in my ignorance I just never realised that snowfall was going to create Arctic or Antarctic sea ice. Silly me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDismissing this seasons Arctic sea ice extent when after the low level recorded in 2007 climate scientists were predicting that the Arctic could be ice free this coming arctic summer is entirely relevant. Since that low, every year it has been exceeded. What is it you do not understand?
Should read, every year ice extent has exceeded that 2007 low. For the past five years average ice extent has increased, not decreased. Got it? No climate scientists predicted this. We were told that due to increasing atmospheric Co2 plus nearly all the Old Ice was gone, that the ice would melt more quickly each successive summer. Another fail. I repeat. Despite all the predictions & reasons given, average Arctic & Antarctic sea ice extent since 2007 is UP. If you do not understand now I will try & think of a simpler way to explain it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Carlye,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhich part of "ninth lowest on record" do you not understand? Is it your uninformed that each year must be less than the last? If so may I encourage you to go find out what "stochastic" means.
Once again. For five straight years the average ice trend has been more Arctic ice. That is not just ONE year, it is FIVE. There is also an increase in old ice. Directly opposite to the climate scientists predictions. The Antarctic seas ice trend has been positive for thirty years. When are the ice caps going to disappear again? What about those Himalayan glaciers that your IPCC false prophet said were rapidly disappearing, or did he not say that either?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust what kind of mental block do you have? You try & argue against the facts. Exactly what you accuse others of doing. I do not mind, though I would rather have a more worthy protagonist. Your inane arguments & excuses are rather boring.
marcher:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"denial = general war against reality"
yes, makes sense.
Things that came to mind: like a spoiled brat who does not want to wake up to reality or an adult who can't stomach that his illusions are shattered or rich people facing bankruptcy feverishly trying to keep up appearances as long as possible or a criminal who does not/cannot psychologically face the consequences?
yours is a good condensation which I will certainly use in the future.
once again, and for the 100th time, and from a source near you, the Sydney Morning Herald, a communist paper as you know:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/shrinking-arctic-ice-linked-to-record-dumps-of-snow-20120227-1tyzl.html
at least READ the stuff you quote, you twat.
Can't concentrate long enough to read a whole paragraph? In short:
THE ARCTIC ICE HAS BEEN SHRINKING DRAMATICALLY AND IS NOW AT AN ALARMING LOW, YOU ILLITERATE PILLOCK.
Marcher:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisalthough I always get emotional fantasizing of the former village mayor teabagging.
The Brits here will feel with me.
I do not read The Sydney Morning Herald. Mostly I look for hard data. I also do not automatically accept the conclusions drawn by those compiling the data when they try to predict future trends, as they are often shown to be wrong. A point in confirmation of this fallibility is that they announced that the Arctic Ice probably had reached its maximum extent on the 26th of this month. It immediately began to climb again. It is most unusual but they usually only lag one day behind with their graph. It is now three days behind. Could this mean it has gone up again, contrary to their expectations? We will know in a day or so. As for your abusive & ill informed comments, its OK. I understand. You can not help it. This subject is way out of your depth. I would suggest you try studying aroma therapy or numerology; perhaps even astrology. More in keeping with your capacity & belief system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe excerpt below is not a prediction. It is verifiable fact.
Overall, Antarctic sea ice has grown slightly over the past thirty years of the satellite record, but the trends are very small, and the ice extent varies a lot from year to year. In Southern Hemisphere winter months, ice extent has increased by around one percent per decade. In the summer, ice has increased by two to three percent per decade, but the variation is larger than the trend.
http://nsidc.org/icelights/2012/01/11/sea-ice-down-under-antarctic-ice-and-climate/#more-601
sea cucumber:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I do not read The Sydney Morning Herald."
Of course not:
a) it uses hard data;
b) it's against sea cucumber theology.
"Mostly I look for hard data."
Why then doesn't he read it when he found it?
Wouldn't recognize his big mouth from a hole in the ground is what the problem is, the illiterate twat.
Carlye Says: Once again. For five straight years the average ice trend has been more Arctic ice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: Sorry Carlye that is simply not true. I also find it unfortunate that you seem incapable of figuring out what the word "trend" means. I say we take a look at what the National Snow Ice Data Center has to say:
"This year’s maximum ice extent was the ninth lowest in the satellite record, slightly higher than the 2008 maximum (15.24 million square kilometers or 5.88 million square miles) Last year, 2011, was the lowest maximum on record, 14.64 million square kilometers (5.65 million square miles). Including this year, the nine years from 2004 to 2012 are the nine lowest maximums in the satellite record."
Gee, I wonder if you will understand that bit about "2011, was the lowest maximum on record..."? Because if you did then you would not be making such demonstratively wrong statements repeatedly. Then again, maybe you are just a propagandist with no interest in reality.
Trent:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow could we doubt that it never verifies the data? Here's our favourite sea cucumber personally checking the arctic ice level:
http://www.leconcombre.com/fonds/img1/concombre-surfer-01.jpg
Thanks for asking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"how could we doubt that it never verifies the data?"
and the question is, "shouldn't that read: "how could we doubt that it always verifies the data?"".
Nope. It is meant as it is written. We, the warmists, always reply/comment as if the sea cucumber never verified the data we provide. We believe this because we provide the scientific proof that refutes its unsubstantiated claims again and again. And yet, despite our best efforts, it returns a day later and claims the same rubbish again. And again. And again. Like the good denier it is. Which is why we believe it never verifies the data else why would it repeat the same garbage again and again?
But the sea cucumber DOES verify the data as proven by the snapshot of it seen here checking the current arctic waters. See the icecaps on the wave? For it proof enough that the arctic ice is increasing.
All clear?
(Yes, I keep finding it insulting that it keeps posting the same rubbish every day when we try so hard to provide hard data. What is my choice? Turn red in the face and explode or react as I do? I find it more humane to laugh it off.)(And return some of what it throws at us. It eases the pressure in the neck.)
So you think the garbage you read in a climate alarmist newspaper has more credibility than that provided by NSIDC? With their daily graph directly compiled from data. You prefer to believe what you are told rather than look for yourself. Once again. Look at the graph. As I suspected the trend is going up again. Almost up to the average level for the 1979 to 2000 average. It simply CAN NOT BE DENIED. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou do not understand what AVERAGE extent means. A dip below or crest above minimum for a few days has very little effect on the average. When it falls well within the average deviation this is even more so. As a matter of fact the present extent is well within the average deviation. You would not understand that either.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe night is clear, it might freeze again though, let's see what's new ... ah, the cucumber is at it again:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"As I suspected the trend is going up again. Almost up to the average level for the 1979 to 2000 average. It simply CAN NOT BE DENIED."
As "I" (meaning you) suspected? Suspecting? Is that an accepted way of interpreting scientific data now?
And ALMOST up to average level, sorry squid, but that means it is not quite up to average level. Which means there is less. So yes, that can NOT be denied. Because almost up to means less either way you look at it.
But let's settle this once and for all. Once a day you pretend that the arctic ice has been consistently extending in the last ten years and that this is proved by data from NSIDC.
Now:
Post one graph or one article by the NSIDC, ONE, that proves your point beyond any doubt.
IF the graph or article proves your point you win the argument and I will never again rubbish you for your arctic ice comments.
IF the graph or article proves YOU wrong you will stop ever commenting about arctic ice again.
Deal?
Let's see your NSIDC quote or link.
To avoid any misunderstanding or excuse from either side, the challenge is based on carlyle's comments:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisnr 60
"Average ice extent in the Arctic is at a Five Year high for the past twelve months to the present.
...
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
There will be an updated report in about a week. Perhaps I am actually understating the increase."
and
nr 65:
"For five straight years the average ice trend has been more Arctic ice"
where he unequivocally states that arctic ice is at a five-year high, that he might actually understate the increase and that for five straight years the trend has shown arctic ice to be on the increase.
To prove his claim he quotes data provided by NSIDC, here specifically referring to
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
---
Should carlyle feel I have misquoted him, he is fully entitled to object by proving his objection, else agree that the above quotes are correctly reproducing his original comments.
Your density exceeds anything previously known on the periodic table. Repeatedly I have stated that the AVERAGE ARCTIC ice extent over the past five years is up. When referring to the graph & the position of the present extent & the average deviation, the deviation on that graph clearly states that it is the average from 1979 to 2000. Just look at the dotted line. That was the lowest ever. Five years ago. That is the increase I have been repeatedly referring to. How can that possibly be denied or misinterpreted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet me put it another way as apparently some on this site can not read a graph. The present Arctic Ice extent covers approximately 800,000 square kilometres more area than it did at the same time in 2007. Do you understand yet? What Green manifesto are you people following? Just what does it take before you can see what is so clearly put before you. Only extremists can so totally disconnect from reality.
Your density exceeds anything previously known on the periodic table. Repeatedly I have stated that the AVERAGE ARCTIC ice extent over the past five years is up. When referring to the graph & the position of the present extent & the average deviation, the deviation on that graph clearly states that it is the average from 1979 to 2000. Just look at the dotted line. That was the lowest ever. Five years ago. That is the increase I have been repeatedly referring to. How can that possibly be denied or misinterpreted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet me put it another way as apparently some on this site can not read a graph. The present Arctic Ice extent covers approximately 800,000 square kilometres more area than it did at the same time in 2007. Do you understand yet? What Green manifesto are you people following? Just what does it take before you can see what is so clearly put before you. Only extremists can so totally disconnect from reality.
face the challenge
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishave you said or have you not said that
"Average ice extent in the Arctic is at a Five Year high for the past twelve months to the present... Perhaps I am actually understating the increase."
and that
"For five straight years the average ice trend has been more Arctic ice"
and that you have specifically and unambiguously cited
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
as proof of your claims?
I add this line from your comment nr 78 in reply to a comment by Trent that
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Repeatedly I (carlyle) have stated that the AVERAGE ARCTIC ice extent over the past five years is up."
where you additionally confirm the claims I based the challenge on.
You started it, stand by your claims,
FACE THE CHALLENGE!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscarlyle, one more last time:
face the challenge you called upon yourself and prove by whatever means the claims you keep posting
or
be officially and publicly known as an ignorant AGW denier, the term ignorant used as defined by Merriam-Webster, and whose climate comments can be safely disregarded as complete rubbish of no value whatsoever; in short, that you may for all practical purposes be considered a self-proven climate moron!
Face the challenge or lose it.
Your call!
The only explanation that I can come up with for your continued misunderstanding of what I claim is that you are only reading the text from the site that I refer to and not the graph. The text you are reading is what the site publishes on an irregular basis with a specific report published approximately a week after the end of each calendar month summarising the data received in the preceding month. In other words these texts that you are relying on are not up to date. In contrast the information shown on the graph is generally only one day old and is derived directly from satellite data. In other words the data in the graph is factual whereas the text is an interpretation of that data which is not normally printed on the same day as the data in the graph. The text information is frequently out of step with the latest data in the graph.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn what seems to be the basis of your query I claim that both the past 12 months and the five-year average show a continuing upward trend in Arctic ice extent. As the average ice extent for the present full year figures have not yet been published I am basing my conclusions for this year solely on the graph. Looking at the graph there is no way you can fail to see that the present Arctic ice extent is approximately 800,000 km² more than for the same period in 2007. Looking at another graph on the same site it can be clearly seen that no year since 2007 has had a lower average ice extent than what occurred in 2007. It naturally follows therefore that the trend for the past five years must be up.
G'day down under!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave you looked at this site?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
Near the bottom, click on compare and you can compare dates from different years. Arctic coverage is way up from 2007 and the ice is thicker. There are Antarctic satellite shots also. Ice down under continues to grow and sea levels are steady or falling.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/the_great_sea_level_humbug.pdf
And how about those (not) disappearing Himalayan glaciers?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains?intcmp=122
Buenos noches!
Thanks. I had the cryosphere site in the favourites folder but had not looked at it recently. The other two sites also give a good honest appraisal of the situation. Sometimes I think my communication skills must be lacking as it seems impossible at times to point things out that to me are as obvious as my right hand. It is frustrating but I feel it is imperative not to leave the field to Sharmans. Thanks again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscarlyle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishave you or have you not said that
"Average ice extent in the Arctic is at a Five Year high for the past twelve months to the present... Perhaps I am actually understating the increase."
and that
"For five straight years the average ice trend has been more Arctic ice"
and furthermore that
"Repeatedly I (carlyle) have stated that the AVERAGE ARCTIC ice extent over the past five years is up."
?
Have you said this or have you not?
And about the graph you refer to, you have repeatedly insisted that this graph backs up the above claims.
Or are you pretending now that the graph says something different than your three statements?
You are dodging the question:
am I or am I not quoting correctly what you wrote?
Don't try to worm yourself out of this:
have you made those statements or have you not?
And have you or have you not used this link to prove those statements:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
?
Or are you pretending that I fake your comments?
Interpret it any way you want. I can not be bothered discussing it with you any further. I suggest you follow the links provided by postman! If you genuinely wish to learn rather than being a mouthpiece for the Greens.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscarlyle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisit looks by your two previous posts that you are chickening out.
have you or have you not posted here that:
"Repeatedly I (carlyle) have stated that the AVERAGE ARCTIC ice extent over the past five years is up."
if yes, resp. you confirm that you have posted that comment, I will go to the page you quoted as proving your claims and check if that page backs your claims;
if no resp. you deny that you have posted that comment, and since SciAm are the only ones which can access comments after they are posted, you would explicitly accuse SciAm of cheating or falsifying or otherwise tampering with your comments, resp. posting false comments under your name.
If yes and the page you quote confirms your statement, I will never again accuse you of misunderstanding, misrepresenting or misusing scientific climate data.
If on the contrary your link contradicts your statement and you still refuse to accept the evidence that you provided yourself, you will accept to be called a lying, cheating, stupid, dishonest climate denying idiot and moron!
Your statements, if you confirm them to be yours, concerning arctic ice are clear, categorical and unequivocal. It is therefore ridiculously futile to pretend that I or anyone else have misunderstood you.
If you attempt one more time to weave out of the challenge or accuse me of misunderstanding you or by any other means try to absolve yourself from any responsibility for your comments, I will consider that you are a cheating pillock without any honesty at all , in short a disreputable climate science denier idiot and I and anyone else will acquire the right to refer to this comments section here every time I or anyone else wants to qualify you in public as such.
To your advantage, if you confirm that the statement is yours, I will follow your link and if its content confirm what you say, I will never again accuse you of being a lying, cheating, dishonest, disreputable climate science idiot and will from then on never again comment on any post of yours regarding arctic ice.
You have for a long time claimed that AGW is a fraud, yet you never provided any evidence, you have endlessly said that climate scientists are cheaters only interested in enriching themselves, you have constantly attacked AGW supporters for not having the guts to admit to their lies.
I call your game.
I do expect a minimum of honesty from you, else you will prove yourself to be a despicable cheater on top of everything else.
You two demean us all. You are like a couple of fucking six-year-olds.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've had enough of his cheatery and I'm calling his bluff.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou believe that he should get away with it? Then don't wonder if AGW deniers think he is right if he's never challenged.
Anyone else think he should get away with his senseless posting?
So, the take-away is that Carlyle doesn't understand the difference between short-term noise and long-term trend.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is not at all clear how he can look at this graph and see an upward trend with any meaning.
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/images/mean_anomaly_1953-2011.png
He is playing the game that a lot of deniers do where they only talk about subsets of the data that agree with their position, and neglect to talk about the rest.
Chris:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are right but IMO there is more at stake here than only the arctic ice. Wherever there is a climate article carlyle posts the ever same comments refuting all evidence, making unfounded accusations etc. in the end being left alone to trumpet his rubbish.
This has potentially fatal consequences.
The tipping point was IMO reached around 2005. For us, used to think in days and weeks, the speed of change is so slow it does not panic us yet. So let's look at the human factors.
Climate scientists consider themselves rational, logical, well behaved. One argues in a certain style, a certain jargon, respecting certain academic rules. They ignore the carlyles after one stab. They talk a bit alarmingly about the climate but do they suffer from it?
Then we have the politicians. Those who understand AGW are few, most say anything to be voted, all want to be (re)elected. If they have reason to believe that AGW deniers are a substantial group, many will be tempted to deny AGW for election's sake. But these are the decision makers. Consider the US where presidential hopefuls want intelligent design and creationism taught alongside evolution. The others possibly signing a certain treaty in 2015 that will come into effect in 2020. How dangerous is it to leave the fields to the carlyles?
And in all this, there is a very important group of people who will play a very decisive role in the years to come, the climate science newbies. These are people who feel the effects of climage change but they don't know the science. Ranchers in the Midwest, villagers in the Fidjis, herdsmen from the Sahel, farmers from Central Europe, fishermen all over the world, these people sense that their world is going crazy. But neither the socially aloof scientists nor the money-driven mass media explain why the world goes crazy. So many of them turn to the net to find out more about this AGW thing. And one day they stumble for example over SciAm's climate articles. But it's new and strange to them. And here lurks the carlyle with his endless climate rubbish...
So when the newbies come here they see a few rather lofty science people and - many, many carlyles and AGW deniers passionately posting rubbish in great quantities. Like religious fanatics and using the same tactics.
Chris (ctd):
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRemember how we've learned that a few terrorists can terrorize a whole nation? Same with the climate taliban here. So here we are drifting at an increasing pace towards the worst human-made catastrophy possible. And the undecided see what we see but they understand it differently. What they see is the same deniers repeating the same rubbish permanently. But since they don't know the facts, since the scientists neglect the climate taliban, the newbies become quite easy prey for the carlyles' tobacco-industry style brain-washing.
(And scientists wonder why the respect for and the trust in science has been constantly fading in the US over the last 40, 50 years and their funds being cut more and more? No wonder when they are perceived as too limp-wristed to be true.)
If we simply stand here and try to reason and never challenge the carlyles or shrug them off they will do a lot of damage. The undecided will wonder why the scientists leave the field to the carlyles and this gives them the upper hand. Braggers win unless you challenge and then beat the crap out of them. Mass psychology, crude maybe but real.
There is too much at stake which is why I decided to challenge the carlyle. He's dodging the issue, he's trying to sneak out using his usual tactics, saying something and then pretending to be misunderstood. But I had enough of his garbage and his permanent insults.
When at war you can't let snipers shoot at you under the pretense that it's only one or two individuals at best. One good sniper can terrorize a whole town. Look at the recent past in Libya, the situation in Syria, see the damage one sniper can do. They must be stopped.
carlyle is a climate sniper and I have decided that I challenge him by his own statements and show him for what he is.
And he knows it so he evades the challenge. But that's already a proof to the undecided that his likes may after be completely wrong.
One carlyle and another carlyle and you already have half a heartland institute. Can't have that anymore.
See what I mean?
---
Also, carlyle has been rather discreet on the subject lately. Maybe he really read his own link for once. But the challenge is on anyway and I'm not calling it off simply because the hypocrite coward now starts whining all of a sudden.
You need a rabies shot.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGuess whom I got that rabies from? Fortunately, getting it from you means it must be the dumb form.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAbout the challenge:
You still haven't replied. Become the master of one-line comments now? Quite strange from someone who normally posts a torrent of rubbish everyday everywhere.
So when are you going to confirm that the statements are from you or are you chickening out, knowing what awaits you?
Those statements are from you, aren't they? Or are you saying Scientific American counterfeited them through identity theft?
Come on, chicken!
This looks like a familiar tactic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA GLOBAL lobby group has distributed a “spin sheet” encouraging its 300 member organisations to emphasise the link between climate change and extreme weather events, despite uncertainties acknowledged by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/ipcc_now_too_moderate_for_professional_scaremongers/
I fail to see what challenging carlyle to prove what he claims about the arctic ice looks like a "familiar tactic by a lobby group to blablabla". To me this looks more like another pathetic attempt to avoid proving what he claims.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI also fail to see how a group asking its members to distribute climate news is strange or unacceptable. It's what every group always does. It's what news agencies do. It's what Heartland instistute does. The difference is between distributing provable news and unprovable garbage. Same as the difference between Scientific American which distributes news from science and Heartland Institute which is paid to distribute PR from industrial corporations.
But I do note grinning that you now resort to citing the Herald Sun as a serious source for climate news. The Herald Sun? Australia's dumbest tabloid? Not even got enough to go behind the bush in the bush. And that is your source? I checked the link. It's a BLOG by some climate retard. Not a single intelligent comment either. But here's the best bit. The retard mentions a source for his article. If you follow that source you land, not at the source that he quotes, but another article of the same tabloid. That's like inserting a link to your own lies to prove that you say the truth. That is so idiotic. I generally don't mind people browsing tabloids but to be caught with the Herald Sun these days really proves you don't belong in a halfway intelligent conversation.
This Herald Sun garbage piece is like some retard in the outback with an Internet connection blogging that the APS is a bunch of idiots spreading lies about CERN and then quoting a link leading to a similarly stupid piece he wrote on his own blog to prove that Einstein was wrong, that the earth is flat and that energy is a mutation of sea cucumber excrement.
So, another feeble attempt to avoid the challenge then? Trying to divert from the issue? Still not confirming that you repeatedly wrote that the arctic ice is constantly increasing? IOW, afraid to stand by your own words? Big mouth, no balls, eh? Look in the mirror, what do you see?
So if all is collapsing around us. If the world is suffering unprecedented floods, droughts & every other stress you could think of, how come world food production is up? It does not compute unless Co2 is plant food after all & will help to feed people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee:
The record cereal production in 2011 will boost world cereal stocks. Based on the latest forecasts, by the close of seasons in 2012, these could reach 518 million tonnes, 14.5 million tonnes (2.9 percent) above their opening levels and 2 million tonnes higher than anticipated in February. http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/wfs-home/csdb/en/
I understand an even larger global record is on the way.
Even if world food production was up, how does this explain an increasing number of people starving to death? It only proves that the First World uses even more polluting fertilizer to produce even more food for the First World, much of which only to be thrown away later, and mainly to one single group's benefit, the fertilizer producers, the leading world's soil polluter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd I fail to see what this has directly to do with the topic of this article.
Even worse, I see even less how that proves that arctic ice is extending as you claim.
But don't despair, I'll be looking up your link to the page that proves what you say about arctic ice later today. I'm sure you look forward to the result.
So, Carlyle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you abandoning your position that Arctic sea ice is increasing?
I see that Carlyle is desperately trying to change the topic again. Here who thinks that Carlye will never ever recognize the difference between noise and trend? I do and I think that because Carlyle's little house of anti-science cards collapses if he acknowledges a difference.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=us-military-forges-ahead-with-plans-to-combat-climate-change
or as carlyle and the Melbourne Herald Sun will put it, another communist plot by the tree-huggers!
No! Look at the graph. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt shows Arctic Ice covers approximately 800000 square kilometers more area than for the same date for 2007 & is very close to the average 1979 to 2000 extent. The lowest average occured five years ago. Every year since has been higher than 2007. Also sea ice has been increasing in Antarctica for the past thirty years.
Define noise versus trend & be sure to apply the same rule to all the evidence, including all your previously argued positions. You can be sure I will hold you to it in future. Is five years noise or trend? Does this apply to all the positions you take? What about thirty years as in the Antarctic ice increase period. Noise?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTHE "CARLYLE CLIMATE IDIOT OR NOT" CHALLENGE
Carlyle posts quantities of comments on climate science. Typical for him is his comment nr 78:
"Repeatedly I have stated that the AVERAGE ARCTIC ice extent over the past five years is up."
And he claims that proof of his claims can be found at http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Now, I believe that he is incapable of understanding climate science in general and AGW in particular and seen the tone and content of his other comments, that he is dishonest, incapable of reasoned thought and a coward.
I have therefore issued a challenge.
Should the above site back his claims, I will publicly apologize for having called him an ignominious, ignorant and illiterate twat and will in the future abstain from reacting to his climate science comments.
Whereas, should his statements be proved wrong by that same site, I shall consider him officially proved to be an ignorant, stupid, dishonest and cowardly AGW denial propagandist.
So let's see what his site has to say on arctic ice extension.
"On March 18, 2012 Arctic sea ice likely reached its maximum extent for the year, at 15.24 million square kilometers (5.88 million square miles). The maximum extent was 614,000 square kilometers (237,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average of 15.86 million square kilometers (6.12 million square miles)."
A first indication that arctic ice is NOT extending because the 2012 maximum is substantially below the average maximum for the 1979 to 2000 period.
"This year’s maximum ice extent was the ninth lowest in the satellite record"
Hard to see how that helps to increase the yearly average. Starts to look bad for Carlyle.
"Last year, 2011, was the lowest maximum on record, 14.64 million square kilometers (5.65 million square miles). Including this year, the nine years from 2004 to 2012 are the nine lowest maximums in the satellite record."
This means that contrary to Carlyle's near-daily comments, the last nine years including this year have the LOWEST yearly maximums in satellite records. IOW the last nine years' average is the lowest in modern history. How that proves Carlyle's repeated claim that the average arctic ice extent over the past five years is UP seems then beyond any logic.
But it gets worse for Carlyle.
"CARLYLE CLIMATE IDIOT CHALLENGE ctd (2):
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Arctic sea ice extent in February 2012 averaged 14.56 million square kilometers (5.62 million square miles). This is the fifth-lowest February ice extent in the 1979 to 2012 satellite data record, 1.06 million square kilometers (409,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average extent."
Contrary to him pretending that this year's arctic ice extent is higher than whatever, fact is that the 2012 arctic ice extent is one of the lowest ever. And the site even tells us the exact surface that is missing. Looks like Carlyle has problems understanding even the most obvious.
"CARLYLE CLIMATE IDIOT CHALLENGE" ctd (3):
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The overall low ice extent for the month stemmed mostly from the low ice extent in the Barents Sea: the extensive ice in the Bering Sea was not enough to compensate."
Overall then, no matter how you look at it, even if some areas had quite a lot of ice, there simply wasn't enough around to lift the average or even come close to former coverage.
"On average, the Barents Sea has 865,000 square kilometers (334,000 square miles) of ice for the month of February."
Meaning that if one considers the whole of modern recorded ice history, this is the surface that should exist in February.
" This year there were only 401,000 square kilometers (155,000 square miles) of ice in that region, the lowest recorded in the satellite data record."
Unfortunately, NSIDC, Carlyle's witness of choice, lets him down again. It's the LOWEST record in modern history.
This starts to sound seriously as if Carlyle got it all wrong. In fact it looks like the exact contrary of what he says.
But maybe I missed something.
"Arctic sea ice extent for February 2012 was the fifth lowest in the satellite record."
Oops. No trace of ice up. No, I did not miss anything. How could Carlyle then have missed it, he, the self-styled brain of true climate science theory?
"Including the year 2012, the linear rate of decline for February ice extent over the satellite record is 3.0% per decade. Based on the satellite record, through 2003, average February ice extent had never been lower than 15 million square kilometers (5.79 million square miles). February ice extent has not exceeded that mark eight out of the nine years since 2003."
Yo, Carlyle, what does it mean when the records show that the last eight Februaries have not reached the average that was valid until 2003? Doesn't that sound suspiciously like the average of the last eight years are NOT UP, but in fact DOWN?
So he lives Down Under. But he surely won't use that as excuse why he sees scientific evidence upside down? Or would he? Don't put it past him, he doesn't seem to mind covering himself permanently in ridicule as we know.
"CARLYLE CLIMATE IDIOT CHALLENGE" ctd (4):
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut, here's his last chance, maybe Carlyle is sooo clever and his wonderbrain compensated by taking arctic ice THICKNESS into account. Maybe he figured that if one sliced arctice ice horizontally and laid it out side by side, that this would somehow add up to more surface?
Unfortunately, even three-dimensional arctic ice is not what it used to be. Ice thickness has been decreasing by a hefty percentage since the 1970s.
Ah, I hear him screan, and who says that? Check it here: http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil/
Be warned though. When visiting this US army site you may want to keep in mind Carlyle's categorical imperative that all such sites as do not agree with Carlyle's interpretation of climate science evidence are by definition communist profit-horny tree-hugger activists.
In conclusion:
No matter how he cheats and lies and distorts and tweaks, the site that Carlyle gave as witness to his recurring ad nauseam comments that the arctic ice is constantly up clearly indicates the contrary, that the arctic ice is constantly going DOWN.
And it's not even as if this was hidden behind some nebulous vocabulary or strange formulas, even the graphics on the site illustrate clearly what the site says.
What are the possibilities then that Carlyle made a simple mistake? These possibilities are zero. He has been making the claim that arctic ice has constantly extended for as long as I can remember, he was told many times to re-check his erroneous claims and he came back, more categorical than ever. He maintained his claim in the face of all evidence.
In short, contrary to what he preaches, fact is that arctic ice has been shrinking substantially in the last nine years.
So that on this day I can categorically affirm that you, Carlyle, the archetypical climate change denier, a proper representative of all climate change deniers, are an ignorant, stupid and dishonest AGW denial propagandist who has no respect for scientific evidence and is too stupid to even understand the evidence you yourself offer as proof of your stupid claims.
"CARLYLE CLIMATE IDIOT CHALLENGE" ctd (5):
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are a self-proven scientific idiot incapable of facing the truth. AGW is humanity's biggest problem, it is happening and you are one of those idiots who make it all worse.
You are a climate criminal.
This concludes the challenge.
---
Personal message: find it hard to start afresh? Start with basics. For example you could get into sea cucumbers. I don't mean this lightly. Sea cucumbers are a good intro into the basics of understanding how human pollution is killing our environment.
Here, from a place near you
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/01/sea-cucumber-poo-helps-fight-climate-change/
And seriously, shut up about arctic ice from now on. In fact, shut up about climate science at all until you at least understand the basics of what's going on in your own place through an example that should be within the reach of your present knowledge.
Until then, good luck
jc tyler
your friendly warmist
and to all my warmist friends:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/01/sea-cucumber-poo-helps-fight-climate-change/
Perfect metaphor illustrating how all that denier s..t actually supports AGW if one knows how to use it.
Has it bothered you at all that you have repeatedly made a fool of yourself over this issue. All along I have been talking about the upward average Arctic Ice extent over the past five years. Not the absolute minimum or maximum. AVERAGE. Also I have not claimed that the average ice extent over all is up. Of cource it is not. It has been declining since the last Ice Age. I have not been claiming the average is up since 1979 to the present or that it has exceeded the average from 1979 to 2000.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am merely pointing out that over the past five years the average trend has been up. Got it?
From NSIDC:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Last year, 2011, was the lowest maximum on record, 14.64 million square kilometers (5.65 million square miles). Including this year, the nine years from 2004 to 2012 are the nine lowest maximums in the satellite record."
and
"February ice extent has not exceeded that mark eight out of the nine years since 2003."
Meaning eight out of nine years since 2003 arctic ice extent has been below the average up to 2003. The extent has also not risen in that period or it would have equalled or exceeded the average up to 2003.
From carlyle:
"All along I have been talking about the upward average Arctic Ice extent over the past five years."
This is pure bullshit. You can lie and twist the truth anyway you want, the arctic ice extent average over the past five years from nearly year to year has been DOWN.
How did I know you would not accept the NSIDC facts and come back with some incredible idiocy? Can't face the evidence of what you are?
As a result of the challenge I can tell you what you are, you are an idiot incapable of basic logic and too dishonest to face the truth. And you know perfectly well why you didn't accept the challenge, a turkey is a genius compared to you.
But to give credit where credit is due, you are a true representative of every climate change denier (not sceptic) I ever encountered.
... and a salute from the Aussie at the helm: you are a disgrace to the nation, you give even dates a bad name so rack off, you dill!
Idiot:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfrom my source:
http://www.thearcticinstitute.org/p/arctic-sea-ice-extent-and-volume.html
"The maximum sea ice extent for the years 2007-2011, which usually occurs in March, is around 20 percent below the 1979-1990 average. ... The decline of sea ice volume has been even more prominent than the decline of ice extent."
And since March 2012 has been below the previous five years' average, this means not in a single of the last five years has arctic ice extension or volume shown any sign of going up, much less of even approaching previous averages.
You are a dishonest idiot of despicable proportions, a pathetic liar and cheater. End of story.
As your maths teacher to explain average to you. Get help.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisto carlyle, certified idiot:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Ask your maths teacher to explain average to you"
here's what she replied:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png
get help, idiot.
news about the idiot's church:
"Heartland’s two favourite projects are denying the science of climate change and arguing that tobacco is really not all that bad for you" (desmoblog)
and where the idiot learned his trade and gets his paycheck from:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/02/15/breaking-news-a-look-behind-the-curtain-of-the-heartland-institutes-climate-change-spin/
and what the tree-hugging communists from Forbes have to say about the idiot's church:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevezwick/2012/02/16/what-happened-at-heartland/
Carlyle = certified Idiot!
To get the average ice extent, each days extent is recorded. If the period is for one year, at the end of the year the total of all the measurements is added up & is then divided by 365 to give the daily average or by the number of days in a particular month is divided into that months total to get that months average. The record highs & lows have limited bearing on the average figure. All the middle days are just as important & it is the average figure that scientists are most interested in. I have made my claim of an average increase over the past five years. The nine year or thirty year or three thousand year trend has nothing to do with the past five year trend up to the present that I have consistently been referring to. Why not ask some of your warmist friends. Obviously Trent1492 from post #101 understands. That is why he talks of difference between noise and trend in his post. My response was #104.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is not my fault if you enter a debate & are unable to grasp simple propositions. Your repeated abuse adds nothing to your arguments. I should not have responded to your poor breeding. We do not get to choose our parents.
"Some areas may be rendered uninhabitable by changing patterns of extreme weather... which identifies small island states and large coastal cities threatened by sea level rise ... at risk of future flooding, along with Kolkata, India; Dhaka, Bangladesh; Guangzhou and Shanghai, China; Bangkok; Rangoon, Myanmar; Miami; and Ho Chi Minh City and Hai Phòng, Vietnam."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIPCC predicts a two feet rise in sea level by 2100. In most coastal areas, the sea rises 2.5 feet twice a day during high tide. If a coastal city is over two feet above sea level, it may escape future flooding. Or build a two-feet dike to prevent flooding.
Holland is 22 feet below sea level. It's far from being uninhabitable. It's inhabited by 6.1 million people. Instead of the sea taking over the land, the Dutch literally drained the North Sea creating land twice larger than Singapore out of the sea. There's an old Dutch saying: God created the world, the Dutch made Holland.
The Arctic Ice Institute is not a credible organisation. The claim that: And since March 2012 has been below the previous five years' average, Is so patently false it is laughable. Look at the graphs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA beautiful country it is too. Wonderful industrious people. Many Dutch families emigrated to Australia after the war & they & their families have made extemporary citizens.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes a beautiful country and very tolerant. Cannabis is legal, where else can you order "space cake" in a coffee shop? Another new Dutch saying: good girls go to heaven, bad girls go to Amsterdam LOL
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"To get the average ice extent, each days extent is recorded"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow do you think this graph was obtained?
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png
The averages were calculated exactly as you describe, the mean was found to be below the average of previous years, then these years were found to be below the average of previous periods etc. This graph is the result.
Not to understand that proves you are either thick or dishonest in the face of the evidence.
I think you are both.
---
The survival of the Netherlands depends on living with the evidence. There you would be laughed out of every conversation. You would be a social pariah because your opinion would be life-threatening. They are extremely aware of climate change. They are anything but AGW deniers. People like you are considered a threat to the nation.
---
About the challenge:
We warmists usually play by the rules, we're polite, we try to be objective and use evidence and if that doesn't work, we leave the field to the others.
You deniers resort to name-calling, lies, distorted evidence and brain-washing tactics from the advertising industry.
I've said for years that we make it too easy for the deniers and that this plays in their favour when people undecided on the issue fall for your advertising techniques.
But when confronting bullies one needs to make a stand from time to time to show where the limits are else one becomes a victim of brutality and stupidity.
So I decided to use your own tactics, from name-calling to repetitive posting, to fight. The only difference would be that instead of using my approach and my opinions backed by climate science evidence I would use your approach and your opinions and your evidence. (for an illustration of the strategy see "Rumble in the Jungle"; except that Mr Foreman plays by the rules and is a gentleman.)
And so I did exactly that. I used YOUR statements and YOUR evidence and it turned out that YOUR evidence said the contrary of YOUR statements.
The whistle blew, the game was over, you had lost.
But you keep averting the result. Now you want to teach me about averages. Which is the exact thing on which the evidence is based that you used and which proved you wrong. Latest by now any person with a minimum of brain would admit to have been at least somewhat wrong and change position somewhat. You keep your position.
You are either extremely stupid or paid to hold your position.
IMPO, I think you're both, stupid and paid.
I have no respect whatsoever for you. You cease to exist now.
One trip I took nearly a full day just to get out of the bar at Schiphol :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI love the smell of cigar smoke as you walk down the cobbled streets of Amsterdam. At least I think it is cigar smoke.
For goodness sake. Take a look at your graph. See the dip between 2000 & 2010? Now draw a line from the bottom of that dip which was 2007 through to the present or latest dip which was the low point this year. Which way is your line going now? For the umpteenth time, the Ice Extent has increased during the last five years. It is even further ahead than when I first posted. It is now 1 million square kilometres ahead of the same date in 2007. Average ice extent is in fact about 10% ahead of where it was in 2007. Your maths teacher has a lot to answer for.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou do not draw the line from low to low actually. Your line still has to take the average between the highs & lows. Your maths teacher should be able to show you how to do it. Apology accepted by the way:)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am still not sure if I have explained it adequately. You can not use a graph line for a period of thirty years to show the trend over a five year period. You must draw your graph for that five year period only.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(This comment is not posted in reply to the original poster X who is known to avoid facing or diverting by any means from the errors in his statements but for the sole benefit of those who take these things seriously.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisX original comment:
"Repeatedly I have stated that the AVERAGE ARCTIC ice extent over the past five years is up"
antecedents:
2002 - 5.96
2003 - 6.15
2004 - 6.04
2005 - 5.57
2006 - 5.89
___________
avg. - 5.92
past five years:
2007 - 4.28
2008 - 4.67
2009 - 5.36
2010 - 4.90
2011 - 4.61
___________
avg. - 4.76
between 2007 and 2011, three years were below this period's average where the average was upped solely by an atypical peak in 2009. The period itself was substantially below the average of the previous five-year period.
And while 2012 was slightly above the 2011 this is not evidence of a trend reversal, especially since the latest figures put 2012 as the ninth lowest on record.
One could now argue that the commenter may have meant that each year's average arctic ice extent is up compared to the previous year within that five year period. And while this is true for the two years in that period when arctic ice was recovering from all-time lows until the atypical 2009 peak, it is unquestionable that since this 2009 peak arctic ice extent has significantly shrunk again.
This resulted in the winter 2011/12 being the ninth lowest in satellite record history.
Overall, the period from 2003 to 2012 holds the nine lowest maximums in the satellite record, the last five years being obviously amongst them.
Or did the commenter mean by "the average arctic ice extent over the past five years is up" that it is up COMPARED TO THE PREVIOUS FIVE YEAR PERIOD?
Since the average for the last five years is 4.76 and the average for the previous five years is 5.92, it is obvious that the last five years are substantially below the previous five years.
So either way one looks at, three of the last five years were significantly below that period's average, and the average of the last five years was significantly below the average of the previous five year period.
The above quote is then wrong regardless of how one interprets it and to then still stick to it is beyond imagination.
Unless one is paid to maintain that position in the face of any and all evidence in application of the "repetitive advertising" technique as used and paid for by certain anti-AGW groups in the service of corporate polluter interests.
---
A rose is a rose is a rose...
UNDERSTANDING CLIMATE AVERAGES AND GRAPHICS
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe will use the example provided by X:
"You can not use a graph line for a period of thirty years to show the trend over a five year period. You must draw your graph for that five year period only."
Let's look at this graphic here
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png
representing each year's average (not each year's maximum as maxima are not necessarily indicative of averages)(although in this case the illustration would look slightly different but still in essence be the same).
As requested by X we will only retain the last five years 2008 - 2009 - 2010 - 2011 - 2012, including as you notice the latest provisional 2012 figures which are all to the requester's advantage.
Now add the numbers for these five years and divide by five. Draw a straight line representing this average. Now place the five years above or below this line according to their year's average. This indicates whether the majority of the years were below or above average.
For a more simpler approach, one favoured by X, simply look at the graph and notice where each year's average is relative to the preceding and the following year and you will notice that only 2012 is up, all other years are down from 2008 on.
Of course it would be very stupid to pretend that if the latest year of five was going up when the other four were going down, that the last year in the range would represent a trend. Which is why you will never hear a climate scientist or an arctic ice expert or in fact anyone with a minimum of common sense say that arctic ice is extending only because 2012 was the first year since 2008 that there was again a bit more ice instead of less.
The graphic itself is nothing but the actual numbers transposed into an illustration.
This should definitely and beyond any doubt conclude any discussion on the extension of arctic ice, regardless of what any paid AGW denier may post here repetitively on orders from the organisation he works for.
And to finish in beauty:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom X, AGW denier, about his own explanations:
"I am still not sure if I have explained it adequately."
Posting stupidity after stupidity and then getting lost in his own rubbish?
Yep, couldn't have put it better myself!
- ROFLAO -
I have only been posting about the past five years. On your figures I am right. You insist on comparing it to other periods. I have consistently been claiming there has been an increase from 2007. Your figures show every year since 2007 has been higher than 2007. How can that not be an upward trend from 2007?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thispast five years:
2007 - 4.28
2008 - 4.67
2009 - 5.36
2010 - 4.90
2011 - 4.61
talks AVERAGE ARCTIC ice extent but
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdoesn't know how trend lines work
doesn't read properly
doesn't think properly
gets lost in his own rubbish
who is it?
that's right, the typing amoeba from down under
making a buck with climate denial while he can
pretends that sea levels sink cos his brain is dry
and that arctic ice is rising cos his balls are frozen
it's super carlee, saving the world from climate commies,
the dumb dill from down under seeing the world upside down
go get'em, boy, you're doing great,
AGW needs you, don't let us down!
With love from Haarlem, yours truly
jaycee
(to the tune of "I am the walrus")
Dr.,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSmall point.
As I understand Dutch law, cannabis is not legal. The police simply don't prosecute people for using/selling. Minor point I know, but I thought it was interesting.
They have tightened the regulations lately to exclude non residents too I believe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA wonderful place to visit. I love the cheerful vigour of the place & though I am not a culture buff, it is wonderful to actually be able to see the paintings of the old Dutch masters.
"I have only been posting about the past five years...blablablabla...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thispast five years:
2007 - 4.28
2008 - 4.67
2009 - 5.36
2010 - 4.90
2011 - 4.61"
2007 -> 2008 = up
2008 -> 2009 = up
2009 -> 2010 = down
2010 -> 2011 = down
trends... quantities... (ice) thickness...
You totally misrepresented the information you posted about the ice extent. You stated that the figures you posted represented the average ice extent. I took you at your word & did not think about the figures you posted. Now I realise that the figures you posted are all for the annual minimum months only. Not annual average at all. What a miserable cheating grub you are. Even with your cheating, every minimum average since 2007 has been higher than 2007. Everyone who has followed these posts will not only know what an abusive grub you are but what a liar you are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGuess who wrote this?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I had the cryosphere site in the favourites folder"
Guess where I got my data from?
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html
So much for that bit.
But true to his usual climate science denial cheating self, chickenshit again disagrees with the scientific data because they still do not fit his rubbish.
What will he say next?
"I (chickenshit) realise that the figures you posted are all for the annual minimum months only. Not annual average at all."
Ah, but dear chickenshit had immediately refused the annual averages because they blatantly contradicted him. Then I posted the annual maxima and he didn't agree with that either for the same reason.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png
And so I used the annual lowest which are closest to his rubbish but still contradicting him and chickenshit doesn't like that either???
Ok then for max averages again (more favourable still to him than annual averages).
We're in April and March is always any year's maximum extent so the last five years are then 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012.
Assuming chickenshit can count five years back we see that:
2008 is down
2009 is down
2010 is down
2011 is down
2012 is up
Ah yes, 2012 march extension is up (even if it is the ninth lowest extension in modern history)... so one single year is up and chickenshit concludes to an UP trend?
In other words, I can post the last five, ten, twenty year annual averages or low September averages or maximum March averages, and regardless of how any normal person looks at the figures, and except for the one or other year, the trend will be down.
And yet chickenshit will always claim I did something wrong again.
Wanna bet: the next thing he will demand is that I accept his definition of a trend by looking at each year separately and only taking into account the evolution between September and March and not be allowed to compare years and only conclude that every year ice is lowest in September and highest in March and that this proves that arctic ice extent is growing, that sea cucumbers have a complex brain, that earth is rather flat and that the moon is made of cheese.
I thought about this long and hard. He can't have that many feet. And I finally figured out how he does it.
He shoots himself into every toe separately. Yep.
But why? Well, a) he loves the pain - b) he's paid for it.
Best of all worlds then: to be a masochist and be paid for the pain of being now being universally known as the chickenshit sea cucumber from the rubbish tipp.
By request from chickenshit who refuses annual and lowest averages, here again then
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMarch maxima
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png
But why always use NSIDC data who according to chickenshit are bear-hugging, polar-tree saving UScommunistarmy-look-alike greedy warmists anyway?
So let's look at other sources and other months:
http://unchartedterritory.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/20110906_figure3-annual-aug-1979-2011.png
shoot, must be refused as not compliant with chickenshit claim
or this one:
http://climaticidechronicles.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/sea-ice-graph.png
What? Not supporting chickenshit either?
You know what I think? This is all proof that the whole science world has united against chickenshit to cover up the truth, and the truth is:
"Brad Rodu, a professor of medicine at the University of Louisville and senior fellow of The Heartland Institute, disagrees with this premise. Writing in the Cincinnati Inquirer, he noted, “Nicotine, like caffeine, is addictive but otherwise relatively harmless. Nicotine’s benefits include improved concentration, enhanced performance of some tasks, and elevated mood. Tobacco smoke, however, containing thousands of toxic agents, is a dangerous nicotine delivery system, conferring risks for cancer, cardiovascular disease and emphysema. Eliminate the smoke, and you eliminate virtually all the risks.”
Sorry, that was Heartland's point of view on cigarettes and lung cancer. Still, this character is Senior Fellow at the Heartland Institute? No wonder the US education level is in free fall but then, if it comes from the church of climate denial, the paymaster of professional chickenshit distribution, it must be true.
Chickenshit, RIP!
want to see the difference between climate change skeptics and climate change deniers?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=1038
want to see an expert at work?
http://www.polarfield.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/2006_seaice_polarbear.jpg
want to see chickenshit at work?
http://84percent.blogspot.com/2011/05/you-coward-chicken-shit.html
chickenshit at work = 3d pic down
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisto avoid that counting down may be construed by sensitive souls as alluding unfairly to the arctic ice extension trend:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://img821.imageshack.us/img821/7761/kipstront.jpg
"It is wonderful to actually be able to see the paintings of the old Dutch masters."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow, something we actually agree on.
Jeesh, enough already. While you were looking up links for 'chickensh*t', you should also have looked up 'nutjob', probably pictured in the mirror over your bed. Now, how about some civility?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe chickenshit pic was to be my last comment here but since you insist:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've read denier garbage for years and decided this time I had enough and that I would run an experiment I've wanted to do for a long time, use every denier technique to hit back.
I beat him with his own statements, he'd be back with new claims, I'd beat those, he'd be back again, refusing the evidence regardless of how solid.
The reason is, he is paid to post that garbage and uses the hammering technique, repeat something long enough someone is bound to believe it. It's proven to work and there is by coïncidence an excellent article on how this works in this week's Nature.
It's about political influence. The more people believe the denier, the more chances a denier politician is elected. It explains creationism and politicians supporting that idiocy. Everybody finds excuses for the bullies (deniers) but the victims (environment) are neglected.
I wanted to prove a point, I have.
So, where were you when it became apparent that this particular denier came back every time with the same wrong claims and never accepted the evidence? You didn't say a word. So I pushed it, nobody said a word. One person did, and I thank him, but everybody else let the denier get away with it. And warmists wonder why the public doesn't believe them? They don't even stand up for their own?
THEY ARE GUILTY BY SILENCE.
If would have looked very different if a few people would have helped. I would not have had to push it all the way although I don't mind as it allowed me to prove even more of the same.
As little respect I have for deniers, especially paid ones, and their lies, as little respect I have for warmists who believe that "thinking the right thing" is enough to save the environment.
Scientists are as responsible for the state of the environment and the snail pace of fighting AGW than the deniers.
The public is slowly understanding AGW, not because the scientists do a good job, but simply because reality starts to him them in the face.
And how does this look now for an undecided coming here? The warmist is attacked by the denier, is not supported by anyone else and is finally stabbed by a "postman" and nobody says a word? What's that look to you? It looks as if the denier is silently supported and the warmist is the idiot?
I don't know where you stand but by your comment alone you put yourself into the denier camp.
You shut up all along, now that it's over, why don't you keep that up?
correction:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thispropaganda techniques as used by climate denier organizations were not in these week's Nature but here:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=misinformation-government-campaign-iranian-physicist-assassination
---
Paid climate change deniers count on climate change supporters to eventually stop contradicting them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_frequency
---
My perfectly condensed opinion of paid climate change deniers:
http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/7761/kipstront.jpg
One image says more than a thousand words.
---
Time needed to reply to yet another denier comment: up to 20 minutes.
Time needed to find this image, check if there is a copyright, upload it and insert it into comment: 4 minutes.
Time at my disposal: middle watch = 4 hours = nothing else to do.
Is it worth it? I think the environment deserves all the help it can get.
---
You don't want to help, fine, stay silent. Only don't come crying in a few years when it will also hit in YOUR neighborhood.
Or when your research funds are cut to please some creationist politician.
postman1:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow I see why you defend the other denier without ever mentioning his wrong claims.
I thought I had seen your nick somewhere in this thread:
-> comment 31 <-
As impartial, dishonest, devoid of cognitive power as the denier you are defending because
YOU ARE A DENIER YOURSELF.
No wonder you feel targeted by the chickenshit image.
You are.
---
About your refusal to understand sea levels:
http://www.noaa.gov/features/climate/sealevelchanges.html
but then, as your chickenshit friend says: NOAA? just another communist, amateur seamen, money-horny self-serving rip-off.
Get lost, chickenshit II.
Unlike you, sir nutjob, I have a life and don't spend my days sitting in the basement, staring at the computer screen, and typing out vitriolic nonsense. But I guess you figured that out, maybe. Also while I doubt anyone is 'paid' to comment on this silly blog, it would seem much more logical that the paid commentors would be on the warmist side. They are used to being paid nicely, by way of grants and exorbitant university salaries, and so would expect such for their comments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would suspect you of being a paid warmist troll, but would suspect they would at least pay someone a little less uncouth. Perhaps sault. He may also be a warmist nut and insist on using caps, but he does it with considerably more class than you do. Once in a while, I actually agree with something he posts. You, on the other hand are just obnoxious. Good day.
"Unlike you, sir nutjob, I have a life and don't spend my days sitting in the basement, staring at the computer screen, and typing out vitriolic nonsense."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyeah, yeah
http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/7761/kipstront.jpg
CS II:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisby the way I touch type - a whole page of text takes only a few minutes - thinking of what to reply to denier nonsense is so easy takes less cos it's usually so idiotic I can think it up while I type - and vitriolic? yes! Normally this is your side's specialty, not used to it being used against you for once? A bit jealous maybe?
I do love the group photo of you and CS I though. Such depth of field.
I timed this one for your benefit: from hitting "reply" to ready to submit comment: 3 minutes and something. More or less what I think your comment is worth, and still only when I have nothing else to do and want some fun.
Yesterday Environment Canada announced that this winter's wildlife census shows polar bear numbers at a 35 year high.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot surprisingly it doesn't the Global warming agenda so not reported on Scientific aAmerican. In contrast, if numbers had declined it would have been more 'proof' of the imminent disaster.
The GW cultists cherry pick as needed.
"Yesterday Environment Canada announced that this winter's wildlife census shows polar bear numbers at a 35 year high."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thislink? source?
http://theworldweshare.com/wildlife/polar-bear-numbers-rise-in-canada/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood news then although I fail to see how the positive consequences of protecting polar bears are connected to AGW.
Unless the poster wants to say that we should protect the environment as we protect polar bears and that this would have the same positive effect on the environment as it has on polar bears? You may have a point there, geojellyroll (although I may err assuming that this is the point you wanted to make?)
Also, isn't there a lesson here for climate change deniers? Remember that those who ridiculed polar bear protection a few years ago are the same people who now ridicule AGW?
So if I understand correctly, those who laughed at polar bear protection are now using the consequences of polar bear protection to laugh at AGW?
Hm... why do I wonder if that is not what the poster wanted to say?
Polar bears are not protected in Canada Denai and Inuit can hunt and guide hunters.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut...none of this rise in polar bear population fits the GW cultists' doom and gloom agenda.
Let's see this from a different angle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince the US outlawed the importation of polar bear trophies a few years ago, correct me if I'm wrong, there has been less hunting which IMO is one if not the main reason of the population increase. To discuss the relative intelligence of that US legislation is off topic so no need to stray there. I personally believe the natives knew perfectly well how many to hunt and which ones.
What then is the connection between polar bear population and AGW? I'm afraid, none.
Re: your post #146:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for posting your baby pictures.
gotta hand it to you, your replies are as creative as your AGW comments
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this