loafer

And the significance of that is...?

I suppose you could validly argue that it was the high climate sensitivity models which were misleading and that the actual outcome has forced scientists to be more conservative, which ties rather neatly into the title of this thread, if not the intention of its original author.

Person A: The sea is acting as the heat sink, that is where all the warming that should be showing has gone. Person B: So how come the sea is freezing more in the Antarctic? Person A: Ah. Don't worry, a fresh theory will be along any day. Bear with.

Not quite...if you look at the notes below, this is a graphic showing when, over the next 150 years, they consider that enough CO2 will be "locked in" to the climate system to result in flooding in those cities at some undetermined point in the further future.Basically, it is a load of alarmist nonsense.

Translation: The previous paper where they told you they knew how it works was wrong. We don't have a Scooby* *Scooby-doo / clue

Your statement is completely compatible with mine.I am simply saying that creating a model which can hindcast with a high correlation with actual events does not mean you have created a model which can forecast accurately, which is what the article was trying to say.

That isn't particularly surprising, given the models will have been played with until their outputs match historic actuals closely.However, the problem with predictions is that they involve looking into the future, which is a bit harder, as we have seen and, as with stocks and shares, past performance is no indication of future performance.

No, because it entrenches and polarises opinion. It is pointless pointscoring.

Yes, that's right.

Antarctic Sea Ice Area is well above last year, it is just below 2010 (the record year). http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html Antarctic Sea Ice Extent anomaly is also second only to 2010. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/index.html

No, I don't. But they don't help in the slightest, either.

Is it any wonder there is antipathy between warmists and sceptics, when people employ stunts like this?

I think the idea is that it is a bit like going to someone elses house - you have to be on your best behaviour.

At the risk of annoying a mod, isn't your comment more appropriate in the Manmade Climate Change thread...? ;-) Only joking. I would love to move to sustainable energy sources. Indeed I spent most of my morning discussing the logistics required for the development of an offshore wind array and am actively supporting a major education initiative on the subject. But until technology comes through we have economic battles to fight and energy is required to win them. So before having a go at those looking to provide the energy we need, I want to know the answers to questions like why on earth can we not harness tidal power (far more sensible than wind) when the Victorians managed it? Or for that matter why on earth isn't Iceland wealthy by cracking water into hydrogen & oxygen using geothermal power and then shipping it? Perhaps there is something we might all agree on ... it would be perfect if 10% of fracking tax revenues was invested in green technology development, then we might sort Cold Fusion, Tidal Power etc alot quicker.

Oh - I didn't miss anything, then. That isn't giving them money, it is taking less money from them.

I must have missed this - what money are they giving the frackers?

As an atheist, I can see some surprising agreement here.

Yes, albit temperatures are similar/slightly lower than historical data for the same date, albeit the data is only available since 2009, so no really statistically significant conclusions can be reached. Interestingly, the lower altitude stations seem to be reporting some materially lower temperatures this year, although all that could change as the summer continues.

My post was directed at A Boy Named Sue. You will note that Knocker and I posted at exactly the same time. Apologies for any confusion...I find Knocker's posts as informative as everyone else does.

Go on, then. What are you waiting for?

This was posted on another forum I frequent, and seems dangerously logical... If you understand numbers you may want to do some calculations and research yourself. I suggest the following: 1) Find a 400,000 year long Vostok Ice Core temperature+CO2 graph. Study it carefully. Ask yourself why in the presence of high CO2 temperature suddenly drops, and why in low CO2 the temperature suddenly rises. Then think about the impossibility of that graph if CO2 were to drive temperature. 2) Do the Beers Lambert law calculation. CO2 is about 395ppm (up from 280ppm) and interacts with IR (infrared) about 5% as much as water vapour at 40,000 ppm. So the CO2 increase changes the absorption length by (40000 + 280 * 0.05) / (40000 + 395 * 0.05), or makes a difference of about 115 * 0.05 / (40000 + 280 * 0.05) = 5.75 /40014 = 0.0001436997051 or 0.014%. 3) Looking again at the absorption graphs of IR in water, think about the IR hitting 71% of the planet: water. IR is stopped by water, only the top 1mm will absorb the heat, which will promptly evaporate forming a layer of water vapour above the water. This is in a way far more of an 'IR mirror' than any CO2 in the troposphere or higher - so by AGW this should actually cause cooling because the bigger IR reflector has just been formed on the surface. The moral of this is that the oceans only get heated by visible light, not by IR so AGW can't heat up water. 4) Look for the tropospheric hotspot predicted by AGW. It isn't there, because AGW is wrong, the mechanism is wrong. 5) CO2 doesn't reflect IR downwards at the earth, the molecule re-radiates IR in a 360 degree spherical pattern, which means that CO2 is actually a better heat conductor than air, not an insulator. There are other scientific reasons why AGW must be false, but lastly think about the fact that we've had about 10% rise in CO2 while global mean temperatures (a meaningless statistical measurement BTW) stopped about 15-18 years ago. That alone falsifies the CO2 = heat theory, and there is no scientific explanation for it except for the obvious: the AGW theory is wrong and CO2 is irrelevant.

Your post doesn't make any sense.First you say that there has been record sea ice on each of the last 4 days, then that the anomaly falling over the last three days shows falling sea ice extent. Clearly the second of these two statements is false simply on a logical basis (I can win a record for todays date, even if my margin of winning is less than yesterday if the comparator is also increasing between the two days). Perhaps this graph is a better illustration, though; http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png

I think this is wrongly used by both sides of the arguement. On the "green" side "won't someone think of the poor polar bears" is used often, when in fact they are thriving, but ironically they are thriving by being driven towards food sources in urban areas by changing climate. So neither side is covered in glory, really...

Presumably referring to this; http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/the-real-ipcc-ar5-draft-bombshell-plus-a-poll/

It seems to me that, by separating the opposing parties like at an Australian disco, the mods are ensuring both sides get to put their point of view without being shouted down. Far from being censorship, I think this promotes free speech on both sides, even if the conversation can be a little fractured across threads.