loafer

Good news - Antarctic ice isn't melting after all - research has established that assumed higher sea temperatures are not there and therefore ice is not melting. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/25/antarctic_ice_not_melting/

The study does appear to completely ignore the balancing effect of the vegetation growing in the soil which would absorb the carbon dioxide, so it does seem rather incomplete.

You clearly have a different sense of humour to me, and view of what is acceptable practise.

Just in case, for the more gullible amongst you, arcticready is a spoof site. Activism is turning ugly on both sides of the argument. Science RIP.

given Climategate, shouldn't that read ... "...how science SHOULD be done."?

Not strictly a model (although models involved), it is worth revisiting the Met's April-June forecast... "The forecast for average UK rainfall slightly favours drier than average conditions for AprilMayJune as a whole, and also slightly favours April being the driest of the 3 months." http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/p/i/A3-layout-precip-AMJ.pdf

He put it well, for sure, but my question was more why you think it is acceptable or reasonable to allow subjective beliefs to bend or overrule objective science?

I don't understand this at all. I certainly agree that pure science has been (in my view wrongly) affected by religion, be it traditional religions or more modern "groupthink". Could you explain your views a little more so I can understand why you think this is sensible?

@WS - I have been trying to reply, but having tech issues - apologies for the delay. The article said "The researchers found that long-term warming resulted in loss of native species and encroachment of species typical of warmer environments, ultimately pushing the plant community toward less productive species." I assumed this meant that the transplanted species adapted and dominated the species which were originally at that altitude (i.e. "native species"). Your interpretation (which may well be right) is that the transplanted species ("native species") died away as they weren't adapted and species typical of that altitude already (i.e. already well adapted) came to re-dominate. I'm not sure which the article means...!

So plants react, then adapt. Is that particularly surprising?

@BFTV http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/ I haven't come across them before, have you?

I note they are all former employees of NASA although current ones may not be allowed to sign under their employment contracts. Nevertheless an interesting letter from an intersting bunch of people who are, literally, rocket scientists... Former NASA scientists, astronauts admonish agency on climate change position FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Blanquita Cullum 703-307-9510 bqview@mac.com Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency’s policy of ignoring empirical evidence HOUSTON, TX – April 10, 2012. 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question. The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance. H. Leighton Steward, chairman of the non-profit Plants Need CO2, noted that many of the former NASA scientists harbored doubts about the significance of the C02-climate change theory and have concerns over NASA’s advocacy on the issue. While making presentations in late 2011 to many of the signatories of the letter, Steward realized that the NASA scientists should make their concerns known to NASA and the GISS. “These American heroes – the astronauts that took to space and the scientists and engineers that put them there – are simply stating their concern over NASA’s extreme advocacy for an unproven theory,†said Leighton Steward. “There’s a concern that if it turns out that CO2 is not a major cause of climate change, NASA will have put the reputation of NASA, NASA’s current and former employees, and even the very reputation of science itself at risk of public ridicule and distrust.†Select excerpts from the letter: “The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.†“We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.†“We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.†The full text of the letter: March 28, 2012 The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr. NASA Administrator NASA Headquarters Washington, D.C. 20546-0001 Dear Charlie, We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled. The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements. As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself. For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you. Thank you for considering this request. Sincerely, (Attached signatures) CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change. /s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years /s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years /s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years /s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years /s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years /s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years /s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years /s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years /s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years /s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years /s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years /s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years /s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years /s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years /s/ Anita Gale /s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years /s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years /s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years /s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years /s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years /s/ Thomas J. Harmon /s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years /s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years /s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years /s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years /s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years /s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years /s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years /s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years /s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen /s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years /s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years /s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years /s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years /s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years /s/ Tom Ohesorge /s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years /s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years /s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years /s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years /s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years /s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years /s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years /s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years /s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years /s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years /s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years /s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years /s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years

On this forum, you are mainly right. In the wider world, I disagree strongly - there are whole swathes of the population and media that think the world is warming rapidly purely as a result of high CO2 concentrations.

I think that the paper is a step forward, in that it proposes that the existing models are not accurately reflecting real life, and that some relatively unstudied variables like aerosol forcing could be having a very significant effect which is ignored by those models. The contrast to "the science is settled" is welcome and helps to thwart climate fundamentalists of all kinds.

True. It's hard work being objective!

I agree with you, but by using the language you do, you have inadvertedly become part of the politicisation and therefore part of the problem.

I really hate the term "climate change deniers" which I don't think does anyone who has an interest in the climate any favours. The fact is that most people who question the models (how about "global warming sceptics"?) do not deny the climate changes, but they do not agree with the premise that it is man-made, nor that the dominant cause is CO2.

Because it confuses weather with climate. Climate change is only cited when warm events occur, not cold ones, fuelling scepticism.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328564.800-sinking-land-shows-east-antarctic-ice-sheet-is-stable.html "A new model suggests that prehistoric sea-level rise long thought to have been caused by the ice sheet melting was actually the result of local subsidence." "Global sea level could have been that high only if the East Antarctic ice sheet melted at the time, according to climate models. And that is odd: this ice sheet doesn't seem to have melted at any other point in its long history."

I'm a sceptic on all sources including WUWT and the environmentalist blogs so we are on the same wavelength. The only thing worth trusting is unadulterated data from a reliable independent source which is, unfortunately, all too rare.

The original source is the 1990 IPCC Report - page 224 - which says that data is available from 1972 and generally perceived to be reliable from 1975. Report here: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf I found it via a blog which referenced WUWT - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/18/sea-ice-news-volume-3-2/ I'm not a regular reader, but the submarine photo article below is fascinating (if a little paranoid in places!).

Some interesting noise on blogs asking why ice data from 1979 onwards is used when the data is available from 1972, pointing out that 1979 was the peak ice point. If true it does seem pretty cynical. As far as doom and gloom versus rainbows and butterflies, some people are glass half full and some are glass half empty. Personally I prefer the former, but that's just me...!

Lots of 'quotes', G-W...who are you quoting?

(PhysOrg.com) -- The ability of plants to absorb carbon dioxide emissions from human activity appears to be surprisingly robust as the climate warms, according to groundbreaking research. http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-03-mop-carbon-lab-conditions.html

Geothermally cracked hydrogen. Bacterial hydrocarbons. Amongst many other things.