NASA: 2013 Sea Ice Wrap Up

November 27, 2013

About these ads

193 Responses to “NASA: 2013 Sea Ice Wrap Up”

  1. markle2k Says:

    I must say, I’m less impressed with Dave’s reasoning and debating skills than I am with his Search Engine Optimization skills. All you have to do is put his wife’s *first* name and their town (and that’s all, no last name, no state, no county) into Google and up pops her smiling face in front of a sunrise on a yacht harbor ready to sell you North Carolina coastal real estate. I knew he was the NC20 guy, but didn’t realize he was that close to the real estate business. No wonder he feels such a need to dominate any post that addresses sea level rise.
    116 comments on a post with no text and a 24 second video with no narration. Overcompensate much?

    • greenman3610 Says:

      Upton Sinclair must be some kind of shirt tail relative:
      “‘It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

    • dumboldguy Says:

      M2K says, “I must say, I’m less impressed with Dave’s reasoning and debating skills than I am with his Search Engine Optimization skills”. I agree. Perhaps that’s because Dave seems to have virtually no scientific training that might have given him some insight into “reasoning” and the techniques of real “debate”.

      He instead has a BA in Systems Management and an MA in Computer Science, and has parlayed that into a business called “Geeks Alive! Computer Rescue”, which together with “Burton Systems Software” has two employees (Dave and his moonlighting real estate agent wife?). They appear to have some satisfied customers, including one who thinks Dave is also a good Christian—-Gott mit uns, und mit mein rechner mechaniker?.

      A visit to the NC-20 site shows that Dave is a member of the NC-20 BOD and is considered to be their top “science” advisor, along with the infamous John Droz, Jr., another denier troll who has no real “science” background either.

      Is Dave helping his wife and her cronies get rich selling real estate that will be under water before long? The developers have a lot of money tied up in that soon to be below sea-level property. I wonder how much Dave is compensated for his efforts? I suspect his computer has a meter attached (designed by Burton Software Systems and licensed to Trolls’R’Us) that keeps track—nice work if you can get it, and the royalties from T’R’U must be substantial.

      M2K finishes with “116 comments on a post with no text and a 24 second video with no narration. Overcompensate much?” I too was struck by Dave’s zeal on a thread that began with a rather benign video clip—yes, Dave IS overdoing it, and THE WORLD IS WATCHING! Will he ever notice?


      • I am opposed to googling participants. In practice it only is used for ad hominem arguments. This will be a better blog, and more attractive for someone like me, if you stick to the science.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          I agree 100% that “this would be a better blog if we stuck 100% to the science”.

          Unfortunately, there are are a few participants here (very, very few) who refuse to “stick to the science” and constantly inject misleading propaganda, politics, and outright scientific untruths into the discussion. daveburton is the unquestioned leader of that very small pack, and his behavior shows an arrogance and disdain for scientific truth that is monumental for a science site like this. As has been pointed out, this occurs only because of Peter’s forbearance. That does NOT mean that the rest of us have to sit still for the ongoing blizzard of egregious behavior that is Dave. He does not respond to arguments using science, he does not answer questions put to him—he just blithely continues to insult us and detract from our enjoyment of “Crock”.

          He posts links to his own “work” (such as it is), and to his website, and the blatant inadequacies of both invite closer examination. That is what has led us to find the unseemly connections to NC-20 and Joseph Droz. I would be more than glad to talk only “science” with Dave, but since he won’t do that, and keeps asking (actually begging) for scrutiny, I for one will provide it. There IS a place for ad hominem arguments—-as a last resort when someone is beyond redemption—they shoot dead horses, don’t they?

          I have held off on my other “discoveries” about Dave in an attempt to not “ad hominem” him, but will throw some out now. Do we recall Dave proudly saying “I’m the guy” and linking us to his “work” on recalculating the sea level rise conclusions in a particular paper?. I didn’t google much beyond discovering that the original paper was posted online on springer.link rather than in a mainstream journal, and that Dave’s “work” was appended as a mere comment to it. All of this over 18 months ago, and generating NO discussion in the science world that I can see beyond Dave’s alleged “private” discussion with one of the authors. Dave is not a springer.link endorser either. Dave claims he is an IPCC AR5 WG1 Expert Reviewer, and I would suspect that his “comment” on the original springer.link paper was the “paper” he used to apply for that status. That’s all one needs to become an expert reviewer, apparently—ONE “published” paper. It looks like Dave is “puffing himself up” a bit. Perhaps he will give us the details and straighten me out if I’m wrong?

          Yes, it would be nice to never see ad hominem attacks on Crock. Perhaps certain folks should start to behave in a way that doesn’t invite them?
          (And DO remember that Peter has stated it is his policy to allow free-wheeling and open discussion on Crock—that’s why Dave is even here—SkS would have banned him long ago. More importantly, Peter has said that the best defense against charlatans is to let them prove to the world exactly what they are. I agree with that, and regard it to be a civic duty to help them).

        • daveburton Says:

          I tend to agree, Stephen, but it is sometimes humorous. For instance, I’m looking forward to learning more about my “real estate agent wife.” What’s her name? Is she pretty?

    • daveburton Says:

      markle2k, welcome to the conversation. I can tell you are another liberal, though. As Will Rogers supposedly said (more or less), It’s not the things you don’t know that are the problem, it’s the things you know that aren’t so.

      But maybe you’d like to take a crack at the trivia question that seems to have stumped (or bored) everyone else here:

      Q: In which of the four seasons does Antarctic ice extent begin increasing each year?

      • dumboldguy Says:

        “ANOTHER LIBERAL”, you say? What does your assessment of M2K’s “politics” have to do with arctic sea ice decline (the topic of this thread)?

        Dave again shows us why he’s really here by injecting politics into the discussion. Will he reprise his performance in the classic “Poor old guy trying to make an honest living versus the vicious biker who wants him locked up” drama?

        Stay tuned, only Dave knows how much he wants to embarrass himself today—the rest of us can only watch in wonder.


      • daveburton said:
        “markle2k, welcome to the conversation. I can tell you are another liberal, though. ”

        Well, nobody’s perfect.

        !

        daveburton said:
        “But maybe you’d like to take a crack at the trivia question that seems to have stumped (or bored) everyone else here:

        Q: In which of the four seasons does Antarctic ice extent begin increasing each year?”

        Yes, it is boring.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          It sure is, Stephen…just reading it makes me…….so……s l e e e p y,
          …………………ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Excellent source. Certain folks won’t like it, though. Some of the data shows an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise, and we have been assured that is not possible by you-know-who.

      • daveburton Says:

        Do not mistake estimates of individual contributions to sea-level rise for statements about net sea-level rise. Quite a few different things contribute to sea-level trends, and the fact that there’s been no net acceleration in the rate of coastal sea-level rise does not necessarily mean that none of the various contributions have changed.

        Note, too, that different sources of sea-level rise have different effects. For instance, thermal expansion in the open ocean affects satellite altimetry, but it does not generally affect coastal sea-levels. Thermal expansion of the upper ocean causes local sea-level rise, where the water expands, but since gravity balances mass, rather than volume, if water at the bottom doesn’t expand then no lateral flows will result, and coastal sea-levels will be unaffected.

        Here’s an example of locally elevated sea-level, due to locally reduced density in the upper ocean.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          Dave does “internet standup” now, and his latest joke has no one rolling in the aisles. His “example of locally elevated sea level” is a photo of an iceberg! How droll!

          Actually, I find the rest of his comment to be far more entertaining. The Red Duchess might understand him, but I think she too would likely be stumped by his statement that:

          “Thermal expansion of the upper ocean causes local sea-level rise, where the water expands, but since gravity balances mass, rather than volume, if water at the bottom doesn’t expand then no lateral flows will result, and coastal sea-levels will be unaffected”

          All I can say to it is WOW—-it IS quite impressive in its wackiness!

          (and I do believe the source that Christopher provided spoke to measurements of global sea level rise, not “individual contributions”)

          • daveburton Says:

            Well, I obviously didn’t explain it well enough. Do you know any physicists, old guy? Ask him to explain it.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Actually, Dave, although I am not an actual practicing physicist, I do have considerable training in both the biological and physical sciences and have taught some introductory physics classes, so I don’t really have to seek out a physicist to get the impression that you are throwing horsepucky against the wall.

            My two degrees in science likely make me far better qualified to claim the title of “science advisor” to anyone or any group than do your degrees in computer science. That’s enough of whose **** is bigger, though. Let’s move on.

            Why don’t you try to explain it better? Perhaps you could give some links to info on reliable sites like Sea Monster or Skeptical Science? Even though you are not allowed to post there because of your terminal “denial crackpottery”, you can surely access them on a “read only” basis and find some good science to share with us.

          • daveburton Says:

            Envision a chunk of ice floating in a lake of liquid water. Part of the ice is above the waterline, but most is below. The volume of the ice below the waterline is exactly equal to the volume which would be occupied by the ice chunk’s mass of liquid lakewater.

            Melted or frozen, the ice chunk displaces the same amount of lakewater.

            The same thing is true with seawater, except that its salinity increases its density. So if you melt a freshwater iceberg, until the fresh liquid meltwater mixes with the surrounding salty seawater, there’ll be a “bump” of locally elevated water-level, due to the fresh water’s lower density.

            Thermosteric density changes exactly the same way. If thermal expansion causes a rise in the water level in the open ocean, it cannot affect sea-level elsewhere. In particular, it does not affect the coasts. If water in the upper layer of the ocean expands, it rises in place. and displaces exactly the same amount of surrounding (cooler, denser) seawater that it displaced before it expanded.

            If the upper layer of the ocean expands or contracts due to temperature changes, no net lateral flows result. The top surfaces just go up or down, with the mass of any chosen column of water unaffected.

            If you bring warm water into contact with cold water, you’ll end up with intermediate temperature water in the vicinity of the boundary, mostly due to fluid mixing, but also due to heat transfer. The top surface there will be of intermediate height, because the water is of intermediate temperature. But, even though there’s mixing, there’re no net horizontal flows: for every molecule of water that moves left, another moves right just as far. There’s no net horizontal movement of the water, because gravity acts upon the mass, not the volume, and changing the temperature/density of the water does not affect its mass.

            Think about this: unless you live near the equator, every springtime the ocean surface water in your hemisphere warms & expands, and the water in the other hemisphere cools and contracts. Right? And those temperature changes are far, far greater in magnitude than any plausible change due to global warming. Yet those big temperature changes cause no annual springtime flow of water away from your hemisphere and into the other. Do you understand why that is?

            If the temperature of the upper layer of the ocean changes, it will cause satellite-measured average sea-level to change due to thermally-driven density changes in the upper layer of the ocean, but those mid-ocean sea-level changes have negligible effect on coastal sea levels, as measured by tide gauges.

            That might seem surprising, but it is true.

            To understand how density changes in the upper ocean affect sea-level, remember Archimedes’ Principle, or consider the case of floating ice. The reason that an iceberg sticks up out of the ocean is that it has lower density than the liquid water in which it floats. The amount of water that it displaces depends only on its mass, not on its density or shape. (Note that the top surface of an iceberg is a locally elevated sea level!)

            When ice melts, there is no effect* on sea-level elsewhere because gravity balances mass, not volume. The same principle holds w/r/t all density changes in the upper layer of the ocean. That’s why displacement is expressed in units of mass or weight.

            Imagine an iceberg wrapped in a plastic bag (to prevent mixing, for simplicity). If it melts, its density increases, and the the exposed part that rises above the water sinks, but the volume of the iceberg below the surface does not change at all. If the iceberg in the plastic bag refreezes, it will rise up and protrude above the surface, but its displacement (the volume of seawater that it displaces) still will not change.

            Because the amount of seawater that it displaces is unaffected by changes in its density, when it freezes/expands or thaws/contracts, it causes no lateral water flows. Only the local elevation of its upper surface changes. It does not affect sea-level elsewhere.

            Note that it is only the density of the floating object which matters, not whether it is solid, liquid, or slush. Displacement is measured in units of mass, and it isn’t affected by changes in density or solidity or shape.

            The reason for that is that gravity balances mass, not volume. The same thing happens with density changes in liquid water. The upper layer of the ocean floats like an iceberg on top of the very cold water in the ocean depths, and there’s little mixing between them. When water in the upper layer of the ocean warms and expands, it rises up in place, like a very stubby iceberg. Gravity balances mass, not volume, so the thermal expansion causes no lateral water flows.

            The exception to that rule is for water at the bottom of the ocean. If it expands, it has an effect similar to raising the ocean floor, which does cause lateral flows. But, in reality, that doesn’t happen at all in the deep ocean, where temperatures are extremely stable.

            Almost all thermal expansion takes place in the upper layer of the ocean. Only a small portion of the ocean is shallow enough for warming to reach the water at the bottom and cause thermal expansion there. That means only a small portion of the ocean’s thermal expansion can cause lateral water flows and affect sea-level at the shorelines.

            Without substantial lateral flows of water, there can be no significant effect on the coasts. Of course, temperature changes do affect the density of water at the shore, but that doesn’t cause the shoreline to advance or retreat. When water warms it gets deeper where it warms, by a (small) percentage of its depth. A percentage of zero is zero, so at the beaches, where the depth is near zero, the rise is negligible. Were that not the case, beaches would be wider and the shoreline would be further out to sea in the winter (when the water is cold) than in the summer (when the water is warm).

            If this seems confusing, you might find it instructive to work through Chapter 11 (“Fluids”) here:
            http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Class/intro_physics_1_review/intro_physics_1_review.pdf

            Or, just find a physicist that you trust, print print out this “wacky” comment and the photo of “locally elevated sea level,” and ask the physicist to explain what I’m talking about.

  2. dumboldguy Says:

    Reply to daveburton 12/4 1:22 AM posted as a new comment to avoid vertical overstretch.

    daveburton, Crock’s own demented version of the Energizer Bunny, lurches into view, beating loudly on his “sea level rise drum” and falling over once again. He suggests that I find a physicist that I trust and ask the physicist to explain what Dave is talking about. Although physicists are human and would enjoy a good laugh over Dave’s “science”, I’m sure they have better things to do. I would instead suggest that Dave seek out a junior high school general science teacher and ask for a lesson on the concepts of Mass, Weight, Volume, Density, Gravity, and Archimedes Principle—-he appears confused.

    Yes, Dave does show us that he is working diligently towards his PHD degree (Piled Higher and Deeper) with his extensive discussion of thermosterics, halosterics, and iceberg melting-freezing dynamics, but he starts to wander off into never-never land with his talk of “bumps” in the ocean and his denial that those bumps will ever “even out”—-has he never heard that “water flows downhill”?. Will Dave provide us with some data about how “tall” those thermosteric and halosteric “bumps” are and what their extent is so that we can judge how “big” his argument is? I hope so, but until he does I would surmise that they are of even less significance than the 1 mm rise in sea level over the past 108 years due to ground water depletion.

    Dave seems blissfully unaware that the oceans are a liquid, and that they are in constant motion and “mixing” due to temperature and and salinity induced currents, the effects of wind, atmospheric pressure, and gravity (has he forgotten about tides?) There is no such thing as “sea level” on a global basis anyway—-we have many local “sea levels”—-“bumps” and “dips”, which when amalgamated, give us GLOBAL mean sea level. Dave is always harping on tidal gauge data and dissing satellite measurements, even though the satellites DO measure sea level globally while gauges are “local”. But of course Dave is a cherry picker and a “but, but, come over and look at this distraction” denier, as is shown by this comment:. “If the temperature of the upper layer of the ocean changes, it will cause satellite-measured average sea-level to change due to thermally-driven density changes in the upper layer of the ocean, but those mid-ocean sea-level changes have negligible effect on coastal sea levels, as measured by tide gauges”.

    Some of Dave’s factual error and logic fail gems listed below with brief comments in parens:

    “But, even though there’s mixing, there’s no net horizontal flows: for every molecule of water that moves left, another moves right just as far. There’s no net horizontal movement of the water, because gravity acts upon the mass, not the volume, and changing the temperature/density of the water does not affect its mass”. (Hmmmm. How does one achieve “mixing” without lateral flow? And Dave’s confusion over the mass-volume-density relationship is again apparent here).

    “The exception to that rule is for water at the bottom of the ocean. If it expands, it has an effect similar to raising the ocean floor, which does cause lateral flows. But, in reality, that doesn’t happen at all in the deep ocean, where temperatures are extremely stable” (And are there no worldwide “lateral flows” in the ocean deeps due to the thermohaline conveyor belt?).

    “(Note that the top surface of an iceberg is a locally elevated sea level!)” (Captioned as “locally elevated sea level due to THERMOSTERIC sea level rise”. Which is it, Dave? Thermosterics or Archimedes?)

    “Displacement is measured in units of mass, and it isn’t affected by changes in density….” (Really? Again, you need to rethink your use of density-mass-volume. Any junior high school science teacher can refresh your memory about Archimedes Principle. An object less dense than the liquid it rests in will float, one that is more dense than the liquid it rests in will sink, and the displacement of a floating object WILL change in direct relationship to its density relative to the liquid, not its mass. That’s why ships float higher when empty and lower when loaded).

    (And finally. This is my favorite bit of “Dave wackiness” here—it wins the Darwin Award for most creative removal of sanity from the discussion. OOH-Rah, Dave!)

    “When water warms it gets deeper where it warms, by a (small) percentage of its depth. A percentage of zero is zero, so at the beaches, where the depth is near zero, the rise is negligible. Were that not the case, beaches would be wider and the shoreline would be further out to sea in the winter (when the water is cold) than in the summer (when the water is warm)”. (Awesome!)

    • daveburton Says:

      Old guy, let’s start with a couple of dictionary definitions. First, displacement:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_(ship)

      Displacement is the actual weight of the ship, since a floating body displaces its own weight in water (Archimedes’ principle). Another way of thinking about displacement is the weight of the water that would spill out of a completely filled container were the ship placed into it.

      And then, in the context of “net lateral flows,” net:

      http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/net_2

      Thermosteric is a more esoteric term. You won’t find it in most dictionaries. But you can look it up by parts: “thermo” meaning from temperature, and “steric” meaning “relating to the arrangement of atoms or molecules.” Thermosteric change is the reason that warm water has greater volume and lower density than cool water, and the reason that ice has greater volume and lower density than liquid water.

      Then please just find a physicist that you trust, and ask him or her to explain this stuff to you. Or ask him to identify & explain the errors in what I’ve written for you, so that you can better demolish that Burton guy on-line.

      Or just go back to that beach you visited last summer, and notice that the frigid water level is no lower, and the beach no wider, now, in late Autumn, than the nice, warm water was last summer.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        Yet another NON-answer from Dave. He would define the word “net” for us? And he ignores his egregious error re: density-mass-volume-displacement and attempts to lecture us on that also? And tells us to look in the dictionary for things we learned 60 years ago? His attempts to seize the high ground through dismissal and condescension are quite transparent (and insulting). Too late, Dave—you’re at the bottom of a deep hole.

        Do you remember that you’re the guy who said it’s OK to admit one’s mistakes, Dave?. Why can';t you seem to do that? Why do you double down on losing bets?

        You’re going to have to do far more than look things up in a dictionary and attempt to distract us with that, Dave. I need no help from anyone to “better demolish” you—-actually, you do an outstanding job of that with every comment you make here. I merely point out what everyone else here sees as well—-they don’t care enough about you to try to help you, Dave. I do, and I’m your friend. Remember that it takes a true friend to tell you when you’re full of horsepucky.

        PS Should I visit that beach at high or low tide? Oooooops!—-I forgot that there is no lateral movement in sea water, so that was a dumb question.


  3. “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such trifling investment of facts.” Mark Twain
    Facts are hard things to argue with; therefore, I present some below.
    December 5, 2013
    Arctic Sea Ice Extent is Only 240,000 sq km ( 2% ) Below 1981-2010 Mean – and Higher than 1996 and 1998 too!
    Filed under: Arctic Sea Ice — sunshinehours1 @ 7:40 AM 
    Tags: Arctic Sea Ice, Arctic Sea Ice Extent
    Arctic Sea Ice Extent is Only 240,000 sq km Below 1981-2010 Mean.  Which is 2%. And now 2013 is higher than 2 years in the 1990s: 1996 and 1998.

    http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/12/05/arctic-sea-ice-extent-is-only-

    240000-sq-km-below-1981-2010-mean-and-higher-than-1996-and-1998-too/>
    Greenland ice sheet mass balance reconstruction. Part I: net snow accumulation (1600-2009)
    Journal of Climate 2012 ; e-View
    ”We find a 12% or 86 Gt y-1 increase in ice sheet accumulation rate from the end of the Little Ice Age in ~1840 to the last decade of the reconstruction. This 1840-1996 trend is 30% higher than that of 1600-2009, suggesting an accelerating accumulation rate. The correlation of Ât(G) with the average surface air temperature in the Northern.”

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00373.1

    ”Increased ice loading in the Antarctic Peninsula since the 1850s and its effect on Glacial Isostatic Adjustment
    Key Points
    Accumulation increase results in up to 45 m extra ice thickness over 155 years
    Model predicts GIA-related subsidence of up to 7 mm/yr which will affect GPS
    GRACE-derived rates of ice-mass change are biased low by ignoring this signal
    Antarctic Peninsula (AP) ice core records indicate significant accumulation increase since 1855, and any resultant ice mass increase has the potential to contribute substantially to present-day Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA). We derive empirical orthogonal functions from climate model output to infer typical spatial patterns of accumulation over the AP and, by combining with ice core records, estimate annual accumulation for the period 1855-2010. In response to this accumulation history, high resolution ice-sheet modeling predicts ice thickness increases of up to 45 m, with the greatest thickening in the northern and western AP. Whilst this thickening is predicted to affect GRACE estimates by no more than 6.2 Gt/yr, it may contribute up to -7 mm/yr to the present-day GIA uplift rate, depending on the chosen Earth model, with a strong east-west gradient across the AP. Its consideration is therefore critical to the interpretation of observed GPS velocities in the AP.”

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL052559.shtml

    It appears that most intelligent people are waking up to the truth; something that regrettably alarmist will never be able to do.
    “About as many (37%) say that dealing with global climate change should be a top priority, which has declined from 50% in 1997.”

    http://www.people-press.org/2013/12/03/section-3-long-range-foreign-policy-goals/

    • dumboldguy Says:

      JohnDouglasStoneHead lives up to his name and his denialist credentials with this collection of garbage. Why do denialists seem to think that posting links to any old thing that may have some limited relevance to the topic at hand is some kind of “proof” of anything? Is it just that it’s too easy for lazy people to flip through the Heartland Institute‘s Denialists Handbook and find something that looks good to motivated reasoners and they quit there?

      And this thread is about as dead as a dead horse can get—why does StoneHead insist on beating it some more at this late date?

      Let’s look at his not-so-carefully selected “evidence”

      http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/12/05/arctic-sea-ice-extent-is-only-

      A graph with many “lines”, including the pretty green, orange, purple, blue, yellow , and black ones that represent the last six years, 2006-2012, which are among the lowest on record. StoneHead ignores those, of course, because he wants to focus on the slight uptick we see for 2013 rather than face the “arctic sea ice death spiral” that seems to be occurring, which phenomenon is better seen when we look at arctic sea ice VOLUME rather than “extent”. But we’ve already had that discussion with other fools, so let’s move on.

      http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00373.1

      ”We find a 12% or 86 Gt y-1 increase in ice sheet accumulation rate from the end of the Little Ice Age in ~1840 to the last decade of the reconstruction. This 1840-1996 trend is 30% higher than that of 1600-2009, suggesting an accelerating accumulation rate. The correlation of Ât(G) with the average surface air temperature in the Northern.”.

      The “Northern” WHAT? (Sloppy copying—he missed “hemisphere”).
      And this means what? A carefully selected line from an abstract of a study that is part of the body of research leading us to the understanding that greater snow accumulation in the Antarctic is an effect of AGW. This is something that the denialist constantly misrepresent.

      http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL052559.shtml

      ”Increased ice loading in the Antarctic Peninsula….” , followed by a whole bunch of horsepucky. The Antarctic Peninsula? That little finger-looking thingy that sticks out from the main body of the continent and makes up perhaps 2% at most of its area? Yes, there is one square foot in the corner of my yard that seems to get deeper snow than the rest—should I extrapolate anything from that?

      http://www.people-press.org/2013/12/03/section-3-long-range-foreign-policy-goals/

      Stonehead finishes us off with “It appears that most intelligent people are waking up to the truth; something that regrettably alarmists will never be able to do”.
      He cherrypicks ONE number from a Pew Research Study (actually, the most significant point in that study was that Republicans were in a state of willful ignorance and denial about AGW). Yep, the Koch brothers-funded disinformation campaign was all too successful at misleading the masses—-that’s why this tidbit IS true—-“About as many (37%) say that dealing with global climate change should be a top priority, which has declined from 50% in 1997.”


      • Dumboldguy certainly lives up to his name; but should be referred to as *********with no facts. If the Dumboldguy has problems with my sources, Dumboldguy should be smart enough to take his differences up with the source and leave me out of it instead of trying to do what a Dumboldguy that has no facts or sources of his own would feel free to do and that is to kill the messenger.

        © 2013 American Meteorological Society Privacy Policy and Disclaimer 
         Headquarters: 45 Beacon Street Boston, MA 02108-3693 
        DC Office: 1120 G Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington DC, 20005-3826 
        amsinfo@ametsoc.org Phone: 617-227-2425 Fax: 617-742-8718 
        Allen Press, Inc. assists in the online publication of AMS journals

        http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00373.1>

        Citation: Nield, G. A. A., P. L. L. Whitehouse, M. A. A. King, P. J. J. Clarke, and M. J. J. Bentley (2012), Increased ice loading in the Antarctic Peninsula since the 1850s and its effect on Glacial Isostatic Adjustment,Geophys. Res. Lett., doi:10.1029/2012GL052559, in press.
        ‹ AGU Home | ‹ GRL Home | ‹ AGU Journals
        ©2013. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.

        http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL052559.shtml#content

        December 06, 2013 6:59 am
        “BRRRRRR! Bitter cold continues; Miles City breaks record with 28 below”
        “Bitter cold temperatures along with snow flurries will continue to grip the region, bringing some of the coldest weather in 15 years, the National Weather Service in Billings said on Friday.”[…] Know what, Dumboldguy, this is about the time that the “Hadley Centre Central England Temperature (HadCET) dataset” shows the earth’s temperature were falling, or didn’t you notice?
        The CET dataset is the longest instrumental record of temperature in the world. The mean, minimum and maximum datasets are updated monthly, with data for a month usually available by the 3rd of the next month. A provisional CET value for the current month is calculated on a daily basis. The mean daily data series begins in 1772 and the mean monthly data in 1659. Mean maximum and minimum daily and monthly data are also available, beginning in 1878.
        “The last time Billings got down to minus 20 degrees was in 1997.”
        […]
        “Miles City set a new record early Friday, reaching minus 28 degrees, he said. The old record for Dec. 6 was minus 27 degrees, set in 1972.”
        […]
        “Certainly this early cold could be somewhat of a harbinger of things to come,” he said.

        Here is another one for you to try to figure out but I’m sure that you have to enlist the assistance of a 5TH grade student ranked in the middle of his class to help to help you with this:
        Download a Quicktime animation of this dataset (4 MB)

        If you manage to get by the obstacles that you encounter to see this; please explain to everyone if this snow cover from Feb.,2000 to Sept. 2013 portrays an earth with a fever like an old guy like you wants sane people to believe?

        • dumboldguy Says:

          Tell me, folks. should we laugh or cry over The Stonehead’s latest effort.

          !) http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
          A link to temperature data since 1659 for a small triangle in the center of England? This proves WHAT about GLOBAL warming?

          2) http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/brrrrrr-bitter-cold-continues-miles-city-breaks-record-with-below/article_2725c52f-d952-5c42-a270-
          Yeah, it got cold enough in MT to freeze the balls off a brass monkey the other day.
          (By the way, we all DO know that saying is not a vulgarity, don’t we? Back in the days of John Paul Jones, cannon balls were stored for ready use on a “monkey”, a flat plate of brass with “pockets” for several cannon balls. In very cold weather, the brass would contract enough that the balls fell off, hence the term. Back on topic)
          The record high for Great Falls MT was 107°F on July 25, 1933, and that has no more relevance to AGW than the new record low Stonehead is salivating over. EXCEPT that it seems that the weakened (because of AGW) “jet stream” does “loop” more drastically, and that brings “slugs” of hot air north and cold air south with greater frequency. Of course, there is more hot air and less cold air due to AGW, and that’s why new highs outnumber new lows by 4 to 1.

          3) 620983341f3e.html http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/view.php?d1=MOD10C1_M_SNOW
          ??????????? An animated “snow cover” site? To show us that it snows in the “winter” and not in the “summer”? It might hold the attention of a 2-year-old for 30 seconds, but I don’t see what it offers to Crockers. Stonehead, care to tell us what is significant there?

          • daveburton Says:

            Old guy wrote, “…Back in the days of John Paul Jones, cannon balls were stored for ready use on a ‘monkey’, a flat plate of brass with ‘pockets’ for several cannon balls. In very cold weather, the brass would contract enough that the balls fell off, hence the term.”

            That’s another hoax, old guy, like Gleick’s Heartland forgery, the 97% climate consensus, the 2035 Himalayan glacier meltdown, the climate change Naegleria Fowleri link, Mann’s hockey stick, the drowning polar bears, etc.

            http://www.snopes.com/language/stories/brass.asp

            As usual, it’s not the things you don’t know that are the problem, it’s the things you know that aren’t so.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Thanks for a good laugh so early in the morning, Dave. You have nothing better to do than wander around trying to catch me on an irrelevancy? Yes, I suppose it IS expected that you would YET AGAIN attempt to divert the discussion away from important things (and also support a fellow wing-nut denier).

            The laugh comes from YOU accusing anyone of perpetrating a hoax, and the outrageous listing of what you see to be hoaxes. The hockey stick is a hoax? Freakin’ DROWNING POLAR BEARS? (How about the ones that appear to be starving to death?

            I have asked you more than once to respond to the “32,000 scientists signed the Petition” hoax that you keep spreading, as well as other questions, as have other commenters. Why do you never answer us but instead go skipping off like the Airy Fairy Gwendolyn into Denial Land. You are one of the major “hoaxers” on this site, Dave, and it is laughable to see you even use the word.

            (PS So it IS a vulgarity. But it is colorful and fun regardless.)

          • daveburton Says:

            The “tens of thousands of American scientists” who’ve signed the so-called “Oregon Petition” are no hoax, old guy. To date, 31,478 American scientists (including engineers in relevant disciplines) have signed the Global Warming Petition Project declaration, and smaller numbers have signed several other, similar petitions.

            The 31,478 who signed the Oregon Petition includes 9,029 with PhDs. All of those were real, physical signatures, not “internet petition” clicks, and the signers had to attest to the credentials which qualified them to sign.

            Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

            The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

            All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

            The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

            Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

            1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

            2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

            3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

            4. Chemistry includes 4,822 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

            5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,965 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

            6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

            7. Engineering and general science includes 10,102 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

            The petition they signed says:

            “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

            I’m one of 242 computer scientists who have signed. MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen is another signer. He predicts that:

            “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll back of the industrial age.”

          • dumboldguy Says:

            I will shovel through this pile of horsepucky about the meaningless petition at greater length when I have time, Dave, but let me say just a couple of things for now.

            You say you are one of the “computer scientists” that signed the petition? To paraphrase what Lloyd Bentsen said to Dan Quayle, “Davey, I know computer scientists, and you’re not a computer scientist”. Face reality, Dave—not that there is anything wrong with being one, but you are a “computer geek” that runs a business called “Geeks Alive! Computer Rescue”.

            Yes, you do have training in “computer science” (unless your CV is a lie and you don’t have a BA in Systems Management from Michigan State and an MA in Computer Science from U of TX Austin), but you need more than those degrees to be a “scientist”. It’s what you DO with that training that matters. I myself have two science degrees, one in physical science, the other in biology, but I am not a “scientist”, because I do not actively work in those fields—do research, publish papers, etc.

            Just as your work fixing people’s computers for $100 an hour (for the first hour) doesn’t rise to the level of being a “scientist”. What research in computer science have you done? What peer-reviewed papers have you published? What software have you written and marketed? What computer companies have you worked for? Tell us about it.

            What you appear to be is a guy that can run search engines (as I can also). You use them to compile huge quantities of biased misinformation on AGW to post on sites like Crock and your own so-called “website”. I would find it much more believable if you just ‘fessed up and admitted to being a paid troll for the Koch brothers or some denialist front group they or other fossil fuel interests support with hidden money. I’m retired and wander by the computer several times a day to check things out—-from the amount of time you spend here, it would appear you don’t really have a ‘day job” beyond being a denialist troll—-how DO you spend your day, Dave?—how many computers do you “rescue” each day?

            I will discuss the petition at length, even though I have already pointed out more than once that it is seriously flawed and the ongoing attempts by you and other denialists to make something significant out of it is laughable. It really IS di8scredited ancient history, and you should stop embarrassing yourself by repeatedly bringing it up.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Sorry, Dave, but the “Oregon Petition” IS a hoax. It has been discredited for many years, and is only kept alive by right wing-nut deniers like you—-the members of what I call the “circular firing squad”—-politically motivated believers in non-science who are always looking for any “evidence” to make their case, and who circulate it endlessly among themselves, whether it is true or not. I and most other folks with any knowledge of the AGW issue have been aware for at least a decade that the Petition is bunk—-when are you going to stop embarrassing yourself and give it up?

            Some of the arguments that have been used to debunk the “Petition” over the last decade:

            1) It is estimated that over 10 million people met the criteria necessary to sign. The 31,000+ signatories constitute only 3/10 of 1% of that total. Where are the other 99.7% of the “scientists” who could have signed but didn’t? What are their views on AGW?

            2) A look at the petition card reveals that it is self certifying, and that signers need not give the institution from which they received their degree, only their address and “field” of study. The information on the petition cards was not verified, and that’s why characters from M*A*S*H, Michael J. Fox, and John Grisham found their way onto the list, as well as a number of dead scientists. Dave says “no internet petition signatures”. That’s not quite true—even the Petition website admits that 5% or more of the signatories obtained their cards by printing them off the internet. ANYONE could have obtained a card that way, even Joe the Plumber—at least the original mailings were targeted to mailing lists of generally qualified folks..

            3) Perhaps this is a good time to insert some info about OISM, the originator of the Petition Project. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is NOT affiliated with any government or educational institution. It is located on a farm in very rural Oregon, has only a handful of staff, and is run by a Dr. Robinson, a biochemist with NO training in climate science and NO published papers on the topic. Its funding is obscure (Kochs anyone?) and the reasons why it came up with the Petition Project are unclear. Go to the OISM Petition Project website and see for yourself all the tap dancing and obfuscation there.

            4) Dave then launches into a long quote from the OISM Petition Project website about how the signatories were classified. So many degrees in this and so many in that. Dave misleads when he says “All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement”. He and the rest of the right wing-nut denier blogosphere would like to believe that because they suffer from confirmation bias, but it’s simply not true. FEWER THAN 40 signatories were climatologists, and only a few hundred more claimed training in “atmosphere” or “atmospheric science” that might have qualified them as climate experts. The nearly 15,000 engineers who signed have little qualification to evaluate climate science, neither do the 3,000 doctors of medicine and veterinarians.

            It is certainly “fudging” to say “Many of the signers currently work in….fields directly involved in the climate change controversy”. A look at the numbers shows that “many” is actually very few.

            The same holds true with “their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested”. Really? That’s quite a stretch, actually, as is the justification for engineering and medicine, “…trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs” and “trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.” Please!

            5) Many of the original signatories pulled their names after it became clear that the OISM petition was not what it seemed. Several thousand, actually. Some lawsuits were even filed.

            6) The OISM incurred the wrath of the National Academy of Sciences early on because the OISM Petition Project materials were made to look like the NAS had either endorsed them or they had been published in the NAS journal. Neither of those was true, and the NAS made some rather blunt (and even harsh) comments about the integrity of the Petition Project and OISM.

            6) Part of the Petition states, “Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”. Shades of the Idso’s. This is another favorite of the deniers, but it is simply not true under real world conditions.

            7) Dave puts himself in the same category as Lindzen with: “I’m one of 242 computer scientists who have signed. MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen is another” Sorry, Dave, but Lindzen is a real scientist who has some real science work to his credit. Although he is now considered by many of his fellow climatologists to be way out on the fringe and rather unreasonable, to say nothing of the taint of fossil fuel money —he was paid $2500 a DAY by coal and oil interests for “consulting”.

            The question remains—“How long will it be before Dave again brings up the Oregon Petition and attempts to tell us it has any significance regarding how “scientists” view AGW?” Predictions anyone?

          • daveburton Says:

            Old guy wrote, “Dave puts himself in the same category as Lindzen with: “I’m one of 242 computer scientists who have signed. MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen is another”.

            What I actually wrote was, “I’m one of 242 computer scientists who have signed. MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen is another signer.”

            Please do not edit my words to change their meaning. That’s just plain dishonest.

            As for the Global Warming Petition Project, the fact that a few dishonest Climate Movement campaigners forged credentials that got them briefly on the list of signers (and long since removed from it) is proof of the dishonesty of the Climate Movement campaigners, not Dr. Robinson and the 31,478 legitimate signers of the petition. To my knowledge, the real identities of the culprits has not been discovered, but the M.O. fits that of Peter Gleick.

            With over 31,478 signers, it is understandable that Dr. Robinson and his volunteers could initially miss a few fraudulent submissions. That’s ten times the number of responses that Zimmerman got to her “two minute” internet survey, even though the signatories of the Global Warming Petition Project had to spend a postage stamp and much more than two minutes each to get their names onto the list.

            Every one of the 31,478 signers knew exactly what they were signing. They all agreed that:

            “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

            And, unlike Doran & Zimmerman, Prof. Art Robinson is capable of correctly dividing 79 into 75. (Hint: the answer is not 97%.)

          • dumboldguy Says:

            daveburton mindlessly pursues a lost argument. First, he complains at my “editing” his comments? LOL And HE does this after HE “edits” my handle at the very start? I worked very hard to come up with a proper handle, Dave. The “dumb” is VERY important to me—I am NOT just an “old guy”. It is “dishonest” of you to change my meaning. (and it shows Dave’s desperation that he should seek out and comment on something as small as my leaving off ONE word, which I did to get Dqve’s overly long message down to more reasonable size.

            The rest of this message is just more wiggling and squirming as Dave tries to justify the unjustifiable. And I LMAO at his attempts to blame the inadequacies of the petition process on “dishonest climate movement campaigners” and Peter Glieck. If that even happened, it is testimony to how poorly designed the petition process was that it could be so easily “hacked”and how “unreliable” the list of names still may be.

            More jokes from Dave, with “With over 31,478 signers, it is understandable that Dr. Robinson and his volunteers could initially miss a few fraudulent submissions”. No, Dave—it’s NOT “understandable” and is just one of the pieces of evidence that the project and the petition are simply garbage.

            And “….the signatories of the Global Warming Petition Project had to spend a postage stamp and much more than two minutes each to get their names onto the list”. Spend a POSTAGE STAMP? As if doing that was somehow a big deal. And MUCH MORE then TWO MINUTES? LOL—they mus be pretty S-L-O-O-O-W if it took them that long to fill in their name and address, check a box as to degree(s) held, and fill in “field of study”.

            Dave’s biggest lie here is “Every one of the 31,478 signers knew exactly what they were signing”. They all agreed that:

            “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”;

            Perhaps Dave’s eyeball-brain connections are programmed to ignore “inconvenient truths”, and that’s why dave fails to see my items 5) and 6), in which I mention that a number of signers did in fact NOT “know what they were signing”, and, after some reflection, removed their names from the list. I think it was some 3,000 who did so, nearly 10% of the original signers. The brouhaha with the National Academy of Sciences contributed to that. When many signers saw how badly the Petition Project misrepresented itself vis-a-vis the NAS, they quit in disgust. As I said, some apparently filed lawsuits against the Petition Project.

            Another major problem for many is the statement that “…there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth”. Maybe they could get away with that “substantial evidence” and “many beneficial effects” crap for a brief period in 1998, but it became a major turnoff for many signers as evidence accumulated in the 15 YEARS since.

            Yes, folks. FIFTEEN YEARS since the Petition Project began and Dave and other denier fools are still throwing it against the wall with all the other horsepucky and hoping it will stick. That’s in spite of the fact that it has been so thoroughly debunked and “dried out” that it’s like throwing a handful of dry sawdust.

            I will say yet again—-GIVE IT UP. DAVE! You only embarrass yourself. (But I guess that’s to be expected from a “computer scientist” who has little apparent expertise in anything else).


          • One wonders how specifically Dave and his fellow petitioners define “catastrophic”. Was the Paleo-Eocene Thermal Maximum a catastrophe or was it an evolutionary opportunity?

            The petition’s purpose page oddly states – “These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity”

    • daveburton Says:

      Good stuff, John; thanks for the links!

      Who runs the sunshinehours blog?

      • dumboldguy Says:

        Leave it to Dave to think that those garbage links were “good stuff”. Apparently, sludge tastes like fudge to Dave—-he will swallow anything that supports denialism.

        And the sunshinehours blog appears to be run by “anonymous”. Smart move—-if I were putting out such crap, I wouldn’t want anyone to know who I was either.


    • Are we still stuck on the one datapoint equals a trend fallacy?

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

      Its testimony to deniers becoming more brainwashed that their canards have been debunked long ago.
      Which intelligent people waking up to the truth? You mean non scientists rejecting scientific research on the part of 97% of the climatologists world wide?
      Oh yeah, that one. A revival of conspiracy swill. Try substituting your own expertise for a doctors or an airline pilot. Go ahead. Just let me know which flight you are piloting. I dont want to be a passenger, thank you very much.

      • daveburton Says:

        Christopher, do you really not know where that supposed 97% consensus claim originated? Do you really not know it was a notorious fraud??

        Read and learn…

        10,257 Earth Scientists at academic and government institutions were surveyed by Margaret R. K. Zimmerman in 2008, and asked two simple questions which were designed to elicit “pro-AGW” answers.

        Only 3146 responded, 90% of them from the USA.

        Peter T. Doran wrote an article based on the responses to the Zimmerman survey, with Zimmerman’s assistance. But for the “consensus” calculation, he excluded 3067 of the 3146 responses!

        That left just 79 scientists whose responses were considered for the first question:

        76 of 79 (96.2%) answered “risen” to this question: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

        Applying CMM (Climate Movement Math), 96.2% “rounds up” to 97%.

        On the basis of the agreement of 76 of the 10,257 scientists surveyed, Doran hilariously concluded, “It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.”

        His methodology could easily be used to reach the conclusion that “the debate on the authenticity of acupuncture is largely nonexistent among those who understand its nuances and scientific basis.”

        Note that Zimmerman didn’t even ask an actual question about anthropogenic global warming. Instead, she asked a pair of “dumb questions” with obvious answers, designed to try to get the answer they wanted.

        Do you wonder why they didn’t ask an actual question about anthropogenic global warming? Why didn’t they ask something like, “Do you believe that emissions of CO2 from human activities, such as burning fossil fuels, are causing dangerous increases in global average temperatures?” or, in President Obama’s words, whether “climate change is real, man-made and dangerous?”

        I’m sure you know the answer. They didn’t ask a question like that because they expected that if they did so they wouldn’t get anything resembling a consensus for the answer.

        Instead they asked just two “dumb questions” about climate:

        Q1: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

        Q2: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

        Q1 is worthless for distinguishing climate alarmists from climate skeptics. The “pre-1800s” century was the middle of the Little Ice Age, and temperatures are obviously warmer now than then. But nearly all of the human contribution to atmospheric GHG levels has occurred since the 1940s, so this question has nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change. Even most prominent climate change skeptics would answer “risen” to this question.

        Q2 is just as bad. Since aerosols from smoke clearly cause cooling (a fact which was one of the main causes for the 1970s ice age scare), few people would doubt that human activity can change temperatures. So even most of those who doubt that anthropogenic CO2 and CH4 cause worrisome global warming would have to answer “yes” to Q2.

        Zimmerman could have asked a meaningful answer about anthropogenic climate change, but chose not to do so.

        Fortunately, the previous year (2007) Harris polled 500 leading American Meteorological and Geophysical scientists, and found that the so-called “consensus” was actually only about 52% (and it’s probably lower now). They found that: “97% agree that ‘global average temperatures have increased’ during the past century. But not everyone attributes that rise to human activity. A slight majority (52%) believe this warming was human-induced, 30% see it as the result of natural temperature fluctuations and the rest are unsure.”

        More details here:

        http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/97pct/

        • dumboldguy Says:

          The only “notorious fraud” that I see here is Dave again popping his head up and spouting foolishness. Dealing with him is like playing Whack-A-Mole, but one must “whack the Dave” even though Einstein would say it’s insane to think he will ever “stay down”.

          Dave hangs his still-too-tight hat on the supposed weaknesses of the Zimmenrman study, and goes on to the point of total boredom. ZZZzzzzzzzzzzz…..and Big Whoop! To paraphrase, “Dave could have made a meaningful comment about anthropogenic climate change, but chose not to do so”.

          Instead, he gave us all that blather and hid the REAL prize of this comment in:“More details here:” at the very end, and gives us a link. http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/97pct/

          I urge everyone to quickly check out this list of links. Dave is obviously compiling material for the next edition of his “Serious Disinformation for Seriously Self-Deluded Deniers and Dupes” manual. (The SDSSDDD or “SDSS Triple D” for short). I looked at the links in some detail, and, to help everyone focus, discovered the following about the 17 “references” Dave included there.

          1) Two are merely opinion pieces in financial magazines, written by non-climate experts.
          2) One is a link to a “dead” site.
          3) One is an opinion piece by a “feminist anarchist”, if you can believe that.
          4) Two are from SPPI, a knbown denier site paid for by the fossil fuel interests.
          5) One is from the Examiner, known to be a Koch-influenced rag.
          6) Four link to WUWT—-‘nuf said
          7) One attempts to give validity to the thoroughly discredited “Petition” signed by the 32,000 “scientists”, which is a truly mountainous pile of horsepucky compared to the Zimmerman study.
          8) Two are from Pielke, a known wing-nut denier associated with The Heartland Institute
          9) One is from the ever-popular SUYTS wing-nut site, from which Dave selected a graph for an earlier comment and got roasted for it.
          10) Last but not least, two pieces from the Heartland Institute “newspaper”. Why bother to lie yourself when you can get the Koch-funded experts to do it for you?

          So, Dave once again insults the intelligence and tries the patience of all Crockers with this incredibly sorry collection of foolishness. And that’s yet another whack delivered to Dave the Denier Mole—where will he pop up next? Perhaps on a feminist anarchist site expounding about sea level?

          • daveburton Says:

            Thanks for telling me about the dead link, old guy. I have fixed it.

            Let me ask you a question. Suppose you were Zimmerman & Doran, and their survey was your survey, and their results were your results. How would you calculate the percentage who agreed with the “consensus” view?

            Reviewing…

            You (they) sent a survey to 10,257 scientists at academic and government institutions. 3146 responded.

            From those 3146, you selected “the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) [who] are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total).”

            They had been asked:

            Q1: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
            2 of 79 answered “remained relatively constant.”
            76 of 79 (96.2%) answered “risen.”
            1 of 79 either answered “fallen” or “no opinion/don’t know.”

            Of the 77 who did not answer “remained relatively constant,” 75 answered “yes” to this question:

            Q2: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

            So, 75 of 79 people said they agreed with the “consensus” position that “mean global temperatures have generally risen” since the Little Ice Age and “human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.” (Aside: by that measure, even I am part of the consensus.)

            What, then, was the level of agreement, expressed as a percentage?

            It’s a simple calculation. Divide 75 by 79. Would you have reported that as “97% agreement?”

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Give it up, Dave. It’s meaningless compared to the egregiousness of the lies found in your list, particularly the “32,000 SCIENTISTS signed the PETITION” that you insist on bringing up all too often. Why do you refuse to acknowledge the error you made there and keep trying to distract us with Zimmerman?

          • daveburton Says:

            Peter, how about you? How would you have calculated the percentage of agreement, from the 2008 Zimmerman survey results?

          • daveburton Says:

            It should bother you, old guy, that in a prominent peer-reviewed journal the authors of a very, very widely cited paper about how many dissenters there are from the global warming “consensus” simply didn’t count half of the dissenters that they found.

            There are only two possibilities:

            1. it was an unintentional blunder, and they really didn’t know better than to do what they did. In that case, how could you possibly trust the competency of anything they (or their peer reviewers!) do? Or else,

            2. it was intentional deception. In that case, recall Luke 16:10.

            Which do you think it was, old guy? How about you, Peter?

            More fundamentally, the truth matters. If you don’t think so, then that probably explains why you don’t seem to be bothered by things like Gleick’s forgery-based Heartland smear, Mike’s Nature Trick, the Rahmstorf/Munich Re sealevel con, the IPCC’s 2035 Himalayan glacier meltdown, etc.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            What really bothers me is daveburton’s apparent “Einsteinian” insanity, where he keeps bringing up the same small tree while missing the whole “forest”, and expects a different result—has he not noticed that we would much rather talk about the truly significant and deliberate lies surrounding the Oregon Petition?

            There are only two possibilities:

            1. Dave is suffering from sort sort of mental affliction. (Actually a panoply of them, with overlapping symptoms that he nicely displays for us in his comments). This would be unintentional on Dave’s part, and he deserves our sympathy if this is the case.

            2. Or, Dave is as we suspect, a paid AGW denier, and it is an intentional and biased campaign of distraction and deflection that he wages here. In that case, how could we possibly trust the “competency” of anything Dave says?

            You ask what do I think, Dave? I think you are a hypocrite who thumps the bible while at the same time “bearing false witness” against the truth. I hope your are paid a lot of pieces of silver to do that—you are going to need them to pay for a lawyer if and when you and the other deniers are put on trial for “war crimes” against humanity and the biosphere.

          • MorinMoss Says:

            “Mike’s Nature Trick”?? You cannot be serious. Can you??

            After all your pontifications against AGW, how can you not know what this really was?

          • daveburton Says:

            I know what Mike’s Nature Trick was. It sounds like you don’t.

            But, since you’ve joined the discussion, MorinMoss, please take a stab at answering the question at hand:

            Given 79 self-identified “most specialized and knowledgeable respondents,” 75 of whom agreed that temperatures have generally risen since the depths of the Little Ice Age and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures, and four of whom disagreed, how would you report the percentage who agreed?

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Yes, Morin Moss, please DO support Dave’s insanity and respond to his obsessive harping about 18 or 42 or 139-1/2 or whatever that insignificant number is that he keeps going on about.

            When you finish, please ask him about the 32,000 “scientists” who signed the Oregon Petition (and the 3,000 that quickly took their names off because it was truly a hoax). Maybe he will do more than pluck self-serving quotes from the Petition Project website in reply (if he answers you at all).


  4. Nearing 200 posts on a video with no text. Peter must wonder why he bothers when such a easy topic is an over night sensation. Still, I feel sheepish that I only recently realized that often a single climatecrocks video is all that’s needed for those tough to get out denier stains. Mr. Clean, eh? He’s got a white tornado. I’ve heard so much endless sea level acceleration from guess who, it’s time. We could use a cross referenced list so you could just punch in the video. Especially Just for Dave, Dave Dave’s not here and sea level rise acceleration.. Yes,there is sea level acceleration from somebody more authoritative

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yHrVOnLKjuQ

    Hiding the decline? More like a phony whine.

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Us&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dtz8Ve6KE-Us

    Class is in session.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,638 other followers

%d bloggers like this: