« TS Karl strikes Yucatan; Igor, Julia at Cat. 4 | Main | Atlantic storm count passing seasonal average »

September 15, 2010

Arctic summer sea ice third smallest on record

Arctic sea ice extentThe National Snow and Ice Data Center is reporting that the planet's arctic sea ice extent this summer was the third-smallest on record, behind only 2008 and 2007. It was 625,000 square miles smaller than the long-term average. It has now begun to reform as the northern winter approaches.

Arctic sea ice is important to the regulation of the planet's temperature because ice reflects sunlight. When there is less of it, less solar energy is reflected back into space and more is absorbed by the (much darker) Arctic Ocean.

On the other end of the planet, the Antarctic sea ice extent for the southern winter was the largest on record, 4.1 percent above the 1979-2000 average. Clearly, global warming does not mean everyplace warms up in unison. 

Here's more from the NSIDC.

Also today, NOAA is reporting the 2010, so far, ranks as the warmest year on record globally - tied with 1998 for that distinction. Land and ocean temperatures averaged 1.2 degrees above the 20th century average. Maybe it will get really cold from now on, and all will average out to something unremarkable by Dec. 31.

Posted by Frank Roylance at 2:04 PM | | Comments (36)
Categories: Climate change


bad news again :(

Ice reflects sunlight because it's white, right? What about cloud cover? Have they been tracking cloud cover? Those hurricanes are probably reflecting a lot of sunlight I would imagine.

FR: Yes. There has been a lot of study of the impact of cloud cover on the planet's energy budget (energy in/energy out). And climate models all include the effects of clouds. But it's very complicated, and perhaps the least well-understood component of global warming. Clouds reflect solar energy, but they also prevent surface heat from escaping. Time of day, time of year, droplet (or ice crystal) size and many other variables to consider. Hurricanes are pretty small on the global scale of things, and transient. Polar ice is a much bigger deal, especially in the north.

You mentioned that Antarctic sea ice was the largest on record. Is there any place that takes the North and South Polar regions and adds them together to determine global sea ice coverage?

FR: I don't know of one offhand. But feel free to explore the NSIDC site and see what you can find.

Frank, the Arctic Sea Ice, a whopping 2% of the world's ice (Antarctica is 90%), is affected by volcanic activity. The Gakkel Ridge erupted under the Arctic Ocean in 2007, which is why the record "melt" that year is just over ONE AREA and is not "uniform" or consistent with a truly "global" warming. This year we had Iceland erupting and dumping tons of hot dark ash over sea ice, allowing it to absorb sun and melt faster than it would have. See for yourself the actual 2007 record low sea ice, and explain why it is just over one area...

Meanwhile, the 90% of the world's ice that is the Antarctic glacier continues to grow grow grow...

BN, I looked at the mongabay article, cannot see where the low sea ice is "just over one area" as you assert. Also, it is my understanding that Greenland has lost more ice than the illustrations reveal. As far as the Iceland volcano, you have to look at many years of ice coverage, not just one year. Your claim re Antartic glaciers may be true, I don't know. Many want to rationalize it away, but overall evidence still points to human-caused atmospheric warming as the main contributor to many atmospheric trends we are starting to see.

The highly correlated satellite and balloon data shows precisely no warming at all in the atmosphere, ruling out "atmospheric warming" as the cause of anything. The only thing "warming" is the surface of growing urban areas.

Greenland is a growing glacier, and a great clue about the true nature of our Earth's climate. Greenland's tectonic plate is moving NW. Some 700k years ago, when there were glaciers in Indiana, Greenland was a forest...

When land moves to within 600 miles of a pole, it "turns on" an "Earth glacier manufacturing system," which, as Greenland proves, will push glaciers right out of a polar circle. Earth climate change is overwhelmingly about tectonics, and minor changes in atmospheric gas concentrations (that do not "warm" the atmosphere) have virtually nothing to do with anything (except enriching liars and misdiagnosing real environmental problems).

Jurassic = ocean in both polar circles
"snowball Earth" = land in both polar circles (two Antarcticas)

glaciers in Indiana 700k years ago = all about where the top of northern Canada was 10 million years ago...

FR: A virtual encyclopedia of bad science.

BN, you're wrong. Antarctic sea ice extent has been growing slightly for the last few decades, but land ice area is growing only in one area, and across Antarctica, mass is decreasing.

Engage in discussion at the following site if you're not a denialbot and think you actually have a point to make:

And like FR, I encourage you to spend some time at NSIDC (and JAXA). Southern hemisphere sea ice extent peaked about a month early and is currently nose-diving.

FR: Bless you, DSL

Well, we can play this absolutely laughable game of "agents of The Fraud lie to hide my truth" over and over.

A growing glacier like Antarctica thickens slightly each year. That is why we can get data from something called an ice core. An ice core is a climate record because each year the glacier thickens a bit. This is because the snow from that year doesn't "melt" except for a little bit during summer, which then "seals in" the climate record for the year. Over many years, that creates glaciers that are very tall, like Antarctica's 2 mile high ones...

Nothing really melts on Antarctica, and hasn't for tens of millions of years, save the occasional volcanic eruption on the peninsula. Antarctica manufactures ice, pushes ice hundreds of miles into sea and outside the Antarctic Circle. That ice then calves off in the form of icebergs, which are STILL FROZEN. Antarctica dumps 46 times the amount of freshwater into the ocean vs. the Mississippi River, all in the form of icebergs.

The Fraud of Global non-Warming is obsessed with Arctic Sea Ice because it cannot document a Net Earth Ice Melt, and hence is reduced to petty cherry picking regarding under 3% of the world's ice like Arctic Sea Ice and Mt. Kilimanjaro, since 97% of the world's ice is contained in two glaciers that have done nothing but grow for the past million years, and will continue to grow for millions of years, Greenland and Antarctica.

Clearly, to believe in the Fraud of Global non-Warming, one has to have no clue at all what a GLACIER is... and a real desire to parrot lies and ignore the reality of the entire Earth's data...

BN, it's pretty clear that you're emotionally invested in your absolute understanding of the world, so this is probably a big waste of time. However, I'll give it a go. Do you have any peer-reviewed studies that support the ideas you've posted? Or are you pulling this stuff off the cuff?

If you won't go to the mountain, I'll bring the mountain to you. Here is the abstract for Velicogna and Wahr (Science March 24, 2006):

"Using measurements of time-variable gravity from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment satellites, we determined mass variations of the Antarctic ice sheet during 2002–2005. We found that the mass of the ice sheet decreased significantly, at a rate of 152 ± 80 cubic kilometers of ice per year, which is equivalent to 0.4 ± 0.2 millimeters of global sea-level rise per year. Most of this mass loss came from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet."

A later study (2009) by Velicogna, published in Geophysical Research Letters, found an increasing rate of mass loss in Antarctica. Chen et al. (2009) found increasing ice mass loss for East Antarctica, with most loss occurring near the coast.

With regards to your other claims about global ice loss, I'll point you to the World Glacier Monitoring Service. They've monitored 228 glaciers. Roughly 90% of the world's glaciers have shown increasing ice mass loss over the last decade, and the rate of loss appears to be increasing.

Why should I believe you, BN, armed only with armchair logic and no evidence? You also claim "fraud." If David Koch alone spends 175 million of his oil dollars to support a disinformation campaign against some of the most scrutinized (and all the more solid for it) science, what do we call that?

In 2005, Antarctic ice set yet another all time record for ice coverage, as well as adding the 2005 ice core layer to the top of the glacier. It is the absolutely laughable obsession of these taxpayer funded liars engaged in Fraud that they could "peer review" a load of BS like that and get the followers to parrot...

" Tuesday, September 11, 2007
A New Record for Antarctic Total Ice Extent?

"While the "news media" focus has been on the lowest ice extent since satellite monitoring began in 1979 for the Arctic, the Southern Hemisphere (Antarctica) has quietly set a new record for most ice extent since 1979.

This can be seen on this graphic from this University of Illinois site The Cryosphere Today, which updated snow and ice extent for both hemispheres daily. The Southern Hemispheric areal coverage is the highest in the satellite record, just beating out 1995, 2001, 2005 and 2006. Since 1979, the trend has been up for the total Antarctic ice extent. "

The reason why we have 5000 tippy toppiest "top scientists" "studying" something obviously not happening at all is because the RAW DATA needs to be both FUDGED and then the FUDGE needs to be "certified" by a "peer review" process outed by ClimateGate as a complete sham. The RAW DATA never backed The Fraud. There is precisely no warming in the atmosphere, the oceans etc., nothing except the deliberate misinterpretation of the Urban Heat Sink Effect on the Surface Ground Temp series. Hence, as Antarctic ice set yet another all time high in 2005 (and 2007 and 2010), we are told by these master FUDGE producers that it is really "melting," despite both acreage growth (to another record) and thickening as the 2005 layer in the ice core was manufactured.

A sad glimpse of just how far these sick liars will go to con us into continuing to fund them...

There is precisely no evidence of any reduction in Antarctic Ice except in the "peer reviewed studies" of those who censored the Raw Data in 2005 for Antarctic ice, which documented yet another record high...

Ahhh . . . I see . . . anyone who disagrees with you must be engaged in fraud, must be hiding data, must be lying, etc.

Extent, BN, is not mass, and the same extent sites you point to also show the global sea ice extent dropping at an increasing rate. Oh, and as far as Antarctic sea ice extent goes, it reached its maximum a month early this year, and is dropping like a rock right through where the 1979-2000 average reaches its annual maximum.

And there are well-known mechanisms that explain the slight increase in Antarctic sea ice extent, but, well I think I'll hold off on those until you stop screaming "fraud!" at everything anyone says that contradicts your beliefs.

If it is a fraud, it is the most well-organized fraud in the history of humanity, as it must actively involve tens of thousands of people, all sworn to secrecy, all making enough money from "the system" to satisfy the degradation of their integrity. Meanwhile, the poor denialists, doing their work for the public good for free (see David Koch), have to rely on finicky physical science, which also seems to be involved in the scam. The darned radiative transfer equations just MUST be FUDGED. The darned physics of CO2 and CH4 just must be LIES perpetrated by textbook writers and publishers.

Again, I encourage you, if you have the mental strength and are willing to test your ideas, to go to and engage the community in debate. Or you could go to the oddly-named for some of the basics (and not-so-basics) of the physical science. If you think it's all lies, then surely there's no harm in verifying.

One of the things that happens when individuals lie and commit fraud is that sometimes it ends up in Court, as The Fraud did in 2007 in Britain. Of course, our "US media" censored this to the max, but the Court spoke, and The Fraud was way too chicken to appeal... because RAW DATA matters in Court, if not to the tippy toppiest "top scientists" who do nothing but FUDGE RAW DATA showing NO WARMING into "peer reviewed climate studies" that claim "warming."

While Judge Michael Burton declined to ban the movie outright, he did order the government to rewrite its guidelines to highlight the movie's falsehoods.

These were identified in court as follows:

Gore's claim: A retreating glacier on Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania is evidence of global warming.

Finding: The government's expert witness conceded this was not correct.

Gore: Ice core samples prove that rising levels of carbon dioxide have caused temperature increases.

Finding: Rises in carbon dioxide actually lagged behind temperature increases by 800-2000 years.

Gore: Global warming triggered Hurricane Katrina, devastating New Orleans.

Finding: The government's expert accepted it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.

Gore: Global warming is causing Africa's Lake Chad to dry up.

Finding: The government's expert accepted that this was not the case.

Gore: Polar bears had drowned due to disappearing Arctic ice.

Finding: Only four polar bears drowned, due to a particularly violent storm.

Gore: Global warming could stop the Gulf Stream, plunging Europe into a new ice age.

Finding: A scientific impossibility.

Gore: Species losses, including coral reef bleaching, are the result of global warming.

Finding: No evidence to support the claim.

Gore: Melting ice in Greenland could cause sea levels to rise dangerously.

Finding: Greenland ice will not melt for millennia.

Gore: Ice cover in Antarctica is melting.

Finding: It is, in fact, increasing.

A big thank you for trying to enlighten these global warming mongers. I tried to for a few months but realized they do not want to believe facts, REAL data and science. Take solace in the fact that people are waking up to the fraud of people like Al Gore and to a much lesser extent Frank. Anyone who really wants some real facts can get them at
Marc Morano does a terrific job of piecing things together. Yes Frank I know he is the anti-christ to you but if you are honest with yourself you could not possibly go through the countless articles and still think manmade global warming if for real. I admit many years ago while in high school and college I fell for this crap and used to actually worry about it. What a fool I was. Thankfully I've seen the light and I believe one day DSL and Frank will too. Frank you are all too quick to point out any warming or melting but I still have yet to see one article on all of the evidence pointing to global cooling. Why not?

FR: Because I put more credence in the hard work of thousands of scientists around the globe, and the IPCC, than in propaganda web sites like, which is funded by the likes of ExxonMobil, and conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, and run by Mr. Morano, a former environmental communications director for oil-state Sen. James Inhofe, R-OK, who has voted 100 pct. with the oil companies. And, because I learned as a child at my father's knee not to argue with true believers who "have seen the light." But feel free to continue your debate here. I don't have the time to take part.

Well, now, you have me there, because I haven't seen the Al Gore documentary. I keep meaning to, because of all the fuss. I can address some of the issues raised, though. You're right: one glacier measurement is not enough evidence to support GW. Just as it's wrong for people to say that an abnormally snowy winter in Washington is evidence against GW. It is, rather, the declining mass balance of a large number of glaciers all over the globe--including Kilimanjaro--that provides evidence for GW.

The second is somewhat right as well. CO2 has lagged temperature in the past. That doesn't mean, of course, that it must always lag temperature. The situation we're in now has never occurred before. Nor does it mean that CO2 doesn't re-radiate longwave radiation (in all directions, including downward). CO2 has never been artificially introduced into the atmosphere at the rate we've been adding it. That means that we are introducing a new and relatively powerful condition into a complex, dynamic, and imperfectly multicyclical system.

The hurricane bit is somewhat sensational and similar to the Kilimanjaro example. However, the underlying point is that if you add energy to a system, you're going to get more energetic events. There has been talk of the possibility that the range and duration of hurricanes is increasing. I'll try to find any work that has been done on it. It's the same with rain, though, too: increased temperatures increase the amount of H20 the troposphere will hold.

I haven't looked at the Lake Chad situation.

Polar bear habitat is declining, and polar bear numbers are decreasing overall. There are readily available studies that show this. As for the four in question--Katrina, Kilimanjaro, etc. It's not the single event; it's the global trend, and it doesn't look good for the big white bears.

The Gulf Stream has stopped before, but the reason was likely a sudden and massive release of freshwater that interrupted thermohaline dynamics. That specific event is not going to happen for a while. I would avoid the word "impossible" though. All that's needed is thermohaline disruption. It's possible that an event one tenth the size of the big flood would still have caused such disruption. This needs more research.

There is overwhelming evidence that increased CO2 absorption by the ocean is decreasing the alkalinity of the oceans. because of the rapidity of this increase, organisms are not able to evolve as did in similar events millions of years ago. The acidification can be--and has been--directly measured. Indeed, findings have been very much in the news recently--search "phytoplankton" or "coral reef" or "ocean heating."

The GRACE data on Greenland ice mass loss is actually rather scary. The short of it is that inland ice mass--above 2000 meters--is in balance. Below 2000 meters--and in particular on the coasts--it's decreasing quickly and the rate of decrease is increasing.

See my comment above about Antarctica.

Bottom line: Gore (apparently--again I haven't seen the film) seems to have picked some of his examples for theatrical effect, and while conclusions shouldn't be drawn from those single examples, the rest of the evidence does tell the same story: the earth is warming more rapidly than any warming humans have ever experienced.

Brett, if you're involved with Morano, you're probably financially invested in the rhetoric (but not the science). That means you've stopped being able to learn.

But I will point out that you're right: if you do pick out two very precise moments in the instrumental temperature record, you will get a slightly cooling trend. The problem is, of course, that I can pick out 50 other points and show warming. Heck, I can pick out moments that show a warming trend that's nearly vertical. Instead of picking carefully, try the 40-year record. Try it in decadal increments, in five-year increments, and look at the whole trend. Look at other temperature measurements like U.S. record highs, record high lows, and nighttime lows for the last 30 years. You know that according to the instrumental record (the one you mention as indicating cooling), the last calendar year was either tied for or the warmest ever recorded.

Brett, you appear ready to willfully ignore the mass of evidence against global cooling, and there are only two forces that could cause you to do that (not even pride will do it): money and religion.

To disprove Global "warming" doesn't require proof of "cooling," just no warming.

CO2 didn't warm anything in the past and, as the satellite and balloon records show, isn't warming the atmosphere now.

Every glacier in Europe is "melting." Why? Because the European tectonic plate is moving away from the North Pole, and has been for tens of millions of years. Now, when the Earth "glacier data" includes one glacier with 90% of the world's ice, that one glacier IS MATERIAL and one cannot claim a loss or rise of net ice without it. As the RAW DATA clearly shows and the British Court affirmed, the tippy toppiests have been 100% lying all along about Antarctic (and hence Earth) ice, which has experienced precisely no net loss, not one molecule, since The Fraud started in 1988. The Rockies are losing ice. That is because the NA plate is moving SW...

Greenland's ice near the edge of the water south of the Arctic Circle will respond to ocean temp changes, and North Atlantic currents are notoriously fast and swift with temp changes. Indeed, in 1938, a Katrina sized storm hit Long Island, and nothing that size has gotten that far north since (proving that 1938 had unusually warm water off NY). But the undeniable truth of the data from Greenland is that A) it is a growing glacier that thickens each year and B) it was a forest 700k years ago before the glaciers moved south.

Polar Bear population is not decreasing. It is the only species ever to be growing in size with precisely no threat at all to it and end up on the "endangered list" due to one of the nasty side effects of The Fraud, the intentional misdiagnosis of real enviro problems...

"n fact, the polar bear populations have been increasing rapidly in recent decades due to hunting restrictions."

Oceans not warming at all...

"Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all "

In short, without fudge, peer-reviewed climate fraud, and the intentional misdiagnosis of the Urban Heat Sink Effect on surface temps, there is no evidence at all of a global "warming," and there never was...

All right! You're willing to open up the instrumental and observational record.

According to physics, though, CO2 must be able to warm. In the past, it may not have been a primary driver, but it must have been a positive feedback for other warming mechanisms. That's the thing: there's no claim that CO2 is the only gas causing recent warming (and yes, there is plenty of troposphere warming and stratospheric cooling -- show me otherwise across the last 30 years). The claim is that increasing atmospheric CO2 is causing more upward longwave (infrared) radiation to be re-radiated (in all directions), thus delaying an increasing amount of this energy. The re-radiated energy is not large relative to the overall planetary energy budget, but it is enough to cause other, larger feedbacks, including more atmospheric H2O, releases of CH4 (a much more powerful GHG) trapped in tundra, decreases in Arctic albedo, etc. The radiative physics of CO2 have been established science for a very long time, and there's only one way the Earth loses heat: radiation. Conduction and convection can move energy around, but space is a near vacuum.

By the way, the "cooling" comment was a response to Brett's claim. Everyone reading this, go to to play around with the instrumental record plot generator. It's easy and fun! Note also that the recent warming has come during a solar minimum.

But, dude (or dudette), your plate tectonic story is, quite frankly, a little strange. I agree that plate movements can cause climate change, but the plates aren't moving nearly fast enough to account for anything but very, very long-term cycles. This must be obvious to you. The Arctic land-sea ratio has been like it is now for how long? And during that time we've had major and minor ice ages that we, today, would consider catastrophic. Other forces drive climate. Where is the study that provides evidence for plate movement as a driver of recent warming?

As for polar bears, as of 2009, observations of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group indicated that one subpopulation of PB was growing, three were stable, and eight were in decline. We also need to remember that PB were close to extinction in the 1970s, before hunting laws, and so long-term numbers are sketchy. PB are a bad proxy, though, when we can directly measure the loss of their habitat.

As for the Argo data (the floats), it needs more work. There are a great many well-documented problems with the instruments, the data collection, and trending methods. Most of the floats don't measure very deeply, and none measure more than 1000 meters. When they get the instruments stabilized, it will be a good data source--pretty neat stuff. I'll dig up the recent work on deep ocean heating and post later.

The plate tectonics theory perfectly explains the "ice ages," which are actually quite different than we were taught in school 30 years ago. Antarctica, obviously, is an "ice age," and dinosaur fossils prove it wasn't on the South Pole when those dinosaurs lived...

Indeed, the fact that those are two "new" types of dinosaur fossils throws cold water on the "all land was connected" theory. Antarctica actually looks like it was a collision of two land masses (that's the mountain range). But it wasn't always under 2 miles of ice, and those dinosaurs did not live on top of 2 miles of ice.

As for North America, tectonics explains perfectly what happened. The NA plate is moving SW 2-3 inches per year. "Rewind" that and you find the top of Northern Canada in that "Earth Glacier Manufacturing System" location 10 million years ago. THAT is what covered North America with glaciers, dug the Great Lakes, and left glaciers in Indiana as late as 700k years ago. When land arrives tectonically in that 600 or so mile radius from a pole, it "turns on" that "manufacturing system." When land leaves, the system "turns off," just as Canada "turned off" 5 or so million years ago, leaving the ice but not producing new ice. Antarctica has been running "full blast" for tens of millions of years. Greenland, the other "ice age" of today, was a forest 700k years ago, because that plate is moving NW, and hence its "ice age" is quite recent. Greenland is a fantastic "laboratory" of what happens. First the northern part starts "manufacturing glaciers." Then the glaciers get large and start moving, any way they can via the only force that acts on them - gravity. Greenland is a "strip of land ice age," and it clearly demonstrates that such a "glacier manufacturing system" will push glaciers right out of a polar circle, and then some. There is plenty of land in the northern hemisphere in the Arctic Circle without glaciers, but none connected to land in that 600 or so mile radius of the pole, and that is why Greenland is covered under large glaciers but nothing else in the Northern Hemisphere is.

Make a "copy" of Antarctica and replace the Arctic with that copy. Canada sits mostly under 2 mile high glaciers, which is what it was doing 10 million years ago. Ocean levels would be 100+ feet lower, and the planet Earth as a whole would be 5-10 degrees cooler. Copy the Arctic and replace AA with that copy and Earth ice drops 80%, ocean levels would be 100+ ft higher, and it would be WARM and MOIST = Jurassic.

Tectonics is 90%+ of what drives Earth climate change.

Yes, I agree--again--the position of land masses with respect to the poles is a major driver of long range climate change. However, I still see no mechanism within plate tectonics to drive rapid warming. As the Wikipedia article on ice ages points out (your description sounds a lot like the Wikipedia article), the Earth is under two of the three proposed conditions for ice age formation: a continent at a pole and a near land-locked polar sea. No ice age. Indeed, quite the reverse. It's not long-term, cyclical warming we're experiencing. It's rapid warming consistent with the physics of relatively massive atmospheric increases of CO2 and CH4. Show me the mechanism whereby atmospheric CO2 and CH4 have no forcing effect, and show me the mechanism whereby plate positions lead to rapid warming.

There is precisely no warming at all in the oceans, the atmosphere, and on non-urban land. The only "warming" is from growing urban areas, areas which NASA clearly documents...

"Cities tend to be one to 10 degrees Fahrenheit [.56 to 5.6 Celsius] warmer than surrounding suburbs and rural areas"

As urban areas grow, they move up that 1 to 10 degree scale. That is why The Fraud is obsessed with "surface" temperatures," despite blaming the "warming" on the surface of growing urban areas on atmospheric gasses. Indeed, as ClimateGate documents, The Fraud cherry picks around the non-urban land readings (which show NO WARMING at all) and reports "Earth Temperatures" as just from the surface of growing urban areas (vastly disproportionately in the Northern Hemisphere).

The Fraud of Global non-Warming is the Deliberate Misinterpretation of the Urban Heat Sink Effect on the Surface Ground Temperature Series, the ONLY series showing ANY "warming" at all...

The harm The Fraud does includes bilking the taxpayer, lying, and intentionally misdiagnosing real environmental problems. Take, for example, the issue of CA fires. We know CA has not warmed on the surface since 1934, or 40 years before the Global Cooling Fraud of the 1970s. Hence, "warming" isn't causing the increase in fires, because there is NO WARMING. But we are told it is. In reality, every incremental human added to CA's population draws that much fresh water from finite rivers and aquifers, draining nature of nature's water, and leaving plants dry and ready to burn. The solution is desalination, which would leave nature's water in nature. But The Fraud intentionally misdiagnoses that, sucks up the funding we should be spending on desal plants, and celebrates the destruction of the fires as "evidence" of "warming" (without any temperature increase).

The Fraud is the greatest crime ever against the real environment. It steals our taxdollars that should be spent helping the actual environment, and lies to us, preventing solutions, to the tune of over $10 bil PER YEAR... all to enrich psychotic liars and never doing one single thing to actually help the real environment...

Here you go -- and interestingly, this study does have a great deal to do with the current configuration of the continents.

You are wrong on California. Go here to use the interactive climate tracker for CA. Since 1975, there has been +4.12 degree (F) warming/century trend statewide. That's an increase over the 1949-present (2.72) and 1895-present (1.75) trends. In other words, it's getting hotter more rapidly in CA.

The Urban Heat Island (UHI) is well-documented. Most major surface temperature records offer versions adjusted for UHI. There is still the same strong warming trend in non-city-based measurements. Of course, cities are human constructs, and if they are helping to retain heat, then they are a means of anthropogenic global warming beyond GHG. Or, rather, they are that and a feedback for GHG-based warming.

How would you explain the top-of-atmosphere cooling trend without GHG? That is actually the only atmospheric series showing any cooling in the decadal trend. It is perfectly consistent with the atmospheric chemistry of increasing GHGs.

BN, I don't have anything to say about your politicians. I've seen enough politicians lie to know that they simply can't be trusted in the economic conditions of the last 150 years. That may seem incredibly pessimistic, but it comes from not being able to think of one shining example of integrity in politics. Who do you trust, though? And that's not a rhetorical question. Are you doing the thinking for yourself, or are you trusting some radio or TV pundit who couldn't possibly be lying to you for financial gain. Do you distrust Al Gore completely yet trust Glenn Beck implicitly--without being able to explain the difference between the two? (except that one perhaps says the things that seem to confirm what you suspected all along)

I trust highly correlated raw data, my own eyes, and my ability to think and reason. I have virtually equal contempt for Beck and Gore. I regard both as treasonous for different reason.

The tippy toppiest fudge job on Urban Heat is absolutely laughable. A proper "correction" for it wipes out all "warming" on Surface Ground, and hence puts Surface Ground in correlation with every other series (oceans, atmosphere etc.). Earth is not warming.

As for CA, that's complete bunk. Local authorities insist the warmest decade was the 1890s. For the continental US, the 1934 record stands...

"According to H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), NASA scientist and famous man-made global warming proponent James Hansen's well-known claims that 1998 was measured as the warmest year on record in the U.S. were the result of a serious mathematical error. NASA has now corrected that error, and 1934 is now known as the warmest year on record, with 1921 the third warmest year instead of 2006 as was also previously claimed."

James Hansen, of course, is the Jeff Skilling of the Fraud...

I am continually astounded that obviously bright people such as yourself Frank and DSL are snookered by this. CO2 is a TRACE ESSENTIAL gas in the atmosphere, making up less than 1/2 of 1 percent of the atmosphere (and even much less than that is man-made). Does anyone actually believe that is has that big of an effect on the Earth's temperatures? It just defies plain old common sense. Water vapor and nitrogen (which makes up approx. 79% of the atmosphere) are FAR MORE POWERFUL "greenhouse gases." Maybe once people come to their senses on this ridiculous notion that CO2 is so bad, good old Al will move on to some different snake oil. Of course, by now we were supposed to be overcome by hurricanes and many islands were supposed to go under but to my knowledge nary an island has gone under because of sea rise. Why does no one take Al to task on any of his totally ridiculous claims. I imagine because some inconvenient truths would be uncovered. I challenge either of you (or anyone) to find one island that has gone under because of sea rise. I'll hold my breath waiting on a response (which is a good thing because I won't be exhaling any evil carbon dioxide). Good day.

FR: I'll name six right here in Maryland. Sharps, Barren, Cows, Herring, Punch and Powell islands in the Chesapeake Bay have all been lost to rising waters (and sinking land) since Europeans first charted them. Smith Island will eventually join them. Allstate Insurance calculated the risk posed by rising sea levels and intensifying storms in 2006 and stopped issuing homeowner policies in 11 low-lying eastern counties, including parts of two in Maryland. That's not Al talking. It's hard-eyed capitalism.


Land rises and sinks due to tectonics. The Fraud loves to talk about a few islands in the south Pacific Ring of Fire, which are clearly "sinking" due to tectonics (some are rising but get no press).

To document a net rise in sea levels, you must first document a net ice melt, and you and The Fraud cannot do that with 90% of the world's ice growing and setting records almost every year. The only years Antarctica doesn't set records have everything to do with iceberg variance. Some years more ice breaks off than others.

"But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.

Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years.""

There is raw data and then there is "peer reviewed climate studies (fraud)."

Please learn the difference.

Plymouth Rock is still right on the edge of the ocean, right where it was 400 years ago...

FR: Actually, none of the Pilgrims ever mentioned the rock in their journals. And after it became a piece of New England legend in the 1700s, it was broken and moved several times. Nobody knows where it was 400 years ago. Maybe you meant that as a metaphor.

BN, you do realize that Booker is the British version of Bill O'Reilly, yes? He's really out there -- you know, the whole white asbestos thing.

As for Morner, he believes he can dowse for water--a real champion of the scientific method. Still, I wonder why you believe Morner and not another scientist, or is it that he's a single scientist, and you don't trust any sort of consensus (consensus = conspiracy?). What is the difference between Morner and the scientists at the U of Colorado. Both do their job for money (well, Morner's retired now). What makes Morner more credible in your mind?

You can't actually assume that a scientist isn't going to take into account something as obvious as glacial rebound, plate tectonics, and coral growth? As soon as s/he tried to publish, the peer reviewer(s) would be like, "Hey, are you high or what? Bring this back when it's finished."

Brett: you're right, CO2 is a trace gas, and H20 is a much more powerful GHG. However, H20 is in close equilibrium across the globe. In other words, the atmosphere as a whole can only hold so much water before it readily precipitates. Atmospheric water is directly tied to temperature, and the atmosphere is usually close to saturation, on average, because most of the planet is an open lake, constantly evaporating. So atmospheric H20 doesn't change all that much on average. It follows trends in temperature.

You can't increase the average max water vapor in the atmosphere without raising average temperature.

That's the danger of CO2. Because CO2 is well-mixed in the atmosphere, because it can populate the stratosphere (unlike all but a tiny bit of water), because it has a relatively long residence time, because you can keep adding it to the atmosphere, and because it is very good at re-radiating infrared radiation, CO2 can slow down the rate of radiation escaping to space.

No, it's not much--a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will only raise global temperatures a few degrees Celsius. Unfortunately, that allows more of the much more powerful GHG water into the atmosphere, causing temperatures to rise a little more. Sounds like a runaway situation, but it's not. Even with 1000 ppm of CO2 (we're at 390 and rising steadily) in the atmosphere, we're only likely to get a max global warming of maybe 10 C--not enough to melt the planet, but certainly enough--and rapid enough--to lead to some serious changes in the balance of life.

As for nitrogen, can you tell me at what frequencies and temperatures it absorbs and re-radiates infrared radiation? If nitrogen was an efficient GHG, we'd be cooked big time. It's not. It's contributions as a GHG are teeny-tiny relative to CO2 (itself not all that powerful).

As for islands suddenly disappearing, that's not how it works. However, that reminds me to ask both you and BN how you think that the Fraud is supposed to work. You can ake all kinds of hyperbolic and chapter-and-verse skeptic attacks on it, ramping up the rhetoric for the more gullible readers (capital F Fraud!, ridiculous! come to your senses!, no one actually believes! -- all the usual games) but can you explain how it's supposed to work, according to the fraudulent scientists?


You are defending "scientists" who

1. conspire to "hide the decline" after 1941 on Surface Ground
2. deliberately destroy RAW DATA to prevent "sceptics" from checking it
3. have lied so many times about Antarctic Ice Growth that it is hard to count all of them
4. took highly correlated satellite and balloon data showing precisely no warming in the atmosphere and fudged both to show "warming" with uncorrelated "corrections."
5. lied about Himalayan Ice
6. lied about 1998 being the "warmest year ever" in the US from just the surface of urban areas - really 1934
7. hid the truth of the Greenland forest 700k years ago because they claim today is "warmest in the last million years"
8. took 50 years of ocean temps showing a 0.5 degree decline 1950-1980 and then a 0.6 degree rise 1980-2000 and claimed that was a "nail in the coffin" for skeptics (clearly the "rise" by 2000, which has since vanished, was not statistically significant)
9. whined and whined about Alaskan "melt" until Alaskan ice started growing again in 2005, and have since shut up about Alaska
10. cherry pick glaciers "melting" like Kilimanjaro while ignoring Antarctica, New Zealand, Mongolia, and the Himalayas which have growing glaciers
11. got busted in a British Court lying about multiple aspects of The Fraud and were too chicken to appeal, but rather relied on a biased media to censor
12. based The Fraud on a Michael Mann "algorithm" which Michael Crichton documented returns a "Hockey Stick" chart regardless of the data it is fed
13. constantly take record high temps as evidence of The Fraud while pooh poohing record lows
14. laughably "corrected" for Urban Heat Sink with a 0.05 degree "correction" when the real "correction" is over a degree, and wipes out all the "warming" in Surface Ground.
15. takes the surface of growing urban areas disproportionately from the northern hemisphere and claims those are "Earth temperatures," or, for real dummies, just "temperatures."
16. has funding cut off for scientists who fail to produce "evidence" of "warming"

Want more?

Sorry, but the credibility of the "scientists" pushing The Fraud is right up there with Andy Fastow's quarterly SEC filings for Enron...

I think you're wrong about every one of those points, therefore you are wrong about every one of those points. You make 16 claims and provide absolutely no evidence. You haven't answered my question, either: do you know how global warming is supposed to happen, according to climate scientists? If you can't even articulate the theory you're attacking, you're the one with the credibility problem.

As to your claims . . .

1. What exactly are you talking about? Who exactly is "conspiring" to hide what decline? Are you referring to the well-recognized 25-year flattening of the global temperature from around 1945-1970? Or are claiming that the trend from 1941 to present is negative?

2. WTH? Where did you get that from? Destroying raw data? Who? What data? When?

3. Hrmmm . . . oooooook. Well, if you say someone's lied, then it must be true.

4. Another claim with no evidence. What data? What balloons? Oh, and who did this correlation?

5. Now you get to something with some meat on it. Yes, there was definitely some confusion with the Himalayan glaciers and the IPCC. Himalayan glacier mass had been--at that point--increasing slightly, and it was reported to be decreasing (or, rather, I believe it was reported to be among the group of glaciated areas decreasing in mass). So Himalayan glaciers are, as predicted, growing slightly, as they should when shoved up 20,000 feet into an atmosphere with increasing water vapor content.

6. Show me the data you use to make this claim.

7. But BN, I thought that 700,000 years ago Greenland would have been somewhere near the equator, according to your rapidly moving tectonic plate theory. Now, where is the evidence that this theory of a forested Greenland has been hidden? And what exactly does it mean to have a forested Greenland 700k years ago?

8. Again, I need the data. This should be pretty simple--let's just look at the temperature record. And who is making this claim?

9. What study shows Alaskan ice growing? Have you visited all those nice sites I linked above? Of course, it's true that climatologists put them together, but then I imagine that any data you have on Alaskan ice also comes from those dirty, lying climatologists.

10. Bah! You didn't visit those sites. Al Gore cherry-picked in order to provide a dramatic example, but there were a lot of cherries on the tree. Global glacier mass balance is in sharp decline. I've provided a link to the WGMS above. A relative handful of glaciers are growing.

11. I believe you're referring to Al Gore, who is not a scientist. Nevertheless, I think I've addressed the "lying" issue above. It would be a pretty good stretch to call any of it a lie. Most of it was selection according to what is most rhetorically valuable. Kind of the way you use the word "fraud" and "chicken" and other emotionally-charged words to try to sway your audience (instead of evidence).

12. Michael Crichton. Groan. Read. the. paper. for. yourself. Understand the analytical methods involved. Here's a good overview of the Mann paper: cha-ching. This is a bit of a straw man as well, since the famous "hockey stick" paper doesn't really add much to GW theory. It attempts to gather together many studies in order to determine long-range temperature trends. Unfortunately, the media latched on to the "hockey stick" and ran with it. Meanwhile, global temperatures continue to rise.

13. Uhhh . . . this study looks at both.

14. Again with the UHI thing. Give me the study that reports your findings. Here's one to look at while you're digging:

15. Uhhh, I'm not sure what you're saying here. If it's what I think it is, you're going to have to provide evidence that someone (a working climatologist, preferably one who has contributed to the IPCC) is actually doing this.

16. Well now, let's just take a closer look at this claim. Give me some names, and we'll take it on a case by case basis.

Well Frank in the end I really do feel sorry for people like you who worry about man-made global warming. You have probably lost sleep over it and what a pity. You continually avoid very valid points and try to answer questions I pose that you think help your cause. No matter. Soon you will realize what I realized a long time ago. Al is out for his money, no more, no less. Funny how you can rail against "oil billionaires" and yet those who stand to become "carbon billionaires" are just fine. Don't misunderstand. I would have no problem if Al was selling his snake oil on the up-and-up. It's the fact that he is trying to steal fro taxpayers through a "cap and trade" policy that really burns me. Again, you avoid my specific questions and try to paint a picture where people actually agree with manmade global warming. Fair enough. I understand, I would too if in your position. I would imagine it is very difficult to defend a position such as yours. After all, the poles were once tropical and Mars has been warming right on par with Earth. Maybe the Vikings and Martians are driving evil SUVs, who knows. But if not, wouldn't you agree that there is certainly some natural variation in Earth's temperatures that are explained more by solar output than a TRACE gas in the Earth's atmosphere??? You keep relying on NOAA and the IPCC, and I'll keep relying on real data. NOAA and IPCC have been shredded when it comes to data quality (I know you will ask where--just google it and you will find more than you ever wanted), yet you cite them so excitedly and fervently. Bravo. So OK I'll take your word for it and realize a couple of islands from 4 centuries ago went up. Do you know for sure it was b/c of manmade global warming? Of course you don't. The industrial revolution started just over a century ago. Face it Frank. You are in a no-win situation here. Again, explain to me how the poles can be tropical (as in the past) and now continual ice (as in present-day). Obviously, natural variation. Again, to think that a trace essential gas that makes up a very very small amount ot the atmosphere is responsible is at the least very very irresponsible. I guess I can only be happy that I haven't fallen for Al's tactics as you have. Funny how you complain about big oil and their billionaires while you continually benefit from it. Face it Frank, oil is our lifeblood whether you like it or not. Windmills are a hilarious option if you are trying to replace oil. If and when they are spinning (a big if indeeed), they pale in comparison to oil. Again, good day sir. Now I look forward to you cherry-picking one sentence out of this post while ignoring the rest. Such is the life of an idealist I suppose.

FR: Relax, I have lost no sleep over this issue. I don't worry. And my failings as a debater say absolutely nothing about the power of the science. And yes, I agree absolutely agree that there is natural variability in the Earth's global temperatures, and long-period solar and orbital cycles are part of that. You also have a valid point, that the disappearance of Chesapeake islands since 1607 probably has more to do with sinking land and other natural warming that the more recent manmade variety. But you can't explain the more recent warming with tectonics, either. And you are just dead wrong about the effect of CO2 changes in the atmosphere. See physics. I even agree that wind power cannot possibly replace the energy contained in fossil fuels. But nuclear could, along with solar and wind applications where they make sense. See France. Compare the deaths and environmental damage done by extraction of fossil fuels with that done as a result of nuclear power. I also know that by burning fossil fuels we are releasing carbon at a prodigious rate that has been sequestered in the Earth for hundreds of millions of years. That can't continue indefinitely with no effect. See physics. FInally, sure, people will make lots of money from whatever new energy regime we devise. That's always been the case. It's a vital commodity. See capitalism and free enterprise. Thanks to you all for the lively debate.

I don't worry about it either. I do what I can to help mitigate it in both my personal energy practice and my attempts to combat the very well-funded misinformation campaign.

There are a couple of disturbing beliefs you have, Brett. The most disturbing is that you believe that because the earth was this way or that way in the past, it must mean that the current warming is part of a natural cycle and therefore harmless. Yes, atmospheric CO2 levels have been 20 times what they are now -- tens of millions of years ago. Yes, the earth has been much warmer and much cooler than it is now -- millions of years ago. Humans weren't around, of course, and the temperature didn't rise as quickly as it is now. That's the key. Toss all the temperature proxies out the window, if you wish. You still have to deal with the physics of what is happening right now. Frank is right: we're releasing CO2 and CH4 that has been stored up over tens of millions of years, and that means the natural carbon cycle can be thrown out the window.

You also continue to ignore the physics of CO2 and CH4. The increase is small, but the feedbacks amplify the increase, and humans have had a relatively stable climate for at least a couple of thousand years. We've spread ourselves all over the earth, created bordered nations (and nationalism), engaged about 6 billion people in a complex and very delicate economic mode, and have set things up so that most people are not self-reliant but dependent on that economic mode. It doesn't take much to cause chaos in such a situation.

It isn't just rising sea levels, either. The winter kill line is moving north, affecting (both positively and negatively) insects, plants, trees, crops. Weather patterns are shifting, increasing drought/heavy precip in places not prepared for drought/heavy precip. The oceans are rapidly becoming less alkaline and warmer, making life difficult for coral reefs. Phytoplankton has been in sharp decline for 60 years. There is this naive belief that the system will stay the same; it'll just be a little warmer. Yet a quick but small amount of warming can have huge consequences in an evolutionary system and in our current global human reality.

I don't have Frank's positive outlook on new energy regimes. The people in control of the funding are very clearly looking for a commodity. Clean, low-cost energy would be a disaster for the oil industry, and that industry is easily the most powerful force in human politics. Check out how much subsidy the oil industry has received, how much funding clean coal research has received, and compare it to clean, non-commodity energy research subsidies. The desire to keep commodity energy as the heart of the current economic mode is the driving force behind most policy these days. Even the relatively cheap mitigation efforts are finding resistance. Shipping companies cheered the opening of both arms of the NW Passage late this summer. Yay massive albedo loss!

Your rhetoric is atrocious, though, Brett. There's a very bitter edge to it, and a definite need to determine absolute truth, even if you have to do it yourself: "NOAA and IPCC have been shredded when it comes to data quality (I know you will ask where--just google it and you will find more than you ever wanted), yet you cite them so excitedly and fervently." Just google it? Really? So anything Frank finds with Google must be truth? Or did you just want someone else to do your thinking for you?

Solar output, by the way, is at its minimum, but it's beginning to head back upward, which is bad news.

Thanks for reminding us that the "solar cycle" pushed by Fixed Noise is actually part of The Fraud, a "reason" to explain why the surface of growing urban areas disproportionately in the northern hemisphere hasn't warmed at all for 15 years. The solar cycle is complete bunk. It argues that the "solar cycle" warmed and cooled the surface of growing urban areas disproportionately in the northern hemisphere, but not the atmosphere, the oceans, or the surface of Antarctica and Siberia. Each and every "skeptic" "scientist" using "solar cycle" is 100% part of The Fraud. The Fraud has so much money to fund bogus "science" that it plants BS in the "skeptic" side as to make it easy to "refute skeptics..."

As for the ClimateGate emails, you can pretend those exist. After all, the media does the same thing...

The ClimateGate emails clearly document fudging, lying, and hiding and destroying data. Phil Jones was cited for that in one of the bogus "hearings" in which his lying rear was "exonerated."

And, indeed, the correlation between the satellites and balloons showing no warming in the atmosphere was better than 0.9 r- squared. Usually, when decent, honest scientists have two and only two measures of the same thing, and they are highly correlated, such data is accepted as accurate. However, The Fraud cannot admit that the atmosphere isn't warming at all, because, well, that outs The Fraud as fraud. So we got this FUDGE job...

" For years, skeptics of global warming have used satellite and weather balloon data to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening.

Now, according to three new studies published in the journal Science, it turns out those conclusions based on satellite and weather balloon data were based on faulty analyses.

The atmosphere is indeed (cough cough) warming, not cooling as the (actual highly correlated raw) data (from the two and only two sources measuring it) previously showed."

... because, once again, the tippy toppiests took RAW DATA showing NO WARMING and FUDGED IT... and the "US media" reported the FUDGE as "truth" without any "skepticism" at all...

For those who seem to have forgotten about ClimateGate, a sampling of the "integrity" of the tippy toppiests behind The Fraud...

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Yawn. Conspiracy is everywhere, isn't it, BN?

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Mike (Michael Mann) plotted instrumental data next to reconstructed proxy data in order to show recent warming against the long-term, proxy-based trend. He published this plot in Nature (the "Nature" trick) in a 1998 paper. It was called a "trick" because it was a novel way to look at the data. Specifically, it was a novel way to "hide the decline" in tree-ring proxy reliability after 1960 (which is a very odd thing and still not well-explained). It refers not at all to hiding a decline in temperature.

Now, BN, I know you don't believe this, because you seem to be permanently in the mood to consider only what suits your fancy--certainly nothing that contradicts what you believe. You don't seem to believe that people outside climatology are capable of fraud. All fraud is in climatology (and other earth sciences that show data that support AGW). The people who illegally stole the emails are probably heroic in your view, just as long as they don't steal your emails. The people raking in tens of billions from the sale of oil must be completely honest. They wouldn't possibly spread a few dollars to undermine scientific activity to spin the story to their benefit. Why, they're just as honest as drug companies.

Trenberth's "where's the warming" is a terrible conspiratorial moment. He's constructing Earth's energy budget, and he's doing the math and the physics, taking into everything into account, and he finds that there's missing energy. There are certainly places the energy could be, but there are no data for those places. In a moment of terrible honesty, he asks the question of his co-conspirators. Shocking! Since then, of course, we've had studies that strongly suggest the deep ocean might be warming. The Argo data, again, only measure the upper ocean, and that somewhat sketchily. I suggest you go here and actually read.

Now, did the emails contain some really nasty comments about the so-called "skeptic" community? Yes. I don't want to suggest that it was the right thing to say or think, but when people are deliberately trying to spread disinformation about something you think is incredibly important for the future of billions of people, it might tend to get your hackles in a spiff.

When denialists call themselves "skeptics" it really irks me. I've seen few skeptics attack the theory of AGW from the other direction, claiming that the models and analysis aren't accurate because the Earth is actually getting hotter faster than the IPCC predicts. It's always some form of "no, it's wrong -- we must return to business as usual. The way things are are the way they should be." Conservatism that calls itself skepticism.


It is pretty sad you can defend that as "science," DSL.

If there was a case that CO2 was actually warming anything, the highly correlated RAW DATA from the satellites and balloons would show that. It never did...

Indeed, the practices of

1. hiding data
2. destroying data
3. rigging the "peer review" process
4. lying
5. resorting to insults regarding those who question the fudging and point out the truth of the RAW DATA

and, most importantly...

6. FUDGING the RAW DATA showing NO WARMING into "peer reviewed climate studies" claiming "warming" where none exists in the RAW DATA

that is what passes for the "science" behind The Fraud.


If there really was a case of planetary warming from the unquestioned increase in atmospheric CO2, there would be no need to do any of that. The RAW DATA would speak for itself...

and the RAW DATA does speak for itself, loudly and clearly, and it says

The Fraud of Global non-Warming is the deliberate misinterpretation of the Urban Heat Sink Effect on the Surface Ground Temp Series, which is THE ONLY Earth temperature series showing any warming at all... as the rest of Earth climate data clearly states that there is precisely

4. NO BREAKOUT in Cane Activity
5. NO RISE in Ocean Levels
6. NO WARMING on the surface of Antarctica and Siberia (no cities there)

FR: OK fellas, have we exhausted this line of debate yet? Have either of you persuaded the other on one line of argument? Can we move on? Thanks.

Sure, Frank -- I'll just make a few final remarks.

BN, YELLING things doesn't make them truer. It just suggests to the reader that you don't have an argument. You've also yet to show evidence of a massive conspiracy to "hide" or "fudge" raw data. If you think you have something to prove, and if you think it's important to actually convince someone that you're right (and not just influence the gullible who are swayed by SHOUTING), then come to skepticalscience or and make your case. You have to accept the possibility of being wrong, though, and you'll certainly find people at those sites who are willing to be convinced by you if you provide evidence. At realclimate, you can actually talk to the climatologists you're accusing of fraud. You'll find them fairly patient if you stay away from goofy tactics like ALL CAPS and copy/pasting from other sites. is outed in the ClimateGate emails as nothing but certified participants in The Fraud, and is responsible for the ridiculous 0.05 degree "correction" over 100 years in Surface Ground, which really should be slightly over a degree, or more than 20 times ReallyFUDGE's "fudge."

"For example, has been billed as an objective website at which global warming activists and skeptics can engage in an impartial debate. But in the CRU e-mails, the global warming establishment boasts that RealClimate is in their pocket.

I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through.... We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you'd like us to include.

[T]hink of RC as a resource that is at your disposal.... We'll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics don't get to use the RC comments as a megaphone." is a complete sham, and those who say "go push your 'theories' to them" are, in reality, saying "take your complains about Enron's latest 10-Q to the 'expert,' 'CFO of the year' Andy Fastow."

Post a comment

All comments must be approved by the blog author. Please do not resubmit comments if they do not immediately appear. You are not required to use your full name when posting, but you should use a real e-mail address. Comments may be republished in print, but we will not publish your e-mail address. Our full Terms of Service are available here.

Verification (needed to reduce spam):

About Frank Roylance
This site is the Maryland Weather archive. The current Maryland Weather blog can be found here.
Frank Roylance is a reporter for The Baltimore Sun. He came to Baltimore from New Bedford, Mass. in 1980 to join the old Evening Sun. He moved to the morning Sun when the papers merged in 1992, and has spent most of his time since covering science, including astronomy and the weather. One of The Baltimore Sun's first online Web logs, the Weather Blog debuted in October 2004. In June 2006 Frank also began writing comments on local weather and stargazing for The Baltimore Sun's print Weather Page. Frank also answers readers’ weather queries for the newspaper and the blog. Frank Roylance retired in October 2011. Maryland Weather is now being updated by members of The Baltimore Sun staff

Sign up for FREE weather alerts*
Get free Baltimore Sun mobile alerts
Sign up for weather text alerts

Returning user? Update preferences.
Sign up for more Sun text alerts
*Standard message and data rates apply. Click here for Frequently Asked Questions.
Maryland Weather Center

Area Weather Stations
Resources and Sun coverage
• Weather news

• Readers' photos

• Data from the The Sun's weather station

• 2011 stargazers' calendar

• Become a backyard astronomer in five simple steps

• Baltimore Weather Archive
Daily airport weather data for Baltimore from 1948 to today

• National Weather Service:
Sterling Forecast Office

• Capital Weather Gang:
Washington Post weather blog

• CoCoRaHS:
Community Collaborative Rain, Hail and Snow Network. Local observations by volunteers

• Weather Bug:
Webcams across the state

• National Data Buoy Center:
Weather and ocean data from bay and ocean buoys

• U.S. Drought Monitor:
Weekly maps of drought conditions in the U.S.

• USGS Earthquake Hazards Program:
Real-time data on earthquakes

• Water data:
From the USGS, Maryland

• National Hurricane Center

• Air Now:
Government site for air quality information

• NWS Climate Prediction Center:
Long-term and seasonal forecasts

• U.S. Climate at a Glance:
NOAA interactive site for past climate data, national, state and city

• Clear Sky Clock:
Clear sky alerts for stargazers


• Hubblesite:
Home page for Hubble Space Telescope

• Heavens Above:
Everything for the backyard stargazer, tailored to your location

• NASA Eclipse Home Page:
Centuries of eclipse predictions

• Cruise Critic: Hurricane Zone:
Check to see how hurricanes may affect your cruise schedule

• Warming World:
NASA explains the science of climate change with articles, videos, “data visualizations,” and space-based imagery.

• What on Earth:
NASA blog on current research at the space agency.
Most Recent Comments
Blog updates
Recent updates to news blogs
 Subscribe to this feed
Charm City Current
Stay connected