The key thing that is missing here is that the Esper paper correlates much more closely to the known historical record than the data produced by Mann et al. Mann may not like that but he will have to live with it. After all science is never settled as this paper so clearly indicates. All that really means is that we have to review the model predictions more carefully. I make no apology for my view that the models are seriously flawed.

The Esper paper only looks at summer temperatures and only in a small area. It is in no way comparable to multi proxy reconstructions which cover the Northern Hemisphere.

Peter Somerville claims
"the Esper paper correlates much more closely to the known historical record than the data produced by Mann et al."

That statement is so vague as to be meaningless. Usually when pressed the deniers will mutter "the hockey stick is broken" and and refer to self-appointed "climate auditor" Steve McIntyre's claims against Mann.

This despite their being numerous other studies confirming Mann's work.
e.g. http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

Here is sample of posts from the same McIntyre pontificating from his coward's castle [he never publishes these claims in the scientific journals] and implying malfeasance on the part of the author of the current paper Prof. Esper.
http://climateaudit.org/2006/03/09/esper-on-in-site-cherry-picking/
http://climateaudit.org/2006/04/23/an-esper-spaghetti-graph/

It does highlight the completely fraudulent nature of the the "fake skeptics". As soon as Esper publishes something that they believe supports their case, "all is forgiven".

Peter Somerville.
The weirdest thing just happened. In fact it was so weird that I took a screen shot of before and after in case no one believes me. While I was reading some other comments on this article, I noticed the count on your comment going from deep in the red to positive while my rebuttal of your comment went from positive to deep in the red in the space of about ten minutes.

The strangest thing is that Michael Silverton's comment in the middle did not change count at all - don't you agree that that is weird.

It looks like someone has worked out how to game the counters on the site. I wonder who it could be? Never mind - I am sure the moderators can work it out from the web logs.

@Michael Silverton
I totally agree with you Michael. However quantity is not always quality - diverse data sets can be much more variable, and that variability can conceal cycles buried in the data.

Contrary to some comments I am not a "denier" - hardly a scientific word - more a term suited to religious zealots. I actually have no problems with the end of Mann's hockey stick. The trends over the last century or so have a solid foundation.

But the proxy data does not reflect what historically we know occurred. That has always puzzled me. Esper's methodology has produced results that do reflect history more closely (correlate was too strong a word), which interests me. They need to be confirmed at other sites certainly, and I am 100% certain others will follow through on that. If they are then that will raise interesting questions.

Some years ago I participated in an exercise organized by some British researchers to calibrate and validate their climate model. I allowed them to use my home and work computers in a "SETI" type exercise. They were using the proxy data in this exercise, which at the time worried me as I had misgivings about the data even then. Esper's methodology may provide a technique to improve the quality of the proxy record with knock-on benefits.

Time will tell.

I'm somewhat surprised that you think the Esper paper confirms the historical record. There is no sign of the little ice age in their data and the MWP in their data appears to be much earlier than it is generally thought to occurr.

Mike,

I was so concerned about your observation that I have sent the following email to the Executive Director of the site. Some action may have been taken already to address this issue:

"Andrew Jaspan
Executive Director and Editor
“The Conversation”

Dear Andrew,

I must congratulate you for the quality of the material that appears on The Conversation. The site, and Global Mail have become my favourite places to visit. It certainly attracts a lot of commentary, some of it excellent and some of it rather ordinary, but that is the nature of blogs. Just as they create an efficient means to disseminate information and opinion they empower those who would otherwise be powerless.

This said I have one major criticism of the design. Your site allows readers to indicate whether or not they regard a particular comment as positive or negative. I have suspected for some time now that this is being manipulated and I now have evidence that this is indeed the case. Using a relatively simple test I have identified at least two contributors who are involved in this but their identity is not important. The means of circumventing the site’s management of such comments is so simple there are undoubtedly many more.

The site uses cookies to track user’s activities, including registering their opinions about particular comments. This is designed to prevent them “voting” more than once. This mechanism is simple to bypass. Modern browsers allow users to choose to accept or bar cookies. Some have an incognito mode that clears cookies and histories for each instance of the browser.

Either system can be used to enable a user to register multiple votes. Once set up a user needs only to create a fresh instance of the browser, to vote again and again.

Personally, I don’t think the facility to vote blue or red adds much to the value of the site, but it is of even less value if it can be so easily manipulated. If you want to preserve this facility on the site then the fix to prevent this sort of manipulation is very simple, although it may be unpalatable to some. I leave that up to your support staff, but I strongly believe the integrity of the site requires something to be done.

I will leave how you choose to manage this to you.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Sommerville"

@Michael Silverton

MichaeI, I apologise for not replying earlier. This has been a busy weekend. Esper's paper, graphs and all, can be found here:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1589.html

but I am sure you know that already. Initially I used the word "correlate" and subsequently modified it to "better reflect". That was deliberate as you no doubt realise. I am not yet ready to say it "confirms" the historical record, as I think the methodology needs to be confirmed. I agree there is little sign of the Little Ice Age, I am happy to agree to disagree about the MWP, and some cycles in the Dark Ages are interesting. It is my opinion that the variations in temperature that Esper has identified are interesting enough to pursue the methodology further. I am sure that will happen. If the methodology proves to be an improvement it will go a long way towards settling many fruitless arguments about Mann's "hockey stick".

I am a little puzzled about the readiness of some to simply reject that conclusions of Esper's paper, but I have seen this many times before in other scientific disciplines, as I am sure you have. But for me science is never set.

When in a hole Peter, the best advice is to stop digging.

Peter - I think you have already established that, as well as being equipped with some of the other internet "dark arts", you can copy and paste a link. But in all your posts on the Esper paper, there is simply no evidence that you have read it.

LOL, seems someone likes to muck around with the voting for anyone who replies to Peter. Same thing happened to me. Hmmm...

Mike,
I am not sure there is any way to convince you that I have read it and understand it so I don't intend to try. Indeed it is a complex jargon ridden document which does take some time to work your way through. There is a supplementary PDF file with tables and graphs that is also worth a look - just in case you missed it. And it is not the first time I have pasted a link. Still haven't figured out how to over-ride the software and paste an image yet but...

As for "internet dark arts" I am not Robinson Crusoe. I twigged to what was going on quite some time ago, and I have a little list of some of the perpetrators. I did receive a very interesting email today from the Technical Director, and they will be taking steps to prevent the practice of such dark arts as soon as it is practicable. A positive outcome for all I think.

:-)

Yes. It was not hard to work it out. We are not dealing with the sharpest tool in the toolshed.

No need to be concerned Ian - you were never a player in this game - I know that. I heard you have been crook - I hope that is past.

Love the new title Mike. If true it certainly explains a lot.
:-)

Mike,

Don't worry about it - Peter is being a little bit conservative with the truth in his title. "Retired Manager" doesn't sound as impressive I guess.

Past your bedtime, old fella...

It explains how I know you are a master of bovine excrement. My credentials however are not relevant to a discussion of climate science Despite having an honours science degree, I feel no need to puff up my resume and call myself a scientist.

Mike Hansen: "While I was reading some other comments on this article, I noticed the count on your comment going from deep in the red to positive while my rebuttal of your comment went from positive to deep in the red in the space of about ten minutes."
I'm told that it's within the skill set of the lowest "script kiddie". The fact that someone has gone and done it here is revealing.
I've often wondered how much of climate science denial is founded in the peurile;
- the naughty toddler's delight at provoking an adult;
- the inability of a child to appreciate consequences and;
- a deep-seated, yet formless, fear of the bogeyman or monsters under the bed.
Strangely, it only seems to happen around posts headed "Peter Sommerville", who claims to be a "Scientist & Technologist". Weird, huh?

Suggest you do a better analysis. The puerile thing is that any one takes any notice of these red and blue markers. They are being manipulated all the time so they have absolutely no credibility. I simply pointed that out. One of the prime manipulators keeps changing his job description. I caught him out with a very simple trap. But he is not the only one.

Hard to know what you are upset about Marc. Partly because you do not make any point but also as Dr Glickson points out the MWP debate excites those deniers "who argue that that current warming is not related to anthropogenic carbon emission"

The argument is apparent from the links to denier articles given by Dr Glickson
"Esper et al 2000-Year Reconstruction Depicts Powerful Natural Factors – Shatters Absurd Notion CO2 Drives Climate"
and
" the climate has often been warmer without any significant CO2 emissions having taken place - suggesting that CO2 emissions simply aren't that important"

Essentially the argument is akin to "People die in car accidents therefore heart attacks cannot kill people".

Yet here you are yesterday claiming "No one is denying that co2 will lead to higher temperatures."
https://theconversation.edu.au/climate-change-and-the-soothing-message-of-luke-warmism-8445#comment_56300

Have you changed your mind again?

At least I spelt his name right. Seems you are making a play for the role of Shemp.

Marc Hendrickx - your incessant troll like posting demonstrates a true pathological obsession with denying the science of AGW at every possible turn.

It's not even useful debate - just ad-homs and mis-represenation Tirelessly Repeated Over Lengthy Lines.

You have no evidence and no science to support your pseudo-skepticism and jump on to every piece of denier bloggoshpere as if it were truth. How is it that anyone can have such arrogance to believe they know better than every single national science body of credibility is both amazing and pitifully pathetic.

I am starting to feel genuinely sorry for you

Dr Mark,
The Con happily promotes the opinions of three charlatans and you blindly cheerlead with pom poms pumped furiously in a manner most unbecoming for someone who use the title Dr.

Glikson's presents a blatant misrepresentation about extreme weather and you just let it pass. He claims to know the annual rate of change of CO2 going back to the Cretaceous andyou just duck your head and wave him through.

You can cheer on your emperors all you like but I'm happy to stand back and point out the fact that he, and Larry and Curly, and your mate Shemp, don't have any clothes on.

Perhaps it's time the "curators" here invited a broader range of contributors on this subject. The regular diatribes of Moe Et al becoming a little boring. After they let through Curly's piece this week, that took a swipe at uncertainty in science in an irrational attack on the Hartwell Paper, perhaps the curators can invite one of its authors to post a reply. Now that would be a conversation, though they do seem to be interested in an academic debate, rather we only hear from the extreme alarmists.

By the way have you worked out that midpoint of 1-4.1 yet, last I heard you thought it was more than 3.

The head of NOAA's climate office, Tom Karl, said: "What we're seeing, not only in Texas but in other phenomena in other parts of the world, where we can't explain these events by natural variability alone. They're just too rare, too uncommon."

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/extreme-weather-climate-change.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0710/Does-climate-change-increase-the-odds-of-extreme-weather-events-video

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-change-poses-disaster-risk-for-most-planet

These links report only what the bodies like NOAA, the AMerican Meteorological society are saying Mr Hendrickx

Plus a recent paper about temperature extremes
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120105_PerceptionsAndDice.pdf

" An important change is the emergence of a category of summertime extremely hot outliers, more than three standard deviations (σ) warmer than climatology. This hot extreme, which covered much less than 1% of Earth's surface in the period of climatology, now typically covers about 10% of the land area."

So, this is what the scientists who actually study the evidence conclude Mr Hendrickx.

If you have data to refute them I invite you to publish it. It would be good news.

Thanks for those cherries, fresh off the tree.

In regard to the recent NOAA claims that relate to the Texan drought, here's a rebuttal from John Nielsen-Gammon. John Nielsen-Gammon is an American meteorologist and climatologist. He is a Professor of Meteorology at Texas A&M University, and the Texas State Climatologist, holding both appointments since 2000. (Another missing voice here at The Con who prefer the views of Moe, Larry and Curly).

Twenty Times More Likely (Not): The Science
"If you’re reading this, you probably pay enough attention to climate news to know that there was major news from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration last week that last year’s Texas heat wave was made twenty times more likely by global warming, or something like that. In this blog post, I’ll show that this was a pure model result, and that the real study ultimately came to quite a different conclusion. The blame lies in NOAA’s press release, and who ever approved it that should have known better."

ends..."So, NOAA, now you have the more gullible members of the public believing that the heat wave really was proven to be 20 times more likely because of global warming, and we have the more skeptical members of the public believing that research produced by NOAA doesn’t even pass the smell test. At least you got good press coverage, and all publicity is good publicity, right?"

http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012/07/twenty-times-more-likely-not-the-science/

That's you Mark, one of those gullible members of the public.

In regard to that paper you present by environmental activist Hansen, here are some comments by Judy Curry that are of relevance:

http://judithcurry.com/2012/07/27/loaded-dice/#more-9197

"Hansen’s idea for presenting extremes in this way is a powerful one, but misleading. I agree with suggestions by Tamino and Sardesmukh et al., here are some other suggestions."

To accurately represent extreme weather statistics and their changes, it is necessary for climate models to accurately represent the first four moments of daily variability. The bad news is that currently they do not adequately capture the changes of even the first moment (the mean) on regional scales."

Pity Judy is not invited to comment here by The Cons curators' who prefer the stale views of Moe, Larry and Curly.

In relation to the IPCC SREX report here are some quaotable quotes from Chapter 4...
"There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change"
"The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados"
"The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses"
As Roger Pielke Jnr (another missing voice) point out: The report even takes care of tying up a loose end that has allowed some commentators to avoid the scientific literature:
"Some authors suggest that a (natural or anthropogenic) climate change signal can be found in the records of disaster losses (e.g., Mills, 2005; Höppe and Grimm, 2009), but their work is in the nature of reviews and commentary rather than empirical research."

Seems you are not reading wide enough.

I quote public bodies of reputable science and published peer reviewed papers - you quote denialist blog sites and non peer reviewed blog quote for a dissenting scientist.

Who, exactly, is using cherries?

You are seriously deluded...
I quoted:
The IPCC, John Nielson-Gammon, Judy Curry and Roger Piele Jnr. Here are their Qualfications. I assume you know who the IPCC is.

John Nielsen-Gammon is an American meteorologist and climatologist. He is a Professor of Meteorology at Texas A&M University, and the Texas State Climatologist, holding both appointments since 2000.

Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests includehurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of theNational Research Council's Climate Research Committee.[1]
Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999), and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002), as well as over 140 scientific papers. Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992.

Roger Pielke, Jr. has been on the faculty of the University of Colorado since 2001 and is a Professor in the Environmental Studies Program and a Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES). Roger's research focuses on science, innovation and politics and in 2011 began to write in governance in sport organizations. In 2012 Roger was awarded an honorary doctorate from Linköping University in Sweden. In 2006 Roger received the Eduard Brückner Prize in Munich, Germany for outstanding achievement in interdisciplinary climate research. At CIRES, Roger served as the Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research from 2001-2007. Before joining the University of Colorado, from 1993-2001 Roger was a Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Roger is a Senior Fellow of the Breakthrough Institute, and holds academic appointments at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia and the London School of Economics. He is also author, co-author or co-editor of seven books, including The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics published by Cambridge University Press (2007). His most recent book is The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won't Tell you About Global Warming (2010, Basic Books).

And you prefer Moe, Larry and Curly!

Marc - I fear it is you who is so deluded that you cannot even see the narture of your angry ant approach.

I have quoted peer reviewed literature and official positions of bodies comprising many scientists, those bodies being internationall recognised authorities on what wieght of the evidence in relation to climate science actually says.

You accused me of cherry picking in doing so and then offered in response your quotes.

They are from part of the small dissenting group of qualified scientists who have taken largely to using the bloggosphere to promulgate their contrarisan climate science views.

The fact that you regard my use of peer previewed literature and the official position based on the weight of the evidence as "cherry picking" but your selective quotes from contrarians as well as blog published critiques of peer reveiwed science as "authoritative" is telling.

Like I said - I feel sorry for the level of angry delusion you demonstrate

You linked to a series of newspaper articles and a paper by a known activist.The NOAA claims on Texas debunked by a Professor of Meteorology at Texas A&M University, and the Texas State Climatologist.

LOL!

The newspaper articles (which clearly you did not read) are all reporting on official pronouncements by the bodies to which I refer (e.g. NOAA and the American Meteorological Society).

The other was a paper by Hansen et al, a highly respected climate scientist.

The "debunking" to which you refer were not offical pronouncements by a properly constituted body that studies climate science (such as NOAA or AMS) but individual reported statements by a contrarian on a blog

No need to feel sorry for Marc Hendrickx. He's making his mark as a satirist

See for example, his uproarious 10 November 2010 contribution to ABC Unleashed "IPCC science: are you willing to take the risk?" (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/40952.html). In the comments, I invited his comment on my partial summary of Cainozoic climate trends and their links with atmospheric greenhouse gas content; the absence of any reply shows that he is either or both of joking and out of his depth.

Marc's author profile at ABC Unleashed describes him as "Marc Hendrickx lets off steam with an occasional piece of heavy handed satire that he composes in the moments he finds between completing a PhD at Newcastle University, working as a consulting geologist, and ..."

Perhaps he's now a consulting satirist?

Thanks David - but the link just inspires more pity from me. The fact that someone could be so public in their ill-informed pseudo-skepticism and hostiliity to evidence is a sorry state. That they cannot perceive their overweening arrogance in presuming to know better than the rest of the world (as evidenced by all the credible science bodies) is only more pitiful.

I would like the reality of AGW to be untrue. So would Mr Hendrickx (and indeed I suggest most of the planet).

The difference is that as much I wish it weren't true I'm willing to accept the evidence. Mr Hendricks and other pseudo-skeptics so want it not to be true that they will jump on any thing to comfort them and cannot even countence or indulge in rational argument on the topic.

Hence my pity

WhenI first came across the topic I was highly skeptical and dismissive - reasoning that (a) Solar insolation ought to be the main driver and (b) the heat capacity of the oceans would overwhelm any minor radiative forcing from increased GHG levels.

It was only when I started exploring and understanding the topic by reading much of the relevant texts and publsihed science that I appreciated that, whilst my initial thoughts had some merit - they missed the detail that mattered. My skepticism gave way to acceptance based on the weight of the evidence.

That's what real sketpcis do.

Pseudo-sleptics - those who persist with making a virtue out of doubt on such topics, despite the evidence -really do deserve pity since it illustrates a fundamental disconnect with reality that appears to inspire hostility and anger - hardly pleasant for them or the targets of their bile

That looks like an appeal to authority to me. I thought skeptics derided that tactic.

LOL Dr Mark says "That's what real sketpcis do."

You would have much more credibility if you could spell the word correctly!

OMG! I confess. I'm a lousy typist when I'm banging this stuff out!

Clearly - my mis-spellings invalidate my entire logic! I withdraw and bow to your superior twit.

Mark is happy to support the Arctic Methane Emergency Group. An activist organization that makes the following declaration:

"AMEG POSITION
DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY
We declare there now exists an extremely high international security risk* from abrupt and runaway global warming being triggered by the end-summer collapse of Arctic sea ice towards a fraction of the current record and release of huge quantities of methane gas from the seabed. Such global warming would lead at first to worldwide crop failures but ultimately and inexorably to the collapse of civilization as we know it. This colossal threat demands an immediate emergency scale response to cool the Arctic and save the sea ice. The latest available data indicates that a sea ice collapse is more than likely by 2015 and even possible this summer (2012). Thus some measures to counter the threat have to be ready within a few months."

Now you mis-represent. I never stated I agreed with the AMEG statement.

Only that (1) you made an error in your attack (which I note you have not the courage to admit) and (2) that the evidence clearly shows Artic sea ice continues to decrease - as the NASA data shows.

here is what the National Sea Ice and data centre says

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

"Arctic sea ice continued to track at levels far below average through the middle of July, with open water in the Kara and Barents seas reaching as far north as typically seen during September. "

And here is the latest graph - with data just days old (click on Figure 2)

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

The results clearly show well below historical averages - ad in fact are currently BELOW 2007 levels for the same time.

Russell,

Looks like another one deserts the deniers sinking ship:

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic
By RICHARD A. MULLER
Published: July 28, 2012

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all

Roger Pielke Snr has a post on the new paper by Watts et al 2012 (yes that is the Watts of WUWT fame)...link at the end.

This includes an assessment of Muller's NYTimes op Ed:

"Anthony’s new results also undermine the latest claims by Richard Muller of BEST, as not only is Muller extracting data from mostly the same geographic areas as for the NCDC, GISS and CRU analyses, but he is accepting an older  assessment of station siting quality as it affects the trends.

Indeed, since he accepted the Fall et al 2011 study in reporting his latest findings, he now needs to retrench and re-compute his trends. Of course, for the non-USHCN sites, he must bin those sites as performed by Anthony’s research group. If he does not, his study should be relegated to a footnote of a out-of-date analysis.

In Richard Muller’s Op-Ed in the New York Times (see The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic), he makes far-reaching conclusions based on his sparse knowledge of the uncertainties in multi-decadal land surface temperature record. His comments show what occurs when a scientist, with excellent research credentials within their area of scientific expertise, go outside of their area of knowledge.

His latest BEST claims are, in my view, an embarrassment. The statement that he makes in his op-ed that [highlight added]

My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. (/b)Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases. (/b)

is easily refuted. See, for example,

National Research Council, 2005: Radiative forcing of climate change: Expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties. Committee on Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate Change, Climate Research Committee, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 208 pp.

Pielke Sr., R., K.  Beven, G. Brasseur, J. Calvert, M. Chahine, R. Dickerson, D.  Entekhabi, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, H. Gupta, V. Gupta, W. Krajewski, E.  Philip Krider, W. K.M. Lau, J. McDonnell,  W. Rossow,  J. Schaake, J.  Smith, S. Sorooshian,  and E. Wood, 2009: Climate change: The need to consider human forcings besides greenhouse gases.   Eos, Vol. 90, No. 45, 10 November 2009, 413. Copyright (2009) American   Geophysical Union.

Pielke Sr., R.A., A. Pitman, D. Niyogi, R. Mahmood, C. McAlpine, F. Hossain, K. Goldewijk, U. Nair, R. Betts, S. Fall, M. Reichstein, P. Kabat, and N. de Noblet-Ducoudré, 2011: Land  use/land cover changes and climate: Modeling analysis  and  observational evidence. WIREs Clim Change 2011, 2:828–850. doi: 10.1002/wcc.144.

A. J. Pitman, F. B. Avila, G. Abramowitz, Y. P.Wang, S. J. Phipps and N. de Noblet-Ducoudré, 2011: Importance of background climate in determining impact of land-cover change on regional climate. Nature Climate Change.: 20 November 2011 | DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1294

With more papers listed. Read more at the link below.

See http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/07/29/comments-on-the-game-changer-new-paper-an-area-and-distance-weighted-analysis-of-the-impacts-of-station-exposure-on-the-u-s-historical-climatology-network-temperatures-and-temperature-trends-by-w/

But Mr Hendrickx? You are on record in this thread as stating

"no one is saying climate change is not occurring, no one is saying co2 does not play a role"

I did not realise when you made this state that you meant "I, Marc Hendrickx, a a no-one"?

All you are deomnstrating in your reference to Pjielke and Watts is that in the world of AGW denial "Nope. springs eternal"

Roger Pielke Snr further states (link above):

"It certainly appears that Richard Muller is an attention-getter, which he has succeeded at, but, unfortunately, he has demonstrated a remarkable lack of knowledge concerning the uncertainties in quantifying the actual long-term surface temperature trend, as well as a seriously incomplete knowledge of the climate system."

idem potest dici de te

Only problem is (attention seeking aise) Prof Muller's current conclusions and understanding accords with the vast majority of climate scientists and every single national science body of credibility.

communis opinio concordia cum veritate

Roger Pielke Snr's does not (nor does Mr Hendrickx's)

damnant quod non intelligunt

सच्चाई सामने आ जाएगा

The truth with respect to climate science has been revealed (In Hindoi and every other language). It's just that pseudo-skeptic cynics like Mr Hendrickx cannot accept or understand it.

The common opionion of qualified climate scientists matches what is true

But

The Contrarians condemn what they cannot understand.

When run through google translator Ian seems to be saying:
"Fuck your eighth generation of ancestors"
Now is that what you meant? I wonder what the curators will make of it.

The hindi phrase above reads "the truth will out" and so it will given science isn't captured by activists like Mark Harrigan and Ian Ashman ( one wonders how his staff put up with him).

So now according Dr Harrigan the science has been "revealed"! Was Harrigan visited by the climate angel (ouch) or Were those truths revealed on golden tablets he found in his backyard.
Hallelujah!

Mr Hendrickx - If I am an activist, then so are you - and one who fails to live up the standards of discourse you yourself espouse

My activism, such as it is, is at least in support of the scientific concensus espoused by the majority of climate scientists and every single national science body of credibility - such as the Royal Society.

It is also based on my own understanding of the evidence and the physics. Something on which I have some basis to claim credibility given my training to the PhD level in physics.

Your contrarian activism, on the other hand, is in opposition to the evidence and the common interpretation of that evidence by those qualified to reach such conclusions (nothwithstanding the minority contrarian view - similar to that promulgated by the tobacco merchants in relation to cigarette smoking - for whom Richard Lindzen - currently a prominent climate contraian was also a leadfing advocate).

It is also in direct contrast to the standards you have publicly proclaimed - specifically "The role of the scientist in this debate, is as it has been: to continue to diligently report the facts, test the theories, to be honest, to be skeptical, to avoid hyperbole, to properly outline the errors and uncertainties, to avoid activism."

I have conclusively demonstrated on a number of occasions that you have NOT diligently reported the facts (e.g. claiming that papers with mid points of 2.3 and 2.55 degrees respective supported your contention that warming would be at most 2). You have demonstrated no skepticism whatsoever when reporting on conclusions frompeople like Curry and Watts - Watts in particular known for his hypocrisy (e.g. in relation to the BEST study) and you consistently engage in hyperbole and personal attacks when ever someone references the science award winning site SKS (which always references published science)
.
You state "no one is saying climate change is not occurring, no one is saying co2 does not play a role"
Then you go on to support those who do make such claims and never appear posting refuting those who, for example, challenge the very existence of the Greenhouse effect.

How, exactly, is that being "honest" and "skeptical"?

I think the truth, in relation to your approach, is plain for all to see on these posts.

Mr Hendrix - it was you who used the Hindi saying "The truth will be revealed"

You demonstrate your usual double standard in now taking me to task for responding using the same terminology.

But no, no angles or golden tablets, just diligent reading of the peer reviewed literature, examinations of the evidence and attending to the interpretations of those well qualified to do so.

Denigrating Lindzen, Curry and Watts now, and building more strawmen to tear down. Yes you certainly are an activist. Your continued blind support of the Kookites a sign you have a long walk ahead.
As Lady Percy says: Go ye giddy goose.

The translation is, "the truth will out". Significantly different to it being "revealed". But I can see how an activist swept by a religious like devotion to CAGW might make that mistake.

Actually a cursory examination of Richard Mullers's history will reveal to anyone inclined to look that he has never been on the "deniers (sinking) ship". He is by no means a "denier", nor is he a "skeptic". But he has been prepared to express his doubts about some of the science. If one cares to trace back to the beginnings of the BEST program that becomes obvious. His demonisation by some speaks of their ignorance.

Likewise with Judith Curry. There is a insightful article in the "Scientific American, November 2010" that is worth reading. It is also available on-line.

Regretably both have been seriously verballed by both ends of the spectrum.

Peter, you are still pointing at the squirrel.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The defensive walls of the Denier citadel were breached today by Richard Muller's announcement that he is no longer sceptical about climate science.

"Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."
Richard Muller in New York Times

This particular 'road to Damascus' moment carries weight because Muller was outspoken in his criticism of aspects of the temperature record and he attracted significant funding from the Koch brothers (fossil fuel billionaires who fund climate change deniers)...

To many who work in the field, Muller's latest announcement merely brings him up to date with where the science was in the mid 1990s.
"At this rate, Muller should be caught up to the current state of climate science within a matter of a few years!"
Michael Mann

Climate change deniers have the same approach to defending the Denier citadel. Here are the defensive lines around the citadel.

1. The outermost defence is an earth berm where the mass of defenders rattle their spears and chant, "It's not warming! It's not warming!"

2. The next line of defence is the moat where the defenders shout, "It's warming but it's not us! It's the sun! It's water vapour! It's a natural cycle! It's a squirrel!"

3. Then there are the outer walls of the castle, where diminished defenders run to and fro shouting, "It's warming, we did it, but it's not a big problem. Warm is nice, CO2 is good for plants, Greenland was lovely in the medieval warm period."

4. Then there is the inner wall of the castle, where the handful of remaining defenders stumble around muttering, "Yes, it's warming; yes human activity is the cause; yes, it will be horrible - but mitigation is too hard/expensive, so let's plan to adapt instead."

As each defense is breached, some of the defenders have their 'road to Damascus' moment and become advocates for action. Others fall back to the next line of defence. A few lost souls remain forever in No Mans Land crying in the wind, "It's not warming!" and "Look! It's a squirrel!"

http://thisnessofathat.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/the-castle-walls-are-breached.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My initial reaction was to tackle this cherry picking upfront but then I realized it would have been a waste of time. All I can suggest is that you put your prejudices to one side and actually do some research. It is not my task to educate you - that time is past. I hope you actually remember how to do so.

Time to stop this commentary. It is so far off the topic it is becoming rediculous

Peter Sommerville: "... put your prejudices to one side and actually do some research."
Says the voodoo "Scientist & Technologist" who's been known to imply that the capacity of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide is effectively infinite. http://tinyurl.com/cutdl8x

Peter Sommerville: "... so far off the topic it is becoming rediculous"
Says the voodoo "Scientist & Technologist" who's been known to imply that the capacity of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide is effectively infinite. http://tinyurl.com/cutdl8x

Interesting comment from a former public servant. Suggest you read the latest New Scientist - it contains a hint.

You are verballing me - as is your wont

My god you are persistent. And you continue to verbal me. I wouldn't mind so much David if I knew you were competent to comment, but I know you aren't.

Peter Sommerville: "... you continue to verbal me." Are you saying that you didn't imply what you implied?

Peter Sommerville: "... read the latest New Scientist - it contains a hint." I see no hint that the capacity of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide is effectively infinite.

I didn't expect you would - but it was worth a try!

Indeed - you are so blinkered you cannot see what is really being said. Personally, knowing you have no knowledge in this area I can only conclude your comments are driven by zealotry - not by science. But never mind.

:-)

Peter Sommerville: "... I can only conclude your comments are driven by zealotry - not by science."
Given that one better qualified than both of us subsequently agreed with me in that same thread, your conclusions are driven by; what? Wishful thinking? Delusion? Certainly not science.

No David,
By knowledge, which you so evidently do not have

Caiau

Pretty Shallow David,

Especially from one who is uninformed as you

Thanks Moe, the CAPITALS make the MESSAGE so much more FACTUAL.

You quoted annual rates in your piece above for a few years and claimed them to be " the highest recorded in the Cainozoic (from 65 Ma) to the present".
You attempt to clarify with rates that are the averages over very long time frames. The resolution of these does not get down to year to year variations. The degree of self-deception truly remarkable.

Next you'll be quoting the weather as a sign of impending climate doom. Oh you have done that already.

Marc, the capitals are a heading.

The fact that you have to resort to derogatory ad hominem style attacks betrays your own paucity of intellectual rigour in approaching this subject

If you actually address the points will you once again contend that midpoint of 1-4.1 is "something over 3"?

Genius!

You have not defined whether you are comparing rates over the same duration. Are you?

That is, if you provide a rate over a year, decade or century over the past century, do the rates you quote for periods thousands and millions of years ago apply over the same duration - year, decade, century?

If not, then clearly they are not comparable.

Wow,

"The fact that you have to resort to derogatory ad hominem style attacks betrays your own paucity of intellectual rigour in approaching this subject."

That comment will be worth remembering!!

As usual Mr Hendrickx chooses to deliberately misinterpret.

The range of 1 to 4.1 comes from Forster & Gregory http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/jcli3611.1, This was a paper Mr Henrdickx linked to support his assertion that temperature increases would be (at most) "around 2.

Obviously the mathematical mid point of that is 2.55.

The "3" that I have referred to consistently is the IPCC concensus. Something Mr Hendrickx wishes to deny

The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized climate sensitivity as "likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values."

Individual studies have put climate sensitivity from a doubling of CO2 at anywhere between 0.5°C and 10°C; however, as a consequence of increasingly better data, it appears that the extreme higher and lower values are very unlikely. In fact, as climate science has developed and advanced over time , estimates have converged around 3°C.

A study led by Stefan Rahmstorf concluded "many vastly improved models have been developed by a number of climate research centers around the world. Current state-of-the-art climate models span a range of 2.6–4.1°C, most clustering around 3°C" (Rahmstorf 2008). Several studies have put the lower bound of climate sensitivity at about 1.5°C,on the other hand, several others have found that a sensitivity higher than 4.5°C can't be ruled out.

A 2008 study led by James Hansen found that climate sensitivity to "fast feedback processes" is 3°C, but when accounting for longer-term feedbacks (such as ice sheet disintegration, vegetation migration, and greenhouse gas release from soils, tundra or ocean), if atmospheric CO2 remains at the doubled level, the sensitivity increases to 6°C based on paleoclimatic (historical climate) data.

I would very much like it if Mr Hendrickx wishful thinking is correct - lower sensitivity would be good news. And he is welcome to take his arguments and conclusions on this matter and publish them in the peer reviewed literature.

But currently no credible science on this matter supports his contention

Your funny, you say no credible science supports "about 2" yet quite a number do, including the afore mentioned F and G, 2006. Anything over 4 is no longer credible unless you run your science through the Kookite filter. Nice try but no cigar.

F&G supports 2.55 - 27.5% large than 2.

The concensus is around 3.

I understand you can't accept that

The consensus dominated by the outputs of model studies. Seems there are some problems with that consensus.

Note for the open minded only. Advocates of climate doom may not like what they find.

http://judithcurry.com/2012/06/25/questioning-the-forest-et-al-2006-sensitivity-study/#more-8917

And the link is to judithcurry.com. Of Judith Curry, sourcewatch says:
Climate scientists criticize her uncertainty-focused climate outreach communication for containing elementary mistakes and inflammatory assertions unsupported by evidence.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Judith_Curry

We can thank Hendrickx for letting us know that 3 deg C/CO2 doubling central estimate causes catastrophe and 2.3 deg C/CO2 doubling central estimate is hardly significant. Who said Hendrickx was useless?

David,
There is a very good article about Judith Curry which I suggest you read.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-heretic

It presents a very different perspective. Enjoy.

Peter,

Welcome to the realm of the irrational.

This debate is becoming very boring. Invective from both sides is unlikely to,lead to any consensus.time to move on.

Says the voodoo "Scientist & Technologist" who's been known to imply that the capacity of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide is effectively infinite. http://tinyurl.com/cutdl8x

The lengthiest article doesn't change Curry's "elementary mistakes and inflammatory assertions unsupported by evidence".
Still playing with the tags, I see.

Peter Sommerville: "... time to move on."
Says the voodoo "Scientist & Technologist" who's been known to imply that the capacity of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide is effectively infinite. http://tinyurl.com/cutdl8x

Getting a trifle boring David - do you enjoy cutting and pasting? Bit like my former associate, Ian. But please, don't verbal me. I never used the word infinite. Some intellectual rigor on your part would be nice.

Some people can't see beyond their prejudices. Perhaps you are in that fold. Just remember blind prejudice is what led to the rise of nazism and Japanese militarism. Sometimes we need to open our minds.

And I am not playing with tags - getup isn't the only organisation that plays that sort of game.

Yet another cut and paste. So sad - try to be original

Peter Sommerville: "... do you enjoy cutting and pasting?" It suffices in response to your repetitive voodoo science.
I see you didn't bother to play with the flags on this one. Beginning to realise that you've shot yourself in the foot?

Peter Sommerville: "I never used the word infinite." Did I say you did?
Straw man?

Read your own posts!

I don't need to play with the flags David - others have and I know who some of them are. I simply pointed out it was possible. And in one case demonstrated that it was possible.

Fortunately, having communicated this to the Technical Director some changes have been made to make this more difficult - they are not perfect but I suspect they are sufficient to defeat the rather amateurish skills of one "IT Security Consultant".

I was trained to respect other peoples views - irrespective of their capabilities. It is a pity that this is not a general practice here but some people obviously get off on abuse. A fact of life with the media I guess. It empowers those who would otherwise be powerless.

Have a great weekend.

Peter Sommerville: "Read your own posts!" I see your problem; English language comprehension deficiency.
The word I used was "imply". From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/imply
"to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated"
So, you see, I didn't say that you used the term.

Peter Sommerville: "I don't need to play with the flags ...". Yet you've bragged of doing so and damaged your credibility in the process.

No - I have simply illustrated what is going on. You are simply too naive to accept that or you are involved. Over to you

David,

You are a crap agent extraordinaire. Frankly I have decided it is a waste of time engaging with you - you and I have shared engagements which you have comprehensively lost. I ask my self why should I bother!

Peter Sommerville: "... I have simply illustrated what is going on." And smugly bragged about doing it. In fact, from what I've seen, you're the main culprit.

What is "dangerous warming"?

Is there an authoritative definition of what it means?

What is the estimated damage cost (from authoritative, objective, impartial sources)?

What is the probability that a CO2 tax or ETS would control the climate and sea levels in the way the advocates would have us believe?

Has anyone looked into that last question?

Mr Lang - what would you regard as an authoritiative, objectivem impartial source???

What is quite remarkable about the PETM is the rapid return to contempory conditions following the probable release of v large amount of methane. Seems the earth's natural systems are quite able to deal with such a perturbation without resulting in a runaway greenhouse.

Marc,

You make an excellent point, but it seems not to many people can think sufficiently critically to pick it up.

“A lush landscape with coniferous trees up to nine feet in diameter and towering almost two hundred feet tall surrounds you. Ferns, cycads and giant horsetails grow abundantly along the waterway, providing food and shelter for many insects, reptiles, amphibians, and other creatures.”

Yep. Sure is Eden when the planet is warmer. Plenty of feed. Life thrives when warmer and struggles when colder. No sign of anything scary about warmer – except for scaremongers.

More CO2 means health, wealth and happiness :)

Mr Lang is absolutely correct to point out that there will be some positive effects from a warmer planet

BUT these are vastly outweighted by the negatives about which he is either ignorant/ill informed or chooses to ignore.

They are summarised very well here

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm

WITH links to peer reviewed science to validate the points.

Conclusion: The negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health, economy and environment far outweigh any positives.

Now available from CATO on effects in USA, paints a different picture.

Via Pielke Snr....
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/comments-on-the-cato-report-addendum-global-climate-change-impacts-in-the-united-states-by-michaels-et-al-2012/

Or Judy Curry...
http://judithcurry.com/2012/07/23/catos-impact-assessment/

None of these are peer reviewed science

See here for a list of what virtually every single national science body of credibility thinks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

They ALL suggest the impacts will be as the IPCC says

"On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming"

Well that's your minority opinion. They weigh up quite favourably when compared to The Arctic methane emergency group, one of Glikson's trusted sites. Tell me, are you a member as well? Do you agree with their emergency declaration:

"The latest available data indicates that a sea ice collapse is more than likely by 2015 and even possible this summer (2012). "

Pray tell dear Foul mouthed blogger what "emergency" measures are you taking at this point in time?

Uh-oh, our geotroll is starting to lose it! He will take increasingly bizarre and mendacious positions the further you challenge him. His comfortable denier world-view, enabled by crackpots like Pielke, Curry and Watts, cant cope with the facts and evidence presented.

Colorado Plateau? High enough to have been above sea level with CO2 at 2000 ppm.

If you are interested in the geology, here's a starting point....

http://nature.nps.gov/geology/education/foos/plateau.pdf

Thanks Marc. (I'm not sure why you've attracted a red star on the occasion of your providing an apparently helpful link.)

Peter,

You are aware my articles summarize measurements, observations and interpretations by the bulk of the peer reviewed scientific literature, as reviewed and summarized by the IPCC-AR4, the world's Academies of Science (http://royalsociety.org/policy/climate-change/joint-statements-academies/) and scientific organizations including:

NASA http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
NOAA http://www.noaa.gov/
NCAR http://www.noaa.gov/
Hadley-Met http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/resources/hadley
Potsdam Climate Impacts http://www.pik-potsdam.de/
CSIRO http://www.csiro.au/science/adapt-extreme-weather
BOM http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/about/extremes.shtml

My own input is mainly in terms of the geological pespective of these observations. The best way for those who dissent from the observations and conclusions by the bulk of the peer reviewed literature and the above organizations is to prepare evidence-based submissions and publications detailing the data on which their arguments are based. Should the arguments presented in such submission be supported, indicating that (1) climate change is not occurring or (2) climate change is not driven by carbon emissions, this should prove a major contribution I am sure will be most welcome by everyone.

Another straw man, no one is saying climate change is not occurring, no one is saying co2 does not play a role.

But Mr Hendrickx that is not true. Many people ARE saying climate change is not occuring and that CO2 does not play a role. Some even deny the existence of the GH effect. Many of them post on these pages.

I do not see you ever post in refutation of them?

Why not? Given that you are on the public record as stating

""The role of the scientist in this debate, is as it has been: to continue to diligently report the facts, test the theories, to be honest, to be skeptical, to avoid hyperbole, to properly outline the errors and uncertainties, to avoid activism."

I see no evidence from you of this behaviour you publicly advocate

The last three words of my quote particularly relevant to you!

I am no activist. I do try be honest and legitimately skeptical. On the evidence on these posts you do not.

I would suggest the blue/red indicators for us each support my view.

Numerous times I have found you to deliberately mis-represent the science and when called to account you obfuscate and personally attack.

If you call my pointing this out to you "activisim" - so be it. It is a shame you are unable to dilgently report the facts and to be honest and skeptical - as you publicly state should be done - instead mis-representing them , making false statements and blindly accepting any denilaist blog site that supports you views

You are so deluded that you pay attention to the red/blue tags. LOL.
I hope you offset your blog posts. Hate to think what the Arctic methane emergency group would make of all those wasted emissions.

Hi David,

Far from being an expert on Polar ice melt, I can only refer you to the appended websites as below. I will only add the atmospheric energy/radiative forcing state consequent on melting of the Arctic Sea ice, as a feedback, hasa been compared with the total CO2 emitted to date.

Up To 95% Arctic Ice Loss Is Human-Induced
http://www.greenerideal.com/science/0727-up-to-95-percent-arctic-ice-loss-human-induced/

And statements by AMEG (Antarctic Methane Energency Group) http://www.ameg.me/index.php/about-ameg

And look at http://www.nl-aid.org/domain/environment/northern-ice-is-melting-at-a-dramatic-rate/

And a detailed discussion at
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-melt-natural-or-man-made.htm

Lots of credible sources there!

Laughable criticism from someone who uses self referenced blogs from known minority view climate contrarians as an authorittative source.

Marc - we get it. You are a Cynic in realtion to climate sensitivity and related matters who is locked into his belief set and is unwilling to believe anything else.

Let us hope you are correct. If warming can be limited to 2 degrees or less associated with a doubling of pre-indsutrial atmospheric CO2 then we will all be better off.

Alas the current concencus from the majority of experts examining this matter disagrees with you

Ah, how sad :( A symptom of PDD and ASD.

I note he is quoted as saying (in Quadrant)

"The role of the scientist in this debate, is as it has been: to continue to diligently report the facts, test the theories, to be honest, to be skeptical, to avoid hyperbole, to properly outline the errors and uncertainties, to avoid activism."

Rich given the language and attacks he uses on TC.

Now I really do pity the poor blighter.

Cheers :)

Here a line from one of Andrew Glikson's links that Dr Mark Harrigan considers expert:
http://www.ameg.me/index.php/about-ameg

"AMEG POSITION
DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY
We declare there now exists an extremely high international security risk* from abrupt and runaway global warming being triggered by the end-summer collapse of Arctic sea ice towards a fraction of the current record and release of huge quantities of methane gas from the seabed. Such global warming would lead at first to worldwide crop failures but ultimately and inexorably to the collapse of civilization as we know it. This colossal threat demands an immediate emergency scale response to cool the Arctic and save the sea ice. The latest available data indicates that a sea ice collapse is more than likely by 2015 and even possible this summer (2012). Thus some measures to counter the threat have to be ready within a few months."

Now you mis-represent. I never stated I agreed with the AMEG statement.

Only that (1) you made an error in your attack (which I note you have not the courage to admit) and (2) that the evidence clearly shows Artic sea ice continues to decrease - as the NASA data shows.

here is what the National Sea Ice and data centre says

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

"Arctic sea ice continued to track at levels far below average through the middle of July, with open water in the Kara and Barents seas reaching as far north as typically seen during September. "

And here is the latest graph - with data just days old (click on Figure 2)

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

The results clearly show well below historical averages - ad in fact are currently BELOW 2007 levels for the same time.

"If warming can be limited to 2 degrees or less associated with a doubling of pre-indsutrial (sic) atmospheric CO2 then we will all be better off."

It's not that we'll all be better off, it's that we (and any children in whose interests we toil) will be not as badly off as if warming exceeds 3 deg C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2.

Trouble is, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 has not yet occurred, and already significant natural greenhouse gas reservoirs are outgassing. In other words, significant non-anthropogenic contribution to that doubling of atmospheric greenhouse gas over pre-Industrial levels is occurring.

Wrong on several accounts

1) You have the wrong hemispere. The link is ti the Artic not the Antarctic. It seems your ability to master the detail of the facts is as poor as your interpretation of them

2) As the nasa key indicators site shows - Arctic sea ice continues to decline - especially in thickness

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/

That you agree with an extremist activist group that states "The latest available data indicates that a sea ice collapse is more than likely by 2015 and even possible this summer (2012)." a true testament to your delusional state. Perhaps you are a member? If so given they have issued a (excuse me while I LOL) "declaration of emergency" what "emergency measures are you taking at this point in time?

In fact the latest available data currently shows over 4.3million square Kms of sea ice, most of it over 2 m thick in the Arctic. This years melt unlikely to reach the 2007 low.

Now you mis-represent. I never stated I agreed with the AMEG statement.

Only that (1) you made an error in your attack (which I note you have not the courage to admit) and (2) that the evidence clearly shows Artic sea ice continues to decrease - as the NASA data shows.

here is what the National Sea Ice and data centre says

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

"Arctic sea ice continued to track at levels far below average through the middle of July, with open water in the Kara and Barents seas reaching as far north as typically seen during September. "

And here is the latest graph - with data just days old (click on Figure 2)

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

The results clearly show well below historical averages - ad in fact are currently BELOW 2007 levels for the same time.

Mr Henrdickx you are either deliberately lying or you just don;t know what you are talking about

2012 trending close to 2007. JAXA currently shows 2012 above 2007, as do the Danes (DMI) and the Norwegians (NERSC)? NSIDC will show 2012 with slightly more ice than 2007 in the next few days. Seems there are more cherries in my basket than yours.

That error initially made by Dr Glikson.

Mark, you'll find that our geotroll will take increasingly bizarre and mendacious positions the further you challenge him. His comfortable denier world-view, enabled by crackpots like Pielke, Curry and Watts, cant cope with the facts and evidence your present.

You claimed current levels were above average. They are not (in any data set)

You also claimed they were above 2007 right now. They are not (according to NSIDC)

Even on the Jaxa data

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

The levels are so low and so small difference between now and the record low of 2007 as to be negligible.

Again Mr hendrickx, I call you out. You are not following the standard you have publicly declaimed of ""The role of the scientist in this debate, is as it has been: to continue to diligently report the facts, test the theories, to be honest, to be skeptical, to avoid hyperbole, to properly outline the errors and uncertainties, to avoid activism."

I find it shameful

Sounds like a crisis! Quick call the Super friends, or those masked crusaders of the Arctic Methane Emergency Group. Do they wear their underpants on the outside?

Antarctic sea ice above average, this years arctic sea ice levels above the 2007 lows.

Remember those last two words Dr Harrigan " avoid activism".

Strange how you are so eager to hold another to account for a perceived violation of the last 3 words of your code for the scientist but totally unable to acknowledge your violoation of the other elements "to continue to diligently report the facts, test the theories, to be honest, to be skeptical, to avoid hyperbole, to properly outline the errors and uncertainties"

I have shown, using data, that your claims about Arctic sea ice being "above average" and "above 2007" were false. I note you cannot acknowledge this.

Because you are wrong. I stated Antarctic sea ice levels were above recent average, not Arctic. Let's go to the video tape...
"Summer 2012! I guess Mike/ Mark are supportive. What a joke. Antarctic sea ice is currently above the recent average. Perhaps The Con can commission an article from them, they are as credible as Glikson."
And here's that data that pulls your undies over your head...
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png

Mr Hendrickx - you are now being deliberately disinegnous

You made your orginal comment in reaction to Dr Glickson's data references on ARCTIC sea ice.

The full comment you made in reference to AMEG (after having visited their site which clearly labels itself as Arctic) was "The latest available data indicates that a sea ice collapse is more than likely by 2015 and even possible this summer (2012). Thus some measures to counter the threat have to be ready within a few months."

Summer 2012! I guess Mike/ Mark are supportive. What a joke. Antarctic sea ice is currently above the recent average. Perhaps The Con can commission an article from them, they are as credible as Glikson.

You later acknowledged that you were repeating Dr Glickson's typographical error in labelling AMEG as being Antarctic Methane Emergency Group. You then even went on to quote data sources that look at the Arctic.

You are now hiding behind this to avoid admitting your error

(By the way, yes Antarctic Sea ice is increasing modestly in extent - but now eher enough to make up for Arctic sea ice loss as is well explained here http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/difference.html )

Wow that was some wedgie, seems to have warped your sense of reality!

Sure Marc - have it your way. I'll take my sense of reality grounded in actual evidence from reliable places against your pseudo-skeptic delusional perspective any time.

You had ample opporunity to correct your mis representation (or more kindly - complete mis understanding) of Arctic vs Antarctic Sea Ice) when I first pointed the error out to you. You've only belatedly done so when i have called you out on your errors.

Regardless, the extent of sea ice in the Arctic continues to decline. Your original point attacking Dr Glikson is, therefore, refuted on the evidence and the available data.

Ian,

I don't intend to defend Marc, but This is really getting to be repetitive and adding nothing to the debate. The other Mark is doing very well on his own without pointless comments such as this. Is it really in the spirit of "The Conversation"?

If you don't intend to defend him then don't comment on my comments. I have no interest in engaging with you - there are plenty of others here doing an excellent job pointing out the paucity of your arguments.