Dale, if there's an award for the most trivial comment ever posted here you'd surely be in the running.

The article if full of substance and genuinely important information...and that's actually the best you can do?

Felix, you must be one of those Al Gore haters using that infantile argument 'but he flies around the world, surely he's a hypocrite'.

Crikey, all those scientists flying around the world ... do you think there'll be a market for a biofuel version of Gerard Dean's beloved JetA1?

So professionals shouldn't have a conference to discuss science?

Do you also want to do away with peer review as well Dale?

Dale, it is curious that you attack the scientists instead of the science. Am I to interpret this as you having no problem with the science, or just having no arguments that would stand up against it?

I have to reply here to respond to Chris Lee's idiotic and slanderous abuse.

Before you go about making an arsehole of yourself, try reading things properly.

I have to post here to attempt to respond to Chris Lee's inaccurate and offensive post.

Can he please indicate where I've suggested anything even vaguely like what he accuses me of? My entire coment was based precisely on frustration at what I believe to be the pettiness and pointlessness of Dale's comments about the emissions impacts of holding the conference.

Chris, you might like to try taking adult responsibility for your comments before you spray insults like that.

Geoffrey Henley - claiming to know something of the scientific method again.

Here is a comment from Geoffrey which he copied and pasted from a De Spiegel article and pretended that it was his own work.

https://theconversation.edu.au/renewable-energy-sector-grows-but-barriers-remain-10986#comment_95608

According to Geoffrey, it was not plagiarism because he was "not presenting new information".

I for one will not be taking any notice of his comments because who knows where they have come from.

OK, I'll bite: what do you believe to be the proper established scientific method?

So a science professor at a science conference commenting on how actual science is discussing the science of climate change and deriding the non-science (nonsense?) of climate denial, is somehow unscientific.....

Are you sure you understand the scientific method?

Geoff, you are completely wrong.

The IPCC is a review panel of scientists. They didn't do the research, they did a literature review to present the current knowledge on the topic.

Of course, if you want to ignore the ~14,000 scientific papers on climate change (only 26 of which disagree with man made climate change) because you don't like the IPCC, then feel free to read all of those papers instead.

@Geoffrey Henley

It is revealing that Henley leaves out of his outline that part of the scientific method that is designed to weed out the cranks - the evaluation of the theory and data via publication in the peer reviewed literature.

There is no shortage of climate cranks who publish at WUWT and like climate crank web sites or have articles printed in the right-wing press.

Invariably the cranks claim to have followed the scientific method. Have you ever encountered a crank who says honestly "I have not followed the scientific method, I just made it up"?

What they do not do is subject their theories to scrutiny from scientists by publishing in peer reviewed journals.

Geoffry, given that you support the scientific method of collecting data first, you will be quick to publish your data proving that the IPCC's starting point was "Establish theory based on environmental activist propaganda". I will wait with bated breath for your peer-reviewed paper in Nature. Or will it be WSJ for you?

Geoffrey

Just who were the Activists in the 1950's & 60's pushing all of this?

When Gilbert Plass wrote 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change' in 1956, exactly who were the 'activists' in the Pentagon who funded his research?

"sceptics are just a bunch a nutcase conspiracy theorists who believe that the moon landing was faked"

Thanks for the strawman but no, they believe GISStemp is faked, and that the conspiracy thwarts publication of "skeptical" papers in real scientific journals.

For those who are interested, here is a debunking of the usual climate denier claptrap contained in the letter. (different day, same shite)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/latest-pre-bunked-denialist-letter-in-lieu-of-science.html

The first paragraph sums it up.

"For climate denialists, the preferred route by which to air their grievances about global warming is not via the scientific peer-review process, but rather through opinion letters published in the mainstream media. The reasons are obvious — a paper submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal must pass a fairly rigorous review by scientific experts, whereas a letter published in a newspaper does not undergo any expert review, and thus can contain whatever unsubstantiated nonsensical arguments the contrarians think the general public will believe."

Not abuse, these statements are a matter of public record. There is a severe lack of climate credentials and the one thing shared in common is funding or affiliations with oil companies.

So you deny speaking at Heartland events, because those are kinda on record. Are you also denying the validity of the investigations made into funding sources for all the people listed on DeSmog Blog? If so, please cite references, just as they have done. I've cited my sources, I'm more than happy to stand corrected.

Further, Christopher Monkton is not a "Lord", he has been repeatedly asked by the House of Lords to stop calling himself a Lord as he is not a member of the House of Lords. He is also not someone who is qualified to offer any insights on climate, climate change or climate science.

@Tom Harris

Here is Lord Monckton doing his Obama "birther" routine.
http://www.desmogblog.com/peer-realm-monckton-now-birther

Here is Lord Monckton getting thrown out of the Doha climate conference.
http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/12/06/monckton-banned-un-climate-process-offensive-stunt

Have you got any more cranks who are defending your letter?

Here is part of your bio from SourceWatch which also confirms your involvement with the fossil fuel industry.

"A biographical profile of Harris which used to be on the APCO Worldwide website, but is still cached at Zoominfo.com, states that:
"Tom Harris, senior associate in APCO Worldwide's Ottawa office, specializes in strategic communication and media relations and has 25 years experience in science and technology, specifically in the energy and environment, aerospace and high-tech sectors. Mr. Harris has worked with private companies and trade associations to successfully position these entities and their interests with media and before various government committees and regulatory bodies. Specifically, he has worked with oil and gas, coal, nuclear, environmental and aerospace clients for whom he has conducted effective media and public relations campaigns."[7]"

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tom_Harris_%28Canadian_engineer/PR_specialist%29

Tom Harris referring to Chris Monckton writing at WUWT. I am so impressed by the weight of this evidence, I am almost speechless.

@ Tim Scanlon & Mike Hansen - add Gerhard Gerlich to the list of "luminaries" (or is that looniearies?) who have signed the lettrer - (Gerlich and his co-authort who published the laughable and totally discredited "Falsifiation Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within The Frame Of Physics" are both signatories).

They are alongside others whose "credentials" include studying "Greenhouse gases"

Go figure??

In other words the list includes those who deny the greenhouse effect exists along side others who affirm it's existence

The fact that there is laughable inconsistency with these so called "qualified in climate-related matters" is an irony and an idiocy that those who promote this letter are blind to - and no doubt in denial about - much like their denial about the science

That any of them are willing to be associated with Monckton (claiming to be an expert reviewer of the 5th IPCC but doesn't reveal that anyone could apply for such a role and he hasn't been "appointed" -http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/01/climate-science-denialist-lord-monckton-s-ipcc-appointment-wasn-t - in other words a blatant misrepresentation) says it all.

Actually I suspect it's all part of a complicated movie plot and subtle humour by Sasha Baron Cohen - since only he could make something like this up?? Right?

Tom Harris, I'm very glad you consider it a good use of your precious time posting here, as you punctuate the points made in this article with aplomb. Professional comedians would struggle to make this stuff up.

Your insistence to be taken seriously would be screamingly funny if the consequences of those who really should know better doing so were not so corrosive.

This garbage is so bad that Lindzen and Christie don't put their names with it.

@Gerard Dean

The only reason one of your comments would be pulled by the moderators would be to prevent "death by boredom" as some poor reader encountered your "JetA1" argument for the umpteenth time.

Tom, i think there is a standard about being able to count.

Don't worry Gerard, he used JetA2 fuel to fly to San Francisco.

Gerard. If they can give it a name, they can find a cure.

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

Sean Lamb's great insight into climate science - we have had <insert weather event here> before.

You may enjoy this movie Sean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundhog_Day_(film)

Toby, you claim that "Its less than 40 years ago that climate scientists were warning that the Earth was approaching a new ice age", but instead of then giving links to those scientific papers, you say "Time, News Week and other news outlets gave it front cover prominence". It is not remarkable that mass media outlets would have picked up such a sensational story, but I don't remember seeing it. What peer-reviewed science warned that there was an ice age impending? I have not seen any.

Then you say "Now we hear, just last month, from the Met Office in the UK that there has been no global warming for 16 years". Where did the Met. Office claim that there has been no global warming for 16 years? Can you give links? It would be remarkable to claim there has been no global warming since <insert cherry-picked date>, considering the evidence to the contrary. What has been melting the Arctic, if not warmth? Remember, 'global' refers to the whole globe, including land, sea and atmosphere.

You ask "Anthropogenic CO2 emissions have been climbing at an even higher rate than atmospheric concentrations. Where is it going?" The answer is that some is being sequestered in the oceans, raising their acidity. Not good news.

Another PRATT point, the global cooling meme. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/PRATT

There were ~70 climate change papers in the late 60s thru the 70s. Of these only 6 were cooling, 45 were warming. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_oy2DMM6iwUU/SOvJtpuNuTI/AAAAAAAAAfA/WWKvOInRaO4/s1600/bams.70s_cooling.0908.jpg

The Daily Fail (or is that Mail, I never can tell) was taken to task for it's lies about Met Office data. There has been warming, 0.16 degrees per decade.
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/

I reckon Dr Jim Hansen makes a very good point and thank Prof Lewandowsky for drawing it to our attention. If successful in causing further delay in recognising and responding to climate science, deniers are effectively condemning future generations, and much of the current ones, to an existence that is 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short'.

Deniers can expect, and fully deserve to be held to account, and although this is lamentably unlikely to be done at law, it is the 21st Century's height of moral turpitude. Causing human death on an enormous scale is well within the realms of probability of our failure to act now and do the math to join the dots, not to mention species extinctions on a scale best described as the end of birth.

If the hat fits, best you get used to wearing it.

If you don't like it, take it off and start doing something useful, but please spare us the tedium of cheap rhetorical tricks such as shooting the messenger by whinging about flying.

@Gerard Dean

"Time and time again the moderator pulls my question."

Well that is an out and out lie. So much for your ethics Gerard.

@Gerard Dean

The relevance of the Nuremberg trials is that the laws for "Crimes Against Humanity" were drafted *after* the crimes were actually committed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity

Climate science deniers like yourself are always very smug when this subject is raised because they believe that there is no law under which they can be prosecuted. But when future generations discover the consequences of the climate denial campaign currently being waged, there is plenty of precedence for introducing retrospective laws.

Unfortunately by then many of today's deniers will be dead but I am sure that our children and grand children will find creative ways to settle scores - confiscating the assets of companies and wealthy families who fund denial to pay for reparations may be one option.

There is plenty of precedence for grabbing the wealth of "deniers" in litigation directed against tobacco companies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_politics

Still banging on about airline travel. Less than 2% of of the problem pollution comes from airline travel. But you know that. Maybe out of those 20,000 scientists getting together, someone may nail it and come up with a solution. Bringing deniers to trial is a good start. Great idea. As a commenter suggested, confiscate all assets of coal producers and other polluters when the shit hits the fan. And Qantas can kick in with their 2%.

No, but I bet there is considerable discussion about idiotic deniers.

And discussion about people who want to ascribe cause ("green policies") to an effect (poor state finances) without a shred of evidence or substantation.

Its amusing that this comes so often from those who deny the reality of cause AND effect in relation to climate.

Also laughable that these deniers choose to describe the annual conference of the American Geophysical Union as a "green gabfest". ROTFLMHO. This is an organisation almost a century old established under the National Academy of Sciences in the USA and dedicated to the sciences of geophysics (see here for some of the areas of study http://www.agu.org/about/governance/leadership/ and here for the science covered http://www.agu.org/about/our_science/ )

Indeed, as prof Lewandowsy says - you couldn't make this stuff up.

Except those who are abysmally ignorant in their denial and pathetic ideologies DO make it up. Alll the time!!

A meeting of the American Geophysical Union is a "green gabfest".

Neil reveals far more than he intended about his view of science.

Neil Gibson, if you want to make a difference, get published in a reputable scientific journal. To post a link to an item at WUWT risks your being immediately classified as a fringe dweller. WUWT is a blog run by a meteorologist; it is not a reputable scientific publication.

Perhaps you subscribe to the theory that there is a global conspiracy preventing anti-AGW papers from being published in reputable journals?

@ Gibson - your list of "physicists" includes Nahle - a biologist who denies the existence of the greenhouse effect - as well as a swag of retired physicists apparently suffering from relevane deprivation syndrom, most of whom have published zero papers on the topic - plus of course the infamous Fred (I deny tobacco smoke causes cancer) Singer.

It's easy to get such letters up - you can them from "scientists" who claim the earth is 6000 years old and that HIV doesn't cause AIDS and vaccines cause autism.

The WUWT list has zero credibility - like the sites author and you, based on your contrinual recycling of refuted rubbish.

What matters is what those who actually study the topic and have their data and conclusions subject to review and criticism by their equally qualified peers. It is THOSE people that bodies like the Royal Society base their statements such as

http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/
There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation. The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty. Nevertheless, the risks associated with some of these changes are substantial.

On - not letter by a few recalcitrant denialists.

In any event - though you will no doubt cling to your denial to the last breath - neither you, nor those who purportedly signed the letter, are able to explain exactly why the earths ice mass is disappearing, the climaate system has more energy in it and the sea levels are rising.

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/piomas1.gif
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Arctic_models_obs.gif
http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/glaciermasstrend1980-2010.gif
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/pics/1012_arctic_antarctic_anoms_smooth_560.png
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Antarctica_Ice_Mass.gif
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/GRACE_2010.gif
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/unnatural-catastrophes/

The laws of physics tell us there is only ONE possible cause - that the earth contains far more heat than it used to - where do you and they think it comes from - Pixie Dust??

Neil, me boy, you have to read & study before posting drivel like what those "160 scientists" have written. This says a lot...

"We do not seek to make the scientific arguments here"

Because they know at least some of them are liars. And we know some here in Calif.

Guess who Fred Singer, the 2nd listed, is, Neil?

He was paid by Chevron to testify against climate change before our Congress a dfe4w years back. Chevron has moved on. He hasn't, apparently.

Guess who Singer was paid by before that? He claimed before our Congress that smoking wasn't a cause for major health problems, just as the tobacco industry paid him to say.

We hear your govt. has put tobacco pushers more in their proper place than even we have.

So. Neil, study up and maybe not embarrass yourself so easily. Ho0pe you don't have any handlers watching.
;]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/02/160-physicists-send-letter-to-senate-regarding-aps-climate-position/

That was the thread where richardscourtney jumped the shark:

"Since you assert that we need to “constrain the population” to support “the” environment, I point out that there is a simple way for you to reduce human population by one. You could remove yourself from existence: this would enable a poor child in the Third World to survive and s/he would have a smaller ‘carbon footprint’ than you so there would be net benefit to “the” environment.

However, we both know you will not do that because advocates of genocide always choose to kill other people."

Thanks for the reminder.

Having Tony Abbott as its leader is the sole reason I can no longer bring myself to vote for the coalition. His inability to take sound advice from experts in the field of climate change brings into question his ability to take sound advice on any subject. Is his religious faith blinding him to reality?

ROTFLMAO! But can't we call them names AND send them the bill? When TSHTF we'll be glad of any sources of amusement. "8-)

As usual Neil you have dodged the question -neither you, nor those who purportedly signed the letter, are able to explain exactly why the earths ice mass is disappearing, the climate system has more energy in it and the sea levels are rising.

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/piomas1.gif
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Arctic_models_obs.gif
http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/glaciermasstrend1980-2010.gif
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/pics/1012_arctic_antarctic_anoms_smooth_560.png
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Antarctica_Ice_Mass.gif
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/GRACE_2010.gif
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/unnatural-catastrophes/

I repeat that those who signed the letter (3 years ago by the way) are NOT experts in the field of climate, include those who deny the existence of the greenhouse effect and have little or no published science.

Yes, that is a form of idiot denialism

Oops - little or no published science on the topic

They may not be "idiots" Neil. Depends on their compensation package.
;]

Neil - you have failed to read Chris's post properly. He pointed out to you that Richard Courtney made the suggestion to commit suicide.

Courtney stated on thw WUWT thread you so proudly linked to, that "Since you assert that we need to “constrain the population” to support “the” environment, I point out that there is a simple way for you to reduce human population by one. You could remove yourself from existence: this would enable a poor child in the Third World to survive and s/he would have a smaller ‘carbon footprint’ than you so there would be net benefit to “the” environment." in response to another poster.

he also stated "deliberate significant reduction to CO2 emissions would pale into insignificance the combined activities of Ghengis Khan, Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot."

He falsely claims to have a PhD.

And you want to defend him??

He has no credibility - much like the site WUWT you have quoted and your own posts

Neil's playing the victim card. Neil's playing the victim card.

What's Aussie for "neener neener neener"?
;]

"suggesting people who disagree with you point of view should commit suicide is a new low , even for you"

Yet another reading comprehension failure by Neil Gibson.

Well Neil, guess you just have to trust those old US planes, eh? They know more than the satellites that measure Greenland's ice mass loss every day. Pushing 100 cu miles total this year.

So now, Neil, how much does it snow each year on Greenland?

Do you know what snow turns into when it piles up on itself, year after year?

We get at least 20 ft of snow each year here in the Sierras, but of course it melts because, oops, Calif. is warmer than Greenland (for a while more, anyway).

So you dug up a 1988 article, 46 years after the planes crashed. How much snow in 46 years, Neil?

The only thing buried now is your thinking cap.
;]

Neil

" You see some non-Phd types recently discovered some WW2 planes in Greenland under 80 metres of ice !! "

Well whoda thunk it Neil.

Snow falls in Greenland every year. Covers the planes. Also ice melts in Greenland every year - a lot of it from the bottom of the glaciers. So things that were at the top of the glacier slowly move downwards as the glaciers are added to from the top and removed from at the bottom. Thanks for that confirmation of the dynamics of how glaciers work.

Now what observations do you have about the difference between the rate of those two processes so we can consider whether they are +ve or -ve? Unfortunately those old planes, only telling us about one side of the balance, tell us nothing about the difference between the two rates.

Neil - as usual a plethora of ignorant denialism

If you wish to look at AGW you have to look at the entire planet. Newsflash!! - Green land is not the whole planet.

I have provided links showing the data that globally ice mass is disappearing - including Greenland !(your pathetic attempt to deny this having been comprehensively debunked by others).

You are clearly incapable of understanding of what is going on.

I repeat - the earth's ice mass is disappearing - and as Glenn Tanblyn has ably demonstrated to Malcolm Short oceanic heat content has increased enormously.

The only plausible source of this additional heat is retained energy due to an increased green house effect - a reality that is there despite your pathetic efforts to deny it.

"the WUWT article"

The only thing I need to know about WUWT is that it's produced by a pathological liar:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/10/16/anthony-watts-pants-on-fire/

http://nailsandcoffins.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/anthony-watts-misleading-his-readers.html

Seriously? You really do not understansd much eh Neil?

The Bloggies award that WUWT won is based on popular vote on the web (open to manipulation perhaps??). Regardless it is a measure of popularity (for those who could be bothered to read such trash). It is NOT a measure of veracity or credibility - it has about much credibility as who wins American Idol or Big Brother.

Given that the majority of the voting audience is likely to be US based - a country where almost half the population believes in creationsim and less than 40% accept evolution by natural selection - their "endorsement" of WUWT is hardly a ringing endorsement for the voters ability to distinguish actual science from rubbish.

But, of course, like Fox News - I'm sure like most deniers you choose to get your information from such rabidly denialist misinformation sites.

Neil Gibson: "Chris - Name calling again"

No, statement of fact. (I'm already aware that you have difficulty understanding what name calling means.) If you had bothered reading (and understanding) my citations then you would have found some of the proofs of that fact.

Neil, baby, you contradict yourself from one 'found' article to the next. Glaciers move from their bottom sideward. Snow only falls on their tops.

So, again, everyone now sees how devious or naive you are in arguing that ice hasn't been lost from Greenland due to warming.

But again, I don't care what you think. I just care that others get to see your level of BS.

So keep trying, Neil, it's fun to see what mental burp you;ll come up with next.
;]

Mark, Mark, Mark, nice tries, but you do know we have had satellites for some years now that measure earth hourly to the mm, right?

Whether land subsides or not, seas have been rising continually and the total is indeed 8" since 1880.

Being from NJ myself, I can say honestly, in true NJ style: you're full of it, Mark.

How about a little subsiding yourself, eh?
;]

markx

Another factor to add in,I don't have any numbers but I believe it tends to roughly counterbalance groundwater depletion is empoundment - the building of dams etc that hold more water on land.

The level of misunderstanding here is breathtaking, MArk.

" This regional drop sounds like a marvelous self limiting effect, especially in relation to a melting Antarctica"

When all Greenland melts, indeed the crust rebounds, having lost its ice load. Thus the sea floor nearby rebounds too.

So when you get up off your couch and the cushions rebound, you've changed the level of the rest of the couch?

Do you not realixze how much more atwater is entrained in Antarctica in comparison to Greenland?

Do you not realize why beaches all around the world are found evidenced hundreds iof feet up coastal cliffs?

Oops, on clicking the wrong clicky thingy!

So Mark, any idea how much sea level will rise when much or most of Antarctica loses its ice?

@Markx

You will have noticed that we are all using real names. It is part of the comments policy.
You may have missed it.

https://theconversation.edu.au/community_standards

Hello again Malcolm

The increase in heat in the oceans isn't small. Averaged out over the last 50 years the heat increase in the oceans is around 30 times the heat increase in the atmosphere. It is the dominant form of warming, Andit simply hasn't slowed down.

Trying toget somesense of what the ocean heat increase means, current warming in the oceans is around 4 times the rate at which heat comes out of the Earth - geothermal heat. And geothermal heat is the largest single heat source available here on Earth.

So at 4 times the geothermal flux, heat accumulation can only have come from somewhere outside the Earth - nothing here on Earth can have supplied that heat. And since over the last 50 years, the Sun's heat output has declined slightly, it can't be increased sunlight that is the cause.

So the only thang that can have caused the heat build up MUST be something related to reducing the flux of heat from the Earth out to space.

Additionally, the fact that warming is occuring as fast or faster at night or in Winter says also that it can't be a Sun related pheomena such as decreased reflection of sunlight. Sunlight effects don't operate 24/7

Also, all the data we have on aerosols, contrails etc says that if anything the amount of sunlight reaching the surface is somewhat reduced. This is also baked up by ddata from meteorological stations around the world of reduced open pan evaporation rates - in a slightly warmer world the only way you can have reduced evaporation is with reduced sunlight.

So all told, warming is continuing unchanged, and there really are no viable alternative answers for the cause apart from a increased GH Effect.

Nothing else fits the data!

Markx

XBT's don't use anything like thermometers.They use Thermistors. See these comments:

"By the 1960s thermistors were main stream sensors. Steinhart and Hart, two researchers at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, published a paper defining a temperature versus resistance formula for thermistors. The Steinhart-Hart equation has become the industry standard equation for thermistors.

The classic Steinhart and Hart equation has the form:
1/T = A0 + A1(lnR) + A3(lnR)3

Where: T = Temperature in Kelvins (Kelvin = Celsius + 273.15)

A0, A1, A3 = Constants derived from thermistor measurements

R = Thermistor's resistance in Ohms

ln = Natural Log (Log to the Napierian base 2.718281828 )

In practice three thermistor resistance measurements at three defined temperature are made. These temperatures are usually the two endpoints and the center point of the temperature range of interest. The equation hits these three points directly and has a small error over the range. BAPI can provide Steinhart-Hart coefficients for the temperature range of 0°C to 70°C that have uncertainties of 0.01°C or less."

here: http://www.bapihvac.com/content/uploads/2010/07/RTD-vs-Thermistors.pdf

"Is it reasonable for Stephan Lewandowsky to claim, as a fact, that the globe is rapidly warming?"

Is it reasonable for someone to make a blatant cherry-pick beginning at the strongest El Nino in 120 years?

Some people think so, apparently.

Malcolm, don't knowe why you're arguing. You & the combustion industry have already won. The future you leave your descendents will be such that all you can do is pray they don't read any of your writings in places like this.

However, should you continue in wonderment about the truth of global warming, sea rise & acidification, due to our overwhelming the natural carbon recycling on earth by a factor now over 30:1, well, go ahead and study some reality...

http://online.wr.usgs.gov/calendar/2012/mar12.html
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/#seaIce
http://energyseminar.stanford.edu/node/461 (see DePaolo refs)
www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

And maybe look up Richard Muller, whom the Kochs hired at UCB to disprove the consistency of global temp data -- unfortunately', he proved their consistency & correctness. But, he converted from denier/fact-avoider back to scientists, and you can Google him for explanatory info.

Yes, we know you'll be right up there for handouts & rescue when the lines form, but no one cares what you think when you avoid facts, Malcolm.

Markx

No Mark. The XBT's use thermistors. You can't measure temperature from a thermometer if that thermometer is inside a small expendable metal dart that you drop over the side of a ship and then never retrieve. That is what the X part of XBT stands for - expendable. They trail 2 wires behind them as they sink, allowing readings to be taken from the thermistor as the XBT sinks.Then it sinks to the sea floor. And the relatively cheap expendable nature of them was part of how they were able to obtain reasonable coverage of the oceans - not as good as ARGO, but still pretty good. They were dropped from merchant ships all over the world.

Markx

Your link on the issues with XBT's dates back to 2008. Note the first presenter at the conference, Josh Willis. He was the lead researcher that investigated the rate of fall issue with the XBT's. There was a correction needed to compensate for incorrect estimation of rate of fall for some, not all, XBT's. And this correction is included in the results published by the various teams working on OHC - Levitus et al at NOAA, Lyman et al at PMEL, Domingues & Church at CSIRO and Ishii et al in Japan.

The data currently shown for OHC includes the rate of fall adustments.

And if you look at the 0-700M data it shows a rise then fall over to 60's up to about 1970. Then a pretty steady rise ever since.

Neil

Did you actually read my comment.

Cycles of snowfall AND ice loss mean that things will get buried AND Ice quantities can decline at the same time.

Think through your comments before you post them and actually think about peoples replies.You might learn something, rather than just having your belief system reinforced by the likes of WUWT.

"Ignoring physical evidence" -- right Neil, that's exactly you.

Remember what the WUWT article said about Greenland ice ruining Viking farms?:

"Sheets of ice sliding down the mountain toward GUS"

So your buried WWII planes and the crane are evidence of what?

Snow comes down from the sky, remember?

Glacial ice slides, especially when lubricated by melt water flowing down underneath through glacial cracks.

So your "Gotcha" moments with planes & cranes under years of snow turned to ice mean what?

That's right, Neil -- nada.

As I tried to help you, if those planes had crashed here in the Sierra, high enough, they'd have been under far more snow & ice than they were in 1988 Greenland.

But, Neil, remember, what you believe isn't a concern. We just don't let BS pass for fact, so others don't deserve to be mislead by misinformation.

Hope any of your handlers aren't reading.
;]

Markx

There are things missing from your list of factors affecting mass balance for the ice. You are in effect assuming that the ice doesn't move and just sits in one place accumulating or shrinking. What is missing from this is any consideration of ice movement. Ice is always moving. Not just little things like Glaciers.The big ice sheets. The Ice in Antarctica and Greenland is all moving towards the sea. Where else do ice bergs come from - they aren't sea ice,way to thick for that.

So the mass balance is thus the difference between the factors you describe and the rate at which ice flows away from a region.

So Neil, what is your attitude toward the whole global warming debate? Choose one from the following list:
1. It's not warming.
2. It's warming, but it's not us.
3. It's warming, it's us, but it will not be bad.
4. It's warming, it's us, it will be bad, but we can mitigate it.
5. It's warming, it's us, it will be bad and we can do nothing.

Don't worry, I won't ask you for the science supporting your stance: I'm just interested in where you are coming from.

Neil, thanks for the courteous and comprehensive reply. I guess you fall about my 1 or 2, which I would summarise thus: "If there is any warming, it is natural, not anthropogenic".

I have a few follow-up questions:
1. What forcing or process do you think will cause impending cooling?
2. If cooling does not eventuate, would you be surprised?
3. What is your impression of the BEST project, which concluded warming is occurring?

No Neil

A view that is in contradiction of our understanding how things work can't be true. That was the basis of my comment to you. So instead of seeing supposed concocted statements in support of an imagined 'orthodoxy', rather that was a statement of fact highlighting that your opinion is based on a lack of understanding.

So your statements about ancient aircraft in Greenland and some sort of assertion that this contradicts our understanding of mass loss in greenland is a statement by you that you don't understand the processes that occur in an Ice Sheet.

If you are able to quote WUWT from 3 years ago then you are obviously someone who has been around this discussion for some time. So you have probably seen discussions about ice cores from Antarctica & Greenland. They drill deeper and deeper to get older and older ice and the trapped air bubbles inside it to analyse past atmospheres.

So why is it Neil that the oldest ice (and air bubbles) are at the bottom of the ice sheet, and more recent ones at the top. By your argument that the planes being buried signifies that the ice sheets aren't losing mass, you are suggesting that they must lose mass from the top, hence if the planes are buried then there has been no mass loss.

But if that were the case, the ice cores couldn't exist. If snow is added at the top and mass loss occurs at the top, then those ancient bubbles would have been destroyed each summer. The existance of the ice cores is evidence that mass loss isn't driven by loss from the top. And mass loss must have occurred. If planes could be buried by 100 metres or so in less than a century of snow fall, how thick would the ice sheets be after 100's of thousands of years. They would reach almost to Space. Obviously that hasn' thappened.Because your understanding of how the processes work is wrong.

As to the Vikings. My how this one goes around and around. Why do you see that as an indication of GLOBAL conditions back then, rather than just local conditions in Greenland? Yes climate was warmer during that period - in the North Atlantic Basin! Just as it was cooler during the same time in the American Pacific North-West where Glaciers were expanding at the same time. Just as it was cooler then across the South Pacific and here in Australia. The North Atlantic Basin is about the worst region on the planet to look to as an indicator of GLOBAL average conditions. The Gulf Stream/Atlantic Conveyor current system profoundly impacts Nort Atlantic climate, as seemingly does the norther Polar Jet Stream. That makes the region more climatically unstablethan most regions on Earth.

If you want a good indicator of GLOBAL climate conditions, you need to look at indicators of past GLOBAL average sea level. Where is the evidence that sea levels were that much higher back then. Lets go back to before the Vikings, to the 'warmer' period before then that skeptics often refer to. The Roman (there is that North Atlantic Climate influence again). Sea levels during the Roman period were 1 to 2 meters LOWER than now. Lower seas = cooler world. Even if some localised pockets are warmer.

So, a comment on 'orthodoxy'. Most definitely it is an orthodoxy. It is orthodox to apply the known principles of science and the detailed data available about the world around us to understand what is going on. In contrast, using massively cherry-picked snippets of 'information', dodgy logic and a complete (and possibly knowing and willful) disregard for scientific principles,is that unorthodox? Totally. Thus it is rejected.

Simple example from what you are claiming here: Local Variability isn't evidence of Global Trends. Citing isolated local things isn't evidence of anything.

Neil. I have been involved in discussion of Climate Change for 7-8 years. I have heard every supposed argument 'skeptics' have ever put forward. Nothing you have said is new or original. And in all the years of these discussions, I can count on the fingers of one hand the skeptics who have put forward a reasonable argument. But there is an endless stream of folks just like you putting forward the same so-called arguments that are like swiss cheese. With holes in them big enough to drive a truck through. If you have been getting your information from Misrepresentations R'Us (WUWT) then you have been immersed in them. Notice how Skeptics flock together, all banging on at the same talking point, until the whole flock moves on to the next supposed point. Latest skeptic meme - The Daily Mail pieceabout '16 years of no warming'. Whats the next meme? I can hardly wait. What will the leaders of the Denialerati promulgate next. Only thing I know is it won't be anything new.

If you want to critique AGW, by all means go ahead. But you need to immerse yourself in the full body of the science then form opinions (and criticisms) based on weighing up the totality of that evidence. Wasting peoples time with opinions based on limited knowledge just annoys people.

If you want to have a discussion about the evidence, by all means. But the aggresive tone with an implied notion that you are right and everyone else is wrong when actually your knowledge-base doesn't seem that great doesn't encourage anyone to respect you or your opinions Neil.

Neil,
1. Can you give me links to peer-reviewed papers, published in reputable journals, that show ocean currents provide better correlation to temperature than CO2 does? Remembering that the oceans have been warming, too, and that warmth came from somewhere.
2. How would you go about proving cooling is happening, if all the temperature records you rely on a compromised?
3. If you like satellite measurements better than ground or ocean based measurements, then you will be aware that satellites have proved Earth is receiving more energy than it is radiating back into space. Where is that extra energy going, if not into melting the Arctic, warming the oceans and warming the land?
4. I thought BEST rigorously examined all the problems Anthony Watts and others had identified, including UHI, and came to the conclusion that warming is happening. Is that not a fair reading of the BEST papers?