Comments on: Oram on ETS debacle: Business Council for Sustainable Development ordered to shut up by big emitters; Nick Smith guilty of “breathtaking hypocrisy”

By: scaddenp

scaddenp — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:02:52 +0000

Whoops! I see that I have consistantly used “shelf”, “shelves” instead of “sheet”. I do of course mean ice sheet.

By: scaddenp

scaddenp — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:54:18 +0000

Oh, and on “Arctic growing” – instead of sea ice extent, try looking at multiyear ice thickness. (ie the VOLUME of ice). Growing my foot, especially when you add in Greenland ice loss.

By: scaddenp

scaddenp — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:52:26 +0000

R2D2 – Several points here.
1/ AGW models predict arctic amplification, and not much happening at all in Antartica. Do you want papers on why? First off realise that you comparing sea-ice with ice shelves. Very different processes. Second Antarctica (with exception of peninsula) is isolated both in ocean circulation and atmospheric circulation. Finally note that Antarctica temperatures have cold driver from ozone depletion.
2/ Glaciers and ice shelves are long term integrators of weather so better indicators of climate than seasonal ice. The loss of ice from the ice shelves is not something that can be made up in a hurry.
3/ The detail on Antartica from extended GRACE 2009 is just up at NatureGeo so unless you have access you will have to take my word for it. However, it shows EAIS losing mostly round the edges as you expect. Gaining in centre as the models predict. WAIS losing big time. Note again – ice shelf not sea ice. Time series data is presented from 2001 from several locations.
4/ The same experiments are showing even higher loss from Greenland ice shelf, again especially at edge. Net ice loss is large.

Seaice makes news but the worries for sealevel of course are from these ice shelves. Net ice loss/gain from these is MUCH harder to measure so you dont get the long time series. There is however long term (retreating) data for many individual glaciers at both ends of globe. You need experiments like GRACE though to be really sure of the net loss. With losses at both end of planet, I doubt you can come up with some kind seasaw effect. This is second time I have seen you postulating that we have regional warming rather than global warming. Where on earth do get this idea?

By: R2D2

R2D2 — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 07:32:57 +0000

I sense a bit of hypocrisy here. East Antarctic shrinking since 2006 is cause for concern but temperatures falling since 2001 is not long enough for a trend?

Seems like more evidence that when the Arctic is growing the Antarctic is melting and vice versa (the Arctic has been growing over the same time frame).

By: Bandersdad

Bandersdad — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:57:09 +0000

Check out some real clout and someone knowing what to do with it:
http://www.savillenetmedia.com/sci/

By: Bandersdad

Bandersdad — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:26:31 +0000

Back on topic…
It amazes me how mis-guided Tesco’s are with their continued support and development of sustainability and carbon reduction programmes; given their own huge sustainability and carbon footprints.
Apparently one in seven pound spent in the UK is with Tesco’s. You’d think with that amount of skin in the game they’d have the clout to shut peolpe up.

By: Rob Taylor

Rob Taylor — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:05:23 +0000

Hey deniers, fancy some ice for your gin and tonic?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/n.....d=10611252

Or do you have a leaked email from from George Soros, arranging free jackhammers for Antartic climate researchers?

Yeah, right…

By: Macro

Macro — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:37:58 +0000

“If imminent human -induced climate catastrophe was indeed what the data proved…..”
What planet are you on Steve? Every day more and more data pours in to the ocean of knowledge confirming the fact that we are rapidly stuffing up the Earth and you sit shaking your head that its all not true!
How about this?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/n.....d=10611095
And this
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
“Sea ice extent grew throughout October, as the temperature dropped and darkness returned to the Arctic. However, a period of relatively slow ice growth early in the month kept the average ice extent low—October 2009 had the second-lowest ice extent for the month over the 1979 to 2009 period.”
and I could go on – but what would be the point – you would write it all off as a mere nothing!
Its about time you had a crisis of faith in your own opinion. Such resolute denial is not good for your well being!

By: Rob Taylor

Rob Taylor — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:58:06 +0000

Don’t be naive, Steve, the fossil fuels industry has trillions of dollars worth of profits and infrastructure to protect, and the political power that goes with it.

If they can arrange for the US to invade Iraq, they can easily create and fund a substantial astroturf operation to protect their revenue, and have been doing so since the 70s

“Unfortunately, a well-funded and highly organized public relations campaign is poisoning the climate change debate. Using tricks and stunts that unsavory PR firms invented for the tobacco lobby, energy-industry contrarians are trying to confuse the public, to forestall individual and political actions that might cut into exorbitant coal, oil and gas industry profits”
http://www.desmogblog.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio

By: Steve Wrathall

Steve Wrathall — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:27:25 +0000

The context if anything reinforces the theme of data manipulation, intimidation of critics, and their own crisises of faith. If imminent human -induced climate catastrophe was indeed what the data proved, none of this would be necessary.