The article does not do anything for the author's credibility on global warming. He opens with a string of warmist assertions, but fails to provide any substantiating evidence to support them.

The writer points out, quite rightly, that there is now some sort of continuous record of sea ice back to the early 70s, thanks to satellites. What he does not say is that the record is completely inadequate for working out whether recent trends in sea ice actually mean anything (as global warmists hope).. its known that the fabeled North West passage has been open before, so there have been other changes in the sea ice. What caused them? there are theories concerning winds and ocean currents which, of course, are all ignored in favour of the big one - it must be climate..

Well said both of you.

BUT WAIT..."Gobal Warming" is not, has never been, and will never be...about 'Climate'.....it's about

-'redistribution of income/wealth'.
-3rd world equality.
-equitable development.
-Making certain 'climate' related businessmen and their networks.. VERY VERY RICH and equally VERY VERY powerful.

Maurice Strong.
Al Gore
Kathy Zoi
Robin Roy (Zoi's husband)
Dr Richard Sandor
David Blood
Smart meter manufacturers. (Landis and Gyr)
Lot's of Goldman Sachs former employees.

Dr Joel Rogers, the man behind a lot of the socialist thinking in the White House now, says that:

"Even if we shut down EVery power station, took EVery car off the road now.. ie...the ENTIRE power generation sector, the ENTIRE transportation sector and we still would not be anywhere near down to 60% of 1990 levels...and the economy would be at a complete halt"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Bh3jWqiUw0

Never believe 'me'....always check :)

So.... we should ask these vested interest few.."Did you check the glaciers on the OTHER side of the mountains...you know..the ones which are GROWING"?

The polar ice caps say little about cyclical weather patterns.

After all..the Deserts used to be forest..

Good article.

Raycom, it is the epitome of hypocrisy that you accuse the author of something that you engage in yourself. Where in your post have you provided substantiating evidence to support your own assertion?

Rather than censure Michael Lemonick, perhaps you should substantiate why an increasing arsenal of satellites are all pointing to the same conclusions. Or do you, like the inimitable Boazy, think they are all returning false data to lend credence to some Bolshevik world-wide conspiracy?

Mark, it is obvious that no amount of scientific data will sway you to pull your head out of the sand, open your eyes, or remove the hands from your ears. By the by, my bookshop still hasn’t got your book on the shelves.

Since Anthony Watts predicted the recent change in melting rates for the Arctic more accurately than any other commentator, it would probably be useful for this author to visit his site:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

He may even learn something.

Right now Antarctic ice extent is well above the long-term average and Arctic ice has risen above the 2007 minimum for this time of year. And, yes, it is melting -- but then it is summer up there, after all.

And next time someone wombles on in a scary voice about 'the melting of Greenland's ice sheet' ask them to do the math and tell you how many years it is going to take to melt the lot. You will find that the answer is measured in millennia.

But on the whole this is good news. The sooner we have long-term objective measurements, the sooner the AGW agenda will collapse in a steaming heap.

Wow, all this talk of ice and nary a mention of Antarctica. I wonder why? I seem to recall reading somewhere that there was some ice in Antarctica...:)

Perhaps its because the south isn't playing fair and refuses to do what the scientists say it should/would ie rather than melting its expanding.

And now real scientists (those looking at the real world not models) have found that "the data indicate that present reduced ice extent on the western Antarctic Peninsula is not unprecedented and is similar to that experienced during at least three periods in the last 5600 yr."
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/38/7/635.abstract

Gee, it happened before we started burning fossil fuels? Maybe its natural and cyclical? Now wouldn't that put a crimp in the leftist agenda. Although the actual data and the truth seem to not matter too much these days.

The flat-earthers are up to their old tricks. They don't want to have a bar of climate change. They'll lose too much money on their fossil-fuel and mining shares.

It's funny how people who sniff money become brain-dead!

Michael, what are you doing in a nonpartisan organisation when you are so obviously partisan yourself.

Your regurgitation of the tired old phrases”, accelerating global warming”, the non existent “sea-level rise” and the non rise in sea levels “endanger many thousands of miles of coastline”, while “Glaciers moving more rapidly to the sea”.

More rapidly than what, Michael? More rapidly that the contortions of your fevered brain, perhaps.

Did you think to ask yourself what relevance any of this has, when it holds the unspoken implication that human emissions cause the warming?

There is no scientific basis for the assertion that human emissions have any measureable effect on global warming.

There is no basis for AGW, apart from the unscientific guess by the IPCC, that it is “very likely”.

The settled, peer reviewed science is that all warming is accounted for, from natural sources and there is no room for any assertion of AGW, despite billions being spent in the desperate efforts of the alarmists to come up with scientific proof.

So how about a nonpartisan input from you Michael, and stop sounding like a partisan alarmist.

When the toys of which you speak have collected about a hundred years of data, there may be something to be derived from it, as against your observations of the short term, straining for conclusions, the basis for which is not available

'After carbon dioxide, the substance most crucial in determining how climate change will play out...'. Hang on isn't the Sun the main driver of our climate? or does the author think we have all been conditioned by television to read nonsense as well as listen to it?
These satellites seem to be programmed with the same biases as the IPCC. They only every seem to measure shrinking or mass losses. From the language of the article you would think these satellites only operate in Summer time and/or are deemed to malfunction during Winter when ice is growing or expanding. It's a bit like how the IPCC handles dissenting scientists.
There's some interesting information here on satellites, but it's a shame the article is laced with alarmist drivel.

Leo Lane - beg to differ, Climate Central bills itself as a non-partisan organisation but it is obviously partisan.

Qanda and David G - fellas rather than sling quite unjustified abuse its time you back tracked. You do realise that a La Nina is on the way, quite a strong one too to judge by the pattern of sea surface temperatures, and that means temperatures are going to plunge.. the current El Nino, which encouraged UK Met Office and NASA forecasts that 2010 would be warmer than 1998 (warmest on record), is fading after a weak showing. Both those trends, in turn, fit with forecasts based on oceanic cycles and are further indication that temperatures around the turn of the century were at a peak, not a plateau. The IPCC forecasts already look bad, and they are going to look a lot worse in a year or two as the La Nina runs its course..
Perhaps you should cover your rear ends while you back track..

Lets remember the geniuses who predicted ice-free Arctic summers by 2013. Thanks fellas but don't call us, we'll call you.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm

Ten year Arctic Ice comparison shows no significant change at all.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/31/wuwt-arctic-sea-ice-new-7/

Most Climate Scientists are sneaky enough to make outlandish claims about events which are timed to occur after they collect their pensions or are long dead so they can avoid the flying eggs or loss of prestige but apparently some haven't learned that tactic yet.

>>Cathy Zoi is the founding chief executive officer of the Alliance for Climate Protection. Zoi served as the Chief of Staff in the White House Office on Environmental Policy and as the assistant director general of the New South Wales EPA in Sydney, Australia; and as the founding chief executive officer of the New South Wales Sustainable Energy Development Authority<<

Al, who the hell sent her in our direction, God save us I never understood we were such a target. I believed it was home grown lunacy.

Qanda, the onus of proof is on those asserting that the globe is warming but let's not pretend that you care whether it's true or not. The fact that 90 percent of the measuring stations don't even comply with their own minimum standards is enough to demonstrate that you are either deliberately lying, or are literally so stupid that you don't understand what you're talking about. Which one is it?

Ok, still here but my last.

Peter Hume

Deliberately lying or literally so stupid – thanks mate, you have reinforced my opinion about your capacity to think logically and rationally without fear or favour – you know, like real sceptics do.

As I understand, the gist and main thrust of Lemonick’s article, of which on the evidence I don’t disagree with at all, was about satellites and ever improving technology and data collection that substantiates the record.

Now, apart from changing the playing field from satellites to (land based) “measuring stations”, you make the same mistakes as Raycom and other OLO sceptics do - assertion without substantiation.

Case in point: You assert that “90 percent of the measuring stations don't even comply with their own minimum standards.” How do you substantiate that? Answer - you don't.

You want “proof” of global warming? Where have you been other than ‘denialist’ blog sites, Peter? Ok, try the USHCN. Or, for starters, google Dr Thomas Peterson.

So, you and the ‘deny-n-delay brigade’ rant about perceived flaws in the surface station record, location and quality assurance and control of instrumentation. You do this as though real experts (with much more experience, credentials and credibility than former television weathermen) don’t know jack-shite what they’re talking about – simply amazing (and unfortunately, typical of you lot)!!

Now, the inimitable Anthony Watts has promised he would publish his own analysis of surface temperature data. Yet his surface-station project is over two years old now and what do we have from him? Nothing.

Moreover, lots of so called “sceptics” have been dissecting and scrutinising the surface temperature data for more than a few years. However, they have produced nothing substantial in terms of analysis. All we have are people like Watts and his flock who snipe, whine and take pot-shots from the sidelines.

Cont’d

Cont’d

Why do you shoot from the hip, Peter?

Because you (and most commenters in this thread) are either too lazy to do the science yourself, you are incapable of doing it (it’s not your field of expertise) or you are just blow’n smoke for some stupid ideological agenda. My guess - all the preceding.

Indeed, if the USHCN process/system (or any of the data collection centres) is so corrupt and so scientifically indefensible as Watt’s Up With That maintains, then ‘experts’ like Watts himself would have published real articles in the real peer-reviewed process detailing the inconsistencies, not only in the homogeneity algorithms, but deficiencies in the USHCN system itself. He has not!

Further, if in fact you, Watts or the ‘deny-n-delay brigade’ were really capable (if not serious) about critiquing the quality of the surface-station data, you would have gotten something, anything, in a reputable journal by now. You/they haven’t ... zilch, nuffin, zippo, nada – get it?

Tell you what, Peter Hume (and fellow travellers) – rather than assert things that you obviously know very little about, or throw ad homs as a personal defence mechanism, why don’t you go look up the National Climatic Data Centre and read a bit. You might not like it, but you might learn something more important than on a former weatherman’s blog site.

Goodbye!

qanda
It is time you got your thinking straight.

It is unscientific to say that the AGW hypothesis is true until such time as it is proven wrong. The onus of proof rests firmly upon the proposer of the hypothesis, not with its refutation.

The warmists have failed to produce that proof , after searching for over 20 years. As they cannot put up, they should shut up.

Anyone who takes Qanda's comment at face value ought to have a read of this interview where Anthony Watts discusses his project: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2010/2920304.htm.

Amongst the interesting things he says is that he and Roger Pielke are actually about to submit their findings to a peer reviewed journal. Apparently he wanted a complete dataset before publishing. Seems reasonable.

Irrespective of that, I fail to see how a peer review process could have any bearing on whether his work is correct or not. You can check these installations out on his site and come to your own conclusions. http://www.surfacestations.org/

It's a pretty impressive and open process, quite contrary to what we've seen with the University of East Anglia CRU.