LaurieC, ok already, we get it - seen your comments, on numerous threads, repeating the same thing. Thing is, the weight of evidence against Wentz et al does not support the conclusions, just look at the refutations and rebuttals - look at the citations, for example. That is not to say their postulates are wrong, they just haven't been supported to the extent that you may wish, or want them to be. Who knows, they may get the Nobel one day for showing it is all bunkum (I doubt it), but they (and others) should go for it - that's what the scientific process and peer review is all about.

For what it's worth, the vast majority of scientists are not suggesting "catastrophic global warming" anytime soon, and it's misrepresentation or ignorance to suggest that they are - the sky is not falling and the world is not going to end in 2100. However, there are some serious things to do (it doesn't happen over night) that we could be doing to look at how we use (and abuse) our energy, figuratively and literally.

Grim, what is the relevance of the Fourth Assessment Report (FAS) to my posting? The FAS was published contemporaneously with Wentz et al. and would not have taken it into account.
Also, what is the relevance of your comment on evapotranspiration? Evaporation is quite responsive to temperature changes and goes up and down with temperature. Further, while evapotranspiration may be of some significance on land, it is irrelevant on the oceans which cover 71% of the earth’s surface and where 86% of evaporation takes place.

Bonmot, you say the “weight of evidence against Wentz et al does not support the conclusion”. The conclusion I have been referring to is as follows:- Since satellite data has been available it has consistently shown that as global temperature increases and decreases, evaporation, precipitation and atmospheric water vapour all increase and decrease by a very similar percentage. If you are aware of a peer reviewed paper that refutes or rebuts this conclusion I would appreciate your drawing it to my attention.

This article isn't about opening closed minds it's about closing open minds; right when satellite data is showing accelerating melting of major icesheets in Greenland and Antarctica - faster than modelling had indicated - the author wants us to believe sea level rise will be less than modelling had indicated. Greater uncertaintly at the regional level was always freely admitted within climate science literature, yet modelling has been quite good at the continental level. Why fail to point that out except to mislead? The overall uncertainty of climate remaining unchanged is low, the uncertainty of the most extreme and dangerous changes remains higher. Why fail to note that? The Royal Society isn't saying it's likely there won't be serious climate change that will impose enormous consequences and costs, it's still saying most likely there will be. Betting the planet's - and our civilisation's - future on the most unlikely possibility that every institution that studies climate is wrong and carrying on with the very activities that will contribute to the problem unabated is dangerously irresponsible. The Author is just one more of far too many promoters of denialist drivel that are given a prominent voice here.

"...right when satellite data is showing accelerating melting of major icesheets in Greenland and Antarctica..."

Really, Ken? Have you looked at the ice coverage charts lately? Both Antarctica and the Arctic have recently risen sharply. Not so strange for the Arctic, which is approaching winter, but Antarctica...?

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

It may just be that we're in for a long cold winter. Let's hope that's all it is. Funny that you don't see these charts on AGW alarmist articles any more, isn't it?

JonJ, ice sheets and sea ice aren't the same. Is this an attempt to shift ground to where you feel you have stronger arguments (you don't) or just being weak on the facts about climate?

Sea ice comes and goes seasonally and barely affects sea levels - although multiyear sea ice in the Arctic continues to decline with less lasting a summer to make it to the next winter and ice extent through summer continues it's strong trend of decline. Antarctica's sea ice remains bufferred to a large extent by being circled by cold ocean and has shown a small trend of increase at winter maximum. You could try and find out why rather than jump to the (wrong) conclusion that it's because Antarctica isn't warming. There's strong, clear evidence that it is. I would note that ice shelves - something else again - continue to be lost around it's margins, not to return.

But I never actually mentioned sea ice, I mentioned ice sheets which are where most of the world's frozen water is and where most of the sea level rise will come from. Grace and IceSat satellite data both show acceleration of melting over the last decade and it's gaining momentum of it's own that won't be slowed or stopped without a strong reversal of the current warming trend and there's no sign of that.

ken, do you understand what freezing temperature means?

Do you know the average temperature on the Antarctic continent is -40 degrees?

Water does not "melt" in the Antarctic.

The ice sheets move, they break, but they DO NOT melt.

Take your silly climate fairy tales back to your climate believer sites, you appear not to understand fundamental science.

If satellite measurements, please reference these if you can, shows Antarctic ice thinning, then it is not melt.

Can you reference any site that says satellite data shows Antarctic ice melting? Not sea ice, you most emphatically state this is not sea ice, so leave that one out.

Your statement "satellite data is showing accelerating melting of major icesheets in Greenland and Antarctica" is probably knowledge sourced from one of the AGW/Astrology" sites, not much bothered with science more with propaganda.

Can you understand why climate science has lost any reasonable reputation with the masses that it might have had?

Do please continue to post this sort of thing though, it just adds to the mix of misinformation from the climate scientology/astrology "science".