Leslie currently there is one million square kilometers more sea ice in Antarctica, than the average for the last 30 years. The ice there, which along with Greenland, constitutes most of the ice on earth is growing at about 4% a year, & has done for many years.

Yep one million square kilometers is quite a bit more ice. Funny we only ever see reports in the media, when a little bit, the size of Manhattan Island breaks off

This growth is over double the loss of ice that was occurring in the Arctic. I say was, as Arctic ice is growing again, inline with the record cold winters Europe has been experiencing. Not much, but growing. If this keeps up, it won't be sea level rise we'll be worrying about, but finding enough dredges to keep our harbors deep enough for shipping.

So what I want to know is why Roy Spencer in the graph posted used the 1979-1983 average temperature for the figure Don posted and gloated about, when it is usual to use a 30 year baseline, typically 1961-1990.

Could this be because the UAH satellite measurements for that period over-estimate the temperature of the lower atmosphere compared to all other measures of global temperature?

Could this also be becuase if you start the model runs in the CIMP5 ensemble with this over-estimated temperature, they will all run hot?

Could it be that Roy has sold us a pup and because Don understands little about climate he has bought the pup?

Hi Peter King,

I guess we always knew you would not or could not answer the question. Ah well, we tried three times.

Interesting that your phone a friend option didn’t work either. Like so many of the faith, when push comes to shove you can’t get beyond what someone else told you, do you ever try to work things out for yourself?

We see it so often on OLO, you go hard with links, never read them yourselves and in the end, when we push hard enough for your answer we discover that that’s all you have, links to someone else’s opinion.

Why is it so difficult for you to say “I don’t know” instead of bulltish.

"....You can demonstrate that any warming or climate change is outside the natural variability, good luck as the IPCC’s AR5 can’t."

The question is one of trajectory, not where we now sit. Projection to 2100 based on globally implementing carbon mitigation measures is 2 degrees, taking us to the peak of natural variation. Without mitigation, we're looking at 4 degrees and over, new territory for mankind.

By all means, argue over the projection, but the trajectory since industrialization is clear.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/the-new-ipcc-climate-report/

Regarding ice-caps: From http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic-antarctic-ice.html
"The numbers for the southernmost ocean, however, pale in comparison with the rates at which the Arctic has been losing sea ice – the extent of the ice cover of the Arctic Ocean in September 2012 was 1.32 million square miles below the average September extent from 1979 to 2000. The lost ice area is equivalent to roughly two Alaskas."

If we do nothing, when the ice sitting on land (Antarctica, Greenland) melts, coupled with ocean-water expanded by higher temperature, we can expect significant a sea-level rise.

Dear Luciferase,

<< Can you demonstrate that any warming or climate change is outside the natural variability, good luck as the IPCC’s AR5 can’t." >>

<< All you have to do is POINT to empirical evidence, real data, real measurements. No models, forecasts or predictions thanks.>>

You missed or ignored the second bit which is probably why you again responded with the IPCC’s “projections”.

I don’t know why those of the CAGW faith constantly rely on other peoples opinion upon which to base their faith. Why have we lost a generation of inquisitive minds? Have we lost the processes by which we evaluate and assimilate information? Have we lost the ability to read and comprehend? Or are we just too lazy to think it through and settle for the emotional stimulation of being part of the great cause?

Let me explain my take on this issue and the processes by which I might reach a conclusion. If you or any of the CAGW faith on this thread can contradict me, go for it. If you cannot then come back with a “question” and not someone else’s “opinion”, develop your own. That way we know your brain is working again.

Firstly, the NIPCC, other skeptical scientific and public perspectives are evaluating “what is now” and not “what might be”. The trajectory of actual temperatures is plotted from whenever you wish to start until today. The starting point or period of sampling will definitely color that trajectory but not change it.

Secondly, the IPCC bases its reports on “what if’s”. Their “projections” start where the empirical data ends. Thus we have a very wide spectrum of “possible” forecasts and projections base on computer models.

So why and how can such a wide range potential computer modeled scenarios happen? A very good question and glad you asked.

People called “Quants” create algorithms. They leave parts for variables to be inserted and it’s then run on the computer. So who puts in the variables? Well those who wish to see a range of possible outcomes of course.

Cont’d

Cont’d

And that is precisely what is produced by the IPCC and their contributing scientists, a range of predictions based on “their” input variables.

If you want to change the range of outcomes, you just have to change the variables. Hey voila! Add to this the uncertainties that exist in our knowledge of the climate and you get what?

There is absolutely no science whatsoever in this process, it’s a SWAG. (Strategic Wild Arsed Guess).

So on the one hand you have skeptics who use real measurements to show what is known about “then” until “now”, empirical data. On the other hand you have those who accept the “now” data but since it no longer supports their purpose, they generate a range of future outcomes based on their own preferred variables, their “guesses” are not science.

Unfortunately the climate did not play ball and fell short of the scenarios “guessed at” by the IPCC scientists.

The NIPCC report concludes that from the current, real, recorded and agreed temperature data;

“that any human global climate signal is so small as to be embedded within the background variability of the natural climate system and is not dangerous”.

Likewise the IPCC cannot provide any contrary temperature records so ignores this and goes back to more “projections”. This is why I asked the question because it is clear from both the IPCC and the NIPCC that no such empirical data exists. You have all looked for it and likewise cannot find it.

It is the IPCC’s projections, forecasts and predictions that are scary and NOT the empirical data. The scary predictions are purely based on “someone’s” personal choice of variables for the modeling, it is not real.

Scientific fraud? No. Political fraud? Yes.

So in summary Luciferase, you and your friends are accepting the mantra because you didn’t understand the processes, you did not enquire, you were driven by “scare” induced emotion, you “wanted to believe” and now, rather then enquire, you are saying to your self, please god let me be right.

Sorry Luciferase, you and your friends have been had.