Q/A the newspaper.
If you are a scientist you must be very good at finding studies of one particular variety. I can not understand how any unbiased person of reasonable intelligence can not invest a few days reading and come to any other conclusion than that AGW hypothesis is very uncertain. Unless one is a card carrying pessimist / alarmist. Please state your studies and just to save time please reference any other statements you make. Two can play that game.

US TV news report Tuesday. Antarctic pack ice has just had the biggest expansion in a four month period, in recorded history. Think it was Prof Fox Uni of Illinois.

Posted by Michael Costello | 01/05/2009 9:46 AM
CATEGORY: FEATURE
TAGS: global warming, polar bears, sea ice

At the close of year just past, there was just as much global sea ice as there was three decades ago.

Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.

The data is being reported by the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions.

Each year, millions of square kilometers of sea ice melt and refreeze. However, the mean ice anomaly -- defined as the seasonally-adjusted difference between the current value and the average from 1979-2000, varies much more slowly. That anomaly now stands at just under zero, a value identical to one recorded at the end of 1979, the year satellite record-keeping began

It is nice to see the thread developing nicely with intelligent scepticism which is the foundation of good science. I'm a bit disappointed that there has not been much said about the options facing Australian society in preparing for the inevitable climate changes that occur as we swing between drought and flood, hot and cold. The preparation of care for the planet is not something that can be achieved in a short period and irrespective of which direction the climate changes in the future there is going to be a need for more and more energy. There is going to be a need for increased efficiency in the production and consumption of that energy and there is going to be a need to apply these protocols across all countries in the planet. Perhaps we should be badgering government to look at these issues rather than following the will-o-the-wisp idea that by taxation we can change the weather.

Oramzi said;
changes in the future there is going to be a need for more and more
energy.

We will have to learn to cope with less energy, not more.
We are close up on the maximum now with no growth in sight beyond a
very small increase, just little wobbles on the flat line.

Cowboy

When you have the hottest year on record (or the lowest amount of sea ice on record) a subsequent year can show a rebound. For example, global warming does not mean every year is hotter than the previous.

It is important to understand the long term trends (remove the noise and natural variation) when studying the climate system.

It’s also important to distinguish between weather and climate. When you heat a system, more moisture evaporates and must condense out somewhere (snow or rain). Arctic sea ice is expanding again (its winter) but that sea ice is not thick old ice. Atmospheric conditions have changed, so too has the ocean currents in the Arctic.

(apologies, below posted elsewhere)

I do see a few snippets in newspapers (mainly on the web) but most of my reading on climate is from the papers published in the International Journal of Climatology. My membership of various associations gives me access to other scientific papers as well.

I would agree that scientists and/or scientific institutions need to communicate better with laypeople. At least the real decision makers are listening and taking action.

For what it’s worth, I cannot understand how any person of reasonable intelligence cannot invest some time reading at least the scientific abstracts of papers published about climate change.

These are some web sites I visit:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/

http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/old-temperature/

http://www.nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/ENSO/enso.references.html

and many more so could become boring :-)

What really gets up my nose is when someone who is NOT skilled in what I have devoted my whole life to has the audacity to tell me I've got it all wrong. It’s like me telling you how to do your job.

I have to do research properly - yet these same people go on to tell me I have it all wrong – simply astounding.

Ok fungo, you don’t think there are extreme views from either side: global warming is a hoax to we’re doomed – very illuminating (I thank the powers that be you’re not a major player, stake holder or decision maker).

I did not denounce Bob Carter’s qualifications – again you are misinterpreting or distorting what I said, why?

Carter is a credentialed geologist; he is not a credentialed climatologist. This in itself does not preclude him from submitting papers on Climate to the journals – Climatology, Nature or Science for example.

He does not do this, for one obvious reason – his rationale is so full of holes.

He does submit guff to places like Quadrant – a ‘right wing’ publication that prints hoax papers under the auspices of Keith Windschuttle, the editor and renown historian who likes to rewrite history.

“And what a fine job you're clearly doing ... I'm sure the demand is huge.” That is so churlish.

To conclude:
1. Please, stop telling me what you think I believe in.
2. As you don’t respect me (the feeling is becoming more and more mutual) there really is no point in having any further dialogue with you – agreed.