back to article Antarctic ice shelf melt 'lowest ever recorded, global warming is not eroding it'

Scientists at the British Antarctic Survey say that the melting of the Pine Island Glacier ice shelf in Antarctica has suddenly slowed right down in the last few years, confirming earlier research which suggested that the shelf's melt does not result from human-driven global warming. The Pine Island Glacier in West Antarctica …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    1. gazthejourno (Written by Reg staff)

      Re: *cough*

      Tell us, do you know the difference between Australia and Antarctica?

      1. Nerdo

        Re: *cough*

        Tell us, do you know the difference between regional and global?

        1. Steve Knox
          Holmes

          Re: *cough*

          Tell us, do you know the difference between regional and global?

          Good question. Does Lewis?

      2. Fink-Nottle

        Re: *cough*

        > Do you know the difference between Australia and Antarctica?

        Errr ... England might avoid a Test Series whitewash against Antartica?

        1. kraut

          Re: *cough*

          No.

        2. Mike Ozanne

          Re: *cough*

          Nah those penguins really know hot to get swing of an icy wicket

      3. croc

        Re: *cough*

        2126 miles or 3426 km, Hobart to Casey Station... NZ is a bit closer.

      4. Tom 13

        @ gazthejourno: No, no. I've got this one.*

        Mahatma Coat you do know that:

        1. A single season weather does not make climate.

        2. That's only Australia. You need the average over the entire surface of the globe, not just a little region of it. I mean, your continent is barely 7% the size of Europe and Warmists write off the entire Little Ice Age as a "regional" event.

        *Your point is valid and obvious, but I want to the chance to play by Alinsky's rules. It's so much more fun to be using them than being abused by them.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: *cough*

      According to those who believe in AGW "weather isn't climate", so what's the link with the weather in Australia?

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: *cough*

      This illustrates one of the worst tendencies of alarmism: the assumption that *any* instance of temperature increase is caused by AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming), with *no* attempt to actually test that assumption. It is only when the catastrophist assumption is counter-indicated that any attempt is made to find an explanation -- and then the purpose of the explanation is to save the contradicted theory.

      Observations of a glacier melting, or Oz having a warm year, or the Arctic ice cap retreating, are taken *by themselves* as sufficient evidence of AGW. This is much in the same way that old-style Marxists take every instance of labor unrest as a sign of the coming Revolution, or religious Apocolyptoes take every bit of bad news as signaling the start of End Times. Only when an observation seems to falsify the orthodox theory does one need to look any further, and the reason to do this is to explain it away. Then, of course, believers discover that La Nina did it, or "regional wind patterns", or whatnot.

      Need one point out that science proceeds by strong tests and attempted falsification? AGW catastrophists avoid strong tests and try to protect their theory from falsification. If system integration testing proceeded using catastrophist methods, we'd be producing lists of thousands of successes and deep explanations of why we can ignore those few dozen failures. Come to think of it, that explains ObamaCare...

      1. JeffyPoooh
        Pint

        Re: *cough*

        The *worst* thing is the death of The Scientific Method at the hands of the AGW Alarmists. They *repeatedly and consistently* invoke the rhetoric of religious fanaticism into the debate at all levels. Anyone that dares to point out even the most obvious flaws in their logic or evidence is labled a "denier" and accused of "disbelief". They're no better than any other religious extremist, going right back to the Spanish Inquisition. It's a very poor scientist that ever dares to attempt to shut down debate. The AGW crowd are consistent in this.

        Lewis Page's page 2 pretty much nailed it. We can accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, while much of what is claimed to follow is deeply, deeply flawed. Their computer models are garbage; they need to read Chaos. They've got zero skills on performing Cost Benefit analysis. Their arguments are flawed. They ignore the Low Hanging Fruit, while mandating Haiur Shirts and Greenwash BS. All this is fine. Invoking religious rhetoric and attempting to murder The Scientific Method is criminal.

        1. Uffish
          Headmaster

          Re: attempting to murder The Scientific Method

          How?

        2. NomNomNom

          Re: *cough*

          "Anyone that dares to point out even the most obvious flaws in their logic or evidence is labled a "denier" and accused of "disbelief". "

          You mean like the climate skeptics further down the thread who meddle myths like:

          -Scientists in the 60s predicted an ice age was coming then they did an about face and change it to global warming (false).

          -The climate of mars has changed in lockstep with the climate on Earth (false) proving that it's the Sun that is the cause (false)

          -CO2 rise is caused by temperature not man (false) so man can't be causing warming

          -A recent expedition to the Antarctic was going there to prove the ice had melted (false)

          Do you see why climate skeptics might be called deniers when they churn out such a plethora of *false* statements that are *coincidentally* all geared towards mocking the idea of man-made global warming?

      2. kraut

        Re: *cough*

        Ahem. Oz has been having record high years - out of 200 or so - for a while now. Glacier melting is extremely well documented. As is Arctic sea ice reduction. There certainly seems to be (no, I haven't *actually* done a statistical analysis on it) plenty of evidence that tropical storms are getting stronger, and even in good old Blighty it would appear that extreme weather events are becoming more common.

        <blockquote>Need one point out that science proceeds by strong tests and attempted falsification? </blockquote>

        One need not. But the discussion about climate change isn't pure science - and on the science front I think the results are pretty clear cut: The climate *is* changing, and it's pretty obvious that human production of CO2 and other greenhouse gases plays a big part.

        The other principle that should be considered is risk management. When you become aware of a risk, you should adjust your behaviour according to the consequences - as a bad first approximation: probability * impact.

        Given that, are *you* happy that your pension portfolio is going down by 70% due to climate change? Maybe it's a 1 in 10 chance...or 1 in 5... or 1 in 1. Now, I know what you're thinking, punk. You're thinking "What are the odds, really" Now to tell you the truth I forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this is a cataclysmic change in the climate, and if it goes seriously wrong everyone on the planet is fucked, you've gotta ask yourself a question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?

        Me? I'm bad at predicting probabilities. I like to minimise my maximum regret.

        <blockquote>Come to think of it, that explains ObamaCare...</blockquote>

        Of course, if I'd read to the end of your comment, I could have saved myself the effort of a reasoned response, since you're clearly immune to logic, sense, reason and evidence. Still, someone else may benefit from my lecture.

        1. Rotefux

          Re: *cough*

          Although what I am about to write is anecdotal, read the following.

          I worked, served with the British Antarctic Survey at Halley Bay, Base "Z" in during the years of 1961 and 1962

          Our location was at 76.25 S. 26.25 W.

          Our Chief geologist at that time was Dennis Ardus, yes, that Dennis Ardus of Royal Geological Society fame, who estimated that the Northward movement of the Ice Shelf was about 400 Metres a year. Remember, no GPS in those days.

          This year the Ice Shelf edge is about 75. Deg S. A movement North of about 69 mile, Some melting

          At 700 feet thick, that is a fair amount of sea water displacement would you not agree ???

          And why, in this forum, do you need to heap abuse on a person with whom you disagree.

          Incidentally, Arctic Ice is at record levels. Polar Bears are running rampant up there.

          1. John Hughes

            Re: *cough*

            Interesting observations from someone who seems like they should know what they're talking about.

            Then you add:

            > Incidentally, Arctic Ice is at record levels. Polar Bears are running rampant up there.

            Which simply isn't true, unless your idea of "record levels" is "since 2009".

        2. Visionar

          Re: *cough*

          The fact that all climate models are wrong and that any teenager alive today hasn't seen warming and in fact has seen slight cooling since 2007 is how badly science has been perverted by the Al Gore crowd. The models ignore water vapor and consider our sun as a constant source of energy. Now they can't explain the 17+ years without warming. Meanwhile our sun is declining into its 200 year cooling cycle. I do fear global cooling when we are in the teeth of cycle 25!

        3. MKWeiss

          200 years of recorded temps? You have conviently forgotten the years pervious...MILLIONS OF THEM!

          "Ahem. Oz has been having record high years - out of 200 or so - for a while now. Glacier melting is extremely well documented. As is Arctic sea ice reduction. There certainly seems to be (no, I haven't *actually* done a statistical analysis on it) plenty of evidence that tropical storms are getting stronger, and even in good old Blighty it would appear that extreme weather events are becoming more common"

          Point 1 - Forgive me but ALL --- every article, every "scientist", every activist - I have ever read, listened to, or DEBATED -- has BLATANTLY left out that this earth has under gone some DRASTIC changes in climate over it's estimated lifetime (SOURCE 1). I dare to be alive when all continents were pushed together know as Pangia and the great line of volcanoes started pushing it apart to now create the great mountain range under the Atlantic ocean. What do all the supporters of AGW say about that? Where were humans then? We were but mere blips on the evolutionary chain. AND the last great ICE age Geologists state that the climate had some "ABRUPT" disruptions and oscillations in to that went from 80,000-18,000 years ago (SOURCE 2)...that's a difference of 62,000 YEARS! And y'all want to go on just 200 years of RECORDED temps! As my "friend" across the pond would say, "RUBBISH!!!!"

          Some scientists are even saying we may have experienced a "mini-ice age" that lead to (14th century AD - 19th century) drastic changes in temps in Europe over a few hundred years (SOURCE 5). Evidence the failing of crops, famine, and the black plague. FORGIVE ME AGAIN AGW advocates but I don't believe WE, humans started the industrial age until Brittan in the late 1700's (SOURCE 3).

          Point 2 - Solar Science is still in its infancy. We have just recently been able to closely study the Sun, it's cyclic sun spots, and the massive solar flares that bombard our little planet. We are still unsure just how much this thing (the SUN) effects our satellites let alone our "weather" and climate. We now have better resolution cameras to see more accurately (circa 2013 SOURCE 6) Some of these phenomena that we still don't fully understand. Give it 50 years and we'll be 10,000 more times accurate than now. And these Solar Scientists may just laugh at our mundane belief that CO2 is hurting the planet. It may just be building up our atmosphere to insulate us from major solar winds and flares...who really knows?

          YOU conveniently forget the MILLIONS of years of climate this earth has undergone. (SOURCE 4). You turn a blind eye to any conflicting scientific evidence. Page 2 really does state it all correctly. If you follow the money ..."global warming" is a political ploy to warp your minds and get money and/ or support out of you to pad Politicians pockets and give them some dooms-day rhetoric to distract you from real problems we currently face. What have they ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISHED GLOBALLY to STOP/REDUCE CO2 emissions?

          Please, please, please STOP this nonsense! Look OUTSIDE your moment of existence on this planet to realize there is WAY more to our PHENOMENAL planet and SOLAR SYSTEM than ANY of you humans will EVER understand let alone solely influence.

          SOURCE 1: http://www.nps.gov/iatr/index.htm

          A mere 15,000 years ago during the Ice Age, much of North America lay under a huge glacier. Mammoths, saber tooth cats and cave lions roamed the earth! Some of the best evidence of this glacier is found in Wisconsin such as the state’s many lakes, river valleys, gently rolling hills, and ridges. The nearly 1,200 mile Ice Age National Scenic Trail, established in 1980, traces the glacier's edge.

          SOURCE 2: http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/abrupt-climate-change-during-the-last-ice-24288097

          Unlike the relatively stable climate Earth has experienced over the last 10,000 years, Earth's climate system underwent a series of abrupt oscillations and reorganizations during the last ice age between 18,000 and 80,000 years ago (Dansgaard 1984, Bond et al. 1997, 1999). These climate fluctuations were first discovered when scientists reconstructed past temperature variability over Greenland by analyzing tiny changes in the relative abundance of the oxygen-16 isotope versus the oxygen-18 isotope (noted as δ18O and reported in parts per thousand) in ice cores recovered from Greenland glaciers. Each successively deeper ice layer represents a snapshot of Earth's climate history from the past, and together, the oxygen isotope record told a story of abrupt, millennial-scale climate shifts in air temperatures over Greenland between extremely cold stadial conditions and relatively mild interstadial periods during the last ice age (Figure 1) (Alley 2000, Alley et al. 2003). There are twenty-five of these distinct warming-cooling oscillations (Dansgaard 1984) which are now commonly referred to as Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles, or D-O cycles. One of the most surprising findings was that the shifts from cold stadials to the warm interstadial intervals occurred in a matter of decades, with air temperatures over Greenland rapidly warming 8 to 15°C (Huber et al. 2006). Furthermore, the cooling occurred much more gradually, giving these events a saw-tooth shape in climate records from most of the Northern Hemisphere (Figure 1).

          SOURCE 3:http://www.history.com/topics/industrial-revolution

          The Industrial Revolution, which took place from the 18th to 19th centuries, was a period during which predominantly agrarian, rural societies in Europe and America became industrial and urban. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, which began in Britain in the late 1700s, manufacturing was often done in people’s homes, using hand tools or basic machines. Industrialization marked a shift to powered, special-purpose machinery, factories and mass production. The iron and textile industries, along with the development of the steam engine, played central roles in the Industrial Revolution, which also saw improved systems of transportation, communication and banking. While industrialization brought about an increased volume and variety of manufactured goods and an improved standard of living for some, it also resulted in often grim employment and living conditions for the poor and working classes.

          SOURCE 4:http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm

          The geologic record contains unequivocal evidence of former climate change, including periods of greater warmth with limited polar ice, and colder intervals with more widespread glaciation. These and other changes were accompanied by major shifts in species and ecosystems. Paleoclimatic research has demonstrated that these major changes in climate and biota are associated with significant changes in climate forcing such as continental positions and topography, patterns of ocean circulation, the greenhouse gas composition of the atmosphere, and the distribution and amount of solar energy at the top of the atmosphere caused by changes in Earth's orbit and the evolution of the sun as a main sequence star. Cyclic changes in ice volume during glacial periods over the last three million years have been correlated to orbital cycles and changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, but may also reflect internal responses generated by large ice sheets. This rich history of Earth's climate has been used as one of several key sources of information for assessing the predictive capabilities of modern climate models. The testing of increasingly sophisticated climate models by comparison to geologic proxies is continuing, leading to refinement of hypotheses and improved understanding of the drivers of past and current climate change.

          SOURCE 5:http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_lia.html

          The Little Ice Age is a period between about 1300 and 1870 during which Europe and North America were subjected to much colder winters than during the 20th century. The period can be divided in two phases, the first beginning around 1300 and continuing until the late 1400s. There was a slightly warmer period in the 1500s, after which the climate deteriorated substantially. The period between 1600 and 1800 marks the height of the Little Ice Age. The period was characterised by the expansion of European trade and the formation of European sea born Empires. This was directly linked to advances in technology harnessing more of nature's power and towards the end of the period fossil-fuelled power. These two hundred years also saw the specialisation of agricultural regions, which produced specific products for local and international markets.

          SOURCE 6:http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/astrophysics/iris-eyes-the-sun-shakes-up-solar-science

          New high-speed, high-resolution spectrographic images from IRIS reveal the structure and motion of the Sun's little-understood transitional region with never-before-seen detail.

          The first images from NASA’s latest solar observing satellite are in, and they show unprecedented detail—and unexpected complexity—in the roiling lower layers of the Sun’s atmosphere. Already, the images have revealed a previously-unseen fibrous inner structure of many solar features, including the familiar earth-size prominences that can erupt into solar flares and the less-well-known, 500-kilometer-wide spicules that jet up into the corona at speeds of 20 km/s.

          Although the data has just started to come in, the early results are enough to challenge the current numerical models of solar behavior.

          The pictures from the IRIS (Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph) Observatory, launched 27 June this year, capture images that are sharply defined in space, time, and wavelength. The instrument combines an ultraviolet telescope with a high-precision spectrograph. The imager can resolve solar features 250 km in diameter (see the comparison photos below). The spectral data is used to calculate the atmosphere’s temperature and, thanks to Doppler shifts, its detailed motion (to within one kilometer per second).

          1. Baskitcaise
            Pint

            Re: 200 years of recorded temps?

            You may have a (cold) beer from me for that!

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: *cough*

          "Oz has been having record high years - out of 200 or so - for a while now. Glacier melting is extremely well documented. As is Arctic sea ice reduction."

          Arctic Ice! Glad you mentioned that. Antarctic sea ice *growth* is also extremely well documented. You don't count that, however, because, well, you know, regional winds or something. Yet you count Arctic ice *shrinkage* without bothering to see if they might have regional winds or something there too. No need to look. You have the right answer already!

          When you test software, what happens when you do this? For instance, when an aggressively careerist Big Boss pressures your team into passing it because a failure would hurt his promotion? He'll want you to :

          -- list all the tests that went as expected and

          -- ignore (or explain away) the ones that didn't.

          This actually happens, as you should know, and likely happened with ObamaCare. And it causes the test-based predictions to not reflect reality.

          And that's what's happening with AGW Catastrophism Theory.

        5. Fluffy Bunny
          Headmaster

          Re: *cough*

          "But the discussion about climate change isn't pure science"

          Actually it isn't science at all. In science, you run experiments to test your hypothesis. This doesn't happen in climate science because it isn't possible to create an experimental system big enough.

          Climate science is more closely related to a religion, with an official doctrine (anthropocentric global warming) and punishment of heretics (an Australian research proved the ocean wasn't rising and got fired for his troubles).

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: *cough*

            You have a bizarre view of what characterises science then - you have just ruled out astronomy, almost all the earth sciences, meteorology, ecology, a lot of zoology and a whole lot more. You do know that not all science happens in a test tube?

            I do find it bizarre how somehow actually going out and measuring things and modelling is equated with religion, while blind trust in an article you read in the daily scream is rational.

            And as for your Australian researcher, sceptic and fired <> fired because of being a sceptic, or are you suggesting that sceptical thought should allow you carte blanche to fiddle your expenses?

        6. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: *cough*

          One need not. But the discussion about climate change isn't pure science - and on the science front I think the results are pretty clear cut: The climate *is* changing, and it's pretty obvious that human production of CO2 and other greenhouse gases plays a big part.

          pretty obvious????

          I think you will find the climate is changing due to lack of unicorns.

      3. interested*observer

        Re: *cough*

        Well said. I have participated in U.S. Department of Energy sponsored meetings and at lunch during one of them I listened to a social scientist next to me launch in to explanations designed "to save the contradicted theory." It was delivered with such approbation that, from my limited personal observations, the policy making surrounding global climate change appears increasingly justified by pseudo-science.

    4. Jim O'Reilly

      Re: *cough*

      Aussie is the only place that's getting hotter!

      1. NomNomNom

        Re: *cough*

        Record in US last year too

        http://www.motherjones.com/files/blog_us_temperature_2012.jpg

        Ironically Australia and the US are two countries full of climate skeptics!

        1. LVTaxman

          Re: *cough*

          You may want to check out the skepticism in the British press and review the studies by the Danes and Russians that believe there will be a cooling period due to reduced solar activity through at least 2035. Maybe more than the US and Australians would prefer real replicable research instead of the hysteria pushed by the IPCC, Al Gore, East Anglia and Mann.

          1. Visionar

            Re: *cough*

            Sun cycle 24 is at 100+ year lows and what is worse is cycle 25 and it portends Maunder Minimums like cooling for the planet

        2. oildad

          Re: *cough*

          Mother Jones? you may as well linked to Media Matters......

      2. Denarius
        Happy

        Re: *cough*

        Ironically, how many icebreakers are now stuck in sea ice in _summer_ south of Oz ? A little reading indicates hottest since 1910 in places around South Oz. Anyone who has been to the Alice or west Qld in the preWet, will know adding another degree or two makes little difference. Still nice to see some serious research that looks like answers, not slogans.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: *cough*

        As their population grows so does the amount of hot air...

      4. Ian Michael Gumby

        Re: *cough*

        And Hell Michigan just froze over.

        Today is going to be a cold day in Chicago.

        Sub zero temps F. Not C. Plus windchill.

        We've also had more snow than usual.

        Guess by your logic, we are going in to a nice age.

    5. AussieBear

      Re: *cough*

      2013 confirmed as Australia's hottest year on record.

      Reliable records stared in 1910. The first colonies were

      established in the late 1770's and indigenous occupation

      existed long before that. Now prove that 2013 is hotter and

      significant.

      AussieBear.

      1. kraut

        Re: *cough*

        2013 being hotter than any other year since 1910 doesn't strike you as significant?

        Don't you think someone since 1770 would have recorded thermometer-melting temperatures if they had occurred at the time? I mean, you ozzies are tough, but ignoring temperatures of 45+ in a full woollen governors uniform seems unlikely.

        At least the journal would have noted something suitably pithy."Not as cold as yesterday. Took G&T at 10 to warm up."

        1. GitMeMyShootinIrons

          Re: *cough*

          "2013 being hotter than any other year since 1910 doesn't strike you as significant?"

          Statistical blip amongst only 100 year of stats, for an area that represents 1.5% of the earth's surface. Not proof of global warming, merely unusual weather.

        2. Denarius
          Facepalm

          Re: *cough*

          @kraut. Dear Sir, they did get those temps at the time of the First Fleet. A well calibrated thermometer placed where the Sydney Harbour Bridge is now. See Watkins Tench. Oh, and ElReg last year. As hot as last year before the dreadful industrialisation really got going. And as someone whose residence was in sight of and downwind from last years local big bushfires, I am most interested in climate, changing or not.

          I recall that Tench observed birds dropping dead from the sky. Only fruit bats have dropped dead so far this year. A few more horses might not get Hendra then, so thats alright.

          As for mad Poms and wool suits, they did it at Port Essington on Coburg Peninsular Northern Territory in real serious tropics mid 19th century. Flown low over abandoned site. How they lasted 15 minutes in a hot humid swamp on hot rocks, let alone years, has me stumped. Must be something in Yorkshire pud and not in pickled cabbage :-)

        3. 9Rune5

          Re: *cough*

          "2013 being hotter than any other year since 1910 doesn't strike you as significant?"

          Wow.

          Given less than 100 years of data, is it really that unexpected to hit a record low/high?

          BTW: They refer to their doomsday prophecy as "climate change". Would you say the climate in Australia has changed since 1910?

          If you want something to worry about, worry about what happens in case the temperature decreases. Many of us won't survive such an event.

        4. 9Rune5

          Re: *cough*

          I forgot to mention: Sydney was quite warm back in 1790: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/14/global-warming-it-was-warmer-in-sydney-in-1790/ -- I hope you realize how difficult it is to measure average temperature across an entire continent and just how significant the lack of historical data is.

          "Don't you think someone since 1770 would have recorded thermometer-melting temperatures if they had occurred at the time?"

          Yes, I think someone did just that.

    6. crwillis

      Re: *cough*

      Australia constitutes 1.5% of the planet's surface - i.e. not a large sample.

      1. kraut

        Re: *cough*

        If you think 1.5% doesn't constitute a large sample, you clearly know nothing about statistics.

        But I'm very happy that you feel entitled to distribute your uninformed opinion with vigour on the internet.

        1. wjr

          Re: *cough*

          The large or small sample size comments are not relevant statistically. A 1% sample in terms of area would be quite significant if and only if that 1% consisted of a large number of sub samples taken randomly over the entire data universe. Using a sample of continuous area from a single region is both poor statistics and poor science.

          Which brings up the real criticism of global warming "science". Modeling is not science. Modeling is a tool used to generalize a system in order to make that system predictable (parenthetically, one definition of science is the ability to predict). In order to model one needs two conditions. The first of these is to have a large enough data set to, at least, reasonably suggest that the data set is exhaustive -- i.e. the data set more or less covers the entire system to be modeled.

          Secondly, once a candidate model is constructed, the model needs to be able to recapitulate prior events. In other words if we know the initial conditions of a past event then the model needs to be able to predict (reasonably) the known outcome of that event.

          In neither case has this been done by the climate change community to my knowledge. Indeed, it might not be possible to do.

          1. Fluffy Bunny
            Holmes

            Re: *cough*

            "Which brings up the real criticism of global warming "science". Modeling is not science"

            Modeling is a tool which simplifies a real-world system into one that can be mathematically studied and predictions made from that understanding. The trouble is, when you model complex real-world systems such as economics and climate, you lose too much fidelity if you create a system you can understand. But if you keep all the complexity, you lose the ability to create useful predictions. In other words, all you get out of your model is noise.

            And it gets worse if you model is designed to prove a point, instead of understand what is happening.

          2. strum

            Re: *cough*

            >Modeling is not science

            *Ahem* Science is entirely a model. Science builds a model of the universe, which can then be compared with observation.

            Saying that 'modeling is not science' is like saying finance has nothing to do with money.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: *cough*

          "If you think 1.5% doesn't constitute a large sample, you clearly know nothing about statistics."

          It's not a sample at all. Size doesn't matter. Randomness matters.

          A sample would require random points from all over the globe, with no selection bias. This means that a point in the open Pacific Ocean or on the Antarctic continent has exactly the same chance of being picked as a point in Western Europe or Eastern North America.

          And unless you meet the base assumptions of the theory of probability you haven't done the minimum necessary to make any claim stronger than, "what an interesting factoid."

          This makes AGW Catastophism Theory, as presented to the public, nothing more than a series of interesting but untested (see above) factoids.

        3. Fluffy Bunny
          Headmaster

          Re: *cough*

          "If you think 1.5% doesn't constitute a large sample, you clearly know nothing about statistics"

          Actually I do know about statistics. 1.5% is far too high. Ie, it is an outlier or anomaly and needs to be discarded as the bad data it is.

    7. crwillis

      Re: *cough*

      Australia covers only 1.5% of the Earth - not a very large sample. The US (about 1.8% of the Earth) had quite a cold 2013.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Here since the ice age

    and the earth has been warming since, 30 years of measuring do not undo 500,000 years of natural phenomena

    Lewis is not evil

    do i get moderated? :)

    1. brain_flakes

      Re: Here since the ice age

      How about 150 years of direct measurements coupled with estimates based on multiple climate proxies going back thousands of years?

      1. Visionar

        Re: Here since the ice age

        Personally I am glad it slightly warmed up from the little ice age. Today our climate is much colder than the Holocene Optimum, Minoan warming, roman warming and the Medieval warming

  3. Vociferous

    Hmmm...

    From the linked article abstract:

    "Pine Island Glacier has thinned and accelerated over recent decades, significantly contributing to global sea-level rise. --- Oceanic melting decreased by 50% between January 2010 and 2012, with ocean conditions in 2012 partly attributable to atmospheric forcing associated with a strong La Niña event."

    La Niña is a climatic cycle repeating roughly every five years, in which "the sea surface temperature across the equatorial Eastern Central Atlantic Ocean will be lower than normal by 3–5 °C."

    That is, if you lower the sea temperature by 3–5 °C, then the melting of the West Antarctic shelf ice drops by about 50% (yes, it still melts). And if one look in the article, what they actually say is that the melting of the west antarctic shelf ice is more complex than just a simple and steady ocean warming in the region, that there are several factors influencing the melt. Which shouldn't really surprise anyone.

    1. Vociferous

      Re: Hmmm...

      I am puzzled by the number of upvotes my post got. You guys do realize that I'm saying that this doesn't in any way contradict the observed fact of anthropogenic climate change? That the melt in Antarctica isn't due to "a simple and steady" ocean warming in the region is not just irrelevant but in fact expected, and in no way contradict anthropogenic climate change?

  4. Oli 1

    well sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet </clay davies>

  5. Neil B

    I've been waiting a long time for page 2 of this article. Well said.

    1. 100113.1537

      But what a shame...

      that Lewis had to include page 2!

      I cannot think of any other topic on El Reg that the author is required to add such a disclaimer - pro-Apple or anti-Apple, Windows vs Linux, Firefox vs Opera - none of these is any bit less controversial in terms of people's opinions, but in no other subject does the honesty, impartiality and parentage of the journalist get called into question simply for reporting what other people have said.

      I'll say it again, what a shame.

      Don't stop Lewis, whether I agree with you or not (and it varies) you are still one of my favourite journos here on El Reg.

  6. Smarty Pants
    Happy

    nice article

    as above

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Good article posted, and links look good too (for when I have time). But for entertainment value the second page provided much more interest than the first .

  8. Emma Summers
    Coat

    Always suspected...

    Global warming, sorry I mean climate change, or is it now climate variation was a load of cobblers!

    Mines the one with the keys to the 6 litre V8 in the pocket.

    1. Big_Ted

      Re: Always suspected...

      So if someone writes a report on massive ice loss then you will agree its not coblers or does one report do it for you only when its anti global warming ?

      Oh here we are......

      http://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/ice-cap-melts-at-fastest-rate-for-1-000-year-1-2895082

      or

      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/massive-ice-sheets-melting-at-rate-of-300bn-tonnes-a-year-climate-satellite-shows-8708117.html

      1. punsalot

        Re: Always suspected...

        Ice cap melting rates highest in 1000 years! That's amazing. In a similar vein, weather related hyperbole is at its highest since days of Noah. There you saw it in print, so it must be true. I question the ability to measure anything accurately that happened more than 50 years ago, especially when few if any people have lived at or monitored those locations continuously for over 950 of those 1000 years. Even if it were true that melting rates were the highest in 1000 years, the earth has been around much longer than that and has seen much more extreme weather I am sure.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Always suspected...

      Why limit oneself?

      Google "marauder truck" for those in need of serious power.

    3. h4rm0ny

      Re: Always suspected...

      >>"Mines the one with the keys to the 6 litre V8 in the pocket"

      Skepticism of AGW does not mean you have to disregard the environment. There are issues of pollution and finite fuel reserves and the nasty regimes we support to get that fuel. Personally, I think we should all be on nuclear as much as possible by now.

      But anyway, my point is that your post is exactly the sort of thing AGW proponents point at when they want to characterise the skeptic position as selfish people who don't give a damn about the environment.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Always suspected...

        "Skepticism of AGW does not mean you have to disregard the environment. There are issues of pollution and finite fuel reserves and the nasty regimes we support to get that fuel. "

        You are certainly right that one can be skeptical of AGW Catastrophism Theory and still be concerned about the environment. Indeed, we are now seeing a subset of profiteering corporations being given a "pollute all you want free" card because they've convinced regulators that their efforts are reducing atmospheric carbon. One suspects that the primary method of convincing them is making huge contributions to their bosses.

        As an example of a "pollute all you want free" card:

        http://www.nbcnews.com/business/wind-farms-can-kill-eagles-without-penalty-2D11702834

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Skewed

    I'm all for the reg posting interesting science articles, and the science of climate change is both interesting and important, so keep up the good work. But you do love your sceptical spin. The Nature study shows that winds play a bigger role in the melting of the glacier than had been thought, what it doesn't do is say 'global warming is not eroding it'. Indeed the paper doesn't even mention 'global warming'. It might be that in a warmer world we will get more La Nina events, and the ice sheet may grow, or fewer and it may shrink, and that's an area of interesting research in itself. But, as you well know, weather <> climate, and this paper was essentially about 2 years of weather.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Facepalm

      Re: Skewed

      I would like to see *all* articles on scientific endeavours to be skeptical.

      You keep saying that word. It doesn't mean what you think it does.

    2. itzman

      Re: Skewed

      and then again it might not...

      What is intensively irritating to those of a genuinely scientific interest and mindset, is the increasing use of meaningless statements, ad hominem attacks, and indeed contradictory statements uttered by the warmist camp to defend their orthodoxy.

      When its a violent storm and melting ice, the hottest year in Australia since records began (a mere100 years ago) it's climate change, when its ice recovering, a bloody cold winter or whatever it's 'just weather'

      The AGW movement is like the emperors new clothes, people are beginning to titter.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03SWGkxt72A#t=36

      1. veti Silver badge

        Re: Skewed

        What irritates *me* is how the "anti-warmist" camp uses exactly the same techniques of strawmen, ad-hominem attacks and contradictory statements, and then attributes them to their opponents.

        See, for instance, page 2 of this article. The article is 50% cherrypicking facts (the coverage isn't wide enough to merit the term "data"), then 50% strawman building and demolishing.

        There really is a valid debate to be had about the best way to deal with climate change, and page 2 of the article touches on that. However, it's impossible to have that debate as long as one side is still locked in denial. In this article, Lewis demonstrates that he is simultaneously aware of this problem (with his talk of "sea defences" and the effects of large-scale shifts in power generation), and determined to prolong it as long as possible. I'd really like to see some discussion about those things, but we can't do that as long as we're squabbling about basic facts and calling each other names.

  10. John G Imrie

    Nice article

    Though I'd have picked The Day after Tomorrow rather than that damp squid Water World.

    1. Sparkypatrick

      Re: Nice article

      Squid are supposed to be damp. As opposed to say, fireworks.

    2. Smiles
      Trollface

      Re: Nice article

      I'm sorry, squid?

    3. markw:

      Re: Nice article

      All squids are at the very least damp.

      Perhaps you meant damp squib.

      1. Synonymous Howard

        Re: Nice article

        But you have to get your squib damp otherwise you won't get around the island and back to Cowes.

  11. Don Jefe

    Popular Reporting and Scientific Studies: Are They Incompatible?

    There are no answers in climate change science. At least no good answers that have scientific validity. That's why journal articles and scientific papers don't have newspaper style headlines that make definitive statements.

    There are an unbelievably small number of definitives in science and with a subject as enormous as climate change (or whatever you want to call it) with so many known and unknown variables it is absolute folly for anyone to state absolutes. It doesn't matter what 'side' of the debate you fall on,absolutely no one has the information necessary to provide any answers.

    Anyone telling you one way or the other on the issue of climate change is dangerously simple. Doubly so if they are defending their statements with actual scientific articles. Every, single, last, bit of making definitive statements based on such small data sets goes against every premise of science. Making broad statements of any kind completely nullifies any and all value of a study, that by definition can only address one tiny issue. Each of larger effects of that tiny issue relates to requires its own in-depth study. You absolutely cannot go 'connecting dots', that's simply not how science works.

    It's bad practice for the general public to do that, it's wholly offensive for the media to do that and it's unbelievably dangerous for politicians to do that. Nobody should be making any conclusions on the broader topic based on the information that's currently available. It's unfortunate when the public and media do it but it should be illegal, possibly treasonous, for politicians to make policy with the same flawed understanding of science.

    1. crwillis

      Re: Popular Reporting and Scientific Studies: Are They Incompatible?

      97% of climate scientists are about to be proven WRONG and UNQUALIFIED to hold their present jobs.

      1. LVTaxman

        Re: Popular Reporting and Scientific Studies: Are They Incompatible?

        Forbes debunked the 97% number over a year ago. Read the articles.

        1. Fluffy Bunny
          Headmaster

          Re: Popular Reporting and Scientific Studies: Are They Incompatible?

          85% of people think that 50% of statistics are just made up on the spot.

      2. Don Jefe

        Re: Popular Reporting and Scientific Studies: Are They Incompatible?

        At this point, absolutely no one has the information required to say any part, of any side, of the climate change debate is 'right' or 'wrong'. The data simply does not exist to make that determination. Full stop. What you're saying is absolutely no different than politicians claiming windmills and solar panels and carbon taxation schemes are effective. Nobody has the information to say either way with any amount of validity.

        Also, 'science' doesn't deal with or support 'wrong' or 'right'. Science deals exclusively in facts collected in the course of organized observation. Science is never, ever absolute, findings that are valid today may be falsified in the course of continued observation and the collection of new data. In those cases, science isn't 'wrong', the level of 'correctness' has only increased with the new information.

        Anyone who tells you anything definitive about scientific findings is dangerously naive. Keep your distance from those people.

  12. Mystic Megabyte
    Mushroom

    Re: Point 3

    We have a 900kw community owned turbine on this island. With the money it made so far we now have two free to use electric cars and two diesel/electric buses. There is also money available for local start-ups.

    We also have a domestic 6kw turbine and it's making ~£6000 p.a.

    So turbines aren't all bad.

    What will reduce us to poverty is the fecking banks and the USA constantly developing better ways to kill people.

    As for nuclear power plants, if they are so safe why can't we all have one in our homes?

    De-centralized power generation would make sense. But "big business" would not want that and the government like to have the option to switch us all off if we get shirty with them.

    1. brainbone

      Re: Point 3

      "As for nuclear power plants, if they are so safe why can't we all have one in our homes?"

      Nice logical fallacy you have there. Travel by commercial airline is statistically safer than automobile, yet we all don't have a commercial airliner in our garage. Does the fact that I can't maintain service for a Boeing 747 in my garage somehow make them less safe?

      1. itzman

        Re: Point 3

        actually we probably could at a reasonable level of safety have a nuclear reactor in our homes.

        Even if you just yanked the rods out for winter manually.

        probably abut 20KWis all you need.

        However the regulatory overhead would be a nightmare.

        1. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge

          Re: Point 3

          Lots of universities have a small bench-top reactor quite safely...

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Point 3

      > De-centralized power generation would make sense.

      Erm, why? Centralised power generation and distribution is the only thing that made it affordable to the command man and woman.

      The fixed costs of manufacture and maintenance costs of us all having our own micro power station would make it one of the most expensive options available, not to mention the fact that CO2 scrubbing and waste disposal in any kind of situation that involve the burning of fuel is vastly more economical when done centrally.

      1. punsalot

        Re: Point 3

        Decentralized generation drastically reduces transmission expenses. The real problem lies in reliability and energy storage. Wind and solar are primary sources of locally generated power, but are unreliable and would require storage capacity for excess energy generated for use later when the wind stops blowing or the sun isn't shining.

        1. itzman

          Re: Point 3

          It would if it really was centralised. The problem, is that it isn't. half the time its exporting surplus power UP the grid, and the other half its importing power DOWN the grid.

          because of natural variability of wind and sun.

          So you still need just as much grid, and in fact you often need MORE grid

    3. codejunky Silver badge

      Re: Point 3

      @ Mystic Megabyte

      "We have a 900kw community owned turbine on this island. With the money it made so far we now have two free to use electric cars and two diesel/electric buses. There is also money available for local start-ups.

      We also have a domestic 6kw turbine and it's making ~£6000 p.a"

      What do you use when the wind isnt blowing? Is it just a single 900kw turbine? Surely that makes maintenance a bit painful? Why did you feel the need to top that up with a 6kw turbine? What happens when the wind stops? How is your turbine making money? Surely the cost of your turbines energy is much higher than reliable sources? Or are energy companies forced to buy your energy at inflated prices instead of the real cheap coal plant?

      "As for nuclear power plants, if they are so safe why can't we all have one in our homes?"

      Probably similar reasons why we dont have coal fired plants or gas fired plants in our homes. Centralised energy is more efficient, increases reliability and when under maintenance wont take down your supply. Oh and the SIZE of the thing.

      There are designs to have home nuclear power. Scares the hell out of the anti nuke people.

      "De-centralized power generation would make sense. But "big business" would not want that and the government like to have the option to switch us all off if we get shirty with them."

      Somewhat. But decentralised means you are responsible for the energy generator (think explosion). And how would the energy be produced? Wind HAH! Solar HAH! Or fossil fuels which are far more affordable and better achieved at power plants.

      We need (not a want, its a need) reliable energy. We also need it to be affordable. This is why the bills are going stupid when we have the capability of producing lots of cheap energy.

      1. Synonymous Howard

        Re: Point 3

        My mother-in-law still has a coal-fired plant in her house and I have a gas-fired plant in mine.

        What? You mean an electricity generating turbine .. sorry .. my mistake, should have said, yes, one of those as well and that's in the garage when not on the road.

    4. Paul Crawford Silver badge

      Re: Point 3

      Sadly you talk bollocks here.

      1) Why is the turbine "making money"? If you have any subsidy, then it is by taxing the majority who don't have such projects, and NOT because it is a cost-effective way of generating power.

      2) Considering how the average numpty deals with radioactive objects[1] this would not be wise. In addition, have you really considered how much material is needed to go critical for useful output, and what the total power of that would be in terms of heat? That should answer your point.

      [1] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/12/06/cobalt60_theft_mexico/

      1. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge

        Re: Point 3

        ...2) Considering how the average numpty deals with radioactive objects[1] this would not be wise. In addition, have you really considered how much material is needed to go critical for useful output, and what the total power of that would be in terms of heat? That should answer your point...

        Er... I considered it. I couldn't see any problems. In principle you can make a perfectly safe reactor just a few feet across - lots of universities have them. If you wanted a full power station - with steam turbine, cooling tanks and electrical switchgear, you're probably talking about the size of a garden rather than a shed, but such an installation could power 10,000 to 20,000 homes. Quite safely. If you actually wanted to buy one as part of a group of, say, 10,500 homes it would cost each house about £1000 at 2008 prices. It would come ready fueled for 10 years and would be perfectly safe from tampering by the 'average numpty' (being buried in a block of concrete underground). The biggest danger would be the associated electrical sub-station.

        Such reactors have been designed, and are in the process of being marketed by several companies. The anti-nuclear brigade have managed to suppress any knowledge of them for a long time, but I can't see that continuing.

        Here is a Wiki for one such design... Hyperion reactor

    5. JP19

      Re: Point 3

      "We also have a domestic 6kw turbine and it's making ~£6000 p.a."

      What you really mean is it is making about £1500 a year and adding £4500 a year to other people's electricity bills?

      "So turbines aren't all bad."

      Yeah good for stealing other people's money, piss poor otherwise but still not as bad as PV installations.

    6. Alfie Noakes

      Re: Mystic Megabyte "Point 3"

      "We have a 900kw community owned turbine on this island. With the money it made so far we now have two free to use electric cars and two diesel/electric buses. There is also money available for local start-ups.

      We also have a domestic 6kw turbine and it's making ~£6000 p.a."

      ...and where exactly does this "money" come from?

      Is it from independent businesses who are willingly purchasing their energy from the most efficient supplier, or is it via massive green subsidies and compulsary eco-surcharges on top of existing energy bills?

      mb

    7. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Re: Point 3

      "As for nuclear power plants, if they are so safe why can't we all have one in our homes?"

      Simple answer: Plutonium.

      Nasty toxic metal, fairly radioactive, used to make weapons, part of most fission chains

      It's fear of that proliferating which keeps nukes tightly locked up, otherwise basement RTGs may well be commonplace (not just for electricity. They give off a LOT of heat)

      1. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge

        Re: Point 3

        "As for nuclear power plants, if they are so safe why can't we all have one in our homes?"

        Simple answer: Plutonium.

        Nuclear power reactors do not have to involve plutonium

    8. Denarius
      Thumb Down

      Re: Point 3

      Ah Mystic, missed the cost analysis bus did we ? Island: hmm, not close to convenient centralised power sources then. Yes, locally generated power from a windmill in some remote windy place would be cost effective. Has anyone ever disagreed ? As for being beggered, agree the banks and most governments are doing an excellent job of demonstrating Greshams Law.

      Current nukes, my son, are big things with scale being necessary to amortise the costs. Big costs. No need to invoke conspiracies, just economics 101. Same goes for hot nuclear fusion if it ever comes. Businesses will sell what sells, useful or not.

      Solar panels have made a difference to peak electricity costs in Oz because they produce most energy when demand is high here. Unlike cold damp places like Germany or pommie land where they destabilise the grid. None the less, tax subsidies are being paid to the mostly wealthy to produce little useful power. Now that looks like conspiracy. If you think decentralised power generation is a community good, then I suggest you have not gone thru the tedium of NIMBYs, councils, hysterics over noise and greenies worried about battered birds and bats to get permission to install one in a medium or even low density location.

      1. collinsl Bronze badge

        Re: Point 3

        I'm offensive and I find the "Pommie" remark British!

    9. Joe User

      Re: Point 3

      As for nuclear power plants, if they are so safe why can't we all have one in our homes?

      For the same reasons that you can't have a massive coal-fired power station in your home:

      1. It won't fit.

      2. The economy of scale is back-asswards for one house.

      3. You couldn't afford to buy one, no matter what the payback period is like.

    10. P_0

      Re: Point 3

      What will reduce us to poverty is the fecking banks and the USA constantly developing better ways to kill people.

      The banks are creating ways to kill people?

      As for nuclear power plants, if they are so safe why can't we all have one in our homes?

      Why would anyone want or need a nuclear reactor in their home? Nuclear power is not totally safe. Of course there are risks, but judging by the costs and benefits of the alternatives nuke plants seem to be a much better bet.

      1. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge

        Re: Point 3

        ...Why would anyone want or need a nuclear reactor in their home? Nuclear power is not totally safe...

        Er, why would anyone want a table and chair in their homes? Tables and chairs aren't totally safe. And as for kettles...!!!

    11. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge

      Re: Point 3

      ...As for nuclear power plants, if they are so safe why can't we all have one in our homes?

      Er... you can. Garden Shed Nuclear Power Station refers.

      The environmentalists in the UK won't let you have one, but there's no safety reason why you shouldn't...

      De-centralized power generation would make sense. But "big business" would not want that and the government like to have the option to switch us all off if we get shirty with them.

      Hmm. It's just that central generation gets huge economies of scale, so it would be cheaper. If it were run as a non-profit making process. Of course, if a business runs it, the price will be whatever the market will bear...

    12. Visionar

      Re: Point 3

      In 1962 the AEC recommended to President Kennedy to build a safer, cleaner nuclear reactor called the Molten Salt Reactor, developed at ORNL. It was shelved due to its inability to be useful in weapons production and the US Navy had its LWRs. Nuclear is 1,000,000 times more dense form of energy than fossil fuels. The MSR can't melt down, blow up, make weapons and is walk away safe. They can be built for $2KW and produce power at $.03 kWh with no emissions. One large plant equals 300,000 acres of wind farms and is 24x7 power, wind needs 75% fossil fuel backup. They can burn the 97% unspent nuclear fuel in fuel waste cooling ponds and change 300k year waste down to decades. China is on a crash program using ORNL's design and France just announced it is going after Thorium MSR. Energyfromthorium.com

    13. itzman

      Re: Point 3

      you forget that 2/.3rds of the cost of running it goes to the UK taxpayer.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Lest we forget

    Weren't there some climate change 'scientists' recently airlifted from their 'research vessel' that got stuck in the ice down there?

    1. crwillis

      Re: Lest we forget

      Exactly and it was pointed out that 98% of the main stream media in the US didn't mention that they were "Climate Scientists" frozen out of their own mission.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Lest we forget

      The ice they were trapped in had unexpectedly fallen off a very old, established ice field. So, actually they were trapped because something caused the ice to warm enough to break.

      1. Fluffy Bunny
        Headmaster

        Re: Lest we forget

        That iceberg calved five years ago. You can't call that unexpected.

        Icebergs don't calve because they melted off, it is because a gigantic weight of ice pushed them out over the edge of the land and they broke off.

    3. JustWondering

      Re: Lest we forget

      Indeed! It's strange their models didn't predict this.

    4. Tom 13

      Re: Lest we forget

      Yep. Ice during the melting months of summer where there was none 100 years or so ago.

      And irony of ironies, they went down for the specific purpose of proving the ice was retreating like Napoleon after invading Russia.

      1. NomNomNom

        Re: Lest we forget

        "And irony of ironies, they went down for the specific purpose of proving the ice was retreating like Napoleon after invading Russia."

        No they weren't. They knew the sea ice in the region had an increasing trend. How could they not, they include scientists who are expert in that region?

        Im afraid that some climate skeptics just made up the story that they went there to prove the ice was retreating. I mean it's easy for an ignorant person to imagine isn't it, so I can't even say it was deliberate.

        Climate skeptics have a tendancy to make stuff up like this. There's one at the end of this thread for example who claims the climate on mars has changed in lockstep with the climate on earth. It's absurd there's nothing near enough data to allow us to know that.

        Other climate skeptics like you then take these claims and repeat them. Not realizing they are false. Who knows how many people ultimately get misled this way.

    5. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge

      Re: Lest we forget

      ...Weren't there some climate change 'scientists' recently stuck in the ice down there?

      Why, so there were. Here is a quick preview of their discussions. H/T to freetheCO2 on the Spectator…

      Chris Turney discovers he is stuck in Antarctic ice…

  14. We're all in it together

    Global worming not to blame

    Someone's been secretly eradicating cows I reckon. Or perhaps they've fabricated a breed with one stomach.

  15. tetchmagikos

    In reference to the points at the end of this article:

    1) That you also offer "doom coverage" and that your sceptic material is more popular are both irrelevant points. The idea that most of the field somehow missed a pause in warming temperatures is silly. For example, NASA GISS states "We conclude that global temperature continued to rise rapidly in the past decade, despite large year-to-year fluctuations associated with the El Niño-La Niña cycle of tropical ocean temperature. Record high global temperature during the period with instrumental data was reached in 2010." One may as well suggest climate scientists don't look at thermometers.

    2) You appear to be denying rapid change in global temperature and asserting large action is not only unnecessary but will be harmful. What constitutes proper action is highly debatable, but any fair reading of the data can't deny the increase in temperature in the last several decades. However, such denial is key to justifying inaction.

    3) It's rather telling that you must link a 2008 article to find an admission of the supposed travesty of pursuing alternative energy. It's one thing to say that markets will favor alternatives when they become more economically viable, but it's quite another to be an economic doomsayer in the face of vastly improving photovoltaics and other alternatives. For example, the period between 2009 and 2011 saw a 70% reduction in solar module costs. Furthermore, you ignore aspects like how solar power has brought electricity to impoverished areas that can't reasonably connect to an electrical grid powered by fossil fuel plants. This is rather akin to individuals who ignore areas that will benefit from warming temperatures for which you have such withering criticism.

    4) Your vagueness of what constitutes the "suggested climate cure" makes it impossible to determine whether your assertion is valid. Identifying a single aspect of the dangers of climate change and a potential response is similarly unhelpful. That some may benefit from warming temperatures doesn't strike me as a highly controvertial point, though I'm unaware of any reason to believe the majority would benefit.

    5) I don't believe my criticism has been ad hominem, though I think it's reasonable to consider the credentials of someone who speaks on climate issues with authority. I wager that my credentials are far inferior to yours.

    6) The only issue I take is the ratio of commentary to factual reporting. IMHO this degree of commentary belongs in an opinion area, not in an area supposedly for reporting the news. It appears there is a general acceptance of this practice on your site.

    7) Who funds you matters very little to me. What matters is that the holier-than-thou attitude that implies your reporting is somehow highlighting conspiracies where none exist. Seeking evidence to reinforce an already held belief is not impressive. Scientists try to prove themselves wrong continually until there is very little chance their hypothesis is incorrect. Anyone can find something to reinforce what they already believe. Hence why your denier articles are so popular.

    8) I hope you see this as rationally practiced criticism. Maybe I'm just one caught in the liberal webs of global tyranicism, but I don't think so. Personally I'd like to see more funding for research into potential ways to address the climate before committing to anything of huge scale, but the discourse has been reduced to something of an almost religious ferver. And I humbly suggest that writings like these continue to drive the wedge between those who want honest science & a reasonable policy approach and those who fear any and all action that governments may take.

    1. John Sanders

      """Many researchers had suggested that this was due to human-driven global warming, which appeared to be taking place rapidly at that time (though it has since gone on hold for 15 years or so, a circumstance which science is still assimilating)."""

      No, not science, only the green-alarmist ones who believe that "science" is whatever "science" they choose to believe in and then deny the "scientific method" to every body else. (Religious type of belief I mean). I think it was Chesterton who said that when men do not believe in God they do not believe in the Devil, they believe in anything.

      The ones who claim: We're running out of space/resources/food/oil/<insert your favourite here>

      IMHO: The only imminent real threat that we face and we should be worried about is the lack of new antibiotics and the fact that the new ones are losing their effectiveness.

    2. crwillis

      You might peek at "Cold Sun" by John L. Casey. He gives 33 reasons why global warming is OVER and global cooling is now underway.

    3. Snarkasterous1

      tetch-

      Your item #8 is very enlightening.

      Those who are calm, just want unvarnished, unbiased, science applied to the matter of climate change can certainly understand that the two groups at odds are:

      1) those who want honest science & a reasonable policy approach

      2) those who fear any and all action that governments may take

      That characterization makes abundantly clear how unbiased, and open to all perspectives you yourself are.

      You've made it very very easy to simply ignore any further postings you may contribute. Thanks for the time savings.

    4. Snarkasterous1

      Well who could possibly see as anything other than "rationally practiced criticism" a post which characterizes the parties with different perspectives is such an utterly evenhanded fashion as that below (copied, verbatim, from your post):

      ALARMISTS: " those who want honest science"

      SKEPTICS: "those who fear any and all action that governments may take"

      Impressive display of "unbiased" call for "science," I'd say....

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      if anything can be said about lewis's climate change posts, they do manage to bring in lots of new users...

    6. Tom 13

      Re: What matters is that the holier-than-thou attitude

      Pot? Meet Kettle.

      Resolve that and then we can have a civil discussion. Until that time, if you insist on burning me if effigy, expect me to one up you in reply.

    7. Turtle

      @ tetchmagikos

      "Personally I'd like to see more funding for research into potential ways to address the climate before committing to anything of huge scale, but the discourse has been reduced to something of an almost religious ferver. "

      The issue has been one of increased government control and direction of the economy and huge investments to mitigate it since the very day that climate change was invented; i.e. it was a political issue from the day of its birth and was intended to be so.

      The religious fervor you mention is the fervor of those who think that government control of the economy and control of the government by ideologues are a good thing. Global Warming Alarmism is designed to achieve both. Hence the constant procession of "tipping points" - telling us that we have to act now and that there is no time to wait - which are easily recognizable to anyone as a very typical example of high-pressure sales tactics.

    8. P_0

      2) You appear to be denying rapid change in global temperature and asserting large action is not only unnecessary but will be harmful. What constitutes proper action is highly debatable, but any fair reading of the data can't deny the increase in temperature in the last several decades. However, such denial is key to justifying inaction.

      Rapid change? Really? And the last several decades? What happened in the last decade? Or doesn't the last decade count?

      Don't you think it is a wee bit hasty to start dismantling industry while the data isn't doing what it's supposed to be doing?

  16. ukgnome

    Lewis isn't evil

    Well, he might be, I don't know the chap.

    However, for every person that is sceptical about climate change there is a scientist that believes that the change is due to humans.

    Now, I'm not a sceptic by any means, and I do believe that we haven't helped the climates situation. But if we have the sceptics and the scientists doesn't that make for a more varied and interesting future for technology?

    1. Dr Stephen Jones
      FAIL

      Re: Lewis isn't evil

      "However, for every person that is sceptical about climate change there is a scientist that believes that the change is due to humans."

      Classic fallacy: argumentum ad verecundiam

      Many scientists have always been sceptical that humans are the biggest influence on the climate. What is more important and what you may have missed is that the general public have now noticed that the climate hasn't warmed for 17 years and the "scientist's" models over-estimate the warming.

    2. JP19

      Re: Lewis isn't evil

      "sceptical about climate change there is a scientist that believes that the change is due to humans."

      Scientists do not believe. Belief is for fools and their religion.

      Scientist have theories which have failed to be disproved to varying degrees. Skepticism is at the heart of science. Just goes to show how twisted the debate over climate change has become.

    3. JeffyPoooh
      Pint

      Re: Lewis isn't evil

      "..., for every person that is sceptical about climate change there is a scientist that believes that the change is due to humans."

      Really? So if (for example) the rate of skeptical thinking is at least 30% in (for example) the USA, then there are about ONE HUNDRED MILLION scientists on the other side of the debate? Wow, that's a lot of scientists.

      Or perhaps you're simply wrong in the above quoted claim. Wrong by several orders of magnitude. In other words, really really wrong.

    4. Grikath
      Coat

      Re: Lewis isn't evil

      Nah , Lewis is Evil Incarnate..

      He's skeptic about the Doom Scenario of the Hockey Stick, in favour of nuclear power as a solution to our currently unsustainable energy needs, highly critical of the Politics surrounding the climate issue(s) and the resultant choices effectively bankrupting his country, and various other offenses of Loitering with Intent.

      Worst of all, he expects people to actually Think, instead of blindly following the Party Line.

      So there's nothing left but to sacrifice a virginal beer to his Name this Sabbath, as his Ascent will be inevitable. (also he doesn't get paid nearly enough and should get a raise, and a custom-made playmonaut to his likeness.)

      Mine's the one with the "101 ways"in the pocket.

    5. cambsukguy

      Re: Lewis isn't evil

      I should think that sceptics outnumber scientists by a huge number.

      However, what makes a sceptic's view valid? Reading papers/articles by scientists? Possibly, but unlikely (because what they read can be selected to support any view whatsoever). Reading articles by non-scientists?, no chance whatsoever of validity.

      The only sceptics that have a valid opinion are sceptics that produce results using the scientific method, i.e. scientists.

      The number of sceptical scientists (meaning they do not believe climate change is being caused by humans or that there is no climate change) are dwarfed by the number of scientists that do believe we are changing the planets' climate.

      There are many differing views of what the change will be, different models produce different outcomes etc. but most peer-reviewed scientific papers do point to a continuing trend, even the stalled increase may well be understood now, which bodes badly for the next decade or two.

      I am a sceptic by nature - it always seems appropriate given the state of politics and our newspapers - but I will not blindly ignore evidence piling up using weather events like a cold snap to support a view (or a heatwave to support another view I suppose).

      Obviously, those still around in a few decades will have considerably more evidence one way or the other.

      I am against paying wealthy middle-class folks to have solar panels making money for them, taking it from poor folks barely able to make ends meet. I am not, however, against trying to get JET working, or putting giant turbines on the ocean floor or even building nuclear power stations, despite the higher cost per unit - I think oil and gas will get more expensive for some reason and that nuclear power will not - the price of the fuel is essentially meaningless. The French must be feeling smug (well, more smug) these days greenhouse gas emissions-wise at least.

      Given the Watts needed and the unproven state of most technologies to produce the insane amount of energy required, I would build enough nuclear to get us through to the time when fusion hopefully works - buying the maximum available from France - with enough investment in any sustainable technology that looks promising (in collaboration with other countries) in the event that none of the several fusion methods actually produce more power that they use. This would be one more generation I imagine - well worth it, nuclear power is nowhere near as dangerous as people are led to believe.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Facepalm

        Re: Lewis isn't evil

        > I should think that sceptics outnumber scientists by a huge number.

        Erm, all scientists should be skeptics. It's one of the key qualifications.

      2. Fluffy Bunny
        Headmaster

        Re: Lewis isn't evil

        " but most peer-reviewed scientific papers do point to a continuing trend"

        But peer review is wothless when scientific review degenerates into a test of orthodoxy, which it has with climate science.

      3. collinsl Bronze badge

        Re: Lewis isn't evil

        I notice that in your post you state that "the only people allowed to have opinions are"

        I find it extremely disturbing that you find it so easy to trample on the rights of the individual to express an opinion. I am not saying you have to assign any weight to the opinion, but to deny someone the right to speak (which is essentially what you are doing) is very disturbing and smacks of some of the worst dictatorships in the world.

    6. Turtle

      @ ukgnome

      "However, for every person that is sceptical about climate change there is a scientist that believes that the change is due to humans. Now, I'm not a sceptic by any means, and I do believe that we haven't helped the climates situation. But if we have the sceptics and the scientists doesn't that make for a more varied and interesting future for technology?"

      So, you're under the impression that "sceptics" and "scientists" are two separate groups of people?

      Well, according to a well-known proverb by someone who had enough experience to know, there's someone like you born every minute.

  17. Electric Wizard

    That was bizarre.

    Why not let the facts speak for themselves? The second page is an odd preemptive strike against criticism. It then goes on to speculate that remedies for greenhouse gas emissions will destroy the economy, and that even if drastic climate change occurred it would be better than trying to stop it. The author then qualifies himself by accusing other science correspondents of being especially stupid in comparison.

    I had no problem with the first page, but the second page then jumps to sweeping conclusions about climate change and wraps it in defensiveness.

    1. Neil B

      Re: That was bizarre.

      @Electric Wizard "Why not let the facts speak for themselves? The second page is an odd preemptive strike against criticism."

      The second page is a *response* to the general flavour of commentary which follows any climate article on the Reg.

    2. h4rm0ny

      Re: That was bizarre.

      ElectricWizard - I can. See that your join date is actually today. So as you're really, really new here, that second page isn't 'preemptive'. It's in fact long overdue given the number of attacks commenters regularly make on Lewis whenever he writes such articles.

    3. LVTaxman

      Re: That was bizarre.

      Lewis makes a valid point. A study showed if the US went to zero emissions, the US reductions in emissions would be replaced by China and India within six years. The International Energy Agency estimated it would take $45 Trillion to reduce emissions to 50% by 2050 (not stop emissions, just reduce them). That is $45 Trillion that could be used to build infrastructure in third world countries to help them out of poverty. That is also $45 Trillion that would be pulled from industrialized countries, stagnating growth and increasing costs and poverty to the first world middle class.

    4. Don Jefe

      Re: That was bizarre.

      The problem with 'the facts speaking for themselves' is that, in this case, the actual facts don't say anything beyond previously unknown undersea actions are present and seem to have an impact on (rather under) the ice. That's it. Nothing controversial or inflammatory of representative of anything larger than what was studied directly.

      Which is what all science should be and what good science is, a small, tiny little nugget of information. It's hard to sensationalize or twist good science, so you've got parties on both sides of the debate really reinterpreting everything just so they can point at this as 'proof' of their point of view.

      It's much like religious zealots claiming radically different meanings of the same piece of scripture. Out of context scripture, much like science, can say anything you want it to. When you put it in context however it means something very, very different than what either zealot was claiming.

      Climate change science is also a classic example of a 'Winners Debate'. That's a statement or argument that can't be falsified therefore everyone is a winner. In time, with more study, that will shift and we'll actually have information with which to make decisions, but right now we do not have that information so everyone who cares to engage in the debate is a winner...

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: That was bizarre.

      > Why not let the facts speak for themselves?

      Mainly because the "facts" (that haven't been doctored) are rather unclear, particularly on the issue of what part we play in whatever warming is occurring.

      > It then goes on to speculate that remedies for greenhouse gas emissions will destroy the economy, and that even if drastic climate change occurred it would be better than trying to stop it.

      Large scale taxation of the form that is proposed to attempt to coerce people into using less energy has thus far had very little of that intended affect. Although efficiency has increased (which is a good thing), energy use still rockets. High taxation is a brake on the economy. These are pretty straightforward facts. Lewis may (or may not) be guilty of hyperbole, but I don't see anything controversial there. The question is which is worse: climate change or economic draconianism? It is not a straightforward answer especially since there is still uncertainty regarding the scale of climate change in the future and its effects on mankind, and is probably a political question, not a scientific one.

    6. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: That was bizarre.

      The second page is an odd preemptive strike against criticism.

      There's nothing odd about it, you have to have read some of the responses to previous 'climate change' type articles that Lewis has authored to see why page 2 is as it is.

      1. veti Silver badge

        Re: That was bizarre.

        Lewis's rantings typically attract many more supportive comments than criticisms, and they're routinely upvoted, regardless of coherence or significance.

        So yes, it is odd for Lewis to break out this "the whole world is against me!" schtick. A bit like the Pope saying "Why does no-one ever listen to me?"

    7. Turtle

      @ Electric Wizard Re: That was bizarre.

      "Why not let the facts speak for themselves?"

      "Opinions are based on evidence but evidence is a matter of opinion." - Ambrose Bierce

      Some people, such as Keith Briffa, think that "evidence" is a single tree - "The Hottest Tree In The World". In some other people's opinion, that's completely fraudulent.

      Thanks to Schneiderism, a doctrine formulated by climate activist Stephen Schneider which states that scientists can and must choose between being honest and being politically effective, one can not trust scientists to report actual and meaningful facts.

  18. ciaran

    CO2 vs dust!

    In your notes you mention CO2, which is a variable that is monitored and that could have a greenhouse effect. I think that atmospheric dust has also been identified as a variable of similar importance to the greenhouse effect. Many sources of man-made dust have been massively reduced over the last 20 years as oil has become more expensive and as clean air laws have come into force. More could be done quire cheaply. So I really don't get the general obsession about CO2.

    1. punsalot

      Re: CO2 vs dust!

      If you control CO2 output, you control the world. All industrial and animal life processes produce CO2, so there is political motivation for creating an artificial dilemma and blaming CO2 for it. As a greenhouse gas it is rather pedestrian. Water vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas, but most of that comes from plant life and bodies of water, which are much more difficult to extract money from.

  19. Chris G

    Climate stuff

    Like it or not the climate is changing, it has been since the planet was dust and gas and then a molten blob (if it ever was).

    The big problem is knowing whether any changes that we see as relative newcomers to the scene are due to our actions as an industrial race or part and parcel of the changes that are going to happen anyway with geologic time.

    Having had some interest since I first started reading about such things as a school kid in the '60s when it was not called climate change but simply pollution, then acid rain and subsequently global warming/climate change it has become clear that although it is obvious that the human race is big enough and busy enough to have some effect on the world's climate; nobody is absolutely sure what that effect may be.

    Any scientist/journalist or average joe who jumps to a conclusion based on a few years worth of figures in any one part of the world or for that matter from all over it, is just wasting their time with a statement.

    The most important point though is that whatever is happening with the climate and where-ever it is going, we should make reasonable efforts to curtail anything that may have a harmful effect either now or in the future.

    As Lewis says if we jump entirely onto the renewables only bandwagon without clear thought and reasoning we are going to stifle economic growth to the point where it will become negative.

    At that point even many of the greenies will be wishing they had been a little less extreme about their wishes to return to 'The Good Life'.

    Let's treat the planet nicely regardless of climate change and keep monitoring to see where things are going so there are no big surprises.

    Personally I think the end of the the world as we know it, ( for the preppers 'TEOTWAWKI' ) will be when we all have nano implants to run our lives and bodies and Cryptolocker goes viral and shuts most of the population down.

    Now I'm off in my mate's boat, it has two Cat 12 litre turbo diesels and flat out uses about €200 of fuel an hour at marine diesel prices.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Happy

      Re: Climate stuff

      > Having had some interest since I first started reading about such things as a school kid in the '60s ...

      Not to forget of course that we were apparently heading, at that time, into an ice age. Not only was it a "theory", it was established, incontrovertible, scientific fact and we were all to prepare ourselves for the impending doom.

      We've been here before and we're getting a bid jaded by the end of the world spiel :D

      1. NomNomNom

        Re: Climate stuff

        "Not to forget of course that we were apparently heading, at that time, into an ice age. Not only was it a "theory", it was established, incontrovertible, scientific fact and we were all to prepare ourselves for the impending doom."

        That isn't correct. The science of the time was ambiguous between future cooling or future warming. It wasn't known when the next ice age was due or the sign of human influence (warming from ghgs vs cooling from aerosols).

        Since then the science has advanced. We know the next ice age is still some way off, and we now know that the warming effect from human greenhouse gases is far stronger than the cooling effect. So the science is no longer ambiguous - the prediction is for warming.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Climate stuff

          > That isn't correct. The science of the time was ambiguous between future cooling or future warming.

          That's a real rewriting of history you're into there.

          I was there, the crack-pottery was real.

          Also the "science" is pretty ambiguous now.

          > Since then the science has advanced.

          Shame we still like a good scare story as much as we did then. Science may have changed but human nature hasn't.

          > We know the next ice age is still some way off

          Do we bollocks.

          > So the science is no longer ambiguous - the prediction is for warming.

          Yet the earth is demonstrably *not* warming. This is where religion is a real problem for proper science. Despite the readily available evidence of the last 15 years, climatologists still cling to their beliefs in AGW. Sorry we need some proper scientists with peer review, publicly available data sets with reproducable findings, and fewer hyperbolic tendencies. The ones we have now have lost *all* credibility.

    2. Tom 13

      Re: Climate stuff

      a school kid in the '60s when it was not called climate change

      Bollox! If you were a kid in school in the 60s you would have been reading about the coming Ice Age, not Global Warming. I know because it was a regular feature in the environmentally sensitive Ranger Rick magazine my parents thought it would be good for me to read as a kid. Right along side the river pollution articles and saving the Condor. And you'd remember it as clearly as I do because it is such a glaring example of a self-serving about face in the so-called "scientific" community.

      1. NomNomNom

        Re: Climate stuff

        "And you'd remember it as clearly as I do because it is such a glaring example of a self-serving about face in the so-called "scientific" community."

        You simply don't understand what happened.

        It's like complaining that scientists used to think life was created by god but now they believe life evolved. What a "self-serving about face!"

      2. Cipher

        Re: Climate stuff

        http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/TimeMagCoolingCovers.jpg

        When there was a buck in global cooling, we had hacks promoting it. Then they thought they could milk the public with global warming. Trading carbon credits and other nonsense that would do nothing to ease the problem, IF there actually was one. Follow the money...

        1. John Hughes

          Re: Climate stuff

          Neither of those Time covers is about global cooling - the first is about the oil price rises of the '70s and the second about the weather.

          http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/06/04/the-1970s-ice-age-myth-and-time-magazine-covers-by-david-kirtley/

    3. NomNomNom

      Re: Climate stuff

      Take a look at this video about manmade global warming. It's from 1958.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF9WdV8pUPk

      The idea that in the 60s the scientists were predicting an ice age and they did an "about face" to global warming is utter BS.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    To be honest the thing that miffs me off about the whole subject is that you are not allowed an opinion unless its the "right" opinion, without receiving shed loads of grief and credibility attacks. you usually find however in life that the harder your opinion is fought.. the more likelyhood there is some truth in it... my 2p worth :-P

  21. The last doughnut

    I've seen Lewis on the TV

    And he looks quite normal. Can I be downvoted now please?

    1. Fluffy Bunny
      Pint

      Re: I've seen Lewis on the TV

      Wot, no horns?

  22. stop islam in USA

    Austrailia is 3% of the earth's surface not the GLOBE! Please swallow that cough before you choke!

  23. rjhollydog

    Why is the focus always on what humans do to the planet and not on the largest force in the solar system, the sun?

  24. Jim O'Reilly
    Pint

    Where is the Globe Warming?

    Gosh, Lewis, when I last wrote on climate, the commentards jammed the Antarctic melt issue down my throat. You mean it's a myth, and those guys stuck in the ice aren't there because of AGW. I suppose the really nasty winters we are having are due to AGW, but I'm straining to find the connection anymore.

    CNN ran "March of the Penguins" twice last night, so I'm sensing the Press is preparing us for bad news about Ice Ages. Al Gore may be the first recipient of both a Nobel and an IgNobel for the same work of fiction if this goes on!

    1. Don Jefe

      Re: Where is the Globe Warming?

      Ah. See what you've done there? You took one piece of information, gained via careful research of a single area, and extrapolated on it with information that has no foundation. You're doing exactly what the environmental nutters do.

      Regardless of what you think about AGW, neither camp benefits from such activity. Everyone loses credibility when people are running about and misusing science as a way to support a fiction. Nothing if your comment related to the study cited in the article. Well, I guess penguins are related, but they're outside the scope of this article.

      Every time someone misuses science it moves everyone one step back from finding any answers and stopping the madness that is government policy based on fiction.

  25. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge
    IT Angle

    The problem

    is not climate change/globalwarming/whatever the heck the rise in CO2 levels is being called this week

    Its the response to it.

    Lets all build windfarms, great for the weather here recently, lots of power no CO2 emitted, but a couple of years ago we had an extended period in late winter when we had bugger all wind.

    So it was back to gas/coal

    But then we have nuclear technology that allows us to generate a shedload of power without CO2 emission*, but thats hated even by the green fanatics than CO2 emission.

    Stir in an astounding level of ignorance in the general population coupled by a veneral media more interested in selling papers/getting viewers than peddling the truth.

    And then lastly we have the politicians, who listen to focus groups, and tailoring their policies/message to those groups because they know that a few voters in 40 marginal seats make the difference between who governs and who does'nt and that 40-50% of the people wont vote anyway.

    *Since footnotes are the order of the day here..

    Yes I know about the CO2 emissions made when you refine nuclear fuel and when you build the power stations themselves, but hey you think a wind turbine springs into existance without some carbon fibre/Aluminium blades, a few miles of copper wire, some rare earth magnets and a couple of 1000 tons of concrete.. all of which emit CO2 during manufacturing?... not withstanding all the fuel used to haul the things to the top of a mountain or 10 miles out to sea

  26. NomNomNom

    "the Pine Island Glacier ice shelf in Antarctica has suddenly slowed right down in the last few years, confirming earlier research which suggested that the shelf's melt does not result from human-driven global warming.....its melt rate has seemed to be accelerating quickly since scientists first began seriously studying it in the 1990s....Many researchers had suggested that this was due to human-driven global warming, which appeared to be taking place rapidly at that time (though it has since gone on hold for 15 years or so"

    If it's gone on hold then wouldn't you expect the melt to slow down?

    But instead you think slow down is evidence AGAINST the melt being caused by temperature?

  27. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Dr Stephen Jones

      "Who currently is the biggest potential beneficiary from continuing with oil and coal use?"

      Q. "Who currently is the biggest potential beneficiary from continuing with oil and coal use?"

      A. The poorest people in the world.

      There. Fixed it for you.

  28. NomNomNom

    "Observations made in January 2012, and reported now in [hefty boffinry mag] Science, show that ocean melting of the glacier was the lowest ever recorded. The top of the thermocline (the layer separating cold surface water and warm deep waters) was found to be about 250 metres deeper compared with any other year for which measurements exist.

    This lowered thermocline reduces the amount of heat flowing over the ridge. High resolution simulations of the ocean circulation in the ice shelf cavity demonstrate that the ridge blocks the deepest ocean waters from reaching the thickest ice ...

    In January 2012 the dramatic cooling of the ocean around the glacier is believed to be due to an increase in easterly winds caused by a strong La Ninã event in the tropical Pacific Ocean."

    Surely that's strong evidence that the melt rate is very much determined by temperature, and therefore the longterm trend of melt will be dictated by global warming.

  29. Pat Volk

    Ah Lewis...

    If you wish to make your point, it might be worth pointing out a few other things:

    1) The amount of emissions not CO2 have dramatically decreased in the past 50 years. SOx, NOx. Use of CFC's is drastically reduced, even in the 3rd world.

    2) Proof by anecdote. Boths sides do this to alarming extremes. It's hot here, but it's record cold there. Ice sheets are disappearing in one place, but thickening in another.

    3) Proof by fudge - also done to alarming extremes. The fudge factor comes out mostly as time period, but also location (see above). A little fudge to make the numbers slide down.

    4) Slippery slope - if we try alternatives, civilization will end as we know it. Remember the criticisms about catalytic converters, and emissions control? Emissions controls on industry?

    Those said, I think man's footprint on the world is a bit overstated. Nuclear power I think is the best way to go for electricity.

  30. Rosie Davies

    Lewis IS Evil

    There, I said it. The proof is blindingly obvious. He may have tried misdirection by explaining away the Koch brothers links but you will note that he made no mention of the sponsorship money from the Illumanati delivered to the 'Special Project Bureau" in used Euros by Atlantean Space-Lizards DID he.

    Point proven I think you'll agree.

    Rosie

    1. Rosie Davies

      Re: Lewis IS Evil

      I sincerely hope the down votes were because the comment wasn't actually that funny rather than anyone thinking I was being serious. If it was the latter then...oh dear.

      Rosie

  31. P_0

    From page 2 of the article:

    What is really a lot more certain - and this is admitted by hardline greens - is that a shift to all or mostly renewable power means incredibly expensive energy and abandonment of economic growth.

    This is indeed what a lot of the "greens" want, at least in a sense. Some have resorted to calling for the abandonment of democracy, or instituting a planned perpetual recession. It never ceases to amaze me how a lot of AGW proponents pepper their talk with anti-capitalism. It's almost as if, for a lot of 'em, reducing CO2 is just a means to an end, the end being the toppling of the capitalist world-order.

    I'm just glad the whole AGW scare is winding down now. I followed this year's AGW shindig in Poland in the news, and was pleased, unsurprised and amused to see nothing got agreed, as usual. Which is great for the world, great for capitalism (which every single one of us benefits from), and great for democracy.

  32. Tom 13
    Devil

    Re: . Your correspondent personally has never received a penny...

    If things are bad Lewis, all you have to do is put up a tip jar.

    Honest.

  33. blizzard1248

    GLOBAL WARMING DOES NOT EQUAL HIGHER TEMPERATURES ALL THE BLOODY TIME. what it does mean is higher average temperature and its impact on the climate leading to greater weather fluctuations. It is a theory, yes it may be wrong but your article does nothing to prove this. All it suggests is that CO2 levels have no impact on this one glacier, hardly headline material. anyway, to assume that changing the atmospheric levels of a gas to such a degree will have no impact is stupid and a form of thinking promoted by neocons and oil barons. so congratulations on playing into their hands as they expect you, their slaves of the modern era to do.

  34. Mikel

    Keep up the good work Lewis

    Love the reportage as it is. Let the AGW Inquisition stifle somebody else.

  35. Lars Silver badge
    Happy

    What is going on

    Lewis, why for the first time do you sound aggressive "signs of being astroturf are, yes, liable to be suppressed. Play nice, commentards". Has anybody ever asked you to play nice, what ever that may mean. You and I, I think, would like that more effort would go into developing nuclear power. I do not think you are against solar power and such either. Right now, where I live, it is +4C and no snow outside my window, a year ago there was half a meter of snow and cold. I don't claim it's proof of anything, also to day there was this stuff:

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ "Fewer days of spring snow is an indicator of climate change in the Arctic".

    My solution to all this is that we should try to stop polluting not only the sea, the food and the water we drink but also the air. Perhaps it's time for you to tell us what you think we should do.

  36. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    3) What is really a lot more certain - and this is admitted by hardline greens - is that a shift to all or mostly renewable power means incredibly expensive energy and abandonment of economic growth

    I remain unconvinced of this. I think this is only true if you consider economic growth in very narrow and unimaginative terms. The cost of energy is multifaceted and bears little relationship to the actual cost of generation. I suspect (but freely admit I can't prove) that a well constructed regulatory framework, a WW2 style lend-lease approach to financing and a change to the accounting and taxation rules would negate most of the impacts.

  37. Daniel von Asmuth
    Boffin

    Global warming is caused by humans

    "its melt rate has seemed to be accelerating quickly since scientists first began seriously studying it in the 1990s"

    .... but who knew that scientist were causing rising sea levels?

  38. Keep it Simple
    Holmes

    CO2 is the dependent variable?

    Although not a scientist, I have read a great deal about the pros and cons of man-made CO2 driving climate change. In my studies, I have learned the following two things:

    1. Each year, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are 3% lower in Aug/Sept/Oct than they are in Feb/Mar/Apr. This happens every year without fail. This means that, in the short term at least, seasonal temperature variations are causing changes in CO2 concentrations - not the other way round!

    2. Analysis of ice core data back through hundreds of thousands of years shows the same thing - that changes in temperature happened first, followed years later by changes in atmospheric CO2.

    In other words, there is a correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperatures but the cause and effect relationship seems to be the opposite of what the 'alarmists' are saying.

    These two simple facts, which I believe are accepted by everyone, seem to prove that CO2 does not drive temperature change, rather it reacts to it. In other words, CO2 is the dependent variable, not the independent variable, and the 'alarmists' are therefore wrong.

    This logic is so amazingly simple that I must be missing something otherwise all the smart scientists on this blog would have thought about this already.

    Would one of said smart scientists please explain where I am going wrong.

    1. NomNomNom

      Re: CO2 is the dependent variable?

      "This logic is so amazingly simple that I must be missing something otherwise all the smart scientists on this blog would have thought about this already."

      Yes you are missing something.

      How do you explain this for example?

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

      It is very odd that in your researcyh you managed to miss precisely the data that demolishes your argument. How can you explain that?

    2. John Hughes

      Re: CO2 is the dependent variable?

      > 1. Each year, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are 3% lower in Aug/Sept/Oct than they are in Feb/Mar/Apr. This happens every year without fail. This means that, in the short term at least, seasonal temperature variations are causing changes in CO2 concentrations - not the other way round!

      Is temperature the only thing that changes with the seasons?

  39. kraut

    <blockquote>and - horror - for a long time was not even a journalist (!). </blockquote>

    As long as you weren't a politician, that probably counts in your favour.

    Do journalists at dinner parties these days pretend to be estate agents to avoid the embarassment?

  40. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Just came in from shoveling out of the most recent blizzard. Now I'm aware that weather isn't climate; so I'll leave it to the global warming scientists who were rescued from that ice bound ship in Antarctica to explain how they got caught totally unprepared for such a turn of events.

    Is it possible they were driven less by science and more by a faulty belief system? Anyway it's ironic that it was the burning of fossil fuel to power the rescue vehicles that saved their sorry butts..

    Props to this author and the Register for taking a stand on this issue.

  41. brain_flakes

    So it's still receding

    Just not as quickly as it was a few years ago?

    1. Fluffy Bunny

      Re: So it's still receding

      "So it's still receding "

      Actually it is being pushed at an accelerated rate by a huge increase in ice being laid down in the centre of the continent.

  42. hfhghg6767

    Lewis is not evil! =) Totally agree that page 2 was a more interesting read that page 1. Would it be possible to see a follow up on the economics of coping with climate change vs. embracing the dark ages again? Maybe that article would be enough to make some green khmers think.

  43. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Thumb Up

    Well done to the British Antartic Survey

    Thumbs up for field research over another simulation.

    Here's the thing. Proper science goes where the evidence takes it. The results are what the results are regardless of what people think of them.

    Anything else is religion.

    And my hope these new results get incorporated into climate models ASAP.

    I wonder if any model has delivered a 15 year plateau in temperature. Because if not then all models are conceptually flawed. If anyone does show the plateau its designers should shout it from the rooftops.

    1. Fluffy Bunny

      Re: Well done to the British Antartic Survey

      Climate models divide the Earth's surface up in to a series of pancakes stacked to the heavens. Then they model the energy flows forward, back, left, right, up and down between these pancakes. The trouble is that this isn't how the Earth moves energy about.

      There are gigantic heat pumps lifting warm,moise air at the equator, which moves across the Earth and drops it, now cold and dry, in the North and South. This is why there are lines of desert all around the globe where the cold, dry air streams come down. Early climate models didn't even show these deserts.

      Remember, the most popular (not right, just what CS believe) figure is 1.2 degrees global warming per century. And the climate models are tuned to create that prediction in a sort of self-perpetuating loop. Until climate models get these fundamentals right, they will always show the wrong results.

    2. John Hughes

      Re: Well done to the British Antartic Survey

      > I wonder if any model has delivered a 15 year plateau in temperature. Because if not then all models are conceptually flawed. If anyone does show the plateau its designers should shout it from the rooftops.

      Huh? You missed Kosaka and Xie (2013, Nature, doi:10.1038/nature12534)?

  44. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Up

    Page Two, I Love You

    The "Keep yer comment cogent or we'll vaporize it" threat is great! The signal to noise ratio has never been higher on this topic at the Reg. But will it last...

  45. Herby

    Mars??

    Yes, even on Mars there is climate change. Earth has had things on the surface of Mars for quite a few years (the Viking landers by the USA touched down in 1976) and lots of them have been beaming back climate data for many years.

    So, guess what: The changes on Mars closely parallel those on Earth. The only thing that remotely is in common is our common star that as a huge Hydrogen Bomb is emitting energy at a horrific rate (I don't have the solar flux numbers handy).

    Sure we have global climate change, but is the human influence causing most of it? I hardly think so. Please look to the Sun (but not directly, you might be blinded!).

    1. NomNomNom

      Re: Mars??

      "and lots of them have been beaming back climate data for many years."

      Wrong.

      "So, guess what: The changes on Mars closely parallel those on Earth."

      Wrong. Staggeringly brazenly wrong.

      "I don't have the solar flux numbers handy"

      Why don't you just make it up like everything else in your comment?

  46. MKH

    There only anthropogenic global warming that happens is when I fart under my blanket at night to stay warm.

    1. Peter Johnstone

      Re: Fart

      Ah Ha - you don't understand the physics of flatulence!

      When you fart you're expelling warm gas. The heat loss is accompanied by some mass loss thus the heat density (temperature) of your body would be unchanged.

  47. Horta

    Freezer Check

    I just checked my freezer and it still needs to be defrosted. No signs of warming AT ALL. The evidence for climate change is just falling apart..

    1. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge

      Re: Freezer Check

      Are you in the UK? Wait until the winter freeze really starts. Then the power cuts that the environmentalists will be forcing on us because the windmills don't work will provide quite enough evidence...

  48. Miguel526

    Gloabal Warming's Brain Dead Bullies

    Many appreciate the author's irreverence toward the reflexively childlike bullies of global warming (who seem to think that we should have no more choice than their dogs being given their global worming pills). We've all seen schoolyard bullies attempting to orchestrate their dominance over their school chums. I won't use the word classmates because these childish bullies think very little of their classmates (if they think of them at all).

    Any observant educator can easily see that first in these young bullies' priorities is to affect their socio-mental attack on their chums, such to mentally defeat their targeted individuals. Only after they shout down the other kids, (mostly using brain dead mass assault techniques), do they finally engage in their physical dominance. This is what anyone awake can so clearly see is happening in this faked "debate" wherein the result is already decided (by those whose livelihoods depend upon government dispensaries giving them the public's money. It's All About The Money, and these money-corrupted fake "climate scientists" who infect all of our universities know exactly which side of the bread their butter is on.

  49. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    along time ago there were people who used to go around saying the sky is falling in the last 30 years most people believe it, this is an orange and not an apple http://principia-scientific.org/images/Arctic_Ice_Growth_in_2013.jpg

  50. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Science vs. religion

    I don't care about which credo is right or wrong. What I worry about is when a (supposedly) scientific community (I mean ALL) have a *consensus*. Consensus implies politics. So whether you are a climate sceptics, alarmist or whatever. When someone (like IPCC) says that the "<insert science> community has a consensus, something is wrong. Hell, there are VERY few (if any) science communities that reaches a consensus. They might agree on some points, but pointing towards one (or limited number) of science is extremely rare - even the physics theorist, despite an "Einsteinian paradigm (sorry Kuhn)" can't agree on ONE model.

    When that happens, Hell (or similar religious or non-religious concept) will freeze over.

    And there is one thing about climate, it will change. The question must be: "how does the changes affect me?"

    It is (usually) smarter to bring an umbrella in all types of weather (keeps you dry or can give you shade from the sun) - except when in extremely windy conditions (unless you have the proper umbrella). So, the choice MUST lie on you - and YOU should seek the information for YOUR sake - and NOT listen to authorities (no matter which kind they are (think priests, rabbis, mullas, politicians, journalists, climate scientists, etc.).

    It is easier to sit back and let someone else tell you what to do. But that may have dire consequences...

  51. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's not that simple

    The fact that atmospheric science is notoriously difficult seems to escape most people on here. The overall temperature trend is still upwards, the science is still, effectively, in it's infancy. Most of the yah boo stuff in the "popular" press comes from the sceptics. The science is respectable and peer reviewed, more than can be said for the software that the computer community have turned out over the last 20 years. There is much that we still don't understand about the characteristics of the deep oceans and how they absorb heat and carbon dioxide, let the science progress and evolve. Don't forget, all these predictions use computer modelling, if you don't like the outcome why don't one of you bastards write some better code?

    1. Fluffy Bunny
      Headmaster

      Re: It's not that simple

      Actually most of the nay-sayers are bullied out of a voice by the establishment. When governments around the world are paying $100 Billion to find climate change, you can be sure that a lot of climate change will be found. Anybody trying to say otherwise will be supressed pretty quickly. It's easy enough - he isn't reliable - not the right kind of climate scientist - no funds for that kind of research - didn't make it through the peer review process.

  52. Daenerys

    Man-Caused Global Warming Moneyball Scam

    There are 300 million CUBIC miles of water on Earth. It is water which is the main "green house" gas and forms the EQUILIBRIUM of our planetary atmosphere. Water changes states naturally on Earth from ice to liquid water to vapor (clouds) and then can reverse course and condense back into water and then freeze solid. With 300 million cubic miles of the stuff (3/4ths of the Earth's surface), the heat sink that is water utterly rules our atmosphere. CO2 cannot do any of this. EVER. Not here.

    Our planetary Atmosphere is an EQUILIBRIUM. When something changes (like energy output from the sun) this equilibrium naturally and automatically shifts to compensate for it. It is so efficient in doing this, that even after mass extinction events like the dinosaur wipe-out event 365 million years ago, we STILL have an atmosphere!!

    Is anyone going to argue that mankind is as powerful as the sun or even a 3 mile wide asteroid moving 28,000 miles per second? I don't think so. But that is EXACTLY what these "scientists" grubbing for grant dollars from Al Gore and other progressive/marxist/communist/socialists, are claiming! Stop feeding this beast!!! They are corrupt in the extreme and nothing they "publish" is even remotely reliable or credible!

  53. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I think...

    therefore I am freezing my tits off!

    All is Philosophy and Psychology. After 'I think therefore I am' it's pretty-much compromised like the average computer user with a root kit. To be scientifically-credible you have to suspect yourself and live that way until you've developed a mind-set that minimizes the possibility that you will - consciously or not - lie to yourself specifically in order to continue to believe the model of the world you want to believe.

    Unless you don't care. Or don't believe it if isn't in a text book.

    It was Psychology students least taken in by Milgram's Obedience wheeze. To read Reg comments following a Lewis Page piece on Energy-related matters, apart from the odd witty post and the rare even-handed response, there do not appear to be many potential or indeed actual Psychologists hereabouts. You can be as much of a scientist as you like or can be, but if you don't face, and I mean actually face, not just go through the motions in order to come straight back to the slanging match with reinforced-but-entirely-phoney self-righteousness, you're just another mug trying to filter and transform your perception of reality into what would cause you least emotional tension. And if you think that's absurd - say, for instance, why would you attempt to distort perceived reality into something that appals you? - then the question is: yes, why would you do that? At what level does that view of the world comfort you? For sure, if you don't look, you'll never see it.

    Or maybe the above is a condensation of my own entire distortion of reality. One in which I need to see smart people reduced to simple arithmatic they have no intention of checking because they know they're right.

    Hee hee.

    1. Soap Distant

      Re: I think...

      @ Mary Jane Bogart

      Superb bit of observation there - made me smile thank you :)

      SD

  54. Doozer

    Never mind the ice and gas....

    Lewis,

    You missed a perfect opportunity, TELL US ABOUT THE BATTERIES!!

    Are they Duracell or just some cheap stuff from a pound shop as they use that many?

    What is their recycling policy, do they take em home or throw them into the sea hoping no one will notice (if they do that's a big story itself!)

    Just a thought....

    I would pick Lindsay as she's a green kinda gal, but el reg moby don't let me choose!

  55. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    IT Angle

    Idea for a future article???

    All these general circulation models are complex, need lots of MIPS, run on big systems, have complex architectures (with various underlying assumptions) and written in various languages.

    Sounds like a great IT topic for an IT website, does it not?

  56. ecofeco Silver badge
    Paris Hilton

    Because one data point/event....

    ...makes a trend, right?

    Paris science ---------------------->>

    Again I ask, can anyone here tell us the BTUs being radiated each year by human industry as well as the weight of waste gases?

    Hint: it's not in the hundreds of anything.

  57. pacman7de
    Holmes

    La Niña and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

    "Though typically thought of as a tropical climate pattern, the influence of La Niña (the cold counterpart to El Niño) spreads as far as Antarctica, significantly slowing the melting rate of one of the continent's largest glaciers, according to a new study".

    http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/big-change-major-antarctic-glacier-thanks-la-nina-20140103

This topic is closed for new posts.