Entire Antarctic Shelf splitting away from Continent.

[Lunican]

What are you showing us RG?

[RiversideGator]

Atmospheric and subsea temps have dropped.  Surface temp data appears likely to be corrupted.

So I guess we should believe you, sitting at your computer looking at wikipedia, over NOAA.

No thanks.

Fine.  Dont take my word for it.  Here are the facts:

1)  Satellite recorded lower atmosphere temperatures:


Fig. 9. UAH monthly globally averaged lower atmospheric temperature variations since 1979 as measured by NOAA and NASA satellites.


2)  Robotic instruments indicate ocean temperatures have slightly declined since 2003:

The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat

by Richard Harris

Morning Edition, March 19, 2008 · Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.

This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.

In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.

"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

[RiversideGator]

What are you showing us RG?

That the models we were all supposed to be so concerned about have not accurately predicted the present or near past.  Hence their predictive powers vis a vis the future are quite in doubt.

[RiversideGator]

And another straw man argument and appeal to ridicule.  The logical fallacies are getting very deep around here, Stephen.   

[gatorback]

No my point should be obvious, there are problems with the models.  If you models are correct then you should reflect your current conditions with a certain deviation.  The problem is the models don't do that, in fact the current conditions are running at odds with the models.  That tells you that you have problems and better get digging fast, instead of yelling that the science is settled.  You need to determine why the model is not matching reality within your set acceptable deviation.  If the model is immediately diverging from reality, you need to refine it and accept the fact that if this is the case you cannot count on the accuracy of later predicitons until you identify the corrective action.

Here is a chart which illustrates his point.  The models show us as having increasing temperatures yet the reality is there has been no warming in the 21st century:

What part of we are in between ice ages with a trend in warming don't you understand?  Is the data confusing you? It's like this: the earth is 4+ billion years old, we have data going back what? 250,000,000 years?  You have data that's like a spec in time....but, that data shows a HUGE increase in temp. that we have never seen before. 

[gatorback]

give me 10000000 years and contact me then I'll give you a really good graph of what your looking for.

Oh well so much for trying to actually having a discussion.  Resume your "i know i am but what are you"
status

OK.  I do want to discuss this. It's just not so easy to reply on an iPhone, but I'm back at home now on the ThinkPad.  So, sorry for being short on iPhone, but honestly here is the deal..  Suppose the earth IS 4.5 Billion years old. 200 years of data is nothing vs 4.5 billion years right?  It's a spec in time in the context of 4.5 billion years..  You  can't conclude much from that data except for this. That we know this from the data we do have. That there's NEVER been an increase in temp like we have had in the past 200 years.   

[BridgeTroll]

No my point should be obvious, there are problems with the models.  If you models are correct then you should reflect your current conditions with a certain deviation.  The problem is the models don't do that, in fact the current conditions are running at odds with the models.  That tells you that you have problems and better get digging fast, instead of yelling that the science is settled.  You need to determine why the model is not matching reality within your set acceptable deviation.  If the model is immediately diverging from reality, you need to refine it and accept the fact that if this is the case you cannot count on the accuracy of later predicitons until you identify the corrective action.

I think that you may be looking for too high a degree of confluence between the models and the observations, because in the short term, climate is an essentially random process, and the lack of mathematical congruence between the models and observations may just be wobble attributable to randomness (noise) that may not have as much meaning as you first think, if you just expand the time scale a bit. (Maybe a lot). With climate, best fit may be all you can get.  BTW there are some discussion boards that are populated by climatologists where the level of scientific discussion is of a very high order, lots of disagreement, but also lots of good science.

Here, not so much.

Wahoo... Thank you Midway.  A positive addition to a discussion.  Let me be the first to say Thank you...

[Lunican]

That the models we were all supposed to be so concerned about have not accurately predicted the present or near past.  Hence their predictive powers vis a vis the future are quite in doubt.

Your charts show an increase in average temperatures.

[RiversideGator]

give me 10000000 years and contact me then I'll give you a really good graph of what your looking for.

Oh well so much for trying to actually having a discussion.  Resume your "i know i am but what are you"
status

OK.  I do want to discuss this. It's just not so easy to reply on an iPhone, but I'm back at home now on the ThinkPad.  So, sorry for being short on iPhone, but honestly here is the deal..  Suppose the earth IS 4.5 Billion years old. 200 years of data is nothing vs 4.5 billion years right?  It's a spec in time in the context of 4.5 billion years..  You  can't conclude much from that data except for this. That we know this from the data we do have. That there's NEVER been an increase in temp like we have had in the past 200 years.   

This is demonstrably false based on temperature records from proxy sources.

[RiversideGator]

And another straw man argument and appeal to ridicule.  The logical fallacies are getting very deep around here, Stephen.   

You have repeatedly shown over the past two years that you have absolutely no ability to interpret any of the charts you have posted, and have never been above posting information that you know to be fraudulent in the pursuit of your hair brained theory that all of the scientists on earth are less qualified than an attorney in jacksonville florida to understand the science of global climatology.

Youve never shown the least embarrassment when posting the writings of 'economic scientists' as 'scientific dissenters' to the global warming theory.

And youve proven time and again that you don't care whether your own sources are actually being paid off by people with financial stakes in the outcome of their work.

No, my friend, you have conceded the field of 'logic'.  you are not interested in it, and have never pursued it.

More ad hominem attacks and an appeal to authority.  BTW, I hardly think I should bow to the scientific knowledge of an erstwhile restauranteur.   

Oh and plenty of scientists disagree with the GW theory.  You just engage in ad hominem attacks on them also rather than honestly looking at the points they present.

[RiversideGator]

That the models we were all supposed to be so concerned about have not accurately predicted the present or near past.  Hence their predictive powers vis a vis the future are quite in doubt.

Your charts show an increase in average temperatures.

Not since 1998 and not to the degree predicted by the models.

[Lunican]

So it's getting hotter?

[RiversideGator]

So it's getting hotter?

Not since 1998 apparently.

[Lunican]

So it's getting colder?

[RiversideGator]

Since the all time high in 1998