Rickoshay, thats one of your pet climate chahgke denying websites. The artuile it quotes inadvertantly BACKS UP climate change:

“Physical drivers of ice melt are diagnosed by comparing satellite-observed melt patterns to anomalies of reanalysis NEAR SURFACE AIR TEMPERATURE”

“Near surface air temperature”?? The SAME near surface air temperature that has been warming for the last few decades as CO2 levels rise??

Snapped!!

That article you linked to was published by the American Meterological Society. The same Society that recently published this statement:

“Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence. Observations show increases in globally averaged air and ocean temperatures, as well as widespread melting of snow and ice and rising globally averaged sea level. Surface temperature data for Earth as a whole, including readings over both land and ocean, show an increase of about 0.8°C (1.4°F) over the period 1901?2010 and about 0.5°C (0.9°F) over the period 1979–2010 (the era for which satellite-based temperature data are routinely available). Due to natural variability, not every year is warmer than the preceding year globally. Nevertheless, all of the 10 warmest years in the global temperature records up to 2011 have occurred since 1997, with 2005 and 2010 being the warmest two years in more than a century of global records. The warming trend is greatest in northern high latitudes and over land. In the U.S., most of the observed warming has occurred in the West and in Alaska; for the nation as a whole, there have been twice as many record daily high temperatures as record daily low temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century.

The effects of this warming are especially evident in the planet’s polar regions. Arctic sea ice extent and volume have been decreasing for the past several decades. Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have lost significant amounts of ice. Most of the world’s glaciers are in retreat. ” https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/about-ams/ams-statements/statements-of-the-ams-in-force/climate-change/

So do you still accept the information and findings from the AMS that global temperatures are rising and ice is melting?

Especially when they then say: “Climate is always changing. However, many of the observed changes noted above are beyond what can be explained by the natural variability of the climate. It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is HUMAN INDUCED increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide.”

Double snapped!!

(PS hat tip to Frank showing me how to research this kind of stuff to tear apart climate change deniers bullshit)

Andrew, Rickoshay, Nitrium, & inflowin –

“The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has published an analysis of five major international datasets showing that the 20 warmest years on record have been in the past 22.

“Temperatures are only part of the story. Extreme and high impact weather affected many countries and millions of people, with devastating repercussions for economies and ecosystems in 2018,” said WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas” — https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47144058

Kind of shoots your climate denying out of the water, doesn’t it.

+1 e-clectic

Hey Nitrium, sorty to burst that bubble of yours, but the facts appear to make codswallop of your claims:

“The Met Office says that 2015 was the first year in which the global annual average surface temperature reached 1C above the pre-industrial level, which is generally taken to mean the temperatures between 1850 and 1900.

Each year since then, the global average has hovered close to or above the 1C mark. Now, the Met Office says that trend is likely to continue or increase over the next five years. “https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/environment/381910/world-headed-for-warmest-period-on-record

Its a bitch when the facts contradict your cosy worldview, eh

Nitrium, and yet each year continues to get hotter. Temperatures are rising. So Frank isn’t wrong, you’re just being selective. Mis-using data is the last resort of people who can’t otherwise prove their case.

Hi Frank
I sent a reply last night but it has not appeared. In case it does not here is the link you asked for…https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OceanCoolingE&E.pdf.
Cheers D J S

It is, indeed a denial website, Frank.

As is usually the case with denial websites, the operator of the website has no qualifications relating to climate science (and probably has no qualifications in chemistry or biology). In other words, no credibility.

From the NoTricksZone: ‘I received an Associate Degree in Civil Engineering at Vermont Technical College and a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arizona in Tucson.’

The lack of understanding of chemistry is apparent in the statement: ‘I’ve always been a skeptic of the hypothesis mankind is causing catastrophic global warming because it is pumping a few ppm of a trace gas into the atmosphere.’

Well, emissions are measured in billions of tonnes per annum (around 37 billion per annum at the moment), not ppm. The effect of emissions on the atmosphere is measured in ppm.

If anyone has doubts about the effect of apparently low concentrations of trace gases, just consider ozone: ‘the average ozone concentration in Earth’s atmosphere as a whole is about 0.3 parts per million’.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer

That 0.3 ppm average ozone makes all the difference between life at ground level and no life at ground level by blocking most of the high energy UV that would otherwise reach ground level and break chemical bonds.

The atmospheric concentration of CO2 is more than 1000 times greater than ozone.

What is more, unlike reputable scientists who stick to well established facts and principles (many going back well over a century) and present consistent narratives, Pierre Gosselin has written: ‘I’m not convinced of any one particular position, and so my non-alarmist view is subject to change at any time.’

In other words, when living conditions get really bad as a consequence of planetary meltdown (as they undoubtedly will), Gosselin could well decide that CO2-induced overheating is very alarming!

Notwithstanding any of the above, RICKOSHAY is apparently completely immune to scientific data and logical argument, and will presumably keep linking to the shonky website.

The graph you link to is of Antarctica and has extremely poor resolution, no link to methodology and no link to a reputable scientific journal. Indeed, we don’t even know if it is from just one location in Antarctica (it certainly cannot be an average, since data from Antarctica is extremely sparse).

Nevertheless, despite its poor resolution and lack of scientific link, the graph does show a clear uptick in temperature in response to the recent surge in atmospheric CO2 -an uptick which you choose not to notice

Of course, you do what all climate change deniers do: cherry pick data, or present ‘data’ that is extremely dubious, or ‘data’ that has no scientific credibility, or data which is entirely irrelevant. Or you choose not notice actual trends evident in the data you present or misread graphs (as happened just a few days ago when you were blathering on about the Jurassic period being 15 to 25oC warmer than now) -and you do so repeatedly despite mounting evidence you are totally wrong on almost all counts.

You totally ignore the scientific explanations provided -such as the explanation for why atmospheric CO2 followed temperature until human induced emissions overwhelmed the natural systems that recycled CO2.

When your absurd commentaries are shot down in flames by references to actual data from reputable scientific organisations (or simply by logical argument) you simply move on to some other obscure, irrelevant piece of ‘information’. Indeed, you demonstrate an extraordinary capacity to avoid logical conclusions based on scientific evidence provided by organisations with longstanding reputations for good science, such as that supplied by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography:

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2018/09/19/is-the-current-rise-in-co2-definitely-caused-by-human-activities/

Meanwhile, the global environmental predicament gets made worse by the second, primarily as a direct consequence of the actions of humans with access to fossil fuels.

Frank, not only are the deniers bereft of capability to cite their specious claims with up to date references but a key feature of the denier group (including the luminaries) is a complete lack of coherence.
Deniers have no coherent position variously claiming: it’s the sun, it’s natural cycles, it’s the end of an ice age, it’s Pacific Decadal Oscillation, temperature leads CO2, it’s a change in reflectivity of clouds or whatever the theory du jour is on Watts Up With That. The only things deniers cohere on are:
1. it’s anything but carbon
2. or, if it’s carbon it’s not manmade carbon emissions