A New Record for Antarctic Total Ice Extent?

“And one of the main land masses in the SH, Australia, is already very warm because it’s mostly desert, so the effects there are harder to detect.”

The “desert” status of an area makes no difference, about anything, if there is any general “global” aspect to the “warming” - a small difference in Australia’s desert is no less, or greater, of an indicator than the small difference in the northern hemisphere, which in spite of all the local, and often contradictory, evidence, is itself small.[Which, by the way, in case you didn’t notice, the “data” has again been corrected and now reflects that 1934, not 1998 was “the hottest” in North America - in spite of 70 years of more “CO2”]. [What was it they said about the massive catastrophes in the next 70 years????]

It is not harder to detect that the average annual temperature at an Australian weather station has risen from 100.0025 degrees farenheit to 100.0034 degrees farenheit than it is to detect that the average annual temperature in Fargo North Dakota has gone form 73.0025 to 73.0034 (all figures fictional).

“Manmade” global warming (as opposed to natural warming and cooling) is political science, not science.

Speaking of refuted:

Unstoppable hot air

AGU, AAPG and AMQUA

"n further response to Singer's letter, we (and the AMQUA folks) are certainly aware of the evidence for the so-called "1500-year cycle" in climate. But we are unaware of any evidence that this has anything to do with the current warming, as Singer claims. And we find it is curious that Singer's recent view that the earth is cooling has been replaced with the view that the current warming is "unstoppable."

Which, by the way, in case you didn’t notice, the “data” has again been corrected and now reflects that 1934, not 1998 was “the hottest” in North America - in spite of 70 years of more “CO2"}

In case you didn't notice, this correction made nary a whit of difference to the global trends, where 1998 is by far the warmest year -- except for 2005, which was nearly as warm.

A little perspective on the U.S. and global temperature records

And this is quoted from my profile:

"Quote from the above: "Record warmth in 2005 is notable, because global temperature has not received any boost from a tropical El Niño this year. The prior record year, 1998, on the contrary, was lifted 0.2°C above the trend line by the strongest El Niño of the past century." [I have done a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation for a FR post, which is reproduced here. "OK, it's warmed about 0.4 C since 1975. Call it +0.13 C per century (which actually agrees with Spencer and Christy's MSU satellite data analysis, other groups put it higher). So if 1975 is the "0" point, then 1998 should have been 0.3 C warmer than 1985. Instead, it was 0.2 C above the trend line, i.e. 0.5 C. According to the current decadal trend (barring accelerations), it should take 38.5 years for the global temperature to rise 0.5 C. That would be -- 2013. So it's basically unsurprising (and expected) that there hasn't been a year warmer than 1998 yet, even though 2005 was a virtual tie. So we either have to wait until 2013 (or a year with the next large El Nino) to expect a new global temperature "record". "]

Seeing this, I realize you misunderstood. Areas with more range of changeability will show a larger warming signal than areas that are already very warm due to regional climate factors. I.e., in a global warming scenario, the North Dakota fields would be expected to warm more that the Australian outback.

“Seeing this, I realize you misunderstood. Areas with more range of changeability will show a larger warming signal than areas that are already very warm due to regional climate factors. I.e., in a global warming scenario, the North Dakota fields would be expected to warm more that the Australian outback.”

Seeing this, I realize you “misunderstand” true science and logical use of it. Knowing that everything concerning science in the rest of your statement above is known, by us as well as the “scientists” it is accounted for and in that accounting demonstrates, that due to those known variabilities, and with them scientifically in tow, it is NOT “harder” to detect “warming” in the deserts of Australia than in North Dakota. What you speak is the language of political science (”warming signal”) intended to mask the absence of true science. The “range of changeability” is known and completely accountable in addressing the “weaker” but still present “warming signal” in an area of less “changeability”, when science uses that change, no matter how “weak” in an appropriately long term trend.

But, when the political science is demanding immediate results (not long term trend (1,000s of years), one can understand the purely political difficulty the political scientists have (they don’t want and cant sit on the desert for 100 years).

When you recognize (1) the errors made (a) in the selectivity of the starting points for both the rise in temperature and the rise in CO2 and (b) in the starting values for CO2 at that starting point - in the “man made” mathematical models; and (2) the intentional manipulation of US temperature data in the early years (program code that lowers the temperature data input to the algorithms or many US sites for the early years and intentionally quits performing that lowering at a convenient time); then you know you have a political science project cherry picking “science facts” that fit a template that began with that political science project and not with the facts.

Regardless of any warming that any area of the world may be experiencing now, it (”warming”) is not “manmade” it is part of natural cycles that the solar system and Earth’s relationship to it has been producing throughout Earth’s existence. The rest (”manmade”) is religion (ignorance) when it is not intentional political science.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.