02 July 2014

An AGW believer's clumsy attempt to mislead

An AGW believer made a deceptive, outdated post on the Ron Paul forum (here) and has linked to it on a recent comment here, on Harold Ambler's recent post:
@oraclepresence's comment and my reply is at bottom. Here's a few choice highlights:
First, @oraclepresence uses this graph stopping in 2011:
I point out the updated graph:

Why would you use outdated graphs when there are updated ones available?

And notice how the data shows how pathetic and arbitrary the "exponentially downward" trend line is. 
Typical of the reasoning of warmists @oraclepresence can't see how utterly arbitrary these lines are -- based on models and wishful thinking. Models which are proving to be entirely wrong, as with the whole AGW theory.
Downward spirals like this are taken as gospel by AGW believers -- they seem incapable of scepticism, or of thinking for themselves.
@oraclepresence uses this outdated graph:
I point out the updated graph:
Then there's a graph labelled Antarctic ice volume:

Notice the eerie similarity to the top graph above. It's virtually the same graph, but it stops a year earlier.  @oraclepresence has labelled this graph "Antarctic ice". But as a quick internet check confirms it is in fact Arctic ice volume: 

Finally the GRACE satellite data is taken as gospel by the global warming faithful, without realising the data is massaged with arbitrary adjustments for isostatic rebound.

It's not a particularly scary rate of melting, but an odd one given that all of the last 10,000 Holocene years of warmer temperature hasn't caused this. NASA is not to be trusted on this score.

If the polar land ice really melting to that extent we would expect it to increase sea level rise. But sea level rise is in fact same, or decelerating:


A recent proxy:

Above pic via here:



A few more observations on my past post here:


and here:


The comments:
@oraclepresence says:
A thin film of ice spreading out over the southern ocean does not mean the poles aren’t melting.
Without a doubt, global ice VOLUME AND MASS are decreasing globally; at an increasing rate on both poles. This article cites surface area, not nearly as important an indicator.
Look at it this way: You have a 10′ deep pond in your back yard with a spring feeding it. One day in the dead of winter when its wicked cold 80% of the pond is frozen solid down to the bottom. The side of the pond fed by the spring is still liquid and so is the surface above it. As spring comes the whole pond thaws but overnight the surface freezes an inch thick. Which is “more ice” the whole surface frozen an inch thick in the spring or an 10′ deep pond that’s 80% frozen solid by volume in the winter?
Over the past 30 years:
Arctic Ice Mass is decreasing exponentially and is down 30%
Arctic Ice Volume is decreasing exponentially and is down 30%
Arctic Ice Area is decreasing exponentially and is down 40%
Antarctic Ice Mass is decreasing exponentially and is down 50%
Antarctic Ice Volume is decreasing exponentially and is down 50%
Antarctic Ice Area is indeed increasing… linearly, its up 8%
That certainly doesn’t mean its “growing”. Charts to back up my assertions can be seen here:

No comments:

Post a Comment