I take a closer look at the relationship between the NSST lower troposphere ocean region temperature anomaly and NOAA’s Antarctic Oscillation Index (AAO)
As I've said before, unfortunately, my brain is not up to appreciating statistical analyses beyond the most basic so I simply rely on looking at where each side disagrees with the other to see if I can see how one side's argument is better and refutes the other. From my basic understanding it seems the climate scientists are more concerned with Antarctic Land Ice. Will you be looking at the land ice, John?
While the interior of East Antarctica is gaining land ice, overall Antarctica has been losing land ice at an accelerating rate. Antarctic sea ice is growing despite a strongly warming Southern Ocean.
Yes, I shall be looking at land ice and ice shelves once my little series on sea ice comes to a close. The problem with experts these days is that reputations, careers and grant funding are at stake, so you can't trust them to provide an honest assessment. In response to the alarmist material you'll find over at skepticalscience you might want to take a look at the following:
In this regard we may start by deducing that land-locked ice can only be subject to atmospheric warming, in which case we need some decent data from land-locked bases and not coastal bases. If you go back over my 8 part series on land surface temperature you'll discover just how unreliable the data are, with base development contributing to the warming record. Not all bases exhibit warming - only the biggest coastal bases on the peninsula - and if we carefully pick our way through we discover Antarctica's land surface is not warming. We may therefore deduce that the ice cannot be melting as claimed and so we must look at the methodological details to see how experts have arrived at a conclusion that conveniently supports the political narrative.
The problem here is that you cannot glance at a slide or two and hope to understand the situation for fudge, fraud and error will be lurking down in the methodological detail. You can spin data convincingly to suit any argument you care to make.
"The problem here is that you cannot glance at a slide or two and hope to understand the situation for fudge, fraud and error will be lurking down in the methodological detail. You can spin data convincingly to suit any argument you care to make."
Yes, I'm beginning to see the seriousness of this problem.
This is the crux of the matter. The other thing to realise is that truly independent science doesn't exist anymore. If you are going to read a blatantly alarmist web like skepticalscience then you might like to consider the two webs I tend to follow for a less biased view:
When I was completely persuaded of and concerned about AGW I tended to be convinced by SS's counter-refutations of WUWT's refutations but this may have been due to a biased lens I was simply unaware of. I have to say that now, regardless of the evidence, the fact that I have different feelings about power and see that the UN is behind it and the Club of Rome founded in 1968 ...
"Club members, including Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, George Soros, Bill Gates, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands and Mikhail Gorbachev, believe humanity requires “a common motivation, namely a common adversary” in order to realize their goal of world government. They choose the threat of environmental catastrophe."
I also know that at least some of the 2019-20 bushfires in Australia were deliberate as are the ones in Maui now and I believe same for Greece ... we have to wonder what is going on here.
Back when I was a government suit rubbing shoulders with senior bods behind closed doors in the '90s it was abundantly clear that 'the science' was being set up to support an economic agenda. At one point during 1998 a major TV production company approached me to front a glossy series to get the ball rolling on frightening the public about CO2 to mark the tenth anniversary of the IPCC. My name had been given to them by the Assistant Secretary in consultation with the Secretary of State thinking I'd go along with the game.
That is so very interesting, John. So good of you not to go for glory and go along.
OK, so you were onto the ruse well before I had the slightest inkling that there was even an alleged problem! I do find it hard to get my head around I must say. I was so convinced of dangerous AGW and so convinced that I'd looked fairly at both sides ... but obviously when your knowledge of an extremely complex subject is limited, determining the truth is very difficult.
Another thing I should mention is how they go about measuring the amount of land-locked ice. They can't physically do this for obvious reasons and thus rely on modelling. The public always assume these experts go and measure something real before making a bold statement but this is rarely the case, hence we are swimming in modelled, predicted, simulated, and re-analysed results derived from highly processed datasets. What Antarctica's land ice is *actually* doing is a different matter!
This is the same for Greenland's ice sheet, which is estimated using fancy software called HIRHAM5. The head of the Greenland ice mass project got very stroppy with me when I pointed out the glaring errors, offering to calibrate model outputs against empirical data. As a result public access to servers was removed the same day. Does that sound like honest science?
I've an old note on my Greenland ice mass work that you can find here:
N.B. A scam to watch out for are organisations putting out melt volume alone and claiming scary record levels of melt. The bigger the ice sheet the bigger the melt!
As I've said before, unfortunately, my brain is not up to appreciating statistical analyses beyond the most basic so I simply rely on looking at where each side disagrees with the other to see if I can see how one side's argument is better and refutes the other. From my basic understanding it seems the climate scientists are more concerned with Antarctic Land Ice. Will you be looking at the land ice, John?
From Skeptical Science
https://skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm
While the interior of East Antarctica is gaining land ice, overall Antarctica has been losing land ice at an accelerating rate. Antarctic sea ice is growing despite a strongly warming Southern Ocean.
Yes, I shall be looking at land ice and ice shelves once my little series on sea ice comes to a close. The problem with experts these days is that reputations, careers and grant funding are at stake, so you can't trust them to provide an honest assessment. In response to the alarmist material you'll find over at skepticalscience you might want to take a look at the following:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/02/antarctic-ice-shelves-growing/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/08/10/what-sky-did-not-tell-you-about-antarctic-ice/
But we can still use our own brain!
In this regard we may start by deducing that land-locked ice can only be subject to atmospheric warming, in which case we need some decent data from land-locked bases and not coastal bases. If you go back over my 8 part series on land surface temperature you'll discover just how unreliable the data are, with base development contributing to the warming record. Not all bases exhibit warming - only the biggest coastal bases on the peninsula - and if we carefully pick our way through we discover Antarctica's land surface is not warming. We may therefore deduce that the ice cannot be melting as claimed and so we must look at the methodological details to see how experts have arrived at a conclusion that conveniently supports the political narrative.
The problem here is that you cannot glance at a slide or two and hope to understand the situation for fudge, fraud and error will be lurking down in the methodological detail. You can spin data convincingly to suit any argument you care to make.
"The problem here is that you cannot glance at a slide or two and hope to understand the situation for fudge, fraud and error will be lurking down in the methodological detail. You can spin data convincingly to suit any argument you care to make."
Yes, I'm beginning to see the seriousness of this problem.
This is the crux of the matter. The other thing to realise is that truly independent science doesn't exist anymore. If you are going to read a blatantly alarmist web like skepticalscience then you might like to consider the two webs I tend to follow for a less biased view:
https://notrickszone.com/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/
When I was completely persuaded of and concerned about AGW I tended to be convinced by SS's counter-refutations of WUWT's refutations but this may have been due to a biased lens I was simply unaware of. I have to say that now, regardless of the evidence, the fact that I have different feelings about power and see that the UN is behind it and the Club of Rome founded in 1968 ...
https://altamontenterprise.com/09252019/elitists-have-created-myth-climate-change-eliminate-national-sovereignty
"Club members, including Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, George Soros, Bill Gates, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands and Mikhail Gorbachev, believe humanity requires “a common motivation, namely a common adversary” in order to realize their goal of world government. They choose the threat of environmental catastrophe."
I also know that at least some of the 2019-20 bushfires in Australia were deliberate as are the ones in Maui now and I believe same for Greece ... we have to wonder what is going on here.
Back when I was a government suit rubbing shoulders with senior bods behind closed doors in the '90s it was abundantly clear that 'the science' was being set up to support an economic agenda. At one point during 1998 a major TV production company approached me to front a glossy series to get the ball rolling on frightening the public about CO2 to mark the tenth anniversary of the IPCC. My name had been given to them by the Assistant Secretary in consultation with the Secretary of State thinking I'd go along with the game.
That is so very interesting, John. So good of you not to go for glory and go along.
OK, so you were onto the ruse well before I had the slightest inkling that there was even an alleged problem! I do find it hard to get my head around I must say. I was so convinced of dangerous AGW and so convinced that I'd looked fairly at both sides ... but obviously when your knowledge of an extremely complex subject is limited, determining the truth is very difficult.
Another thing I should mention is how they go about measuring the amount of land-locked ice. They can't physically do this for obvious reasons and thus rely on modelling. The public always assume these experts go and measure something real before making a bold statement but this is rarely the case, hence we are swimming in modelled, predicted, simulated, and re-analysed results derived from highly processed datasets. What Antarctica's land ice is *actually* doing is a different matter!
This is the same for Greenland's ice sheet, which is estimated using fancy software called HIRHAM5. The head of the Greenland ice mass project got very stroppy with me when I pointed out the glaring errors, offering to calibrate model outputs against empirical data. As a result public access to servers was removed the same day. Does that sound like honest science?
I've an old note on my Greenland ice mass work that you can find here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AcpVga5tc6NxEaB105ufyD5aqJFmAlY5/view?usp=drive_link
Here's an article lifting the lid on the ice mass game:
https://principia-scientific.com/alarmists-claim-660gt-of-antarctic-ice-gain-is-actually-20000gt-loss/
"As a result public access to servers was removed the same day. Does that sound like honest science?"
Nope and it's surely a very telling sign. If there's nothing to hide ...
N.B. A scam to watch out for are organisations putting out melt volume alone and claiming scary record levels of melt. The bigger the ice sheet the bigger the melt!