Open Mind

Antarctica Warming

January 23, 2009 · 98 Comments

Anthony Watts has posted A letter from a meteorologist on the ground in Antarctica. It’s part 2 of Watts’ series attempting to torpedo new research indicating strong warming in West Antarctica over the last 50 years, and slight warming over the continent as a whole.

The letter is from Ross Hays, who works taking balloon measurements during the Antarctic summer at McMurdo station. He issues some “interesting” statements, including this:

In my experience as a day to day forecaster that has to travel and do field work in Antarctica the summer seasons have been getting colder.

and this:

One climate note to pass along is December 2006 was the coldest December ever for McMurdo Station.

and most interesting, he closes with this:

With statistics you can make numbers go to almost any conclusion you want. It saddens me to see members of the scientific community do this for media coverage.

Regarding the 1st claim, I wonder how much experience he has doing field work in Antarctica, since according to his own blog post about this recently being a new career for him, it looks like he’s spent a total of 2 summers in Antarctica. Linear regression of average summer season temperature at McMurdo station has a positive (warming) slope, although the trend is not statistically significant — but it certainly belies his claim based on his vast “experience.”

Regarding the 2nd claim, the data indicate otherwise:


December 2006 is nowhere near the “coldest December ever for McMurdo Station.” The trend for December at McMurdo is a warming one. And the overall trend at McMurdo station, for all months, is both warming and statistically significant.

Regarding the 3rd claim … draw your own conclusion.

Categories: Global Warming

98 responses so far ↓

  • Paul Middents // January 23, 2009 at 8:54 pm

    Real Climate points out that the author of this letter is a card carrying member of the Inhof 400.

  • Frank O'Dwyer // January 23, 2009 at 8:56 pm

    Interestingly they don’t seem to object to statistics when they are used to ‘prove’ GISS is ‘fraudulent’.

    So far I think these guys have claimed that
    1) GISS is flat for years
    2) GISS shows cooling
    3) GISS shows warming due to UHI
    4) GISS has been fudged to show all of the above (possibly because Hansen - who of course personally supervises it all - forgot he was working for the conspiracy those months/years).

  • Hank Roberts // January 23, 2009 at 9:02 pm

    If you meant his guy, he isn’t on the ground, either, even if there were ground there to be on.
    Hat tip to Simon Evans for checking the guy’s claim against his own blog and posting in that thread at RC pointing to the

    “… blog entry of his, in which he makes clear that he has only experienced one summer visit to Antarctica:

  • Dave A // January 23, 2009 at 9:07 pm

    I’ll try again,

    Note Kevin Trenberth had this to say about the new paper

    “This looks like a pretty good analysis, but I have to say I remain somewhat skeptical,” Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said in an e-mail. “It is hard to make data where none exist.”

    [Response: Have you read the paper?]

  • Dave A // January 23, 2009 at 9:48 pm


    As it happens my copy of Nature has not yet arrived, hopefully tomorrow, but I don’t see what difference that makes to Trenberth’s comment. After all isn’t he a fully signed up member of the consensus?

  • JCH // January 23, 2009 at 9:58 pm

    The study is “good work,” said Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo., but he says there are unique aspects of Antarctica’s climate that haven’t been taken into account.

    Trenberth was not involved in the Nature study.

    One problem is that temperature inversions can bring warmer air down, influencing surface temperatures.

    “This aspect has not been addressed to date,” Trenberth told LiveScience.

    The authors dispute this comment: “There is no evidence to support Trenberth’s speculation, and there is much evidence that he is wrong,” Steig told LiveScience.,2933,481227,00.html

  • kipp1 // January 23, 2009 at 10:03 pm

    Hank Roberts:Thanks for the assist.
    “Contrarians have sometime grabbed on to this idea that the entire continent of Antarctica is cooling, so how could we be talking about global warming,” said study co-author Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University. “Now we can say: no, it’s not true … It is not bucking the trend.”

  • Hank Roberts // January 23, 2009 at 10:40 pm

    > Have you read the paper?

    Oooh, not likely. Doubt he has even read _about_ the paper, because the method used is explained.

    > … this looks like a pretty good analysis
    > … it is hard ….

    Dave A, interpolation is hard.

    As my UNIX guru used to say, that means it’d take considerable effort, and I’d never be able to figure it out by myself.

    How did they do it?

    “…the team applied a statistical technique to estimate temperatures missing from ground-based observations. They calculated the relationship between overlapping satellite and ground-station measurements over the past 26 years. Next, they applied that correlation to ground measurements from 1957 to 1981 and calculated what the satellites would have observed. …”

  • David B. Benson // January 23, 2009 at 11:18 pm

    What is imprtant for WAIS stability is not the air temprature but rather the sea surface temperatures.

  • TCOisbanned? // January 23, 2009 at 11:25 pm

    There is actually a semi decent conversation going on at CA on this. Full of snark and such and not to be trusted implicitly (neither is here), but still more development of the stuff. RC has an even better discussion in terms of issue analysis. One impression that I picked up from RC was that the continent cools if you look at last 20 years, but warmed overall (thus warming in first 30 years). That almost makes it look like Antarctica is out of phase with the Northern Hemisphere.

  • Gordon // January 24, 2009 at 12:07 am

    Tamino and Hank:

    Before getting too excited about his having spent only 1 or 2 summers in Antarctica, it might be prudent to investigate his career at CNN. I haven’t done that myself, but then again I haven’t drawn any conclusions either.

    [Response: Here's what he said in his blog post about the new job: "My new job is almost an adventure. I never though I would be going to Antarctica"]

  • luminous beauty // January 24, 2009 at 12:23 am

    …almost makes it look like…

    Got ambiguity?

  • Marion Delgado // January 24, 2009 at 12:52 am

    Daryn Kagan hosts that guy’s diary, also, why?

    Rush Limbaugh’s ex, lied about David Letterman until he called her on it (first she said the White House told CNN that the clip Letterman showed of a boy falling asleep near Bush was faked, then she said CNN said it, but it was faked, then she admitted it wasn’t), kind of a flak catcher for the GOP on Schiavo, active participant in smearing Wilson and Plame, etc.

    It may just be part of her “What is Possible?” book thing. But it’s still a little fishy.

  • Marion Delgado // January 24, 2009 at 12:53 am

    also, this shows why weathermen shouldn’t be treated like climatologists? Mr. Watt?

  • Hank Roberts // January 24, 2009 at 1:53 am

    > out of phase
    ozone, and circular wind patterns

  • kipp1 // January 24, 2009 at 2:45 am

    Fire and Lice
    Who are they to tell me I’,m fired
    Hey Roy, it’s revenge I desire
    I’ll choose ice,Watts said to inspire
    But God just deepfried deniers.
    Robert Melt

  • kipp1 // January 24, 2009 at 2:49 am

    Idea:The larson B ice shelf ,the closest part of the antarctic to land.Could that be a reason for warming there,first. K

  • naught101 // January 24, 2009 at 4:38 am

    Kipp: the Antarctic IS land… what do you mean?

  • Neven // January 24, 2009 at 9:11 am

    Kipp, please use the space bar some more and do not start writing here on every impulse. As a fellow-knownothing I urge you to leave the discussion to the pros.

  • Sekerob // January 24, 2009 at 12:50 pm

    Can’t speak for kipp1, but when he wrote that line I thought of the South American continent in the context of his warming comment. Not sure at all if SA has been warming as significant as the NH landmass, but doubt it. >90% of the spitting and fuming is on the Northern Hemisphere, so I’ve always considered it to happen there sooner than on the most southern part of the globe. CRUTEM3v anomaly confirms that. Through Nov. 0.774C+ for NH and 0.292C+ for SH.

  • deech56 // January 24, 2009 at 1:15 pm

    RE: Neven // January 24, 2009 at 9:11 am “Kipp, please use the space bar some more and do not start writing here on every impulse. As a fellow-knownothing I urge you to leave the discussion to the pros.”

    Ouch - well, that lets me out, unless we want to steer this to a discussion of pharmacokinetics (which is sort of mathematical - measurements, statistics, error, time series, models, etc.). Otherwise, I am in the wrong compartment (sorry about that).

  • Sekerob // January 24, 2009 at 1:36 pm

    Further to kipp1’s Larson B, Scientific American on Jan.21,’09 carries a picture of the 2002 breakup and a 9 point list of what NASA could do: 9 Ways NASA Can Tackle Climate Change

  • Simon Evans // January 24, 2009 at 4:48 pm

    Cheers Hank :-).

    I think it’s pretty evident that Ross Hays either hadn’t read or didn’t understand the Steig et al paper. He says :

    ….the Antarctic Peninsula which is also where most of the automated weather stations are located for West Antarctica which will give you the average warmer readings and skew the data for all of West Antarctica.

    D’oh. Read the paper, Mr Hays!

  • Neven // January 24, 2009 at 6:02 pm

    deech56, you’re obviously not a knownothing because of your background. My background is some maths in high school and that’s it. I read the articles and comments here because of the high quality and integrity. I’ll never understand the science but it’s what and how people write about it that convinces me where the truth probably lies.

    I’d like to apologise to you, Kipp, for assuming you’re a knownothing like me. If you’ll just use the space bar after punctuation you can do whatever you like as far as I am concerned. :-)

  • Simon Evans // January 24, 2009 at 6:59 pm


    Idea:The larson B ice shelf ,the closest part of the antarctic to land.Could that be a reason for warming there,first. K

    I think I know what you’re getting at and, yes, that is consistent with the Steig paper’s analysis, viz.:

    The well-known increases in temperature on the Antarctic Peninsula are strongly associated with changes in sea ice19. Similarly, negative anomalies in sea-ice extent and the length of the sea-ice season in the Amundsen–Bellingshausen Sea may be related to the warming trends we observe in adjacent West Antarctica.

    One of the paper’s notable findings, though, is that of continental West Antarctica warming at a greater rate over the period than the peninsular:

    We find that West Antarctica warmed between 1957 and 2006 at a rate of
    0.17 +/-0.06 C per decade (95% confidence interval). Thus, the area of warming is much larger than the region of the Antarctic Peninsula. The peninsula warming averages 0.11 +/- 0.04 C per decade.

  • jcbmack // January 24, 2009 at 7:35 pm

    Most of the credible data shows a net warming in Anartica, but some regional cooling. More direct measurements and temp readings are needed anyways. RC has some good discussion on this matter. Watts just distorts every finding and cherry picks data sets.

  • Joel Shore // January 24, 2009 at 7:58 pm

    Dave A says:

    As it happens my copy of Nature has not yet arrived, hopefully tomorrow, but I don’t see what difference that makes to Trenberth’s comment. After all isn’t he a fully signed up member of the consensus?

    …Which rather undercuts the argument that is often made in the “skeptic” community that those scientists who accept the consensus are so biased that they go blindly along with anything that supports AGW. Here, we have Trenberth, while being at least somewhat complementary to the study, expressing the reasons why he still has doubts (among them the paucity of data available in Antarctica) and we have Steig countering why he thinks at least one of these doubts does not have merit. This is the normal process by which science is done.

    This whole thing reminds me a bit of how creationists used to try to make a lot of hay over the fact that there were vociferous disagreements in the evolution field between those (like Stephen Jay Gould) who subscribed to punctuated equilibrium and those who believed in a more gradualist evolutionary course.

    And, at any rate, none of it has any particular bearing on the fact that Ross Hays seems to be factually-challenged in his criticisms of the study.

  • kipp1 // January 24, 2009 at 8:08 pm

    Do you think that I should wait until I learn more, before I try to converse with you experts. I know somethings, which is not very much at all. Kipp

  • kipp1 // January 24, 2009 at 8:09 pm

    Neven;I am a know nothing like you,but have read the IPCC report, and much science this first year.I am at a plateau, where I know enough to nail deniers on any point, but lack balance and formal training. I am an Artist, so have some creativity and intuition, but not much
    of a science background.Thanks,Kipp

  • Dave A // January 24, 2009 at 8:16 pm


    My response to Tamino was factual. If you have a problem with that it is up to you.

    I also had nothing to do with Trenberth’s comment obviousl.

  • sod // January 24, 2009 at 9:08 pm

    Anthony will not excuse himself, no correct the post. it is pretty sad.

  • David B. Benson // January 24, 2009 at 9:54 pm

    kipp1 // January 24, 2009 at 8:08 pm — By all means ask questions. Several here are able and willing to aim you at approriate learning resources.

    In the meantime, do read W.F. Ruddiman’s “Plows, Plagues and Petroleum”, David Archer’s “The Long Thaw” and Sidney Weart’s book, linked on the sidebar.

  • Kipp Alpert // January 24, 2009 at 10:52 pm

    David B.Benson; Thanks, I’ll only ask questions for now. I should read some books on science topics, obviously. After all, that’s how you and most other Science people have learned. One should work for what they want! I enjoy your posts very much! K

  • deech56 // January 25, 2009 at 12:25 am

    RE: kipp1 // January 24, 2009 at 8:08 pm “deech56: Do you think that I should wait until I learn more, before I try to converse with you experts. I know somethings, which is not very much at all. Kipp”

    Kipp, I am humbled that you would consider me an expert - I have a modest publication record in several fields (immunology, including vaccine research; biological effects of radiation; pharmacokinetics); in fact one could argue that I either have broad interests or a short attention span. I can say that I have some training in and have used statistics in my work and work with statisticians regularly.

    My education in climate science has come from lurking at since its inception and on this site for a couple of years - there are some other sites on the blogroll here and at RC that are worth hopping to (like a Rabett would do), and some books worth reading.

    Other good sources are articles in Scientific American, Science and Nature, which are available at many libraries - that’s really where I followed the field before Al Gore invented the internet and before he got fat. Questions are always good to ask. All of us started from a position of knowing very little.

    You can learn a lot of time series analysis and statistics from this site. Pick a topic and hit the search bar (or through advanced Google). Some of my favorites are Tamino’s posts on sea ice (Arctice Ice Update, Sea Ice, Then and Now, and The Big Thaw) and his explanations on temperature trends (GISS-NCDC-HadCRU, Wiggles) and a great collection of charts (Graphic Evidence. There are lots more, but this is what a couple of quick searches have revealed.

    (I sure hope the links came through.)

  • deech56 // January 25, 2009 at 12:27 am

    Kipp - you are probably aware of a lot of what I posted, but the advice might help one of the other newbies. Take care.

  • Kipp Alpert // January 25, 2009 at 12:34 am

    David B. Benson: Just read the introduction to “The Long Thaw and it sent achill down my spine. Now, is the only time to stop Global Warming. KIPP

  • Hank Roberts // January 25, 2009 at 1:10 am

    Remember, Kipp, few of us here are experts, many aren’t working scientists; those who are come mostly from areas outside of climate science. Outside his or her own area of research, all anyone brings is good habits asking good questions.

    I’ll repeat an old favorite pointer that I recommend often, that I try to follow myself, because I found that it really is productive:
    Particularly the “before you ask, do this list” and “when you ask, show you did those things” are very good for attracting good answers.

    Here’s the theory — a lot of answers _are_ out there in websites, Usenet newsgroups, databases, places the Reference Librarian can find them for you. Those answers that aren’t findable by searching for yourself — or don’t make enough sense — are in someone’s head.

    People like me who are on blogs daily likely know very little. Opinions are usually outdated. Best I can ever do is suggest how to _find_ something. And when someone comes along in six months and reads what I posted, they’ll find something _newer_ not the same old thing I knew at the time.

    So it goes.

    Your question is meant to catch that person’s notice — and it may be someone who comes along _later_ not right away, not the people who post most often. Your question ought to stir their brain so the answer trickles through their fingers and keyboard.

    That link is about how to ask programming help, but the recommendations on preparing before asking and showing what you’ve tried really pay off when asking questions of scientists.

    When you’re ready to apply to grad school — call the department secretary, ask how and when is best to contact the professor,.

    When you do reach the person by phone or email, ask a few questions showing you’ve read some of the person’s publications (and the footnotes, and the papers that cited that work). It’s (a) basic courtesy, and (b) astonishingly rare.

    I revisit that “smart questions” often to remind myself to work harder at following it. Especially the last part on how to _answer_ questions.

  • Kipp Alpert // January 25, 2009 at 3:10 am

    Hank Roberts; I have been doing this with Chris Colose, trying to follow his writings, than asking questions to answers I couldn’t find. I think he appreciates that I am earnest, and try to read his work. Your advice is important to me, and I have displayed more than I wish here. You are a gem.
    thanks. If you ever need a free portrait

  • Kipp Alpert // January 25, 2009 at 3:20 am

    Deech56:So you have experience with the hydroponics,good. I don’t like medicine except the flu vaccination, and other shots when I lived in Mexico. Were just people skating through a short span of time, with humor of course. I just do what Hank R tells me, and that works well.

  • Hank Roberts // January 25, 2009 at 4:19 am

    Uh, oh … well, as long as you mean “look things up for yourself” I can’t worry too much, and that’s the limit of the advice I’m competent to give. Ask me how, and you’re into the realm of amateurishness — other than get to know the people at the Reference Desk of any nearby library.

  • Hank Roberts // January 25, 2009 at 5:51 am

    David A cherrypicked a few words — interpolation is hard — and spins. The study used overlapping satellite and ground data for the later years, and interpolated on the ground data from before satellites were available.

    Dave A spins that without reading the study.

    Dunno, Tamino, is this the best they can send you?

  • Adam Gallon // January 25, 2009 at 11:28 am
    Will give you the full paper, for non-subscribers.
    Be warned, the terminology will make your eyes ache and your brain demand a soothing drink.
    One big question mark for me are over the following.
    “We use the READER weather station temperatures from the British
    Antarctic Survey1. Twenty-seven of the 42 occupied stations have at least 50%-
    complete monthly average data from 1957 to present. Data from 65 AWSs are
    available, but are discontinuous and date from 1980 at the earliest. In addition,
    data from only 24 of the AWSs are more than 50% complete for 1980–2006.”

    “We use the RegEM algorithm11, developed for sparse data infilling,
    to combine the occupied weather station data with the TIR and AWS data in
    separate reconstructions of the Antarctic temperature field.”


  • mauri pelto // January 25, 2009 at 12:55 pm

    Going back to Simon Evans’s comment, sea ice extent now is once again limited in the Amundsen and Bellinghausen Sea, particularly adjacent to the west side of the Antarctic Peninsula. This should provide a further stress on the Wilkins Ice Shelf.

  • Kipp Alpert // January 26, 2009 at 1:50 am

    Hank Roberts: University library in next town is good. Asking the emotional intellegent questions
    good. Read many books, and ask few questions unless prepared, good. Learn than talk,best. Being a supporter of the AGW reality,and fighting deniers and turning them, for a year and a half, excellent. Using my own natural skills in dealing with other people,priceless. When I first blogged here I was lost,and now I know what to do. So thanks.(and you always have a stinger)

  • Bruce Ainslie // January 27, 2009 at 4:22 pm

    Hi Tamino,
    Would it be possible to do a post that walks us through the mathematics behind the RegEM regression used in the Steig et al. paper?

  • Philip Machanick // January 28, 2009 at 10:44 pm

    The Dylan song went something like this: “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows”. Now it seems it’s better if you aren’t one.

  • JCH // January 29, 2009 at 1:19 am

    Many of our weathermen do seem currently to be afflicted with a very bad case of fumblementalism.

  • Bob North // January 29, 2009 at 6:18 pm

    I second Bruce Ainslie request on a step-by-step description/discussion on the math bbehind RegEM. It would be much more enlightening and useful than another “Stupid is as Stupid Does” or “A Bag of Hammers”.


    [Response: It is a good idea and I was considering it; now that I've got two requests I guess I should. It'll take some time, and I'm unusually busy these days, so I can't say exactly when...]

  • michel // February 4, 2009 at 1:57 am

    Two things that strike one:

    1) Do the models predict a warming or a cooling Antarctica? Or are they maybe compatible with either?

    2) Is CA right that Steig has screwed up one of the station histories? Not whether it matters, whether it happened.

  • dhogaza // February 4, 2009 at 2:41 am

    2) Is CA right that Steig has screwed up one of the station histories? Not whether it matters, whether it happened.

    No, they’re not right. It’s on CA, would you expect them to be right?

    One of the sources of data, maintained by BAS (British Antarctic Survey IIRC) used by Steig in his study had an error in their published data.

    In the CA world, this means Steig screwed up.


    It doesn’t matter to the results of the paper, which don’t rest on the data from the AWS stations in the first place.

  • dhogaza // February 4, 2009 at 2:42 am

    Oh, BTW, Michel, you’d know the answer to your questions if you’d read Real Climate.

    The fact that you’re asking means that you’re relying on CA rather than Real Climate for your information. If you’d read Real Climate you’d see what Eric Steig himself says, and could ask him questions directly.

    But, no, you’re wallowing at CA instead, right?

  • michel // February 4, 2009 at 9:01 am

    Folks, I do read Real Climate fairly often. Posts by the staff, that is. The comments section is probably very therapeutic for those posting, and one wishes them all well, without really wanting to observe them while they are at it.

    As for ‘wallowing’ at CA? Well, I read it too. Is there anything wrong with that?

    We should not regard this whole thing as picking a source to rely on for information. It is about reading a variety of sources with their own biases and their own strengths and quality deficiencies. Making up your own mind is what counts in this sort of public policy arena.

    So, the bottom line on the series is that yes, it is screwed up (whether by Steig or the BAS). Is that correct?

    As to the cooling prediction, what’s the story on that? That will be over easy by the way, and hold the adjectives on this order.

  • Hank Roberts // February 4, 2009 at 11:22 am

    Could have asked. Eric’s going to Antarctica.

  • luminous beauty // February 4, 2009 at 2:36 pm


    What cooling prediction?

  • michel // February 4, 2009 at 4:02 pm

    cooling prediction

    Shorthand reference to the question, whether the models predict warming, or predict cooling, or whether they are compatible with either one.

    I had the impression they predicted cooling, but maybe this is a mistake.

  • dhogaza // February 4, 2009 at 4:12 pm

    As for ‘wallowing’ at CA? Well, I read it too. Is there anything wrong with that?

    Well, a local bar used to post World Wide Weekly above its urinals before the hard copy version went defunct. You’re right, there’s nothing inherently wrong with reading such things. But believing what’s written there is a different story …

    So, the bottom line on the series is that yes, it is screwed up (whether by Steig or the BAS). Is that correct?

    There was one typo in one figure in Steig’s paper, and a problem with data from one station from BAS.

    Was the series screwed up? Not the fundamental analysis in the paper, which didn’t include data from the AWS station in question (Harry).

    Since you claim to read RC, why have you missed this, which Steig has patiently explained over there?

    Hank’s right, Steig’s off to antarctica, probably grateful to have an excuse for not reading any of the crap denialist reaction to his paper for the next month or so.

    I really pity climate scientists. Folks like Steig know that every time they publish a paper, SM and Watts and the rest are going to accuse them of being incompetent, dishonest, and tailoring their results to a political agenda.

    It would be enough to drive me to buy an Uzi and use it. These climate scientists have an amazing amount of patience with those who are bent on destroying their reputation and potentially their careers simply because they don’t are for the potential political implications of their research results.

  • t_p_hamilton // February 4, 2009 at 4:59 pm

    michel said:”

    cooling prediction

    Shorthand reference to the question, whether the models predict warming, or predict cooling, or whether they are compatible with either one.

    I had the impression they predicted cooling, but maybe this is a mistake.”

    You can correct this by investigating what the models actually say, and more importantly why, and when they said it, and over what time period is being discussed. Hint: don’t read CA for this. Realclimate is run by the experts who do this stuff, and they post this ALL of the time. Be sure to follow up on references and links when needed.

  • dhogaza // February 4, 2009 at 5:08 pm

    I had the impression they predicted cooling, but maybe this is a mistake.

    Go read the thread over at RC. The answer is there, if you’re actually interested.

  • David B. Benson // February 4, 2009 at 9:40 pm

    michel // February 4, 2009 at 9:01 am — Reading at CA is liely to induce mind-rot unless you have the ultra protective devices required to prevent it.


  • michel // February 5, 2009 at 5:13 pm

    David, its often felt that exposure to a mistaken and irrational point of view will persuade or contaminate. My own view owes a lot to J S Mill. The more exposed people are to arguments and allegations of all sorts, the more likely they are to see their way through an issue by the light of reason and evidence.

    It probably depends what sort of house you grew up in. My own mother’s approach was always that we should be free to read whatever we wanted from a huge library containing many books unsuitable for children. I look back on that approach with respect and affection. She had great trust in and respect for her childrens’ intelligence, and its an approach I would recommend.

    The only thing needed to protect one from CA’s or Open Mind’s excesses is a comittment to rational enquiry. Would that it were more common than it is!

  • dhogaza // February 5, 2009 at 6:11 pm

    The only thing needed to protect one from CA’s or Open Mind’s excesses is a comittment to rational enquiry.

    It’s that commitment, of course, that leads the rationalist to not bother reading CA. Putting CA and Open Mind in the same sentence as being somehow equivalent is offensive seeing as the first is nothing more than a collection of thinly-veiled claims that climate science is fraudulent.

    And your posts here make it clear that rather than the light of reason and evidence making the nature of CA clear to you, that you give as much or more weight to the garbage posted there as you do to actual science.

  • David B. Benson // February 5, 2009 at 6:37 pm

    michel // February 5, 2009 at 5:13 pm — Rational inquiry, of course. But it certainly helps to be informed from credible sources.

  • Frank O'Dwyer // February 5, 2009 at 7:07 pm

    There’s evidence that conservatives in particular believe misinformation more when presented with both the misinformation and its rebuttal, than when they receive the misinformation alone. See also here.

    Pretty depressing really - does it mean it is a waste of time to refute these things? Though it makes it all the more ironic that so many of them claim to be sceptics.

  • apolytongp // February 5, 2009 at 7:09 pm

    Yap: An unthinking reading of CA can lead to biased views. And there is a lot of in crowd cheering there. But the place has its points in terms of amount of posts, interesting things brought up, level of technical detail, etc. That said, I see a lot of faults with it and the major reason I don’t honor them with my comments is that they choose to stick with a biased presentation of things that I find dishonorable by “my side”. All that said, there’s some interesting shit on there at times. I don’t think it’s so impertinent to include CA and OM in the same group.

    Plus internet drama is always fun. Heck…that’s what makes wikipedia go round…

  • Ian Forrester // February 5, 2009 at 7:15 pm

    Michel said: “we should be free to read whatever we wanted from a huge library containing many books”.

    Please note that libraries have two main sections, fiction and non-fiction.

    It appears that you have rather let your mother down since you do not appear to have the intelligence (which she hoped you would have) to differentiate the two.

    Just in case you have difficulty separating them, CA is in the fiction section and Open Mind is in the factual section (aka non-fiction).

  • apolytongp // February 5, 2009 at 9:39 pm

    It sounds like RC was a little bit off in earlier saying* that the Harry station was not used at all in the reconstruction only in separate analyses. Now it sounds like when you like at the overall calculation and change that station, that there is still some way that it influences the recon (albiet incredibly minor). But still not completely mathematically extraneous.

    My prediction is that the CAers will cackle about this and ignore the teensy impact on the recon. That the RCers will not acknowledge that they were technically incorrect about the complete irrelavence. That TCO will try to act better than both sides. And that Tamino has about a 50% chance of letting this post through.


    Happy interneting! I lubs you all.

  • Hank Roberts // February 5, 2009 at 11:20 pm

    > incredibly minor). But still not
    > completely mathematically extraneous.

  • Hank Roberts // February 5, 2009 at 11:21 pm

    PS, for the guy with three userids — you understand “significant” right?

    You noticed the discussion of significant decimal places in the thread at RC, right?

    But you’re going to go with the fiction side and focus on the third decimal place, right?

    Just making sure who you really love.

  • dhogaza // February 5, 2009 at 11:35 pm

    It sounds like RC was a little bit off in earlier saying* that the Harry station was not used at all in the reconstruction only in separate analyses.

    So you’re saying that Eric Steig is lying:

    Yes. Already done it. No meaningful change (except at Harry itself of course). Furthermore, the main figures in the paper use no AWS data in the first place. None. This is totally clear in the text, if you read it. The AWS data are only a double-check on the results from the satellite data.

    That’s a serious charge.

    Prove it.

  • dhogaza // February 5, 2009 at 11:39 pm

    My prediction is that the CAers will cackle about this and ignore the teensy impact on the recon. That the RCers will not acknowledge that they were technically incorrect about the complete irrelavence.

    Oh, and by the way, Eric at RC gave actual figures for the difference in results of analysis including the two AWS stations which were in error.

    Small change, very small change.

    I fail to see why they should acknowledge that they were “technically incorrect about this SMALL CHANGE being irrelevant” to the conclusions of the paper.

    That TCO will try to act better than both sides.

    You’ve just accused Eric Steig of lying …

    [Response: Let's not bring that can of worms over here. Those who wish to get more information should go to the most reliable source: RealClimate. Those who want to sling mud have several places to choose from.]

  • Dave A // February 5, 2009 at 11:56 pm


    OT, but I can’t help noticing that the icon accompanying your posts changes on a regular basis from one bizarre photo to another.

    Are you sure its not you who has a difficulty deciding between fact and fiction?

  • Hank Roberts // February 6, 2009 at 12:29 am

    You’re a real prize, “A.”

  • Phil. // February 6, 2009 at 3:13 am

    Hank, how do you set up the avatar?

  • Philippe Chantreau // February 6, 2009 at 4:02 am

    Here is another take TCO. An interesting paper comes out and is presented at RC. It nicely adds to the body of knowledge in a way that was kinda lacking before. The “skeptics” perceive it as being on the “side” they don’t like. So they go on with their “auditing” and find a couple of insignificant errors that have essentially no consequence. None. Why should anyone care? What has been accomplished?

    [Response: I agree. But the longer we talk about this, the more effective is the attempt to cloud the issue.

    So seriously, those who want more information can go to the source: RealClimate. Those who want to hurl can go to the devil.]

  • Hank Roberts // February 6, 2009 at 4:08 am

    WordPress now pulls avatars from
    WordPress wants you to have a blog in their system to have them show up here since this is a WordPress blog, I vaguely understand. So you go to, set up an empty blog, and use the Profile to pick a file (limited to something x something pixels) that you’ve prepared on your hard drive by editing down a jpeg.

    But you may not need a WordPress account, you may be able to set the avatar up directly at Sometimes you’ll see my name show up clickable and it’ll lead to the empty blog I set up originally. Sometimes it won’t if I’m logged out of WordPress at the moment.

    I’m not sure it’s a good idea to bother with, frankly.

    I had to go log in to WordPress to look up how this works, so with this post it’ll show a clickable link behind the name and likely have pulled an avatar associated with that empty WP blog. If I’m logged out of WordPress next time, like last time, it’ll go get whatever I last used somewhere else or something from gravatar’s website. Maybe.

    Why bother? Dunno.

  • Hank Roberts // February 6, 2009 at 4:14 am

    Oh, here’s when WordPress started using those things, they bought the company:

    That’s when it got confusing because what used to be two separate systems for stuffing little pictures next to comments suddenly intertwingled and started following you around.

    I keep a folder with all the “logout” button URLs and click “open all in folder” fairly often, just to try to cut loose from the stuff. But it reconnects every time I visit a site that wants a login and forget to use the usually well concealed logout.

  • Tenney Naumer // February 8, 2009 at 8:14 pm

    Michel, all I can tell you is that whenever I go over to WUWT or CA (which is not very often) to look around, I have the distinct feeling that I have entered an alternate universe of puerile adolescent snarkers who have little scientific training, if any, and even less maturity. Give me Real Climate and Open Mind, any day!

    And what on earth do you mean by their “excesses” ?

    Goodness! I am constantly astonished at the seemingly unlimited patience with which the usual suspects are treated.

    Do you really want to learn something about the science of climate change? Keep reading here or at Real Climate — WUWT has nothing to offer but bad junk science.

  • Hank Roberts // February 9, 2009 at 6:52 am

    The “fraud” pack, citing CA, is in full voice among Marohasty’s blogging crowd, where there are attacks on Eric Steig and Peter Ward.

    It’s going to take more than a year in the lab to do the next round of paleo work even after samples are back from Antarctica and worked on in the lab sometime this Spring.

    Seems like the paleo work is really the scariest news around.

    Remember the ANDRILL program? Lots in Scholar, nothing much in the news. Anyone caught up on this?

  • michel // March 3, 2009 at 10:42 am

    Many of you seem not to understand. I have every intention of continuing to read widely, and think everyone else should too. What counts is arguments, not where they appear or who makes them. Our task is to assess arguments for ourselves. Mill’s view, which I share, was that intellectual progress for society was dependent on the public exposure of all kinds of points of view, the mistaken as well as the correct. Intellectual growth for the individual is the result of learning to think for oneself as a result of being exposed to the mistaken as well as to the correct. The whole problem is that you cannot tell until you read and think about it which is which. I do not think, as many of you do, that this is a case of taking an authority and believing it. Either this journal or RC, or CA or WUWT. It is a case of considering what is being argued on what grounds, and arriving at a conclusion.

    In the absence of coercion, mistaken points of view rarely survive long in open societies. Reason does eventually win out.

    At the moment, on the specific issue of the Steig study, there seem to be some questions to answer. I do not find it clear whether warming, cooling, neither or both is predicted by the models, so it is not clear what any proponent or opponent of AGW should expect or want the trend to be. There is no obvious case for triumphalism on either side whether the paper is judged correct or incorrect.

    There do seem to be two legitimate questions about it: first, reproducibility of the treatment of the satellite data. It does not seem that there is enough data in the public domain to reproduce this, which makes it hard to assess its merits. Second, there seems to be some question about the correctness of the use of PCA, and in particular, the question of how many components to use when applying RegEm.

    Perhaps we are now rather less sure than we were before that the Antarctic is really cooling, but I do not feel sure on this evidence that it is really proved to be warming either, and feel even less certain about what it would show if it were.

  • Hank Roberts // March 3, 2009 at 4:34 pm

    You should read more. You’re basically just telling us that you’re lost and confused. But the questions you’re expressing are answered in the FAQ over at RealClimate (the ‘Start Here’ button at top of page); the questions in the other topic are addressed by Spencer Weart’s history.

    When you just ask questions often answered elsewhere it’s an invitation to recreational typing. But you won’t get a coherent answer if some guy on a blog just types in what they recall.

    Do follow the pointers and read the science.
    It may help.

    When you post “it does not seem” — what’s your source? “I do not find it clear” — where were you looking? “Some question” — asked and answered, again by Gavin at RC today. “really cooling …” — well, read the FAQs.

    Short answer: Antarctica in models is delayed compared to the rest of the planet in showing temperature change because it’s a continental ice cap surrounded by ocean, mostly upwelling of old cold water, with a circular wind pattern.
    The delay has been observed for a long time. The temperature rise is now being detected.

    Weak signal, large natural variation, long time series used.

  • Sekerob // March 3, 2009 at 5:57 pm

    Wonder if michel knows of the narrowing Antarctic vortex, the why and temperature effect outside? Ozone depletion anything to do with that? The Antarctic initial cooling was long predicted, but has the tilting point been reached, … the silence before the storm?

  • Ken Feldman // March 3, 2009 at 8:59 pm

    Another thing to be aware of as you read more is that many of the so-call “skeptics” are either deliberately trying to confuse the issue or locked onto one issue (like urban-heaat islands) and not focused on the big picture.

    So when you see someone claiming that Antarctica can’t be warming because the study used too few data points, think to yourself if there is other data that might confirm or deny whether it’s warming.

    For example, in Antarctica, ice shelves are crumbling and there are several different studies using different measurements (altimetry, GPS, gravity differences) that show Antarctica is losing mass, that is, the ice is melting. It’s very difficult to explain how the ice shelves are crumbling and Antarctica is losing mass without Antarctica warming.

  • David B. Benson // March 3, 2009 at 10:18 pm

    Anarctica is losing ice around the edges primarily due to warmer surface water, I am given to understand. The air temperature, especially in the interior, has nothing to do with it.

    Probably the biggest reason depends upon the tightening of the circumpolar vortex, which draws up deep water faster and closer. But I certainly don’t claim to fully understand how this promotes ice loss.

  • Hank Roberts // March 3, 2009 at 11:42 pm

    OK, Andrill is starting to show up. This is info on papers coming at the April 2009 meeting:

    (found using the search string suggested a few posts back, setting ‘recent’ to 2009)

  • bluegrue // March 4, 2009 at 11:36 am


    a recent example of how WUWT works. Dr. Walt Meier of NSIDC posted a guest article, writing about the current satellite sensor issue.

    In one of his comments he explains

    3. “Global sea ice” simply has no meaning in terms of climate change. The Arctic and Antarctic are unique and separated environments that respond differently. It would be like taking a drought in Georgia and torrential rain in Maine, adding those up and claiming that “rainfall is normal” in the eastern U.S.

    He also endorses “In regards to George Will, I appreciate your inclusion of the link to Revkin’s response. I think he does a good job of explaining the issues in a clear way, so I don’t have much to add.” Well, Revkin amongst others quotes Jennifer Francis at Rutgers University with regard to summer sea ice recovery:

    This is pretty easy to explain. At the end of summer each year, the sea ice refreezes and continues to do so until late spring. Thin ice and open water generate new ice faster than thick ice, as the heat from the ocean below is able to escape more easily to the atmosphere. In the autumns of 2007 and 2008, the rate of ice production was very large because there was so much open water and thin ice — the rapid growth is completely expected.

    The other relevant piece of information is that winter ice can only extend so far in the Arctic because the ocean is surrounded almost completely by coast. Once it reaches the coast, it can’t extend any farther. …

    Guess what the next post on WUWT is? A guest post by Steven Goddard, harping on maximum sea ice extent in the Arctic and the Antarctic. Goddard does not even acknowledge the above comments by Meier or by Francis. It is enough for him, that Arctic maximum extent in the last two years was largest in this decade (this satellite has no more data), and that Antarctic summer ice shows a non significant upwards trend (watch the error in the graph, it is 1.6 times larger than the slope).

    Anthony is happy to publish it, all in the spirit of everybody needs to get his say.

  • Kevin McKinney // March 4, 2009 at 7:13 pm

    Global sea ice extent is cherry-picker’s heaven because the Arctic and Antarctic seasonal trend are almost, but not quite, exactly out of phase with one another, and because the seasonal cycles dominate all other signals in the data. This means that you can often find a point in the yearly composite cycle where global extent is above, below, or right at the baseline norm, depending upon what you are trying to prove.

    That said, the global total seems pretty clearly to have been trending down for the last several years, as the Arctic crash outweighs the slight Antarctic increase, as illustrated in this CT daily means graph for ‘79 forward:

  • Sekerob // March 4, 2009 at 7:56 pm


    Who’s interested in what Steve Goddard at WotSoUp or anywhere?

    As for extent in last 2 years as largest, not according to JAXA data. Their February mean for the last 6 years in km square

    2003 14362322 (1)
    2004 14069806 (3)
    2005 13528214 (6)
    2006 13438041 (7)
    2007 13698203 (5)
    2008 14117705 (2)
    2009 13995714 (4)

    Peak in square km EXTENT

    2003 14844063 (1)
    2004 14360313 (4)
    2005 14098906 (5)
    2006 13782344 (7)
    2007 13945625 (6)
    2008 14516875 (2)
    2009 14412500 (3, so far)

    WotSoUp has a sidebar link to JAXA sea ice chart, so that must be his seal of approval.

    Still, the state of the Extent “then” and “now” is wholly different. That would be a too inconvenient topic to discuss there.

  • Ken Feldman // March 4, 2009 at 8:22 pm

    David B. Benson,

    “Anarctica is losing ice around the edges primarily due to warmer surface water, I am given to understand. The air temperature, especially in the interior, has nothing to do with it.”

    Surface melting has been measured for decades using satellite sensors. It certainly confirms that recent years have been warmer, and that melt extent is increasing:

    “Surface melting observations in Antarctica by microwave radiometers: Correcting 26-year time series from changes in acquisition hours

    G. Picard, a, and M. Filya,

    aLaboratoire Glaciologie et Geophysique de l’Environnement (CNRS/UJF), 54 rue Moliere, 38400 St Martin d’Heres, France

    Received 21 December 2005; revised 2 May 2006; accepted 7 May 2006. Available online 17 July 2006.

    Surface melting duration and extent of the Antarctic coasts and ice-shelves is a climatic indicator related to the summer temperature and radiative budget. Surface melting is easily detectable by remote sensing using passive microwave observations. The preliminary goal of this study is to extend to 26 years an existing data set of surface melting [Torinesi, O., Fily, M., Genthon, C. (2003), Interannual variability and trend of the Antarctic summer melting period from 20 years of spaceborne microwave data, J. Climate, 16(7), pp. 1047–1060] by including the most recent years of observation. These data come from 4 microwave sensors (the Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) and three Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I)) observing the surface at different hours of the day. Since surface melting varies throughout the day as the air temperature or the radiation, the interannual melting extent and duration time series are biased by sensor changes. Using all the sensors simultaneously available since 2002, we were able to model the diurnal variations of melting and use this hourly model to correct the long-term time series. This results in an unbiased 26-year long time series better suited for climate analysis. The cooling trend found by Torinesi et al. using uncorrected time series for the 1980–1999 period is confirmed but the decreasing rate is weaker after correction. Furthermore, extending the series up to summer 2004–2005 reveals recent changes: the last 2 summers have been particularly warmer over all the East Antarctica compared to the 10 previous years, thus ending the cold period of the 1990s. The trend over 1980–2005 is no longer toward cooling but complex climatic variations appear. The time series are available at

    Also, much of this surface melt is occuring far from the oceans, at the base of the Ross Ice Shelf near the Trans-Antarctic mountains:

    “Vast Regions Of West Antarctica Melted In Recent Past, NASA Finds
    ScienceDaily (May 15, 2007) — A team of NASA and university scientists has found clear evidence that extensive areas of snow melted in west Antarctica in January 2005 in response to warm temperatures. This was the first widespread Antarctic melting ever detected with NASA’s QuikScat satellite and the most significant melt observed using satellites during the past three decades. The affected regions encompass a combined area as big as California.”

    Follow the link to an article with a map of Antarctic showing the regions where melting occurred.

  • Ken Feldman // March 4, 2009 at 8:34 pm

    However, I agree with David B. Benson upthread where he states that ocean temps are much more important for WAIS stability than air temps. And the news on the ocean front is not good, especially with regard to the Pine Island Glacier, which terminates in the Admunsen Sea.

    “e360: Are you saying that the rate of acceleration of the Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers is so rapid because of changes at their seaward ends, and so much more ice is coming off the continent into the water that this obviously is going to impact sea level rise?

    Bindschadler: That’s an important point and an issue that was hotly debated in the glaciological community for the last twenty years — this idea of, do the ice shelves matter to the ice upstream that is grounded, in regards to sea level rise? But in the Antarctic Peninsula, we finally got a definitive answer, because there the perfect natural experiment was run for us and we got to observe it, where these ice shelves like the Larsen B rapidly disintegrated over the course of just a few weeks. It was there, then it’s not there, and we were able to see that the glaciers that fed that ice shelf accelerated dramatically, more than 500 percent in just a couple years. So, that really settled the debate, told us that, yes, the ice shelves do buttress the ice upstream, and if you get rid of the ice shelf, the ice upstream really accelerates and it comes running into the ocean, and it will change sea level. In the case of Pine Island and Thwaites, the ice shelf hasn’t disintegrated, but it’s thinning quite rapidly, so it’s gradually going away and allowing the ice upstream to accelerate more and more.

    e360: And in the theoretical case that Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers completely dump into the ocean — obviously it’s not going to happen in the near-future — what kind of sea level rise would they contribute to?

    Bindschadler: That portion of West Antarctica, that third that flows northward primarily through those two glaciers, has the potential to raise sea level 1 ½ meters. That’s sort of an upper bound, a worst case. But the time scale is what really matters. Some say that we won’t see these ice shelves disappear in our lifetime — I’m not so sure. I think we might well.

    e360: Are you kidding?

    Bindschadler: No, no at all.

    e360: When you think how cold Antarctica is, with a polar plateau that’s two to three miles thick, all ice, one would think it’s going to be thousands of years before the main part of the continent would start to feel the effects of warming. But you’re saying, not at all.

    Bindschadler: Maybe not. There is still some debate about that. If there’s one place on the planet that is still sort of isolated from that global signal, it is Antarctica. The circulation of the ocean and the atmosphere around the Southern Ocean tends to isolate the main body of Antarctica, while at the same time, the peninsula is sensitively exposed to it. The jury is still out asSome say that we won’t see these ice shelves disappear in our lifetime — I’m not so sure.”to how rapidly that warming is going to penetrate the main continent, but the most recent results say that West Antarctica has been warming, too. The underside of the ice sheet and the ice shelves are vulnerable spots, and that’s what our project is addressing. And that just goes back to what I said earlier — there’s also heat in the intermediate layers of the Southern Ocean, and certainly at Pine Island and Thwaites. We’re firmly of the opinion that heat is getting to the ice and causing these major changes. So even if you isolate Antarctica somewhat on the surface from global warming, there’s this back door where heat is still getting to this part of the ice sheet.

    e360: So what you’re saying is that with Pine Island and Thwaites, these changes are primarily due not to air temperatures, but to small increases in sea temperature?

    Bindschadler: That’s right. And it’s not so much that the water is getting warmer, it’s just where the warm water resides is being lifted up. And we think that’s due to increased winds . . . You’re kind of pushing the surface water out of the way, so deeper water has to come up to replace it. So you get an increased upwelling of that warmer water. And so now you’ve delivered that extra heat, and you’ve set the stage, then, for the increased melting and thinning of the ice shelves, and the acceleration of the ice sub-stream into the ocean. ”

    My original point of checking physical (and biological) measurements to confirm or refute warming signals is still valid. While the Antarctic vortex may play a role in the warming of West Antarctica, it is pretty clear that it is warming, despite the efforts of Steven McIntyre and the yahoos at Climate Audit to say otherwise.

  • mauri pelto // March 4, 2009 at 10:19 pm

    I reviewed a paper last week on Pine Island Glacier. The paper had the first field based measurements and they indicate the acceleration is ongoing and accompanied by increased thinning and both are most pronounced nearer the terminus. So it seems a reduction in backstress due to recent retreat is a problem. What is more of a problem is the current groundling line for the Pine Island Glacier is at the start of a flat region, so the grounding line can retreat easily another 25 kn, then a basin occurs and grounding line retreat—read lots of calving would commence.

  • bluegrue // March 4, 2009 at 11:26 pm

    Sekerob // March 4, 2009 at 7:56 pm

    Who’s interested in what Steve Goddard at WotSoUp or anywhere?

    I only brought this up as an example of the lack of quality of the usual WUWT posts for Michel, who had earlier pointed to WUWT as reading material. Maybe I was able to open Michel’s eyes, maybe not. It is just depressing to see, how many people consider WUWT to be a reliable source.

  • Vernon // March 6, 2009 at 7:40 pm

    Ryan O in the comments seems to be able to prove that the warming shown is an artifact in Dr. Steig’s study. You may want to read and comment on it but what I got out of it was that not enough PCs were selected in order to geographically present the temperature trends and that the Antarctic Penna warming was being ’smeared’ over the rest of Antarctica. starting with comment 369.

    I get the impression he is right since the tread ending without him being proven wrong.

    [Response: It's true that not enough PCs are included to represent the small-scale variations which include the extreme warming of the Antarctic Peninsula. But you must not have read all the comments, or didn't read carefully enough, because this is acknowledged by Steig et al. As for "the warming shown is an artifact" -- that's as wrong as it gets.]

  • dhogaza // March 6, 2009 at 11:24 pm

    I get the impression he is right since the tread ending without him being proven wrong.

    Only if you ignore Gavin’s inline responses.

  • sidd // March 7, 2009 at 5:55 pm

    Mr. Pelto, you mention that you reviewed a paper on PIG. Could you disclose where it will appear ?


  • Timothy Chase // March 7, 2009 at 11:58 pm

    Vernon wrote:

    Ryan O in the comments seems to be able to prove that the warming shown is an artifact in Dr. Steig’s study. You may want to read and comment on it but what I got out of it was that not enough PCs were selected in order to geographically present the temperature trends and that the Antarctic Penna warming was being ’smeared’ over the rest of Antarctica. starting with comment 369

    I get the impression he is right since the tread ending without him being proven wrong.

    dhogaza responded:

    Only if you ignore Gavin’s inline responses.

    In particular, the inline response to the very next comment (370) — which addresses the very issue Vernon claims there was no response to:

    Response: You appear to under some mis-apprehension here. Neither the PCA nor the RegEm methodologies know anything about physical location. Thus any correlation between stations, or similar weightings for a particular mode occur because there are real correlations in time. There can be no aphysical ’smearing’ simply because of physical closeness in the absence of an actual correlation. Higher order modes are not distinguishable from noise and so shouldn’t be used (whatever the cut-off point), but the remaining modes define the spatial scales at which the reconstruction is useful. And that is roughly at the semi-continental scale in this case. Making strong statements about smaller regions would not be sensible, though the pointwise validation scores in held back data given in the supp. mat. indicate that there there might not be much of a problem. - gavin

  • Hank Roberts // March 8, 2009 at 3:30 am

    To quote Joe Romm, quite recently: “[... you can certainly post long-debunked disinformation on the web, but just not here. It is a calculated effort to confuse some and waste the time of others.]”

    Any relation?

  • dhogaza // March 8, 2009 at 4:32 am

    Nice follow-up, Timothy, but Vernon’s a drive-by.

    Not clear he’s worth the effort other than to point out he’s a liar, which anyone reading the Real Climate thread will understand …

    Vernon’s an ancient troll, whose skills have not improved with age.

  • Timothy Chase // March 8, 2009 at 5:54 pm

    dhogaza wrote:

    Nice follow-up, Timothy, but Vernon’s a drive-by.

    Not clear he’s worth the effort other than to point out he’s a liar, which anyone reading the Real Climate thread will understand…

    It was what I had to offer at the time. Besides, I didn’t like how he linked to the thread — only to the comments, not to the main article. Responding gave me a chance to correct that.

Leave a Comment