Unfortunately, Dr. Spencer has a history of getting these graphs wrong.

Additionally, it should be noted that Dr. Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting". His use as an expert on climate matters is significantly diminished by that public declaration that "god will fix it for us". If his signing of that declaration is sincere, he is no longer performing scientific research.

That doesn't explain record sea ice extents at a time when it is claimed that ocean, not particularly land, temperature is increasing. I'm not trying to claim it's irrelevant. But it certainly does not seem sufficient. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

There are reasons to doubt the land ice melting connection to Antarctic sea ice, but I don't think that's one of them. I mentioned real reasons by citing Swart and Fyfe 2013, Polvani and Smith 2013 and referencing fig. 2 and fig. 4(e) from Parkinson and Cavalieri 2012 (PDF).

But ocean warming is sufficient to thin West Antarctic ice sheets, as I've explained:

"West Antarctica is among the most rapidly warming regions on Earth, with an ice sheet that's vulnerable to the warming oceans because it's mainly grounded below sealevel."

"Because West Antarctica juts out into the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC), those warming waters are thinning its ice sheet at an accelerating rate. ... Its ice sheet is also mainly grounded below sealevel, making it more vulnerable to the warming oceans than the East's which is mainly grounded above sealevel."

The fact that West Antarctica is mainly grounded below sealevel means that ocean warming causes rapid land ice thinning there. Also, the fact that the bedrock is deeper farther inland from the grounding line has "interesting" consequences. See Rignot et al. 2014 and Joughin et al. 2014.

Manabe was 14 years ago. Conditions have changed rather significantly in that time, as has our understanding of the geology. It may be that Manabe is still correct. On the other hand, it may not. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

No, Jane. Manabe et al. 1991 was 24 years ago. The fact that Manabe was 24 years ago is exactly why I've repeatedly showed it to you. They predicted that Antarctic sea ice would increase in a warming world, but you keep insisting that "The science is faulty at its roots. The models haven’t predicted one thing, in 30+ years. ... You don’t really need to know anything about the science except that IT HASN’T PREDICTED ANYTHING. That makes it bad theory. ... CO2 warming theory has predicted NOTHING."

In addition to the other 17 reasons I gave you, don't you think this is another reason you should reconsider making these baseless accusations?

I've told Jane and economart that Fig. 2(a) from Polyak et al. 2010 shows that the reconstructed Arctic sea ice extent in the 1930s was comparable to that in 1979, and the modern decline is quite clear.

You seem to feel that what "you told people" is necessarily truth. That's an interesting point of view. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

Huh? Jane, I just gave you links to peer-reviewed long-term reconstructions of Arctic sea ice extent in response to your insinuations that scientists are deliberately misleading. In response, Jane tries to guess at my feelings about what I "told people".

Instead, you might find it more productive to click on those links and learn about peer-reviewed long-term reconstructions of Arctic sea ice extent. Then maybe you'll be in a better position to judge whether you should dare to accuse scientists of deliberately misleading.

I've also repeatedly explained that Jane's accusations of deliberately misleading cherry-picking are completely backwards. As usual.

You are implying that my statement that 1981 was near a temporal local maximum is incorrect? You would rather use 1930 as your starting point? As opposed to, say, 2000 or 1850? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

Good grief, Jane. Once again, I'd rather use all the available data. In the context of using a single dataset, that means using all the data in that dataset. That's why it's so ironic that Jane baselessly accused Layzej of cherry-picking when he loaded the entire UAH dataset, then Jane suggested only using data since 1998. But Jane obviously won't ever be able to grasp this irony, because he just did the same thing again.

In a broader context, a single dataset is just part of the picture. That's why I linked to longer-term reconstructions like Polyak et al. 2010 and Kinnard et al. 2011. In both papers, the modern decline in Arctic sea ice is quite clear. It's not clear that 1981 was near a temporal local maximum in Polyak et al.'s Fig. 2(a), either for the minimum or maximum sea ice extent. It's not even clear that this changes if we instead take seriously Jane's previous accusations that scientists "cherry-picked" data from 1979 instead of 1981.

...antarctic sea ice is at or near a record high... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

I've repeatedly told you this is consistent with Manabe et al. 1991 page 811: "... sea surface temperature hardly changes and sea ice slightly increases near the Antarctic Continent in response to the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide."

... it's a bit of a mystery to me how they can claim that ice is melting due to unusual ocean warming, when we know that ocean surface ice has been at record levels. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

I've explained that Manabe et al. attributed the slight Antarctic sea ice increase to increased precipitation in the area. This freshens the frigid surface water and reduces mixing with the warmer water below. Other possibilities include stronger winds which spread out the ice and expose more surface water to be frozen.

Correction: arctic ice is below 1 standard deviation from 1981-2010 average, but within 2 std. deviations. Still, remember that 1981 is a (dare I say deliberately chosen?) high point from which to start measurements, so going by the 1981-2010 average is probably a bit misleading. And the total global ocean ice is still well above normal, because of the record high Antarctic ice right now. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

I've told Jane and economart that Fig. 2(a) from Polyak et al. 2010 shows that the reconstructed Arctic sea ice extent in the 1930s was comparable to that in 1979, and the modern decline is quite clear.

I've also repeatedly explained that Jane's accusations of deliberately misleading cherry-picking are completely backwards. As usual.

If your lawyer tells you that is "exetrmely likely" that you get more than half your money back, and that his best estimate is that you'll get all of it. Do you then conclude that you'll only get half?

Your problem is you are applying informal English assumptions to a formal document, and then using that to try to discount the very next sentence in the same paragraph.

Read it again:

The evidence for human influence on the climate system has grown since the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period (Figure SPM.3).

The words "Extremely likely" qualify that there is a between 90% to 100% certainty that the statement is accurate, and as you should be aware, 100% is more than half. You are merely pretending that there is a different meaning because you don't want to acknowledge that you are incredibly and spectacularly wrong and that you are embarrassing yourself in public.

That's not an ad hominem or a smear attempt, it's an insult, because you are a ridiculously stubborn moron. I can only imagine how much trouble you have typing due to the puddles forming on your keyboard. How anybody conclude that you are anything but an idiot? When you are presented with clear evidence of your error, you choose to pretend the words don't mean what they mean, instead of admitting that you made a mistake. Frankly, I'm giving you more respect that you deserve.

I can't have a serious discussion with you if you believe racist things. No one intellectually honest and capable can have a serious discussion with a racist, because it is only possible to believe in racist things if you are of low intellect. Objectively true. To correlate skin color and intellect is gross prejudice composed of logical fallacies. It is ironic too (you need to be low iq to commit to the fallacies and believe this arbitrary link between skin color and intellect).

I can't have a serious discussion with a creationist or an antivaxxer or a ufo cultist either. Because to firmly believe these things is only possible if you are a person with a serious defect in intellect. I'm being 100% serious and sincere. You are a stupid person. Objectively true based on you having a racist belief. You are not worth the time of anyone serious, and you will never find the "fair" airing of your thoughts that you seek because everyone intelligent has discarded your entire domain. No one intellectually honest is interested in indulging and entertaining an idiot's idea. And that is exactly what racism is: the "thoughts" of the dumb people.

And if you want to improve the gene pool: don't have children. Again, I am completely sincere. You are a dumb person. To have a racist belief is only possible if you are.

You disrespect people based on the color of their skin. Therefore you deserve no respect. You withhold respect for ignorant reasons. You see a skin color, and make a baseless judgment on intellect and character from that. Which, ironically, is proof you are unintelligent and of low character. Because to believe racist thoughts is only possible if you lack cognitive capacity in certain areas of reasoning and social intelligence, and if you have bad intent on society and individuals in general.

You're a disrespectful asshole, so you get nothing but insults and disrespect in return. You get what you give you ignorant douchebag.

Want to improve the gene pool? Don't have children. I mean that sincerely. The quality of your words here belies low intellect and low character on your part, objectively speaking.

This is nothing more than vapid posturing. You don't like the site because it's regularly used to prove how wrong you are.

The is absolutely no ambiguity in the report you complete and utter moron. It's right there in black and white. You just choose to ignore the words in front of your face because you are a god-damned idiot.

let us say, just for the sake of argument (i don't really believe your ignorance), that skin color and race are correlated somehow

it's a bell curve. you understand that, right?

so, for example, we have on one end one of the most cerebral presidents we've maybe ever had, at least since wilson: barack obama. obviously more intelligent than the vast majority of white people, as well as black people. more intelligent than people of all races, period

what is the value, exactly, of saying that because his skin is brown, that we have to ascribe some sort of negative modifier on how we perceive his intelligence, just because a bunch of other people who are brown are supposedly less intelligent on average?

intelligence is an INDIVIDUAL value. it does no good to class all people according to an arbitrary signifier. if you were interviewing a bunch of people for computer programmer, and disregarded the ones with brown skin because they were "less intelligent," you might have hired a dumb white person and disregarded the black genius. it does no good to you, nevermind black people, to use this shallow useless prejudice, because it doesn't actually help you. an INDIVIDUAL assessment is what matters

for example: most african americans have scottish, irish, english, etc. blood in them, because a lot of their forebearers were raped. therefore, a lot of white people were doing a lot of raping. therefore, according to racist "thinking," we should assume all white people are rapists, because we can prove they rape a lot ( i don't believe this, i'm just demonstrating your ignorance to you)

i'm not really sure this argument is worth having with you though, because i doubt you have enough intellectual capacity to appreciate the argument, since it requires a low iq to believe in racism. by believing in racism, and all of the logical fallacies that come with it, you have objectively proven to me that you are a stupid person. i don't respect you

Given you demonstrated inability to read an understand entire paragraphs, I sincerely doubt that the summaries are at odds with the reports as often as you believe them to be. I find it more likely that are motivated to see disagreements where there are none.

Here's a link to the latest report (pdf): https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assess...

It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together"

Did you finish reading the paragraph? Apparently not. The next line says:

The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period (Figure SPM.3).

Then did you look at the graph? Apparently not. The graph shows total anthropogenic warming as higher than observed warming.

What else should I call someone who takes a single sentence out of context and tries to use it to prove the exact opposite of what his source says? You are categorically, 100% wrong. The source you chose to support your argument explicitly and in plain english says that I am right and you are wrong. Then they put a graph next to it to reinforce that fact, and somehow you manage to miss both? You're wasting my time, jackass.

Because you choose to act like an ass? Your only source explicitly says you're wrong, so why are you wasting my time?

Here's a tip: If you want to provide evidence of a trend, you need more than 1 data point.

Same here, this is a claim of a different trend with exactly one data point.

Personally, I wouldn't use a blog post that speculates about what a not-yet-released report might say as evidence for my case.

The problem is that people like you who apparently wouldn't know science if it bit them on the ass, keep claiming that good science is bad and bad science is good, then you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of having no integrity...

That is one very long bitch-fest with a lot of argument by anecdote. The author is clearly angry and ranting, but frankly, I didn't see any point where he quantified the impact of his findings. The approach seems to be to throw accusation after accusation and then claim that the study must be garbage because of the number of accusations thrown at it. Additionally, when the author immediately makes the accusation of fraud whenever he discovers an error, it only serve to discredit his position and demonstrate a strong bias. I strongly suspect the reason why the author has gotten very little response from the journal is that he failed to show that the errors that he discovered were material to the results. Almost 12,000 papers were categorised, if 20 of them were categorised or improperly included then that's an error rate of 0.16%, which is an acceptable margin of error for most endeavours. Lastly, the author of that rant seems to engage in the same kind of selective reading and selective reasoning that you demonstrate here as well. The paper explicitly says that "Raters were then allowed to compare and justify or update their rating through the web system, while maintaining anonymity", and yet much of the linked blog post is ranting about the SkS people talking about comparing and justifying their ratings. I looked at a number of the accusations and what I found was that the sentences were often taken out of context and blatantly wrong accusations made about them, which frankly makes it look like the author is significantly more fraudulent than the fraud he's claiming to have found.

Additionally, you moved the goalposts here, I was talking about the SkS site which you claim is "really, really bad" but to show that you had to link to a site criticising a paper produced by some of the people at SkS. A study and their entire site are not the same thing at all, which just makes this seem like a smear attempt, an ad hominem, if you will. Dick moves like this are why you don't get respect, you just come off as an asshat who's trying to "win" at any cost.

what i find interesting is that people who ascribe moronic connections: skin color and intelligence, for example, are, by definition of making that ignorant connection and taking it seriously, stupid people. you have to be low iq to be racist. so when they prescribe exclusionary social engineering to "fix" society of the problem of undesireables, they should take their own medicine and not breed, thereby vastly increasing the iq of the population. that's some good eugenics to improvie the "race"

besides, most african americans aren't really african: too many of them were raped. analyze any of their genetics and chances are you find german, irish, english, etc heritage

so, by the "logic" of how racists think, the real race problem is that all europeans are rapists. i don't believe that. i'm just demonstrating how fucking ignorant and low iq racist "thinking" is

what's crazier than lame algorithms is trolls and racists having so much time and energy to devote to mental vomit generation

when attempting to understand something pathetic and useless, do not think "it has to be a machine," you give humanity too much credit. never underestimate how much of a depraved loser someone can become

The .gov says it won't be used against researchers.... until it is.

Why does GM claim we only license our cars?

http://boingboing.net/2015/05/21/gm-says-you-dont-own-your-ca.html