This confirms other recent researches.

Faithful unbelievers will never agree and they will continue to use their Hummers, wood stoves, oil furnaces and cheaper electrcity from coal fired power plants.

Unfortunately, future major changes will probably not happen during their lifetime.

Their children and grand children may be around to see and live through it unless the trend can be reversed.

One little glitch: according to both instrumental records (from about 20 meteo stations) and satellite measurements (carried out from 1979) temperature of Antarctica dropped by correspondingly about 0.1 and 0.4 C per decade. One exception is Antarctic peninsula, representing about 3% of Antarctic landmass and situated, actually, out of Polar circle.

Both continental and sea ice are at record high, beginning from 1960s, when regular measurements commenced.

IPCC is bunch of pathological liars, and confirms it again and again.

Mister Lievin

It is not because you are in global warming denial like Sarah Palin (though you seem less stupid than she is) that it gives you the right to insult the IPCC. And it is not because you are in denial that it means that what you think is right. There is no contradiction between a increase of the ice at the very core of the antarctic and a global warming, the increase of water evaporated by the warming means more snow falls in the coolest region of the globe. That is also true for the mountain glaciers, the glacier below 3000m are literally collapsing when the glacier above 3000m are stable or even growing. So do your resarch before insulting people who know more than you.

Jees, Treehugger.

The guys adjusted their computer models to fit existed data, and claim that it is verification of their theory. It is already enough to strip them from all their diplomas and charge them for fraud in the court of law.

Not even counting casual lie that Antarctica is warming…

So what's wrong ?

I see it as a quite rigrous approach to compare a simulation model with past climate history based on existing record data, what better proof of validity. If your model correctly predict the past climate it is a good tool to evaluate future evolution of the climate, right? at least with some degree of confidence. I don't see anything fraudulent here. They adjsuted their parameter to fit actual data, of course any complex simulation do that, a purely phenomenological model can be an accurate prediction tool if it is correctly fitted, and then again what's wrong ?

Do you deny the collapse of the mountain glaciers below 3000 meters ?

Glaciers:

There are estimated 160 000 glaciers worldwide, from which only about 67 000 have been inventoried, and only about 200 for which mass balance data exists for more than one year. NOBODY knows what is really going on with glaciers on global scale.

Modeling:

Nothing wrong with attempts to fit models to existed data. However, only the model which consistently produces right predictions of the FUTURE could be called “verified”. So far, all climate models spectacularly failed to predict correctly anything.

Claiming that model is verified because it “predicted the past” is scientific fraud.

The only fraud I see is your brutal denial, you know there is still people who maintain that the theory of evolution is a fraud more than 100 years after it was discovered. You are the type of person whoe will still claiming that global warming is a fraud when every coastline inhabitants will have their feets in the water and that snow have diseapaired from any middle mountain or whatever evidence eyou can bring. Unless you have a stake in coal industry or something like that I can't explain your blind denial.

No, Treehugger, unfortunately I do not have stake in coal industry:

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=BTU#chart3:symbol=btu;range=5y;compare=xom+^dji;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined

The supposed large increase in antarctica is a very small measured increase that is within the bounds of the margin of error for the observations for antarctica(NSIDC). A held theory for this is the warming is increasing the moisture levels causing more snow and that the ozone hole is creating favourable wind patterns. This doesn't stop the west antarctic pennisula from huge increases in temp and so far threatening breakup of its ice sheet.

The figures Levin puts forth for glaciers and the uncertainty he tries to raise with them is disingenuous. The observations we do have on glaciers is fairly extensive and the fact is what we have is a good general representation of what is happening. Statistical analysis is used for this. You don't have to measure every single glacier. They are all experiencing the same environmental conditions.

None of the scientific databases that hold information on glaciers support A Levin's belief. NSIDC, GLIMS, WMS, WGMS, etc.

http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/

From 2001. Observational data suggests that although hard inventoried numbers may not exist, many glaciers are being shrinking.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/05/010529235344.htm

Lastly UN global sheet on glacial ice balances

http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/

From it
"...detailed information on about
100 000 glaciers, and digital outlines for about 62 000
glaciers...

...database on glacier fluctuations includes
36 240 length change observations from 1803 glaciers
as far back as the late 19th century, as well as about
3 400 annual mass balance measurements from 226
glaciers covering the past six decades"

This is highly different than Andrey's assertions on the limits of our glacial data.

A Levin's attempt to circumvent the scientific process by his attitude towards modeling is telling. You create a theoretical model to test, whether mathematical, or not and check the findings and/or consequences. In the case of evolution, it is in the fossil record. It is the same with climate models by checking past observations or in spatial terms, with astrophysics by checking things with telescopes. Direct observation in such situations is clearly not feasible. In the early nineties, climate models did correctly extrapolate global temperature change due to a volcanic eruption.

If the scientific process of AGW was as faulty as A. Levin proposses then it wouldn't be gaining tracking in the scientific community. It wouldn't be accepted by every recognized scientific organization around the world.