One observation can disprove a theory. Or at least it should.
Often, an observation that does not fit the contemporary understanding or formulation of a theory suggests it's more complicated than than was first thought. A strong theory will be able to accomodate it. A weak one is more likely to succumb.
The fact that Mann's hockey stick temperature graph is trash
Odd, this obsession with Mann's graph. There are others,
and we've been over this ground.
and that the 1930's were the hottest period of the last C(entury)
Perhaps as averaged for the USA, per Hansen's paper, but not globally, also per Hansen's paper. This too has been pointed out. Why do you choose to focus on 2% of the Earth's surface, when Hansen gives reasons why the average for the USA behaved as it did, and ignore the graph for the rest of the globe? And, Hansen also drew attention to the within-USA variation. (see graph)
and that temperatures are declining in the face of increasing CO2
not globally (see graph)
or that there is little evidence that antartica is anywhere but at maximum sea ice this winter
And no one is disputing this. The last IPCC report (Chapter 15, working group 2) states
"There has been no overall change in Antarctic sea-ice extent over the period 1973-1996. . .
. . but thickening of the Antarctic ice sheet due to increased precipitation, were projected.
elsewhere, same chapter:
Recent changes in volume of the Antarctic ice sheet are much better mapped and understood than they were in the TAR, but competing theories over the causes still limits confidence in prediction of the future changes. . .
. . . Studies based on satellite observations do not provide unequivocal evidence concerning the mass balance of the East Antarctic ice sheet; some appear to indicate marginal thickening (Davis et al., 2005), while others indicate little change (Zwally et al., 2005; Velicogna and Wahr, 2006;Wingham et al., 2006).
And chapter 4 of working group 1 reported:
There is a significant decreasing trend in arctic sea ice extent of –33 ± 7.4 × 103 km2 yr–1 (equivalent to –2.7 ± 0.6% per decade), whereas the antarctic results show a small positive trend of 5.6 ± 9.2 × 103 km2 yr–1 (0.47 ± 0.8% per decade), which is not statistically significant. . . .In summary, the antarctic data provide evidence of a decline in sea ice extent in some regions, but there are insufficient data to draw firm conclusions about hemispheric changes prior to the satellite era.
("Some regions" is a reference some antarctic subregions having more ice and others less)
And, interestingly, after discussing the Velicogna and Wahr paper that prompted this thread, the IPCC report stresses that the error terms in some of the mass balance papers are estimated, rather than the result of formal statistical derivations. So they seem very cautious in making statements about ice loss in Antartica (except for the peninsula). BTW, I've read that paper, and it seems to me there is a lot of estimating in it, but at least it's an effort to quantify what's going on there.
Any anomalies at the north pole can be explained by either normal variations or changes in ocean circulation. It does not necessarily indicate "catastrophic climate change".
Care to explain what is changing the ocean circulation?
due no doubt to high temperatures in the 1930's (see graph)
but then they go way beyond the data to say:
"The fact that recent changes to Greenland's ice sheet mirror its behavior nearly 70 years ago is increasing researchers' confidence and alarm as to what the future holds. Recent warming around the frozen island actually lags behind the global average warming pattern by about 1-2 degrees C but if it fell into synch with global temperatures in a few years, the massive ice sheet might pass its “threshold of viability” – a tipping point where the loss of ice couldn't be stopped.
You attached Hansen's USA graph, but fail to show his global temperature graph. Why is that? The USA and global temperatures both rose through the 1920s, and the 1930's were warmer than the 1920s. Since you choose to show US temperatures, perhaps as a proxy for Greenland (?), then you'll note the increase in US temperatures has not been as great since the 1970s as for the rest of the globe. All they are suggesting is that if Greenland temperatures begin to behave in synch with global temperatures as they did back then, the already increased rate of melting will accelerate. Current science would probably take into account things such as the change in albedo as more land is exposed.
This is not science, it is a green cult, and it is likely, should current temperature trends continue to fall, to damage science very badly
You should examine a larger area of the globe than just USA for your temperature data. (see graph)
I haven't found a convenient copy of Hansen's global chart to link to, but the one I've attached shows the same basic thing. Credit:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki...ure_Record_png