text:
Reader comments are listed below. Comments are currently closed and new comments are no longer being accepted.
I think its time to stop this "climate tourism" and discuss a real deal. Let's be realistic: We must adjust our risk assessment and really study and plan how to adapt. Once developed countries will not stop emmiting and developing countries use this fact to ask for money, let's stop joking about the future of the race. Adapt, and that's all, as our species had done since we descend from the trees.
UN Climate Summit Ends In Disgrace
Date: December 10th, 2012
The Kyoto Protocol, "Ineffectual Walking Dead Climate Treaty"
"Climate negotiators at the most recent conference on global warming were unable to reduce expectations fast enough to match the collapse of their agenda."
"The only real winners here were the bureaucrats in the diplomacy industry for whom endless rounds of carbon spewing conferences with no agreement year after year mean jobs, jobs, jobs."
What's this? It's not about Saving the Planet? It's all about funding an extravagant lifestyle for a bunch of Bureaucrats with no accountability and no one held responsible for outcomes. I'm shocked!
As Mel Brooks says in Blazing Saddles, "We've got to do something to protect our phoney-baloney jobs!
''NEVER let it be said that climate-change negotiators lack a sense of the absurd. Thousands of politicians, tree-huggers and journalists descended on Doha this week, adding their mite of hot air to the country that already has the world's highest level of carbon emissions per head.''
I wonder why these people don't hold their little worthless get to gathers in places such as Dar es Salaam, Tanzania so that they could get a real sense of how life would be like if some of these hypocrites had their way, but we know that they would not allow their life styles to be effected in any way. Last year I was in Tanzania and Dar es Salaam where the electrical power is predictable, it will be off most of the time, and transportation for most folks is about what it was centuries ago, foot power, donkey power, and now a few motor cycles and very few cars.
What these folks do not get is that at the present time there is nothing to keep them leading the kind of lifestyle that they demand without fossil fuels, hydro power or nuclear power. Wind and solar are who knows how many generations from doing the job, it is doubtful if they ever can, and how many miles have your ever ridden in an electrically powered modern passenger plane that people seem to enjoy riding to various stupid get to gathers to ''save the planet'' such as previous talks held in Durban, South Africa, in 2011; Cancún, Mexico, in 2010; and Copenhagen in 2009; [that sure worked out well for the fools when they, using a fleet of jets to get there and back to where ever they came from, after hiring every limousine in Europe, drinking an ocean of booze and bring whores in from all over the world, had one of the worst blizzards in many years to hit both Europe and the US in 2009 and Obama had to be driven to the Whitehouse because the chopper could not fly] One notices that conditions are normally pretty nice where ever these totally worthless talks are held that accomplish nothing.
Most folks understand that these farces have nothing to do with the climate but everything to do with money and control.
''One of the thorniest issues at this year's talks was money, which has often bedeviled these affairs. In the 20 years since these conferences have taken place, countries have been split into two often-warring camps: the small number of wealthy nations that provide money to help deal with the effects of global warming, and the much larger group of poorer states that receive it.'' http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html
If it was about their devil ''CO2'' that the poorly thought out Kyoto accord was supposed to deal with, then why wasn't the fact that the United States, who wisely failed to sign on to this piece of wasted paper has this to report:
''U.S. carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions resulting from energy use during the first quarter of 2012 were the lowest in two decades for any January-March period. Normally, CO2 emissions during the year are highest in the first quarter because of strong demand for heat produced by fossil fuels. However, CO2 emissions during January-March 2012 were low due to a combination of three factors:
A mild winter that reduced household heating demand and therefore energy use
A decline in coal-fired electricity generation, due largely to historically low natural gas
Reduced gasoline demand
It appears that their AGW, that is not occurring, could produce some beneficial side effects such as mild winters and now they believe that producing electricity using gas instead of coal is great when in the rest of the world, many of the vehicles are powered by LNG which would certainly cause a drop in the demand for imported oil because petroleum produces less than .8% of the US's electricity; and, since people can't afford to buy gasoline and diesel, the demand for these taken for granted products will fall.
I wonder why this sounds so much like Big Tobacco producing "good science" to demonstrate that smoking did not cause cancer ? Let me think.....
Ban Ki-moon welcomes outcome of UN Climate Change Conference, and said we need "accelerate action" yet he deferred to 2015 ????
In my opinion
We need to replace the fossil fuel power plants, the primary source of GHG. Now!
At a scale required to accomplish this task :
Ethanol starves people : not a viable option.
Fracking releases methane : not a viable option.
Cellulose Bio Fuel Uses Food Land : not a viable option
Solar uses food land : Not a viable option
Wind is Intermittent : Not a viable option
All Human and Agricultural Organic Waste can be converted to hydrogen, through exposure intense radiation!
The Radioactive Materials exist now, and the Organic waste is renewable daily.
Ending the practice of dumping sewage into our water sources.
Air, Water, Food and Energy issues, receive significant positive impacts .
Reducing illness / health care costs as well !
Dennis Baker
Penticton BC
Canada V2A1P9
What can wake the world up? How about a list of cities and environs that are pretty close to being totally doomed by the sheer unstoppable momentum of rising sea levels:
Shanghai and it's coastal plain,
Miami and south Florida,
Sacramento and a million acres of prime farm land,
New Orleans and the whole Gulf Coast,
New York and Barrier Islands,
London, Dublin, Rotterdam, Amsterdam,
Dubai, Abu Dhabi,
etc. etc.
MY, MY windship; I certainly hope that you do not have the big one worrying about something that you obviously have not researched at all and that is sea level rise. Where did you get your flawed information from? Since you do not appear to look anything, up I will present this information for you.
You can get some VALID information at these sites to prevent you from immediately moving to higher ground.
''Other studies have found that, while there has been a small rise in sea-levels over the past century, the rate of the rise did not accelerate at all.
A 2010 German paper analyzing long-term tide gauge records over the period 1900-2006 found no "significant acceleration" in sea level rise.
A 2007 analysis of sea-level records over the period 1903-2003 found that the rate of sea-level rise was in fact higher in the first half of the 20th century than in the latter half.
And a 2011 analysis by U.S. experts of 57 tide gauges, each having data recorded over periods of between 60 and 156 years, found no acceleration in sea level rise, but on the contrary, a small deceleration.''
If you go to the 2011 analysis by U.S. experts of 57 tide gauges you will find this information in a PDF:
''They say that the inflexion point around 1920–30 is
the main contributor to acceleration from 1870 to 2004.
Woodworth et al. (2009) concluded there was consensus among
the authors that acceleration occurred from around 1870 to the
end of the 20th century; however, with the major acceleration
occurring prior to 1930, the sea-level rise (Figure 1) appears
approximately linear from 1930 to 2004. Church and White
(2006) did not separately analyze this specific period.''
''Reconstruction of regional mean sea level anomalies from tide gauges using neural networks The global mean sea level for the period January 1900 to December 2006 is estimated to rise at a rate of 1.56 ± 0.25 mm/yr which is reasonably consistent with earlier estimates, but we do not find significant acceleration. The regional mean sea level of the single ocean basins show mixed long-term behavior. While most of the basins show a sea level rise of varying strength there is an indication for a mean sea level fall in the southern Indian Ocean. Also for the tropical Indian and the South Atlantic no significant trend can be detected.''
Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and
Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses
''The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003). The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 (−1.49 mm/yr). Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr.''
''Satellite sea-level data 'tilted to distort figures,' says expert
British member of IPCC delegation admits, 'We had to do so, otherwise there would be no trend.'
Apocalyptic warnings that islands such as the Maldives will sink beneath the waves are "nonsense," says Nils-Axel Mörner, former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. Any rise in sea levels has to do with natural historic fluctuations.''
Sea Level Rise: Still Slowing Down
Back in the summer of 2009, we ran a piece titled "Sea Level Rise: An Update Shows a Slowdown" in which we showed that the much ballyhooed "faster rate of sea level rise during the satellite era" was actually slowing down.
"Whether the faster rate [of sea level rise] for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variability or an increase in the longer term trend is unclear."
In Figure 1 (below) reproduced from our 2009 WCR article, we superimposed the moving 10-yr rate of sea level rise as measured by satellites since 1993 upon the 10-yr rate of sea level rise measured from a collection of tide gauges from around the world since the early 20th century (as compiled by Simon Holgate, 2007).
Some more information on sea levels for you, windship
''Satellite sea-level data 'tilted to distort figures,' says expert
British member of IPCC delegation admits, 'We had to do so, otherwise there would be no trend.'
Apocalyptic warnings that islands such as the Maldives will sink beneath the waves are "nonsense," says Nils-Axel Mörner, former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. Any rise in sea levels has to do with natural historic fluctuations.''
Sea Level Rise: Still Slowing Down
Back in the summer of 2009, we ran a piece titled "Sea Level Rise: An Update Shows a Slowdown" in which we showed that the much ballyhooed "faster rate of sea level rise during the satellite era" was actually slowing down.
"Whether the faster rate [of sea level rise] for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variability or an increase in the longer term trend is unclear."
In Figure 1 (below) reproduced from our 2009 WCR article, we superimposed the moving 10-yr rate of sea level rise as measured by satellites since 1993 upon the 10-yr rate of sea level rise measured from a collection of tide gauges from around the world since the early 20th century (as compiled by Simon Holgate, 2007).
"Our most recent estimate of changes in global averaged sea level since 1993 are estimated from satellite altimeter data (red) and since 1880 by combining in situ sea level data from coastal tide gauges and the spatial patterns of variability determined from satellite altimeter data (blue)."
I have seen where the sea levels in the past have been much higher than at present as shown by the limestone islands and coast that grace the Andaman Sea coast of Thailand, I have seen the signs of much higher sea levels during the two times I was out in Vietnam's Halong Bay that has spectacular limestone islands. Most recently I saw the signs of a much higher sea level when I was on Zanzibar and saw where the Indian Ocean has eroded the ancient coral that is the foundation for this island and was much higher in the past. I saw that Cairo is also on your list and I have been to this city and really fail to see how sea levels will have much to do with its welfare. Maybe in your frenzy, you may have meant Alexandria, that is on the coast.
The NASA website also shows only a faint accelleration in sea level rise over the period 1870-now, and what looks like linear rise from 1993 till now: http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#seaLevel. The CSIRO shows a clear accelleration since 1880, however: http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/.
Though I'm not an expert, I can think of two possible explanations for the sluggish response of the oceans.
First, the oceans have an enormous capacity to take up heat, so compared to land, it heats up slowly. As it warms, it expands, but I would expect the accelleration of that process to be very slight.
Second, until recently the big ice masses of Greenland and Antarctica were stable. Now they have begun to melt, and in many places that melting seems to accellerate. See http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183. The modest pace of the rise may not last.
But even at NASA's pace of 31cm per century, it does add up and not all coutries are equally well-placed to implement protection measures. I see little ground for complacency.
By all means look in the rear view mirror Doug, and be choosy about your data sources. I'm far more concerned about the next 200 years, and understanding the Exponential factors in play, suggest you pay attention also to some obvious tipping points ahead.
Windship: Just what was your point with, I'm sure, your well thought out comment: ''By all means look in the rear view mirror Doug, and be choosy about your data sources''? At least I provide sources and I saw none in your, what amounted to conjecture, with the claims of catastrophic sea level raise. I assume that you cannot figure out that the glaciers have been melting since the end of the ice age, except during the documented Little Ice Age, or don't you think that the ice would still be down as far as Buffalo Ridge in Minnesota?
There are some that do not believe that there was a Medieval Warm period followed by a Little Ice Age when it has been well established that there was a Younger Dryas period: ''About 14,500 years ago, the Earth's climate began to shift from a cold glacial world to a warmer interglacial state. Partway through this transition, temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere suddenly returned to near-glacial conditions
Is that what would make you alarmist happy, Windship, to see another Younger Dryas period and can you explain how or why any of these recorded climatic events that occurred with NO anthropogenic influence what so ever? Give me sources when you answer, please.
I have had my own boat up into Glacier Bay in Southeast Alaska on a couple of occasions and what follows applies to your, I assume, dire warnings regarding melting glaciers: Keep in mind that Geo. Vancouver's ships were wind powered; therefore, he wasn't spewing out any diesel smoke to start this massive retreat of these glaciers. "The explorer Captain George Vancouver found Icy Strait, at the south end of Glacier Bay, choked with ice in 1794. Glacier Bay itself was almost entirely iced over. In 1879 naturalist John Muir found that the ice had retreated almost all the way up the bay. By 1916 the Grand Pacific Glacier was at the head of Tarr Inlet about 65 miles from Glacier Bay's mouth. This is the fastest documented glacier retreat ever. Scientists are hoping to learn how glacial activity relates to climate changes and global warming from these retreating giants.
Glacier Bay was first surveyed in detail in 1794 by a team from the H.M.S. Discovery, captained by George Vancouver. At the time the survey produced showed a mere indentation in the shoreline. That massive glacier was more than 4,000 feet thick in places, up to 20 miles wide, and extended more than 100 miles to the St. Elias mountain range.
By 1879, however, naturalist John Muir discovered that the ice had retreated more than 30 miles forming an actual bay. By 1916, the Grand Pacific Glacier – the main glacier credited with carving the bay – had melted back 60 miles to the head of what is now Tarr Inlet.
History seems to point out that warm is better than cold any day for anything that is alive and I imagine that is why, 40% of the world's population currently lives in the tropics; although this number is forecast to rise substantially by the end of the century. I'll leave it up to you to find out what percentage of life forms on earth live in this region and what percentage lives in the extreme higher and lower latitudes, such as the arctic.
''1050 - 1200: The first agricultural revolution of Medieval Europe begins in 1050 with a shift to the northern lands for cultivation, a period of improved climate from 700 to 1200 in Western Europe, and the widespread use and perfection of new farming devices. Technological innovations include the use of the heavy plow, the three-field system of crop rotation, the use of mills for processing cloth, brewing beer, crushing pulp for paper manufacture, and the widespread use of iron and horses. With an increase in agricultural advancements, Western towns and trade grow exponentially and Western Europe returns to a money economy.''
It appears windship, that you do not want historical evidence because it is looking in the rear view mirror but I have heard it said that hindsight is 20/20 vision. What do you suggest; using an Ouija Board, Tarot card reading or how about finding a shaman that everyone says is trust worthy to get the answers that you say cannot be derived from looking at past events. Once you have arrived at ''understanding the Exponential factors in play'', just what are going to do? How will your personal lifestyle change regarding the benefits that I imagine you get from energy; such as heat/air-conditioning, lighting on demand, being able to use a computer, etc. and transportation.
Sense Seeker: It would be simple and probably nice if the earth's climate and ocean actions could be explained with something as simple as a trace gas, carbon dioxide that makes up .036-9% of the atmosphere and 15.1% of the ocean's makeup but only simple people could believe such a thing. They should know just how dynamic and complex the climate is and all of the factors that affect it before making such a flawed judgment. Here are some sites to look into, if you care to. The biggest flows out of the atmosphere are photosynthesis on land and CO2 uptake by cold ocean water. These are about 30 times and 40 times respectively the flow of carbon into the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning. What follows also addresses the utterly insane allegation that CO2 is increasing the acidity of the oceans.
One should TRY to understand that there was NO pH scale until the concept of pH was first introduced by a Danish chemist, Sorensen, at the Carlsberg Laboratory in 1909; therefore, that is not a long period of time to establish a base line for certain alarmist wanting to make people believe that soon one can top off their car battery acid with sea water.
You say: 'The CSIRO shows a clear accelleration[sic] since 1880, however: http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/''. (One would have thought that, to be honest, you would have pointed out that the GMSL-1880 to 2011 graph shows Tide gage and uncertainty to perhaps be going up; but, the satellite altimeter data is not increasing. ''This is because the number of gauges going in to the estimate drops off for the last couple of years because of delays getting the most recent data into the PSMSL archive, which is where we get this data from. 'This is simply due to the the[sic] time it takes the various national archives to compile and submit the data.'' I assume this is about the same as that by 1990; NOAA had deleted from its datasets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 thermometers in service around the globe.
Now, 75% represents quite a drop in sampling population, particularly considering that these stations provide the readings used to compile both the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) and United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) datasets. One would think that with communication and computers being what they are today, that this problem would not be a ''problem'')
"The interaction between water temperature and salinity effects density and density determines thermohaline circulation, or the global conveyor belt. The global conveyor belt is a global-scale circulation process that occurs over a century-long time scale. Water sinks in the North Atlantic, traveling south around Africa, rising in the Indian Ocean or further on in the Pacific, then returning toward the Atlantic on the surface only to sink again in the North Atlantic starting the cycle again."
"As water travels through the water cycle, some water will become part of The Global Conveyer Belt and can take up to 1,000 years to complete this global circuit. (I find it strange that now NASA has changed ''over a century-long time scale'' to a 1,000 years and all on the same page; but, whatever) It represents in a simple way how ocean currents carry warm surface waters from the equator toward the poles and moderate global climate." [The Global Conveyer Belt has suddenly stopped for several speculated reason in the past and caused dramatic and rapid climate changes always to the cold side; therefore, warm is preferable to cold any day]
Part 2
"As water temperature increases, the increased mobility of gas molecules make them escape from the water, thereby reducing the amount of gas dissolved. (Could this be why warming forces the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by hundreds of years, some say at least 800 years and that is not what the alarmist want one to believe that it is the CO2 that is causing the warming?)
"It is thought that the carbon dioxide in the sea exists in equilibrium with that of exposed rock and bottom sediment containing limestone CaCO3 (or sea shells for that matter). In other words, that the element calcium exists in equilibrium with CO3. But the concentration of Ca (411ppm) is 10.4 mmol/l and that of all CO2 species (90ppm) 2.05 mmol/l, of which CO3 is about 6%, thus 0.12 mmol/l. Thus the sea has a vast oversupply of calcium. It is difficult therefore to accept that decalcification could be a problem as CO3 increases. To the contrary, it should be of benefit to calcifying organisms. Thus the more CO2, the more limestone is deposited. This has also been borne out by measurements (Budyko 1977)." (Maybe, just maybe as with so many things in nature, this is a self-regulating factor that has been taking care of the ocean's pH without humans having one thing to do with it)
''Second, until recently the big ice masses of Greenland and Antarctica were stable. Now they have begun to melt, and in many places that melting seems to accellerate.'' Just how true is that statement, Sense Seeker, when measured against these DOCUMENTED conditions that seem to prove otherwise?
"The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds."
Who reported this? the IPCC, the Meteorological Office.... No, that was the US Weather Bureau in 1922.
"The source report of the Washington Post article on changes in the arctic has been found in the Monthly Weather Review for November 1922. It is much more detailed than the Washington Post (Associated Press) article. It seems the AP heaviliy relied on the report from Norway Consulate George Ifft, which is shown below. See the original MWR article below and click the newsprint copy for a complete artice or see the link to the original PDF below:"
Norwegian report from 1923 http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/23668813
Sense Seeker: I think it up to you to help ''Science'' reconcile their Estimate of Ice-Sheet Mass Balance give the information that I present below.
State of the Climate
Global Snow & Ice
October 2012
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Climatic Data Center
"The July 2012 Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent was 16.7 million square km (6.4 million square miles), 2.21 percent above average and the 9th largest (26th smallest) July sea ice extent in the 1979-2012 period of record. Antarctic sea ice extent during July has increased at an average rate of 0.9 percent per decade, with substantial interannual variability."
''The October 2012 Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent was 18.88 million square km (7.3 million square miles), 3.36 percent above average and the third largest October sea ice extent in the 1979-2012 period of record. Antarctic sea ice extent during October has increased at an average rate of 0.9 percent per decade, with substantial interannual variability.''
''The October 2012 Arctic sea ice extent was 230,000 square km (88,800 square miles) larger than the smallest October extent on record that occurred in 2007. Arctic sea ice rapidly expanded during October, after reaching an annual minimum in September, doubling in size between October 1st and 31st. October average Arctic sea ice has declined at a rate of 7.1 percent per decade.''
Sense Seeker: Do you think that the information below could have some influence on permafrost?
''Across North America, snow cover extent for October 2012 was above average. Canada had much above average snow cover during the month, while the contiguous U.S. experienced below-average snow cover.
Eurasian snow cover extent was also above average for October 2012, with a spatial extent of 11.1 million square km (4.3 million square miles), 1.2 million square km (463,000 square miles) above average. This was the 11th largest October snow cover extent on record for the continent. Above-average snow cover was observed for much of Russia and the Tibetan Plateau, while below-average snow cover was observed for the Himalayas. ''
You're asking the wrong guy - I'm not a climate expert. Nevertheless I can give you my interpretation, even though you'll find the data to refute it, diligently cherry-picking your way through the evidence as you are. :)
First Antarctica. The interesting thing there is that although both the ocean and the air are warming (do check please), the ice cover has been growing (albeit with wide inter-annual variation). How can that be? Well, it could be that there is simply more ice flowing from land into the sea (possibly compensated, in the early stages, by the warmer air containing more water, which then falls as precipitation on land). It should also be said that the amount of sea ice around Antarctica is minor compared to that on the other side of the globe, and that what we really should be concerned about is the land ice. If that melts, it increases the sea level.
Off to the Arctic, then. Again, the warmer air can contain more vapor, and winds willing, this may give snow across North America, N Europe and N Asia.
So you see, we warmists have an explanation for every finding that seemingly contradicts our evil ideology. Cunning, hey?
Sense Seeker: At least you are right about one thing and that is that you are not a climate expert; but, one need not be to be able to use logic and common sense to dictate what is possible and what is, on the other hand, bogus and in need of lies and fabrications in an attempt to ''prove'' some outlandish hypotheses. One of the first claims that is made whenever a warmest, or whatever you call yourself, is shown to be incorrect is to claim that the dissenters to this hoax are ''cherry-picking your way through the evidence''. You do not want to label your link to http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/ as cherry-picking when you said:
''Many people simply don't assess the source of the information they get, and therefore make no distinction between a claim made by The Daily Mail or WUWT versus one made by academies of sciences, NOAA or NASA.
Too few people ask themselves: who pays for me to see this information? Who benefits?'' & then you say that I'm cherry-picking when I submitted this site to you that showed your information to be flawed: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global-snow/2012/10. At least remember what your ''points'' are to not appear to be so disingenuous.
Now to a point that I would like you ''warmists'' to clarify for me. You folks, in order for your delusion to have any validity, have to link AGW to your devil, CO2, and to do that you needed to eliminate the historically proven by FACTS that there was a Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Optimum) and that in turn that was followed by The historically proven Little Ice Age (http://www.thamesweb.co.uk/windsor/windsorhistory/freeze63.html). That these inconvenient facts had to be dealt with is obvious in that, in the IPCC's 1990 report the MWP and the LIA were clearly evident; but, in the IPCC's 2001 report they had been deceitfully and unscrupulously removed and they presented Mann's flawed and disproven ''hockey stick'' chart.( http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick )How true it is when Sense Seeker says; ''So you see, we warmists have an explanation for every finding that seemingly contradicts our evil ideology. Cunning, hey?'' One definition of cunning is: ''cun•ning 1. skill employed in a shrewd or sly manner, as in deceiving; craftiness; guile'' and one must ask you warmists if you believe that is how science is supposed to work and from what we have seen with Mann's hockey stick and the Climategate emails the answer is a very sad yes
This deception is carried over even after you warmists have had to accept that there was a MWP. Now you ridiculously want people to believe that it only applied to northern Europe and was not felt worldwide and that is stupid to even mention. But on the other hand, you say that since the ice has receded, as it has before, in the arctic, then it has to follow that the ice in the Antarctic has to also be receding which flies in the face of the ''Logic'' you apply to the MWP but to use logic and warmists in the same sentence is an oxymoron.
Then your type of alarmist wants to totally discount the sun and clouds and their effect on the climate, amazing. You probably do not know that the coldest nights of the year occur when there is no cloud cover, at all. Are you aware that in the desert areas it can get well over one hundred degrees F. during the day and freeze at night and you probably can't figure out why? Svensmark & Jasper Kirkby could explain it to you.
Real science and scientist use the scientific principle of developing hypotheses and then proving them or excepting others disproval of their hypotheses and then moving on from there. Some fools say that the science is settled regarding agw and when has that ever been the case? You may have heard of Prof. Dr. Henrik Svensmark. He is doing what real scientist do and not what the frauds that some admire do and that is put forth junk science at best, and most of the time, NO science at all.
"Svensmark: Evidence continues to build that the Sun drives climate, not CO2″ http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/svensmark-evidence-continue...
Read some of the comments, if you can.
How about another person you have may heard of; Jasper Kirkby?
These are some very smart people, Sense Seeker, and the best part of it is that they, unlike Hansen, Gore and many others in your camp, they are HONEST and do not rely on being CUNNING in their quest for the truth.
Jasper Kirkby: The CLOUD experiment at CERN
More sunspots, less cosmic rays, warmer earth. During the last 50 years or so, there have been record numbers of sunspots, low cosmic ray fluxes and somewhat higher temperatures. http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110824/full/news.2011.504.html
Dr. Kirkby is using one of the most sophisticated and expensive laboratories in the world to carry out this test that goes back to Dr. Henrik Svensmark hypotheses and Svensmark, if you are into maybe learning something, is carrying on his own unique experiments regarding this concept of his regarding clouds and their formation and how this influences the climate through solar activity.
Now Sense Seeker, a little quiz for you: show me one experiment that has ever been conducted that proves/shows that the paltry amount of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere at today's levels has one thing to do with the climate. Please do not trouble me by presenting that in 1859, the Irish physicist John Tyndall discovered that certain gases – carbon dioxide and water vapor in particular – absorb infra-red radiation because that has no relevance to the amount of CO2 in today's atmosphere and also no computer models.
You can look at this link and imagine at what clouds might have to do with the climate.
Do you realize Sense Seeker; that water in its various forms in the atmosphere is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect?
"Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have
little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds
dominate the worldwide scene and always will." – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a
professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the
University of Auckland, NZ.
Good luck with supplying me with the experiment regarding CO2 because it has never been done; but, this is what I can expect from you and your ignorant type of ''believers'':
While I await an answer regarding the experiment showing that CO2 does as you say, I will offer up some of your own words.
"But you've made it abundantly clear that you want no part of this apparently threatening scientific knowledge. Denial is a coping strategy too, after all. Good luck with it.'' I will expand on that statement by say that, to you, any scientific knowledge is a threat.
"The farther backward you can look,
the farther forward you are likely to see."
- Winston Churchill
No disagreement there. The first thing you notice if you look honestly at climate changes over the passage of time since humans evolved, is that the speed at which things are changing right now is phenomenal. But most people just see the day-to-day incremental changes which are very gradual, slow enough to adapt to. Since you are now an expert climate scientist though, you're not lulled to complacency or lured by visions of energy cornucopia. There are many ways to cook the planet.
Click on the following link:
The pie chart indicates the major CO2 emitters and their percentage of total global human activity CO2 emissions ... China 27%... Russia Japan Canada 13%... India 5%
The above five countries are responsible for 45% of the total global CO2 emissions from human activity. More importantly, they are not going to be party to any post Kyoto global agreement on limiting CO2 emissions.
That said, why is the western world trying to will its way into poverty with punitive emissions trading schemes and costly CO2 regulations and subsidised green policies etc etc knowing these costly policies have made no difference in the past, they are not making any difference now, and they will not make any difference in the future?
But don't panic. You see, the contribution of CO2 by human activity represented by the pie chart only represents 3% of all the CO2 entering the atmosphere each year (source: IPCC AR4 - 2007) which is statistically insignificant and scientifically irrelevant.
97% of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is from natural sources ... the oceans being the mother of all CO2 emitters.
So please... those people who are concerned about human activity CO2 emissions need to get a reality check. Climate is not a problem. There is no evidence of a climate catastrophe. There is a history of extreme weather events going back centuries. There is nothing unprecedented about today's climate and weather events. Warming and cooling climates have happened numerous times in the past.
Let us also not forget one simple fact nobody wants to mention at Doha ... there has been no discernible warming for the last 16 years despite a significant increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Strange... nobody wants to ask why!
Let's examine your claims, shall we? You write: "there has been no discernible warming for the last 16 years".
I have never read a claim like that made by a climate scientist or even anything remotely similar. Can you give us a hyperlink to the evidence that backs up your claim, Mervyn?
For all I know, nobody wants to ask why there has been no warming, because it is a falsehood. Do prove me wrong.
What you say is true. Most of the CO2 emissions doesn't come from human sources. But the conclusions you make from this assertion, that the human impact is not significant, is wrong.
There is a cycle of carbon in the environment. Co2 is necessary for life on earth. A certain quantity is emitted in the atmosphere and a much larger quantity is absorbed and contained in multiple elements in earth. The problem with the human emissions (your insignificant 3%) is that it's a 3% of co2 that is not supposed to go in the atmosphere. What scientist are arguing is that it may be the straw that broke the camel's back.
For your assumption that there is no discernible warming... Well, all of the houses and road falling or breaking in northern Canada and Russia because of the melting of the permafrost must be an illusion. As is the fact that the melting of the ice in the arctic make it possible for boats to go through the north-western passage. It is funny how peoples and governments acknowledge the impacts of climate changes but do not really want to look at the causes...
Now, it is true that humans may not be the sole culprits for climate changes. Co2 emission is not the sole culprit either (there are far more dangerous greenhouses gases being released in the atmosphere). But saying that there is no environmental changes and that we don't need to, at least, prepare for the impacts (or that, magically, the impacts will all be good for humans) is ludicrous.
You seem to be distracted by the Global warming propaganda. See "Open letter to UN Secretary-General: Current scientific knowledge does not substantiate Ban Ki-Moon assertions on weather and climate, say 125-plus scientists" here:
Well, we are talking about is 125 scientists out of millions with similar qualifications. And if you look at those 125 you'll find that many of them are no longer active in climate science, many don't have PhDs, and many work (of worked) in fields that have only peripheral links with climate science. This is just one of those 'open letters' organized by some free market 'think tank' again, published in a right-wing journal. Rightly, the world takes no notice.
So you can't give any evidence for this '16 years no warming' slogan either, gtaveira?
First :The article with the name of 125+ scientists says that according to the U.K. Met Office data, there has been no statistically significant global warming for almost 16 years, which is true. But, the Met Office which published the data says that it doesn't mean that global warming stopped 16 years ago, but that the rate of global warming as slowed temporarily.
Second : no global warming for 16 years doesn't mean no climate change. The annual temperature mean stays almost the same, but each year, temperature records are being shattered in different parts of the world. Also, regional temperature means are raising in some part of the world while descending in some other parts.
Saying that climate change is the only cause for Sandy or the drought in North-America may be a little far-fetched. But a lot of events like temperatures record, melting of some part of the permafrost, record low extent or the Arctic sea ice, biomes changes in northern regions, etc. are clear examples of climate changes.
Ah, I'd forgotten. That letter also contained a statement about the 16 years. See my take on that letter here: http://www.economist.com/comment/1774818#comment-1774818. Thanks for picking that up, Alex.
So we have the Daily Mail article in which David Rose willingly and knowingly misrepresents the MET Office (http://youtu.be/Qbn1rCZz1ow), and an open letter in a right-wing journal, both of which point to MET data, but the MET Office has officially announced their interpretation of those data is wrong.
I think we must conclude that the '16 years no warming' claim is false.
Mervyn, the numbers you quote don't even include all the emissions from logging and deforestation, destructive agricultural practices and wildfires set by humans. That's an easy doubler, even before things get really crazy with the weather.
The big worry for our species is that our fossil fuel forcings, which may only represent a few % of total extra GHG, will still cause two catastrophes to unfold - rapid deglaciation of terrestrial icecaps that can significantly raise sea levels - occasionally overnight, and a runaway warming that will be truly terrifying due to massive methane release from "permafrost" at high latitudes.
Current theory is that we can get away with pushing the warming to 2 degrees, but the two factors above could easily take over at that stage and ramp things up another 10 degrees, which would drown all coastal cities and wipe out most of humanity in the ensuing chaos.
We aren't just heading for a fiscal cliff, it's ecological as well and our bones of our own extinction lie at the bottom of it. It really wouldn't be a bad idea for all the rich people in the world to practice some austerity right about now.
Hi Mervyn. http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/ (no spin, just data) clearly shows that while the temperature trend over the last few years may have been downward, it still fits an overall upward trend that has been accelerating over the last 250 years. IPCC AR4 was certainly flawed: "Since 2007, the IPCC has recognised this. Its initial projection of a maximum sea level rise of 60 centimetres by 2100 has been upped to include an additional 20-centimetre rise due to ice sheets melting". Nor did it account for the effect of the permafrost melting.
Glancing through this thread, there is obviously some disagreement (between people more scientific than I) as to whether global warming is:
1. Occurring at all
2. Attributable to anthropogenic CO2.
Could someone please explain why both Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets are contracting, and why the permafrost is thawing (ie not so perma after all). ?
Just how sure are you Peter the Cat about your statement about tha permafrost and the Antarctic ice?
Arctic treeline advance not as fast as previously believed
Carey Restino | The Arctic Sounder | Mar 18, 2012
Record Antarctica Ice Contradicts Global Warming Trend
"The problem with all of these frantic stories being written about Arctic sea ice melt is that they all assume that man made global warming, caused by emissions of carbon dioxide, is the cause. These stories never delve into anything other than the standard "it's our fault and we better do something about it" drum beat……. Whenever we set a record for large amounts of sea ice the media world seems compelled to find a reason why this does not contradict man made global warming……... The overall temperature trend since actual satellite measurements have been made shows no trend either up or down across the coldest place on earth for the last three and a half decades."
"The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels."
As to the conflicting claims, I usually examine who is making what claim, and how credible that source is.
In this case I found that all scientific bodies saying human CO2 emissions are warming the planet, while the nay-sayers are mostly bloggers, tabloid journalists, free market 'think tanks' who keep their funding sources secret, and a few isolated genuine scientists.
But don't take my word for it. Check it. Given the internet and search engines, nothing could be easier.
J Doug just provides a nice case study. He refers to three sources (to his credit, I should add).
The first is from 'Alaska Dispatch', a regional online journal. Not a great source at first sight. It cites a real research report by scientists from, amongst others, Cambridge University. The link to that report does not work, but the main conclusion seems to be that the artic treeline is not advancing north as fast as expected based on temperature alone. But still it advances, at a rate of about 100m per year. Notice that J Doug suggests this is evidence that permafrost may NOT be thawing. Which is evidently a conclusion that is not supported by the evidence cited.
The second source is from a source owned in large part by billionare Richard Mellon Scaife (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/NewsMax.com), a well known funder of free market causes with interests in the fossil fuel industry (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Richard_Mellon_Scaife). The article mainly cites bloggers and the head of a lobby group of sorts.
The third part is a quote from Energy Tribune, an online source created by Robert Bryce, who "frequently points out that the climate "alarmists" have no credible plans to replace the hydrocarbons that now provide the overwhelming majority of the world's energy" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bryce_(writer). He is now a fellow with the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank. He is certainly not a climate scientist.
Anyway, see here a very recent study in Science: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183. Based on satellite data, the international group of researchers concludes that "Between 1992 and 2011, the ice sheets of Greenland, East Antarctica, West Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by –142 ± 49, +14 ± 43, –65 ± 26, and –20 ± 14 gigatonnes year−1, respectively. Since 1992, the polar ice sheets have contributed, on average, 0.59 ± 0.20 millimeter per year to the rate of global sea-level rise." So clearly, Robert Bryce is wrong. Antarctica is melting.
I'm not too sure what kind of ''case study'' Sense Seeker is trying to provide if they feel comfortable using Wikipedia but I guess it is OK if only trying to discredit some one. Sense Seeker could also wonder at why RK Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, is still a director of GloriOil and the Seeker can tell me just how being a railroad engineer qualifies one for this position and also why Shell and BP founded CRU in 1972 if the Seeker is so worried about a source that has is a well known funder of free market causes with interests in the fossil fuel industry. Does that mean that Sense Seeker is not a believer in the free market system and now there is something evil about the fossil fuel industry that has removed the yoke of being nothing more than an animal trying to get enough to eat to being an animal that has been to the moon and can easily travel faster than the speed that a horse can run?
If Sense Seeker does not want to believe Cambridge University and is not capable of understanding that the permafrost has much to do with the tree line, then fine, believe what you want to fabricate, if that will make you feel better. I lived in Alaska for 24 years of which 14 years were above the Arctic Circle and I do know something about the tree line and permafrost. I also know something about looking south and straight up to see the Northern Lights.
I assume that S.S. was very comfortable with this report that came out of the IPCC.
''Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005).
The receding and thinning of Himalayan glaciers can be attributed primarily to the global warming due to increase in anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases.''
Himalayan Glaciers
A State-of-Art Review of Glacial Studies,
Glacial Retreat and Climate Change
And we don't forget the Raina report;
This is a good report on glaciers in the Indian Himalayan Mountains mainly because the IPCC and The World Wildlife Fund had nothing to do with it.
Sense Seeker can take these people to task over what they have found and written.
''SCAR ISMASS Workshop, July 14, 2012
Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses
H. Jay Zwally'. Jun Li', John Robbins2, Jack 1. Saba2, Donghui Yi', Anita Brenner', and David
During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded
the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gtlyr (2.5% of input), as derived from ICESat laser
measurements of elevation change.''
''In contrast, net increases in the five other DS ofWA and AP and three of the 16 DS in East Antarctica (EA) exceed the
increased losses.''
"Does that mean that Sense Seeker is not a believer in the free market system and now there is something evil about the fossil fuel industry that has removed the yoke of being nothing more than an animal trying to get enough to eat to being an animal that has been to the moon and can easily travel faster than the speed that a horse can run?"
I am afraid you are getting a bit overexcited, Mr Doug. But you do shed a clear light on the beliefs that prevent you from accepting the reality of CO2-related global warming. You have worked in Alaska and elsewhere, and believe fossil fuels are the greatest thing that ever happened to mankind, moving us from half-starving wretches to the rotund animals we are now.
My guess is that you have worked in the oil industry. Understandable then that you have difficulty accepting what the science so clearly tells us: that fossil fuels contribute to global warming.
I do fully agree with you that fossil fuels have made possible extraordinary developments for humanity, and I mean that in a very positive sense. I really do. But sadly, it is now becoming very clear that this progress comes with a price, and that it is time to phase out fossil fuels. We must change. And rapidly.
Are you seriously looking for scientists' opinions? check here:
Open letter to UN Secretary-General: Current scientific knowledge does not substantiate Ban Ki-Moon assertions on weather and climate, say 125-plus scientists
Latest data shows Antarctica is also a net loser of ice, and glaciers are speeding up their rush to the sea. It may be snowing more in some parts of Antarctica, but that's also a warming effect in areas that were previously "freeze-dried"
We monkeys can argue all we like about "invisible" slow motion catastrophes, but that doesn't change what's really going on.
Thank you all for opening up this discussion to help a layman who, with limited time available, can be confused by the simple information reported by the UN via TV news. Shamed by your efforts, I found:
"Between 1992 and 2011, the ice sheets of Greenland, East Antarctica, West Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by –142 ± 49, +14 ± 43, –65 ± 26, and –20 ± 14 gigatonnes year−1, respectively. Since 1992, the polar ice sheets have contributed, on average, 0.59 ± 0.20 millimeter year−1 to the rate of global sea-level rise.
Peter the Cat: Just what is one to believe? One would hope that the lays somewhere in between but it is all according to the agency and the head of that agency just where it, is many cases, is. James Hansen's GISS does not seem to want to present the real truth unless he can edit it to his view point first.
As for the Science Magazine's findings, I would rather go with NOAA's
State of the Climate
Global Snow & Ice
October 2012
''The October 2012 Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent was 18.88 million square km (7.3 million square miles), 3.36 percent above average and the third largest October sea ice extent in the 1979-2012 period of record. Antarctic sea ice extent during October has increased at an average rate of 0.9 percent per decade, with substantial interannual variability.''
This site is fun to work with and goes back to 1885, in some instances. It contains a wealth of information on many different factors.
An area I'm interested in is Dubois, WY, the town near where I grew up, and also Moran, WY. The annual mean of monthly mean max. temperature-RAW(F) 1895-2011 shows that 1934 was the hottest year and the end of the graph shows a decidedly down turn trend. Moran, WY is another area of interest to me and obviously it shows the same trends with 1932 being the highest since the record began in 1895.
U.S. Historical Climatology Network - Monthly Data
You have chosen site 486440, MORAN 5 WNW, Wyoming
I acknowledge the paradox that Antarctic sea ice is expanding, while the Southern Ocean is warming. The total mass of Antarctic ice, however, includes the ice sheets over the continental landmass, and the total mass is decreasing. Nice try at semantics. I'm glad you trust the NOAA because their data is include in the Berkeley data. In fact, in many cases, they plot NOAA data alongside their own, and it will come as no surprise that they agree very strongly. They show a strong trend of warming over the last 250 years. I'm impressed that you've found 2 places in WY that you can cherry pick years from. Thank you for your help, at least I don't have to worry my pretty little head about trusting you or your sources. I see you sir, and your name is troll!
Peter the Cat: Thank you so much for giving me an insight into your abilities and that alone explains your take on this issue. It comes from blatant ignorance and not caring enough to get the FACTS but feeling that you have the right to call some one that does look into things and gets facts names ,such as ''troll, disgusting to say the least, and I shall not lower myself to such a level against some one so ill-equipped to find out anything about this important issue of our age.
Now to your contention, unsubstantiated, naturally, that ''The total mass of Antarctic ice, however, includes the ice sheets over the continental landmass, and the total mass is decreasing.''
''Increased ice loading in the Antarctic Peninsula since the 1850s and its effect on Glacial Isostatic Adjustment
Key Points
Accumulation increase results in up to 45 m extra ice thickness over 155 years
Model predicts GIA-related subsidence of up to 7 mm/yr which will affect GPS
GRACE-derived rates of ice-mass change are biased low by ignoring this signal
Antarctic Peninsula (AP) ice core records indicate significant accumulation increase since 1855, and any resultant ice mass increase has the potential to contribute substantially to present-day Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA). We derive empirical orthogonal functions from climate model output to infer typical spatial patterns of accumulation over the AP and, by combining with ice core records, estimate annual accumulation for the period 1855-2010. In response to this accumulation history, high resolution ice-sheet modeling predicts ice thickness increases of up to 45 m, with the greatest thickening in the northern and western AP. Whilst this thickening is predicted to affect GRACE estimates by no more than 6.2 Gt/yr, it may contribute up to -7 mm/yr to the present-day GIA uplift rate, depending on the chosen Earth model, with a strong east-west gradient across the AP. Its consideration is therefore critical to the interpretation of observed GPS velocities in the AP.''
''I'm impressed that you've found 2 places in WY that you can cherry pick years from.'' It seems that your pretty little head does not possess the mental capacity to be able to use this site that I presented in good faith hoping that the recipient would have had the ability to figure out how to use it. Had that been the case, they would have stumbled on to these sites and, incidentally, temperature is not the only information for the thousands of site offered up. What follows is a random sample for you to tell me I am ''cherry picking'' from:
U.S. Historical Climatology Network - Monthly Data
You have chosen site 017366, SELMA, Alabama
U.S. Historical Climatology Network - Monthly Data
You have chosen site 082850, EVERGLADES, Florida
U.S. Historical Climatology Network - Monthly Data
You have chosen site 176905, PORTLAND INTL JETPORT, Maine
U.S. Historical Climatology Network - Monthly Data
You have chosen site 391392, CANTON 4 WNW, South Dakota
U.S. Historical Climatology Network - Monthly Data
You have chosen site 458773, VANCOUVER 4 NNE, Washington
You incorrectly state that I have made a "contention, unsubstantiated, naturally".
Sorry pal, not even close. The Antarctic Ice data come from Leeds University and the University of Washington , as reported by The New Scientist. I'd give you the link, but I already have, and I don't repeat myself, unlike you.
Here is a plain demonstration that you haven't even figured out how to scroll down your window. So I agree that "It seems that your pretty little head does not possess the mental capacity to be able to use this site that I presented in good faith hoping that the recipient would have had the ability to figure out how to use it."
Now children, what better than finding a Troll ?
"Poking it with a stick and making it angry !"
My advice to you is to avoid sunlight
The new figures for 2010 from the WMO show that CO2 levels are now at 389 parts per million, up from about 280 ppm compared to the mid 1700s. Negotiators from many nations will gather this month in Doha in a last ditch effort to find a replacement for the expiring Kyoto Protocol climate regulations of 1997. (AP, Nov. 21, 2012)
So with this historical peak in climate heating CO2 air pollution, why have not actual earth temperatures risen accordingly?
Here are some contemporary global temperature findings of well-respected, nonpartisan climate science experts:
• Long term NOAA climate data show no significant wet/dry climate trends related to CO2 levels;
• There are no extreme high temperature trends correlated to CO2 levels;
• No correlations are observed in CO2 levels with the number or intensity of weather disasters such as tornadoes, tsunamis and hurricanes;
• Current CO2 levels are below optimal for plant life, and doubling CO2 levels would only increase global temperatures by a nominal one degree;
• There would be positive impacts of global warming such as the doubling of CO2 and moderate warming would benefit humanity with better agricultural crop yields. (WSJ, Sept.14, 2012)
• According to Britain's Meteorological Office, the world's climate has cooled during 2011 and 2012. The figures show that, although global temperatures are still well above the long-term average, they have fallen significantly since 2010. (The Sunday Times, Nov. 18, 2012)
Thank you ECOPOLITICS for showing that you can think for yourself and here is an example of how one of your contentions is TRUE: ''There are no extreme high temperature trends correlated to CO2 levels '' and one would think that if we have a planet with a fever, then these record high temperature would be broken with regularity.
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) announced today that the record holder for the hottest temperature ever recorded on the planet had been changed.
How many of these all time high temperature records have been broken since the earth fell ill with this perceived fever? Actually, one has been changed recently, but not in the direction that Sense Seeker is saying it should have been and certainly not set recently: ''A record dating back to 1922 in El Azizia, Libya was deemed invalid and thus the honor now falls on a temperature recorded in Death Valley, California in 1913.''
If my subtraction is correct Sense Seeker , that record has stood for 99 years. I'm sure you can come up with some explanation, knowing you.
What follows are world record high temperatures: World (Africa) El Azizia, Libya; Sept. 13, 1922, (136F): (This is now invalid)
North America (U.S.), Death Valley, Calif.; July 10, 1913 (134F);
Asia; Tirat Tsvi, Israel, June 21, 1942, (129F):
Australia ,Cloncurry, Queensland; Jan. 16, 1889 (128F):
Europe, Seville, Spain,Aug. 4, 1881 (122F):
South America, Rivadavia, Argentina; Dec. 11, 1905 (120F):
Canada,Midale and Yellow Grass, Saskatchewan, Canada; July 5, 1937 (113F):
Oceania;Tuguegarao, Philippines, April 29, 1912 (108F):
Persian Gulf (sea-surface): Aug. 5, 1924 (96F):
Antarctica; Vanda Station, Scott Coast, Jan. 5, 1974 (59F):
South Pole, Dec. 27, 1978, (7.5F).
Highest average annual mean temperature (world): Dallol, Ethiopia (Oct. 1960 Dec. 1966), 94° F.
Longest hot spell (world): Marble Bar, W. Australia, 100° F (or above) for 162 consecutive days, Oct. 30, 1923 to Apr. 7, 1924. Notice anything regarding the dates of these records? Anyone heard of the dust bowl & wasn't that in the 30s
So what are you saying - the world isn't warming?
So NASA is wrong? http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#globalTemp
"Theatre of the absurd".
Could have been a good title for the comment section.
But the effect CO2 as a Greenhouse gas is ever more marginal with greater concentration
The IPCC Published report, (TAR3),
acknowledge that the effective temperature increase caused by growing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere radically diminishes with increasing concentrations. The information is contained in their last report, but it is well disguised for any lay reader, (Chapter 6. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: section 6.3.4 Total Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Forcing Estimate).
The logarithmic diminution of the effect of CO2 is the likely reason why there was no runaway greenhouse warming in earlier eons, when CO2 levels were known to be at levels of several thousands ppmv.
According to figures published by Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, CDIAC in 2010 the total (natural and Man-made) CO2 warming effect at 390 ppmv causes ~1.24°C of the 33°C greenhouse effect and according to the logarithmic diminution process at 390 ppmv this CO2 level has already taken up ~88% of CO2's effectiveness as a Greenhouse gas. Thus the maximum CO2 warming effect can only be 1.24°C / 88% = ~1.41°C: so only an additional 12% or ~+0.18°C remains.
In the context of normal daily temperature variations at any a single location of 10°C to 20°C and which can usually be as much as 40°C to 50°C over the course of a year and as the margin of error for temperature measurements is about 1.0°C, the temperature diminution effects for all the excessive efforts of the Nations committed to CO2 reduction are marginal, immeasurable and irrelevant.
Although the IPCC tacitly acknowledges that this crucial logarithmic diminution effect exists, it certainly does not report or emphasise it. Like the Medieval Warm Period, that the IPCC attempted to eliminate with the Hockey Stick graph in 2001, the panel knows that wide public knowledge of the diminution effect with increasing CO2 concentration would be utterly detrimental to their primary message.
The IPCC certainly does not explain these devastating consequences for the CAGW theory in their Summary for Policy Makers. And thus the IPCC is entirely misleading in its central claim, as they say:
"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal. Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
Any unquestioning, policy making reader is irrevocably lead to assume that all increasing CO2 concentrations are progressively more harmful because of their escalating Greenhouse impact. But that is not so.
From the present concentration of atmospheric CO2 at ~390 ppmv, with only ~12% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a Greenhouse Gas remaining. This can only give rise to a maximum rise of a further of ~0.18°C. Thereafter beyond 900+ pmmv the effect of increasing levels of CO2 can only ever be absolutely minimal even if CO2 concentrations were to increase indefinitely.
Thus the widely held alarmist policy ambition to constrain Man-made temperature increase to +2.0°C has to be scientific nonsense as it could never be attained, however much more Man-made or natural CO2 was added to the atmosphere.
Well, if we didn't have you to re-interpret the IPCC's report...!
Incredible, don't you think, that an attentive reader can prove the IPCC wrong in its most central conclusions, just by close reading of their own work!
They had us all worried for a while, but I shall certainly sleep better tonight. Many thanks!
I refer to the following statement:
Is alarming? Really?
There is common ground amongst climate scientists that there has been no warming over the last 16 years despite the significant rise in the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration based on the real world observational data. What's the problem?
As for all that carbon dioxide, it's of immense benefit to the planet, which will increase the planet's green canopy, improve crop production, and contribute to the all round general well being of life on earth. What's the problem? The greens should be happy!
It is time the science was focused on the sun ... and the various solar cycles and the evidence numerous scientific papers have provided in that respect, evidence that reveals a direct correlation between solar activity and temperature in the past 3000 years, while carbon dioxide remained constant until the last century when it began rising.
"There is common ground amongst climate scientists that there has been no warming over the last 16 years"
No, there is not. There has been clear warming over the least 16 years, and it is in the expected range given the upward trend in earlier years. See e.g. http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#globalTemp. Starting by presenting falsehoods as facts does not look good.
And of course solar activity also influences climate. Who ever claimed that it doesn't? It doesn't follow that CO2 doesn't also influence climate.
Carbon dioxide in small amounts and under controlled conditions is good for plant growth. You are right there. But in larger amounts it is not good for plants. Climate change also means large areas will be stressed by drought, for example, the mid west and parts of the west in the US as happened this summer and continues now. Drought causes crop yields to fall as it did this summer. Water supplies in the midwest and west are also an issue - for a variety of reasons supplies of fresh water there and elsewhere are stretched thin as it is and so more irrigation is not a long-term solution. Moving agricultural production north to Canada runs into the problem that there is very little topsoil.
Mr. Seeker, I think you need to hit refresh on some of your saved web pages. Everyone from Phil Jones to the Met Office has acknowledged no global warming for sixteen years. Here's one of the links but there are thousands. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-st...
The debate has moved on.
I wonder Mervyn Sullivan if Sense Seeker will agree with this following info since it is from the one thing that we agree on, that one can trust NOAA most of the time; but, we obviously interpret the information differently regarding the sun, that contains 99% of the mass of the solar system; therefore, why wouldn't it be the driver of the earth's climate and not a trace gas, CO2, that makes up a paltry .038% of the earth's atmosphere?
The primary cause of variations in Earth's climate is the regular variations in the brightness of the Sun and changes in Earth's orbit about the Sun. In addition to 40-year cycles and 300-year cycles, other temperature cycles include:
· 19,000 year cycle: Earth's combined tilt and elliptical orbit around the Sun ('precession of the equinoxes').
· 41,000 year cycle: Cycle of the +/- 1.5 degree wobble in Earth's orbit
· 100,000 year cycle: Variations in the shape of Earth's elliptical orbit ('cycle of eccentricity')
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html and http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepublish_233658.htm
It has indeed. But your Daily Mail article is rubbish.
In a previous discussion I already explained (twice now) that the source of this bogus 16 year claim is a single story in the Daily Mail by a journalist who deliberately misrepresented work of the Met Office. See this video: http://youtu.be/Qbn1rCZz1ow
The Met Office objected to this piece of misinformation, but the tabloid journo published it anyway, and now it pollutes discussions all over the internet. Spread by paid hacks and blogs and repeated by gullible ideologues.
That's how denialism works.
There has been no significant atmospheric warming since 1996 and no ocean warming since the Argo buoy network was deployed in 2003. Shut up!
"As water travels through the water cycle, some water will become part of The Global Conveyer Belt and can take up to 1,000 years to complete this global circuit. It represents in a simple way how ocean currents carry warm surface waters from the equator toward the poles and moderate global climate." [The Global Conveyer Belt has suddenly stopped for several speculated reason in the past and caused dramatic and rapid climate changes always to the cold side; therefore, warm is preferable to cold any day]
Don't ya just love Heartland Trolls?
Theoretically more CO2 will make plants grow more flourish.Solving the environmental pollution problem is more important than solving the climate warming problem which may be a false proposition.
The thing that appears to be forgotten in the climate arguement is surface tension. Surface tension blocks heat from passing from the atmosphere into the ocean. By doing this it makes storing heat on the planet an impossibility therefore anthropogenic global warming is impossible. Try heating water from above. You can radiate water from above but physical heat will not pass through surface tension.
Is this intended as satire?
I'M deadly serious
Progress will continue to remain elusive, so long as each nation fears for its competitiveness in the global marketplace, should it cut emissions and other nations not.
The only possible solution to this is Simultaneous Policy, whereby all nations act together simultaneously, thus removing this first mover disadvantage.
It is necessary for the people to come together and create the policy that politicians are unable to. The people must make a multi-issue global simultaneous policy framework. This multi-issue framework is vital as it allows nations to negotiate some losses against some gains, thus making an overall agreement all the more likely.
Once this has been achieved, citizens can use their votes in a unique and coordinated way to drive their politicians to implement this simultaneous policy.
By the way, the Medieval Warm Period was a local event and was followed by what historians call the "little ice age." All of this is irrelevant to contemporary climate change except for the fact that it proves that even small changes in the climate have devastating effects on human civilization. The highly industrialized world of today is, ironically, even more vulnerable to extreme weather and drought than earlier agriculturall societies.
We are able to establish the zone of ikaite formation within shallow sediments, based on porewater chemical and isotopic data. Having constrained the depth of ikaite formation and δ18O of ikaite crystals and hydration waters, we are able to infer local changes in fjord δ18O versus time during the late Holocene. This ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula.
The link to the above post about ikaite in case some one would like a more detailed account of this information that deputes the contention that the MWP and LIA were localized in Europe. How could anyone in their right mind believe that when historical records from around the world tell a different story?
Thank you for this information.
Well, let's suppose you are right and the MWP was a global phenomenon. What does that tell us about CO2-related global warming?
I still agree with guest-iniwlie when (s)he wrote: "All of this is irrelevant to contemporary climate change except for the fact that it proves that even small changes in the climate have devastating effects on human civilization."
That, Sense Seeker, is a strange question to ask: ''What does that tell us about CO2-related global warming?'' First off, you should be alerted that the CO2 content in the atmosphere would be the same where ever you are on earth. You should recall that CO2 is one and one half times heavier than the rest of the atmosphere.
This is an interesting site to look into and it coincides with the above fact about carbon dioxide being one and one half times heavier than "air". This point was sadly proven on Aug, 21, 1986 when Lake Nyor in Cameroon released about 1.6 million tons of CO2 that spilled over the lip of the lake and down into a valley and killed 1,700 people within 16 miles of the lake.
With the above FACT in mind; as well as the FACT that CO2 makes up a paltry .038% of the total atmosphere, consider that as altitude increases, it is only a given that CO2 decreases to a greater degree than, say, O2 does where at 18,000 feet there is 1/2 the amount of O2 available that one enjoys breathing at sea level.
ppm of CO2 with altitude and mass of CO2 in atmosphere to 8520 metres beyond which there is practically no CO2
(It is strange that I happened on this above at the Green Party of Canada's site)
There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today
During the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1,800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today.
The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7,000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.
The Carboniferous, Ordovician and Permian eras were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today.
The Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon dioxide influence Earth temperatures and global warming.
The Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon dioxide influence Earth temperatures and global warming. (could the orb in the sky that is hard to look directly at and that constitutes 99% of the mass of the solar system have something to do with this?)
The late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 million years ago - 270 million years ago) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period). At no point does temperature and CO2 levels relate.
"Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon dioxide influence Earth temperatures and global warming."
Of course. Absolutely right. But again, all of that is hardly relevant to the question of whether atmospheric CO2 levels influence global temperature.
However, you make one statement that I would like to see a source for: "At no point does temperature and CO2 levels relate." On the whole, your statement is untrue: CO2 and temp do correlate. See for example Figures 2 and 4 here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm.
Clearly the correlation isn't 100%, due to other factors also influencing temperature.
That there may not be the correlation between CO2 and temperatures that you are trying to suggest may be true in that you are wanting to believe that as CO2 goes up then it would necessary follow that so would the temperature and the two graphs that you point out show that as CO2 has increased, temperatures have dropped, or did you some how miss that point. I somewhat take offence to your saying that what I have pointed out is ''untrue'' if you, with your own eyes, can not see that CO2 has risen while temperatures have DROPPED.
You NOW are reduced to using Skeptical Science as a source? But they do have a real knowledgeable and reliable crew to tell you what I guess you want to hear, such as:
Rob Painting: Rob is an environmentalist, scuba diver, spearfisherman, kayaker and former police officer. Has researched climate science, in an amateur capacity, for 4 years. A long-time reader of Skeptical Science and now contributor.
Dana Nuccitelli is an environmental scientist at a private environmental consulting firm in the Sacramento, California area. He has a Bachelor's Degree in astrophysics from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Master's Degree in physics from the University of California at Davis. He has been researching climate science, economics, and solutions as a hobby since 2006, and has contributed to Skeptical Science since September, 2010.
John Cook: John is the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He originally studied physics at the University of Queensland. (I think he kind of heads up this bunch of clowns)
Riccardo :Graduated in physics, I got my PhD at the University of Catania (Italy). As an experimental material scientist I spend my working hours mainly in a lab torturing some material and trying to convince it to behave as I wish. Being a long time sailor, I needed to know at least the basics of meteorology. http://www.skepticalscience.com/team.php
I now present some REAL information to you and you are totally mistaken about correlation, as these reliable graphs SHOW:
You will notice that since around 2003 the annual series smoothed with a 21-point binomial filter shows a distinct drop in temperature.
HadCRUT3 Diagnostics: global average (NH+SH)/2 http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh%2Bsh/i...
You will notice when you open this link below that atmospheric CO2 has been steadily increasing since 1960.
Full Mauna Loa CO2 record
Good By and Good Luck trying to live with your delusions that I want no part of: John D. Swallow
Well, we must be looking at different graphs, somehow. Your graphs (as well as mine) show very good correlation between CO2 and temperature. Unless you only look at the 2003-2012 bit, but didn't I already say you can't expect 100% correlation?
But you've made it abundantly clear that you want no part of this apparently threatening scientific knowledge. Denial is a coping strategy too, after all. Good luck with it.
The view that carbon emissions are changing the climate in ways that are directly and indirectly destructive to modern life is undoubtedly frightening. Those who stubbornly deny the increasing scientific evidence that climate change is happening and will continue to happen even after we begin to control carbon emissions are aware that recognizing climate change brings the whole modern industrialized economic system into question. Naturally, they don't want to go there. But they are in the position of the smoker with a nagging cough and coughing up blood who refuses to go to the doctor because they are afraid they might have cancer. I ask them, even if there is much that the medical profession still does not yet know about cancer, would you refuse to see a doctor and forgo all medical treatment in that situation? Might you consider that your refusal to face the truth might doom your children to a parentless future? This is the situation with climate change but writ large across the globe. It is time for all of us to be responsible grownups and do something.
It has now been 16 years without increased warming. All of the climate predictions have been nullified by real world temperature data. The most notable is James Hansens 1988 prediction before congress which now has beyond any measure been proven incorrect. All this during record co2 emissions. It is time to face the evidence, co2 is not a very strong driver of temperatures.
The goal posts have been moved now weather is a symptom of climate change yet just a couple of years ago all scientists stated that no single weather event could be tied to climate change. A wise verdict given 1/2 degree of warming has a negligible effect on any weather.
Hopefully as more time passes more people will realize that co2 is not as big a deal as it has been made out to be. It is clear that all the ,armor governments have already made this decision and concluded the obvious, co2 is a nominal issue, not worth destroying the economy or each respective nations quality of life.
To you the same question, Ijamnli: what proof have you got for your statement that "It has now been 16 years without increased warming"?
Do give us the link so we can see how credible it is. Certainly GIS shows warming: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1996/plot/gistemp/from:199.... As do all the other temperature series. Try them.
Meanwhile, in an open letter to UN Secretary-General: Current scientific knowledge does not substantiate Ban Ki-Moon assertions on weather and climate, say 125-plus scientists:
Sadly, the letter is full of misleading statements. Take the following: "Some scientists point out that near-term natural cooling, linked to variations in solar output, is also a distinct possibility." That may well be, but those same scientists would probably add that in the longer term, CO2-related warming is a near certainty.
"The U.K. Met Office recently released data showing that there has been no statistically significant global warming for almost 16 years." This is lying with statistics. "No statistically significant global warming" doesn't mean no warming, but just that if you isolate those years and ignore the clear warming that went before, the warming just falls short of the customary threshold for statistical significance. If you look at the entire temperature record, or even the past 17 years (why the 16 year cut-off?), the warming trend is clear: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature
By the looks of it, half of the signatories have retired, many have qualifications in fields that only have tenuous links with climate science, and some don't even have PhDs. There are hundreds of thousands of scientists in the world with at least equal expertise to the signatories.
The scientific consensus is that CO2 enhances the greenhouse effect and this results in potentially dangerous climate change. However, consensus doesn't mean 100% agreement. There are still biologists who haven't accepted the evolution theory and cancer researchers who don't believe smoking causes lung cancer. Likewise, there are still climate scientists who are not convinced CO2 causes significant global warming. The chances they are right are vanishingly small.
Mr. Seeker, the reason 16 years was "chosen" was because the end point is today, and the start point is the distance you can go back in time and not see any warming occurring. If you're trying to measure how long it's been since global temperatures have increased, the answer is: sixteen years. You state that the scientific "consensus" is that CO2 enhances the greenhouse effect and this results in potentially dangerous climate change. Fine, I'll take your word for it that that's the "consensus", whatever that means. Unfortunately the empirical evidence is increasingly demonstrating the opposite. You need to quit being a denier and go where the evidence leads. That's called the scientific method.
The whole problem is that the science used by the IPCC, that predicts rising CO2 will cause 3 - 5 °C warming by 2100, is sketchy, at best.
It is well known that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is at most 1 °C per doubling. The doubling of CO2 since pre-industrial levels (i.e., 600ppm) will occur sometime in the early 22nd century.
In order to get to the 3 - 5 °C warming, the IPCC's models are predicated on the sketchy theory of amplification effect of CO2 induced warming on water vapor, the bigger greenhouse gas. These models excessively discount the negative feedbacks that would occur (i.e., more water vapor means more clouds and more reflection of sunlight, thereby causing cooling) if, in fact, their theory is correct.
The world did warm by 0.8 °C in the 20th century, but some of that warming occurred prior to high CO2 levels (in the 1930's and 1940's). Between the 1940's and 1970's there was indeed a period of cooling.
But there has been no net warming since 1998.
Long term planetary temperatures have a very high correlation with the intensity of the solar cycles, with the solar cycles in the late 20th century being the most intense in nearly 1,000 years (based on Carbon-14 isotope proxy data).
(Climate scientist) Svensmark has shown how the magnetic fields of the sun have a direct bearing on the seeding of clouds and cloud cover, which has a clear and direct bearing on the Earth's temperature.
It is well known that the Medieval Warm Period, when Vikings settled and raised sheep in Greenland, was warmer that it is today. The archeological evidence of this cannot be disproved.
I think the problem is rather that many people are unable to distinguish a reliable source of information from an unreliable one.
I have a PhD, I work at a university and yet I don't feel I can verify all claims regarding the climate. The best I can do is to critically examine the source of information.
Many people simply don't assess the source of the information they get, and therefore make no distinction between a claim made by The Daily Mail or WUWT versus one made by academies of sciences, NOAA or NASA.
Too few people ask themselves: who pays for me to see this information? Who benefits?
If you know the Heartland Institute receives funding from the fossil fuel industry and undisclosed 'Anonymous Donors', many people don't seem to realize that this means that everything the Heartland says and does must be seen in that light. Even knowing that the Heartland was going to pay WUWT, that WUWT does not disclose its funding sources, that the fossil fuel industry benefits from the opinions voiced on WUWT, and that Anthony Watts has no scientific credentials whatsoever, many people don't seem to conclude that WUWT is not a reliable source of information on climate change.
When people do think of the funding source, they often make the wrong inferences. Many don't understand how science works.
They think climate scientists are mostly paid by governments, governments have every incentive to exaggerate AGW (do they really?), therefore climate scientists say what the government wants them to say.
They don't realize that (unlike corporate communication) science has many procedures that are designed to minimize exactly that risk of the funder influencing the results. Findings are critically reviewed by other scientists from groups that are often competing for fame and funding. And a scientist caught out for fraud is never trusted again; a reputation for honesty is an absolute prerequisite for a scientist.
People also don't know the limits of their own knowledge and ability to judge complex issues. Scientists may study a scientific, physical question for years, yet many people without any scientific credentials at all think they can prove even the international consensus of the relevant science wrong.
We need better science education, but critical thinking skills are much more important.
Solar cycles, including C14 isotope proxies, CERN's CLOUD studies, PDO, AMO, etc. are all examples of established science showing alternative explanations of how the Earth warms and cools.
Regarding funding, it is in fact the taxpayer (by way of government grants) who fund climate scientists to the tune of billions of dollars. It is in the interest of those parties who receive such grants to promote climate alarmism. These include bodies like NASA and NOAA too.
Climate scientists who don't tow the alarmist line are vilified and often denied funding. The mainstream media loves alarmism too, and hence we get activists posing as journalists writing hit pieces against scientists who don't tow the line (an example is New York Times' attempted vilification of Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT). PBS's special on climate change attempted to portray this as an argument between scientists and deniers, disingenuously trying to imply that the skeptics are not looking at scientific evidence. They continue to spout the bogus claim that 97% of scientists (which mysteriously became 98% in the PBS program) believe that CO2 is the main contributor to the Earth's warming.
Governments love alarmism, because they now have a new way to expand themselves by way of carbon tax.
Meanwhile, it is actually oil and energy companies who are investing in "green" technologies and wind.
As for corruption, Climategate 1 and 2 is clear evidence of the corruption of science by the alarmist group who control the IPCC. Michael Mann's hockey stick scam is just the tip of the iceberg. The Climategate emails show a concerted effort to undermine scientists who don't adhere to the alarmist norm. An examples was an attempt to target a scientist who showed evidence that the Medieval Warming Period was a global phenomenon.
(Sure the scientists involved in the hockey stick scam were exonerated, by none other that the institutions that receive millions in grant money from the government. How convenient!).
"Solar cycles, including C14 isotope proxies, CERN's CLOUD studies, PDO, AMO, etc. are all examples of established science showing alternative explanations of how the Earth warms and cools."
No machani, not *alternative* explanations, but simply *other* factors that (may) influence climate. But none of those explains the warming that we've experienced over the past century, if you look a little closer. Just out of interest, where did you pick up this selective view on climate science?
It sounds like paranoia to me, but if you really want to believe that the greenhouse effect is a hoax and that virtually the entire scientific community is conspiring with governments the world over to tax you, go ahead.
I'll stick with NOAA, NASA, CSIRO, academies of science and such like.
A PhD in what ? Catastrophists only accept the words of "climate scientists" .
I myself would prefer physics , math , engineering or some other quantitative physical science .
Heartland itself runs on just 7 million . I'm pretty sure they didn't give any of it to Watts for his historic webcast . Gore obviously spent more on his set than Watts did for his whole webcast . When you best argument is absolute patent gibberish about the funding of the realists , you show yourself to be out of rational ammunition .
You are a PhD ? Sociology ?
No Bob I 'am' not a PhD. I have one. And getting it has taught me how science works, but also made me understand my own limitations in terms of what I can judge.
The crux is often to look at WHO makes a claim, and what level of evidence backs it up, rather than trying to always judge the veracity of claims with my own limited knowledge.
I learned that Academies of Sciences are conservative institutes that only endorse scientific ideas that have really firm empirical backing. Theories go through several layers of critical review before they are believed. So if Academies of Science endorse human-made climate change, and write that our CO2 enhance the greenhouse effect and so warm our planet, I take that seriously.
In contrast, when something appears in WSJ or some blog, I don't pay too much attention.
As to Heartland, it is no secret that it is one of a whole range of propaganda tools funded by rich corporation owners to promote the free market that is expected to make them richer still. And if you read the scandal around the secretive but leaked papers of their last annual input, you will see that they did consider funding WUWT.
Sense Seeker said that they will ''stick with NOAA, NASA, CSIRO, academies of science and such like'' and that is fine. This is what NOAA says about the hot, dry summer of 2011. Severe drought in 1934 covered 80% of the country, compared with 25% in 2011.
In June, 1934 the entire country had triple digit heat. We didn't come anywhere close to that this summer.
''Over the 11-year span from 1930-1940, a large part of the region saw 15% to 25% less precipitation than normal. This is very significant to see such a large deficit over such a long period of time. This translates to 50 to 60 inches of much needed moisture which never arrived that decade. For an area which only averages less than 20 inches of precipitation a year, deficits like this can make the region resemble a desert. Deficits like this are the equivalent of missing three entire years of expected precipitation in one decade. Figure 2 is a map of the precipitation departures from normal in terms of a percentage of normal (total precipitation divided by normal precipitation) for the Dust Bowl region for 1930 to 1940.''
This information from NOAA makes one wonder if the weather/climate of late is really all that extreme or unusual and can be blamed on that old boogey man, CO2. Personally I think not since it is proven that there was a Medieval Warm Period followed by a Little Ice Age when it has been well established that there was a Younger Dryas period ''About 14,500 years ago, the Earth's climate began to shift from a cold glacial world to a warmer interglacial state. Partway through this transition, temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere suddenly returned to near-glacial conditions
Of course you are right that there were droughts in the past, and also changes in climate like the MWP and the Little Ice Age. Human-emitted CO2 did not cause the latter.
But in no way does that prove that CO2 doesn't have the ability to cause global warming. In fact, scientists know that it did.
NASA has a good explanation of how CO2 heats the planet: http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/. It starts as follows: "Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space."
Boy are you full of it .
I have come to recognize the hallmark of the statist serf is the nexus of arrogance and ignorance .
With an admixture of deceit .
uh,.. let me guess, your PhD is not in the hard sciences?
If the source and funding determine what you believe and what you don't, you rely on a 'credibility proxy'. That is a poor substitute for evidence and logic.
Sense Seeker: Could this be the same NASA that incorporates James Hansen and his proven to be fraudulent temperature reports that come out of the GISS unit? Temperatures for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole also had major cooling in the 1940s-1960s. That is the reason the global cooling scare happened, before Hansen fudged the main dataset to hide the decline. Such is illustrated and discussed at http://www.real-science.com/hansens-tremendous-data-tampering.
Since you seem to trust NOAA, as I generally do, you can report back on these finding by them.
The extreme lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature in the graph above comes from NOAA data, with the original sources being: Younger Dryas 11,500 years before present.
Hurricane frequency: U.S. landfall data back to the 1850s with no rise trend can be seen at http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml .
Is this also the same NASA that received this letter?
49 Former NASA Scientists Send A Letter Disputing Climate Change
''But in no way does that prove that CO2 doesn't have the ability to cause global warming. In fact, scientists know that it did.'' There are many REAL scientist that dispute your claim and do not agree with your emotional take on this issue, emotional because you have no real evidence such as an experiment that proves that the amount of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere does what you maintain that occurs. Do not go back to the ingenious experiment that John Tyndall carried out in 1859 or try to use any computer models, just actual experiments.
I doubt that you have given any thought to the fact that; since the sun comprises 99% of the mass of the solar system, that perhaps the sun's actions are the deciding factor regarding what the earth's climate does; but, that is not much fun if you can't blame humans for the climate.
Meteorologist Mark Nolan stated: I'm not sure which is more arrogant - to say we caused [global warming] or that we can fix it.
I'm afraid Sense Seeker that your PhD is showing and it does not do much for your logic, or lack of, that you seem to be trying to apply to this topic.
Education is for sure an important part of any civilized countries make up; but, one needs to consider that Thomas A. Edison held 1095 patents, making him one of the most prolific inventors ever, and he had 3 months of formal education. Was he a scientist? Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard during his freshman year & went on to do some pretty amazing things. Steven Jobs also dropped out of university during his freshman year. It is no theory or hypotheses that both Jobs and Gates went on to do some amazing things regarding computer SCIENCE without all of the PhD's behind their names; therefore, I assume that Mr. Watts could be a self educated individual in a field that has greatly interested him and just what difference does an organization that you kind of ''alarmist'' seem to want to hate, Heartland, have to do with any of this?
The Climate Change Scare Machine Chart
The believers of man-made-weather-disasters are wetting themselves with excitement over the class 1 hurricane, Sandy. It painful to watch grown men drool.
Poor things, they were really wounded by Climategate, and they've been waiting, praying that someday someone would level the playing field and show that skeptics were just as petty, shameless, and money-grubbing as their team turned out to be (not to mention hypocritical, deceptive and incompetent). In their dreams.
Instead the hyped non-denier-gate shows just how incredibly successful the Heartland Institute is. Look at the numbers. The skeptics have managed to turn the propaganda around against a tide of money, and it is really some achievement.
Entity USD
Greenpeace: $300m, 2010 Annual Report
WWF: $700m, ($524m Euro)
Pew Charitable Trust: $360m, 2010 Annual Report
Sierra Club: $56m, 2010 Annual Report
NSW climate change fund (just one random Gov. example): $750m, NSW Gov. (A$700m)
UK university climate fund (just another random Gov. example); $360m,UK Gov. (£234 m)
Heartland Institute: $7m, (actually $6.4m)
US government funding for climate science and technology: $7,000m, "Climate Money" 2009
US government funding for "climate related appropriations": $1,300m
Annual turnover in global carbon markets: $120,000m, 2010 Point Carbon
Annual investment in renewable energy: $243,000m, 2010 BNEF
US government funding for skeptical scientists
$ 0
If you can not get this right, then what do you have right that is believable?
There are Real scientist that try to do things that will benefit humanity instead of wanting to put us back in the stone age as the anthropogenic global warming folks would like to do with their hoax about how using fossil fuels is destroying the planet.
You're making this too complicated. When I quoted the Daily Mail it wasn't their editorial page I linked to. It was an article featuring data released by the Met Office (arguably the most prestigious climate organization on the planet), that showed no warming for sixteen years. You can debate the implications of that non-warming, while CO2 emissions increased. But you need to realize that no matter how much you insult the motives of people who study this issue, or attack their credentials, or question their funding sources, you can't change the empirical observations of evidence released by the Met Office. Remember, the Met Office is on your side in this debate. So when even they acknowledge the evidence, you know it's time to move on.
Do see my other post on that Daily Mail article. It is rubbish and the MET Office distanciated itself from it in a press release. (Which you can read here if you like: http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14...)
As to Doug, he too needs to spend less time in the blogosphere and more reading credible sources.
Sense seeker: OK, thanks for the link. I read the press release you referenced. I give them an A for effort but there was nothing in there that denied the basic empirical observations: temperatures have flatlined for the last 16 years, no matter how you try to spin that inconvenient fact. The press release tried to blow a lot of smoke around this basic truth, now stating that "16 years" is too short a time to mean anything. Of course the 1980 to 1998 warming was only 18 years, and we were to deduce that that implied the end of the world. Before that, we had another similar period in which the world was cooling. And before that it was warming. And before that it was cooling. You get the picture. But it all comes down to this: the causative correlation between CO2 and warming is conspicuously missing. That invalidates the AGW hypothesis. (Unless you are dealing in non-falsifiable hypothesis, which is a strong likelihood in this case.)
The week ahead: A very normal affair
Football and politics: David Cameron's own goal
America's Ukrainian mission: Training wheels
Britain's election campaign: April 25th: Nick Clegg tilts towards the...
An earthquake in Nepal: Shaken in the mountains
The prime minister: An interview with David Cameron
The future of New York City: They are coming, but will you build it?
Democracy in America
Have you listened to The Economist Radio on Facebook?
The Economist Radio is an on-demand social listening platform that allows you to listen, share and recommend The Economist audio content
Test your EQ
Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines
Want more from The Economist?
Visit The Economist e-store and you'll find a range of carefully selected products for business and pleasure, Economist books and diaries, and much more