Page 196 of 211 FirstFirst ... 96 146 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 ... LastLast
Results 9,751 to 9,800 of 10501
  1. #9751
    John2b is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    221

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    I think we all agree on that as a broad statement. Physics tells us so.

    But is it runaway warming?
    Is it harmful warming?
    Is it so minute that it is a waste of recourses to try and prevent.
    Is it a main driver of climate?
    Is there a feed back loop that magnifies the warming?

    John2b the issue is almost dead. I am going to miss like hell stirring warmists into a frenzy trying to convince us otherwise. Should get at least another 3-5 years out of it though. Stick around this is fun.

    It is fair to say that I, and probably a lot of other "warmists", wish the issue was dead, but the issue is not even faltering, let alone dead or dying. I don't know what kind of vacuum or fact free zone you live in, but as long as you post your myths I trust that someone will see them off, as tedious as the process is. The truth will out, as they say, and opinion doesn't matter to the climate.

    Is it runaway warming? Who knows?

    Is it harmful warming? You are obviously not a gardener!

    Is it so minute that it is a waste of recourses to try and prevent. So far the evidence is heavily weighed against this notion.

    Is it a main driver of climate? No it is not a main driver of climate. It is, however an unprecedented driver of rapid climate change at a rate that will preclude adaption for much of the biosphere.

    Is there a feed back loop that magnifies the warming? Who knows. That's why "The Precautionary Principle" should be invoked: The Precautionary Principle | Precautionary Principle

    A big issue with "global warming" is the accumulation of energy in weather systems. Don't think for one minute think that weather with more energy is going to be kind to humans.

  2. #9752
    Rod Dyson is offline quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,627

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    It is fair to say that I, and probably a lot of other "warmists", wish the issue was dead, but the issue is not even faltering, let alone dead or dying. I don't know what kind of vacuum or fact free zone you live in, but as long as you post your myths I trust that someone will see them off, as tedious as the process is. The truth will out, as they say, and opinion doesn't matter to the climate.

    Is it runaway warming? Who knows?

    Is it harmful warming? You are obviously not a gardener!

    Is it so minute that it is a waste of recourses to try and prevent. So far the evidence is heavily weighed against this notion.

    Is it a main driver of climate? No it is not a main driver of climate. It is, however an unprecedented driver of rapid climate change at a rate that will preclude adaption for much of the biosphere.

    Is there a feed back loop that magnifies the warming? Who knows. That's why "The Precautionary Principle" should be invoked: The Precautionary Principle | Precautionary Principle

    A big issue with "global warming" is the accumulation of energy in weather systems. Don't think for one minute think that weather with more energy is going to be kind to humans.
    Rapid, Runaway, Kind of the same don't you think. Unprecedented/rapid climate change, all scary words that mean nothing as it simply cannot be proven that there has been Unprecedented Rapid climate change. Total figment of imagination and cherry picked data. See medieval warm period, also done to death here, so don't bother. See Michael Manns discredited hockey stick.... also done to death here.

    Yep Rapid.... Unprecedented......... all scary words to scare the pants off the unsuspecting dupe. Yes many have bought it too.

    LOL the precautionary principle has been done to death! No points on that one. Who knows... is exactly right!
    CARBON TAX
    NO


    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT

  3. #9753
    intertd6 is offline 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    1,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    So climate has changed in the past. What a revelation. When heat is added to the climate, temperatures rise. Now that there is a verifiable, measurable positive energy imbalance due to the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperature is rising again, surprise, surprise. The empirical history just proves the obvious, that global warming as a result of human contributions the the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is inevitable.
    all you have to do is explain the physics of why the high levels of CO2 in the past had no influence on the temperatures, then you can explain why this should be different to this age, as we all know the laws of physics do not change.
    regards inter

  4. #9754
    John2b is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    221

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    all you have to do is explain the physics of why the high levels of CO2 in the past had no influence on the temperatures, then you can explain why this should be different to this age, as we all know the laws of physics do not change.
    regards inter
    You won't get any argument from "warmists" that the Laws of Physics don't apply, but sorry, no there is nothing to explain. High levels of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past had the same influence on inward and outward radiation as they do today. You do understand that CO2 is not the only driver of climate?! CO2 is the factor that humans are currently influencing and the one that has recently altered the Earth's radiation balance and caused heat energy to accumulate on the surface of the Earth at an unprecedented rate. That's an empirically measured and documented fact.

  5. #9755
    woodbe is offline Gone Feral - 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,822

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    LOL the precautionary principle has been done to death! No points on that one. Who knows... is exactly right!
    Whatever you do john2b, don't ask Rod if he insures his life, car and house or has superannuation.

    woodbe.

  6. #9756
    intertd6 is offline 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    1,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    You won't get any argument from "warmists" that the Laws of Physics don't apply, but sorry, no there is nothing to explain. High levels of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past had the same influence on inward and outward radiation as they do today. You do understand that CO2 is not the only driver of climate?! CO2 is the factor that humans are currently influencing and the one that has recently altered the Earth's radiation balance and caused heat energy to accumulate on the surface of the Earth at an unprecedented rate. That's an empirically measured and documented fact.
    My statement expressly was about the relationship between past CO2 levels & the temperatures, if you took the time to study the data provided previously you couldn't confuse the lack of relationship between the past & what is happening now which confirms that the present so called proof between CO2 & rising temperatures is anecdotal. You are just parroting a theory which just doesn't match the realities of the historic evidence, which fundamentally is ignoring the other side of the debate, one eyed so to speak.
    Of course humans are influencing the climate, the data clearly shows that, CO2 is the cult your hanging your hat on & if it remotely preceded any warming in the historic evidence then we would all be agreement.
    It seems by some of the words you are using, could indicate how frightened you are to a perceived threat & your social instincts push you to tell & warn others of the impending danger, the problem with this is that it becomes follow the perceived leader / religion / politics / story / theory & disregard all other information.
    when you can explain the past lack of relationship between temperature & CO2 then we will all sit up & listen.
    regards inter

  7. #9757
    Rod Dyson is offline quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,627

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    My statement expressly was about the relationship between past CO2 levels & the temperatures, if you took the time to study the data provided previously you couldn't confuse the lack of relationship between the past & what is happening now which confirms that the present so called proof between CO2 & rising temperatures is anecdotal. You are just parroting a theory which just doesn't match the realities of the historic evidence, which fundamentally is ignoring the other side of the debate, one eyed so to speak.
    Of course humans are influencing the climate, the data clearly shows that, CO2 is the cult your hanging your hat on & if it remotely preceded any warming in the historic evidence then we would all be agreement.
    It seems by some of the words you are using, could indicate how frightened you are to a perceived threat & your social instincts push you to tell & warn others of the impending danger, the problem with this is that it becomes follow the perceived leader / religion / politics / story / theory & disregard all other information.
    when you can explain the past lack of relationship between temperature & CO2 then we will all sit up & listen.
    regards inter
    I think man made co2 is different inter! I think it is a stronger type of co2 that reacts differently to the co2 that occurs naturally. This is why just a tiny portion of the total c02 is so dangerous. /sarc
    CARBON TAX
    NO


    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT

  8. #9758
    intertd6 is offline 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    1,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    I think man made co2 is different inter! I think it is a stronger type of co2 that reacts differently to the co2 that occurs naturally. This is why just a tiny portion of the total c02 is so dangerous. /sarc
    And we're not quite stupid enough to realise it!
    regards inter

  9. #9759
    woodbe is offline Gone Feral - 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,822

    Default

    I'd be happy to accept the proposition that the relationship between CO2 in the atmosphere and actual temperatures in the past is the same now if you could prove that ALL the climate forcings were also identical to the present.

    Picking a CO2 level in the past that was high at the same time the temperature was low means nothing unless you understand the climate at that time. Eyeballing a chart of CO2 vs Temperature does not give us that. Ignoring that variances in any or all forcings can drown out the known effect of CO2 does not change the physics of CO2 or it's effect on climate.

    The funny thing about this is that this is where you guys get to eat all your tired old arguments. "It's the Sun", "It's the Volcanoes", "It's the clouds", "It's water vapor", "It's Cosmic Rays", "It's land Use", etc ad infinitum.

    LOL.

    woodbe.

  10. #9760
    Rod Dyson is offline quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,627

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    I'd be happy to accept the proposition that the relationship between CO2 in the atmosphere and actual temperatures in the past is the same now if you could prove that ALL the climate forcings were also identical to the present.

    Picking a CO2 level in the past that was high at the same time the temperature was low means nothing unless you understand the climate at that time. Eyeballing a chart of CO2 vs Temperature does not give us that. Ignoring that variances in any or all forcings can drown out the known effect of CO2 does not change the physics of CO2 or it's effect on climate.

    The funny thing about this is that this is where you guys get to eat all your tired old arguments. "It's the Sun", "It's the Volcanoes", "It's the clouds", "It's water vapor", "It's Cosmic Rays", "It's land Use", etc ad infinitum.

    LOL.

    woodbe.
    You have pretty much answered the reason why we should not be concerned by co2 now. So many un-knowns affect the climate, so many things that we simply don't understand.

    Yes we know the physics of co2. Now how much does co2 affect climate again? And what is the logarithmic effect from a doubling of co2 again? Hmm thought so. Without the un-proven, un-falsifiable feedbacks and sensitivities man made Co2 is but a piss in the proverbial atmospheric ocean.

    Ignore all of those other contributing factors if you will, really stupid IMO but that is the nature of our climate. NOBODY really knows how it works. They really don't know how we flip from a warm period to an ice age, there are plenty of educated guess out there. But lets face it the climate is a HUGE can of worms.
    CARBON TAX
    NO


    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT

  11. #9761
    woodbe is offline Gone Feral - 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,822

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    You have pretty much answered the reason why we should not be concerned by co2 now. So many un-knowns affect the climate, so many things that we simply don't understand.

    Yes we know the physics of co2. Now how much does co2 affect climate again? And what is the logarithmic effect from a doubling of co2 again? Hmm thought so. Without the un-proven, un-falsifiable feedbacks and sensitivities man made Co2 is but a piss in the proverbial atmospheric ocean.

    Ignore all of those other contributing factors if you will, really stupid IMO but that is the nature of our climate. NOBODY really knows how it works. They really don't know how we flip from a warm period to an ice age, there are plenty of educated guess out there. But lets face it the climate is a HUGE can of worms.
    You can't get away with that one. We know more about today's climate than we know about the climate of the past. You are conveniently forgetting that we have been measuring the current climate for hundreds of years and the current state of climate science is telling us stuff we should be paying attention to, not denying because we couldn't know everything exactly to the last poofteenth. We can measure and account for the physics of all the forcings and watch them play out in the climate. Every year, every change in the climate improves our knowledge. No-one suggests the climate is simple except the fake skeptics who trot out their tired old myths.

    I'm not suggesting we are ignoring contributing factors, I'm suggesting that looking at just a CO2/Temperature chart from the past IS ignoring all contributing factors.

    woodbe.

  12. #9762
    Marc's Avatar
    Marc is offline 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,023

    Default

    To be or not 2b, that is the question...

    I was searching for an interview with Mr Suzuki where he concedes defeat on the "conservationist" front yet couldn't find it, In stead I found this gem.
    Enjoy.

    David Suzuki proves he’s pig ignorant about global warming

    The very first question put to David Suzuki on Q&A last night revealed this warming alarmist’s complete ignorance of the most basic facts of global warming.Fancy Suzuki not even knowing what the world’s main temperature data sets say about global temperatures. Fancy him not even knowing what those data sets are, even when he is given their names.The only rational response to Suzuki’s astonishing admission of utter ignorance would have been to say to him: “Sir, you are a phony and imposter. Get off the stage and don’t waste our time for a second longer.”Read the exchange for yourself:

    BILL KOUTALIANOS: Oh, hi. Since 1998 global temperatures have been relatively flat, yet many man-made global warming advocates refuse to acknowledge this simple fact. Has man-made global warming become a new religion in itself?
    TONY JONES: David, go ahead.

    DAVID SUZUKI: Yeah, well, I don’t know why you’re saying that. The ten hottest years on record, as I understand it, have been in this century. In fact, the warming continues. It may have slowed down but the warming continues and everybody is anticipating some kind of revelation in the next IPCC reports that are saying we got it wrong. As far as I understand, we haven’t. So where are you getting your information? I’m not a climatologist. I wait for the climatologists to tell us what they’re thinking.

    TONY JONES: Do you want to respond to that, Bill?

    BILL KOUTALIANOS: Sure, yeah. UAH, RSS, HadCRUT, GISS data shows a 17-year flat trend which suggests there may be something wrong with the Co2 warming theory?

    DAVID SUZUKI: Sorry, yeah, what is the reference? I don’t…

    BILL KOUTALIANOS: Well, they’re the main data sets that IPCC use: UAH, University of Alabama, Huntsville; GISS, Goddard Institute of Science; HadCRUT. I don’t know what that stands for, HadCRUT; and RSS, Remote Sensing something. So those data sets suggest a 17-year flat trend, which suggests there may be a problem with the Co2.

    DAVID SUZUKI: No, well, there may be a climate sceptic down in Huntsville, Alabama, who has taken the data and come to that conclusion. I say, let’s wait for the IPCC report to come out and see what the vast bulk of scientists who have been involved in gathering this information will tell us.
    See those data sets here.Like I say, a complete know-nothing, citing false claims:

    STEWART FRANKS: In an opinion piece last week you wrote that the Great Barrier Reef was threatened by the increasing frequency of cyclones. Everyone watching and listening can onto the Bureau of Meteorology’s website and see that there is no increase. In fact there has been a decline over the last 40 years and no increase in the severity. Are you not, by exaggerating…

    DAVID SUZUKI: That I have to admit…

    STEWART FRANKS: ...or even just getting wrong, are you not actually vulnerable of actually undermining your very own aim in that, you know, the Great Barrier Reef does have environmental threat, but cyclones ain’t one of them?

    DAVID SUZUKI: All right. That was one, I have to admit, that that was suggested to me by an Australian, and it is true, I mean, it may be a mistake. I don’t know.
    Nor does David Suzuki know what the hell he’s on about when he’s fear-mongering about genetically modified crops:

    DAVID SUZUKI: Well, I mean, that is always the argument that’s made. GMOs are very, very expensive. Now, the people that need this food are not going to be able to afford it. Are we going to just create these new crops and then give them away? I simply don’t believe that’s what’s going to happen. I don’t think it is a generosity for the rest of humanity that is driving this activity.

    RICK ROUSH: Actually, we are. I mean, Bt corn technology has been given away to the Kenyan State Government research people for use for subsistence farmers. Monsanto gave away insect resistant potatoes in Mexico over 20 years ago. James is working on lots of similar cases. In cases where there is no economic return, it is, in fact, being given away and they’re not so difficult to develop. When I was at Cornell, we got a gene that was a gift from Monsanto for experimental purposes. We made broccoli plants that were resistant to attacks of Dimebag Moths. A student - one of our students made about 50 transformants in about six months. The great cost of these things are no longer the actual creation of the plant. It’s the regulatory challenges to take sure that you can take them to market, to do all that safety testing.

    TONY JONES: Okay, Rick, well we’ll get a response to that and we’ll move on?

    DAVID SUZUKI: Well, I don’t have any response. It sounds great. I don’t know.

    How in God’s name could people take this man seriously?
    Marc.


    There's only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving,
    and that's your own self.

    Aldous Huxley



  13. #9763
    johnc's Avatar
    johnc is offline 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    58
    Posts
    1,853

    Default

    For a start it is taken from a Q and A program which means it is a carefully selected highlight. Secondly we have a bit of fairly puerile Bolt editing by the look of it as he obviously doesn't think this show stopper says much at all with out his slant being foisted on his largely pig ignorant reading public. Lastly Dr Suzuki is well respected his answers don't provide enough to get either the Bolt or Marc conclusion. Character assassination such as this is a very low way to get a point across.

  14. #9764
    John2b is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    221

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    To be or not 2b, that is the question...

    How in God’s name could people take this man seriously?
    Who, Andrew Bolt? I really don't know!

  15. #9765
    Marc's Avatar
    Marc is offline 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,023

    Default

    It's Monday morning and I am home with the flu. I assumed productive members of the community may read this message sometime in the evening or tomorrow night perhaps.
    I was wrong.
    In this years of reading and writing on this subject it seems that the alarmist side has way much more time on their hands than the conservative.
    Just an observation.

    So lets see if the evil Andrew Bolt and the evil Marc are the only one on this page.

    Bill Koutalianos has asked: Since 1998 global temperatures have been relatively flat, yet many man-made global warming advocates refuse to acknowledge this simple fact. Has man-made global warming become a new religion in itself?

    What do you think?

    Author leaf
    Date/Time 23 Sep 2013 9:44:58pm
    Subject >>Re: 23.09.13 Q1 - CLIMATE - NO RISE SINCE ’98
    such things include radio active waste, plastic, bug killer, subs, drones

    I love how Suzuki makes a disparaging remark about sceptics who are not climatologists, yet he keeps stating he is not a climatologist and is pushing the global warming alarmism.

    So it's okay for him to push an agenda without expertise in a field, yet it's not okay for someone else not in that field to question the agenda?

    Author GeorgeB
    Date/Time 23 Sep 2013 9:52:06pm
    Subject >>Re: 23.09.13 Q1 - CLIMATE - NO RISE SINCE ’98
    "So it's okay for him to push an agenda without expertise in a field, yet it's not okay for someone else not in that field to question the agenda?"

    EXACTLY!

    Sounds like another Tim Flannery, Kevin Rudd, or Julia Gillard!

    Author 0ctatron
    Date/Time 24 Sep 2013 1:36:02am
    Subject >>Re: 23.09.13 Q1 - CLIMATE - NO RISE SINCE ’98
    Yes because if there's no rise in the last 15 years, and there has been over the last couple of centuries since the industrial revolution. Then we should call it all off and say mission accomplished just like George Bush did.. Yeah right.. Scientists have been collating data on this based on the average temperature of Earth over HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS. From Ice core samples and many other biological and geological sources, all over the world from Geologists, Hydrologists, Biologists, Meteorologists, Climatologists.. out of the odd 30,000 Scientists across these fields who have devoted their lives to studying these fields about 1000 disagree, boohoo! Look into a subject called Data Analysis, also known as Statistics. There are mathmatical formulas to see if you have the right sample range and sample size, to accurately measure the subject you chose to study! Realize that heating the ocean will evaporate more water creating bigger more intense storm systems and snow storms..

    Author dh
    Date/Time 25 Sep 2013 3:28:14pm
    Subject >>Re: 23.09.13 Q1 - CLIMATE - NO RISE SINCE ’98
    Good point. I am a Canadian and it's amazing how some Canadians and especially the government owned CBC media see this guy as a saint. Meanwhile he owns 3 luxury home worth 10 million dollars largely paid by taxpayers and jets all over the world burning jet fuel spreading his global warming alarm ism nonsense.

    Author GeorgeB
    Date/Time 23 Sep 2013 9:50:40pm
    Subject >Re: 23.09.13 Q1 - CLIMATE - NO RISE SINCE ’98
    "Has man-made global warming become a new religion in itself?"

    Your question is critical! Anthropogenic Climate change IS now another CRAZY RELIGION!

    CONSENSUS IS NOT SCIENCE! OR RELIGION! WILD AGREEMENT ON HUMAN GUESSTIMATES (OR COMPUTERS USING HUMAN MADE ALGORITHMS TO GUESSTIMATE) IS NOT SCIENCE! OR RELIGION!

    FACT IS!

    And if the planet’s population is allowed to keep increasing the way it is, there will automatically be an increase in temperature in most places as those people cook, breath and bathe etc etc etc!

    But THAT does NOT prove human exhaled or produced CO2 is the ONLY CAUSE!

    WHAT ABOUT NATURAL CYCLES! THE SUN! ETC ETC!


    Tim Flannery! Arms length???? Come off it!

    Author GeorgeB
    Date/Time 23 Sep 2013 10:53:28pm
    Subject >>Re: 23.09.13 Q1 - CLIMATE - NO RISE SINCE ’98
    AND NOW we hear that ALL of the members of the now disbanded Climate Change Commission have decided they will reform and .... wait for it ......

    WORK FOR NOTHING!

    SO Labor wasted millions of OUR taxpayer-money on Tim Flannery and co when they, NO WE, could have had ALL of their lazy propaganda FOR ZERO!








    Marc.


    There's only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving,
    and that's your own self.

    Aldous Huxley



  16. #9766
    Marc's Avatar
    Marc is offline 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,023

    Default

    James Delingpole

    James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books, including his most recent work Watermelons: How the Environmentalists are Killing the Planet, Destroying the Economy and Stealing Your Children's Future, also available in the US, and in Australia as Killing the Earth to Save It. His website is www.jamesdelingpole.com.







    The climate alarmists have lost the debate: it's time we stopped indulging their poisonous fantasy


    By James Delingpole Environment Last updated: October 6th, 2013
    4053 Comments Comment on this article

    Not in danger. Never really were. (Photo: ALAMY)

    The story so far: with the release of its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has proved beyond reasonable doubt that it cannot be taken seriously.
    Here are a few reasons why: IPCC lead author Dr Richard Lindzen has accused it of having "sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence." Nigel Lawson has called it "not science but mumbo jumbo". The Global Warming Policy Foundation's Dr David Whitehouse has described the IPCC's panel as "evasive and inaccurate" in the way it tried dodge the key issue of the 15-year (at least) pause in global warming; Donna Laframboise notes that is either riddled with errors or horribly politically manipulated – or both; Paul Matthews has found a very silly graph; Steve McIntyre has exposed how the IPCC appears deliberately to have tried to obfuscate the unhelpful discrepancy between its models and the real world data; and at Bishop Hill the excellent Katabasis has unearthed another gem: that, in jarring contrast to the alarmist message being put out at IPCC press conferences and in the Summary For Policymakers, the body of the report tells a different story – that almost all the scary scenarios we've been warned about this last two decades (from permafrost melt to ice sheet collapse) are now been graded by scientists somewhere between "low confidence" to "exceptionally unlikely;" and this latest from the Mighty Booker.
    And there's plenty more where that came from.

    Now, of course, I fully appreciate how the climate alarmists are going to respond to these criticisms: same way they always do – with a barrage of lies, ad homs, cover-ups, rank-closings, blustering threats, straw men, and delusion-bubble conferences like the one they've just staged at the Royal Society in which one warmist pseudo-scientist after another mounts the podium to reassure his amen corner that everything's going just fine and that those evil denialists couldn't be more wrong.

    Well, if that's how they want to play it – fighting to the bitter end for their lost cause like Werewolves in Northern Europe in '45 or those fanatical Japanese hold outs on remote Pacific islands – I guess that's their problem.


    But what I really don't think we should be doing at this stage in the game is allowing it to be our problem too. As I argued here the other week, there is more than enough solid evidence now to demonstrate to any neutral party prepared to cast half an eye over it that the doomsday prognostications the warmist establishment has been trying to frighten us with these last two decades are a nonsense. The man-made global warming scare story has not a shred of scientific credibility. It's over. And while I don't expect the alarmists to admit this any time soon, I do think the rest of us should stop indulging them in their poisonous fantasy.


    I'm thinking, for example, of this line from the Spectator's otherwise superb, accurate and fair editorial summarising the state of play on climate:
    Global warming is still a monumental challenge….

    Is it? More of a "monumental" challenge than global cooling? And the evidence for that statement can be found where exactly? Please – I'd love to see it. Where's the data that proves the modest 0.8 degrees C warming in the last 150 years has done more harm than good?

    It may seem unduly picky to quibble over just seven errant words from an otherwise immaculate 800 word editorial. But it's precisely intellectually lazy concessions like this that are serving only to prolong a propaganda war that really should have ended long ago.

    I feel the same way when I read one of those on-the-one-hand-and-on-the-other think pieces from someone on the "sceptical" side of the argument or an editorial in a newspaper trying to position itself as the voice of reasonable authority on the climate issue. You know the sort I mean: where, in order to make his case seem more balanced and sympathetic the author concedes at the beginning that there are faults and extremists on both sides of the argument and that it's time we all met in the middle and found a sensible solution. (I call this the Dog Poo Yoghurt Fallacy)


    This is absurd, dishonest, inaccurate and counterproductive. It's as if, after a long, long game of cat and mouse between a few maverick, out-on-a-limb private investigators and an enormous Mafia cartel, an outside arbitrator steps in and says: "Well there's fault on both sides. You Mafia people have been really quite naughty with your multi-billion dollar crime spree. But you private investigators, you deserve a rap on the knuckles too because some of that language you've been using to describe the Mafia cartel is really quite offensive and hurtful. Why, you've actually been calling them "thieving criminals."

    "But they are thieving criminals," the investigators protest. "And do you have any idea what it has cost us pursuing this case? Do you realise how hard the cartel worked to vilify us, marginalise us, make us seem like crazed extremists? These people have stolen billions, they've lied, they've cheated, they're responsible for numerous deaths, and you're, what, you're going to buy into the specious argument of their bullshitting consigliere Roberto "Mad Dog" Ward that they deserve special favours because their tender feelings have been hurt with unkind language?"

    It's time we took the gloves off in this fight – not to escalate it but to stop it being prolonged with this ludicrous diplomatic game where we have to pretend that there's fault on both sides – not because it's in any way true, but because the climate scam is so vast and all-encompassing that there are just too many people in positions of power or authority who need to be indulged by being allowed to save face.

    Why?

    To give you but one example, last week two warmists were given space to have a go at DEFRA Secretary of State Owen Paterson.
    Professor Kevin Anderson, of Manchester University, toldthe Independent: “His view that we can muddle through climate change is a colonial, arrogant, rich person’s view.”
    And Professor Myles Allen of Oxford University, one of the authors of the report, said: “I find it very worrying that this person is charged with adapting [Britain] to climate change. I do think it is a good idea for whoever is planning for adaptation to have a realistic understanding of what the science is saying.”

    This rightly taxed the patience of even the scrupulously non-combative Bishop Hill:
    One can't help but think that politicians' understanding of the science might be helped if scientists, including Professor Allen, had tried to write a clear explanation of it rather than trying to obfuscate any difficulty that might distract from the message of doom.

    Quite. What Paterson said about the current state of climate change is both demonstrably true and wholly unexceptionable:
    “People get very emotional about this subject and I think we should just accept that the climate has been changing for centuries”, he said.
    “Remember that for humans, the biggest cause of death is cold in winter, far bigger than heat in summer. It would also lead to longer growing seasons and you could extend growing a little further north into some of the colder areas.

    If shyster professors with cushy sinecures in state-funded seats of academe wish to counter such reasonable statements of the glaringly obvious – statements, furthermore, which are actually supported by the body of the new IPCC report (see above) – then the onus is on them to do so using verifiable facts rather than vague, emotive smears.


    To return to my favourite field of analogy – World War II – the situation we're in now is analogous to the dog days of 1945 when the allied advance was held up by small pockets of fanatical resistance. The Allies had a choice: either painstakingly take each village at the cost of numerous infantry or simply stand back and give those villages an ultimatum – you have an hour to surrender and if you don't we're going to obliterate you with our artillery.

    We have to take a stand on this issue. One side is right; one side is quite simply wrong and deserves to be humiliated and crushingly defeated. And the sooner – for all those of us who believe in truth, decency and liberty – the better.

    Tags: Bishop Hill, Dog Poo Yoghurt Fallacy, Fifth Assessment Report, Global Warming Policy Foundation, IPCC, Japanese hold outs on remote Pacific islands, Katabasis, Owen Paterson, Professor Kevin Anderson, Professor Myles Allen, Richard Lindzen, Sir Paul Nurse, Spectator, Steve McIntyre,Werewolves


    Marc.


    There's only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving,
    and that's your own self.

    Aldous Huxley



  17. #9767
    Marc's Avatar
    Marc is offline 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,023

    Default


    larger image

    Killing the Earth to Save It
    How Environmentalists are ruining the planet, destroying the economy and stealing your jobs

    James Delingpole

    Paperback, 320 pages,


    Carbon taxes won't make the slightest difference to climate change, so why are we introducing them?
    Polar bear populations are on the increase, so why are we worrying about them?
    Global warming is better than global cooling, so why are we trying to stop it?


    James Delingpole has all the answers - and they're not the ones Tim Flannery would like you to hear. In Killing The Earth To Save It the outspoken blogger and author who helped break the Climategate scandal tells the shocking true story of how a handful of political activists, green campaigners and voodoo scientists engineered the biggest, most expensive and destructive outbreak of mass hysteria.

    In the name of "saving the planet for future generations" they're chopping down rainforests to make biofuels; they're carpeting the landscape with bat-chomping, bird-mincing wind farms; they're raising taxes, increasing regulations, killing the economy, driving up the cost of living, destroying jobs.

    But is any of this stuff really necessary? Or might there be a better way?
    Marc.


    There's only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving,
    and that's your own self.

    Aldous Huxley



  18. #9768
    woodbe is offline Gone Feral - 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,822

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post

    James Delingpole has all the answers - and they're not the ones Tim Flannery would like you to hear.
    I bet Tim's surprised to hear that.

    This is all you need to know about James Delingpole:



    He's the UK version of Bolt, but better for a laugh than Bolt.

    He 'reports' to a large UK audience on Climate Science, but he's so busy he doesn't have time to read the science. I guess it's hard work researching denial. Like when he came over here telling us about how windmills had destroyed ghost towns.

    woodbe.

  19. #9769
    Marc's Avatar
    Marc is offline 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,023

    Default

    I don't see any problem with that interview.
    It shows a person clearly uneasy with a camera crew and an interviewer shoved in his face at his home and an analogy made between climate change consensus and if he had cancer.
    Distasteful in the extreme, and the wrong analogy. The rest of the interview is a great example of where the alarmist stand. Bigots, smug, pontificating, know it all, we know best, no different from a missionary preaching to the savages' medicine doctor.

    You lack of discernment about people is a bad as your choice of causes.
    Marc.


    There's only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving,
    and that's your own self.

    Aldous Huxley



  20. #9770
    Marc's Avatar
    Marc is offline 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,023

    Default

    The ‘Pause’ of Global Warming Risks Destroying The Reputation Of Science

    Posted on January 26, 2014 by Anthony Watts
    By Garth Paltridge
    Global temperatures have not risen for 17 years. The pause now threatens to expose how much scientists sold their souls for cash and fame, warns emeritus professor Garth Paltridge, former chief research scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research.
    Climate Change’s Inherent Uncertainties
    …there has been no significant warming over the most recent fifteen or so years…
    In the light of all this, we have at least to consider the possibility that the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously overstating the climate problem … in its effort to promote the cause. It is a particularly nasty trap in the context of science, because it risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis of society’s respect for scientific endeavour…
    The trap was set in the late 1970s or thereabouts when the environmental movement first realised that doing something about global warming would play to quite a number of its social agendas. At much the same time, it became accepted wisdom around the corridors of power that government-funded scientists (that is, most scientists) should be required to obtain a goodly fraction of their funds and salaries from external sources—external anyway to their own particular organisation.
    The scientists in environmental research laboratories, since they are not normally linked to any particular private industry, were forced to seek funds from other government departments. In turn this forced them to accept the need for advocacy and for the manipulation of public opinion. For that sort of activity, an arm’s-length association with the environmental movement would be a union made in heaven…
    The trap was partially sprung in climate research when a number of the relevant scientists began to enjoy the advocacy business. The enjoyment was based on a considerable increase in funding and employment opportunity. The increase was not so much on the hard-science side of things but rather in the emerging fringe institutes and organisations devoted, at least in part, to selling the message of climatic doom. A new and rewarding research lifestyle emerged which involved the giving of advice to all types and levels of government, the broadcasting of unchallengeable opinion to the general public, and easy justification for attendance at international conferences—this last in some luxury by normal scientific experience, and at a frequency previously unheard of…
    The trap was fully sprung when many of the world’s major national academies of science (such as the … Australian Academy of Science) persuaded themselves to issue reports giving support to the conclusions of the IPCC. The reports were touted as national assessments that were supposedly independent of the IPCC and of each other, but of necessity were compiled with the assistance of, and in some cases at the behest of, many of the scientists involved in the IPCC international machinations. In effect, the academies, which are the most prestigious of the institutions of science, formally nailed their colours to the mast of the politically correct.
    Since that time three or four years ago, there has been no comfortable way for the scientific community to raise the spectre of serious uncertainty about the forecasts of climatic disaster… It can no longer escape prime responsibility if it should turn out in the end that doing something in the name of mitigation of global warming is the costliest scientific mistake ever visited on humanity.
    Full story here at: Quadrant Online
    Marc.


    There's only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving,
    and that's your own self.

    Aldous Huxley



  21. #9771
    Marc's Avatar
    Marc is offline 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,023

    Default

    Scientists baffled as Sun activity falls to century low


    • 16 DAYS AGO JANUARY 19, 2014 2:36AM



    THE Sun’s activity has plummeted to a century low, baffling scientists and possibly heralding a new mini-Ice Age.

    "I've been a solar physicist for 30 years, and I've never seen anything quite like this," Richard Harrison, head of space physics at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire, told the BBC.
    "If you want to go back to see when the Sun was this inactive... you've got to go back about 100 years," he said.
    The lull is particularly surprising because the Sun has reached its solar maximum, the point in its 11-year cycle where activity is at its peak.
    The lacklustre climax also follows a solar minimum – the period when the Sun’s activity troughs – that was longer and lower than had been anticipated.
    Mike Lockwood, professor of space environment physics at the University of Reading, told the BBC there was a significant chance that the Sun could become increasingly quiet.
    He compared the current circumstances to the latter half of the 17th Century, when the sun went through an extremely quiet phase referred to as the Maunder Minimum.
    That era of solar inactivity coincided with bitterly cold winters to Europe, where the Baltic Sea and London's River Thames froze over. Conditions were so harsh that some described it as a mini-Ice Age.

    Solar lull... The Sun hasn't been this quiet in 100 years, scientists say. Picture: NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory




    Prof Lockwood says we may see a repeat if the Sun continues to dip, positing that the results would be dominantly felt in Europe due to the flow of an air current in the upper atmosphere that can drive the weather.
    "It's a very active research topic at the present time, but we do think there is a mechanism in Europe where we should expect more cold winters when solar activity is low," he said.

    Marc.


    There's only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving,
    and that's your own self.

    Aldous Huxley



  22. #9772
    woodbe is offline Gone Feral - 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,822

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post

    Solar lull... The Sun hasn't been this quiet in 100 years, scientists say. Picture: NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory
    Yep, the sun is a climate variable too. Welcome to your discovery of forcings, you're a bit late. LOL.

    woodbe

  23. #9773
    intertd6 is offline 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    1,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Yep, the sun is a climate variable too. Welcome to your discovery of forcings, you're a bit late. LOL.

    woodbe
    and your definitive answer for no global warming for the last 16 years is ???
    regards inter

  24. #9774
    Rod Dyson is offline quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,627

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    and your definitive answer for no global warming for the last 16 years is ???
    regards inter
    Easy.... The ocean ate all our heat, ready to spew it up on us in 5 years time!
    CARBON TAX
    NO


    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT

  25. #9775
    John2b is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    221

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    and your definitive answer for no global warming for the last 16 years is ???
    regards inter
    What planet are you on? Teleporting in to this forum, apparently.

  26. #9776
    Rod Dyson is offline quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,627

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    What planet are you on? Teleporting in to this forum, apparently.

    What do you mean?
    CARBON TAX
    NO


    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT

  27. #9777
    John2b is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    221

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    What do you mean?
    It is know empirically that the Earth's energy imbalance as a result of manmade CO2 emissions has not ended, and that energy is continuing to accumulate in the oceans. Surface temperature is only a proxy for global warming. 95% of the radiant energy from the Sun that arrives on the Earth is absorbed by the oceans in the first instance, and weather systems are what moves that energy into the atmosphere and land masses. Recent history shows that the rise in atmospheric air temperature is not linear, but affected by many oscillations, some well understood, some not. The Earth's atmospheric temperate record for the past few years does not in any way controvert the science or physics or global warming. Anyone who thinks that there has been "no global warming for xxx years" either isn't paying attention or isn't talking about the planet Earth.

  28. #9778
    Rod Dyson is offline quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,627

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    It is know empirically that the Earth's energy imbalance as a result of manmade CO2 emissions has not ended, and that energy is continuing to accumulate in the oceans. Surface temperature is only a proxy for global warming. 95% of the radiant energy from the Sun that arrives on the Earth is absorbed by the oceans in the first instance, and weather systems are what moves that energy into the atmosphere and land masses. Recent history shows that the rise in atmospheric air temperature is not linear, but affected by many oscillations, some well understood, some not. The Earth's atmospheric temperate record for the past few years does not in any way controvert the science or physics or global warming. Anyone who thinks that there has been "no global warming for xxx years" either isn't paying attention or isn't talking about the planet Earth.
    See I told you. The OCEAN ATE MY WARMING!!
    CARBON TAX
    NO


    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT

  29. #9779
    John2b is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    221

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    See I told you. The OCEAN ATE MY WARMING!!
    Did you think that radiant heat from the Sun heated the Earth's lower atmosphere directly? Oh dear....

  30. #9780
    intertd6 is offline 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    1,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Easy.... The ocean ate all our heat, ready to spew it up on us in 5 years time!
    And if it doesn't happen in that time frame it will be extended 10 , 20 , 50 or 100 years.
    regards inter

  31. #9781
    intertd6 is offline 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    1,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    It is know empirically that the Earth's energy imbalance as a result of manmade CO2 emissions has not ended, and that energy is continuing to accumulate in the oceans. Surface temperature is only a proxy for global warming. 95% of the radiant energy from the Sun that arrives on the Earth is absorbed by the oceans in the first instance, and weather systems are what moves that energy into the atmosphere and land masses. Recent history shows that the rise in atmospheric air temperature is not linear, but affected by many oscillations, some well understood, some not. The Earth's atmospheric temperate record for the past few years does not in any way controvert the science or physics or global warming. Anyone who thinks that there has been "no global warming for xxx years" either isn't paying attention or isn't talking about the planet Earth.
    If you knew what you were talking about you would know that the earth has never had an energy balance, but with your types a little box has to filled to satisfy your fears, so you disregard other elements which dwarf CO2 & have a greater capacity to capture heat & have a greater influence, but are conveniently not included in calculations because their effect is so changeable, not measurable or calculable. And there wouldn't be too many on the land anywhere that dont know about the cooling micro climates that are caused by forests & vegetation, of which deforestation is shifting to a warming influence.
    you need to check your facts on the suns energy, as the oceans absorb 92% of the energy the hits the oceans surface! not the earths surface! a sure sign of parroting stuff you don't know. They could include data from Star Trek & some types would repeat it.
    regards inter

  32. #9782
    John2b is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    221

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    If you knew what you were talking about you would know that the earth has never had an energy balance,
    regards inter
    Who doesn't know what they are talking about? LMAO!

    WXWISE ERBE

  33. #9783
    Rod Dyson is offline quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,627

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Did you think that radiant heat from the Sun heated the Earth's lower atmosphere directly? Oh dear....
    not at all
    CARBON TAX
    NO


    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT

  34. #9784
    Marc's Avatar
    Marc is offline 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,023

    Default

    Climate FAIL Files | Watts Up With That?








    This page lists climate science and climate impact claims that have either not been proven, or have had the claim modified, moved, or expanded to protect the claimant from having to admit the original claim was wrong.

    This will always be a work in progress. New items will be added as they are examined and will include:

    • The claim itself – what was stated as factual or predicted? A clear unambiguous statement, such as “50 million climate refugees by 2010″
    • Proof of the original claim – website, documents, photos, audio, video that clearly and unambiguously show the claim being made sometime in the past.
    • A test of the of the claim, and the results – website, documents, photos, audio, video that clearly and unambiguously show the claim not coming true or not meeting the claim.

    and /or

    • Proof of change in the claim (if applicable) – often, when the claim fails to materialize, goalposts get moved, such as we saw with the “50 million climate refugees” story that was originally set with a due date of 2010, is now set for the year 2020.

    ================================================== =================
    First entry:
    The Claim: 50 million climate refugees will be produced by climate change by the year 2010. Especially hard hit will be river delta areas, and low lying islands in the Caribbean and Pacific. The UN 62nd General assembly in July 2008 said: …it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010.
    The Test: Did population go down in these areas during that period, indicating climate refugees were on the move? The answer, no.
    The Proof: Population actually gained in some Caribbean Island for which 2010 census figures were available. Then when challenged on these figures, the UN tried to hide the original claim from view. See: The UN “disappears” 50 million climate refugees, then botches the disappearing attempt
    The Change in claim: Now it is claimed that it will be 10 years into the future, and there will be 50 million refugees by the year 2020.
    Marc.


    There's only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving,
    and that's your own self.

    Aldous Huxley



  35. #9785
    Marc's Avatar
    Marc is offline 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,023

    Default

    ← Oh my! Climate change threatens to cause ‘trillions’ in damage to world’s coastal regions

    CryoSat shows Arctic sea ice volume up 50% from last year

    Posted on February 5, 2014 by Anthony Watts
    Measurements from ESA’s CryoSat satellite show that the volume of Arctic sea ice has significantly increased this past autumn.
    The volume of ice measured this autumn is about 50% higher compared to last year. In October 2013, CryoSat measured about 9000 cubic km of sea ice – a notable increase compared to 6000 cubic km in October 2012.
    See animation:

    Over the last few decades, satellites have shown a downward trend in the area of Arctic Ocean covered by ice. However, the actual volume of sea ice has proven difficult to determine because it moves around and so its thickness can change.
    CryoSat was designed to measure sea-ice thickness across the entire Arctic Ocean, and has allowed scientists, for the first time, to monitor the overall change in volume accurately.
    About 90% of the increase is due to growth of multiyear ice – which survives through more than one summer without melting – with only 10% growth of first year ice. Thick, multiyear ice indicates healthy Arctic sea-ice cover.
    This year’s multiyear ice is now on average about 20%, or around 30 cm, thicker than last year.
    ESA’s ice mission


    “One of the things we’d noticed in our data was that the volume of ice year-to-year was not varying anything like as much as the ice extent – at least in 2010, 2011 and 2012,” said Rachel Tilling from the UK’s Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, who led the study.
    “We didn’t expect the greater ice extent left at the end of this summer’s melt to be reflected in the volume. But it has been, and the reason is related to the amount of multiyear ice in the Arctic.”
    While this increase in ice volume is welcome news, it does not indicate a reversal in the long-term trend.
    “It’s estimated that there was around 20 000 cubic kilometres of Arctic sea ice each October in the early 1980s, and so today’s minimum still ranks among the lowest of the past 30 years,” said Professor Andrew Shepherd from University College London, a co-author of the study.

    The findings from a team of UK researchers at the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling were presented last week at the American Geophysical Union’s autumn meeting in San Francisco, California.
    “We are very pleased that we were able to present these results in time for the conference despite some technical problems we had with the satellite in October, which are now completely solved,” said Tommaso Parrinello, ESA’s CryoSat Mission Manager.
    In October, CryoSat’s difficulties with its power system threatened the continuous supply of data, but normal operations resumed just over a week later.
    With the seasonal freeze-up now underway, CryoSat will continue its routine measurement of sea ice. Over the coming months, the data will reveal just how much this summer’s increase has affected winter ice volumes.
    ================================================== ============
    Source: European Space Agency
    Arctic sea ice up from record low / CryoSat / Observing the Earth / Our Activities / ESA
    For more data, see the WUWT Sea ice Reference page:Sea Ice Page | Watts Up With That?
    h/t to WUWT reader Larry Kirk

    Marc.


    There's only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving,
    and that's your own self.

    Aldous Huxley



  36. #9786
    Marc's Avatar
    Marc is offline 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,023

    Default

    Watts Up With That?
    The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change

    Skip to content






    ← Is the Bern Model Non-Physical?

    History falsifies climate alarmist sea level claims

    Posted on December 2, 2013 by Anthony Watts
    Seas have been rising and falling for thousands of years – without help from the EPA or IPCC
    Guest essay by Robert W. Endlich
    Sea levels are rising rapidly! Coastal communities are becoming more vulnerable to storms and storm surges! Small island nations are going to disappear beneath the waves!
    Climate alarmists have been making these claims for years, trying to tie them to events like “Superstorm” Sandy, which was below Category 1 hurricane strength when it struck New York City in October 2012, and Typhoon Haiyan, which plowed into the low-lying central Philippines in November 2013.
    For alarmists, it does not seem to matter that the strength and frequency of tropical storms have been decreasing in recent years, while the rate of sea level rise has fallen to about seven inches per century. Nor does it seem to matter that the lost lives and property have little to do with the storms’ sheer power. Their destructive impact was caused by their hitting heavily populated areas, where governments had not adequately informed citizens of the size and ferocity of imminent storm surges, too few people had evacuated – and people, buildings and emergency equipment were insufficiently prepared to withstand the furious storm onslaughts.
    The alarmist cries are not meant to be honest or factual. They are intended to generate hysterical headlines, public anxiety about climate change, and demands for changes in energy policies and use.
    China is rapidly becoming one of the richest nations on Earth. It is by far the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide, which alarmists claim is causing “unprecedented” storms and sea level rise. And yet at the recent UN-sponsored climate talks in Warsaw, China led a walkout of 132 Third World countries that claim First World nations owe them hundreds of billions of dollars in “reparations” for “losses and damages” allegedly resulting from CO2 emissions.
    The Obama Administration brought (perhaps “bought” is more apt) them back to the negotiating table, by promising as-yet-unspecified US taxpayer money for those supposed losses. Details for this unprecedented giveaway will be hammered out at the 2015 UN-sponsored climate confab in Paris, safely after the 2014 US mid-term elections. Meanwhile, a little history will be instructive.
    In 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama proclaimed, “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow.” He was actually right. Sea level rise has slowed, but not because of CO2 emissions, which are still increasing. Mother Nature cannot be bought.
    Sea level changes over relatively recent geologic and human history demonstrate that alarmist claims do not withstand scrutiny. Sea levels rose significantly after the last ice age, fell during the Little Ice Age, and have been rising again since the LIA ended around 1850. In fact, Roman Empire and Medieval port cities are now miles from the Mediterranean, because sea levels actually fell during the Little Ice Age.
    During the deepest part of the last ice age, known as the Wisconsin, sea levels were about 400 feet lower than at present. As Earth emerged from the Wisconsin some 18,000 years ago and the massive ice sheets started to melt, sea levels began rising. Rapid sea level rise during the “meltwater pulse phase,” about 15,000 years ago, was roughly five meters (16 feet) per century – but then slowed significantly since the Holocene Climate Optimum, about 8,000 years ago.

    Those rising oceans created new ports for Greek and Roman naval and trade vessels. But today many of those structures and ruins are inland, out in the open, making them popular tourist destinations. How did that happen? The Little Ice Age once again turned substantial ocean water into ice, lowering sea levels, and leaving former ports stranded. Not enough ice has melted since 1850 to make them harbors again.
    The ancient city of Ephesus was an important port city and commercial hub from the Bronze Age to the Minoan Warm period, and continuing through the Roman Empire. An historic map shows its location right on the sea. But today, in modern-day Turkey, Ephesus is 5 km from the Mediterranean. Some historians erroneously claim “river silting” caused the change, but the real “culprit” was sea level change.
    Ruins of the old Roman port Ostia Antica, are extremely well preserved – with intact frescoes, maps and plans. Maps from the time show the port located at the mouth of the Tiber River, where it emptied into the Tyrrhenian Sea. The Battle of Ostia in 849, depicted in a painting attributed to Raphael, shows sea level high enough for warships to assemble at the mouth of the Tiber. However, today this modern-day tourist destination is two miles up-river from the mouth of the Tiber. Sea level was significantly higher in the Roman Warm Period than today.
    An important turning point in British history occurred in 1066, when William the Conqueror defeated King Harold II at the Battle of Hastings. Less well-known is that, when William landed, he occupied an old Roman fort now known as Pevensey Castle, which at the time was located on a small island in a harbor on England’s south coast. A draw bridge connected it to the mainland. Pevensey is infamous because unfortunate prisoners were thrown into this “Sea Gate,” so that their bodies would be washed away by the tide. Pevensey Castle is now a mile from the coast – further proof of a much higher sea level fewer than 1000 years ago.
    Before modern Italy, the region was dominated by the famous City States of the Mediterranean, among which is Pisa, with its picturesque Cathedral Square and famous Leaning Tower. Located near the mouth of the Arno River, Pisa was a powerful city, because maritime trade brought goods from sailing ships right into the port. Its reign ended after 1300 AD, the onset of the Little Ice Age, when sea levels fell and ships could no longer sail to her port. Once again, some say “river silting” was the cause.
    However, Pisa is now seven miles from the Tyrrhenian Sea, with large meanders upstream from Pisa and little meandering downstream. When a river is “at grade,” the downstream gradient is as low as possible, as with the meandering Mississippi River and delta in Louisiana. Rivers with a strong downstream gradient flow to the sea in a direct route, with few meanders, as with the Rio Grande in New Mexico.
    The facts of history are clear. Sea level was 400 feet lower at the end of the Wisconsin Ice Age, 18,000 years ago. Sea levels rose rapidly until 8,000 years ago. As recently as 1066, when the Normans conquered England, sea levels were quite a bit higher than today.
    During the Little Ice Age, 1300 to 1850 – when temperatures were the coldest during any time in the past 10,000 years – snow and ice accumulated in Greenland, Antarctica, Europe and glaciers worldwide. As a consequence, sea levels fell so much that important Roman Era and Medieval port cities (like Ephesus, Ostia Antica and Pisa) were left miles from the Mediterranean.
    Since the Little Ice Age ended about 160 years ago, tide gages show that sea level has risen at a steady rate – with no correlation to the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
    Sea level is a dynamic property in our planet’s climate cycles, which are closely linked to changes in solar energy output and other natural factors. It is unlikely to change in response to tax policies that make energy more expensive and economies less robust – no matter what politicians in Washington, Brussels or the United Nations might say.
    Much to their chagrin, Mother Nature doesn’t listen to them. She has a mind of her own.
    ____________
    Robert W. Endlich served as a weather officer in the US Air Force for 21 years and a US Army meteorologist for 17 years. He was elected to Chi Epsilon Pi, the national Meteorology Honor Society, while a basic meteorology student at Texas A&M University. He has degrees in geology and meteorology from Rutgers University and the Pennsylvania State University, respectively, and has studied and visited the ancient sites of Rome, Ostia Antica and Pisa.




    Marc.


    There's only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving,
    and that's your own self.

    Aldous Huxley



  37. #9787
    Marc's Avatar
    Marc is offline 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,023

    Default

    Watts Up With That?
    The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change

    Skip to content






    ← Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup

    Willie Soon on Sea Level Rise – along with some climate ugliness

    Posted on August 5, 2013 by Anthony Watts
    This is a video of presentation given in July at the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness conference in Houston, which I also had the honor of attending. Note the beginning of his talk where he points out these two blog posts (Part1 and Part2) of a fellow who calls Dr. Soon an “enemy of the planet” and “prostitute” among other things.
    The irony is that the writer (Dr. Douglas Craig) is a practicing psychologist. One wonders how he treats patients he might disagree with when we see him write hateful vitriol like that.
    From my viewpoint, the blogger needs a refresher on the code of ethics for the American Psychological Association: Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct
    In particular:
    Principle B: Fidelity and Responsibility
    Psychologists establish relationships of trust with those with whom they work. They are aware of their professional and scientific responsibilities to society and to the specific communities in which they work.Psychologists uphold professional standards of conduct, clarify their professional roles and obligations, accept appropriate responsibility for their behavior and seek to manage conflicts of interest that could lead to exploitation or harm.
    Here is the video from DDP, compare for yourself how Dr. Craig conducts himself -vs- how Dr. Soon does:




    Marc.


    There's only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving,
    and that's your own self.

    Aldous Huxley



  38. #9788
    Marc's Avatar
    Marc is offline 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,023

    Default

    Marc.


    There's only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving,
    and that's your own self.

    Aldous Huxley



  39. #9789
    intertd6 is offline 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    1,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Who doesn't know what they are talking about? LMAO!

    WXWISE ERBE
    the parrots.
    you must have an incredible imagination to believe that the atmospheric temperature which has warmed 0.8'C over the last century has been influenced by oceans temperature content that hasnt warmed to even the slightest extent over the same period, but then disregard the other albedo examples that have increased & have the real capacity to warm the atmosphere above your CO2 100 parts per million fantasy, especially now with the average global temp stalling for the last 16 or so years with the ever increasing CO2 levels.
    The grey matter between your ears isn't just for holding them apart you know. That's why it's good to use your own instead someone else's pushing an agenda.
    regards inter

  40. #9790
    John2b is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    221

    Default


    “It’s estimated that there was around 20 000 cubic kilometres of Arctic sea ice each October in the early 1980s, and so today’s minimum still ranks among the lowest of the past 30 years,” said Professor Andrew Shepherd from University College London, a co-author of the study.

    Where has the other 11,000 cubic kilometres of ice gone since the early 1980s?

  41. #9791
    woodbe is offline Gone Feral - 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,822

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post

    “It’s estimated that there was around 20 000 cubic kilometres of Arctic sea ice each October in the early 1980s, and so today’s minimum still ranks among the lowest of the past 30 years,” said Professor Andrew Shepherd from University College London, a co-author of the study.

    Where has the other 11,000 cubic kilometres of ice gone since the early 1980s?
    I'm guessing that the fake skeptic view is that Ocean ate it along with the warming.


    Definitely in recovery. lol

    Nothing to worry about John, the climate has changed before. lol2.

    woodbe.

  42. #9792
    John2b is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    221

    Default

    Marc, you do realise that Willie Soon is funded by Koch and Exxon and has been outed for junk science in his published works?

    "Soon knew that the relevant data series for discussing the AO influence on Western Hudson Bay temperature (and by proxy, sea ice) was from Churchill and despite being reminded of the fact by the first set of reviewers, nonetheless continued to only show the AO connection to a site 1000 miles away, which had a much higher correlation without any discussion of whether this other data was at all relevant to Churchill or the bears nearby.”

    Willie Soon: Powered by Exxon | Climate Denial Crock of the Week

  43. #9793
    Rod Dyson is offline quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,627

  44. #9794
    Rod Dyson is offline quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,627

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Marc, you do realise that Willie Soon is funded by Koch and Exxon and has been outed for junk science in his published works?

    "Soon knew that the relevant data series for discussing the AO influence on Western Hudson Bay temperature (and by proxy, sea ice) was from Churchill and despite being reminded of the fact by the first set of reviewers, nonetheless continued to only show the AO connection to a site 1000 miles away, which had a much higher correlation without any discussion of whether this other data was at all relevant to Churchill or the bears nearby.”

    Willie Soon: Powered by Exxon | Climate Denial Crock of the Week
    LOL here we go again The PAID BY BIG OIL argument. Sorry this is soooo yesterday, done to death and no one is listening to this argument anymore. Except the true believers that is .

    This is the sort of argument that drives the average Joe to question the AGW theory. This as well as all the inflated fake and failed claims.

    Keep it up it helps our cause.
    CARBON TAX
    NO


    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT

  45. #9795
    Rod Dyson is offline quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,627

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    I'm guessing that the fake skeptic view is that Ocean ate it along with the warming.


    Definitely in recovery. lol9
    Add the southern hemisphere to this!
    Nothing to worry about John, the climate has changed before. lol2.

    woodbe.
    Hooray something we can agree on!
    CARBON TAX
    NO


    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT

  46. #9796
    John2b is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    221

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Keep it up it helps our cause.
    A self proclaimed "I don't like to claim that I am an expert" climate change denialist funded by oil companies caught with his pants down falsifying data somehow supports your "cause"?

    Silly me, I thought this was a discussion about the veracity of CO2 induced climate change.

  47. #9797
    John2b is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    221

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Some on here will be right. I wonder who?

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre..._image0102.jpg
    Well it wasn't Easterbrook with his global cooling projections LOL!


  48. #9798
    woodbe is offline Gone Feral - 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,822

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Add the southern hemisphere to this!
    Sure, but you won't like it.



    And the global nett sea ice:



    Quote Originally Posted by Tamino
    In terms of smoothed equivalent latitude, the Arctic ice pack has receded poleward by 2.6 degrees of latitude while the Antarctic ice pack has advanced by only 0.4. That’s 48 km advance in the south compared to 290 km retreat in the north, larger by a factor of 6.
    And some sea ice information comparing differences between north and south from NSIDC for your pleasure. See if you can spot a similar rapid increase in Antarctic sea ice trend to match the obvious and rapid decline in the Arctic sea ice trend. I'll spare you from the volume analysis, it's more of the same but more dramatic.



    Arctic vs. Antarctic | nsidc.org

    Credible measurements and analysis show that the Arctic is losing ice at an increasing rate. Uncredible analysis attempts to suggest that the small growth in the Antarctic balances out the large losses in the Arctic. This uncredible analysis certainly seems to convince the gullible as displayed in this thread (again) yet even the most cursory investigation exposes the truth.

    Rod suggests that pointing out bias is 'So Yesterday' and 'no-one is listening to this argument anymore' whilst he repeats the Arctic vs Antarctic sea ice fallacy.

    Perhaps your information would have more credibility if it came from credible sources rather than CC Denial websites.

    woodbe.

  49. #9799
    woodbe is offline Gone Feral - 1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,822

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Some on here will be right. I wonder who?


    You serious? Already shown to be crap.

    This is using the fake skeptic's favorite data set:



    And something more mainstream:



    woodbe

  50. #9800
    SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    SilentButDeadly is offline Duck Fat - 2K club member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Below the Seventh Circle......
    Posts
    2,843

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Silly me, I thought this was a discussion about the veracity of CO2 induced climate change.
    Technically, it's not. It was more about the emission trading and (for better or worse) it quickly went from there to somewhere else...and it has been there (or at least in that area) ever since.
    People don't ever seem to realise that doing what's right is no guarantee against misfortune

LinkBacks (?)

  1. 6th Mar 2014, 07:55 AM
  2. 12th Feb 2014, 04:04 AM
  3. 14th Jan 2014, 02:18 PM
  4. 4th Nov 2012, 01:41 AM
  5. 17th Jun 2012, 11:18 PM
  6. 12th Jun 2012, 03:48 AM
  7. 14th Dec 2011, 10:55 PM
  8. 30th Sep 2011, 01:14 PM
  9. 14th Aug 2011, 11:15 AM
  10. 26th Jun 2011, 11:36 PM
  11. 11th Jun 2011, 07:22 PM
  12. 30th May 2011, 10:46 PM
  13. 15th Mar 2011, 09:36 AM
  14. 5th Mar 2011, 08:18 AM
  15. 25th Dec 2010, 10:00 PM
  16. 1st Sep 2010, 06:53 PM
  17. 11th Jul 2010, 06:24 PM
  18. 20th May 2010, 04:49 AM
  19. 27th Feb 2010, 10:04 PM
  20. 20th Nov 2009, 04:32 AM
  21. 16th Nov 2009, 10:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2