Emission Trading and climate change

Page 292 of 377 FirstFirst ... 192 242 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 342 ... LastLast
Results 14,551 to 14,600 of 18819
  1. #14551
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Selfishness isn't just about getting material benefits for yourself. Abbott was a one sided selfish brat who gave no quarter to anyone who was not on his right wing agenda. His lack of consideration for the plurality in the electorate, and especially those less well off is what did him in. Even his 'Captains Calls' excluded his own colleagues from sharing in some decisions that undermined his support.

    However Turnbull turns out, he is leagues ahead.
    He isn't right wing though, that is the contradiction, yet his fawning to the right wing betrayed his own social leanings. He was a selfish brat, no interest in his adopted country it was only ever about his own ambition, decisions were all about his own political advantage, just a low rent street fighter with zero interest or understanding of the economy or his own responsibility to lead and govern. A man with limited ethics, limited ability and a destroyer, I doubt history will be kind, I would label him the worst prime minister in our post war history. I don't know enough about the pre war individuals to comment.

  2. #14552
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    He was a selfish brat, no interest in his adopted country it was only ever about his own ambition, decisions were all about his own political advantage, just a low rent street fighter with zero interest or understanding of the economy or his own responsibility to lead and govern. A man with limited ethics, limited ability and a destroyer, I doubt history will be kind, I would label him the worst prime minister in our post war history.
    And those are just some of Abbott's better character traits...
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  3. #14553
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    The irony is that Abbott's term as PM was shorter than both Rudd and Gillard, (and less successful in terms of getting his legislative agenda through the parliament.)

  4. #14554
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    The irony is that Abbott's term as PM was shorter than both Rudd and Gillard, (and less successful in terms of getting his legislative agenda through the parliament.)
    Abbott blamed the failure to pass legislation on needing the consent of both houses but not having a LNC majority in the Senate. A single party holding majority in both houses has been a rare exception, but that didn't seem to be a problem for every other post war government except Abbott's.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  5. #14555
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Your link is to a newspaper report of a 'she said they said' nature with no cited references. I can't find where the UN actually provides projections of climate refugees. Do you have a link Marc?

    What I did find was statistics on climate related displaced populations over the past few years from a non-UN body that monitors refugee movements:



    IDMC » Global Estimates 2015: People displaced by disasters
    Since when is a disaster the result of Global warming? Who defines that a tornado a volcano eruption or a tsunami is because of my diesel 4wd? You?
    Latest figures from IDMC estimate that more than 19.3 million people were forced to flee their homes by disasters in 100 countries in 2014. Hundreds of thousands more are still displaced following disasters in previous years.
    Since 2008, an average of 26.4 million people per year have been displaced from their homes by disasters brought on by natural hazards. This is the equivalent to one person being displaced every second. The number and scale of huge disasters creates significant fluctuation from year to year in the total number of people displaced, while the trend over decades is on the rise.
    The time is opportune for displacement to be better addressed in major global policy agenda and their implementation in the post-2015 period. A comprehensive approach to displacement will help to forge strong links and continuity between these initiatives.
    This annual report, the sixth of its kind, draws on information from a wide range of sources, including governments, UN and international organisations, NGOs and media, to provide up-to-date figures and analysis on displacement caused by disasters associated with rapid-onset geophysical and weather-related hazards such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods and storms.
    NATURAL HAZARDS !!!!!!!!!!!!


    This is very good example of agitation agenda. Stir and muddy the waters and blame it on "climate change" ... uuu yes, Marc's diesel fumes have made Krakatoa erupt. Bad bad Marc ... Burn the deniers ... infidels!
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  6. #14556
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Since when is a disaster the result of Global warming? Who defines that a tornado a volcano eruption or a tsunami is because of my diesel 4wd?
    People displaced by volcanoes or tsunamis are not included in the 'weather' category.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    This is very good example of agitation agenda.
    Good point. Don't post nonsense and reduce muddying of the waters and causing agitation. Here's another good point: Put your own house in order before you start giving others advice.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  7. #14557
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    The way I see it, AGW propaganda mouthpiece are their own worst enemies.
    The only constant in this trash reports is the mantra, the end justifies the means.
    And this is precisely what happens here and everywhere else you bother to dig a bit deeper.
    Floods in Japan? GLOBAL WARMING! 1000 freeze to death in Russia? GLOBAL WARMING!
    Whatever small credibility was left is quickly eroded away by this poor attempts at drumming up support.
    The sad part is that this stunts actually do drum up support even when they are bold faced fabrications... and vote chasing government take notice of the gullibility of voters and "act" accordingly.
    That is a success story achieved by deceit, lies, fabrications and emotional claptrap.
    Are sceptics guilty of the same? Of course!
    The intensity and the volume of the rubbish published in my personal view favours the agitators ten to one but you would probably disagree.
    Be my guest.
    We live in interesting times where agnostics and atheists invent a new religion and convince governments around the world they are the sinners in need of redemption.
    Love it.
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  8. #14558
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Thanks for describing the reasons you don't read the science.

    You're so infatuated with opinion you don't even know where to find the science, let alone spend any time educating yourself so you can tell opinion from facts and science.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  9. #14559
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Fortunately it is not about me but about how the populous reacts and votes and consequently how governments act to capture that vote.
    In the end the loser is of course the environment. You only need to look at how foreign mining companies are allowed to use ancient aquifers paying nothing for it and allowed to pollute with complete disregard and allowed to walk all over private ownership. And all for a pittance of a percentage of our resources that should be producing cheap electricity for us.
    Oh but we go soooolar we sooo much nicer and cleaner ...
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  10. #14560
    Mr Sexy Beast dazzler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Northern Rivers NSW
    Age
    55
    Posts
    964

    Default Emission Trading

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    The way I see it, AGW propaganda mouthpiece are their own worst enemies.
    Yep like bigots with large mouths I reckon. Ranting away without a supportive argument.


    🐵🙈🙉🙊
    I just love sheepies!

  11. #14561
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    I bet the sheep has a different opinion.
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  12. #14562
    Mr Sexy Beast dazzler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Northern Rivers NSW
    Age
    55
    Posts
    964

    Default Emission Trading

    So Marc

    Came up with your own explanation

    Your batting 100 on ducking ATM.



    ��������
    Last edited by Bros; 17th Sep 2015 at 08:16 PM. Reason: Deleted attacking comments.
    I just love sheepies!

  13. #14563
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Fortunately it is not about me but about how the populous reacts and votes and consequently how governments act to capture that vote.
    Except...

    My response was to you and your opinion scraping, not the populous.

    Even if you have valid points about the politics, your posts about the science are boundless and factless opinion. If you understood the science you wouldn't post such blatant dribble from non-science sources.

    See my sig for further reference.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  14. #14564
    Slow but rough Uncle Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    North Cooma, Canberra
    Posts
    5,023

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post

    See my sig for further reference.
    Maybe the sig could link to something about skeptopathy and cryptodenialism

  15. #14565
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    I bet the sheep has a different opinion.
    You seem so infatuated with sheep I bet you have your very own monogrammed Velcro gloves and matching rubber boots.

  16. #14566
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    So you WANT the thread to shut down again??
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  17. #14567
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Look at the date, Rod. The post has been unblocked by the Mods, not re-posted.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  18. #14568
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default



    Friday, Sep 18th 2015 7AM 13°C 10AM 16°C 5-Day Forecast

    It's politics, not science, driving climate mania: Why are environmentalists and scientists so reluctant to discuss long-term increases in southern hemisphere sea ice?


    • UN computer predictions subject of ridicule: not got it right for 18 years
    • Across the globe, there are about 1m sq km more sea ice than 35 years ago
    • Authorities are now guessing global temperatures based on nearby weather stations

    By ANDREW MOUNTFORD, CLIMATE CHANGE AUTHOR
    PUBLISHED: 07:01 EST, 6 July 2014 | UPDATED: 09:54 EST, 6 July 2014

    For years, computer simulations have predicted that sea ice should be disappearing from the Poles.
    Now, with the news that Antarctic sea-ice levels have hit new highs, comes yet another mishap to tarnish the credibility of climate science.
    Climatologists base their doom-laden predictions of the Earth’s climate on computer simulations.
    But these have long been the subject of ridicule because of their stunning failure to predict the pause in warming – nearly 18 years long on some measures – since the turn of the last century.



    +2

    An adult chinstrap penguin jumps out of the sea at Port Lockroy, Antarctica

    It’s the same with sea ice. We hear a great deal about the decline in Arctic sea ice, in line with or even ahead of predictions.
    But why are environmentalists and scientists so much less keen to discuss the long-term increase in the southern hemisphere?
    In fact, across the globe, there are about one million square kilometres more sea ice than 35 years ago, which is when satellite measurements began.
    RELATED ARTICLES




    It’s fair to say that this has been something of an embarrassment for climate modellers. But it doesn’t stop there.
    In recent days a new scandal over the integrity of temperature data has emerged, this time in America, where it has been revealed as much as 40 per cent of temperature data there are not real thermometer readings.
    Many temperature stations have closed, but rather than stop recording data from these posts, the authorities have taken the remarkable step of ‘estimating’ temperatures based on the records of surrounding stations.



    +2


    A Crabeater seal on an iceberg in Paradise Bay, Antarctica. Crabeater seals are the most common large mammal on the planet after humans, with an estimated population of 15 million

    So vast swathes of the data are actually from ‘zombie’ stations that have long since disappeared. This is bad enough, but it has also been discovered that the US’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is using estimates even when perfectly good raw data is available to it – and that it has adjusted historical records.
    Why should it do this? Many have noted that the effect of all these changes is to produce a warmer present and a colder past, with the net result being the impression of much faster warming.
    They draw their conclusions accordingly.
    Naturally, if the US temperature records are indeed found to have been manipulated, this is unlikely to greatly affect our overall picture of rising temperatures at the end of the last century and a standstill thereafter.
    The US is, after all, only a small proportion of the globe.
    Similarly, climatologists’ difficulties with the sea ice may be of little scientific significance in the greater scheme of things.
    We have only a few decades of data, and in climate terms this is probably too short to demonstrate that either the Antarctic increase or the Arctic decrease is anything other than natural variability.
    But the relentless focus by activist scientists on the Arctic decline does suggest a political imperative rather than a scientific one – and when put together with the story of the US temperature records, it’s hard to avoid the impression that what the public is being told is less than the unvarnished truth.
    As their credulity is stretched more and more, the public will – quite rightly – treat demands for action with increasing caution…


    Share or comment on this article

    Read more: It's politics not science that is driving the climate change mania: UN predictions subject of ridicule because of their stunning failure | Daily Mail Online
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  19. #14569
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    It's politics, not science, driving climate mania: Why are environmentalists and scientists so reluctant to discuss long-term increases in southern hemisphere sea ice?
    Why is it necessary for a newspaper article to headline with an obvious falsehood? Far from trying to hide it, the increase in Antarctic sea ice is a headline story in the realms of climate science!

    NASA: Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum


    Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this year, covering more of the southern oceans than it has since scientists began a long-term satellite record to map sea ice extent in the late 1970s.

    https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

    It’s fair to say that this has been something of an embarrassment for climate modellers.
    Climate modellers are not embarrassed at all. Why is it necessary for the newspaper article to contain easily disproven falsehoods? Why can't they stick to facts?

    Counterintuitive, perhaps, but the extra ice is because it is WARMER not cooler. Oceans are not pure water and the temperature at which they freeze is function of salt content. The increase in ice extent is well understood to be a consequence of warmer temperatures melting on-land ice and reducing the saltiness of the surrounding ocean, thus raising the temperature at which ice freezes.

    Read all about it:

    https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/index.html
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  20. #14570
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    It's like telling some kids to look the other way while you steal their candy.



    Will Antarctica sea ice set a new record in 2014?

    ...on average the Antarctic Sea Ice Area is going up by 0.2% per year, and the average thickness is going up 0.2% per year, resulting in an average sea ice volume increase of 0.4% per year. However, these numbers are orders of magnitude lower than the corresponding changes taking place to the Arctic Sea Ice.

    ...

    Therefore, taken at face value, there is little to discuss in this thread, unless denialist intend to claim (incorrectly) that a maximum Antarctic Sea Ice Extent record in 2014 means that global warming is not occurring. If any denialists care to make such a claim in this thread, I hope that they are prepared to back-up any such claim with facts, as it has already been clearly demonstrated that the increase in Antarctic Sea Ice is related to such positive feedback mechanisms for global warming as: (a) the increase in the westerly wind velocities that causes the sea ice to both spread, and raft; but which also causes CO₂ venting from the Southern Ocean and the advection of warm CDW to contribute to grounded ice mass loss (which contributes to SLR); (b) the freshening of the Southern Ocean surface waters (largely associated with ice sheet/shelf ice mass loss, and increased precipitation); and (c) the reduction in the rate of AABW production.
    Holland, Paul R., Nicolas Bruneau, Clare Enright, Martin Losch, Nathan T. Kurtz, Ron Kwok, (2014), "Modeled Trends in Antarctic Sea Ice Thickness", J. Climate, 27, 3784–3801, doi: Link

    Link2

    Short version: It's a load of bunk, Marc.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  21. #14571
    Mr Sexy Beast dazzler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Northern Rivers NSW
    Age
    55
    Posts
    964

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dazzler View Post
    So Marc, who EXACTLY are "shooting RPG" and "chop each other to pieces" at whom?

    Try it without a google link.....

    Between 2006 and 2011 Syria experienced the WORST DROUGHT ON RECORD with in excess of 60 EXTREME DUST EVENTS between 2001 and 2010. They have lost all water in their via ducts. Turkey had dammed the Euphrates River resulting in water flow reductions of 40%.

    In 2008 75% of crops had been lost. 90% of cattle had been lost. This drought continued to 2012. The UN advised that the social fabric of the country was at extreme risk due to poverty and lack of food.

    Over 800,000 Syrians left the countryside and fled to the cities to find work.
    Over 500,000 additional refugees from Palestine and Iraq also filled the cities fighting for scarce resources.

    The US reimplemented sanctions aimed at toppling the Govt (Assad).

    2010 the drought worsens and 3 million Syrians in the countryside are living in extreme poverty. Many of these move to the cities, adding to the problem. These people are ECONOMIC AND CLIMATE refugees.

    March 2011 a small group of farmers protest against Assad, Assad retaliates and a civil war erupts.
    Last edited by Bros; 19th Sep 2015 at 07:53 PM. Reason: Irrelevant parts deleted
    I just love sheepies!

  22. #14572
    Community Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Queensland
    Posts
    7,166

    Default

    Two posts have been deleted and one edited as they are irrelevant to the thread, keep it up and the thread will be locked again.

  23. #14573
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Abstract An irreducibly simple climate-sensitivity model is designed to empower even non-specialists to research the question how much global warming we may cause.
    In 1990, the First Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expressed ‘‘substantial confidence’’ that near-term global warming would occur twice as fast as subsequent observation.
    Given rising CO2 concentration, few models predicted no warming since 2001. Between the pre-final and published drafts of the Fifth Assessment Report, IPCC cut its near-term warming projection substantially, substituting ‘‘expert assessment’’ for models’ near-term predictions. Yet its long-range predictions remain unaltered. The model indicates that IPCC’s reduction of the feedback sum from 1.9to 1.5 W m-2 K-1 mandates a reduction from 3.2 to 2.2 K in its central climate-sensitivity estimate; that, since feedbacks are likely to be net-negative, a better estimate is1.0 K; that there is no unrealized global warming in the pipeline; that global warming this century will be \1 K;and that combustion of all recoverable fossil fuels will cause \2.2 K global warming to equilibrium.
    Resolving the discrepancies between the methodology adopted by IPCC in its Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports that are highlighted in the present paper is vital. Once those discrepancies are taken into account, the impact of anthropogenic global warming over the next century, and even asfar as equilibrium many millennia hence, may be no more than one-third to one-half of IPCC’s current projections.
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  24. #14574
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  25. #14575
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Nope, not a climate scientist, just another paid denier.

    What else have you got?

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  26. #14576
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Nope, not a climate scientist, just another paid denier.
    If you wondered why only two people clapped at the introduction, that is because apart from a couple of off camera assistants organisers, the entire 9 people at the 'conference' were journalists LMFAO!



    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  27. #14577
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Your post contains two falsehoods, ignoring the parting question of course.
    One:
    Lord Monckton gets paid.
    Now that is a bit of a funny one because I would like to know who of all those who give conferences and speeches of all descriptions does not get paid. There is nothing wrong with being paid. To infer so is to forward that ancient anti-value that money is dirty and that poverty is a virtue. So yes, he most probably get's paid for his trouble however I don't really know because I am not his accountant nor his personal friend so I wonder how do you know he gets paid?
    Yet the answer is irrelevant because there is no shame in getting paid for your time. The only shame is to get paid to say what you wouldn't say otherwise.
    For example if you get paid to spread falsehood and say we will run out of water so that a de-salinization plant gets built, or that we will have 50,000 climate refugees by 2010 and we must prevent this by building windmills built by Qatar and pay Qatar billions of subsidies to thank them for their efforts, and it turns out to be all bold faced lies, now there is shame.
    But of course no one in the global warming camp is keen in details of such small nature.

    Second falsehood:
    Someone that is not a scientist and specialising in climate can not comment on this matters, his comments are to be dismissed.
    False on several front but lets just mention two.
    One: anyone with a functioning brain can read reports, understand them compare them and make intelligent comments without a university degree on the subject. Millions of parents with sick children become experts in a particular illness for the sake of their child and sometimes give the specialist a run for their money.
    Two: The Global Warming Fraud has come to be for political and economical reasons, so the science is rather irrelevant. It is far more relevant and interesting the motivations and plots behind the BS from taxpayers funded institutions that go with the flow to keep their funding.

    If you bothered listening to Lord Monckton conferences you would know that he predicted the removal of Tony Abbot by M Turnbull BEFORE THE DECEMBER CONFERENCE IN PARIS. And it is on public record that the UN has promised to make sure the Canadian PM looses the election to be had before December so that the only two countries to oppose an unelected dictatorial communist entity on all global warming matter does not come to be.

    What else do I have? I've got heaps more than you can possibly imagine yet I also know you wouldn't be interested.
    Now I need help from you because I also want to get paid. Can you tell me who would part with some dough for me?
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  28. #14578
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Your post contains two falsehoods, ignoring the parting question of course.
    One:
    Lord Monckton gets paid.
    Now that is a bit of a funny one because I would like to know who of all those who give conferences and speeches of all descriptions does not get paid. There is nothing wrong with being paid.
    I have no problem with people getting paid either. Good luck to Monckton for getting paid. The point is not about getting paid, it is by whom. Mockton is a paid denier, and he gets paid by organisations that deny climate science. Climate scientists, get a stipend from their university or other organisations that do not deny science. It would be very rare for a publishing climate scientist to accept payment from a climate denial organisation. Willie Soon is one that does.

    Second falsehood:
    Someone that is not a scientist and specialising in climate can not comment on this matters, his comments are to be dismissed.
    False on several front but lets just mention two.
    One: anyone with a functioning brain can read reports, understand them compare them and make intelligent comments without a university degree on the subject. Millions of parents with sick children become experts in a particular illness for the sake of their child and sometimes give the specialist a run for their money.
    I have a couple of comments and questions on your proposition of falsehoods:

    One: I have no problem with people making comments on the science. What I do have a problem with is people who have a particular bent and who are not qualified, to turn around and tell us that people who are actually qualified in climate science do not know what they are talking about. That is exactly what Monckton proposes. It's total BS.

    Two: I'm excited to hear that you think anyone with a functioning brain can read science. My question is, why do you not read the science, only blog posts and other drivel that suggests that the science you have not read is incorrect?

    Two: The Global Warming Fraud has come to be for political and economical reasons, so the science is rather irrelevant. It is far more relevant and interesting the motivations and plots behind the BS from taxpayers funded institutions that go with the flow to keep their funding.

    If you bothered listening to Lord Monckton conferences you would know that he predicted the removal of Tony Abbot by M Turnbull BEFORE THE DECEMBER CONFERENCE IN PARIS. And it is on public record that the UN has promised to make sure the Canadian PM looses the election to be had before December so that the only two countries to oppose an unelected dictatorial communist entity on all global warming matter does not come to be.

    What else do I have? I've got heaps more than you can possibly imagine yet I also know you wouldn't be interested.
    Now I need help from you because I also want to get paid. Can you tell me who would part with some dough for me?
    The only way the current state of the science can be shown to be incorrect, is for the scientists to find a better solution to the data in front of us. Calling the science irrelevant is a bogus argument. Science has delivered us the current state of improvement in every field of science, but those that deny the accepted climate change theories in front of us try and tell us that the science is wrong and is some kind of conspiracy.

    Predicting that Abbott would get turned over before the conference is not much of a glorious prediction. He was given 6 months in February and he didn't improve. No surprise there. In any case, TA's removal is not a science based prediction, it's a political prediction. If Monckton was right about a political prediction, how does that make the balony he speaks about the science correct?

    If you seriously want to get paid for filling this thread up with bunk, I can suggest you approach the GWPF and who knows, they fund Monckton so they should throw you a few notes too.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  29. #14579
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Ha ha ... you are truly funny.
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  30. #14580
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    When messaging collides with science: The ‘Hottest Year Ever’ Inside a Global Warming ‘Pause’?

    Anthony Watts / 20 hours ago September 23, 2015
    Excerpt from a story by statistician William M. Briggs

    There are two stories floating around about the state of the earth’s atmosphere. Both are believed true by government-funded scientists and the environmentally minded. The situation is curious because the stories don’t mesh. Yet, as I said, both are believed. Worse, neither is true.
    Story number one is that this year will be the hottest ever. And number two is that the reason it is not hot is because “natural variation” has masked or stalled man-caused global warming.
    Which is it? Either it’s hotter than ever or it isn’t. If it is, then (it is implied) man-caused global warming has not “paused.” If it isn’t, if man-caused global warming has “paused,” then it is not growing hotter.
    There are two things to keep straight: (1) why these divergent contentions are believed, and (2) why they are incompatible and individually false. The first point is easy. Climatology has become a branch of politics. And in politics, particularly in our rambunctious democracy, statements asserted in the name of some political goal are usually believed or at least supported by those who share the goal. It is necessary for global-warming-of-doom to be true in order to attain the government’s goal (of increasing in size and power), so any statement which supports global warming is likely to be touted by government supporters, even mutually incompatible statements.
    Scientists — and some very big names indeed — who have made their living on government grants, and who provide arguments in line with the government’s desire that global-warming-of-doom be true, recently wrote a letter to the President and Attorney General asking these officials to criminally prosecute under the RICO Act scientists like myself and organizations that might fund me. Which scientists and organizations? Those, they say, who have “knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.
    In other words, arguments put forth by independent scientists and organizations that do not support the government’s line cannot be considered science, but should instead be classified as criminal acts. Incidentally, it has come out that the scientist leading the effort to prosecute the innocent has “paid himself & his wife $1.5 million from gov’t climate grants for part-time work.” Climatology is thus a branch of politics. Quod erat demonstrandum.
    I’m no politician and can’t predict what will come of this. But I am a scientist and know good physics from bad. To understand why the claims about the atmosphere mentioned above are false, it is necessary to grasp, at least in broad outline, some rather complicated statistics and physics. Let’s try.
    Read the rest of the story here:
    https://stream.org/climate-change-sp...warming-pause/


    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  31. #14581
    Community Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Queensland
    Posts
    7,166

    Default

    Where do you blokes dredge up this stuff from? You must spend all day on the computer.

  32. #14582
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Which is it? Either it’s hotter than ever or it isn’t. If it is, then (it is implied) man-caused global warming has not “paused.” If it isn’t, if man-caused global warming has “paused,” then it is not growing hotter.
    Either way, everything you have ever posted from the blogs is bunkum, as you have demonstrated yet again... No climate scientist ever said there was a pause in global warming.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  33. #14583
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    The big list of failed climate predictions

    Anthony Watts / April 2, 2014
    Reader “Sasha” responding to Jeff Alberts in comments provided a large list that I thought was worth sharing.
    Submitted on 2014/04/02 at 8:37 am
    The question wasn’t “what do people think is caused by global warming”, but “what was predicted by scientists and activists 25 years ago that would be a result of global warming.” Big difference.
    OK. Hang on to your hat!
    The original post was asking for a list of failed climate predictions, so here are 107:

    FAILED CLIMATE PREDICTIONS (and some related stupid sayings)

    1. “Due to global warming, the coming winters in the local regions will become milder.”
    Stefan Rahmstorf, Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research, University of Potsdam, February 8, 2006

    ****
    2. “Milder winters, drier summers: Climate study shows a need to adapt in Saxony Anhalt.”
    Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Press Release, January 10, 2010.

    ****
    3. “More heat waves, no snow in the winter… Climate models… over 20 times more precise than the UN IPCC global models. In no other country do we have more precise calculations of climate consequences. They should form the basis for political planning… Temperatures in the wintertime will rise the most… there will be less cold air coming to Central Europe from the east…In the Alps winters will be 2°C warmer already between 2021 and 2050.”
    Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, September 2, 2008.
    ****
    4. “The new Germany will be characterized by dry-hot summers and warm-wet winters.”
    Wilhelm Gerstengarbe and Peter Werner, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), March 2, 2007

    ****
    5. “Clear climate trends are seen from the computer simulations. Foremost the winter months will be warmer all over Germany. Depending of CO2 emissions, temperatures will rise by up to 4°C, in the Alps by up to 5°C.”
    Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 7 Dec 2009.

    ****
    6. “In summer under certain conditions the scientists reckon with a complete melting of the Arctic sea ice. For Europe we expect an increase in drier and warmer summers. Winters on the other hand will be warmer and wetter.”
    Erich Roeckner, Max Planck Institute, Hamburg, 29 Sept 2005.

    ****
    7. “The more than ‘unusually ‘warm January weather is yet ‘another extreme event’, ‘a harbinger of the winters that are ahead of us’. … The global temperature will ‘increase every year by 0.2°C’”
    Michael Müller, Socialist, State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Environment,
    Die Zeit, 15 Jan 2007

    ****
    8. “Harsh winters likely will be more seldom and precipitation in the wintertime will be heavier everywhere. However, due to the milder temperatures, it’ll fall more often as rain than as snow.”
    Online-Atlas of the Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft, 2010

    9. “We’ve mostly had mild winters in which only a few cold months were scattered about, like January 2009. This winter is a cold outlier, but that doesn’t change the picture as a whole. Generally it’s going to get warmer, also in the wintertime.”
    Gerhard Müller-Westermeier, German Weather Service (DWD), 26 Jan 2010

    ****
    10. “Winters with strong frost and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will cease to exist at our latitudes.”
    Mojib Latif, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 1 April 2000

    ****
    11. “Good bye winter. Never again snow?”
    Spiegel, 1 April 2000

    ****
    12. “In the northern part of the continent there likely will be some benefits in the form of reduced cold periods and higher agricultural yields. But the continued increase in temperatures will cancel off these benefits. In some regions up to 60% of the species could die off by 2080.”
    3Sat, 26 June 2003
    ****
    13. “Although the magnitude of the trends shows large variation among different models, Miller et al. (2006) find that none of the 14 models exhibits a trend towards a lower NAM index and higher arctic SLP.”
    IPCC 2007 4AR, (quoted by Georg Hoffmann)

    ****
    14. “Based on the rising temperature, less snow will be expected regionally. While currently 1/3 of the precipitation in the Alps falls as snow, the snow-share of precipitation by the end of the century could end up being just one sixth.”
    Germanwatch, Page 7, Feb 2007

    ****
    15. “Assuming there will be a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, as is projected by the year 2030. The consequences could be hotter and drier summers, and winters warmer and wetter. Such a warming will be proportionately higher at higher elevations – and especially will have a powerful impact on the glaciers of the Firn regions.”
    and
    “ The ski areas that reliably have snow will shift from 1200 meters to 1500 meters elevation by the year 2050; because of the climate prognoses warmer winters have to be anticipated.”
    Scinexx Wissenschaft Magazin, 26 Mar 2002

    ****
    16. “Yesterday’s snow… Because temperatures in the Alps are rising quickly, there will be more precipitation in many places. But because it will rain more often than it snows, this will be bad news for tourists. For many ski lifts this means the end of business.”
    Daniela Jacob, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 8 Aug 2006

    ****
    17. “Spring will begin in January starting in 2030.”
    Die Welt, 30 Sept 2010

    ****
    18. “Ice, snow, and frost will disappear, i.e. milder winters” … “Unusually warm winters without snow and ice are now being viewed by many as signs of climate change.”
    Schleswig Holstein NABU, 10 Feb 2007

    ****
    19. “Good bye winter… In the northern hemisphere the deviations are much greater according to NOAA calculations, in some areas up to 5°C. That has consequences says DWD meteorologist Müller-Westermeier: When the snowline rises over large areas, the bare ground is warmed up even more by sunlight. This amplifies global warming. A process that is uncontrollable – and for this reason understandably arouses old childhood fears: First the snow disappears, and then winter.”
    Die Zeit, 16 Mar 2007

    ****
    20. “Warm in the winter, dry in the summer … Long, hard winters in Germany remain rare: By 2085 large areas of the Alps and Central German Mountains will be almost free of snow. Because air temperatures in winter will rise more quickly than in summer, there will be more precipitation. ‘However, much of it will fall as rain,’ says Daniela Jacob of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology.”
    FOCUS, 24 May 2006

    ****
    21. “Consequences and impacts for regional agriculture: Hotter summers, milder plus shorter winters (palm trees!). Agriculture: More CO2 in the air, higher temperatures, foremost in winter.”
    Dr. Michael Schirmer, University of Bremen, presentation of 2 Feb 2007

    ****
    22. “Winters: wet and mild”
    Bavarian State Ministry for Agriculture, presentation 23 Aug 2007

    ****
    23. “The climate model prognoses currently indicate that the following climate changes will occur: Increase in minimum temperatures in the winter.”
    Chamber of Agriculture of Lower Saxony Date: 6 July 2009

    ****
    24. “Both the prognoses for global climate development and the prognoses for the climatic development of the Fichtel Mountains clearly show a warming of the average temperature, whereby especially the winter months will be greatly impacted.”
    Willi Seifert, University of Bayreuth, diploma thesis, p. 203, 7 July 2004

    ****
    25. “Already in the year 2025 the conditions for winter sports in the Fichtel Mountains will develop negatively, especially with regards to ‘natural’ snow conditions and for so-called snow-making potential. A financially viable ski business operation after about the year 2025 appears under these conditions to be extremely improbable (Seifert, 2004)”.
    Andreas Matzarakis, University of Freiburg Meteorological Institute, 26 July 2006

    ****
    26. “Skiing among palm trees? … For this reason I would advise no one in the Berchtesgadener Land to invest in a ski-lift. The probability of earning money with the global warming is getting less and less.”
    Hartmut Graßl, Director Emeritus,
    Max Planck-Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, page 3, 4 Mar 2006

    ****
    27. “Climate warming leads to an increasingly higher snow line. The number of future ski resorts that can be expected to have snow is reducing. […] Climate change does not only lead to higher temperatures, but also to changes in the precipitation ratios in summer and winter. […] In the wintertime more precipitation is to be anticipated. However, it will fall more often as rain, and less often as snow, in the future.”
    Hans Elsasser, Director of the Geographical Institute of the University of Zurich, 4 Mar 2006

    ****
    28. “All climate simulations – global and regional – were carried out at the Deutschen Klimarechenzentrum [German Climate Simulation Center]. […] In the winter months the temperature rise is from 1.5°C to 2°C and stretches from Scandinavia to the Mediterranean Sea. Only in regions that are directly influenced by the Atlantic (Great Britain, Portugal, parts of Spain) will the winter temperature increase be less (Fig. 1).”
    Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Press Release, Date: December 2007/January 2013.

    ****
    29. “By the year 2050 … temperatures will rise 1.5ºC to 2.5°C (summer) and 3°C (winter). … in the summer it will rain up to 40% less and in the winter up to 30% more.
    German Federal Department of Highways, 1 Sept 2010

    ****
    30. “We are now at the threshold of making reliable statements about the future.”
    Daniela Jacob, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, page 44, 10/2001

    ****
    31. “The scenarios of climate scientists are unanimous about one thing: In the future in Germany we will have to live with drier and drier summers and a lot more rain in the winters.”
    Gerhard Müller-Westermeier, German Weather Service (DWD), 20 May 2010

    ****
    32. “In the wintertime the winds will be more from the west and will bring storms to Germany. Especially in western and southern Germany there will be flooding.” FOCUS / Mojib Latif, Leibniz Institute for Ocean Sciences of the University of Kiel, 27 May 2006.
    ****
    33. “While the increases in the springtime appear as rather modest, the (late)summer and winter months are showing an especially powerful warming trend.”
    State Ministry of Environment, Agriculture and Geology, Saxony, p. 133, Schriftenreihe Heft 25/2009.

    ****
    34. “Warm Winters Result From Greenhouse Effect, Columbia Scientists Find, Using NASA Model … Despite appearing as part of a natural climate oscillation, the large increases in wintertime surface temperatures over the continents may therefore be attributable in large part to human activities,”
    Science Daily, Dr. Drew Shindell 4 June 1999

    ****
    35. “Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. … Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
    David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 20 March 2000

    ****
    36. “This data confirms what many gardeners believe – winters are not as hard as they used to be. … And if recent trends continue a white Christmas in Wales could certainly be a thing of the past.”
    BBC, Dr Jeremy Williams, Bangor University, Lecturer in Geomatics, 20 Dec 2004

    ****
    37. The rise in temperature associated with climate change leads to a general reduction in the proportion of precipitation falling as snow, and a consequent reduction in many areas in the duration of snow cover.”
    Global Environmental Change, Nigel W. Arnell, Geographer, 1 Oct 1999

    ****
    38. “Computer models predict that the temperature rise will continue at that accelerated pace if emissions of heat-trapping gases are not reduced, and also predict that warming will be especially pronounced in the wintertime.”
    Star News, William K. Stevens, New York Times, 11 Mar 2000

    ****
    39. “In a warmer world, less winter precipitation falls as snow and the melting of winter snow occurs earlier in spring. Even without any changes in precipitation intensity, both of these effects lead to a shift in peak river runoff to winter and early spring, away from summer and autumn.”
    Nature, T. P. Barnett et. al., 17 Nov 2005

    *****
    40. “We are beginning to approximate the kind of warming you should see in the winter season.”
    Star News, Mike Changery, National Climatic Data Center, 11 Mar 2000

    ****
    41. “Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate about the freezing point.”
    IPCC Climate Change, 2001

    ****
    42. “Global climate change is likely to be accompanied by an increase in the frequency and intensity of heat waves, as well as warmer summers and milder winters…9.4.2. Decreased Mortality Resulting from Milder Winters … One study estimates a decrease in annual cold-related deaths of 20,000 in the UK by the 2050s (a reduction of 25%)”
    IPCC Climate Change, 2001

    ****
    43. “The lowest winter temperatures are likely to increase more than average winter temperature in northern Europe. …The duration of the snow season is very likely to shorten in all of Europe, and snow depth is likely to decrease in at least most of Europe.”
    IPCC Climate Change, 2007

    ****
    44. “Snowlines are going up in altitude all over the world. The idea that we will get less snow is absolutely in line with what we expect from global warming.”
    WalesOnline, Sir John Houghton – atmospheric physicist, 30 June 2007

    ****
    45. “In the UK wetter winters are expected which will lead to more extreme rainfall, whereas summers are expected to get drier. However, it is possible under climate change that there could be an increase of extreme rainfall even under general drying.”
    Telegraph, Dr. Peter Stott, Met Office, 24 July 2007

    ****
    46. “Winter has gone forever and we should officially bring spring forward instead. … There is no winter any more despite a cold snap before Christmas. It is nothing like years ago when I was younger. There is a real problem with spring because so much is flowering so early year to year.”
    Express, Dr Nigel Taylor, Curator of Kew Gardens, 8 Feb 2008

    ****
    47. “The past is no longer a guide to the future. We no longer have a stationary climate,”…
    Independent, Dr. Peter Stott, Met Office, 27 Jul 2007

    ****
    48. “It is consistent with the climate change message. It is exactly what we expect winters to be like – warmer and wetter, and dryer and hotter summers. …the winter we have just seen is consistent with the type of weather we expect to see more and more in the future.”
    Wayne Elliott, Met Office meteorologist, BBC, 27 Feb 2007

    ****
    49. “ If your decisions depend on what’s happening at these very fine scales of 25 km or even 5 km resolution then you probably shouldn’t be making irreversible investment decisions now.”
    Myles Allen, “one of the UK’s leading climate modellers”, Oxford University, 18 June 2009

    ****
    50. “It’s great that the government has decided to put together such a scientifically robust analysis of the potential impacts of climate change in the UK.”
    Keith Allott, WWF-UK, 18 June 2009

    ****
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  34. #14584
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    51. “The data collected by experts from the university [of Bangor] suggests that a white Christmas on Snowdon – the tallest mountain in England and Wales – may one day become no more than a memory.”
    BBC News, 20 Dec 2004
    [BBC 2013: “Snowdon Mountain Railway will be shut over the Easter weekend after it was hit by 30ft (9.1m) snow drifts.”]

    ****
    52. “Spring is arriving earlier each year as a result of climate change, the first ‘conclusive proof’ that global warming is altering the timing of the seasons, scientists announced yesterday.”
    Guardian, 26 Aug 2006.

    ****
    53. “Given the increase in the average winter temperature it is obvious that the number of frost days and the number of days that the snow remains, will decline. For Europe the models indicate that cold winters such as at the end of the 20th century, that happened at an average once every ten years, will gradually disappear in the course of the century.” (p. 19), and
    “…but it might well be that nothing remains of the snowjoy in the Hautes Fagnes but some yellowed photos because of the climate change … moreover an increase in winter precipitation would certainly not be favorable for recreation!” (p38)
    Jean-Pascal van Ypersele and Philippe Marbaix, Greenpeace, 2004

    ****
    54. “Shindell’s model predicts that if greenhouse gases continue to increase, winter in the Northern Hemisphere will continue to warm. ‘In our model, we’re seeing a very large signal of global warming and it’s not a naturally occurring thing. It’s most likely linked to greenhouse gases,’ he said.
    NASA, GISS, 2 June 1999

    ****
    55. “We have seen that in the last years and decades that winters have become much milder than before and that there isn’t nearly as much snowfall. All simulations show this trend will continue in the future and that we have to expect an intense warming in the Alps…especially in the foothills, snow will turn to rain and winter sports will no longer be possible anymore.”
    Mojib Latif, Leibnitz Institute for Oceanography, University of Kiel, February 17, 2005

    ****
    56. Planning for a snowless future: “Our study is already showing that that there will be a much worse situation in 20 years.”
    Christopher Krull, Black Forest Tourism Association / Spiegel, 17 Feb 2005

    ****
    57. “Rhineland-Palatinate, as will be the case for all of Central Europe, will be affected by higher than average warming rates and winters with snow disappearing increasingly.”
    Prof. Dr. Hartmut Grassl, “internationally renowned meteorologist”, Director Emeritus, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 20 Nov 2008

    ****
    58. “With the pace of global warming increasing, some climate change experts predict that the Scottish ski industry will cease to exist within 20 years.”
    Guardian, 14 February 2004
    [4 January 2013: “Nevis Range, The Lecht, Cairngorm, Glenshee and Glencoe all remain closed today due to the heavy snow and strong winds.”]

    ****
    59. “Unfortunately, it’s just getting too hot for the Scottish ski industry.”
    David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 14 Feb 2004

    ****
    60. “For the Baltic ringed seal, climate change could mean its demise” warned a team of scientists at the Baltic Sea Experiment (Baltex) conference in Goteborg. “This is because the warming leads to the ice on the Baltic Sea to melt earlier and earlier every year.”
    Spiegel, 3 June 2006
    [The Local 2013: “Late-season freeze sets Baltic ice record … I’ve never seen this much ice this late in the season.”]

    ****
    61. Forecasters Predict More Mild Winter for Europe
    Reuters, Nov 09, 2012
    FRANKFURT – European weather in the coming winter now looks more likely to be mild than in previous studies, German meteorologist Georg Mueller said in a monthly report.
    “The latest runs are generally in favor of a milder than normal winter, especially over northern Europe.”
    ****
    62. “Spring is arriving earlier each year as a result of climate change, the first ‘conclusive proof’ that global warming is altering the timing of the seasons, scientists announced yesterday.”
    Guardian, 26 August 2006.
    Earlier springs and later autumns: climate change sends nature awry | Environment | The Guardian

    ****
    63. “Given the increase in the average winter temperature it is obvious that the number of frost days and the number of days that the snow remains, will decline. For Europe the models indicate that cold winters such as at the end of the 20th century, that happened at an average once every ten years, will gradually disappear in the course of the century.” (p19)
    “…but it might well be that nothing remains of the snowjoy in the Hautes Fagnes but some yellowed photos because of the climate change … moreover an increase in winter precipitation would certainly not be favorable for recreation!” (p38)
    Impact of the climate change in Belgium (translated from Dutch).
    Jean-Pascal van Ypersele and Philippe Marbaix for Greenpeace, 2004

    ****
    64. “The hottest year since 1659 spells global doom”
    Telegraph December 14, 2006
    The hottest year since 1659 spells global doom - Telegraph

    ****
    65. “Jay Wynne from the BBC Weather Centre presents reports for typical days in 2020, 2050 and 2080 as predicted by our experiment.”
    BBCs Climate Change Experiment
    BBC - Science & Nature - Climate Change

    ****
    66. “Cold winters would gradually disappear.” (p.4)
    67. “In Belgium, snow on the ground could become increasingly rare but there would be plenty of grey sky and rain in winter..” (p.6)
    The Greenpeace report “Impacts of climate change in Belgium” is available in an abbreviated version in English:
    http://www.greenpeace.org/belgium/Pa...9/SumIB_uk.pdf
    Impacts of climate change in Belgium
    Jean-Pascal van Ypersele and Philippe Marbaix for Greenpeace, 2004
    Climate scientist van Ypersele is Vice Chair of the IPCC.

    ****
    68. “Warmer and Wetter Winters in Europe and Western North America Linked to Increasing Greenhouse Gases.”
    NASA, June 2, 1999
    NASA GISS: Research News: Warmer and Wetter Winters in Europe and Western North America Linked to Increasing Greenhouse Gases

    ****
    69. “The global temperature will increase every year by 0.2°C”
    Michael Müller, Socialist, State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Environment, in Die Zeit, January 15, 2007

    ****
    70. “Unfortunately, it’s just getting too hot for the Scottish ski industry. It is very vulnerable to climate change; the resorts have always been marginal in terms of snow and, as the rate of climate change increases, it is hard to see a long-term future.”
    David Viner, of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
    February 14, 2004
    Global warming forces sale of Scottish winter sports resorts | UK news | The Guardian

    ****
    71. “Climate change will have the effect of pushing more and more winter sports higher and higher up mountains,…”
    Rolf Burki and his colleagues at the University of Zurich
    On the rocks: the grim forecast for winter sports as global warming increases | World news | The Guardian

    ****
    72. “ In the future, snowdrops will be out in January, primroses in February, mayflowers and lilac in April and wild roses in May, the ponds will be full of tadpoles in March and a month later even the oaks will be in full leaf. If that isn’t enough, autumn probably won’t begin until October.”
    Geraint Smith, Science Correspondent, Standard
    British seasons start to shift | News | London Evening Standard

    ****
    73. “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change….There will be more police cars….[since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”
    Dr. James Hansen, 1988, in an interview with author Rob Reiss.
    Reiss asked how the greenhouse effect was likely to affect the neighborhood below Hansen’s office in NYC in the next 20 years.

    ****
    74. March 20, 2000, from The Independent, According to Dr David Viner of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, snowfall in Britain would become “a very rare and exciting event” and “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
    ****
    75. September 2006, Arnold Schwarzenegger signing California’s anti-emissions law, “We simply must do everything in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late…The science is clear. The global warming debate is over.”
    ****
    76. 1990 Actress Meryl Streep “By the year 2000 – that’s less than ten years away–earth’s climate will be warmer than it’s been in over 100,000 years. If we don’t do something, there’ll be enormous calamities in a very short time.”
    ****
    77. April 2008, Media Mogul Ted Turner on Charlie Rose (On not taking drastic action to correct global warming) “Not doing it will be catastrophic. We’ll be eight degrees hotter in ten, not ten but 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals.”
    [Strictly speaking, this is not a failed prediction. It won’t be until at least 2048 that our church-going and pie-baking neighbors come after us for their noonday meal. But the prediction is so bizarre that it is included it here.]

    ****
    78. January 1970 Life Magazine “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support …the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half…”
    ****
    79. “Earth Day” 1970 Kenneth Watt, ecologist: “At the present rate of nitrogen build-up, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
    ****
    80. “Earth Day” 1970 Kenneth Watt, ecologist: “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
    ****
    81. April 28, 1975 Newsweek “There are ominous signs that Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically….The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it….The central fact is that…the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down…If the climate change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.”
    ****
    82. 1976 Lowell Ponte in “The Cooling,”: “This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.”
    ****
    83. July 9, 1971, Washington Post: “In the next 50 years fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun’s rays that the Earth’s average temperature could fall by six degrees. Sustained emissions over five to ten years, could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”
    ****
    84. June, 1975, Nigel Calder in International Wildlife: “The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population.”
    ****
    85. June 30, 1989, Associated Press: U.N. OFFICIAL PREDICTS DISASTER, SAYS GREENHOUSE EFFECT COULD WIPE SOME NATIONS OFF MAP–entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos,” said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He added that governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect.
    ****
    86. Sept 19, 1989, St. Louis Post-Dispatch: “New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now.”
    ****
    87. December 5, 1989, Dallas Morning News: “Some predictions for the next decade are not difficult to make…Americans may see the ’80s migration to the Sun Belt reverse as a global warming trend rekindles interest in cooler climates.”
    —****
    88. Michael Oppenheimer, 1990, The Environmental Defense Fund: “By 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…”(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers…The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.”
    ****
    89. April 18, 1990, Denver Post: “Giant sand dunes may turn Plains to desert–huge sand dunes extending east from Colorado’s Front Range may be on the verge of breaking through the thin topsoil, transforming America’s rolling High Plains into a desert, new research suggests. The giant sand dunes discovered by NASA satellite photos are expected to re-emerge over the next 20 t0 50 years, depending on how fast average temperatures rise from the suspected ‘greenhouse effect’ scientists believe.”
    ****
    90. Edward Goldsmith, 1991, (5000 Days to Save the Planet): “By 2000, British and American oil will have diminished to a trickle….Ozone depletion and global warming threaten food shortages, but the wealthy North will enjoy a temporary reprieve by buying up the produce of the South. Unrest among the hungry and the ensuing political instability, will be contained by the North’s greater military might. A bleak future indeed, but an inevitable one unless we change the way we live…At present rates of exploitation there may be no rainforest left in 10 years. If measures are not taken immediately, the greenhouse effect may be unstoppable in 12 to 15 years.”
    ****
    91. April 22, 1990 ABC, The Miracle Planet: “I think we’re in trouble. When you realize how little time we have left–we are now given not 10 years to save the rainforests, but in many cases five years. Madagascar will largely be gone in five years unless something happens. And nothing is happening.”
    ****
    92. February 1993, Thomas E. Lovejoy, Smithsonian Institution: “Most of the great environmental struggles will be either won or lost in the 1990s and by the next century it will be too late.”
    ****
    93. November 7, 1997, (BBC commentator): “It appears that we have a very good case for suggesting that the El Niños are going to become more frequent, and they’re going to become more intense and in a few years, or a decade or so, we’ll go into a permanent El Nino. So instead of having cool water periods for a year or two, we’ll have El Niño upon El Niño, and that will become the norm. And you’ll have an El Niño, that instead of lasting 18 months, lasts 18 years.”
    ****
    94. July 26, 1999 The Birmingham Post: “Scientists are warning that some of the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years because of global warming. A build-up of greenhouse gases is blamed for the meltdown, which could lead to drought and flooding in the region affecting millions of people.”
    ****
    95. October 15, 1990 Carl Sagan: “The planet could face an ‘ecological and agricultural catastrophe’ by the next decade if global warming trends continue.”
    ****
    96. Sept 11, 1999, The Guardian: “A report last week claimed that within a decade, the disease (malaria) will be common again on the Spanish coast. The effects of global warming are coming home to roost in the developed world.”
    ****
    97. March 29, 2001, CNN: “In ten year’s time, most of the low-lying atolls surrounding Tuvalu’s nine islands in the South Pacific Ocean will be submerged under water as global warming rises sea levels.”
    ****
    98. 1969, Lubos Moti, Czech physicist: “It is now pretty clearly agreed that CO2 content [in the atmosphere] will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.”
    ****
    99. 2005, Andrew Simms, policy director of the New Economics Foundation: “Scholars are predicting that 50 million people worldwide will be displaced by 2010 because of rising sea levels, desertification, dried up aquifers, weather-induced flooding and other serious environmental changes.”
    ****
    100. Oct 20, 2009, Gordon Brown UK Prime Minister (referring to the Copenhagen climate conference): “World leaders have 50 days to save the Earth from irreversible global warming.”
    ****
    101. June 2008, Ted Alvarez, Backpacker Magazine Blogs: “you could potentially sail, kayak, or even swim to the North Pole by the end of the summer. Climate scientists say that the Arctic ice…is currently on track to melt sometime in 2008.”
    [Shortly after this prediction was made, a Russian icebreaker was trapped in the ice of the Northwest Passage for a week.]

    ****
    102. May 31, 2006 Al Gore, CBS Early Show: “…the debate among the scientists is over. There is no more debate. We face a planetary emergency. There is no more scientific debate among serious people who’ve looked at the science…Well, I guess in some quarters, there’s still a debate over whether the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona, or whether the Earth is flat instead of round.”
    ****
    103. January 2000 Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund commenting (in a NY Times interview) on the mild winters in New York City: “But it does not take a scientist to size up the effects of snowless winters on the children too young to remember the record-setting blizzards of 1996. For them, the pleasures of sledding and snowball fights are as out-of-date as hoop-rolling, and the delight of a snow day off from school is unknown.”
    ****
    104. 2008 Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) on a visit to Britain: “The recent warm winters that Britain has experienced are a sign that the climate is changing.”
    [Two exceptionally cold winters followed. The 2009-10 winter may be the coldest experienced in the UK since 1683.]

    ****
    105. June 11, 1986, Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) in testimony to Congress (according to the Milwaukee Journal): “Hansen predicted global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years, ‘which is about the warmest the earth has been in the last 100,000 years.’”
    ****
    106. June 8, 1972, Christian Science Monitor: “Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.”
    ****
    107. May 15, 1989, Associated Press: “Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide [USA] two degrees by 2010.”


    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  35. #14585
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bros View Post
    Where do you blokes dredge up this stuff from? You must spend all day on the computer.
    Ha ha, Bros, it takes about 10 seconds to find. Millions of articles are posted frantically every day in order to maintain the appearance of "consensus" and the funds flowing
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  36. #14586
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Ha ha, Bros, it takes about 10 seconds to find. Millions of articles are posted frantically every day in order to maintain the appearance of "consensus" and the funds flowing
    Especially if your last three content posts are just a copy/paste from a climate denial site.

    Still no science Marc?

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  37. #14587
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    I have no problem with people getting paid either. Good luck to Monckton for getting paid. The point is not about getting paid, it is by whom. Mockton is a paid denier, and he gets paid by organisations that deny climate science. Climate scientists, get a stipend from their university or other organisations that do not deny science. It would be very rare for a publishing climate scientist to accept payment from a climate denial organisation. Willie Soon is one that does.

    One: I have no problem with people making comments on the science. What I do have a problem with is people who have a particular bent and who are not qualified, to turn around and tell us that people who are actually qualified in climate science do not know what they are talking about.
    How true!
    What did I say before?
    The only shame is to get paid to say what you wouldn't say otherwise.
    For example if you get paid to spread falsehood and say we will run out of water so that a desalination plant gets built, or that we will have 50,000 climate refugees by 2010 and we must prevent this by building windmills built by Qatar and pay Qatar billions of subsidies to thank them for their efforts, and it turns out to be all bold faced lies, now there is shame.
    But of course no one in the global warming camp is keen in details of such small nature.
    And as far as who pays who, that is a sad one. Agitators and assorted mercenaries (dutifully qualified) are paid by you and me (the suckers) and will spread falsehood galore at the maximum rate possible just to keep the money flowing.
    Those who oppose this gargantuan load of garbage, pay with their own money to stem the flow of lies, because it hurts their business. Yes, they have vested interest who doesn't? Both camps have vested interest. The difference is that the global warming agitators are feathering their own nest with our tax money, the politicians collude with them because they have worked out it produces votes and the western economy goes down at an accelerated rate and billions flow towards unelected entities that will determine who does what and how.
    And the world heats up at a 0.0001C a year and the sea rises at a rate of 0.0001 cm a year. And if we all move to Mars it would do exactly the same.

    Oh yes, we live in interesting times.
    I say I loathe communism and it's associated corruption but Marx did say something that is really true.
    "Die Religion ist das Opium des Volkes"
    And "global warming" is truly a religion.
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  38. #14588
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    The difference is that deniers of climate change spew non-science from non-scientists. Apparently a small section of the community, including Marc, think that people like Anthony Watts know more than climate science so they copy paste his BS all over the internet. That does not prove anything except that they actually don't read the science, they read the non-science and believe it.

    Yet you say my comment is true?

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  39. #14589
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    The big list of failed climate predictions
    This is not a list of failed predictions. If you are 'right', Marc, why post stuff that is so obviously incorrect? Many of the references have already come pass and many others are not testable or not on topic.

    Anthony Watts has just put up such a list (archived here). He said it was a list to answer the question of "what was predicted by scientists and activists 25 years ago that would be a result of global warming." and "The original post was asking for a list of failed climate predictions".

    Thing is, I only counted fifteen of his 107 predictions that were made 25 years or more ago. All the rest were more recent. And of those fifteen, only eight were about global warming. In fact quite a few of them were about global cooling and some weren't about either warming or cooling but something completely different. So not only does Anthony fail arithmetic but he can't even stick to the subject he himself chose.

    Here are some others that he reckons are failed predictions. Let me know what you think of their failure:

    1. “Due to global warming, the coming winters in the local regions will become milder.”
    Stefan Rahmstorf, Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research, University of Potsdam, February 8, 2006
    I couldn't find any trace of Professor Rahmstorf saying this, though it was plastered all over a lot of denier websites. I can say, without a shadow of doubt, that winters in my local region have become milder. I don't know about yours.


    If he did say it, then I'd rate this as scientist pass; deniers fail.

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/04/t...ony-watts.html
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  40. #14590
    Community Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Queensland
    Posts
    7,166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Ha ha, Bros, it takes about 10 seconds to find. Millions of articles are posted frantically every day in order to maintain the appearance of "consensus" and the funds flowing
    And do you ever bother to read it or just Cut and Paste?

  41. #14591
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/71-new-papers-reported-in-2013.html?spref=tw

    THE HOCKEY SCHTICK



    If you can't explain the 'pause', you can't explain the cause...& all opinions are mine, & not those of my self-employer

    Thursday, January 2, 2014

    71 new papers reported in 2013 demonstrating the Sun controls climate, not man-made CO2



    Club du Soleil has compiled a listing of new papers published during 2013 demonstrating that the Sun controls climate, not man-made CO2. Visit Club du Soleil for many more published in 2012 and earlier.

    These papers don't exist according to paid climate propagandist John Cook of SS
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  42. #14592
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Which of these papers have you actually read, Marc?

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  43. #14593
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Club du Soleil has compiled a listing of new papers published during 2013 demonstrating that the Sun controls climate, not man-made CO2. Visit Club du Soleil for many more published in 2012 and earlier.

    These papers don't exist according to paid climate propagandist John Cook of SS
    It is easy enough to find and read the papers. The first paper in your link is on regional flooding in Switzerland, has nothing to do with global climate change and makes no comment on it. That would be a good reason not to include it in a survey of papers on climate change. And it does not in any way challenge the conventional understanding of climate science anyway.

    The second paper is an investigation of the solar cycles on humidity, has nothing to do with climate change or global warming and makes no comment on it. That would be a good reason not to include it in a survey of papers on climate change. And it does not in any way challenge the conventional understanding of climate science anyway.

    I am detecting a trend here.

    I still don't have an answer to the question: If the AGW deniers in this thread are correct, why do they continually post stuff that is clearly wrong? Why not post facts that are verifiable?
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  44. #14594
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Which of these papers have you actually read, Marc?
    It's fairly obviously - none of them. Why else would he post stuff that when actually followed up does not support his pentecostal dogma?
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  45. #14595
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Latest ‘97% consensus’ study collapses: Study found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it!Read the Full Article



    By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotMay 17, 2013 8:53 AM
    Related Links:
    Latest ’97% consensus’ study goes belly up: Study found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it!
    Too funny: John Cook’s much touted study finds more papers that reject AGW completely than believe mostly manmade!
    Barack Obama: ‘Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous’ (Note: The other 3% get an IRS audit)
    Skeptic’s Letter To John Cook: Hi John, It appears that the results of your survey have been misrepresented in the press and by the President of The United States. In fact, more papers rejected CAGW than claimed that humans were the dominant influence. I am certain that you would not want your name associated with this spectacular misrepresentation of your modest finding. What actions are you taking to get the facts cleared up?’
    Analysis: Warmist John Cook’s fallacy ’97% consensus’ study is a marketing ploy — ‘Cook’s study shows 66% of papers didn’t endorse man-made global warming Cook calls this ‘an overwhelming consensus’ — ‘What does a study of 20 years of abstracts tell us about the global climate? Nothing. But it says quite a lot about the way government funding influences the scientific process…New paper confounds climate research with financial forces, is based on the wrong assumptions, uses fallacious reasoning, wasn’t independent, and confuses a consensus of climate scientists for a scientific consensus, not that a consensus proves anything anyway, if it existed. Given the monopolistic funding of climate science in the last 20 years, the results he finds are entirely predictable’ — ‘The number of papers is a proxy for funding': ‘As government funding grew, scientists redirected their work to study areas that attracted grants. It’s no conspiracy, just Adam Smith at work. There was no funding for skeptical scientists to question the IPCC or the theory that man-made climate science exaggerates the warming. More than $79 billion was poured into climate science research and technology from 1989 to 2009. No wonder scientists issued repetitive, irrelevant, and weak results. How hard could it be? Taxpayers even paid for research on climate resistant oysters. Let no barnacle be unturned’
    Nonsensus: Warmists proclaim bogus survey proves 97% ‘consensus’ — ‘It truly is a CONsensus’
    Media ignores fatal flaw of study: ‘‘There were almost 12,000 studies — two-thirds of which (i.e, 8,000) expressed no opinion. What consensus?
    What Consensus? Two-thirds of climate studies (8,000) from 1991-2011 take no position on cause of global warming — ‘An inconvenient fact from a new study attempting to bolster the 97% consensus myth’
    Fuzzy math: In a new soon to be published paper, John Cook claims ‘consensus’ on 32.6% of scientific papers that endorse man-made global warming: ‘You have to wonder how somebody can write (let alone read) the claims made here in the press release by Cook with a straight face. It gives a window into the sort of things we can expect from his borked survey he recently foisted on climate websites which seems destined to either fail, or get spun into even stranger claims’







    Read more: Latest ‘97% consensus’ study collapses: Study found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it! | Climate Depot
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  46. #14596
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Interesting!
    First paper in "my" list

    Deep Solar Activity Minima, Sharp Climate Changes, and Their Impact on Ancient Civilizations

    Raspopov et al. 2013
    It is shown that, over the past c. 10000 years (the Holocene), deep Maunder type solar minima have been accompanied by sharp climate changes. These minima occurred every 2300-2400 years. It has been established experimentally that, at ca 4.0 ka BP, there occurred a global change in the structure of atmo spheric circulation, which coincided in time with the discharge of glacial masses from Greenland to North Atlantic and a solar activity minimum. The climate changes that took place at ca 4.0 ka BP and the deep solar activity minimum that occurred at ca 2.5 ka BP affected the development of human society, leading to the degradation and destruction of a number of ancient civilizations.

    Second paper in "my" list

    Late Holocene ecohydrological and carbon dynamics of a UK raised bog: impact of human activity and climate change

    Turner et al. 2014 Quaternary Science Reviews
    Understanding the ecohydrological responses of peatlands to climate change is particularly challenging over the late Holocene owing to the confounding influence of anthropogenic activity. To address this, a core spanning the last c. 2400 years from a raised bog in northern England was analysed using a comprehensive suite of proxy methods in an attempt to elucidate the drivers of change. A testate amoebae-based transfer function was used to quantitatively reconstruct changes in water table depth, supported by humification analysis and a plant macrofossil-derived hydroclimatic index. Pollen and plant macrofossil data were used to examine regional and local vegetation change, and human impacts were inferred from charcoal and geochemistry. Chronological control was achieved through a Bayesian age-depth model based on AMS radiocarbon dates and spheroidal carbonaceous particles, from which peat and carbon accumulation rates were calculated. Phases of both increased and decreased bog surface wetness (inferred effective precipitation) are present, with dry phases at c. AD 320-830, AD 920-1190 and AD 1850-present, and a marked period of increased effective precipitation at c. AD 1460-1850. Coherence with other records from across Northern Europe suggests that these episodes are primarily driven by allogenic climatic change. Periods of high bog surface wetness correspond to the Wolf, Sporer and Maunder sunspot activity minima, suggesting solar forcing was a significant driver of climate change over the last c. 1000 years. Following the intensification of agriculture and industry over the last two centuries, the combined climatic and anthropogenic forcing effects become increasingly difficult to separate due to increases in atmospheric deposition of anthropogenically derived pollutants, fertilising compounds, and additions of wind-blown soil dust. We illustrate the need for multiproxy approaches based on high-resolution palaeoecology and geochemistry to examine the recent trajectories of peatlands.

    I am sure you don't want me to copy the whole report just for you do you?
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  47. #14597
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  48. #14598
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    I am sure you don't want me to copy the whole report just for you do you?
    No just show us the part that proves co2 does not cause warming.

  49. #14599
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Interesting! First paper in "my" list
    Why, if you are 'right' do you keep posting stuff that disagrees with your position? Why not link to stuff that supports your position?

    Did I mention your list, or your link? Whatever. The first paper (Deep Solar Activity Minima, Sharp Climate Changes, and Their Impact on Ancient Civilizations) purports that changes in solar output affect global temperatures. Who wudda thort? The paper does not in any way challenge the conventional understanding of climate science, and makes no comment on the current global warming that is resulting from CO2 emissions, nor does it question CO2 as a climate driver.

    The second paper you give above acknowledges the contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect and global warming and studies the effect that the warming of both anthropogenic and natural changes are having on peat bogs.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  50. #14600
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Fluctuations in the temperature record, AKA weather, does not imply 'no warming'. Show any period historically when there was not temperature fluctuations caused by weather. Climate is defined by the 30 year running average.

    Please tell where you think the excess heat from the observed and measured energy imbalance, caused by the increased greenhouse effect of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, is going to go, and why do you think that extra heat energy is not going to cause extra heat?
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

Page 292 of 377 FirstFirst ... 192 242 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 342 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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