http://cdn.isciencetimes.com/data/images/full/2013/09/11/4999-global-cooling.jpg
NASA satellite images show August 2012 [left] and August 2013 [right]. (Photo: NASA)

Are we experiencing global cooling? A cool Arctic summer allowed nearly a million more squre miles of ice to form over the same time last year. This figure represents a growth of 60 percent.

The incredible arctic ice growth after the record low of 2012 is significant. Just six years ago, a science article from the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free by the summer of 2013. The indication of global cooling indicates the opposite. According to monitors, the Arctic now features an unbroken ice sheet that is larger than half of Europe. The sheet stretches from the Canadian islands all the way to Russia's northern shores. What's more, the Arctic's Northwest Passage has been blocked by ice all year. More than 20 yachts that attempted to sail the passage were left ice bound. A cruise ship was also forced to turn back around.

Wow...I better go buy sum ugg boots and a beanie if theres an ice sheet heading for Australia  :D

adelcrow wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 7:49am:

Wow...I better go buy sum ugg boots and a beanie if theres an ice sheet heading for Australia  :D

Ive already got my ugg boots, but it clear we can remove the carbon tax, the Ice sheets have been restored.

"A cruise ship was also forced to turn back around."

Does Abbott's "turn them around when safe to do so" apply up there as well?  The wonders of the man!  ;D

Great commentary about this on Michael Smith News today

Great to read intelligent comments over there

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2013/09/the-abc-on-climate-change-earthquakes-and-hard-news-like-time-is-running-out-.html#comments


Not expecting anything comparable from here of course

and dreading Greens Lost throwing a panicky and desperate rant to try to bolster her 'climate' agenda

But seriously, everyone's aware the planet has been entering a natural cooling phase for years now

Only those on the payroll of the climate-tax agenda try to talk up 'man made global warming'

There's HUGE money in taxing populations on climate and those hoping to reap billions from the scam won't give up without several determined fights --- hence those who post for pay flooding every free online platform they can find with their BS-for-pay 

If we had a rise in employment, all those 'work from home posting for pay' ghouls might get a real job and shut up

Here's a new one

Right on cue !

US Congress Tells Al Gore He's Dreaming    ;D

Al Gore Slammed by Congress   ;D

Video

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2013/09/us-congress-tells-al-gore-hes-dreaming.html

Al Gore is rotting and he hasn't even been dumped in the ground yet

Wind back to the beginning of the video and make a note of the zillions Gore and his Zionist cronies stand to make from the invented fiction of man made climate change

Must piss off the Paid to Posts who spam free online platforms trying to sell the mantra for only 14 shekels per post, huh

[quote]Another major European media outlet is asking: Where’s the global warming?

The August 7 edition of Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, featured a major 2-page article on the globe’s 15-years of missing warming and the potential solar causes and implications.

So now even the once very green Danish media is now spreading the seeds of doubt. So quickly can “settled science” become controversial and hotly disputed. The climate debate is far from over. And when it does end, it looks increasingly as if it’ll end in favor of the skeptics.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/10/denmark-gets-a-dose-of-global-cooling-in-major-newspaper/

PZ547

Who cares what Gore the Bore says, he is a hypocritical snake oil sales man who knows SFA about science and flies around the world in his private jet telling everyone else to minimise.

Quote:

A leaked document proves that while the United Nations has been preaching the global warming gospel, it was fully aware that the Earth was actually cooling. Oops. The Arctic ice cap has grown by 60 percent in just one year. We’re not warming — we’re cooling, and, on the basis of the leaked report, some scientists claim the cooling will continue until mid-century

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/09/10/leaked-un-report-shows-earth-is-cooling-83034

PZ547 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 7:54am:

Great commentary about this on Michael Smith News today

Is there some logic - or strategy - in quoting the interpretations of  SHOCK-JOCKS on matters of climate science ?

RightSadFred wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 8:20am:

PZ547 Who cares what Gore the Bore says, he is a hypocritical snake oil sales man who knows SFA about science and flies around the world in his private jet telling everyone else to minimise.

We might not agree with or like what he says

but we have to care

because the video reveals it was Gore, Ken Lay and other Enron & crony snakes who DEVISED 'global warming' knowing full well it would make them and their buddies zillions richer at our expense

Now zillions of dollar is aphrodisiac to Zionist mini-dicks -- it's what keeps them breathing

and Obama has been bribed/threatened into reviving the climate scam

We in Australia are under their control, no matter who we get as government.  Which is why Labor was bribed/threatened into brainwashing Aussies climate change is 'reel folks, it's reel'

30,000 scientist have publicly stated climate change is crap -- and that's just those who've stuck their heads above the parapets

So while we may loathe Gore and disagree with his crap, we nevertheless have to 'care' and fight the army of Paid to Posts who sit in their one-room dumps pumping out climate change 'evidence' in order to pay for their 2 minute noodles and cheap plonk

That's why it's vital this garbage-science is debunked continually

unless you feel inclined to make Gore and his buddies and their descendants rich and powerful unto the 20th generation (by which time your descendants will have died of hunger resulting from continually increased carbon taxes)

What complete and utter junk.
The arctic sea ice extent this year is 398,000 square miles BELOW the average.
It is the sixth smallest extent on record.
The ocean temperatures have spiked in the last decade as the surface temperature rise has slowed.
These are simple, observable, measurable FACTS.
Not only are deluded articles like the above absurd, they are grossly irresponsible.
Shame on you.


One of the quotes from the opinion piece you cut and pasted ... so why no link?

http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6040/20130911/global-cooling-arctic-ice-cap-60-photo.htm

[quote]So-called global-warming alarmists are in a frenzy after the latest climate data confirmed the Earth actually appears to be entering a potential cooling trend, sea-ice cover in Antarctica is growing to record levels, tornadoes and hurricanes are at record lows, and more.

According to experts, the most recent revelations continue to make a mockery of alarmist claims — debunking United Nations theories about human-caused global warming and the wildly inaccurate supposed “climate models” used to forecast doom and gloom by forces seeking carbon taxes and more centralized government.



Earlier this month, meanwhile, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released its “State of the Climate in 2012” showing that last year was among the coldest so far this century.

According to analysts, despite the government agency’s wildly misleading attempts to spin the findings and drum up unwarranted hysteria, the data actually confirm that the globe has stopped warming for the last 15 years.

The report also exposes the bogus “climate models” that predicted major warming based on increasing CO2 levels as wrong, which credible scientists have been arguing all along.


http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/16372-climate-theories-crumble-as-data-and-experts-suggest-global-cooling

Despite playing a key role in advancing climate change hysteria, the United Kingdom’s National Weather Service, known as the Met Office, quietly released a report last week conceding that so-called “global warming” actually stopped more than 15 years ago.

The startling admission shows once again that United Nations theories and climate models are wildly inaccurate at best, experts say, meaning multi-trillion dollar schemes to deal with alleged human-caused “climate change” are at the very least severely misguided

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/13212-global-climate-warming-stopped-15-years-ago-uk-met-office-admits

Climate Science” in Shambles: Real Scientists Battle UN Agenda

Some of the preeminent scientists involved in promoting global-warming alarmism have been disgraced and discredited, after being caught in flagrante in unethical and illegal activities

The AGW consensus scam is one of the most astounding frauds in all of history, not only because it is patently false, but also because it is being used to propel the most sweeping and authoritarian scheme for global economic, social, and political regimentation the world has ever seen

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/11998-%E2%80%9Cclimate-science%E2%80%9D-in-shambles-real-scientists-battle-un-agenda

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 8:26am:

PZ547 wrote on Sep 13th, 2013 at 7:54am: Great commentary about this on Michael Smith News today Is there some logic - or strategy - in quoting the interpretations of  SHOCK-JOCKS on matters of climate science ?

In FACT - have a look at  ANY/ALL  sources quoted


http://i385.photobucket.com/albums/oo296/ultrapetlover/patrick-laughing-idiot.gif

PZ547

If no one listens to his rubbish then he has no power, seems the US political machinery is going down that path like the rest of the world.

Everyone stopped listening to Rudd and look what happened.

The AGW “consensus” involves a relatively small coterie of climate scientists who have been placed in key gatekeeper positions, enabling them to co-opt the claim of “scientific consensus” on AGW, while squashing dissenting voices and branding all dissenters as “cranks,” “outliers,” or, even, “deniers.”

The use of the “denier” label is an especially odious tactic, intentionally aimed at smearing fellow scientists who dissent from AGW theory as equivalent to Holocaust deniers.

The Climategate e-mails showed top climate activists at major universities and other institutions conspiring to punish scientists with opposing viewpoints and to prevent them from being published in the scientific literature.

It also showed that they were going to great lengths to doctor their evidence to make it “prove” their preordained outcomes. What’s more, they have refused to make their data publicly available to scientific peers for independent review — as genuine scientific procedure demands — and when pressed on the issue, have claimed that the evidence has been “lost.”

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/11998-%E2%80%9Cclimate-science%E2%80%9D-in-shambles-real-scientists-battle-un-agenda

RightSadFred wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 8:49am:

PZ547 If no one listens to his rubbish then he has no power, seems the US political machinery is going down that path like the rest of the world. Everyone stopped listening to Rudd and look what happened.

[smiley=thumbsup.gif]

____ wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 8:32am:

What complete and utter junk. The arctic sea ice extent this year is 398,000 square miles BELOW the average. It is the sixth smallest extent on record. The ocean temperatures have spiked in the last decade as the surface temperature rise has slowed. These are simple, observable, measurable FACTS. Not only are deluded articles like the above absurd, they are grossly irresponsible. Shame on you. One of the quotes from the opinion piece you cut and pasted ... so why no link? http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6040/20130911/global-cooling-arctic-ice-cap-60-photo.htm

you kidding right? who isLeslie Graham? another nutjob like your self posting on a news story providing no facts
A picture explains a thousand words and since both pictures were taken the same month in consecutive years to say growth is below average is absurd, now that the tables have turned its time to call the Global warming alarmist, Global Cooling deniers.

'
'
A large number of noted climatologists, paleoclimatologists, meteorologists, atmospheric physicists, geophysicists, oceanographers, geologists, and scientists in virtually every field has been challenging the claims of the UN’s IPCC and vigorously denouncing the politicization of IPCC “science” to promote costly and draconian global policies.

Some of the IPCC’s most severe critics are scientists who have served as lead authors and expert reviewers of IPCC reports and have witnessed from the inside the blatant bias and politics masquerading as science

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/11998-%E2%80%9Cclimate-science%E2%80%9D-in-shambles-real-scientists-battle-un-agenda

'
'
More than 31,000 scientists in the United States have signed a petition urging the U.S. government to reject the kinds of AGW policies proposed by the UN and environmental extremists

The petition reads, in part:

' The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.


Hope everyone read that, i.e.,

' The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.


http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/11998-%E2%80%9Cclimate-science%E2%80%9D-in-shambles-real-scientists-battle-un-agenda

'
'
The politicization and corruption of climate science is, perhaps, most clearly evident from the continuing cavalcade of shocking scandals: Climategate, Climate­gate 2.0, Himalayan Glaciergate, Alaskan Glaciergate, Amazongate, Sea Levelgate, Fakegate, Satellitegate, Antarctic Sea Icegate, Hockey Stickgate, Hurricanegate, Surface Weather Stationgate, Russiagate, etc.


The Germany-based engineer P. Gosselin has catalogued 129 climate scandals at his website, NoTrickZone.com.

Fortunately, each of these transgressions against the integrity of science has caused new circles of scientists to become aware of, and outraged by, the chicanery being employed by the political operatives masquerading as scientists. And the genuine scientists are stepping into the gap in increasing numbers to fight for truth and to expose the climate-change flim-flam artists who are perverting science.


http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/11998-%E2%80%9Cclimate-science%E2%80%9D-in-shambles-real-scientists-battle-un-agenda

'
'
More than 1,000 internationally renowned scientists have gone further; they have not merely signed a petition, but have made public statements challenging key claims of the AGW alarmists.

Published in 2010, in a report by Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com, this important collection of statements is an update of a similar report of 700 scientists’ statements published by Senator James Inhofe of the U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee.

The 1,000+ lineup of scientists reads like a Who’s Who of the global scientific community

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/11998-%E2%80%9Cclimate-science%E2%80%9D-in-shambles-real-scientists-battle-un-agenda

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 7:46am:

http://cdn.isciencetimes.com/data/images/full/2013/09/11/4999-global-cooling.jpg NASA satellite images show August 2012 [left] and August 2013 [right]. (Photo: NASA) Are we experiencing global cooling?

No. You're showing two photographs of a small part of the world and attempting to assert that it is representative of the whole. It's not. That is cherry picking and is a fallacious line of argument.


Quote:

A cool Arctic summer allowed nearly a million more squre miles of ice to form over the same time last year. This figure represents a growth of 60 percent.

Extrapolating a trend from two data points is not reliable. If you had a clue you would know this.


Quote:

The incredible arctic ice growth after the record low of 2012 is significant.

No. It' not. It's just a pair of cherry picked data points. One cool winter in a part of the world does not prove a cooling trend for the whole world.


Quote:

Just six years ago, a science article from the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free by the summer of 2013.

Predictions are not always accurate. Your point?

I've seen plenty of predictions from deniers that were also inaccurate.


Quote:

The indication of global cooling indicates the opposite. According to monitors, the Arctic now features an unbroken ice sheet that is larger than half of Europe. The sheet stretches from the Canadian islands all the way to Russia's northern shores. What's more, the Arctic's Northwest Passage has been blocked by ice all year. More than 20 yachts that attempted to sail the passage were left ice bound. A cruise ship was also forced to turn back around.

Again, so what? It's just a data point. A general trend does not rule out the possibility of significant fluctuations around the mean. You have no idea about statistics.

Melbourne has just had it's warmest July on record. That is not particularly significant if taken in isolation. Yet we seem to have a large number of such warmest-on-record reports from all over the world and a relative lack of coolest-on-record reports. The overall aggregate of all the data also points to persistent warmer conditions than the long-term averages.

IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud

Global warming alarmists are scrambling to save face after hackers stole hundreds of incriminating e-mails from a British university and published them on the Internet --- revealing correspondence between British and American researchers engaged in fraudulent reporting of data to favor their own climate change agenda.


Now that AGW is revealed as a farce, will big-spending politicians in the U.S. Senate halt efforts to impose a cap-and-trade system to ostensibly combat greenhouse gases and global warming? Of course not. Cap and trade is about raising taxes and increasing government control over our entire economy.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/6748-ipcc-researchers-admit-global-warming-fraud

PZ547 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 7:54am:

But seriously, everyone's aware the planet has been entering a natural cooling phase for years now

Rubbish.

"Everyone's aware" - Who is this "everyone"?

"natural cooling phase" - Really? This is a lie. Why has the last ten years been the warmest ten years on record globally? Take the last ten completed years, 2003-2012, and find any other period of ten consecutive years that were warmer, going back to 1880 when reliable weather records first became available. You won't find any. Why?

Edit: correct quoted text for accuracy

'
'

When stripped down to the bare truth, the actual number of studies in the Cook sampling that can be said to endorse the position that human activity is responsible for most of the experienced global warming is — get ready for this (drum roll …) — sixty-five.

Yes, 65, or around half a percent, not 97 percent!

And this miniscule number of strong endorsers is actually less than the number of skeptical scientific papers included in the Cook study.


;D

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/15457-global-warming-consensus-cooking-the-books/15457-global-warming-consensus-cooking-the-books

Bam wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 9:23am:

PZ547 wrote on Sep 13th, 2013 at 7:54am: But seriously, everyone's aware the planet has been entering a natural cooling phase for years now Rubbish. "Everyone knows" - Who is this "everyone"? "natural cooling phase" - Really? This is a lie. Why has the last ten years been the warmest ten years on record globally? Take the last ten completed years, 2003-2012, and find any other period of ten consecutive years that were warmer, going back to 1880 when reliable weather records first became available. You won't find any. Why?

One of two things is at fault here, Bam

Either it's your dismal lack of education and/or abysmal ignorance

Or

It's your complete inability to comprehend


The information is being presented to you here in this thread

Would pay you to read and to try to absorb some of it

That way, you won't embarrass yourself as greatly in the future

U.S. Cooling, Not Warming, Over Past Decade, Govt. Data Shows

“The trend for the continental United States for the past 10 years is not flat, but cooling.”

Watts discovered in the course of his investigation that historical temperature data has been modified, possibly in an effort to make the warming trend of the last 60 years appear more significant that it really is

“The U.S. has warmed during the past century, but the warming hardly exceeds year-to-year variability. Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934.”


most of the climate-change hysteria is grounded in left-wing ideology, not science. The facts are irrelevant; what matters is being able to use the threat of “global warming” to put Marxist theory into practice.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/7005-us-cooling-not-warming-over-past-decade-govt-data-shows

Bam wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 9:23am:

PZ547 wrote on Sep 13th, 2013 at 7:54am: But seriously, everyone's aware the planet has been entering a natural cooling phase for years now Rubbish. "Everyone knows" - Who is this "everyone"? "natural cooling phase" - Really? This is a lie. Why has the last ten years been the warmest ten years on record globally? Take the last ten completed years, 2003-2012, and find any other period of ten consecutive years that were warmer, going back to 1880 when reliable weather records first became available. You won't find any. Why?

try this then, instead of just taking notice of high peaks in temps, take a look at the low peeks in temps, better yet, take a look at the average, temps are cooling.

'
'
The Real Agenda Behind UN “Sustainability” Unmasked


For starters, it helps to look at who was running the show.

The Secretary-General of Rio+20 was a notorious anti-American Chinese Communist known as Sha Zukang, a man who spent decades working for the mass-murdering regime ruling over mainland China before starting his career as a senior UN official. He has openly proclaimed his hatred of Americans. And the fact that he gave an award to the Chinese general responsible for the mass slaughter of protesters at Tiananmen Square offers even more insight into his character.

In terms of Zukang’s vision, the day before the summit began, China’s state-run propaganda organ Xinhua quoted him as saying that the totalitarian-ruled nation had made “great progress” on “sustainable development.” His close connection to the ruthless regime was never revealed, with the report referring to him only as a UN official. But according to the high-ranking Communist Party operative, the Chinese dictatorship has “broad prospects” for participation in “international cooperation” on the issue of so-called “sustainability.”   

The executive coordinator of the Rio+20 summit, meanwhile, was French socialist Brice Lalonde, a reliable advocate of bigger and more centralized government, using whatever pretext might be most effective. Apparently a cousin of U.S. Senator John Kerry and a well-known figure in France, Lalonde also has a long history of using environmentalism to advance a collectivist agenda

UN documents on the conference released before the summit also shed light on what the true agenda was.

A report prepared by some three dozen UN agencies entitled “Working Towards a Balanced and Inclusive Green Economy: A United Nations System-wide Perspective,” for example, detailed the scheme to foist a “green” world order on the planet by making every level of government — regional, national, sub-national, and local — subservient to the agenda.

According to the document, the transition toward a global “green economy” was expected to cost trillions of dollars per year. Every aspect of human life — lifestyles, opinions, behavior, education, health, consumption, production, agriculture, diet, law, taxation, industry, governance, and more — would have to be reshaped to conform to new international standards. On the same note as sentiments expressed by billionaires like George Soros, Ted Turner, and David Rockefeller, certain Communist Chinese policies were described as a “good example.”

To enforce its controversial vision, the UN said it would have to assume vast new powers, including global regulatory authority and enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance.

National regulations would have to be replaced with global ones, the report explained.

Other global powers touted in the document included carbon taxes, trillions of dollars annually in wealth redistribution, population-reduction schemes, and a barrage of programs dealing with everything from poverty and education to health and resource allocation.

To pay for it all, aside from new world taxes and higher prices across the board, a new global currency run by the International Monetary Fund might have to be considered, according to the document
[b]
Over a dozen respected scientists and university professors, including several who worked with the UN science apparatus in the past -- said the document was nothing but UN fear-mongering — lies, exaggerations, and political propaganda.[/b]

In essence, then, the true agenda had little to do with “sustainability,” poverty, or a so-called “green economy”

This exposes the so-called 'Green' groups as nothing more than controlled-opposition instrumental in perverting sovereign governments and bending them to obey one world government

Those who Post for Pay as part of the agenda deserve to be cast from our midst and left to rot in the wilderness

http://www.thenewamerican.com/rio-20/item/12008-the-real-agenda-behind-un-%E2%80%9Csustainability%E2%80%9D-unmasked

Bam wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 9:12am:

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Sep 13th, 2013 at 7:46am: http://cdn.isciencetimes.com/data/images/full/2013/09/11/4999-global-cooling.jpg NASA satellite images show August 2012 [left] and August 2013 [right]. (Photo: NASA) Are we experiencing global cooling? No. You're showing two photographs of a small part of the world and attempting to assert that it is representative of the whole. It's not. That is cherry picking and is a fallacious line of argument.  It is not only NOT cherry-picking, it is also not without value and importance.  For years, the Arctic ice cap has been used as some kind of independent barometer to the state of the climate.  Now that the message is not to your liking you want to abandon it? Quote: A cool Arctic summer allowed nearly a million more squre miles of ice to form over the same time last year. This figure represents a growth of 60 percent. Extrapolating a trend from two data points is not reliable. If you had a clue you would know this. You are not quite right.  it is the weakest extrapolation possible but it is not invalid. Given the ACC crowds belief in never-ending warming a major example of the obverse occurring is hardly unimportant.  And if YOU had a clue you would know that any trend that changes direction will always start with just two points initially. What are you going to say when the next photo shows continued growth? [quote]The incredible arctic ice growth after the record low of 2012 is significant.

No. It' not. It's just a pair of cherry picked data points. One cool winter in a part of the world does not prove a cooling trend for the whole world. true, but only in a weak sense.  when the arctic shows notable cooling that is indeed very indicative of a cooling trend.  not proof positive, but highly potent evidence just the same.


Quote:

Just six years ago, a science article from the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free by the summer of 2013.

Predictions are not always accurate. Your point?  At what point are you going to start holding climate predictions to account?  Yes, not all predictions are accurate but climate hysteric predictions have been massively wrong and repeatedly so.  this is just another very big miss by the ACC lot whose predictive abilities are beyond awful

I've seen plenty of predictions from deniers that were also inaccurate.  Worst... argument... ever!


Quote:

The indication of global cooling indicates the opposite. According to monitors, the Arctic now features an unbroken ice sheet that is larger than half of Europe. The sheet stretches from the Canadian islands all the way to Russia's northern shores. What's more, the Arctic's Northwest Passage has been blocked by ice all year. More than 20 yachts that attempted to sail the passage were left ice bound. A cruise ship was also forced to turn back around.

Again, so what? It's just a data point. A general trend does not rule out the possibility of significant fluctuations around the mean. You have no idea about statistics.

Melbourne has just had it's warmest July on record. That is not particularly significant if taken in isolation. Yet we seem to have a large number of such warmest-on-record reports from all over the world and a relative lack of coolest-on-record reports. The overall aggregate of all the data also points to persistent warmer conditions than the long-term averages.
[/quote]

you have this tendency to use blinkers.  But that's okay as it is a pre-requisite to being a climate hysteric.  HIGH temperatures prove ACC but low temperatures are meaningless. 

the ACC hypothesis has comprehensively failed to get a single major prediction right.  And you want to claim that 'the science is settled'???

Bam wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 9:23am:

PZ547 wrote on Sep 13th, 2013 at 7:54am: But seriously, everyone's aware the planet has been entering a natural cooling phase for years now Rubbish. "Everyone's aware" - Who is this "everyone"? "natural cooling phase" - Really? This is a lie. Why has the last ten years been the warmest ten years on record globally? Take the last ten completed years, 2003-2012, and find any other period of ten consecutive years that were warmer, going back to 1880 when reliable weather records first became available. You won't find any. Why? Edit: correct quoted text for accuracy

except that the last 17 years has shown NO warming.  Did you miss that inconvenient truth?

PZ547 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 9:29am:

Bam wrote on Sep 13th, 2013 at 9:23am: PZ547 wrote on Sep 13th, 2013 at 7:54am: But seriously, everyone's aware the planet has been entering a natural cooling phase for years now Rubbish. "Everyone knows" - Who is this "everyone"? "natural cooling phase" - Really? This is a lie. Why has the last ten years been the warmest ten years on record globally? Take the last ten completed years, 2003-2012, and find any other period of ten consecutive years that were warmer, going back to 1880 when reliable weather records first became available. You won't find any. Why? One of two things is at fault here, Bam Either it's your dismal lack of education and/or abysmal ignorance

Only one of us here is ignorant in science. It's you. Not me. I'm discussing global warming using the actual data. You're resorting to personal attacks against me, climate scientists and any other fallacious and desperate line of discussion that avoids the actual data at any price.


Quote:

Or It's your complete inability to comprehend The information is being presented to you here in this thread

What? That I refuse to accept the hit parade of denier fallacies? That's not information, that's junk.


Quote:

Would pay you to read and to try to absorb some of it

No thank you, I prefer to engage in reasonable lines of discussion.


Quote:

That way, you won't embarrass yourself as greatly in the future

You're the one that's an embarrassment. Why won't you discuss the data? Why do you do anything to avoid discussing the actual, raw, unadorned and complete global data?

Your getting confusing Bam, you made reference to a denier, is this a warming or cooling denier.

The CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere is well correlated to the global temperature. Why is this?

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/zFacts-CO2-Temp.gif

Grad Students Wrote UN Climate Studies


The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert 


The use of graduate students to write climate reports


FoxNews.com:  IPCC’s reports have often been written by graduate students with little or no experience in their field of study and whose efforts normally might be barely enough to satisfy grad school requirements


$76 trillion cost of the UN’s plan for “green technology”:

The UN is engaged in an effort to use the imagined environmental crisis as the justification for a program of sweeping economic redistribution that would shift trillions of dollars from the industrialized nations to the Third World.

The UN is now demanding an “investment” of $1.9 trillion per year in “green technology” to meet the goals that the internationalists have set for the nations of the world.…

Now, the $45 trillion has grown to an even more incomprehensible $76 trillion (based on the proposed 40 years of spending $1.9 trillion per year). Calling such a reckless demand “outrageous” and “unsustainable” still falls short — what is demanded is nothing less than the conversion of much of what remains of the economies of the developed world into a means of funneling wealth to the World Bank

(all based on the hoax invented by 65 supposed scientists whom Fox has revealed to comprise largely of students ! )


http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/7003-grad-students-wrote-un-climate-studies

Bam wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 9:51am:

PZ547 wrote on Sep 13th, 2013 at 9:29am: Bam wrote on Sep 13th, 2013 at 9:23am: PZ547 wrote on Sep 13th, 2013 at 7:54am: But seriously, everyone's aware the planet has been entering a natural cooling phase for years now Rubbish. "Everyone knows" - Who is this "everyone"? "natural cooling phase" - Really? This is a lie. Why has the last ten years been the warmest ten years on record globally? Take the last ten completed years, 2003-2012, and find any other period of ten consecutive years that were warmer, going back to 1880 when reliable weather records first became available. You won't find any. Why? One of two things is at fault here, Bam Either it's your dismal lack of education and/or abysmal ignorance Only one of us here is ignorant in science. It's you. Not me. I'm discussing global warming using the actual data. You're resorting to personal attacks against me, climate scientists and any other fallacious and desperate line of discussion that avoids the actual data at any price. Quote: Or It's your complete inability to comprehend The information is being presented to you here in this thread What? That I refuse to accept the hit parade of denier fallacies? That's not information, that's junk. [quote]Would pay you to read and to try to absorb some of it

No thank you, I prefer to engage in reasonable lines of discussion.


Quote:

That way, you won't embarrass yourself as greatly in the future

You're the one that's an embarrassment. Why won't you discuss the data? Why do you do anything to avoid discussing the actual, raw, unadorned and complete global data?
[/quote]

You mean like the UK METs data showing no statistically relevant change in temperature over the last 17 years?  Or the fact that in those hysterical climate models of some time ago they identified 17 years of no change as the time frame that would invalidate their own findings?  The silly embarrassing statement that their 20 year model of temperature was spot-on... as long as you ignore all the things we got wrong or didn't expect or didn't know about.  Its like saying you got 100% in an exam by removing all the questions you got wrong.

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 9:55am:

Your getting confusing Bam, you made reference to a denier, is this a warming or cooling denier.

The only deniers that are generally accepted are those that deny any warming trend. Cooling deniers is something you've just made up.

Now, it would seem that the "science" supposedly supporting such an Earth-shattering inversion of the global economy is the product of graduate students whose academic credentials and practical experience are hardly substantial enough to justify the ends to which their writings would be employed by the United Nations.

Chiaramonte highlights several of the “lead authors” for the IPCC who were “barely out of college when tapped to author the final word on the effects of climate change”:

One lead author of the 2001 edition was a trainee at the Munich Reinsurance Company in 2000 and lacked a master's degree while on the panel. He did not earn a Ph.D. until ten years later.

Another lead author in 1994 earned his master's only two years earlier and had his first academic paper published in 1995.


An Australian academic was an assistant author in 2001 and a lead author in 2007 — despite not earning her Ph.D. until 2009.

Dutch geography professor Richard Klein has been a lead author for six IPCC reports and in 1997 became a coordinating lead author. He was promoted to the panel’s most senior role while he was 28 years old — six years prior to completing his PhD.

Laframboise claims in the book that “neither [Klein's] youth nor his thin academic credentials prevented the IPCC from regarding him as one of the world’s top experts.”


In the funhouse mirror of the politics of global warming, scholarly critics of the theory (Henk Tennekes of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute, for example) are pilloried, while grad students are the “world’s top experts.”   ;D

Polls have demonstrated that much of the public has already lost all confidence in the theory of manmade climate change.

As more details regarding both the "science" of climate change and the horrific human costs of the solutions for climate change that have been proposed by the United Nations, public faith in any advocate of the theory is likely to plummet.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/7003-grad-students-wrote-un-climate-studies

I think that the North pole getting more ice is a product
of the stopping of the Gulf Stream owing to global warming.

Indeed global warming could plunge England & Europe into a mini ice age.

The real test is the average temperature of our planet not
a localized effect.

Bam wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 9:59am:

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Sep 13th, 2013 at 9:55am: Your getting confusing Bam, you made reference to a denier, is this a warming or cooling denier. The only deniers that are generally accepted are those that deny any warming trend. Cooling deniers is something you've just made up.

You're wrong again

and you insist on advertising your utter lack of knowledge


'Cooling deniers'  is a term that gained traction more than three years ago, world-wide

It refers to those who cling stubbornly to a belief and hope in the fiction that is 'global warming' and 'bad carbon', etc


Basically, it means 'morons' 


:D

PZ547 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 8:52am:

The AGW “consensus” involves a relatively small coterie of climate scientists

ACTUALLY ...



Survey finds 97% of climate science papers agree warming is man-made
Thursday 16 May 2013

Overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed papers taking a position on global warming say humans are causing it




Read on ...


http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange

Bam wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 9:59am:

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Sep 13th, 2013 at 9:55am: Your getting confusing Bam, you made reference to a denier, is this a warming or cooling denier. The only deniers that are generally accepted are those that deny any warming trend. Cooling deniers is something you've just made up.

get used to it.  the new 'deniers' are going to be people like you who deny the cooling of the earth.

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 10:08am:

PZ547 wrote on Sep 13th, 2013 at 8:52am: The AGW “consensus” involves a relatively small coterie of climate scientists ACTUALLY ... Survey finds 97% of climate science papers agree warming is man-made Overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed papers taking a position on global warming say humans are causing it Read on ... http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange

a survey of 77 people making it 75 scientists in total.  also a VERY VERY old figure.

maybe time to get a credible and recent figure???

PZ547 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 10:06am:

Bam wrote on Sep 13th, 2013 at 9:59am: BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Sep 13th, 2013 at 9:55am: Your getting confusing Bam, you made reference to a denier, is this a warming or cooling denier. The only deniers that are generally accepted are those that deny any warming trend. Cooling deniers is something you've just made up. You're wrong again and you insist on advertising your utter lack of knowledge 'Cooling deniers'  is a term that gained traction more than three years ago, world-wide It refers to those who cling stubbornly to a belief and hope in the fiction that is 'global warming' and 'bad carbon', etc Basically, it means 'morons'  :D

love it... LOL

Bobby. wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 10:04am:

I think that the North pole getting more ice is a product of the stopping of the Gulf Stream owing to global warming. Indeed global warming could plunge England & Europe into a mini ice age. The real test is the average temperature of our planet not a localized effect.

Another one who wants to believe they were 'on the right side' re: the fiction that is 'climate change/global warming' etc


You do realise, or should, that when Gore and his cronies were devising the huge bull-shite scam of 'global warming/bad carbon/climate change' (they've had to keep moving the goal-posts as science shot them down) --- they falsified the data

I went to great trouble to post it above

they falsified the data

but when the data was examined by genuine scientists (31,000 plus to date) it was exposed as a sham.  And the true data revealed the warmest temperatures had been and gone in the 1930s

Go on Bobby -- read some of the stuff

or remain ignorant

up to you

billions already know it

but if you want to stay with the other loons at the bottom of the class --- meh

Humans are funny  ;D

WikiLeaks Reveals U.S. & EU Climate Bullying, Bribery, Espionage

A series of secret U.S. diplomatic cables released in recent days by the whistle-blower group WikiLeaks shows the American and European governments used monetary incentives, threats, and even espionage to advance their “climate” agenda at the COP15 global-warming summit in Copenhagen last year and beyond.

the U.K. Guardian reported: “Hidden behind the save-the-world rhetoric of the global climate change negotiations lies the mucky realpolitik: money and threats buy political support; spying and cyberwarfare are used to seek out leverage.”

“Saudi officials are very eager to obtain investment credits for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and other technology transfer projects that will only become available once an agreement has been reached,”


To add just a little more irony, government apologists and officials are now calling for the prosecution of WikiLeaks for exposing the scandals


http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/1346-wikileaks-reveals-us--eu-climate-bullying-bribery-espionage

'
Cap and Trade by Stealth: U.S. States Partner With Foreign Governments


While Americans were battling cap-and-trade legislation at the national and international levels, global-warming alarmists were quietly building regional systems between state and local governments, private industry, and even foreign governments that basically achieve the same effect -- higher energy prices for consumers and more money for governments.

The first and most prominent of these U.S. cap-and-trade systems is known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). It was created not by the people through their legislatures, but by a so-called Memorandum of Understanding between state governors.

But the corruption is already coming out in the open.

There motto is:

' We drive bold climate action through our network of business, government and thought leaders.'

Govt. of NSW

Govt. of South Australia

City of Sydney

Govt. of Victoria

of West Oz

etc.

are 'partners'

The organization works with the United Nations Development Program, the World Economic Forum, the Administrative Center for China's Agenda 21, the U.S. Department of Energy, and other high-profile institutions, agencies and governments to advance the global climate agenda. And it promotes the implementation of global-warming schemes through sub-national levels of government among other things.

The UN Development Program estimates that 50 per cent to 80 per cent of the emissions cuts needed to keep climate change below 2C will need to be delivered at state, regional and city levels, the co-chairs noted in their joint column for The Australian entitled Think globally, act locally? States already are. This is because regional governments often control regulation for many of the key areas for addressing climate change, such as power generation, the built environment, waste management, transport and land use planning

those same forces are building a powerful and expensive carbon regime that could eventually encompass every state in the Union, and beyond


http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/3578-cap-and-trade-by-stealth-us-states-partner-with-foreign-governments

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 9:58am:

Bam wrote on Sep 13th, 2013 at 9:51am: PZ547 wrote on Sep 13th, 2013 at 9:29am: Bam wrote on Sep 13th, 2013 at 9:23am: PZ547 wrote on Sep 13th, 2013 at 7:54am: But seriously, everyone's aware the planet has been entering a natural cooling phase for years now Rubbish. "Everyone knows" - Who is this "everyone"? "natural cooling phase" - Really? This is a lie. Why has the last ten years been the warmest ten years on record globally? Take the last ten completed years, 2003-2012, and find any other period of ten consecutive years that were warmer, going back to 1880 when reliable weather records first became available. You won't find any. Why? One of two things is at fault here, Bam Either it's your dismal lack of education and/or abysmal ignorance Only one of us here is ignorant in science. It's you. Not me. I'm discussing global warming using the actual data. You're resorting to personal attacks against me, climate scientists and any other fallacious and desperate line of discussion that avoids the actual data at any price. Quote: Or It's your complete inability to comprehend The information is being presented to you here in this thread What? That I refuse to accept the hit parade of denier fallacies? That's not information, that's junk. [quote]Would pay you to read and to try to absorb some of it No thank you, I prefer to engage in reasonable lines of discussion. [quote]That way, you won't embarrass yourself as greatly in the future

You're the one that's an embarrassment. Why won't you discuss the data? Why do you do anything to avoid discussing the actual, raw, unadorned and complete global data?
[/quote]

You mean like the UK METs data showing no statistically relevant change in temperature over the last 17 years?[/quote]
Why have most of the last 10 years been among the warmest 10 years on record? As for "statistically relevant", that's not correct. There was a similar trend from 1980 to 1995.


Quote:

Or the fact that in those hysterical climate models of some time ago they identified 17 years of no change as the time frame that would invalidate their own findings?

It's a shame that your views are coloured by being selective with the facts. I notice that you have rejected most facts that disagree with your viewpoint and only offer a few that support them, no matter how dubious. You're building your argument around one single climate model while ignoring others.


Quote:

The silly embarrassing statement that their 20 year model of temperature was spot-on... as long as you ignore all the things we got wrong or didn't expect or didn't know about.  Its like saying you got 100% in an exam by removing all the questions you got wrong.

This explains your own line of argument rather well. You're being rather selective with the facts. Why so much emphasis on UK met data? Why no mention of other data that contradicts this? Why ignore the fact that most of the last 10 years are among the warmest on record with all reliable data sets? Why ignore the CO₂ to temperature correlation?

I do not place any particular emphasis on what other people say about the data. It's waffle, especially the fallacies. I prefer to look at the data itself. The firmest foundations are the CO₂ and temperature data. Both are quite clear, especially CO₂ concentration. Where there's more room for debate is in causes and predictions. Healthy discussion  on climate change should focus on this.

I reject anything that is fallacious. So far in this thread I have seen numerous fallacious arguments against anthropogenic global warming, including the fallacies of ad hominem, tu quoque, gambler's fallacy, bandwagon, Texas sharpshooter and appeal to authority. It's only a matter of time before there's going to be other fallacies offered as well.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 10:09am:

a survey of 77 people making it 75 scientists in total.  also a VERY VERY old figure. maybe time to get a credible and recent figure???

1998 data to be mentioned by CC deniers in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ...

Bobby. wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 10:04am:

I think that the North pole getting more ice is a product of the stopping of the Gulf Stream owing to global warming.

It is possible. Is there enough data yet to support or refute this?

I'd rather look at the facts, Global warming alarmist said there would be no ice in the artic by 2013 but there is 60% growth of ice coverage since this time last year. The fact is there is more ice. Global alarmist has used the ice sheets as their proof of Global warming since day 1, now there is more ice how can it be warmer, ice only forms when its colder

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 10:08am:

Bam wrote on Sep 13th, 2013 at 9:59am: BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Sep 13th, 2013 at 9:55am: Your getting confusing Bam, you made reference to a denier, is this a warming or cooling denier. The only deniers that are generally accepted are those that deny any warming trend. Cooling deniers is something you've just made up. get used to it.  the new 'deniers' are going to be people like you who deny the cooling of the earth.

What cooling? Where is the data? Last time I checked, global temperatures have been warmer than the 1961-1990 average for 27 years in a row. When will we next get a year where global temperatures are below the 1961-1990 average?

.
.

Man Made Climate Change Arguments Don’t Survive Scrutiny 

September 02, 2013


Proponents of man-made climate change are being challenged more and more by scientists who don’t buy into the climate catastrophe scare

Scrutiny of man made climate change arguments reveal why they are failing.

* Nature is showing us that carbon dioxide concentrations are not ruling global temperature.

* Since 1998 twenty eight percent of all carbon dioxide emissions released into the atmosphere since 1850 have occurred yet there has been no warming.

* World wide hurricanes are not increasing in number or strength. There has been no category 3 or higher hurricane strike in the United States since 2005. This year, in the United States, we are on our way to having the fewest number of tornadoes since modern record keeping began. Sea level is rising at the same rate is has for the last 100 years with no acceleration.

* Polar Bear populations are at record highs.

* Computer model temperature predictions are much too warm and the difference between them and measured temperature is increasing each year.

* Arctic sea ice loss at the end of the summer has leveled off.

*  Man made climate change arguments are failing because they are wrong.


See more at: http://www.energytribune.com/79020/man-made-climate-change-arguments-dont-survive-scrutiny#sthash.5hFY3dBp.dpuf

For SO LONG, it has to me, been an endless source of BAFFLEMENT, BEWILDERMENT and AMUSEMENT - as to what drives that 2% crack-pot fringe of society, that TRUELY BELIEVES ...




The Pope is the REAL head of The Mafia

911 was an operation secretly arranged between MOSSAD and the CIA

Climate change alert is a plot by the COMMUNISTS for "ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT" 



Quote:

NICK MINCHIN: For the extreme left it provides the opportunity to do what they've always wanted to do, to sort of de-industrialise the western world. You know the collapse of communism was a disaster for the left, and the, and really they embraced environmentalism as their new religion. http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2009/s2737676.htm

( ... Julie Bishop has reportedly earmarked the job of Australia's Consul-General to New York to former Senator, Nick Minchin - following the politically driven sacking of Steve Bracks)






Is it just a desire to be "special" - and stand out from the crowd ?

Bam wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 9:56am:

concentration in the atmosphere is well correlated to the global temperature[/url]. Why is this?

Because that's out of date and it isn't?

---

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 9:58am:

You mean like the UK METs data showing no statistically relevant change in temperature over the last 17 years?

This is just a blatant distortion of what the UK MET data says. They say that global surface temperature warming has stalled, but they absolutely support the view that overall global warming is continuing:


Quote:

there is substantial evidence from other components of the climate system, beyond the global mean surface temperature, that the Earth has continued to warm over the last decade.

Contradiction? To the ignorant, blinkered eyed denialist, absolutely. For scientists though, it is absolutely to be expected. The vast majority of the earth's energy is contained in the oceans, so thats where most of the warming is happening.  In summary:


Quote:

There are two main ways to explain the recent surface temperature behaviour; firstly, through changes in the net amount of incoming energy to the climate system (radiative forcing) or, secondly, through redistribution of energy within the climate system, particularly through exchange between the upper and deep ocean, which can temporarily hide the warming below the surface. Both explanations have been put forward in the literature. For instance, several studies (e.g. Solomon et al 2010, 2011, Church et al 2011) have considered potential radiative forcing explanations, while others (e.g. Knight et al 2009, Meehl et al 2011, Katsman and van Oldenborgh 2011) have examined the potential ocean heat redistribution.

The paper goes on to explain it in further detail. Suggest you read what the MET office actually says, rather than regurgitate the daily fail's distortion of what it says:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.PDF

Point is, it is just grossly misleading to declare warming has suddenly stopped, and use the MET office as proof of this - when they said nothing of the sort.

Why is Obama Lying on Climate Change?

August 01, 2013



President Obama frequently states, as he did on May 29 at a Chicago fundraiser: “We also know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or 10 years ago.” His Climate Action Plan is based on this belief. But, is it correct?

During the Q & A time with the first panel—which included the Democrat’s star: Heidi Cullen of Weather Channel fame, Ranking Member Senator David Vitter (R-LA) asked: “Can any witnesses say they agree with Obama’s statement that warming has accelerated during the past 10 years?” After an awkward silence, Cullen tried to change the subject by saying that we need to be looking at longer time periods then ten years and then, ultimately, acknowledged that the warming has slowed, not accelerated.

A few minutes later, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) made sure no one missed the point. He repeated Obama’s claim and then asked: “Do any of you support that quote?” Again, silence.

Even the witnesses brought in by the Democrats couldn’t support Obama’s false data.


In preparation for the hearing, the Minority produced an important report: “Critical Thinking on Climate Change: Questions to Consider Before Taking Regulatory Action and Implementing Economic Policies.”

The remaining 19 pages are filled with predictions and claims—including Obama’s—that are false or foolish, such as Former Vice President Al Gore’s on December 13, 2008: “The entire north polar ice cap will be gone in 5 years.” And a 1989 statement from the Associated Press: “Using computer models, researchers conclude that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide by two degrees by 2010.” Each set of predictions and claims is countered by “The Latest Science.” Reading the report, one finds that the claims often contradict the data.

Pielke, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado and the author of Climate Fix, started with seven “take-home points” that totally eviscerated Boxer and Cullen’s “extreme weather” claims. Showing a series of charts and graphs Pielke convincingly proved: “It is misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally. It is further incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.” The facts are (From Pielke’s testimony):

* Hurricanes have not increased in the US in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since at least 1900.

* There are no significant trends (up or down) in global tropical cyclone landfalls since 1970 (when data allows for a comprehensive perspective), or the overall number of cyclones.

* Tornadoes have not increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since 1950, and there is some evidence to suggest that they have actually declined.

* Drought has, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and has been covering a smaller portion of the US over the past century.

Last, but surely not least, was Roy Spencer who holds a Ph.D. in Meteorology and has spent his entire career in research—specifically satellite information retrieval techniques and global temperature monitoring. Spencer has served NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies.

Spencer demonstrated the failure of the computer model predictions upon which the IPCC based their projections of global warming. He offered a chart demonstrating the 73 models used and their predictions vs. the actual temperature measurement from two satellite datasets and four weather balloon datasets.

“The level of disagreement between models and observations is quite striking.” Spencer pointed out: “The magnitude of global-average atmospheric warming between 1997 and 2012 is only about 50% that predicted by the climate models. …The level of warming in the most recent 15-year period is not significantly different from zero, despite this being the period of greatest greenhouse gas concentration. This is in stark contrast to claims that warming is ‘accelerating.’” He concludes: “It is time for scientists to entertain the possibility that there is something wrong with the assumptions built into their climate models. …and so far their error rate should preclude their use for predicting future climate change.”

The hearing’s “take-home points:” Obama lied. Boxer and Cullen’s predictions are false. The models are inaccurate. So, for this we are going to ruin the economy and disproportionately hurt the poor?

http://www.energytribune.com/78544/why-is-obama-lying-on-climate-change#sthash.fgtNodpc.dpbs



Ahhh, but who cares about ruining the economy and hurting the poor --- when it will make the one-percent even more obscenely rich

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 10:53am:

I'd rather look at the facts,

So why don't you look at all the facts?


Quote:

Global warming alarmist said there would be no ice in the artic by 2013

An old forecast. Big deal.


Quote:

but there is 60% growth of ice coverage since this time last year.

Your fallacy is: TEXAS SHARPSHOOTER.


Quote:

The fact is there is more ice.

Tell the whole truth. There is more ice at a specific time from one year to the next. It is not indicative of a longer-term trend.


Quote:

Global alarmist has used the ice sheets as their proof of Global warming since day 1, now there is more ice how can it be warmer, ice only forms when its colder

Global climate change is about long-term global trends.

Long-term global warming does not deny the possibility of short term local cooling. An increase in Arctic ice from 2012 to 2013 is short-term local cooling. Nor for that matter does long-term global warming deny the other possibilities of long-term local cooling or short-term global cooling.

We might well find that Arctic sea ice does increase from here. But is that proof that global cooling has started? No, of course not. It would be a local phenomenon, not a global one.

.

From Wall Street Journal

No Need to Panic About Global Warming

There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle.

Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth.

This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today.

Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.


Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue?    There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money."


[color=#0000ff]Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow.

Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet.

Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.[/color]


Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.



See more of this great article here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html

Bam wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 10:48am:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 13th, 2013 at 10:04am: I think that the North pole getting more ice is a product of the stopping of the Gulf Stream owing to global warming. It is possible. Is there enough data yet to support or refute this?

I'm not sure but you could have a lot of fun googling it.

.
A Really Inconvenient Truth: Global Warming is Not Real

Sixteen prominent scientists recently signed an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal expressing their belief that the theory of global warming is not supported by science. This has not been getting the attention it deserves because politicians (looking at you Al Gore) are frankly embarrassed to admit that they are wrong about the phenomenon known as global warming. Not only has our planet stopped warming, but we may be headed toward a vast cooling period.

New data shows that in fact the Earth has not warmed at all over the last 15 years. In fact, the Daily Mail reports that the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, after taking data from nearly 30,000 stations around the world, have found that the earth stopped warming in 1997.

The report suggests we are headed toward a new solar cycle, Cycle 25, which NASA scientists have predicted will be significantly cooler than Cycle 24 which we are in now. This data largely contradicts the accepted theory among the public that carbon dioxide pollution is causing global warming and even proposes that we are actually heading toward global cooling.

It is estimated that we have spent around $106.7 billion of taxpayer money from 2003-2010 to try to understand and “fix” global warming. And the spending doesn’t stop there. The same research shows the government has proposed to spend around $1.4 billion in 2012 alone on climate change issues. The fact of the matter is we are spending egregious amounts of money on an issue that there is no scientific evidence to back.

Read full article here:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/3824/a-really-inconvenient-truth-global-warming-is-not-real

Even as soon-to-be has been political figures like Barack Obama continue to spout more hot air on the need to combat (nonexistent) climate change, the real data points to earth temperatures that have remained largely unchanged since the big doom and gloom push that we would all by now be sunbathing in the Arctic.  Now (some) in the media are finally starting to call out the false machine that has always been behind the global warming movement…


EXCERPT (The Australian News)

Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled

In a lengthy article this week, The Economist magazine said if climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, then climate sensitivity – the way climate reacts to changes in carbon-dioxide levels – would be on negative watch but not yet downgraded.

…International Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri recently told The Weekend Australian the hiatus would have to last 30 to 40 years “at least” to break the long-term warming trend.

But the fact that global surface temperatures have not followed the expected global warming pattern is now widely accepted

Research by Ed Hawkins of University of Reading shows surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range projections derived from 20 climate models and if they remain flat, they will fall outside the models’ range within a few years.

“The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations,” says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

…There are now a number of studies that predict future temperature rises as a result of man-made carbon dioxide emissions at well below the IPCC best estimate of about 3C over the century.

…Hansen argues that the impact of human carbon dioxide emissions has been masked by the sharp increase in coal use, primarily in China and India.

Increased particulate and nitrogen pollution has worked in the opposite direction of rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

Another paper published in Geophysical Research Letters on research from the University of Colorado Boulder found small volcanoes, not more coal power stations in China, were responsible for the slowdown in global warming.   LINK

___________________________

Note the repeated references to COAL as being a possible cause for the current GLOBAL COOLING.  Not long ago, these same exact so-called climate snake oil salesmen were blaming coal for global warming.  Now they have reversed, and appear poised to return to the global cooling scare that was attempted in the 1970s when earth temps did decrease marginally.  They began to increase in the 1980′s of course, and global cooling was then replaced with global warming in the repeated sky is falling scenario as hundreds of millions of dollars poured into the global warming “science” industry.

What is happening now is that the climate prediction models of twenty and ten years ago were so far off, that now even some who wanted to believe in the premise of global warming, are being forced to admit that those estimates were so off the mark as to make them virtually irrelevant.

That doesn’t deter Barack Obama and his fellow liberals from continuing to demand more money be spent studying non-existent global warming, or more taxes being imposed on the economy so that THEY can then get rich off of the scheme.


Word is Al Gore is now approaching billionaire status – a fortune build almost entirely on his global warming myth.

I recall skeptics saying years ago that global warming would one day be proven to be among the greatest hoaxes in human history.

It appears that day has arrived…


http://theulstermanreport.com/2013/03/31/the-false-gods-of-climate-change-called-out-on-easter/

PZ your link uses the same lie about what the MET office said that longy was trying to pull.

What MET office actually says:



Quote:

this definitely doesn't mean any cooling - there's still a long-term trend of warming compared to the 50s, 60s or 70s. Our forecast is still for temperatures that will be close to the record levels of the past few years. And because the natural variability is based on cycles, those factors are bound to change the other way at some point.

When you lot perpetuate lies about what the MET office says, how on earth do you have a leg to stand on when you parrot on about "warmist lies"?

Its kind of like trying to argue religion, a complete waste of time, global warming is a faith based movement.

.

100 reasons why climate change is natural

HERE are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made:


1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.

2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.


5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.

6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.

7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.

8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.

9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming


10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.

11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago

12) Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds

13) Peter Lilley MP said last month that “fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our Government and our political class—predominantly—are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world”.

14) In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions

15) Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an “absurdity”


16) A Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is “embarrassed and puzzled” by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming.

17) The science of what determines the earth’s temperature is in fact far from settled or understood.

18) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can’t even pretend to control

19) A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it.

20) It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century - within natural rates

21) Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland says the earth’s temperature has more to do with cloud cover and water vapor than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

22) There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the Earth’s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades

23) It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries

24) It is a falsehood that the earth’s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder

25) The IPCC claims climate driven “impacts on biodiversity are significant and of key relevance” but those claims are simply not supported by scientific research

26) The IPCC threat of climate change to the world’s species does not make sense as wild species are at least one million years old, which means they have all been through hundreds of climate cycles

27) Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets.

28) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our best hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing population

29) The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth took place around 700 million years ago

30) The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 9:58am:

... the UK METs data showing no statistically relevant change in temperature over the last 17 years?

CLAIM, DEBUNKED - AEONS GO - as BULLSH!T !



Met Office in the Media: 14 October 2012
14 Nov 2012

An article by David Rose appears today in the Mail on Sunday under the title: ‘Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it’

It is the second article Mr Rose has written which contains some misleading information, after he wrote an article earlier this year on the same theme

Firstly, the Met Office has not issued a report on this issue. We can only assume the article is referring to the completion of work to update the HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset compiled by ourselves and the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.

We announced that this work was going on in March and it was finished this week.

Secondly, Mr Rose says the Met Office made no comment about its decadal climate predictions. This is because he did not ask us to make a comment about them.

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/



In FACT, the LAST decade was the WARMEST in recordable HISTORY

Continued:

100 reasons why climate change is natural

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/146138/100-reasons-why-climate-change-is-natural

31) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels of some so-called “greenhouse gases” may be contributing to higher oxygen levels and global cooling, not warming

32) Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures

33) Today’s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth’s history – we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere

34) It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere

35) It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to “verify” anything

36) There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes

37) One statement deleted from a UN report in 1996 stated that “none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases”

38) The world “warmed” by 0.07 +/- 0.07 degrees C from 1999 to 2008, not the 0.20 degrees C expected by the IPCC

39) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says “it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense” but there has been no increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones globally

40) Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth’s many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms

41) Researchers who compare and contrast climate change impact on civilizations found warm periods are beneficial to mankind and cold periods harmful

42) The Met Office asserts we are in the hottest decade since records began but this is precisely what the world should expect if the climate is cyclical

43) Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests

44) The historical increase in the air’s CO2 content has improved human nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years

45) The increase of the air’s CO2 content has probably helped lengthen human lifespans since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution

46) The IPCC alleges that “climate change currently contributes to the global burden of disease and premature deaths” but the evidence shows that higher temperatures and rising CO2 levels has helped global populations

47) In May of 2004, the Russian Academy of Sciences published a report concluding that the Kyoto Protocol has no scientific grounding at all.

48) The “Climate-gate” scandal pointed to a expensive public campaign of disinformation and the denigration of scientists who opposed the belief that CO2 emissions were causing climate change

49) The head of Britain’s climate change watchdog has predicted households will need to spend up to £15,000 on a full energy efficiency makeover if the Government is to meet its ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions.

50) Wind power is unlikely to be the answer to our energy needs. The wind power industry argues that there are “no direct subsidies” but it involves a total subsidy of as much as £60 per MWh which falls directly on electricity consumers. This burden will grow in line with attempts to achieve Wind power targets, according to a recent OFGEM report.

51) Wind farms are not an efficient way to produce energy. The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) accepts a figure of 75 per cent back-up power is required.

52) Global temperatures are below the low end of IPCC predictions not at “at the top end of IPCC estimates”

53) Climate alarmists have raised the concern over acidification of the oceans but Tom Segalstad from Oslo University in Norway , and others, have noted that the composition of ocean water – including CO2, calcium, and water – can act as a buffering agent in the acidification of the oceans.

54) The UN’s IPCC computer models of human-caused global warming predict the emergence of a “hotspot” in the upper troposphere over the tropics.  Former researcher in the Australian Department of Climate Change, David Evans, said there is no evidence of such a hotspot

55) The argument that climate change is a of result of global warming caused by human activity is the argument of flat Earthers. 

.
100 reasons why climate change is natural

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/146138/100-reasons-why-climate-change-is-natural

continued:


56) The manner in which US President Barack Obama sidestepped Congress to order emission cuts shows how undemocratic and irrational the entire international decision-making process has become with regards to emission-target setting

57) William Kininmonth, a former head of the National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation, wrote “the likely extent of global temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C. Such warming is well within the envelope of variation experienced during the past 10,000 years and insignificant in the context of glacial cycles during the past million years, when Earth has been predominantly very cold and covered by extensive ice sheets.”

58) Canada has shown the world targets derived from the existing Kyoto commitments were always unrealistic and did not work for the country.

59) In the lead up to the Copenhagen summit, David Davis MP said of previous climate summits, at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and Kyoto in 1997 that many had promised greater cuts, but “neither happened”, but we are continuing along the same lines.

60) The UK ’s environmental policy has a long-term price tag of about £55 billion, before taking into account the impact on its economic growth.

61) The UN’s panel on climate change warned that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035. J. Graham Cogley a professor at Ontario Trent University, claims this inaccurate stating the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

62) Under existing Kyoto obligations the EU has attempted to claim success, while actually increasing emissions by 13 per cent, according to Lord Lawson. In addition the EU has pursued this scheme by purchasing “offsets” from countries such as China paying them billions of dollars to destroy atmospheric pollutants, such as CFC-23, which were manufactured purely in order to be destroyed.

63) It is claimed that the average global temperature was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times but sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years according to Penn State University researcher Michael Mann. There is no convincing empirical evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in average global temperature were unusual or unnatural.

64) Michael Mann of Penn State University has actually shown that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age did in fact exist, which contrasts with his earlier work which produced the “hockey stick graph” which showed a constant temperature over the past thousand years or so followed by a recent dramatic upturn.

65) The globe’s current approach to climate change in which major industrialised countries agree to nonsensical targets for their CO2 emissions by a given date, as it has been under the Kyoto system, is very expensive.

66) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures when looking at the history of the Earth’s temperature.

67) Global temperatures have not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years and have actually been falling for nine years. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed a scientific team had expressed dismay at the fact global warming was contrary to their predictions and admitted their inability to explain it was “a travesty”.

68) The IPCC predicts that a warmer planet will lead to more extreme weather, including drought, flooding, storms, snow, and wildfires. But over the last century, during which the IPCC claims the world experienced more rapid warming than any time in the past two millennia, the world did not experience significantly greater trends in any of these extreme weather events.

69) In explaining the average temperature standstill we are currently experiencing, the Met Office Hadley Centre ran a series of computer climate predictions and found in many of the computer runs there were decade-long standstills but none for 15 years – so it expects global warming to resume swiftly.

70) Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote: “The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the Earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope.  Such hysteria (over global warming) simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth.”

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/146138/100-reasons-why-climate-change-is-natural

.
100 reasons why climate change is natural

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/146138/100-reasons-why-climate-change-is-natural

continued


71) Despite the 1997 Kyoto Protocol’s status as the flagship of the fight against climate change it has been a failure.

72) The first phase of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which ran from 2005 to 2007 was a failure. Huge over-allocation of permits to pollute led to a collapse in the price of carbon from €33 to just €0.20 per tonne meaning the system did not reduce emissions at all.

73) The EU trading scheme, to manage carbon emissions has completely failed and actually allows European businesses to duck out of making their emissions reductions at home by offsetting, which means paying for cuts to be made overseas instead.

74) To date “cap and trade” carbon markets have done almost nothing to reduce emissions.

75) In the United States , the cap-and-trade is an approach designed to control carbon emissions and will impose huge costs upon American citizens via a carbon tax on all goods and services produced in the United States. The average family of four can expect to pay an additional $1700, or £1,043, more each year. It is predicted that the United States will lose more than 2 million jobs as the result of cap-and-trade schemes.

76) Dr Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has indicated that out of the 21 climate models tracked by the IPCC the differences in warming exhibited by those models is mostly the result of different strengths of positive cloud feedback – and that increasing CO2 is insufficient to explain global-average warming in the last 50 to 100 years.

77) Why should politicians devote our scarce resources in a globally competitive world to a false and ill-defined problem, while ignoring the real problems the entire planet faces, such as: poverty, hunger, disease or terrorism.

78) A proper analysis of ice core records from the past 650,000 years demonstrates that temperature increases have come before, and not resulted from, increases in CO2 by hundreds of years

79) Since the cause of global warming is mostly natural, then there is in actual fact very little we can do about it. (We are still not able to control the sun).

80) A substantial number of the panel of 2,500 climate scientists on the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change, which created a statement on scientific unanimity on climate change and man-made global warming, were found to have serious concerns.

81) The UK’s Met Office has been forced this year to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by revelations about the data.

82)  Politicians and activists push for renewable energy sources such as wind turbines under the rhetoric of climate change, but it is essentially about money – under the system of Renewable Obligations. Much of the money is paid for by consumers in electricity bills. It amounts to £1 billion a year.

83) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors. 

84) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase science for political purposes.

85) Ice-core data clearly show that temperatures change centuries before concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be little evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the cause of past temperature and climate change.

86) There are no experimentally verified processes explaining how CO2 concentrations can fall in a few centuries without falling temperatures – in fact it is changing temperatures which cause changes in CO2 concentrations, which is consistent with experiments that show CO2 is the atmospheric gas most readily absorbed by water.

87) The Government’s Renewable Energy Strategy contains a massive increase in electricity generation by wind power costing around £4 billion a year over the next twenty years. The benefits will be only £4 to £5 billion overall (not per annum). So costs will outnumber benefits by a range of between eleven and seventeen times.

88) Whilst CO2 levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout history, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and the growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years.

89) It is a myth that CO2 is a pollutant, because nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere and human beings could not live in 100% nitrogen either: CO2 is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is and CO2 is essential to life.

90) Politicians and climate activists make claims to rising sea levels but certain members in the IPCC chose an area to measure in Hong Kong that is subsiding. They used the record reading of 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level.


http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/146138/100-reasons-why-climate-change-is-natural

.
100 reasons why climate change is natural

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/146138/100-reasons-why-climate-change-is-natural

Continued:

91) The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998.

92) If one factors in non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements show little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

93) US President Barack Obama pledged to cut emissions by 2050 to equal those of 1910 when there were 92 million Americans. In 2050, there will be 420 million Americans, so Obama’s promise means that emissions per head will be approximately what they were in 1875. It simply will not happen.

94) The European Union has already agreed to cut emissions by 20 percent to 2020, compared with 1990 levels, and is willing to increase the target to 30 percent. However, these are unachievable and the EU has already massively failed with its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), as EU emissions actually rose by 0.8 percent from 2005 to 2006 and are known to be well above the Kyoto goal.

95) Australia has stated it wants to slash greenhouse emissions by up to 25 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, but the pledges were so unpopular that the country’s Senate has voted against the carbon trading Bill, and the Opposition’s Party leader has now been ousted by a climate change sceptic.

96) Canada plans to reduce emissions by 20 percent compared with 2006 levels by 2020, representing approximately a 3 percent cut from 1990 levels but it simultaneously defends its Alberta tar sands emissions and its record as one of the world’s highest per-capita emissions setters

97) India plans to reduce the ratio of emissions to production by 20-25 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2020, but all Government officials insist that since India has to grow for its development and poverty alleviation, it has to emit, because the economy is driven by carbon.

98) The Leipzig Declaration in 1996, was signed by 110 scientists who said: “We – along with many of our fellow citizens – are apprehensive about the climate treaty conference scheduled for Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997” and “based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions.”

99) A US Oregon Petition Project stated “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

100) A report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change concluded “We find no support for the IPCC’s claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate.”


http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/146138/100-reasons-why-climate-change-is-natural

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 9:51am:

except that the last 17 years has shown NO warming.  Did you miss that inconvenient truth?

Funny - you told us the exact opposite a few weeks ago.

You told us that sea level rise was due to thermal expansion.

Why are the seas thermally expanding if the last 17 years has shown NO warming"?!?

You ran away the last 4 times you were asked this question.

Will you run away again now?

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 7:46am:

http://cdn.isciencetimes.com/data/images/full/2013/09/11/4999-global-cooling.jpg NASA satellite images show August 2012 [left] and August 2013 [right]. (Photo: NASA) Are we experiencing global cooling? A cool Arctic summer allowed nearly a million more squre miles of ice to form over the same time last year. This figure represents a growth of 60 percent. The incredible arctic ice growth after the record low of 2012 is significant. Just six years ago, a science article from the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free by the summer of 2013. The indication of global cooling indicates the opposite. According to monitors, the Arctic now features an unbroken ice sheet that is larger than half of Europe. The sheet stretches from the Canadian islands all the way to Russia's northern shores. What's more, the Arctic's Northwest Passage has been blocked by ice all year. More than 20 yachts that attempted to sail the passage were left ice bound. A cruise ship was also forced to turn back around.

Oh dear.

The nut jobs are out in force today.

Despite the impressive one-year recovery, the current sea-ice extent is still nearly 400,000 square miles below the 1981-2010 average minimum. Through August, the long-term decline since 1979, when satellites first began tracking sea-ice extent, has been running at 10.6 percent per decade.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2013/0910/Arctic-sea-ice-rebounds-but-don-t-jump-to-global-cooling-conclusions

Plenty of the true faithful who prefer to cut and paste rather than think for themselves. 

PZ is just coming across as every bit as irrational and hysterical as what he accuses the climate scientists of being.

Ignore every refutation of his bunkum claim, and just moves on to the next bunkum claim.

Q) Is Climate Change a natural cycle?
A) Yes, it is, as demonstrated by the following chart, which shows Temperatures stretching back over a 300,000 year period!
http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/files/cc/figures/icecore_records.jpg

Q) Does the chart also show a correlation between levels of CO2 & Temperatures?
A) Yes, it does!

Q) Is CO2 the only factor influencing Temperatures?
A) Probably not, but CO2 does appear to have a major influence on Temperatures, as is shown in the following -
http://www.space.com/18527-venus-atmosphere.html

Q) Is CO2 simply a colorless, odorless, harmless gas?
A) Like many things, that depends, on many factors, But I would strongly recommend against trying to live on Venus! 

Q) Are we now in a Global Heating Phase OR a Global Cooling phase?
A) Well, as indicated by the above chart, we are about at the top of the usual heating cycle, so the outcomes for the upcoming period will depend on whether "mans influence" translates into further Global warming OR whether the natural cycle wins out?
So, IF mans influence continues, then it could become "uncomfortably hot", as we start to move towards a Venus Climate Trap?
But, IF the natural cycle wins out, then then it could become "uncomfortably cold",as the next Ice Age rolls in?

Whatever the outcome, Good luck, we will probably need it!

I agree with everything you have said except that CO2 & temperature correlate.

History shows us that CO2 and temperature don't correlate at all.

Its a well known fact that CO2 lags temperature by about 800 years.

That is first temperature rises and then the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere also rises as the eco systems warm up and release more CO2.

See below.

Is there any correlation between CO2 and temperature?

(1).....On a small time scale (NO), (11,000 years)

Showing from 200 to 11000 years ago, the subsequent graph is based on ice core data, readily visible in files hosted on the servers of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):GISP 2 and EPICA Dome C

Graph-1
http://i45.tinypic.com/snic0j.gif

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/

(2).....On a medium time scale YES???, (450,000 years)

(NO) , It appears so because of the scale we are zoomed out at.

WARNING ! This is the scale that most global warming sites use to scare the unsuspecting.

Over the past few hundred thousand years of ice core data, a “medium” time scale in this sense, CO2 superficially appears to change in step with temperature if a graph is so zoomed out as to not show sub-millennial time
scales well

Graph-2
http://i49.tinypic.com/s5k0nn.gif

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/

A record of temperature and atmospheric CO2 over the past 400,000 years is preserved in the Vostok Ice Core and is shown in the figure on the right.

It can be seen that there have been a series of large fluctuations in temperature (the Ice Ages), accompanied by large changes in atmospheric CO2.

It is thought that these large temperature fluctuations are triggered by Milankovitch cycles - variations in the earth's orbit that change the amount of energy from the sun that reaches us.

However, on their own, these cycles are not enough to explain the changes in temperature.

The full explanation seems to be that the small change in temperature caused by the changing orbit are amplified by natural processes on earth. These cause CO2 to be released from the oceans and the biosphere, causing an increased greenhouse effect.

This is described more fully in this article from the New Scientist (see also Shackleton 2000). For more details on the timing of changes in CO2 and temperature, click on the figure.

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/paleoclimate.htm#100,000years

(3).....On a long time scale (NO) , (millions of years)

Graph-3
http://i45.tinypic.com/vf8b5l.jpg

http://s155.n46.n171.n68.static.myhostcenter.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf

(4).....Lately
http://i42.tinypic.com/10wnz8z.jpg

muso wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 1:49pm:

Plenty of the true faithful who prefer to cut and paste rather than think for themselves.

I DONT THINK THAT it would be even half-reasonable to assert that ACC fans 'think for themselves'.  In fact,  most on here simply copy the orthodox position endlessly and dismiss all contrary evidence without a second thought.  This thread is a perfect example of that where a major increase in Arctic ice has been dismissed uncritically and seemingly without a moments thought.  it is in fact a major kick in the pants to the ACC hypothesis because it is a 180degree turn from the ACC expected outcome

So quite the opposite, the ACC-sceptic side does a great deal of critical thinking while the pro-ACC side mainly does cheer-leading and very little critical analysis whatsoever.

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 11:11am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13th, 2013 at 9:58am: You mean like the UK METs data showing no statistically relevant change in temperature over the last 17 years?  This is just a blatant distortion of what the UK MET data says. They say that global surface temperature warming has stalled, but they absolutely support the view that overall global warming is continuing: Quote: there is substantial evidence from other components of the climate system, beyond the global mean surface temperature, that the Earth has continued to warm over the last decade. Contradiction? To the ignorant, blinkered eyed denialist, absolutely. For scientists though, it is absolutely to be expected. The vast majority of the earth's energy is contained in the oceans, so thats where most of the warming is happening.  In summary: [quote]There are two main ways to explain the recent surface temperature behaviour; firstly, through changes in the net amount of incoming energy to the climate system (radiative forcing) or, secondly, through redistribution of energy within the climate system, particularly through exchange between the upper and deep ocean, which can temporarily hide the warming below the surface. Both explanations have been put forward in the literature. For instance, several studies (e.g. Solomon et al 2010, 2011, Church et al 2011) have considered potential radiative forcing explanations, while others (e.g. Knight et al 2009, Meehl et al 2011, Katsman and van Oldenborgh 2011) have examined the potential ocean heat redistribution.

The paper goes on to explain it in further detail. Suggest you read what the MET office actually says, rather than regurgitate the daily fail's distortion of what it says:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.PDF

Point is, it is just grossly misleading to declare warming has suddenly stopped, and use the MET office as proof of this - when they said nothing of the sort. [/quote]

and the re-interpretation continues.  it isn't actually warmer at all but apparently it is warmer in all the other places?  you don't find it just a tad convenient?  Or is there in fact being demonstrated the remarkably feedback systems in our biosphere that seems to regulate the temperature of where we live? Like it or not, the facts are unequivocal that the temperature of the surface of planet earth is stable ahd hasn't increased in 17 years.  And isn't it remarkable how scientists know that this is somehow unprecedented despite there being no historical record al all of deep ocean or upper troposphere temperatures.

don't be so gullible.  Temperature rises have stalled.  accept it and ask the question 'why?'.

Bam wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 11:15am:

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Sep 13th, 2013 at 10:53am: I'd rather look at the facts, So why don't you look at all the facts? Quote: Global warming alarmist said there would be no ice in the artic by 2013 An old forecast. Big deal. [quote]but there is 60% growth of ice coverage since this time last year.

Your fallacy is: TEXAS SHARPSHOOTER.


Quote:

The fact is there is more ice.

Tell the whole truth. There is more ice at a specific time from one year to the next. It is not indicative of a longer-term trend.


Quote:

Global alarmist has used the ice sheets as their proof of Global warming since day 1, now there is more ice how can it be warmer, ice only forms when its colder

Global climate change is about long-term global trends.

Long-term global warming does not deny the possibility of short term local cooling. An increase in Arctic ice from 2012 to 2013 is short-term local cooling. Nor for that matter does long-term global warming deny the other possibilities of long-term local cooling or short-term global cooling.

We might well find that Arctic sea ice does increase from here. But is that proof that global cooling has started? No, of course not. It would be a local phenomenon, not a global one.
[/quote]

and there you have the fundamental bias and flaw in ACC hysteric 'thinking'.  If it is warming, it is global,  If it is cooling it is local.  If it is warmer, it is a trend,  if it is cooler it is not.  There is not scientific method involved as it starts with a desired outcome - warming - and reverse engineers all facts to fit that pre-determined outcome.

A very, very senior scientist says that all 73 climate models are so erro-strewn and fundamentally flawed as to be useless and what is yoru response?

well nothing of course because obviously he is a denier and fraud because....  he disagrees with the ACC religion.

dreadful science, pitiful logic and worse ethics.  ACC hysterics have it all!

perceptions_now wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 2:36pm:

So, IF mans influence continues, then it could become "uncomfortably hot", as we start to move towards a Venus Climate Trap? But, IF the natural cycle wins out, then then it could become "uncomfortably cold",as the next Ice Age rolls in? Whatever the outcome, Good luck, we will probably need it!

I don't know who spoke about the Venus climate trap, but it's highly misleading. Nobody is talking about a runaway greenhouse effect.

I'm interested to know where you got that from. 

Ajax - you still don't know what correlation means.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 11:38am:

Bam wrote on Sep 13th, 2013 at 10:48am: Bobby. wrote on Sep 13th, 2013 at 10:04am: I think that the North pole getting more ice is a product of the stopping of the Gulf Stream owing to global warming. It is possible. Is there enough data yet to support or refute this? I'm not sure but you could have a lot of fun googling it.

you read about the gulf stream once and being a generally simple person, every climate question must somehow involve it.  for your information there is NO QUESTION of there being any notable non-cyclical change in the gulf stream.

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 11:56am:

PZ your link uses the same lie about what the MET office said that longy was trying to pull. What MET office actually says: Quote: this definitely doesn't mean any cooling - there's still a long-term trend of warming compared to the 50s, 60s or 70s. Our forecast is still for temperatures that will be close to the record levels of the past few years. And because the natural variability is based on cycles, those factors are bound to change the other way at some point. When you lot perpetuate lies about what the MET office says, how on earth do you have a leg to stand on when you parrot on about "warmist lies"?

and if you read what the MET is saying they do however confirm that the last 17 years has shown no increase in temperature.  they choose to state that it doesn't mean that warming has stopped - only paused.  that however is an opinion only nd not one supported by any facts.  They do not however repudiated the supplied data that does confirm that there has been no warming for 17 years.

So you can have your own interpretation of the fats if you will but you don't get to restate them.  there has been no warming for 17 years and that is  undeniable.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 4:13pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 13th, 2013 at 11:38am: Bam wrote on Sep 13th, 2013 at 10:48am: Bobby. wrote on Sep 13th, 2013 at 10:04am: I think that the North pole getting more ice is a product of the stopping of the Gulf Stream owing to global warming. It is possible. Is there enough data yet to support or refute this? I'm not sure but you could have a lot of fun googling it. you read about the gulf stream once and being a generally simple person, every climate question must somehow involve it.  for your information there is NO QUESTION of there being any notable non-cyclical change in the gulf stream.

Hi Longy,
thanks for letting me know that.
It's just that I've seen it mentioned in many docos on TV.
Would you have a link to prove that the Gulf stream is unchanged?

Would you agree that if the Gulf stream stopped - Europe would be plunged into a mini ice age?

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 12:14pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13th, 2013 at 9:58am: ... the UK METs data showing no statistically relevant change in temperature over the last 17 years? CLAIM, DEBUNKED - AEONS GO - as BULLSH!T ! Met Office in the Media: 14 October 2012 14 Nov 2012 An article by David Rose appears today in the Mail on Sunday under the title: ‘Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it’ It is the second article Mr Rose has written which contains some misleading information, after he wrote an article earlier this year on the same theme Firstly, the Met Office has not issued a report on this issue. We can only assume the article is referring to the completion of work to update the HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset compiled by ourselves and the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit. We announced that this work was going on in March and it was finished this week. Secondly, Mr Rose says the Met Office made no comment about its decadal climate predictions. This is because he did not ask us to make a comment about them. http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/ In FACT, the LAST decade was the WARMEST in recordable HISTORY

take a look at the graph yourself.  it is FLAT. 

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 3:59pm:

muso wrote on Sep 13th, 2013 at 1:49pm: Plenty of the true faithful who prefer to cut and paste rather than think for themselves.  I DONT THINK THAT it would be even half-reasonable to assert that ACC fans 'think for themselves'.  In fact,  most on here simply copy the orthodox position endlessly and dismiss all contrary evidence without a second thought.  This thread is a perfect example of that where a major increase in Arctic ice has been dismissed uncritically and seemingly without a moments thought.  it is in fact a major kick in the pants to the ACC hypothesis because it is a 180degree turn from the ACC expected outcome So quite the opposite, the ACC-sceptic side does a great deal of critical thinking while the pro-ACC side mainly does cheer-leading and very little critical analysis whatsoever.

Music to my ears.......well said......!!

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 4:17pm:

they choose to state that it doesn't mean that warming has stopped - only paused.  .

Judging how much the earth is warming solely by looking at the surface temperatures betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how the earth's energy balance works. Fact: the vast majority of earth's heat is absorbed by the oceans. Fact: the absorption rate of earth's energy by the oceans can be completely independent to trends in the surface temperatures.


Quote:

that however is an opinion only nd not one supported by any facts

Rubbish. The sources are cited right there in the article. How can you sit there with a straight face and claim there is no evidence? Is peer reviewed scientific data not considered evidence? Do you have any evidence that refutes Church et al's (2011) data on ocean heating? Or any of the other cited evidence? You people are unbelievable.

Here, educate yourself on why surface temps can decline short term while the overall heat content of the earth rises:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm

Surface heating means bugger all to earth's overall heat content compared to ocean heating:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Total_Heat_Content_2011_med.jpg

Sorry champ but empirical data shows otherwise to what that global warming extremist blog skeptical science says.

John Cook can't even produce a paper on the consensus without fudging the figures, how on earth can you believe the sh!t he writes.....he has ties to Al Gore.

Now back to that empirical data its called the ARGO and consists of 3000 buoys all over the worlds oceans.

They dive down to 2000 metres and every two weeks they surface to relay the data which includes temperature.

Guess what..........???????

Oceans aren't warming or they would have detected it....!!

Ajax, how about you produce some of that "empirical evidence" you speak of? Starting with the claim that Cook "fudged" the figures. And while you're at it, you can have a go at discrediting other peer reviewed papers that support Cook - like Levitus et al (2012) and Nucitelli et al (2012). Shouldn't be hard - after all, as you say the "empirical data shows otherwise" right?  :P

Ocean warming has been observed, and its been particularly pronounced in the deep oceans - at depths lower than 700m

This must be some of the "empirical evidence" Ajax is referring to:


Quote:

Abstract [1] The elusive nature of the post-2004 upper ocean warming has exposed uncertainties in the ocean's role in the Earth's energy budget and transient climate sensitivity. Here we present the time evolution of the global ocean heat content for 1958 through 2009 from a new observation-based reanalysis of the ocean. Volcanic eruptions and El Niño events are identified as sharp cooling events punctuating a long-term ocean warming trend, while heating continues during the recent upper-ocean-warming hiatus, but the heat is absorbed in the deeper ocean. In the last decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700 m, contributing significantly to an acceleration of the warming trend. The warming below 700 m remains even when the Argo observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced. Sensitivity experiments illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical distribution.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/full

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 3:59pm:

This thread is a perfect example of that where a major increase in Arctic ice has been dismissed uncritically and seemingly without a moments thought.  it is in fact a major kick in the pants to the ACC hypothesis because it is a 180degree turn from the ACC expected outcome

Nonsense Longy. You are looking at one year in isolation. Nobody is saying that temperature rise will be inexorably constant from year to year, because superimposed on that rise, there are the effects of natural variation.

Ajax wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 5:07pm:

Sorry champ but empirical data shows otherwise to what that global warming extremist blog skeptical science says. John Cook can't even produce a paper on the consensus without fudging the figures, how on earth can you believe the sh!t he writes.....he has ties to Al Gore. Now back to that empirical data its called the ARGO and consists of 3000 buoys all over the worlds oceans. They dive down to 2000 metres and every two weeks they surface to relay the data which includes temperature. Guess what..........??????? Oceans aren't warming or they would have detected it....!!

You're not still going on about Dave "Cant find the 0-700 metre bit" Evans? 

muso wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 7:06pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13th, 2013 at 3:59pm: This thread is a perfect example of that where a major increase in Arctic ice has been dismissed uncritically and seemingly without a moments thought.  it is in fact a major kick in the pants to the ACC hypothesis because it is a 180degree turn from the ACC expected outcome Nonsense Longy. You are looking at one year in isolation. Nobody is saying that temperature rise will be inexorably constant from year to year, because superimposed on that rise, there are the effects of natural variation.

not really one year at all.  every year. every friggin year we hear that the artic will melt and it never does.  every year.  don't you ever get sick and tired of every single stupid discredited prediction failing???  and now the arctic is getting bigger.  the real evidence is listening to the True believers either saying it isn't happening or it doesn't matter or it is just local or its tony abbotts fault or whatever crap excuse they have this time.

perhaps you'd like to celebrate an accurate climate change prediction.... but it would be the first.

muso wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 7:10pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 13th, 2013 at 5:07pm: Sorry champ but empirical data shows otherwise to what that global warming extremist blog skeptical science says. John Cook can't even produce a paper on the consensus without fudging the figures, how on earth can you believe the sh!t he writes.....he has ties to Al Gore. Now back to that empirical data its called the ARGO and consists of 3000 buoys all over the worlds oceans. They dive down to 2000 metres and every two weeks they surface to relay the data which includes temperature. Guess what..........??????? Oceans aren't warming or they would have detected it....!! You're not still going on about Dave "Cant find the 0-700 metre bit" Evans?

I find this 'deep ocean warming' argument to be awfully convenient.  Surface temperatures rent rising for 17 years so of course...  it has to be somewhere so lets make up an area that is impossible to verify like deep oceans.  its like the coral atolls being covered by rising seas (which is actually coral attols sinking) or the Australian floods to account for the entire globes sea level dropping...

you lot would believe ANYTHING.  nothing is too stupid or too incredible if it supports ACC

you lot sure are gullible.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 12:21am:

not really one year at all.  every year. every friggin year we hear that the artic will melt and it never does.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. There is seasonal melting. If you're talking about all the sea ice melting, that's not likely  to happen for quite a few years. There is an incredible amount of natural variation, but the overall trend shows that the Arctic ice extent has fallen dramatically since the 80s. 2013 is well below the average for the 2000's. Look at the decadal trends. What does that tell you?


http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/Sea_Ice_Extent_v2.png



Quote:

every year.  don't you ever get sick and tired of every single stupid discredited prediction failing???

What prediction is that? Be specific. Can you give me a link?  I'm pretty sure that no reputable climatologist would predict arctic ice extent one year in advance.



Quote:

perhaps you'd like to celebrate an accurate climate change prediction.... but it would be the first.

Perhaps you'd like to show me what the prediction was, by whom and when?

Bobby. wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 4:17pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13th, 2013 at 4:13pm: Bobby. wrote on Sep 13th, 2013 at 11:38am: Bam wrote on Sep 13th, 2013 at 10:48am: Bobby. wrote on Sep 13th, 2013 at 10:04am: I think that the North pole getting more ice is a product of the stopping of the Gulf Stream owing to global warming. It is possible. Is there enough data yet to support or refute this? I'm not sure but you could have a lot of fun googling it. you read about the gulf stream once and being a generally simple person, every climate question must somehow involve it.  for your information there is NO QUESTION of there being any notable non-cyclical change in the gulf stream. Hi Longy, thanks for letting me know that. It's just that I've seen it mentioned in many docos on TV. Would you have a link to prove that the Gulf stream is unchanged? Would you agree that if the Gulf stream stopped - Europe would be plunged into a mini ice age?

no reply.

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 13^th, 2013 at 6:06pm:

Ajax, how about you produce some of that "empirical evidence" you speak of? Starting with the claim that Cook "fudged" the figures. And while you're at it, you can have a go at discrediting other peer reviewed papers that support Cook - like Levitus et al (2012) and Nucitelli et al (2012). Shouldn't be hard - after all, as you say the "empirical data shows otherwise" right?  :P

Hey gandolf

Why don't you apply the same scepticism to the bullsh!t data coming out of the back side of the IPCC in the form of computer circulation models.

http://i41.tinypic.com/2irrudk.gif
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/05/ocean-temperatures-is-that-warming-statistically-significant/

Seriously dude do you actually want a dud tax that will not that's will not curb manmade CO2 since the $2 trillion carbon credit derivatives market will be based on manmade CO2.

Do you honestly think once this market is up and running by the bankers they will actually TRY reducing man made CO2.

If you believe that.....you would believe anything.

What about the UN trying to distribute wealth from the industrialized nations to the third world...FFS.

Get a grip of yourself and come to reality FFS.

http://i42.tinypic.com/24diwkh.gif
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/05/ocean-temperatures-is-that-warming-statistically-significant/

Ajax wrote on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 3:19pm:

Get a grip of yourself and come to reality FFS.

I reject your "reality". Here is the graph (attached) with the "missing" data that Dave Evans can't find. It turns out that the models were pretty close after all.  There's Dave's missing energy.

I told you all this before, but I couldn't be bothered making a graph. I see that somebody else has done it for me.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/24diwkh.gif


Quote:

Argo Update – David Evans needs new Specs

http://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/2013/05/29/argo-update-david-evans-needs-new-specs/

Quote:

Why don't you apply the same scepticism to the bullsh!t data coming out of the back side of the IPCC in the form of computer circulation models.

What's a computer circulation model? Is that where denialists circulate and recycle faked graphs?

---

Ajax wrote on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 3:19pm:

Hey gandolf... blah blah blah

Hey Ajox, I was looking forward to that empirical data you told me about to demonstrate how Cook "fudged" his figures on ocean temperatures like you claimed. I'm really surprised you didn't mention that - cause you know, saying a researcher falsified their data without any evidence is basically defamatory - and he could rightfully sue your arse if he wanted.

Apart from that, nothing at all on refuting the research I mentioned that indicates ocean heating - even though you promised me its all false. Still, no doubt its only the climate scientists that make stuff up and falsify data right? You lot would never do that I'm sure.  :P

muso wrote on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 5:01pm:

I reject your "reality". Here is the graph (attached) with the "missing" data that Dave Evans can't find. It turns out that the models were pretty close after all.  There's Dave's missing energy. I told you all this before, but I couldn't be bothered making a graph. I see that somebody else has done it for me. Argo Update – David Evans needs new Specs What's a computer circulation model? Is that where denialists circulate and recycle faked graphs?

You really are a sad individual aren't you.

Every time the rock gets pulled and exposes your fake science you quickly crawl under some other rock professing something new.

Dude empirical data doesn't lie and as long as you try to make out as though empirical data is this or that, you will also hang yourself.

Stop putting your faith in computer circulation models, cause you'll always be kicked in the head when using such poor science.

You know that old saying....sh!t in sh!t out.....!!!!!!!!

Now look at Jimmy's predictions compared to the argo data...????

http://i43.tinypic.com/2mhg10n.png

http://i44.tinypic.com/2n6vk1g.png

http://i42.tinypic.com/24diwkh.gif

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 14^th, 2013 at 5:22pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 14th, 2013 at 3:19pm: Hey gandolf... blah blah blah Hey Ajox, I was looking forward to that empirical data you told me about to demonstrate how Cook "fudged" his figures on ocean temperatures like you claimed. I'm really surprised you didn't mention that - cause you know, saying a researcher falsified their data without any evidence is basically defamatory - and he could rightfully sue your arse if he wanted. Apart from that, nothing at all on refuting the research I mentioned that indicates ocean heating - even though you promised me its all false. Still, no doubt its only the climate scientists that make stuff up and falsify data right? You lot would never do that I'm sure.  :P

Dude i'm not going to repeat myself, your alarmist mates deleted - chopped and changed my original thread on that fraudster John Cook and his Skeptical science blog.

You want to pick up the argument start here,

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1377835124

Ajax wrote on Sep 15^th, 2013 at 12:28pm:

You really are a sad individual aren't you.

The only thing that's sad is that your responses don't address the points that were made, which is probably because you have no idea of the issues in question.

I have shown this time and time again. You are inept at very simple arithmetic, and you failed to address any of the points in that article.


Quote:

Dude empirical data doesn't lie and as long as you try to make out as though empirical data is this or that, you will also hang yourself.

Dude, you wouldn't know what empirical data was unless you cut and pasted it from Joanne Nova or Anthony Watts.


Quote:

Stop putting your faith in computer circulation models,

What the hell is a computer circulation model and how does it relate to Argos temperature data? I have no idea what you're talking about.

You need to speak something other than gibberish.

some perspective:

http://icons.wxug.com/hurricane/2012/seaice_1900-2012.png

note how summer sea ice extent has more than halved since 1900.

To all that may read these global warming religious silly inclinations as to why the glaciers and arctic are melting.

Just google it and you will find that the arctic and glaciers started melting about 200 years ago.

It had nothing to do with the miniscule amount of CO2 that man throws up into the atmosphere.

The alarmists who control this forum aren't interested in analysing the science of both sides they only want to scare the sh!t out of people into backing their religion.

Sure man's small and miniscule amount of CO2 probably has played a small and miniscule part in the warming we have observed.

But these AGW zealots are blaming all the warming on man's CO2 emissions.

Even though we are coming out of a mini ice age.

How can you take these people seriously......?????

Ajax wrote on Sep 15^th, 2013 at 7:10pm:

To all that may read these global warming religious silly inclinations as to why the glaciers and arctic are melting. Just google it and you will find that the arctic and glaciers started melting about 200 years ago. It had nothing to do with the miniscule amount of CO2 that man throws up into the atmosphere. The alarmists who control this forum aren't interested in analysing the science of both sides they only want to scare the sh!t out of people into backing their religion. Sure man's small and miniscule amount of CO2 probably has played a small and miniscule part in the warming we have observed. But these AGW zealots are blaming all the warming on man's CO2 emissions. Even though we are coming out of a mini ice age. How can you take these people seriously......?????

As usual, baseless assertions with no data to back them up. Where's your data?

I've already shown a correlation coefficient of 0.86 for the past 50 years data showing a strong correlation between CO2 and Global mean surface temperatures.

How do you suppose that we measure the concentration of gases in the atmosphere? Usually an instrument called a Long Path Fourier Transfer Infrared Spectrometer is used. Of course there are many other methods that can be used, but the readings agree very closely.

We measure gas concentrations, including CO2 using Infrared radiation. It's not theoretical. It's a well established practical measurement. It is established beyond the shadow of a doubt that carbon dioxide absorbs in the Long Wave Infrared, and the extent at which it absorbs. Radiative Forcing can be measured.

I don't expect you to understand that Ajax, but hopefully others will. 

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 15^th, 2013 at 5:49pm:

note how summer sea ice extent has more than halved since 1900.

And no evidence of any significant melting before about 1950.

Ajax - about that 200 year continuous melting - Did you lie, or did you just refer to Monckton? (same thing).

Quote:

High-Arctic Heat Tops 1,800-Year High, Says Study Modern Spike Outmatches Naturally Driven 'Medieval Warm Period'

http://earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/3016

Quote:

Summers on the Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard are now warmer than at any other time in the last 1,800 years, including during medieval times when parts of the northern hemisphere were as hot as, or hotter, than today, according to a new study in the journal Geology. “The Medieval Warm Period was not as uniformly warm as we once thought--we can start calling it the Medieval Period again,” said the study’s lead author, William D’Andrea, a climate scientist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. “Our record indicates that recent summer temperatures on Svalbard are greater than even the warmest periods at that time.” The naturally driven Medieval Warm Period, from about 950 to 1250, has been a favorite time for people who deny evidence that humans are heating the planet with industrial greenhouse gases. But the climate reconstruction from Svalbard casts new doubt on that era’s reach, and undercuts skeptics who argue that current warming is also natural.  Since 1987, summers on Svalbard have been 2 degrees to 2.5 degrees C (3.6 to 4.5 degrees F) hotter than they were there during warmest parts of the Medieval Warm Period, the study found.

Some more perspective

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgiMBxaL19M&sns=em

muso wrote on Sep 15^th, 2013 at 9:02pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 15th, 2013 at 5:49pm: note how summer sea ice extent has more than halved since 1900. And no evidence of any significant melting before about 1950. Ajax - about that 200 year continuous melting - Did you lie, or did you just refer to Monckton? (same thing).

The question is why are you telling lies....???

I'm sure you must have looked it up that the arctic has been melting for the last 200 years or so.

September 1957 - arctic decreases by 40%
http://i41.tinypic.com/2w6yrlg.jpg

May 1947 - arctic melting
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/22429983?searchTerm=climate%20change&searchLimits=

November 1922 - arctic melting
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

Seriously dude when you present the facts present the overall picture and not just the cherry picked information that suits your cause.

Otherwise how do you expect to be taken seriously.....?????

BTW where was the manmade CO2 emissions back then...???

MOTR wrote on Sep 16^th, 2013 at 2:57am:

Some more perspective

Considering we had cooling from 1940 to 1970 it would make sense that the arctic would increase.

Now that we are finishing a warming trend the opposite is true.

Lets see if we revert back to a cooling trend which is suggested by data from the last ten years or so.

Then AGW religion will die on its arse.......!!!!!


http://i44.tinypic.com/2mfcj0z.png


Quote:

Figure 2 shows the following periods for relative global cooling and warming phases: 1. 30-years of global cooling from 1880 to 1910 2. 30-years of global warming from 1910 to 1940 3. 30-years of global cooling from 1940 to 1970 4. 30-years of global warming from 1970 to 2000

Sounds like an incantation.

muso wrote on Sep 16^th, 2013 at 10:58am:

Sounds like an incantation.

Just facts dude........??????

You know like these same clowns that where screaming for a new ice age in the 1970's cause we had 30 years of cooling and even thought about melting the arctic to save the planet....????

Didn't think about those cuddly polar bears back then did they....????

Now they want to tax the air we breath to supposedly save the planet........?????/