Concensus on MMGW

[Greg Burnham]

Magda,

This is YOUR forum, not mine. You are free to post whatever you desire. In the spirit of free speech I would imagine that I am free to comment as I see fit so long as I don't break forum rules. However, I perhaps wrongly assumed that you were responsible for adding emphasis to the article even though you didn't indicate you did so. In which case I again wrongly assumed that that was a statement of endorsement of those portions. The article itself is rife with ad hominem in the form of labeling dissenters as "Climate Science Denialists" and the like. Your having posted that article sure "felt" like you agreed with it since you didn't state otherwise. I take exception to that because the article is actually an attack on those, like me, who question and challenge the party line.

Just to be clear, what constitutes "topics members are allowed to post to" these days? Am I on moderation? Is Lauren allowed to post about Global Warming, a subject in which he has demonstrated interest, but without any particular expertise, but I am not? I know his opinions are perhaps more in line with those who believe in man-made Global Warming than are mine, but where do you draw the line? I'm just wanting to be clear on the rules of engagement.

Thanks--

I posted one article without comment. This in a thread where others including yourself have commented. You are the one who likes to to pop up and make comments about climate change and what bs it is. Something you admit you are unqualified for. But it doesn't stop you from shooting your mouth off does it? Deal with the article and its content and not me please. Leave the ad homs out. You comprehension skills seem to also be lacking if you think I am the one to reply to and not the article. Which then creates doubt about the validity of any thing you might have to say on this subject able to be taken seriously. As I said best stick to what you are better at. This is not your area of expertise.

Greg you really should stick to JFK the same way Jeffery Orling should stick to building houses. This subject is not your strong point.

Magda,

This subject is not YOUR strong point--by your own admission! I have never made such an admission as to do so would be untrue.

[Magda Hassan]

No. The article was posted as is. I made no edits and would have noted so if I had. I try to post things that are of interest to most of the people here and those that read. Not everyone is interested in each and every subject. For off topic posts there is the 'Lounge' area. I don't think there are any off area topic though some, like 'The Jews killed JFK', will probably get short shift and end up in the Bear Pit. I am pleased you are interested in climate change as a deep political subject. I'm not interested in the ad homs that article writers make about whom ever but about keeping a venue that is conducive to ongoing civil communication between its members. Those members will be at various stages of expertise and education. And as you say while one person may be an expert in one area that doesn't make it so that they are in all others. My interest does not lie with the science so much, I accept the science is in that there is climate change occurring, so much as with the money backing the climate change denial. That, for me, is the deep political interest. That may not be your interest.

Magda,

This is YOUR forum, not mine. You are free to post whatever you desire. In the spirit of free speech I would imagine that I am free to comment as I see fit so long as I don't break forum rules. However, I perhaps wrongly assumed that you were responsible for adding emphasis to the article even though you didn't indicate you did so. In which case I again wrongly assumed that that was a statement of endorsement of those portions. The article itself is rife with ad hominem in the form of labeling dissenters as "Climate Science Denialists" and the like. Your having posted that article sure "felt" like you agreed with it since you didn't state otherwise. I take exception to that because the article is actually an attack on those, like me, who question and challenge the party line.

Just to be clear, what constitutes "topics members are allowed to post to" these days? Am I on moderation? Is Lauren allowed to post about Global Warming, a subject in which he has demonstrated interest, but without any particular expertise, but I am not? I know his opinions are perhaps more in line with those who believe in man-made Global Warming than are mine, but where do you draw the line? I'm just wanting to be clear on the rules of engagement.

Thanks--

I posted one article without comment. This in a thread where others including yourself have commented. You are the one who likes to to pop up and make comments about climate change and what bs it is. Something you admit you are unqualified for. But it doesn't stop you from shooting your mouth off does it? Deal with the article and its content and not me please. Leave the ad homs out. You comprehension skills seem to also be lacking if you think I am the one to reply to and not the article. Which then creates doubt about the validity of any thing you might have to say on this subject able to be taken seriously. As I said best stick to what you are better at. This is not your area of expertise.

Greg you really should stick to JFK the same way Jeffery Orling should stick to building houses. This subject is not your strong point.

Magda,

This subject is not YOUR strong point--by your own admission! I have never made such an admission as to do so would be untrue.

[Phil Dragoo]

The report was that there has not been a rise in temperature since 1998

A hypothesis being tested has the heat "going into the sea"

hence 30,000 sensors monitored via satellite

The announcer cited concerns of rising sea levels "from melting ice caps"

yet the ice is of record size, increased at both poles

I stipulate this Gorean panic to cap and trade

is to profit the Middle Eastern oil sheiks

in the manner of the DeBeers diamond business model

The actual "climate cycle" is a very large-scale matter

predating the Industrial Revolution and the use of "fossil fuels"

The "science" behind the panic has been skewed in the manner of a Dale Myers animation

so as to keep oil prices up

We follow the money by looking to Gore's clients

It's the clients, not the science

[Magda Hassan]

Yes, Gore who lay down and played dead in the 2000 election and a man who has never done a single thing of meaningful consequence for the environment while he was in office but was set upon us as a fully fledged saviour for the cap and traders. God only knows how much of a carbon footprint he has created touring the world touting his spiel for Wall Street. Let alone the hot air he talks.

[Jim Hackett II]

Am I finally going blind or is that certificate's signature the Ed Teller, buddy of ST member Strauss?

Just that Dr. Ed. Teller signed off on anything would be a warning proceed with care sign to me.
Not very popular with others of academia after he chose sides with the remade AEC.
I bet he would fit with the deceivers.

[Magda Hassan]

Am I finally going blind or is that certificate's signature the Ed Teller, buddy of ST member Strauss?

Just that Dr. Ed. Teller signed off on anything would be a warning proceed with care sign to me.
Not very popular with others of academia after he chose sides with the remade AEC.
I bet he would fit with the deceivers.

Does look like it doesn't it Jim? But I don't have another of his signatures to compare with. The whole petition is suspect though.

[David Guyatt]

yet the ice is of record size, increased at both poles

I didn't know that Phil. It's quite a damning fact, in fact. If you see what I mean, I mean?

[Lauren Johnson]

yet the ice is of record size, increased at both poles

I didn't know that Phil. It's quite a damning fact, in fact. If you see what I mean, I mean?

Phil, you always have a source for what you say. You need to source this. Everything I have read about the ice pack up north is the opposite. Antarctica is far more complex.

[Albert Doyle]

yet the ice is of record size, increased at both poles

Disproven on Climate Crock. A thin layer of ice grew during the winter but the overall mass of Arctic ice continues to decrease at the level correctly shown by monitoring. The thick layer of multi-year ice continues to drop at alarming rates as does the Greenland ice sheet melting and Antarctic ice sheet calving. Geesh guys, what planet are you living on?

[Greg Burnham]

Just to be clear, Magda, I never have denied climate change. Climate change is as old as dirt. I have, on the other hand, questioned the theory that same is becoming catastrophic by human activity. Can humans cause catastrophic change to the climate? I doubt it, but I don't know for sure. What I do know for sure is that the evidence is still unsettled. At this juncture nobody knows. The "proofs" being offered are specious yet presented as conclusive. They are not. You and I might not be as far apart on this topic as it first appeared...

=========================================================

And now it's global COOLING! Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year

• 533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012
  
• BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013
  
• Publication of UN climate change report suggesting global warming caused by humans pushed back to later this month
  

By DAVID ROSE
PUBLISHED: 18:37 EST, 7 September 2013 | UPDATED: 13:45 EST, 28 September 2013

The rebound from 2012's record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.
[B]A chilly Arctic summer has left 533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year an increase of 29 per cent.
Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia's northern shores.

HOW NSIDC GOT ITS FIGURES WRONG AND THEN KEPT QUIET

Since publication of the original version of this article, the US source of the figures the NASA-funded National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) - was discovered to have made a huge error and then quietly corrected the figure without mentioning it.
On September 4, NSIDC, based at the University of Colorado, stated on its website that in August 2013 the Arctic ice cover recovered by a record 2.38 million sq km 919,000 sq miles from its 2012 low.
News of this figure was widely reported including by Mailonline - on September 8. But on September 10, the NSIDC quietly changed it to 1.38 million sq km (533,000 sq miles) and replaced the original document so the old figure no longer shows up on a main Google search. It can now only be found on an old cached' page.
The figures in this article have now been corrected.
Prompted by an inquiry from green' blogger Bob Ward, the NSIDC's spokeswoman Natasha Vizcarra said the mistake was a typographical error', telling him: There are no plans to make a statement on the change because it was not an error in the data.'



The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year. More than 20 yachts that had planned to sail it have been left ice-bound and a cruise ship attempting the route was forced to turn back.
Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading.
The disclosure comes 11 months after The Mail on Sunday triggered intense political and scientific debate by revealing that global warming has paused' since the beginning of 1997 an event that the computer models used by climate experts failed to predict.
In March, this newspaper further revealed that temperatures are about to drop below the level that the models forecast with 90 per cent certainty'.
The pause which has now been accepted as real by every major climate research centre is important, because the models' predictions of ever-increasing global temperatures have made many of the world's economies divert billions of pounds into green' measures to counter climate change.
Those predictions now appear gravely flawed.
The continuing furore caused by The Mail on Sunday's revelations which will now be amplified by the return of the Arctic ice sheet has forced the UN's climate change body to reconsider its position.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was due in October to start publishing its Fifth Assessment Report a huge three-volume study issued every six or seven years. It will hold a pre-summit in Stockholm later this month.

THERE WON'T BE ANY ICE AT ALL! HOW THE BBC PREDICTED CHAOS IN 2007

Only six years ago, the BBC reported that the Arctic would be ice-free in summer by 2013, citing a scientist in the US who claimed this was a conservative' forecast. Perhaps it was their confidence that led more than 20 yachts to try to sail the Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific this summer. As of last week, all these vessels were stuck in the ice, some at the eastern end of the passage in Prince Regent Inlet, others further west at Cape Bathurst.

Shipping experts said the only way these vessels were likely to be freed was by the icebreakers of the Canadian coastguard. According to the official Canadian government website, the Northwest Passage has remained ice-bound and impassable all summer.

The BBC's 2007 report quoted scientist Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, who based his views on super-computer models and the fact that we use a high-resolution regional model for the Arctic Ocean and sea ice'.

He was confident his results were much more realistic' than other projections, which underestimate the amount of heat delivered to the sea ice'. Also quoted was Cambridge University expert
Professor Peter Wadhams. He backed Professor Maslowski, saying his model was more efficient' than others because it takes account of processes that happen internally in the ice'.

He added: This is not a cycle; not just a fluctuation. In the end, it will all just melt away quite suddenly.'




Leaked documents show that governments which support and finance the IPCC are demanding more than 1,500 changes to the report's summary for policymakers'. They say its current draft does not properly explain the pause.
At the heart of the row lie two questions: the extent to which temperatures will rise with carbon dioxide levels, as well as how much of the warming over the past 150 years so far, just 0.8C is down to human greenhouse gas emissions and how much is due to natural variability.

More...

• Ready for lift-off: Virgin's SS2 spacecraft reaches the STRATOSPHERE - and carrier confirms that commercial space flights are 'on track' for 2014
  
• 'One small step towards a brighter future for all': Kirobo goes down in history by becoming the first robot to talk in space
  
• Riddle of the African 'fairy circles' solved? Patches of barren land are down to grasses competing for water, claims scientist
  

In its draft report, the IPCC says it is 95 per cent confident' that global warming has been caused by humans up from 90 per cent in 2007.

This claim is already hotly disputed. US climate expert Professor Judith Curry said last night: In fact, the uncertainty is getting bigger. It's now clear the models are way too sensitive to carbon dioxide. I cannot see any basis for the IPCC increasing its confidence level.'
She pointed to long-term cycles in ocean temperature, which have a huge influence on climate and suggest the world may be approaching a period similar to that from 1965 to 1975, when there was a clear cooling trend. This led some scientists at the time to forecast an imminent ice age.
Professor Anastasios Tsonis, of the University of Wisconsin, was one of the first to investigate the ocean cycles. He said: We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.

Then... NASA satellite images showing the spread of Arctic sea ice 27th August 2012


...And now, much bigger: The same Nasa image taken in 2013



The IPCC claims its models show a pause of 15 years can be expected. But that means that after only a very few years more, they will have to admit they are wrong.'

Others are more cautious. Dr Ed Hawkins, of Reading University, drew the graph published by The Mail on Sunday in March showing how far world temperatures have diverged from computer predictions. He admitted the cycles may have caused some of the recorded warming, but insisted that natural variability alone could not explain all of the temperature rise over the past 150 years.
Nonetheless, the belief that summer Arctic ice is about to disappear remains an IPCC tenet, frequently flung in the face of critics who point to the pause.
Yet there is mounting evidence that Arctic ice levels are cyclical. Data uncovered by climate historians show that there was a massive melt in the 1920s and 1930s, followed by intense re-freezes that ended only in 1979 the year the IPCC says that shrinking began.
Professor Curry said the ice's behaviour over the next five years would be crucial, both for understanding the climate and for future policy. Arctic sea ice is the indicator to watch,' she said.

[/B]