The REAL global warming

[dcraig1]

Just one more line of evidence:

"One of the positive feedbacks from global warming is the thawing of Arctic permafrost. This releases methane, a greenhouse gas over 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere. Investigations into Arctic methane have tended to focus on land permafrost. However, there are also vast amounts of methane held underwater in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS). This encompasses over 2 million square kilometres, three times as large as the nearby Siberian wetlands, which have been considered the primary Northern Hemisphere source of atmospheric methane. Underwater permafrost acts as a lid to restrain methane stored in the seabed. Until now, it was thought the permafrost was cold enough to remain frozen. However, recent observations have found that over 80% of the deep water over the ESAS is supersaturated, with methane levels more than eight times that of normal seawater (Shakhova 2010). More than half of the surface water is supersaturated also. The methane venting into the atmosphere from this one region is comparable to the amount of methane coming out of the entire world’s oceans."

New observations find underwater Arctic Shelf is perforated and venting methane

http://www.skepticalscience.com/New...-Shelf-is-perforated-and-venting-methane.html

 

[dcraig1]

The scam of the "30000 scientists who dispute global warming":

 

[Ingot54]

Ingot, your posts consist entirely of political ranting and personal attacks upon myself.

No - the reader can make up their own mind - no politics mentioned - point to "entirely political" for me please. "Personal?" - I would say that anyone who has read this thread from its beginning would clearly see where the "personal attacks" originated, Craig. Anyone who questions your "science" is either belittled, or their question is ignored. You clearly have an agenda to spread your disease of fear, and you do not like it when this is pointed out to all.

You would if you could destroy any science that reveals evidence that is with odds with your world view. You and your type are the modern equivalent of the medieval church.

Clear paranoia and more labels - "you and your type" ... come down from your high horse, Craig - you are not any different from anyone else - you simply have an agenda, that's all. You like to scare people, and then tell them: "Fear not, I, DCraig, alone have the solution. Bow down to the great god, SCIENCE, and thou shalt not be deceived."

Well, sorry Craig, I think you are a nutter, and a one-show-pony. You are totally incapable of civil discussion, and behaving socially within a controlled debate - thus you draw the flak you find so distasteful.

The evidence for human induced global warming is clear and unambiguous and documented in thousands of published scientific papers by scientists working in many independent institutions across the world.

It may well be so published - but in whose opinion is it "evidence"? Publishing does not make it accurate nor correct (see "Piltdown Man" in earlier post.)

We are currently having an inquiry into the corruption of "evidence" emanating from the UEA yada yada ... and can you please inform this forum why it is that Copenhagen failed?

"Unambiguous" - sorry Craig - it is anything BUT unambiguous. The science is NOT settled, and while data collectors fiddle with adding in/adding out this weather station and that, you can hardly blame folk for thinking there is a reason they fiddle with the data. It is clearly curve-fitting ... using the hypothesis to shape the data, instead of the other way around.

If it is "unambiguous" why is a growing number of climatologists now expressing unease with the AGW view? Why are there now MORE people who disbelieve the AGW hypothesis ... could it have anything to with ambiguity?

No national academy or professional scientific body or scientific society of international standing disputes the reality of AGW.

Is this in your opinion Craig? or is this reality?

I suggest you go back and re-read the thread, and count the number of times you have refused to accept a published source - indeed - belittled the poster - simply because it does not agree with "your" version of what "international standing" should be.

I think you will find, if you desire truth, that within the hallowed halls of your favored institutions, that there is intense and heated debate about this very issue. Many scientists are disenchanted, and either leave voluntarily, or are asked to take their services elsewhere, because of dissenting views. Conveniently, you never mention such things in your one-eyed campaign to enslave us with the AGW albatross around our necks forever.

I am very wary of any political or institutional body rushing into a policy that will irreversibly lock people into a higher taxation system, and curb freedoms that would otherwise not be linked to the myth of AGW. Blindly accepting everything you are told, or read, is infantile, and you, Craig, are certainly guilty of it, purely because you are unable to rationally discuss ONE single issue.

Your weapons are belittlement and sarcasm.
You care little for the intrusive regulations that would follow the introduction of AGW regulations.
You care little for the broken economies to follow.
You care little that it is impossible to accurately measure the culpability/responsibility of such schemes.
You care little that economies of 21 mil people like Australia are high per capita CO2 producers, but net lowest CO2 producers,. Yet Australia would be paying a bankrupting price to even begin to implement such a scheme as proposed by Copenhagen converts.
And you seem not to understand that while some countries might comply, the countries with the highest nett CO2 production remain unrepentant and uncompliant.

I hope these countries hold out, if for no other reason than they are resisting global intrusion on their sovereignty.

And I hope they hold out because they may just get us over the line long enough for the AGW myth to be laid to rest where it should have been much earlier than this.

You see buddy, I was able to state quite openly in my previous post, that you would respond in the manner you have. Totally predictable, because I am daring to touch your baby - the AGW myth which you hold so dear to your very raison d'être!

While the rest of the world remains impartial and observant, Craig ploughs on, totally unaware that there has been a sea-change of opinion regarding AGW.

Were you aware that most people are now favoring the cyclical theory of climate change? AGW has been recognised as flawed and wanting, as a scientific theory? What will you do with your baby when it dawns on you there is no AGW?

What I will agree to is a concerted effort to clean up the earth - to leave the place in a better place than we found it - to conserve species and rejuvenate the land.

But to foist change on the planet under the grubby pretense that the miniscule amount of CO2 produced by humans is somehow responsible for cyclical climate movement ... I think it's time you took a grip, son.

 

[Ingot54]

Just one more line of evidence:

"One of the positive feedbacks from global warming is the thawing of Arctic permafrost. This releases methane, a greenhouse gas over 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere. Investigations into Arctic methane have tended to focus on land permafrost. However, there are also vast amounts of methane held underwater in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS). This encompasses over 2 million square kilometres, three times as large as the nearby Siberian wetlands, which have been considered the primary Northern Hemisphere source of atmospheric methane. Underwater permafrost acts as a lid to restrain methane stored in the seabed. Until now, it was thought the permafrost was cold enough to remain frozen. However, recent observations have found that over 80% of the deep water over the ESAS is supersaturated, with methane levels more than eight times that of normal seawater (Shakhova 2010). More than half of the surface water is supersaturated also. The methane venting into the atmosphere from this one region is comparable to the amount of methane coming out of the entire world’s oceans."

Is this the "new" CO2, Craig?

Now that CO2 is identified as being too minuscule to have an effect on climate, they are desperately trying to trot out the scary boogey of rising METHANE levels???

I agree with you that Methane has been rated a much more likely candidate to influence warming, but you still overlook the quantum facts ... is this amount of Methane going to be enough to influence climate?

If your answer is as emotionally biased and spectacular as your views on 0.034% CO2, then I don't hold out any hope for the facts emerging here - only your brand of hysteria, as once again we find a reason for the sky to fall, courtesy of Craig News Headlines Inc. (CNH Inc)

Looks like someone has tossed you another straw.

How much is

vast amounts of methane held underwater in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf

and will all of it be released, or just a fraction of it? And how much of this fraction will it take to affect climate? How long have the records gone back for methane measuring? What are the standards pertaining to methane in the atmosphere?

Do you see where you are steering this debate, Craig ... you are abandoning CO2, and introducing another straw man into the equation.

What about Ozone, Chlorinated Fluorocarbons, etc etc?
What about DDT?

What about hormones in the drinking water of the Afghan desert flea?

Do you see that this is a ridiculous and never-ending side-show? Once one argument is shot, you introduce another to save the farm.

I think you are a very bored individual who was neglected by your male role model.

 

[dcraig1]

But to foist change on the planet under the grubby pretense that the miniscule amount of CO2 produced by humans is somehow responsible for cyclical climate movement

Even serious AGW skeptics such as Lindzen (of MIT) don't dispute the greenhouse effect of human emitted CO2.

Repeating utter nonsense any number of times will never make it other than nonsense.

I'm afraid that you are an extreme example of the Dunning–Kruger effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect.

 

[dcraig1]

For those interested in what is happening to the planet rather that uninformed political ranting, the CSIRO has a very informative web site devoted to sea level rise.

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/index.html

For anybody who doesn't know, CSIRO is Australia's government funded research organization with a fine track record of success in many fields. For example, if you have a wireless connection in a laptop or PC it depends on patented CSIRO developed technology.

 

[Ingot54]

Even serious AGW skeptics such as Lindzen (of MIT) don't dispute the greenhouse effect of human emitted CO2.

More of your petty belittlement and personal labelling Craig?

Who gives a toss whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas or whether something else is.

That is NOT the issue.

The issue is that Greenhouse gases (so-called) have been around since creation. Since, if you like, Volcanoes were in their hey-day, spewing trillions of times more (at an uneducated guess) gases of every kind into the primeval atmosphere.

It is clear I have seen the Jurassic Park movies, from where you take your science, I believe.

Look buddy, what you consistently fail to do, and it is scattered on EVERY page of this thread, is A-N-S-W-E-R the BL**DY questions.

But nooo, you just twaddle on your merry way, spreading fear and belittlement, instead of fact and debate.

I am out of here, but I want you to know why.

It is because I am attempting to debate with a human who has some serious issues. You seem to have this narcissistic need to be valued for having an opinion that has a degree of respectability.

Yet, when you get your opportunity, you wimp out, and revert to personal attack.

Why is that you can not answer a question relating to this debate?

Why can you not produce facts, quantities and figures pertaining to the actual amounts of Methane considered critical (or even significant) in the atmosphere, that can influence so-called global warming?

Is it because you don't know - that you stumbled across a new story, but as yet you don't know whether the quantities of Methane are just as minuscule as the 0.034% of CO2?

If you don't know, Craig, there is no shame in simply saying these three words: "I DON'T KNOW".

It will get you more credibility and respect, and it saves you the mental energy of dreaming up a syndrome from which your opposite number in the debating team might or might not be suffering.

I do not wish to participate in what is nothing more than talking to a brick wall that has no answers to legitimate questions.

And I do not have to find myself defending myself from your attempts to belittle me and every other poster who happens to disagree, or who asks you to justify your position on AGW.

Using Google to establish your credentials doesn't wash in the long run Craig, because sooner or later you will be asked to draw on your own knowledge, and your own facts.

Sadly, you have none, and without Google, you are just a shell of an intellect. My 15 yr old grandson could present a better debate than you have, and all that without losing his dignity and the admiration of those who share an interest in the debate.

Can't think of anything more I'd like to convey to you or to the discussion, so to save you checking the electronic scoreboard, I declare you the winner.

Here's your prize:

 

[Jonathn Devine]

Global Warming or No Global Warming it doesnt change the fact there is money to be made out there.

Cheers
Jonathan

 

[dcraig1]

More of your petty belittlement and personal labelling Craig?

Who gives a toss whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas or whether something else is.

That is NOT the issue.

The issue is that Greenhouse gases (so-called) have been around since creation. Since, if you like, Volcanoes were in their hey-day, spewing trillions of times more (at an uneducated guess) gases of every kind into the primeval atmosphere.

.
.
.
...... blah blah and on and on

Because you are unwilling or unable to comprehend the vast body of evidence, you resort to totally unsubstantial nonsense and then attempt to hide it is pages of blather.

The facts:

1. CO2 content of the atmosphere is indisputably rising as shown in the famous Keeling curve.

2. Increasing CO2 is due to humans burning fossil fuels. This has been clearly demonstrated by isotopic analysis of atmospheric carbon.

3. The enhanced greenhouse effect of the added CO2 has been directly measured by satellite spectrometry of outgoing longwave radiation and ground based observation of downward radiation.

4. Simple climate models predict a cooling stratosphere and a warming troposphere in the event of an enhanced green house effect. Satellite observation confirms these predicted temperature changes.

These are facts and no amount of blather or personal attacks will change them - ever. Ignorance is never a virtue.

 

[dcraig1]

There was a good post on RealClimate which I am quoting in full:

“”"”I am just a concerned citizen. What always seems to be missing in all of this is a SIMPLE 1-page summary that can lay out irrefutable proof of AGW.”"”"

I propose the following as evidence…although perhaps too simplistic…I propose that the following is a smoking gun that human-caused global warming is happening and will continue.

The below published peer-reviewed studies, which hold up over time in reputable science journals/panels, by author’s whose work has held up over time of which the articles have held up over time, is a sort of smoking gun (the premise that humans are causing the global warming/climate changes has not been even slightly sucessfully rebutted over time in the world wide peer review system…although researchers are constantly trying).

The following studies conclude that human-caused global warming is happening and/or that the human-caused global warming science is factual. The basic premise of human-caused climate change and/or its mechanisms, which these articles state as fact, have not come even close to being countered in the juried, refereed, world-wide peer-reviewed literature over the years.

All of the following publications have had more than enough time to be rebutted in the world-wide juried, refereed literature and come from reputatable scientific journals/sources. I did not list any publications more recent than 2008 in order for them to be given time to be rebutted.

V Ramanathan – Science, 1988 (abstract says it)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/240/4850/293
“Since the dawn of the industrial era, the atmospheric concentrations of several radiatively active gases have been increasing as a result of human activities. The radiative heating from this inadvertent experiment has driven the climate system out of equilibrium with the incoming solar energy.” [THIS NEATLY SUMMARIZES HUMAN-CAUSED CLIMATE CHANGE/GLOBAL WARMING AS FIRST WRITTEN IN 1824- FOURIER]

KP Shine, PMF Forster – Global and Planetary Change, 1999 (free, full download)
http://www.dvgu.ru/meteo/library/19990087.pdf
“Human activity has perturbed the Earth’s energy balance by altering the properties of the atmosphere and the surface.”

PR Epstein et al., Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 1998 (free, full download)
http://www.decvar.org/documents/epstein.pdf
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that there is “discernible evidence” that humans—through accelerating changes in multiple forcing factors—have begun to alter the earth’s climate regime.”

TC Johns et al., Climate Dynamics, 2003 (free, full download)
http://xweb.geos.ed.ac.uk/~dstevens/publications/johns_cd03.pdf
“In this study we examine the anthropogenically forced climate response over the historical period, 1860
to present, and projected response to 2100…”

Oreskes, Science, 2004 (free, full download)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686?paged=78
“Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case…”

“The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)… In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities: “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.”

“The IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members’ expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements.”

Nature, CD Thomas, 2004 (free, full download)
http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/117/1/thomascd2.pdf
“Anthropogenic climate change seems set to generate very large numbers of species level
extinctions.”

JT Houghton, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2001 (free, full download)
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:e8FODCXyJ4AJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=4000
“Anthropogenic climate change will persist for many centuries.”

“The warming over the last 50 years due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases can be identified.”

“Concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and their radiative forcing have continued to increase as a result of human
activities.”

“…global average water vapour concentration and precipitation are projected to increase during the 21st
century. By the second half of the 21st century, it is likely that precipitation will have increased over northern mid- to
high latitudes and Antarctica in winter. At low latitudes there are both regional increases and decreases over land
areas.”

“…it is very likely that the 20th century warming has contributed significantly to the observed sea level rise,
through thermal expansion of sea water and widespread loss of land ice.”

“The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate”.
(NOTE HOW CONSERVATIVE THE IPCC IS- ALL 130 COUNTRIES HAVE TO UNANOMOUSLY VOTE ON EVERY SINGLE WORD ON THE ABOVE SUMMARY FOR POLICY MAKERS).

JT Houghton, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1995 (free, relevant parts viewable)
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...DrGTwWEcSfAEtTnvJuGxfzJ4#v=onepage&q=&f=false
“The first IPCC Assessment Report of 1990 concluded that continued accumulation of anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would lead to climate change whose rate and magnitude were likely to have important impacts on natural and human systems.”

“The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate”.

“Increases in greenhouse gas concentrations since preindustrial times) ie. Since about 1750) have lead to a positive radiative forcing of climate, tending to warm the surface and to produce other changes of climate.”

“Many greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere for a long time) for CO2 and N2O, many decades to centuries)…”

“Future unexpected, large and rapid climate system changes (as have occurred in the past) are, by their nature, difficult to predict. This implies that future climate changes may also involve “surprises”. In particular these arise from the non-linear nature of the climate system. When rapidly forces, non-linear systems are especially subject to unexpected behavior.

(NOTE-THE IPCC IS NOTORIOUSLY ON THE CONSERVATIVE SIDE BECAUSE ABOUT 130 COUNTRIES HAVE TO UNANAMOUSLY VOTE ON THE ALREADY PUBLISHED PEER-REVIEWED SCIENCE).

Karl, Trenberth, Science, 2003 (free, full download)
http://kfrserver.natur.cuni.cz/global/pdf/2003_climate change.pdf
“Modern climate change is dominated by human influences, which are now large enough to exceed the bounds of natural variability.”

“The main source of global climate change is human-induced changes in atmospheric composition.”

A Haines, RS Kovats, D Campbell-Lendrum, C, The Lancet, 2006 (free, full download)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1294362/pdf/jrsocmed00091-0029.pdf

“The concern now is about the enhanced green-house effect
which is occurring as a result of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.”
“There are a number of feedback mechanisms which
may play a role… in determining the response of climate to increases in
greenhouse gases.”

“Dramatic reductions in fossil fuel use will be necessary in developed countries in order to stabilize greenhouse
gases at the same time as permitting some developing countries to increase their energy use.”

PM Vitouseket al., Science, 1997 (free, full download)
http://people.oregonstate.edu/~lintzh/Vitousek et al_ 1997.pdf
“Increased CO2 represents the most important human enhancement to the greenhouse effect; the
consensus of the climate research community is that it probably already affects climate
detectably and will drive substantial climate change in the next century…”

“the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has increased by nearly 30 percent since the beginning of
the Industrial Revolution;”

“Humanity adds CO2 to the atmosphere by mining and burning fossil fuels, the residue of life from
the distant past…”

“Conflicts arising from the global use of water will be exacerbated in the years ahead, with a growing human population
and with the stresses that global changes will impose on water quality and availability.”

V Ramanathan – science, 2001 (free, full download)
http://www-cas.ucsd.edu/personnel/vram/publications/Ram_etal_Sci_2001.pdf
“The role of GHGs in global warming will increase because of their accumulation in the atmosphere.”

“It is important to differentiate the decadal to centennial time scales involved in GHG warming from the time scale of aerosol lifetimes, which is only several days.”

“Greenhouse gases absorb upwelling infrared (IR, also referred to as longwave) radiation and reduce the outgoing
long-wave (.4 mm) radiation at the top-of-the atmosphere (TOA). The TOA radiative forcing (that is,
the change in the outgoing longwave radiation), due to the observed increase in GHGs since the early
20th century, is about 2.4 W m22”

PA Stott, DA Stone, MR Allen, Nature, 2004 (abstract says it)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7017/abs/nature03089.html
“…we estimate it is very likely (confidence level >90%) that human influence has at least doubled the risk of a heat wave exceeding this threshold magnitude.”

RB Alley et al., Science, 2003 (free, full download)
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2003/2003_Alley_etal.pdf
“…it is conceivable that human forcing of climate change is increasing the probability of large, abrupt events… Amplifiers are abundant in the climate system and can produce large changes with minimal forcing.”

PJ Beggs – Clinical & Experimental Allergy, 2004 (free, full download)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15479264
“Human activities are resulting in increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, and changes in global climate. These, in turn, are likely to have had, and will continue to have, impacts on human health. …Despite this, a number of studies have revealed potential impacts of climate change on aeroallergens that may have enormous clinical and public health significance.”

FS Chapin et al., Nature, 2000 (free, full download)
http://fiesta.bren.ucsb.edu/~gsd/resources/courses/bio-chapin.pdf
“We have more than doubled the concentration of methane and increased concentrations of other gases that contribute to
climate warming. In the next century these greenhouse gases are likely to cause the most rapid climate change that
the Earth has experienced since the end of the last glaciation 18,000 years ago and perhaps a much longer
time.”

P Schwartz, D Randall, Department of Defense, 2003 (free, full download)
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Environment/Articles/ClimateChange-20090131.pdf
“Warming of the climate system has been detected in changes of surface and atmospheric temperatures,
temperatures in the upper several hundred metres of the ocean and in contributions to sea level rise.
Attribution studies have established anthropogenic contributions to all of these changes. The observed pattern
of tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling is very likely due to the combined influences of greenhouse
gas increases and stratospheric ozone depletion.”

“Anthropogenic forcing is likely to have contributed to changes in wind patterns, affecting extra-tropical
storm tracks and temperature patterns in both hemispheres. However, the observed changes in the Northern
Hemisphere circulation are larger than simulated in response to 20th century forcing change.”

J Zalasiewicz et al., GSA Today, 2008 (free, full download)
http://www.ftsnet.it/documenti/260/Antropocene.pdf
“There is now scientific consensus that anthropogenic carbon emissions are the cause.”

King, Science, 2004 (free, full download)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/303/5655/176 or
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=4566&method=full
“Global warming due to increased greenhouse gas emissions poses the most severe problem for governments today.”

“Climate change is real, and the causal link to increased greenhouse emissions is now well
established.”

“In less than 200 years, human activity has increased the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases by some 50% relative to preindustrial levels.”

“Moreover, it’s a myth that reducing carbon emissions necessarily makes us poorer. Taking action to tackle climate change can create economic opportunities and higher living standards.”
“But we already know enough about the problem to agree on the urgent need to address it.”(REMEMBER,THE ABOVE PUBLICATION HAS HELD UP UNDER OPEN, REFEREED, JURIED WORLD-WIDE PEER REVIEW SINCE 2004…THIS IS HOW SCIENCE HAS BEEN DONE SINCE THE 1600s.)

PJ Crutzen, Nature, 2002 (free, full download)
http://academics.eckerd.edu/instructor/carlsopr/Papers/Anthropocene.pdf”
…substantial increases in the concentrations of ‘greenhouse’ gases — carbon
dioxide by 30% and methane by more than 100% — reaching their highest levels over
the past 400 millennia, with more to follow. So far, these effects have largely been
caused by only 25% of the world population. The consequences are, among others,
acid precipitation, photochemical ‘smog’ and climate warming.”

Bradley, The Holocene, 1993 (abstract says it)
http://hol.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/3/4/367
“Climatic changes resulting from greenhouse gases will be superimposed on natural climatic variations.”

WR Emanuel, HH Shugart, MP Stevenson – Climatic Change, 1985 (abstract says it)
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p78k7h7694271851/
“…can be altered by climatic change due to natural causes or due to human activities such as those leading to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration.”

JA Patz et al., Nature, 2005 (free, full download)
http://summits.ncat.org/docs/patz_nature_2005.pdf
“The World Health Organization estimates that the warming and precipitation trends due to anthropogenic climate change of the past 30 years already claim over 150,000 lives annually.”

JE Hansen, M Sato – … National Academy of Sciences, 2001 (free, full download)
http://www.pnas.org/content/98/26/14778.long
“This warming is, at least in part, a result of anthropogenic climate forcing agents.”

J Hansen, M Sato, P Kharecha,- Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, 2007 (abstract says it)
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1856/1925.abstract
“Recent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions place the Earth perilously close to dramatic climate change that could run out of our control, with great dangers for humans and other creatures. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the largest human-made climate forcing…”

Timothy M. Lenton et al., PNAS, 2007 (free, full download)
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/6/1786.full
“Our synthesis of present knowledge suggests that a variety of tipping elements could reach their critical point within this century under anthropogenic climate change.”

Ramanathan V, Feng Y, Proc Natl Acad Sci, 2008 (free, full download)
http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2008/09/v-ramanathan-and-y-feng-on-avoiding.html
“The committed warming is inferred from the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates of the greenhouse forcing and climate sensitivity.”

 

[maiden22]

Craig Cavus, your posts are getting worryingly bizarre. Let us look at this "evidence" that has not been "successfully rebutted" blah blah blah.

Take one at random, the "Tipping Point" paper (Timothy M. Lenton et al., PNAS, 2007 ).

"that may [preumably they mean "might"] pass a tipping point"

"Human activities may [might again?] have the potential to push components of the Earth system past critical states into qualitatively different modes of operation,"

"Many of the systems we consider do not yet have convincingly established tipping points. Nevertheless, increasing political demand to define and justify binding temperature targets,"

And so on and so. This is nothing more than speculation - prompted as the authors freely admit by political demand.

Yet someone whose friends and relations should really keep a closer watch on thought it a compelling part of a composite "smoking gun". You then thought this stuff worthy of re-posting !

A quick scan reveals all manner of "mights", "mays", "possiblys" and so on. This is not evidence, it is theory, and it is dishonest or foolish to present it as otherwise.

 

[dcraig1]

Craig Cavus, your posts are getting worryingly bizarre. Let us look at this "evidence" that has not been "successfully rebutted" blah blah blah.

Take one at random, the "Tipping Point" paper (Timothy M. Lenton et al., PNAS, 2007 ).

"that may [preumably they mean "might"] pass a tipping point"

"Human activities may [might again?] have the potential to push components of the Earth system past critical states into qualitatively different modes of operation,"

"Many of the systems we consider do not yet have convincingly established tipping points. Nevertheless, increasing political demand to define and justify binding temperature targets,"

And so on and so. This is nothing more than speculation - prompted as the authors freely admit by political demand.

Yet someone whose friends and relations should really keep a closer watch on thought it a compelling part of a composite "smoking gun". You then thought this stuff worthy of re-posting !

A quick scan reveals all manner of "mights", "mays", "possiblys" and so on. This is not evidence, it is theory, and it is dishonest or foolish to present it as otherwise.

There are indeed risks of climate "tipping points" being reached causing rapid climate change that is irreversible on time frames of decades to centuries. Such tipping points may include rapid venting of methane from the arctic regions causing rapid warming. I already posted a link about this. Just because the potential scale and/or time frame of this problem is not fully quantified by no means eliminates the risk.

Another potentially extremely serious problem would be the altering or in worst case shutdown of the North Atlantic thermohaline ocean circulation which transports heat from the tropics. It has happened in the past. The consequences of this would be catastrophic to civilization. It is not believed that this will occur without several degrees more warming, but again this is not certain.

It is perfectly valid to warn of future risk where the physical basis of that risk is understood even if that risk is not yet fully quantifiable. Indeed it would irresponsible no to do so.

In any case global warming will continue due to CO2 increase regardless of whether any specific tipping point is reached. That in itself is more than enough cause for concern.

But you go ahead and keep arguing for a continuation of the "giant geophysical experiment". Shut your eyes and plug your ears and all will be well.

PS. The evidence for AGW is contained in thousands of scientific papers - not just one that talks about tipping points.

 

[maiden22]

Climate scientist delivers false statement in parliament enquiry

It has come to our attention, that last Monday (March 1), Dr. Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU), in a hearing with the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee made a statement in regards to the alleged non-availability for disclosure of Swedish climate data.

Dr. Jones asserted that the weather services of several countries, including Sweden, Canada and Poland, had refused to allow their data to be released, to explain his reluctance to comply with Freedom of Information requests.

This statement is false and misleading in regards to the Swedish data.

All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain. As is demonstrated in the attached correspondence between SMHI (Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute), the UK Met Office and Dr. Jones (the last correspondence dated yesterday March 4), this has been clearly explained to Dr. Jones. What is also clear is that SMHI is reluctant to be connected to data that has undergone “processing” by the East Anglia research unit.

STOCKHOLM INITIATIVE
Göran Ahlgren, secretary general
Kungsgatan 82
12 27 Stockholm, Sweden

http://climateaudit.org/2010/03/05/phil-jones-called-out-by-swedes-on-data-availability/#more-10525

He'll be waiting a while for that apology that you keep going on about Craig Cavus.

 

[maiden22]

Another serious blow to the IPCC - this time showing how it seriously underestimated the extent of sea ice increase around Antartica.

http://www.climatechangefraud.com/c...ct-ipcc-assessment-antarctic-sea-ice-increase

 

[dcraig1]

Climate scientist delivers false statement in parliament enquiry

It has come to our attention, that last Monday (March 1), Dr. Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU), in a hearing with the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee made a statement in regards to the alleged non-availability for disclosure of Swedish climate data.

Dr. Jones asserted that the weather services of several countries, including Sweden, Canada and Poland, had refused to allow their data to be released, to explain his reluctance to comply with Freedom of Information requests.

This statement is false and misleading in regards to the Swedish data.

All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain. As is demonstrated in the attached correspondence between SMHI (Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute), the UK Met Office and Dr. Jones (the last correspondence dated yesterday March 4), this has been clearly explained to Dr. Jones. What is also clear is that SMHI is reluctant to be connected to data that has undergone “processing” by the East Anglia research unit.

STOCKHOLM INITIATIVE
Göran Ahlgren, secretary general
Kungsgatan 82
12 27 Stockholm, Sweden

http://climateaudit.org/2010/03/05/phil-jones-called-out-by-swedes-on-data-availability/#more-10525

How very interesting. But unfortunately Phil Jones made no statement at all about Sweden according to the transcript of the hearings for Monday Mar 1. The only statement about Sweden was made by Prof Acton.

The transcript is here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/uc387-i/uc38702.htm

Before accusing Phil Jones of lying to a parliamentary committee, Watts should get his facts straight - but that is typical of Watts.

 

[Benton D Struckcheon]

We interrupt for...an anecdote! Possibly even a pleasantry, or two...

Opening my Old Farmer's Almanac this morning whilst athwart the can, I noticed its notation for Jan 25: "Hot drinks served on frozen Hudson River between NJ and NYC, 1821."
Hmm, thinks I. I wonder if that was a solar minimum?
Indeedy-doo: averaging the monthly data for sunspots, available here, we note that the 12 month average for Jan, 1821, was 15.81, well south of the average of 52.07 since 1750.
This year? January's average was, drum rolls puh-leeze, 4.06, or less than a third that Jan, 1821 average.
No hot drinks were served on the frozen Hudson bekawzzzze - it wasn't frozen. The Hudson, that is.
Hmmm....

 

[maiden22]

We interrupt for...an anecdote! Possibly even a pleasantry, or two...

Opening my Old Farmer's Almanac this morning whilst athwart the can, I noticed its notation for Jan 25: "Hot drinks served on frozen Hudson River between NJ and NYC, 1821."
Hmm, thinks I. I wonder if that was a solar minimum?
Indeedy-doo: averaging the monthly data for sunspots, available here, we note that the 12 month average for Jan, 1821, was 15.81, well south of the average of 52.07 since 1750.
This year? January's average was, drum rolls puh-leeze, 4.06, or less than a third that Jan, 1821 average.
No hot drinks were served on the frozen Hudson bekawzzzze - it wasn't frozen. The Hudson, that is.
Hmmm....

WTF?

I take it all back - I'm going straight out to get an A/C unit and save the planet!

 

[maiden22]

How very interesting. But unfortunately Phil Jones made no statement at all about Sweden according to the transcript of the hearings for Monday Mar 1. The only statement about Sweden was made by Prof Acton.

The transcript is here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/uc387-i/uc38702.htm

Before accusing Phil Jones of lying to a parliamentary committee, Watts should get his facts straight - but that is typical of Watts.

This is the exchange:

Q93 Chairman: We cannot understand why you would not wish to publish it, that is the point.

Professor Acton: I agree; the more it is published the better.

Q94 Chairman: Why did you hide it then?

Professor Acton: Unfortunately, several of these countries impose conditions and say you are not allowed to pass it on, so there has just been an attempt to get these answers. Seven countries have said "No, you cannot", half the countries have not yet answered, Canada and Poland are amongst those who have said, "No you cannot publish it" and also Sweden. Russia is very hesitant. We are under a commercial promise, as it were, not to; we are longing to publish it because what science needs is the most openness.

As transcribed above, Mr Acton stated that "Seven countries have said "No, you cannot", half the countries have not yet answered, Canada and Poland are amongst those who have said, "No you cannot publish it" and also Sweden."

A little later, Mr Jones states "Yes. We have tried to go back to the countries and seven countries have said they would rather we did not release the copies of their data we have in our database."

This reads to me as though he is referring to the same seven countries. Of course, I may be mistaken. Of those seven, Canada, Poland and Sweden are actually named. Of course, I may be mistaken.

In my opinion, your statement that "The only statement about Sweden was made by Prof Acton." is mistaken. Mr Jones did not name Sweden, but that is not the same thing. He referred to the seven countries, several of which were named moments earlier by Mr Acton. He confirmed the statement made about them - that they " have said they would rather we did not release the copies of their data we have in our database."

Craig Cavus, are you incompetent or dishonest? Or is there another reason for your bizarre post?

I have told you before:

 

[maiden22]

How very interesting. But unfortunately Phil Jones made no statement at all about Sweden according to the transcript of the hearings for Monday Mar 1. The only statement about Sweden was made by Prof Acton.

The transcript is here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/uc387-i/uc38702.htm

Before accusing Phil Jones of lying to a parliamentary committee, Watts should get his facts straight - but that is typical of Watts.

Or, to put it another way:





:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[maiden22]

Craig Cavus, I am concerned that I am not making my meaning clear. Permit me to try again.

Refuting your pitiful arguments may be likened to: