Google Earth: how much has global warming raised temperatures near you?

[RickBradford]

Let the scientific data tell the story.

That remark gets Win, Place and Show in the Psychological Projection Stakes.

Skeptics want to talk about nothing but the data, because it overwhelmingly supports our case that there is no dangerous global warming going on (and no warming at all for almost two decades).

It is the losers of the Alarmist community who continually try to wave away the data by:

a) basing their "argument" on computer models which have little connection to the real world

b ) trying to shut down any debate on the subject, and if all that fails...

c) manipulating the data (the Australian Bureau of Meteorology has just been busted for this, big time).

We love the data, but we prefer it before BOM gets its hands on it and adds 2C of warming to the temperature record over 100 years, turning an original cooling trend of – 0.35C into a warming trend of +1.73C to support their agenda.

Raw data in blue; BOM's adjusted data in red.

(My apologies for over-reaction if in fact your post was intended as a joke.)

Edited August 27, 2014 by RickBradford

[horsewell]

Everyone knows it's called "climate change" these days.

[RickBradford]

What happened tens of thousands of years ago is not material to what's happening now.

And that, I'm afraid, wins the Emmy for the dumbest and most ignorant of your comments on this thread, against some very stiff competition.

It is precisely by comparing today's climate with similar periods prior to the last Ice Age (the Eemian period) that NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, run by James Hansen, decided that modern global warming was unprecedented, and hence man-made, and above all, dangerous. The whole global warming scare started here.

In studying cores drilled from both ice sheets and deep ocean sediments, Hansen found that global mean temperatures during the Eemian period, which began about 130,000 years ago and lasted about 15,000 years, were less than 1 degree Celsius warmer than today. If temperatures were to rise 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial times, global mean temperature would far exceed that of the Eemian, when sea level was four to six meters higher than today, Hansen said.

"The paleoclimate record reveals a more sensitive climate than thought, even as of a few years ago. Limiting human-caused warming to 2 degrees is not sufficient," Hansen said. "It would be a prescription for disaster."

[boomerangutang]

Everyone knows it's called "climate change" these days.

I don't care for the term 'climate change' because climate is always changing. I lean to the earlier term; 'global warming' because that's what's happening. To what degree (pun intended) and how much of the warming is people-affected (average 1 ton of CO2/person/yr) ....is debatable.

What happened tens of thousands of years ago is not material to what's happening now.

And that, I'm afraid, wins the Emmy for the dumbest and most ignorant of your comments on this thread, against some very stiff competition.

Don't be so alarmist RB. You'd think I just called your brown dog white. One of the main reasons GW is important is how it affects current scenarios. In the past several hundred years (not thousands or tens of thousands) large cities have been built along coastlines. When seas rise, those cities get uninhabitable. Significant portions of people are forced to migrate, farms get inundated, disease and poverty increase, etc. Between 10,000 and 3,000 years ago, the climate changes might be significant for climate historians, but what's happening now and in the next 100 years is the main issue.

Example: if you had a termite infestation in the foundation of your house. Assessing the current situation (how much wood is there, etc) is more important than the history of termite infestation from thousands of years ago. That's not to say the history has no importance, but it's relatively less important.

If a wooden house has dry brush all around and kids are playing with matches nearby, do I need to run to library and do extensive research on house burnings between 1,000 and 5,000 years in the historical past?

[RickBradford]

Between 10,000 and 3,000 years ago, the climate changes might be significant for climate historians, but what's happening now and in the next 100 years is the main issue.

Truly, I'm gobsmacked by this.

The history of the climate is the absolute bedrock of climate science, on all sides of the debate. It's what the entire argument is about.

By definition, if we don't examine past climates, how can we say that the current climate is in any way abnormal?

This is why Michael "Piltdown" Mann set such store by airbrushing out the Mediaeval Warm Period (c. 1000 years ago) to "prove" that current climate trends are abnormal and hence man-made.

This is why Al Gore spent so much of his science-fiction movie An Inconvenient Truth banging on about the relationship between CO2 concentrations and temperature over the past 500,000 years, in an attempt to prove cause-and-effect.

This is why virtually every scientific paper published on climate change refers to past climate trends, in an effort to understand what we may be facing in future.

I'll say it once more, in language adapted to the lay mind; if we don't look at climate changes between 10,000 and 3,000 years ago, then we have no idea what will happen in the next 100 years. All the vapouring and wailing and hand-waving about submerged cities and damaged crops has no basis unless we link it to past climate trends and our understanding of what drove them and how that affects us today.

If you can't grasp that, then any further discussion is pointless.

[boomerangutang]

We're clearly not going to agree.

Let me use another example: the Ebula problem in Africa. To deal with it, it's good (but not imperative) to know the histories of epidemics, but the most important issue is dealing with the actual outbreak at the moment - and trying to predict and be ready for future outbreaks. RB wants us to be stuck on the history of climate fluctuations for the past ten thousand years. I never said that was not important, I simply said that was not the most important aspect of the situation. We could debate endlessly while not making preparations or taking precautions for what looks very likely to ensue, and that's what deniers would like. They're 100% sure they're right, so any precautions are silly and wasteful.

Deniers have already proven they will do anything they can to try and disprove what a vast majority of climate scientists are showing to be a trend. They are religious-like in their denial of any data showing GW is happening and going to get worse (of course, they'll say the same about the majority).

If I wanted to deny something for the sake of denying, it wouldn't be hard to do. I could make an argument that the Great Wall of China exists (or doesn't exist) if I chose to do so. It's easy to bandy words around in clever ways. Politicians, snake oil salesmen, advertisers, and preachers do it ad nauseum. But I'm siding with the majority of scientists on the GW debate. There's overwhelming strong evidence it's happening. On the other hand, if I wanted to argue it's not happening, I could find some weird quotes and skewed charts to disprove it.

If deniers are wrong, so what? Millions of mostly poor people get displaced, millions of farmers can't grow crops, dozens of coastal cities get flooded - so what. They're mostly 3rd worlders and not of concern to a farang with a comfortable pension who will probably be history in a decade or two. Other peoples' problems.

[RickBradford]

They're 100% sure they're right, so any precautions are silly and wasteful.

That is completely false (as opposed to the rest of your post, which is mostly false, when not irrelevant).

Skeptics continually urge sensible precautions against whatever the climate and natural disasters of all kinds can throw at us.

What is "silly and wasteful" is the Green/Left insistence on unreliable and expensive alternative energy initiatives, fraudulent carbon trading markets, futile anti-CO2 regulations, misguided investment, meaningless climate conferences, and unbounded media agit-prop, while blithely ignoring the real environmental problems that exist in the world.

In fact, the vast sums being pissed away annually on silly climate schemes make it all the less likely that precautions of the right kind can find funding.

And we can only correctly gauge what measures should be prioritized if we examine history, look for patterns, make forecasts and create plans. That's what humanity (or those of us who inhabit the real world) does best.

Edited August 28, 2014 by RickBradford

[boomerangutang]

Glacier National Park straddles the US and Canadian border. It's yet another of many examples of how the planet is warming. In a few years, it won't have any glaciers. I'm sure deniers can find a way to explain how it's actually cooling.

http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=341372550&m=343758378&live=1

Edited August 28, 2014 by boomerangutang

[RickBradford]

I'm sure deniers can find a way to explain how it's actually cooling.

The only deniers round here are those people who refuse to believe that the globe has stopped warming - a fact which the entire scientific community, whether skeptic or alarmist, has accepted.

Indeed, so well entrenched is this 18-year plateau in global temperatures that those scientists who predicted continuing rapid warming until Thermageddon are now scrabbling around for plausible reasons why they were so badly wrong. So far, they have come up with over 50 different (and incompatible) reasons.

Among the more entertaining are:

Number 2: "Oceans ate my global warming"

Number 5: "What pause?"

Number 8: "Faster trade winds"

Number 25: "Slower trade winds"

Number 10: "Coincidence"

Number 13: "Scientists looking at the wrong 'lousy' data"

Number 18: "'Global brightening' has stopped'

Number 19: "Don't mention the pause"

The full list of suggestions is here: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.de/2014/07/updated-list-of-29-excuses-for-18-year.html

I strongly recommend you read these, to find out how scientists approach examining trends in global temperatures. If you can complete a couple of these assignments, you stand a sporting chance of knowing what you're talking about. Otherwise, not so much.

[canman]

I'm sure deniers can find a way to explain how it's actually cooling.

The only deniers round here are those people who refuse to believe that the globe has stopped warming - a fact which the entire scientific community, whether skeptic or alarmist, has accepted.

Indeed, so well entrenched is this 18-year plateau in global temperatures that those scientists who predicted continuing rapid warming until Thermageddon are now scrabbling around for plausible reasons why they were so badly wrong. So far, they have come up with over 50 different (and incompatible) reasons.

Among the more entertaining are:

Number 2: "Oceans ate my global warming"

Number 5: "What pause?"

Number 8: "Faster trade winds"

Number 25: "Slower trade winds"

Number 10: "Coincidence"

Number 13: "Scientists looking at the wrong 'lousy' data"

Number 18: "'Global brightening' has stopped'

Number 19: "Don't mention the pause"

The full list of suggestions is here: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.de/2014/07/updated-list-of-29-excuses-for-18-year.html

I strongly recommend you read these, to find out how scientists approach examining trends in global temperatures. If you can complete a couple of these assignments, you stand a sporting chance of knowing what you're talking about. Otherwise, not so much.

Number 2: "Oceans ate my global warming"

This one demonstrates just how desperate the GW industry is. They would have us believe that the laws of thermodynamics have reversed and now warm water sinks.

[RickBradford]

Number 2: "Oceans ate my global warming"

This one demonstrates just how desperate the GW industry is. They would have us believe that the laws of thermodynamics have reversed and now warm water sinks

Yeah, that one's my favourite, too, but I also like Number 36: "We predicted this, we just didn't tell you."

It reminds me of the authorities in a country I once lived in, after a big chemical spill contaminated the local river with all sorts of nasty stuff. They said: "Fishing was prohibited, but the people were not informed."

[boomerangutang]

Number 2: "Oceans ate my global warming"

This one demonstrates just how desperate the GW industry is. They would have us believe that the laws of thermodynamics have reversed and now warm water sinks.

What it demonstrates is how desperate deniers are getting. They give new meaning to 'grasping at straws.' They can't find reputable scientific data to back up their claims that there's no global warming (and if there is, nothing to worry about), so they fish around for some quirky weird quotes from who knows who (unattributed) - some made in jest (yes, people joke sometimes), and try to make a tempest in a teacup. Keep grasping if you must, your desperation is showing.

[RickBradford]

They can't find reputable scientific data to back up their claims that there's no global warming

How about NASA? As an American with fond memories of the first moon landing, you will probably regard them as "reputable". Their own figures indicate that there has been no global warming since 1997, and they have gone to the extent of issuing press releases discussing this "hiatus", as they call it.

“Opinions vary about the hiatus, as some view it as evidence that man-made global warming is a myth. Others explain that it is simply due to climate variability [Excuse #12 - Ed.] that is temporarily masking a longer-term temperature trend."

"Changes in solar radiation [#1], water vapor [#7] and aerosol particles [#6] in the air have likely played a role, but a major factor may be an El Nino-like pattern [#21] of climate variability that has historically coincided with a slowing in global warming."

When asked for an explanation for the ‘pause’ by reporters, Dr Gavin Schmidt of NASA and Dr Thomas Karl of NOAA spoke of contributions from volcanoes [#37], pollution [#3], a quiet Sun [#1] and natural variability [#15].

In other words, they don’t know. Which is fine, although it would be better if they came out and admitted it.

As I warned you before, if you don't do the reading, you will never get up to speed on this.

Edited August 29, 2014 by RickBradford

[thaibeachlovers]

Google Earth: how much has global warming raised temperatures near you?

The University of East Anglia has released an interactive Google Earth layer with local temperature data

Dana Nuccitelli Tuesday 4 February 2014 13.00 GMT

theguardian.com

If you've ever wondered how much global warming has raised local temperatures in your area or elsewhere on the globe, the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (UEA CRU) has just released a new interactive Google Earth layer that will let you answer this question with ease. UEA CRU is one of the scientific organizations that compile temperature data from around the world. Their temperature dataset over land is called CRUTEM4, and is one of the most widely used records of the climate system.

The new Google Earth format allows users to scroll around the world, zoom in on 6,000 weather stations, and view monthly, seasonal and annual temperature data more easily than ever before. Users can drill down to see some 20,000 graphs – some of which show temperature records dating back to 1850.

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/feb/04/global-warming-google-earth-uea

-- The Guardian 2014-02-04

Thanks for the info. Please stop using the term "global warming". "climate change" is the term most suitable. As soon as there is unseasonaly cold weather the nae sayers say "so much for global warming"

Sent from my KFTT using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Yes, "warming" ceased to be used when the doomsayers realised the world wasn't actually warming much at all.

Now they are using natural changes in climate as have happened for all the millions of years planet earth has existed to justify their highly paid jobs being "Chiken Littles".

I'd like people to stop saying "the destruction of the planet". Planet earth will survive the destruction of mankind quite nicely.

I wonder how many of the doomsayers have given up using all carbon based energy and transportation? My guess is ZERO.

How else would they get to their next exotic destination to waffle about how everyone has to pay lots of tax so they can pretend to be doing something about it?

[thaibeachlovers]

We're clearly not going to agree.

Let me use another example: the Ebula problem in Africa. To deal with it, it's good (but not imperative) to know the histories of epidemics, but the most important issue is dealing with the actual outbreak at the moment - and trying to predict and be ready for future outbreaks. RB wants us to be stuck on the history of climate fluctuations for the past ten thousand years. I never said that was not important, I simply said that was not the most important aspect of the situation. We could debate endlessly while not making preparations or taking precautions for what looks very likely to ensue, and that's what deniers would like. They're 100% sure they're right, so any precautions are silly and wasteful.

Deniers have already proven they will do anything they can to try and disprove what a vast majority of climate scientists are showing to be a trend. They are religious-like in their denial of any data showing GW is happening and going to get worse (of course, they'll say the same about the majority).

If I wanted to deny something for the sake of denying, it wouldn't be hard to do. I could make an argument that the Great Wall of China exists (or doesn't exist) if I chose to do so. It's easy to bandy words around in clever ways. Politicians, snake oil salesmen, advertisers, and preachers do it ad nauseum. But I'm siding with the majority of scientists on the GW debate. There's overwhelming strong evidence it's happening. On the other hand, if I wanted to argue it's not happening, I could find some weird quotes and skewed charts to disprove it.

If deniers are wrong, so what? Millions of mostly poor people get displaced, millions of farmers can't grow crops, dozens of coastal cities get flooded - so what. They're mostly 3rd worlders and not of concern to a farang with a comfortable pension who will probably be history in a decade or two. Other peoples' problems.

Do you actually believe that mankind can make a difference by building a few windturbines? .

Western governments clearly don't believe that anything we can do will actually make a difference, or they'd be building lots of nuclear power plants, banning private cars, banning international air travel etc. All they care about is getting more tax money by introducing pointless carbon taxes under the guise of combating climate change. They have as much chance of doing that as Canute holding back the sea.

Why do humans think they'll last any longer than the dinosaurs did?

Enjoy the ride- nothing is for ever.

[boomerangutang]

We're clearly not going to agree.

Let me use another example: the Ebula problem in Africa. To deal with it, it's good (but not imperative) to know the histories of epidemics, but the most important issue is dealing with the actual outbreak at the moment - and trying to predict and be ready for future outbreaks. RB wants us to be stuck on the history of climate fluctuations for the past ten thousand years. I never said that was not important, I simply said that was not the most important aspect of the situation. We could debate endlessly while not making preparations or taking precautions for what looks very likely to ensue, and that's what deniers would like. They're 100% sure they're right, so any precautions are silly and wasteful.

Deniers have already proven they will do anything they can to try and disprove what a vast majority of climate scientists are showing to be a trend. They are religious-like in their denial of any data showing GW is happening and going to get worse (of course, they'll say the same about the majority).

If I wanted to deny something for the sake of denying, it wouldn't be hard to do. I could make an argument that the Great Wall of China exists (or doesn't exist) if I chose to do so. It's easy to bandy words around in clever ways. Politicians, snake oil salesmen, advertisers, and preachers do it ad nauseum. But I'm siding with the majority of scientists on the GW debate. There's overwhelming strong evidence it's happening. On the other hand, if I wanted to argue it's not happening, I could find some weird quotes and skewed charts to disprove it.

If deniers are wrong, so what? Millions of mostly poor people get displaced, millions of farmers can't grow crops, dozens of coastal cities get flooded - so what. They're mostly 3rd worlders and not of concern to a farang with a comfortable pension who will probably be history in a decade or two. Other peoples' problems.

Do you actually believe that mankind can make a difference by building a few windturbines?

Who mentioned wind turbines? Only you. When you sweep a floor, it's a process of 1,000 little sweeps to sweep it clean. No one proposes one sweep will sweep a floor clean. On the other side of the equation, look at littering: If you drop one candy wrapper in a park, no big deal. But if 11 million people each dropped a candy wrapper in the same park, it would make a cumulative affect. Get the picture? It's a finite world. Sometimes I feel like I'm explaining things to 4 year olds.

Western governments clearly don't believe that anything we can do will actually make a difference, or they'd be building lots of nuclear power plants, banning private cars, banning international air travel etc.

I don't think there are any environmentalists (or anyone else) pushing for banning cars or air travel. Where do you get these items? I can speak for myself.

>>> I don't use air-con.

>>> I cook outside several times a week, on a small wood fire.

>>> Most of my showers are with solar heated water. It's v. cheap to set up

>>> I only drive my truck when necessary to haul things for my farmstead. When possible, I drive a motorbike. Most often I walk or bicycle.

>>> I use planes less often. 1 overseas trip in 6 years.

>>> I don't use electric for heat. Not for cooking nor for showers.

Imagine if half of Thais and half of resident farang cut their energy use in half. That would amount to big savings in energy costs (Bt50 billion month?) and a lot less emissions.

All they care about is getting more tax money by introducing pointless carbon taxes under the guise of combating climate change. They have as much chance of doing that as Canute holding back the sea.

Carbon taxes are old hat. Environmentalists have moved on.

Why do humans think they'll last any longer than the dinosaurs did?

No one mentioned that concept - other than you. Humans may last a few 1,000 years or a half million. Do you want to debate that?

Enjoy the ride- nothing is for ever.

Similar to a line from 'Puff The Magic Dragon' .....and your point is...?

If deniers want to avoid fading to irrelevance, they need to deal with current issues. It would help to deal with things that have actually been said, rather than creating fictitious quotes (attributed to others), then responding with pseudo-witty come-backs. Exaggeration is tempting, but it also dilutes the veracity of an argument. My mother used to exaggerate wildly when trying to make a point. I turned off to that when I was still in plastic pants.

[RickBradford]

My mother used to exaggerate wildly when trying to make a point. I turned off to that when I was still in plastic pants.

Well, without wishing to comment in any way about your toilet training timeline, I feel bound to point out that if you really had turned off to exaggeration, you would have been a skeptic for many years.

The Alarmists (called so for a very good reason) seem unable to stop themselves engaging in ludicrous hyperbole at every possible opportunity.

Some of the best ones: (selected from a vast store)

"Over 4.5 billion people could die from Global Warming related causes by 2012, as planet Earth accelarates into a greed-driven horrific catastrophe." - John Stokes, The Canadian National

"Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists. Rising greenhouse emissions may tip off aliens that we are a rapidly expanding threat, warns a report for NASA." - The Guardian

"Planetary catastrophe is inevitable without geoengineering to cool the Arctic." the Arctic Methane Emergency Group

"U.N. OFFICIAL PREDICTS DISASTER, SAYS GREENHOUSE EFFECT COULD WIPE SOME NATIONS OFF MAP – entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000." - Associated Press

“World leaders have 50 days to save the Earth from irreversible global warming.” - Gordon Brown, former UK prime minister.

“The hottest year since 1659 spells global doom” - UK Daily Telegraph

Andrew Bolt: I ask you, Robyn, 100 metres [of sea level rises] in the next century...do you really think that?

Robyn Williams: It is possible, yes.

"Global warming is causing earthquakes and giant landslides, and could bring about an age of 'geological havoc' including 'volcano storms' and tsunamis," Bill McGuire, University College, London

Of course, the granddaddy of them all was the prediction by the United Nations Environment Programme that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010 (actual figure: 0)

The prediction even came with a handy map showing where these teeming hordes of refugees would come from and why (yellow is drought, and purple is extreme weather).

That hysterical exaggeration (since disappeared from UN websites) was made in 2005. Surely that was after the end of the 'plastic pants' era?

(EDIT: Just so you're clear, none of the people making those exaggerated predictions were joking.)

Edited August 31, 2014 by RickBradford

[canman]

Number 2: "Oceans ate my global warming"

This one demonstrates just how desperate the GW industry is. They would have us believe that the laws of thermodynamics have reversed and now warm water sinks.

What it demonstrates is how desperate deniers are getting. They give new meaning to 'grasping at straws.' They can't find reputable scientific data to back up their claims that there's no global warming (and if there is, nothing to worry about), so they fish around for some quirky weird quotes from who knows who (unattributed) - some made in jest (yes, people joke sometimes), and try to make a tempest in a teacup. Keep grasping if you must, your desperation is showing.

The journal nature and the National Geographic both published the " Atlantic ocean ate my global warming" joke.

[Scott]

An informative, but oversized picture has been removed. Pictures have to be reduced in some instances or they interfere with the proper formatting of the pages on the browser. This causes readers to have to scroll back and forth to read posts.

[thaibeachlovers]

We're clearly not going to agree.

Let me use another example: the Ebula problem in Africa. To deal with it, it's good (but not imperative) to know the histories of epidemics, but the most important issue is dealing with the actual outbreak at the moment - and trying to predict and be ready for future outbreaks. RB wants us to be stuck on the history of climate fluctuations for the past ten thousand years. I never said that was not important, I simply said that was not the most important aspect of the situation. We could debate endlessly while not making preparations or taking precautions for what looks very likely to ensue, and that's what deniers would like. They're 100% sure they're right, so any precautions are silly and wasteful.

Deniers have already proven they will do anything they can to try and disprove what a vast majority of climate scientists are showing to be a trend. They are religious-like in their denial of any data showing GW is happening and going to get worse (of course, they'll say the same about the majority).

If I wanted to deny something for the sake of denying, it wouldn't be hard to do. I could make an argument that the Great Wall of China exists (or doesn't exist) if I chose to do so. It's easy to bandy words around in clever ways. Politicians, snake oil salesmen, advertisers, and preachers do it ad nauseum. But I'm siding with the majority of scientists on the GW debate. There's overwhelming strong evidence it's happening. On the other hand, if I wanted to argue it's not happening, I could find some weird quotes and skewed charts to disprove it.

If deniers are wrong, so what? Millions of mostly poor people get displaced, millions of farmers can't grow crops, dozens of coastal cities get flooded - so what. They're mostly 3rd worlders and not of concern to a farang with a comfortable pension who will probably be history in a decade or two. Other peoples' problems.

Do you actually believe that mankind can make a difference by building a few windturbines?

Who mentioned wind turbines? Only you. When you sweep a floor, it's a process of 1,000 little sweeps to sweep it clean. No one proposes one sweep will sweep a floor clean. On the other side of the equation, look at littering: If you drop one candy wrapper in a park, no big deal. But if 11 million people each dropped a candy wrapper in the same park, it would make a cumulative affect. Get the picture? It's a finite world. Sometimes I feel like I'm explaining things to 4 year olds.

Western governments clearly don't believe that anything we can do will actually make a difference, or they'd be building lots of nuclear power plants, banning private cars, banning international air travel etc.

I don't think there are any environmentalists (or anyone else) pushing for banning cars or air travel. Where do you get these items? I can speak for myself.

>>> I don't use air-con.

>>> I cook outside several times a week, on a small wood fire.

>>> Most of my showers are with solar heated water. It's v. cheap to set up

>>> I only drive my truck when necessary to haul things for my farmstead. When possible, I drive a motorbike. Most often I walk or bicycle.

>>> I use planes less often. 1 overseas trip in 6 years.

>>> I don't use electric for heat. Not for cooking nor for showers.

Imagine if half of Thais and half of resident farang cut their energy use in half. That would amount to big savings in energy costs (Bt50 billion month?) and a lot less emissions.

All they care about is getting more tax money by introducing pointless carbon taxes under the guise of combating climate change. They have as much chance of doing that as Canute holding back the sea.

Carbon taxes are old hat. Environmentalists have moved on.

Why do humans think they'll last any longer than the dinosaurs did?

No one mentioned that concept - other than you. Humans may last a few 1,000 years or a half million. Do you want to debate that?

Enjoy the ride- nothing is for ever.

Similar to a line from 'Puff The Magic Dragon' .....and your point is...?

If deniers want to avoid fading to irrelevance, they need to deal with current issues. It would help to deal with things that have actually been said, rather than creating fictitious quotes (attributed to others), then responding with pseudo-witty come-backs. Exaggeration is tempting, but it also dilutes the veracity of an argument. My mother used to exaggerate wildly when trying to make a point. I turned off to that when I was still in plastic pants.

Well I'm pleased that you are making the effort, but even if every other person in the world did the same it wouldn't make an iota of difference to the actual situation because it's a "natural cycle" in effect. Anyway, there are about 5 billion people that really, really want a giant screen tv in every room and a big motor car, or 3.

My point is that it would take a lot more than cooking on a wood fire to reverse the trend. Incidentally, cooking on an electric ring powered by nuclear is less polluting than a wood fire.

[cooked]

Hey ho, I am sure that the planet is looking forward to the day when the humans have eradicated themselves (along with a lot of other species). Just give it a few million years and things will be right as rain again.

[thaibeachlovers]

Hey ho, I am sure that the planet is looking forward to the day when the humans have eradicated themselves (along with a lot of other species). Just give it a few million years and things will be right as rain again.

Yes, Gaia is slowly beginning to exterminate mankind. It might indeed take a few million years or so, but that is just a blink in the life of the planet. Hopefully the next dominant species will not be as destructive of it's environment.

[NumbNut]

inevitable resultant scary headlines.

What, Like this?

IPCC Working Group II report: Scientists predict Australia will continue to get hotter

Maybe you scare easy Rick eh? Doesn't seem too scary to me... just telling it like it is.

And, on a sidebar to this main story, there's a brief summary titled 'The Rigorous Report Process' which I've copied below as it's worth quoting at length, to illustrate their methods, since you raise it as a point:-

The upcoming report includes 310 lead authors from 73 different nationalities.

Australian scientists are heavily involved as authors and reviewers of the Working Group reports.

Lesley Hughes, the lead author of the paper on Australasia, says Australia "punches above its weight".

"We are disproportionately a larger group than you might otherwise think based on our population in the IPCC authorship team," she said.

"We have a lot of scientists working on climate change issues and that is because we see Australia as being particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change."

The reports take up to five years to produce, undergoing a rigorous review process.

For example, 48,000 review comments were received on the upcoming report.

Professor Hughes says the process is not really a matter of achieving consensus, but rather is about evaluating the evidence.

The Australasia chapter alone has 1,000 references.

"They are certainly the largest reports ever produced on climate change and its associated risks but I think probably some of the most careful documents put together anywhere," she said.

"I rather naively thought that eight people and 25 pages to write, how long can it possibly take to write three-and-a-bit pages?

"The answer to that is about three years. There is much discussion about the weight of evidence so its a very long, detailed and careful process."

source

'Australian scientists are heavily involved as authors and reviewers of the Working Group reports.

Lesley Hughes, the lead author of the paper on Australasia, says Australia "punches above its weight".

"We are disproportionately a larger group than you might otherwise think based on our population in the IPCC authorship team," she said.'

HMMMMM

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology has been caught red-handed manipulating temperature data to show "global warming" where none actually exists

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/08/25/Australian-Bureau-of-Meteorology-accused-of-Criminally-Adjusted-Global-Warming

Sorry canman, you're wrong. Below are the first few paragraphs from the relevant story correcting the facts:-

Climate sceptics see a conspiracy in Australia's record breaking heat

Bureau of Meteorology says claims from one climate sceptic that it has corrupted temperature data are false.

You could cut the triumphalism on the climate science denialist blogs right now with a hardback copy of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Their unbridled joy comes not in the wake of some key research published in the scientific literature but in the fact that a climate sceptic has got a mainstream newspaper to give their conspiracy theory another airing.

The sceptic in question is Dr Jennifer Marohasy, a long-time doubter of human-caused climate change whose research at Central Queensland University (CQU) is funded by another climate change sceptic.

Source

Read the above report and you'll see who's been caught 'red-handed'

[chuckd]

A sceptic funding another sceptic?

How does this differ from a GW believer funding another GW believer?

[canuckamuck]

Here is the synonyms and antonyms of the word skeptical.

Synonyms for skeptical

adj disbelieving, leery

suspicious mistrustful dubious doubtful incredulous agnostic cynical doubting hesitating questionings quizzical unbelieving scoffing unconvinced aporetic dissenting freethinking show-me

Antonyms for skeptical

trustworthy trusty unquestionable believing convinced devoted certain definite sure clear undoubting

People representing which group of characteristics are more likely to give you neutral scientific answers?

[RickBradford]

The Guardian tells it like it is.

That was five years ago, and unfortunately for those who would 'silence global warming skeptics', The Guardian was flat wrong, again.

In fact, examination of the data now shows we have reached 19 years without any global warming -- this is scientific data, not computer modelling, and so will be ignored by alarmists as unimportant and irrelevant.

This has alarmed the UN ahead of its upcoming climate boondoggle in New York. With the science against the faith it has so frantically promoted, the UN has reacted in time-honoured fashion -- ignore the science, and play on guilt, racial politics, gender politics and victimhood:

The United Nations is looking for a young woman to, as BBC put it, be the ‘Malala’ of the climate change movement, serving as a voice that will energize this September’s climate change conference.

The organization has put out a call for a woman under 30 to speak at the opening session of the 2014 Climate Summit, which is being held on September 23 in New York City. The woman has to be from a developing country and must have a background that includes advocacy on climate change or work on implementing climate mitigation or adaptation solutions.

No room for climate scientists for this role; science,facts and reality are an irritation and a nuisance to the UN.

Edited September 3, 2014 by RickBradford

[boomerangutang]

Well I'm pleased that you are making the effort, but even if every other person in the world did the same (conserve resources) it wouldn't make an iota of difference to the actual situation because it's a "natural cycle" in effect. Anyway, there are about 5 billion people that really, really want a giant screen tv in every room and a big motor car, or 3. My point is that it would take a lot more than cooking on a wood fire to reverse the trend. Incidentally, cooking on an electric ring powered by nuclear is less polluting than a wood fire.

We don't have to agree that conserving energy and resources is good, and that the more people who do so, the better for the world's overall environment. Lessening of the approx 1 ton/year of fossil fuel emissions per person can't have no effect on the world' climate. Of course there are and always have been natural cycles, but now with 6+ billion people and their polluting machines - that's adds to the equation, a few of many examples:

>>> yellow smog hovering over most cities

>>> Glacier Nat'l Park (US/Canada) used to have about 25 glaciers. Soon it won't have any

>>> Nearly all glaciers ww are losing mass, and not recovering it

>>> Mt. Kilimanjaro will no longer have snow

>>> The NW passage will be ice free. The Arctic won't have near as much pack ice as it has historically.

>>> Antarctica losing ice from historical levels

>>> Many record high temps ww, very few record lows.

As for nuclear ("cooking on an electric ring powered by nuclear is less polluting than a wood fire."). Granted, wood fires are polluting. The wood fire I use to cook squash, potatoes, yams, uses about 20 small sticks from fallen branches. However, nuclear can't be less polluting, particularly when you take in the bigger picture as it relates to the open-ended problems of Fukushima.

[boomerangutang]

A few added notes on nuclear. We can expect Thailand's EGAT to post such stupid 'facts' on their web site that "nuclear produces no greenhouse gases,' but a reality check will show the following activities involved with nuclear, ALL require burning fossil fuels"

>>> finding, extracting, processing U

>>> building and maintaining the plant

>>> shipping processed fuel to plant

>>> dealing with spent fuel and other radioactive material.

>>> decommissioning the plant

>>> guarding the decommissioned region, which could be off limits for tens of thousands of years.

>>> dealing with emergencies. This can be the most expensive and most fossil-fuel sucking aspect of nuclear power. Two words: Chernobyl, Fukushima.

[canman]

Well I'm pleased that you are making the effort, but even if every other person in the world did the same (conserve resources) it wouldn't make an iota of difference to the actual situation because it's a "natural cycle" in effect. Anyway, there are about 5 billion people that really, really want a giant screen tv in every room and a big motor car, or 3. My point is that it would take a lot more than cooking on a wood fire to reverse the trend. Incidentally, cooking on an electric ring powered by nuclear is less polluting than a wood fire.

We don't have to agree that conserving energy and resources is good, and that the more people who do so, the better for the world's overall environment. Lessening of the approx 1 ton/year of fossil fuel emissions per person can't have no effect on the world' climate. Of course there are and always have been natural cycles, but now with 6+ billion people and their polluting machines - that's adds to the equation, a few of many examples:

>>> yellow smog hovering over most cities

>>> Glacier Nat'l Park (US/Canada) used to have about 25 glaciers. Soon it won't have any

>>> Nearly all glaciers ww are losing mass, and not recovering it

>>> Mt. Kilimanjaro will no longer have snow

>>> The NW passage will be ice free. The Arctic won't have near as much pack ice as it has historically.

>>> Antarctica losing ice from historical levels

>>> Many record high temps ww, very few record lows.

As for nuclear ("cooking on an electric ring powered by nuclear is less polluting than a wood fire."). Granted, wood fires are polluting. The wood fire I use to cook squash, potatoes, yams, uses about 20 small sticks from fallen branches. However, nuclear can't be less polluting, particularly when you take in the bigger picture as it relates to the open-ended problems of Fukushima.

Artic ice cover varies with the prevailing winds which are long term cyclical:

"Starting in 1988, winter winds began pushing older, thicker ice out into the North Atlantic. This went on until a few years ago, and caused the lower summer minimums seen over the past 15 years. Younger, thinner ice melts out more easily in the summer.

But since 2011, the winter winds have reversed. Ice is now getting pushed away from the Atlantic side, and is accumulating on the Pacific side - where it is preserved. If this wind pattern continues for a few more years, summer ice extent will soon return to the levels seen in the 1980’s."

An interesting animation of ice cover here which shows the artic ice cover recovering rapidly in the last 2 years: http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/arcticice2012-20141.gif?w=640

Below is a comparison of artic sea ice extent over the years. It can be seen that there is an anomaly in May 2014 after that the ice extent tends to track along the average. The summer ice cover in 2012 was low but it then recovered in the winter.

Edited September 3, 2014 by canman

[thaibeachlovers]

A few added notes on nuclear. We can expect Thailand's EGAT to post such stupid 'facts' on their web site that "nuclear produces no greenhouse gases,' but a reality check will show the following activities involved with nuclear, ALL require burning fossil fuels"

>>> finding, extracting, processing U

>>> building and maintaining the plant

>>> shipping processed fuel to plant

>>> dealing with spent fuel and other radioactive material.

>>> decommissioning the plant

>>> guarding the decommissioned region, which could be off limits for tens of thousands of years.

>>> dealing with emergencies. This can be the most expensive and most fossil-fuel sucking aspect of nuclear power. Two words: Chernobyl, Fukushima.

Granted that Chernobyl, Fukushima were disasters, they were caused by human error, and could be avoided with better procedures and better minds in charge.

However, would you dispute that the current use of fossil fuels in Japan to replace the nuclear plants has increased the overall production of carbon in the air? Even push bikes involve carbon to make.

When I see the next talkfests on climate change being held by video conferencing, I'll believe that they actually believe their own data. Till then, IMO, it's just a huge scam to give them money and power.