Is it just me, or is it warm in here?

Submitted by Charlton Stanley (aka Otteray Scribe), Guest Blogger

NASA logoNOAA logoApproximately 1,000 weather reporting stations all over the world have been monitoring local temperatures for decades. Temperature data have been compiled and analyzed by NASA scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.

Nine of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since the year 2000. The tenth? From the 20th Century, that was 1998. Temperature rise is not completely steady and consistent from one year to the next. That is due to factors such as volcanic eruptions and other natural causes; however, trends are the important thing.

We can see from the short video below the flip that Earth continues to experience warmer temperatures than several decades ago. The average temperature around the globe in 2011 was 0.92 degrees F (0.51 C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline. Weather experts warn that a consistent global average change of even a half-degree Fahrenheit can have catastrophic effects on global weather patterns. Anyone recall April and May 2011?


130 years in 27 seconds:

Source:NASA finds 2011 the ninth warmest year on record.

386 thoughts on “Is it just me, or is it warm in here?

  1. Time lapse sequence of photos from the North Pole Environmental Observatory. The time on this video is July and August 2012.

  2. We have no idea what we’re talking about. We’ve only had a plethora of real data for the past 100 years or so – everything else is inferred – and somehow we’re extrapolating that to global doom. There have been periods of much warmer and much cooler climate over the 4+ billion year history of the Earth. Ice ages have come and gone. Sea levels have risen and fallen. This will continue without regard to what humans do to the Earth.

    http://sppiblog.org/news/russian-scientists-we-could-face-cooling-period-for-200-250-years

  3. JN: I’m not disputing the data we have. It HAS been getting a bit warmer of late. But no one knows why and to blame it on CO2 or other atmospheric gases is foolish when there thousands or millions of other variables in the equation.

  4. We don’t need no one with no book learnin round here’n. The fact that my state is on fire & has no water is none o your business.
    Quick, another round of defunding fire & forestry & that other service I can’t remember.

  5. MM,
    OK. Got it. Since we do not have data definitive to the .05 level of confidence, and there are a bunch of variables, it would be best to do nothing for the next two or three hundred years so we can see what happens. Right. :roll:

  6. OS

    somebody had to talk about the 800 lb overheating gorilla in the room. just get ready for attack of the trolls.

    but you already knew that

  7. All data is always subject to interpretation, but “global warming” due to man is a myth. Even if the argument is allowed, is the U.S. solely responsible for spending tillions that will make virtually no difference in doing what mother earth does naturally…and what about China and India who alone have @ 40 of the world population and could care less about CO2, warming, or other earthly matters….all we do is weaken our abilities by spending our resources for nothing….including big government!

  8. I am not disputing the DATA that we have. After all, data can become megadata and oppenheimer data. I am disputing the information which we have. Ya see information is more like two plus four equals six while data is just 2, 3, 9. Data is not just numbers or numbers and letters. It is gibberish.

  9. Pete,
    Yup. I expect that. I am reasonably certain the big fossil fuel companies monitor keywords for everything posted on the internet regarding this subject. Then they send their minions (one of my favorite words) to troll threads. You may not believe this, but we have detected paid trolls on this site before. Who woulda thunk it?

  10. To continue to ignore the global climate change already happening would be additional evidence that science and facts no longer mean anything. The Koch Brothers have plenty of money and they do not need to keep killing the planet except for greed. Great job OS.

  11. Regardless of those who believe truly there is no such thing as climate change, can anyone argue a downside to protecting the environment? And, are we going to go somewhere else if our planet is ruined?

  12. No minion here – just an open mind. Open enough to realize that correlation is not causation and that we really have no way of proving the central thesis herein. For every argument supporting it, one can be found antithetical to it.

    But that’s not my point – the Earth is a very complex system and for humans to think that we understand what makes it tick is both absurd and conceited.

  13. **Darren Smith 1, August 4, 2013 at 10:35 pm

    Regardless of those who believe truly there is no such thing as climate change, can anyone argue a downside to protecting the environment? And, are we going to go somewhere else if our planet is ruined?
    **

    Darren,

    Rotten oil/wallst can argue climate change-corrupt derivative contracts/carbon trading ponzi scams, til the cows come home, what they can’t argue is that this industrial society is causing to much Smog & other Toxic Pollution.

    Carbon is the least of our trouble.

    Now SO2 in the air, take a drink of battery acid from your car, same difference as breathing it.

    etc… etc…. on down the list

  14. That humanity is creating Global Warming is settled. There is no longer any question about it. Only the profoundly ignorant still doubt it. Yes, I’m talking to you.
    The only question left is what do we do about it.

    Denying that we’re doing it is one possibility. A suicidal choice, but a possibility.

    Deities or aliens from outer space are not going to rescue us from ourselves.

    Denial is not just refusal to acknowledge reality. It’s also a river in Africa.

  15. MM,
    Of course the ecosystem is complicated. No one has said it isn’t. In years where there are major volcanic eruptions of the explosive kind, average global temperatures tend to drop. However, we do know there is a greenhouse effect due to large amounts of various gasses and solids being released into the atmosphere. The physics of this are well understood, and the historical records bear it out as demonstrated by the temperature changes over the past 130 years. We cannot afford to wait two or three hundred years. The fewer fossil fuels are burned, the fewer carbon emissions. When solving a complex problem with multiple probable causes, it is not a good idea to say, “Since we do not know all the answers to all the problems, we should wait until we have every facet of every problem solved before taking action.”

    Some people seem to have trouble wrapping their heads around the fact the cooling of the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic has spawned violent weather anomalies causing billions of dollars damage. Why is the Gulf Stream cooling if we are having global warming? Watch the video of the ice cap at the geographical North Pole as it turns into a big lake. When ice melts what does it do to surrounding water? Anyone who has dropped ice cubes into a glass of tea knows the answer to that one. My oldest son was on two surface expeditions to the North Pole in the early 1980s. He says the ice thickness and size of the ice cap is now only a fraction of what it was then.

    It is reasonable to do what we can as humans to stop the trend, even if we cannot reverse it. To do less borders on the criminal.

  16. Our refusal to consider policy changes in response to climate change is wholly unrelated to differences of opinion in the scientific community. It is driven solely by economics. More specifically, important corporate interests want to avoid the capital requirements necessary to clean up their act. In addition, there are many people who are terrified that policy changes will adversely impact their lifestyles.

  17. I should have added that the science of climate change is also rejected by Christian dominionists and other religious fundamentalists who believe that God would not permit the destruction of the planet by the hand of man.

  18. Mike Appleton: “In addition, there are many people who are terrified that policy changes will adversely impact their lifestyles.”
    ***************************************

    Myopia is a common human failing. Wanting short term gain, but like most psychopaths, have no ability to plan for the future. When their multi-million dollar beach mansions have five feet of water in the living room, it will be a little late.

  19. So lets assume that man caused global warming is correct (despite credible scientists that say solar variability may be significant). Now what?

    If you want to cut down on carbon that means drastically reducing fossil fuel burning. Our food growing and distribution requires oil and gas. What will it mean for growing and distributing food if we drastically reduce consumption of fossil fuels? Do you think wealthy people are going to relinquish their tropical fruits? Their vegetables from warmer climates they eat in winter? No way. So who goes without food?

    Before you declare the cause and what medicine we need, what will the cure cause?

    And for a side show, read some of the stuff about sun spots and what is happening to our sun these past few years. And for more laughs, read the reports about solar activity forecasts from 10 years ago where they predicted a whopper of a year for sun spots in this solar cycle. These are scientists that are prominent on the global warming mill. They were so dead wrong as to be laughable. Please, check our our current solar cycle before you kill people for lack of food.

  20. It is warm in here, it is not just you OS.

    The deniers onboard (e.g. ModernMiner) your current post say we don’t have enough data.

    They say the Earth is billions of years old and has always had weather.

    Therefore, no damage has been done to the global climate system and can’t be done by human civilization.

    Brilliant.

    Psychological denial does damage to cognition as you know professionally.

    (Modern (past 65mil. yrs.) Global Climate System Changes Gently, Agnotology: the study of ignorance generators within our culture).

  21. History of Denialism / History of Climate Science
    (video presentation by Professor of Science History)

    Note: Key times in the video are shown below in min:sec format.
    (Note also: GW = global warming; GG = greenhouse gas, CC = climate change):

    00:40 – Schwarzenegger: no debate, GW is happening.
    06:20 – Proper amount of GG is good, keeps us warm.
    07:00 – Too much GG is a bad thing.
    07:09 – Tyndall in mid 1800’s began research into GG.
    07:45 – Arrhenius did first degree calculations re: CO2 content.
    08:25 – Callendar discovered GG increases in 1930’s.
    09:02 – Hulburt accord in 1930’s.
    09:43 – Depression / war stopped GG research.
    10:00 – Gilbert N. Plass developed CO2 atmospheric calculations.
    10:49 – Suess & Revelle do paper in 1957 warning of GW dangers.
    12:30 – Dr. Revelle warned of polar ice cap melt in TIME interview.
    13:25 – CO2 levels discovered to be high.
    16:30 – Lyndon Johnson in 1965 says fossil fuels causing GW.
    17:00 – GW, CC not political originally.
    18:20 – White of NOAA, 1978, warns of GW dangers.
    20:52 – Polar Areas to be impacted 4 times more than other areas.
    24:20 – IPCC formed in 1979 with consensus on GW.
    26:00 – Bush I signed GW treaty.
    26:45 – Denial of GW begins.
    27:40 – Luntz injects GW denial propaganda into political debate.
    28:25 – Oil baron Cheney propagates GW denial.
    29:00 – Oil companies do massive scale denial propaganda.
    29:30 – Marshall Institute
    30:30 – Marshall Institute formed to support Reagan SDI (star wars)
    32:50 – Marshall Institute “cigarettes not related to cancer”.
    36:50 – Marshall Institute does GW denial campaign.
    42:54 – Marshall member Seitz worked for big tobacco.
    47:20 – Singer of Marshall Institute politically attacks GW.
    53:35 – Cigarette smoking is ok rhetoric applied against GW science.

  22. Oh No!!! Stop it, stop it stop it……….. I live in South Florida, I don’t want my house to be under water when the Oceans rise to cover almost everything south of Lake Ocochobee………… Glug, glug…….

  23. “Our food growing and distribution requires oil and gas.”

    Paul,

    Currently it does but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t alternatives to be explored.

    “Do you think wealthy people are going to relinquish their tropical fruits? Their vegetables from warmer climates they eat in winter?”

    Food distribution can still go on using alternative fuel sources. Electric cars become electric truck and ships powered by solar energy, etc.

    “Before you declare the cause and what medicine we need, what will the cure cause?”

    The cure will cause scientific innovations and new areas of jobs and industrial growth, doesn’t seem so bad to me.

    “And for a side show, read some of the stuff about sun spots and what is happening to our sun these past few years.”

    Whatever the cause of climate change is, climate change is and will affect us all, so the idea of preparing for it seems to be a prudent one. The polar ice cap is melting and the sea level is rising. The cities on the shores of this country need to start preparing now for instance. Fossil fuels have caused major pollution problems in major cities of the world and the direct cause is pollution due to the use of fossil fuels. Also fossil fuels are not renewable and so alternatives must be developed for that contingency. What has allowed the human race to dominate this planet was the human ability of foresight and adaptation. What is currently stifling our ability to foresee and adapt to a changing climate is simple short term greed and fear of diminished profits.

    While those with narrow interests fight the mobilization of humanity to adapt to these changes and learn to deal with them to ensure our continued survival, the clock ticks on. The irony is that in meeting these challenges and learning to adapt ourselves, we would also greatly enhance the climate for industrial growth and economic opportunity.

  24. Well, this topic will surely warm the hearts of many posters on this blog. One’s position on climate change is often a very strong indicator of political affiliation. I recall watching Nitt Romney’s acceptance speech to the Republican convention, when the crowd broke into laughter at his mention of global warming, as though it were some kind shibboleth. The crowd, however, seemed to laugh uncomfortably, with less conviction than in it might have in years past.

    MM does make a valid point about the flaw of climate science; the data is imperfect. Reliable measurements of atmospheric CO2 date back to only 1958. The rest of our data rely on proxy records, like tree rings, the chemical composition of corral shells, and dust taken from ice cores. None of this data translates easily into infotainment, and the bottom line usually involve solutions that require hardships, like walking more and using less.

    The public demands certainty. They’re being told by the corptocracy that researchers can’t predict how warm temperatures will get by a certain date. Climate study isn’t weather forecasting. Science has models that suggest ranges and predictive outcomes, sounding less certain compared to blowhard politicians and the blathering idiots on Fox. Always listen to the guys who yell the loudest, they know what they’re talking about. Why else would they be yelling? Besides, Al Gore can’t be trusted. The parties that sow doubt in the public mind have a strong financial incentive for doing so. They pay climate researchers to act as shills and wage media blitzes to discredit researchers who try to warn us of the dangers of global warming. Big Coal, Big Oil want wring every last dollar out us that can; they reduce their costs by outsourcing the deleterious health effects of their products rather than produce them cleanly and safely. Once their done ripping the tops off mountains and fouling our rivers and aquifers, they’ll charge us top dollar for clean water. That, I believe, is the end game.

    Climate science is still relatively young, but the data collected is genuine, and there are many ways of testing its accuracy and the reliability of predictions drawn from it. Interestingly, last year one of the Koch-funded scientists changed his position on climate change after reexamining the data, one more inconvenient truth. It may be instructive to remember around the beginning of the last century, before the discovery of antibiotics, most people didn’t believe in bacteria, either. Up until the 1920’s, infielders were at risk of losing their lives from infection if they were spiked while turning a routine double play. Climate research is based on real science, whereas economics is an art. Think of the difference between climate science and economics as the difference between astronomy and astrology. The Republican argument against global warming is based chiefly on economic reasons.

  25. RTC 1, August 5, 2013 at 9:26 am

    Well, this topic will surely warm the hearts of many posters on this blog. One’s position on climate change is often a very strong indicator of political affiliation. I recall watching Nitt Romney’s acceptance speech to the Republican convention, when the crowd broke into laughter at his mention of global warming, as though it were some kind shibboleth. The crowd, however, seemed to laugh uncomfortably, with less conviction than in it might have in years past.

    MM does make a valid point about the flaw of climate science; the data is imperfect. Reliable measurements of atmospheric CO2 date back to only 1958. The rest of our data rely on proxy records, like tree rings, the chemical composition of corral shells, and dust taken from ice cores. None of this data translates easily into infotainment, and the bottom line usually involve solutions that require hardships, like walking more and using less.

    The public demands certainty.
    ================================
    The public, like everyone else, relies on trust and faith, well known by the students of Epistemology.

    Who you believe is what you believe.

    “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows”, but you need someone you trust to really believe either denialism or Climate Scientists.

    Data comes in many forms.

    We don’t have to live 26,000 years to know that there is a climate cycle based on the axial precession of the Earth.

    We don’t have to go far to find an oldie but goodie who remembers when “the weather did not used to be like this.”

    Some remember when there was no worldwide pollution too.

  26. Paul,

    “So lets assume that man caused global warming is correct (despite credible scientists that say solar variability may be significant). Now what?”

    Yes. The educated, rational population has stopped assuming, and is facing reality.
    Which “credible scientists” say exactly what about solar variability? No weasel words, please.

    “Now what?” is obvious.
    Slow the activities that cause global warming. End the profligate use of fossil fuels. Reverse population growth, immediately.
    Will that inconvenience you?
    Will going extinct inconvenience you?

    Humans, and the plants and animals that keep humans alive, evolved under fairly narrow climatic conditions.
    We’re doing everything we can to drastically change those conditions.
    We will go extinct if we change the conditions rapidly, as we’re doing. Human-caused climate change is measured in decades. Evolution is measured in millions of years. No time for slow evolution to keep pace. More to the point, “we” won’t keep pace. We call ourselves the “human race.” We’re losing a race of our own making. We set impossible rules for ourselves. Multiply obscenely, use up all the resources, poison everything with our waste, and survive? No.
    We exhibit all of the responsibility of a colony of bacteria growing in a petri dish. It dies in its own waste products.

    The planet doesn’t know we’re here. It doesn’t care, and it won’t do anything to save us. Magical, invisible people won’t help us, either.

    That’s what.

  27. To Paul and all those who point out that the earth’s climate has fluctuated over time: All the data shows that never before has temperature risen so quickly, and this temperature can be attributed to the release of carbon into the atmosphere.

    What can be done about it? Walk and bike more; recycle plastics; and buy locally produced food products, preferably vegetables. They’re better for you and require less energy to produce.

    And oppose the XL pipeline. while the repubs in the Senate focus attention on Benghazi, a real scandal has developed around the environmental impact study prepared for the State Dept.

  28. Sorry, that should read:”this temperature rise can be directly attributed to the amount of carbon being released by human activity into the atmosphere.”

  29. I don’t find it convincing that there is a real scientific controversy regarding global warming.

    The idea that reputable scientist are genuinely divided seems contrived to me.

    An important question that others have raised is ‘what is the downside to taking steps now?’

    It seems to me that most of what we do for global warming is consistent with the necessity to change energy sources anyway.

    I, personally, would much rather start the transition to renewable energy sources now while we still have plenty of oil in the ground rather than wait.

    If you think the increases in cost due to converting to other sources of energy are disruptive now, just wait till oil production starts to decline with nearly 10 billion people trying to enter the middle class in a generation or two.

    Transition to renewable energy will take decades if not generations.

    If we don’t start now we risk that even the 1% will have trouble affording gas for their Bentleys and Maybachs.

  30. Thanks, JoF,
    This is important stuff. Looks as if the climate change deniers showed up with the usual reasons to not do anything.

  31. Central Texas is rapidly running out of drinking water, mean while haliburton is moving its HQ’s to San Angelo, where they plan to start fracking the biggest field evah….I’m hoping to sell my house b/4 the water table goes bone dry

  32. ** Otteray Scribe 1, August 5, 2013 at 2:09 pm

    Thanks, JoF,
    This is important stuff. Looks as if the climate change deniers showed up with the usual reasons to not do anything.
    **

    Well you guys could keep on whining year after year, decade after decade about how much pollution Al Gore’s & Jim Inhofes Jets & Mansions give off or you could devise an action plan as I did years back.

    You start by looking in the mirror & what your foot print looks like.

    Lighting is about 1/3rd of your home energy use… LEDs use 5% the energy old bulbs do, Mercury don’t do as good & then there’s the mercury issue. With the LEDS though it’s the cost & getting ones that have nice usable light.

    With some basic math & the ability to read/understand the faceplate info on your appliances you can check how efficient they are & if they need replaced. (Volts/Amps/Watts)

    Up front Capital Cost can produce Long Term Gains, check the math & you’ll have to guess where fuel prices are going in the future.

    Buy yourself one of these kilowatt meters & then you can track your electrical usage month by month.

    We’ve got a graph on the refrigerator going back almost a decade.

    http://www.google.com/search?q=kilowatt+meter+for+sale

    In most case one can literally reduce their yearly electrical usage by 33% to 50%.

    We’ve done far better then that but we’ve been at it a while.

    Imagine, if every household in the US cut electric usage by 1/3rd we’d shut down 1/3rd of the polluting power plants.

    So I’m kinda like STFU about Global warming and the Carbon Tax Scam/Al Gores/Goldman Sachs/Wallst Latest Derivative Tax Scam the want so they can profit & Pollute More & get off your butts & personally do something about it today.

    Next time you see the stats of the out of control rise in Asama/Bronchitis deaths or some 8 yr old kid dies from Asama in a traffic jamb because of pollution think about what I just wrote.

  33. Global Warming is suppose to make………Hurricanes More Numerous and Extreme

    Result–> U.S. in Longest Stretch in Recorded Hurricane History to Go Without A Major Land Falling Hurricane Cat 3 -Cat 5 currently over 7 years

    World Wide Tropical Cyclone Activity Remains Between 30-40 years old 4 years in a row.

  34. And hey, instead of a Carbon Tax on me, how about a Radiation Tax on GE/ & the rest of those Nuke Kooks.

    Is it Me or is it Heating up in here?

    Oh that’s right there’s Nuke Meltdown/Nuke Radiation Everywhere!

    One Helluva way to Boil Water. Still To Cheap to Meter & Clean Energy Right?

    “Japan Finally Admits The Truth: “Right Now, We Have An Emergency At Fukushima”

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-05/japan-finally-admits-truth-right-now-we-have-emergency-fukushima

  35. Global Warming is suppose to make………Wild Fires More Extreme

    2013 2nd quietest fire season last ten years. Acreage burn trend is down last ten years.

    Source National Interagency Fire Center

    http://www.nifc–&gt; DOT<–gov/fireInfo/nfn.htm

  36. Global Warming is suppose to make………Tornado’s More Extreme
    Result—–> Quietest Tornado Season On Record

    Trend last 50 years No Trend In Violent Tornado’s F3-F5
    Source : NOAA SPC Storm Prediction Center

  37. Correction “World Wide Tropical Cyclone Activity Remains Between 30-40 years old 4 years in a row.”

    SB World Wide Tropical Cyclone Activity Remains Between 30-40 year lows 4 years in a row.

  38. Juliet N.,

    Back when we got started we were able to buy everything cheaper.

    That meant the up front Capital Cost were recovered quicker as energy prices/fees rose.

    I think Ed Begley still has some stuff out on youtube, regardless there’s no lack of info, just a lack of get up & getter done with most people.

    One step at a time & one’s there in no time.

  39. If anyone would like to add to…..

    Global Warming is suppose to make…………More Extreme
    I will be more than glad to show you it ain’t happening.

  40. Oky1: We got serious about it a couple years ago. Not only are we saving money and reducing our footprint, we are much happier. We find a simple life is a better life.

  41. Juliet N.

    Ya, it was unbelievable at 1st to see just how much we were wasting.

    We went though everything we were doing & changed when it made sense.

    We’re still looking for other things.

    I still haven’t found an automatic garden weeder & I don’t trust goats to do it. :)

    I did see some govt’s/cities have went back to using goat to prevent forest fires, that is a positive step back to the future.

  42. The Author Post A Video of a Melt Pond (NEAR) the North Pole not (At). The location is some 300 miles from the true North Pole.

    Melt Ponds during the Summer Melt Season is common. Today it is completely frozen over again.

    The Arctic is now at 100 plus consecutive days below normal during the middle of summer melt season.

    Source DMI Center For Ocean and Ice Center
    http://ocean.dmi—–>DOT<——dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

    Question how does Ice Melt below 32 degrees anyways

  43. Global Warming is suppose to make…The Greenland Ice Sheet Disappear

    Result So much snow has fallen that for years the Green House was located at he right side of the fuel pit. They recently moved it to a new man built mound that it now sits on to the left.

    Look at the depth around the flags. They are having to plow away from the fuel pit everyday and push up past the flags onto the new mound they built.

    http://www.summitcamp—–>DOT<—–org/status/webcam/

  44. For those who know what “put an ear to the ground” means:

    In a paper published June 7 in the journal Global Ecology and Biogeography, researchers present evidence that over the past century, vegetation has been gradually moving toward the poles and up mountain slopes, where temperatures are cooler, as well as toward the equator, where rainfall is greater.

    Moreover, an estimated one-tenth to one-half of the land mass on Earth will be highly vulnerable to climate-related vegetation shifts by the end of this century … according to the study.

    The results came from a meta-analysis of hundreds of field studies and a spatial analysis of observed 20th century climate and projected 21st century vegetation.

    The meta-analysis identified field studies that examined long-term vegetation shifts in which climate … was the dominant influence. The researchers found 15 cases of biome shifts since the 18th century that are attributable to changes in temperature and precipitation.

    (Agnotology: The Surge – 4).

  45. Who here has seen “chasing Ice” ?
    What I’m afraid to ask is, what happens to the farmers & cities dependent on mountain glacier ice melt, hopefully they will all be invited to move in w/ the Gore haters & climate deniers

  46. “I will be more than glad to show you it ain’t happening.”

    Global warming, roughly, is a long term rise in average seasonal temperatures. We know that is happening because we have data for the past 100 years of so that demonstrate that is happening.

    Extremes in magnitude or number of storms is a prediction about what will happen when global warming occurs.

    Showing that the extremes have not been reached in the past few years demonstrates that we need better models of the effects of global warming. The failure of the models to predict the effects of global warming does not refute the occurrence of global warming. As I mentioned, the rising trend line of average seasonal temperature demonstrates global warming. That is what global warming is. We can observe it directly.

    The only serous (barely) question is whether man made release of carbon and various gases fully accounts for the decades long increase in average seasonal temperatures.

    I don’t know the answer to that question,. But the correlation between average rising seasonal temperature and release of gasses from burning fuel is pretty convincing or scary depending on your point of view.

    As for sunspot activity and other plausible explanations: show one that corresponds as well to the trend line and maybe we have something really interesting to talk about.

  47. “Question how does Ice Melt below 32 degrees anyways”

    I think the statement that ice melts at 32 degrees actually refers to standard temperature and pressure.

    But I think your question really is about how we can have liquid water when ambient temperature is below 32 degrees.

    The answer to that question is pretty simple when you think about it.

    Ambient temperature does not determine how much energy is entering a body including a body of water.

    In particular energy may enter a body of water by contact (say what the body is sitting on or in), by convection (say be wind blowing over the water), or by radiation – that is the sun shining on the water.

    If you observe liquid water in the open when the ambient temperature is below 32 degrees, then my guess would be that the sun has warmed the water.

    We see a crudely analogous effect when a car is parked in direct sunlight. The ambient temperature might be very reasonable say in the 80’s. But the temperature in the car might be over 150 degrees.

    The point is that intuition does not always lead us in the right direction or to the correct answer.

  48. “If you observe liquid water in the open when the ambient temperature is below 32 degrees, then my guess would be that the sun has warmed the water.”

    OR the pressure has become so low that a cyclone develops and blows the Ice AWAY to warmer waters.

  49. Global warming, roughly, is a long term rise in average seasonal temperatures. We know that is happening because we have data for the past 100 years of so that demonstrate that is happening.

    WoW 100 years is a long time. Is it warmer now or during the Medieval Warming Period

    and the temperature record is only as good as recorded not by going back an adjusting the record cooler. This is called data tampering.

  50. In a paper published June 7 in the journal Global Ecology and Biogeography, researchers present evidence that over the past century, vegetation has been gradually moving toward the poles and up mountain slopes, where temperatures are cooler, as well as toward the equator, where rainfall is greater.

    The planet is getting greener because there is so much more CO2 in the atmosphere after all it is plant food.

  51. Nice provide evidence to the contrary and get attacked and labeled as a troll.

    Dispute the facts don’t attack the messenger

  52. Allan Savory in the video claims he was responsible for the murder of 40,000 Elephants. All at the cost of his belief. After rethinking his belief he realized he was wrong. Re-educate yourself and you will all see you are wrong about the effects of C02 then what you are lead to believe.

  53. Allan Savory claims in the video that control burns of lands that if you burn one hectare of land gives off more pollutants than 6000 automobiles.

    Who thinks controlled burns of forest is a good thing. In some cases burning, controlled or not is a good thing because with out it certain trees will not reproduce.

  54. The Planet is getting Greener because

    Allan Savory claims in the video that they are using his method of greening the planet on 15 million hectares on 5 continents

  55. “Is it warmer now or during the Medieval Warming Period ”

    No one that I know of has suggested that there were not warmer periods in the past.

    Warm periods in the past suggest there may be other causes for global warming. The fact that there have been warmer and cooler periods certainly makes us wonder about the causes of those periods, and if those causes could account for what we see occurring now. But warmer or cooler periods in the past in no way refute the clear evidence that global warming is occurring in this period. Nor do warm periods in the past refute that burning fossil fuel is the most likely explanation for global warming in this period.

    The claim is that in the past 100 years or so global warming has occurred and further that warming corresponds to the increased use of fossil fuel. In addition the people who make that claim have some pretty good theories on the mechanism by which burning fossil fuel would interact with the environment to cause the warming.

    Sure, there might be some other cause. But if there is a reasonable basis to believe some other factor accounts for global warming then the people who hold that view should describe that factor. And they should present a reasonable explanation of how that factor interacts with the environment to cause the warming.

    So far, burning fossil fuel seems to be the best explanation presented. That does not make it right. But until a more convincing explanation is presented, burning fossil fuel is the explanation that reasonable people will use.

  56. So far, burning fossil fuel seems to be the best explanation presented. That does not make it right. But until a more convincing explanation is presented, burning fossil fuel is the explanation that reasonable people will use.

    That’s why I started with Global Warming is suppose to……..
    Should have said increasing levels of CO2 and left warming out of it however now that we are past the 350PPM safe zone we are suppose to be experiencing Runaway Global Warming and it ain’t happening as there has been a pause in the warming over the past 15 years..

    You keep hearing that tornadoes will get worse…..Hurricanes bigger, floods wide spread, droughts to be permanent. On and on and on. Pick anyone and I will show you that it is not. In fact all ready gave you a few. Not my fault if you can not make the connection.

  57. RTC – thought you were on a roll when you talked about the data being imperfect and the difficulties of the science, but then you said this:

    “Climate science is still relatively young, but the data collected is genuine, and there are many ways of testing its accuracy and the reliability of predictions drawn from it.”

    With ClimateGate, there has been increased suspicion about the data being genuine, and concerns about the fudging of data. Scientists can claim whatever numbers they want when they publish something. Obviously if they fudge too much, they will be caught when people try to replicate it, so they have to be pretty clever. This is what seems to have have happened to some degree with the emails that were leaked from the Climatic Research Center. I am talking about the Phil Jones email that said:

    “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
    to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
    1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

    You see, when data does not fit a scientist’s paradigm, many of them will exclude data or manipulate data mathematically to smooth it out and show what he wants it to show. There is intense pressure for them to publish at universities. Publishing is everything to a scientist. Following is how one scientist justifies Mike’s trick:

    “CRU’s Jones used the word ‘hide’ in a private communication because that was his intent – to hide the awkward bit of data which did not fit the upward trajectory of the warming chart.”

    No lie. He was honestly justifying this action because this is what scientists do when the awkward bit of data does not fit what they want to show. Other scientists named Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick demonstrated how the trend they were trying to show was not statistically significant.
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004GL021750/abstract

    See the following for an analysis of Mike’s trick and the hiding of Keith’s declining data:
    http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/20/mike%E2%80%99s-nature-trick/

    The science question of global warming hinges on three issues:

    1) In light of clear data misconduct, is the data reliable?

    2) If the data are reliable, are the differences significant enough to warrant concern?

    3) Is it actual human activity that increases CO2 emissions significant enough to be causing it?

    What raises my alarm flags is when a scientist presents climate information and then concludes with certainty that global warming caused by human activity is a fact. When they get angry if someone were to question them or be skeptical about this so-called statement of fact, I get a bit curious.

    You mentioned many ways of testing its accuracy and testing the reliability of predictions drawn from the data. What did you have in mind? Care to make a prediction?

  58. By Paul Beckwith

    On March 23, 2013, I made the following prediction:

    “For the record—I do not think that any sea ice will survive this summer. An event unprecedented in human history is today, this very moment, transpiring in the Arctic Ocean.

    The cracks in the sea ice that I reported in my Sierra blog and elsewhere have spread. Worse news is at this very moment the entire sea ice sheet (or about 99 percent of it) covering the Arctic Ocean is on the move (clockwise), and the thin, weakened icecap has literally begun to tear apart.

    This is abrupt climate change in real-time.
    http://www.sierraclub.ca/en/AdultDiscussionPlease

    Again Arctic Sea Ice Extent is near the level of 2006 and is close to the highest extent in 9 years for the date near the end of this years Summer Melt Season

  59. Joe Blow,

    None of your links work. Did you think no one would try them?

    “Global Warming is suppose to make…………More Extreme
    I will be more than glad to show you it ain’t happening.”

    OK, I’ll call your bluff. Publish it in a peer-reviewed climate science journal.
    Then I’ll read it. You’ll be world-famous. With all of your advanced knowledge, you must have your own Koch research group.

    Don’t send us to videos. Anyone can aver anything, in a video.

    While you’re getting your bachelor’s degree, try learning how URLs are formed.

    http://www.summitcamp—–>DOT<—–org/status/webcam/
    isn't a URL.

    Are you getting paid by the comment?
    Whatever you're being paid, you're not worth it.
    Get a science education.

  60. Bob Kauten remove the —->DOT<——- I inserted, it so the wordpress spam filter would not send my comment off to moderation

    As to your get a science education you just might be surprised

    Learn to recognize what you see in a link

  61. Hence the reason for this comment

    Nal 1, August 5, 2013 at 6:34 pm

    Personanongrata,

    A maximum of two links per comment is allowed.

    I suspect this person is a blog moderator and instead of just approving my comments he/she decides to give me a warm welcome LOL

  62. Corrected

    Bob Kauten remove the —->DOT<——- I inserted, it so the wordpress spam filter would not send my comment off to moderation

    As to your get a science education you just might be surprised

    Learn to recognize what you see in a link

    Stop being a clicker. Thats how you spread viruses :))))

  63. New Scientist Dec 1, 1960

    If this goes on Mr. Murphy points out the Arctic will be open year round before the close of the 20th Century.

    If the warming in the Antarctic continues global sea level will rise 200 feet.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=yJjFw4bzRi0C&pg=PA1453&dq=global+warming&hl=en&ei=_vZbTfq4F5OCsQPI5vyxCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q&f=false

    I can find the same basic language from the early 1900’s only giving a sooner date for the melt.

  64. Seth Borenstein in Washington
    Associated Press
    December 12, 2007

    “The Arctic is screaming,” said Mark Serreze, senior scientist at the government’s snow and ice data center in Boulder, Colorado.

    This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.”

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt.html

  65. During 2006, the Sun’s “Conveyor Belt” was the slowest and fastest on record – at the same time as described by one of the worlds most recognized solar scientist

    May 10, 2006: The Sun’s Great Conveyor Belt has slowed to a record-low crawl, according to research by NASA solar physicist David Hathaway. “It’s off the bottom of the charts,” he says. “This has important repercussions for future solar activity.”

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/10may_longrange/

    March 12, 2010: What in the world is the sun up to now?

    In today’s issue of Science, NASA solar physicist David Hathaway reports that the top of the sun’s Great Conveyor Belt has been running at record-high speeds for the past five years.

  66. Joe Blow,
    Yes, I’d be surprised if you have a science education. Try me.
    You’ve published numerous articles on climatic science?
    Give us some non-encrypted URLs, so we can see your work.
    No more than two per comment, that’s the rule, here.
    I’m not going to bother translating your encrypted URLs.
    Just paste ’em in, like the peasants here, do.

    Mmmm…no, I don’t get viruses from clicking on URLs. I have protection from viruses. What century are you living in? Don’t the Koch brothers provide you with 21st century software?

  67. Now this is interesting. Former administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency, all Republicans, wrote a powerful OP-ED in the New York Times. The authors are: William D. Ruckelshaus, EPA Administrator from its founding in 1970 to 1973, and again from 1983 to 1985; Lee M. Thomas, from 1985 to 1989; William K. Reilly, from 1989 to 1993; and Christine Todd Whitman, from 2001 to 2003.

    They write:

    “There is no longer any credible scientific debate about the basic facts: our world continues to warm, with the last decade the hottest in modern records, and the deep ocean warming faster than the earth’s atmosphere. Sea level is rising. Arctic Sea ice is melting years faster than projected.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/opinion/a-republican-case-for-climate-action.html?hp&_r=1&

    They go on to endorse President Obama’s Climate Action Plan.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/share/climate-action-plan

    I can see the heads exploding now. Facts are troublesome things. Incidentally, the links above are not “encrypted.” They should work.

  68. Mr Scribe No one I know denies the globe has warmed. It’s the cause that is in question. And a harmless trace gas that is in the atmosphere that makes up a very very small percentage of the total mass can not be the one all cure all reason that Hurricanes will become more numerous and extreme, they haven’t. That fires will rage out of control they need O2 not CO2. That floods will increase,they haven’t. That drought will be exceptional,haven’t seen that since the Dust Bowl. On and On and On. Yes Global Warming is real, CO2 is just not the main driver.

  69. OS,

    Since the Jap/GE defectively built Fukushima Nook melt down mess background radiation levels have doubled over the last 2.5 something years.

    What in the heck do you imagine that is? It’s Heat, not Carbon.

    And since GE’s Fukus mess our govt has adopted a Lie to the people at all cost policy.

    I’d suggest you stop playing Al Gore & Jim Inhofe’s scam game.

    How many nukes have those “Masters of War” sat off since 1944?

    How many Nook Plant Melt downs have they dumped in the world’s Oceans.

    You & I don’t have the facts yet you wish to just embarrasses yourself in public on this issue.

    You, PBH51 & Larry need to take a break & get some air, I’m suggesting.

    The last thing I need or want is Al Gore & Jim Inhofe Polluting my area more then the Ahole Koch Brothers already are & that’s just what you’re supporting but haven’t even figured it out yet!

  70. Reposted minus the —->Dot<—–

    All other links in my post work correctly

    Global Warming is suppose to make…The Greenland Ice Sheet Disappear

    Result So much snow has fallen that for years the Green House was located at he right side of the fuel pit. They recently moved it to a new man built mound that it now sits on to the left.

    Look at the depth around the flags. They are having to plow away from the fuel pit everyday and push up past the flags onto the new mound they built.

    http://www.summitcamp.org/status/webcam/

  71. Joe Blow,

    An ole MSB I used to use had an ignore button on it.

    Maybe you have something relevant to post, but I read your comments from another thread & I wouldn’t think twice about hitting the ignore button on any further comments from you.

    Grow up, show some respect.

  72. Reposted minus the —->Dot<—–

    All other links in my post work correctly

    Global Warming is suppose to make………Wild Fires More Extreme

    2013 2nd quietest fire season last ten years. Acreage burn trend is down last ten years.

    Source National Interagency Fire Center
    http://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/nfn.htm

  73. Reposted minus the —->Dot<—–

    The Author Post A Video of a Melt Pond (NEAR) the North Pole not (At). The location is some 300 miles from the true North Pole.

    Melt Ponds during the Summer Melt Season is common. Today it is completely frozen over again.

    The Arctic is now at 100 plus consecutive days below normal during the middle of summer melt season.

    Source DMI Center For Ocean and Ice Center
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

    Question how does Ice Melt below 32 degrees anyways

  74. Reposted minus the —->Dot Quietest Tornado Season On Record

    Trend last 50 years No Trend In Violent Tornado’s F3-F5
    Source : NOAA SPC Storm Prediction Center

  75. Reposted minus the —->Dot<—–

    The Author Post A Video of a Melt Pond (NEAR) the North Pole not (At). The location is some 300 miles from the true North Pole.

    Melt Ponds during the Summer Melt Season is common. Today it is completely frozen over again.

    The Arctic is now at 100 plus consecutive days below normal during the middle of summer melt season.

    Here’s what it looks like today

  76. OKY1

    Mike Spindell 1, August 5, 2013 at 6:19 pm

    Joe Blow,

    I suppose you like your job as a corporate troll. Koch much?

    For someone who wants to be called queer sure does like to talk about cock

  77. Pete,
    When there is a post that makes the 1% unhappy, one can expect their minions to come in with a truckload of short choppy posts designed to take over the thread and drive comments off the front page, rather than to engage in honest discussion. I think I should get a royalty or commission on that stuff.

  78. Joe Blow:

    Your credibility ended with the old “harmless trace gas” description of CO2. You are clearly not a scientist and your posts are the standard denials with which we have all become familiar. Anecdotes and isolated facts are not arguments. And, of course, you don’t have a real name. It is as though “Larry” has moved from Civil War history to climate science.

  79. Joe Blow,

    So clue me in do the Koch’s pay you by the comment, or by the word. Also how does it feel to prostitute yourself for money, or don’t you care?

  80. ” Yes Global Warming is real, CO2 is just not the main driver.”

    You spent all afternoon giving it your best shot, which consisted of pointing to predictions that did not turn out.

    But a logical look at the argument shows that failure of a model’s predictions in no way impugns the data. If you want to show the data is faulty you have to talk about the data not the predictions.

    Now you admit to the long term rise in average seasonal temperature which is global warming.

    But you claim that CO2 cannot be the cause. Well, maybe it is not the cause.

    But we know there is an association of warming and increasing levels of CO2. We know that are models that explain how various gases affect transmission of light and radiation of heat to increase temperature.

    If you want to convince us that those models are wrong then you have to do more than simply announce that in your opinion ‘CO2 is just not the main driver.’ You have to do more than announce that ‘a harmless trace gas that is in the atmosphere that makes up a very very small percentage of the total mass can not be the one all cure all reason ‘

    Intuition is frequently a poor guide to reality. When it comes to complex phenomenon like global warming, intuition is likely useless.

  81. Mike, Koch’s 1st of all are Thieves! 2nd they are Evil!

    I’m tired, you can google Kochs steal Osage Indian Oil & other royalty owners oil & Bush let them walk.

    Something like that.

    They stole my friends & neighbor stuff is the point.

    If I’m rested tomorrow morning I’m attacking the Ahole Wallst Banks/Insurance crooks 1st thing out of bed, everyday from now to then!

  82. “Your credibility ended with the old “harmless trace gas” description of CO2″

    I am reminded of the argument that CO2 could be harmful because that is what come out of you mouth made by those two renowned scientist E. Gordon Liddy and Rush Limbaugh.

  83. Hey U NSASPYING American hating Phktards I made U guys a Type O:

    Correction: If I’m rested tomorrow morning I’m “Non-Violently” attacking the Ahole Wallst Banks/Insurance crooks 1st thing out of bed, everyday from now to then!

  84. “Your credibility ended with the old “harmless trace gas” description of CO2″

    I am reminded of the argument that CO2 cannot be harmful because that is what come out of you mouth made by those two renowned scientist E. Gordon Liddy and Rush Limbaugh.

  85. Does anybody here realize what percentage of CO2 is in the atmosphere?

    400 Parts Per Million, The so called safe zone is 350 Parts Per Million. You know the level when we really start to see runaway Global Warming because of how powerful CO2 really is. It’s plant food, a vital part of life on Earth.

    With that said who here believes it should be reduced to zero ?
    Will that make you happy ?

  86. This is cooler than cool. Wind map. At the moment, it appears there is a nice four corners high, and another over the Dakotas. The convergence pattern north-northwest of Denver is fascinating to watch.

    http://hint.fm/wind/

  87. DavidM,

    There is no data misconduct. The data is genuine, valid, and compelling. The only drawback is that it can’t be summarized in small words and colorful pictures. Since your patron saint of fluff, Ronald Reagan, proclaimed that anything that can’t be summed up in bullet points isn’t worth the effort to understand, conservatives don’t bother thinking for themselves. As soon as the Koch Bros invest in alternative energy, you’ll change your tune.

  88. What was really neat to watch was the three areas of low pressure traversing the top of this side of the Northern Cap pulling down the very cold air from the Arctic with their NW return flow.

    You know the ones that broke over 1000 cold record temperatures last week. Even had measurable snow in the higher elevations of Colla Rad ah.

  89. Of course the NE is now in the big cool down because the Ghost of DORIAN is becoming a 984 MB LOW as it approaches the Tip of Greenland and the NW return flow from the Arctic is sure to send them a chill

  90. OH I get it now RTC.

    Oh well, he started it by insinuating and calling me a troll. Maybe if you guys wouldn’t refer to them as Koch Suckers I would know you pronounce it COKE

  91. This is really neat you can use control ++++ to zoom all the way in to see that Greenland is really Whiteland this time of year.

  92. Joe,

    Play out all your bigoted cards and it still won’t hide the fact that you’re a troll and probably a paid one. So what does that really make you in the scheme of things given your name and the probability you work for Koch. The joke is too obvious and it’s on you.

  93. Ok if you say so. Still doesn’t change the facts that Hurricanes are no more intense or frequent. That Tornado’s are increasing. Floods Droughts and Fires show no increasing trend. But we do know that over the last 15 years temperatures have paused. You can’t break 1000 U.S. cold records in the month of July it the Northern Hemi Cap is hot. It doesn’t work that way.

  94. Joe Blow:

    If you actually knew what you are talking about, you would know that the “percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere” is meaningless in measuring its impact on temperature.

  95. I do know what I’m talking about see 350.org

    We are at 400 now

    Where would you like to see the level 200,250,300…..ZERO ?

  96. Global warming is ‘causing more hurricanes’

    Scientists use tidal data to link frequency and intensity of storms to rises in temperature

    “Although scientists were not able to prove that climate change is causing more large hurricanes, they believe the study is consistent with the predictions that global warming and warmer seas could bring about more intense tropical storms.”

    Any time believe is used it’s not science.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/global-warming-is-causing-more-hurricanes-8212584.html

  97. Tornadoes and Global Warming: Is There a Connection?
    Will the future bring more twisters to Oklahoma and Tornado Alley?

    There is no real evidence that tornadoes are happening more often. A lot more are being recorded now than in 1950, but a closer look at the data shows the increase is only in the weakest category, EF0. There’s been no increase in stronger twisters, and maybe even a slight decrease in EF4s and EF5s.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/05/130522-tornado-climate-change-oklahoma-science-global-warming/

  98. Mike A.
    He is just following the playbook. Kind of like the scripts that telemarketers use. No interest in dialogue, just disruption so no one else gets a chance.

    “Joe” were you at that seminar in Nashville a couple of years ago to get training in forum disruption tactics, or did you go to one of the other seminars?

  99. Is global warming causing more floods?

    However, flood reports have not increased uniformly across the country. For instance, streamflows in the Colorado River basin have decreased over the past 60 years. Any alteration of global climate can bring either an increase or decrease in precipitation or flood events at a given location. Current computer models of climate are unable to project local variations with certainty.

    http://www.ucar.edu/communications/factsheets/Flooding.html

  100. Mr Scribe when you post misinformation and lies you have to combat it with the truth. If we allow you to continue with the lie then the lie eventually will become the truth.

    Joseph Goebbels

    Talk about phony scandals, besides at this point what difference does it make.

  101. Godwin’s Law: In a lengthy forum discussion, the first one who resorts to a Nazi analogy automatically loses the argument.

  102. Joe I just called you what you are. Aren’t you proud of your work for the Kochs? Don’t they pay you enough for the propaganda you write? Finally don’t you realize that Joe Blow is a fitting sobriquet for what the 1% think of you. Joe Blow to them is just another low level hireling not fit to lick the soles of Koch shoes. Doen’t being that to them make you a little sad, or perhaps you are like the “Lord”who had the privilege each morning to empty Louis XIV’s bedpan.

  103. OS,

    You got it. Joe has been handed a list of talking points and anecdotal references with which to inundate discussions. He knows nothing whereof he speaks.
    Being a minor player, he’s never met the Koch brothers. He just works for a propaganda outfit which the Koch-suckers finance.

    He’s a cartoon character with an empty thought balloon above his head. Beavis, basically.

  104. Kinda like calling someone a troll and a shill Eh but it’s obvious it doesn’t take as long around here as the Nazi analogy. Yall just come out and attack a person from the get go as soon as it’s recognized their argument is not conducive to yours.

  105. It’s funny how you want me to engage in discussion but all you guys want to do is talk Koch Troll and shill talk.

    Post some stuff on topic, you know Climate Change, Global Warming, Global Climate Disruption, Man Caused Disasters. any of those will do.

  106. Joe Blow:

    Don’t be silly. The point is that the greenhouse effect of CO2 molecules is unrelated to their percentage of the total gases comprising the atmosphere. My recollection is that the historical range between ice ages and warmer periods has been from approximately 180ppm to 280 ppm. We are now at 400 ppm and climbing. And we know that a significant portion of the buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases has been a product of industrial activity. I’m not a scientist, but I have been a scuba diver for over 30 years and have personally observed the effect of rising water temperatures on the health of the reefs off the coast of Florida. Indeed, it wasn’t until I became a diver that I learned how narrow a temperature range is required for different marine ecosystems to thrive.

  107. P.S. this post has been up for two days before I came along you guys have had enough time to agree to agree. It’s time someone came along and inserted just some plain ol disagreement backed by facts.

  108. Mike A now we are getting somewhere

    “My recollection is that the historical range between ice ages and warmer periods has been from approximately 180ppm to 280 ppm. We are now at 400 ppm and climbing”

    So what was the climate like when it was 180ppm to 280ppm. And if you had the power to take us back to such time would you do it. Go back to that climate and that level. Doesn’t matter 180 or 280 pick one if you like.

    You aint seen extreme weather yet but go ahead a pick a number and I’ll show you.

  109. Joe Blow,

    That climate denier conference you attended in Nashville, you know where thet trained you to be s troll. Was it the one that was 1or 2 years ago?

  110. We know that in 1960 we were about 300PPM by 1980 340PPM.

    If we decreased ppm from 1960 by a figure of 10 ppm per 10 years to get to 180ppm would equal 120 years, 1960 -120 years =1840 Right.

    We can decrease it by 5ppm if you want and move it back to the 1700’s if you want.

  111. Joe Blow:

    The problem is that you are not debating an issue. You’ve merely been stringing factoids lacking any context or coherence. That approach does not admit of rational discussion.

    I don’t know whether you’re a troll or not, but I typically avoid getting into lengthy exchanges with anonymous posters. My experience is that persons who are unwilling to identify themselves and disclose something of their backgrounds usually have a private agenda.

  112. Joe,

    Now that you’ve been outed your ar whining and trying to get attention. Desperste much or are you not fulfilling your contrsct?

  113. Jim, um, I mean Joe. You want science? OK you can have some science. You talk about individual years, but any real scientist will tell you a single data point or event is totally meaningless when it is longitudinal data over a mathematically significant time that is important. Multiple data points give trends. One of the problems is that the acceleration of warming all over the globe has been so rapid since the mid-1990s, the curve looks more like a hockey stick than a smooth curve. People like you and some of the other deniers say we have too short a time to tell anything from it. OK, how about going back almost a half-million years? Is that long enough for you? They were able to use tree rings up until a few years ago when the mean temperature changes were so fast tree rings were not keeping up with rapid change, and no longer were a reliable measure. By that time, tree rings no longer mattered because we now have accurate thermometers and infrared temperature measurements from satellites.

    Vostok scientific observation station in Antarctica has been able to drill and retrieve ice-cores from over 4km deep. From those cores, they can take weather samples in similar fashion to tree rings. The bands on the core represent years. From this it is possible to reconstruct temperatures in the Antarctic atmosphere and atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the last 414,000 years! That long enough for you? As I told you in the body of the story, individual years mean little in the total scheme of things. It is longitudinal data that is important. However the exponential curve represented by the hockey stick shape of the weather change curve is something not seen in at least 414,000 years of earth’s climate. If you really want some science, there is an excellent paper from the Department of Mathematical Sciences at the University of Bath in the UK. This paper was prepared by the faculty as required reading for the course MT1007. I am sure with your reading talent you can skim through these 29 pages of truly dense science and mathematical models in a matter of just a few minutes. However, I would like for you to check their maths and be able to post your proofs to show good faith.

    raff is excused from this exercise.

    http://www.maths.bath.ac.uk/~sw283/SIP/climate.pdf

    Argue with a scientist sport, and you might get what you ask for. In the following paper, the authors give a clear and concise explanation of the stochastic model in which closed nonlinear stochastic equations are derived for the climate variables alone on longer time scales in a rigorous fashion that reveals an accounting for strong coupling between climate variables and unresolved variables. You will find that explanation on pages 968-969. This paper was published in the peer-reviewed journal, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. LIV, 0891–0974 (2001)

    http://math.uh.edu/~ilya/papers/cpam00.pdf

  114. Ahhhh, science stuff. I’ll take that over snippits out of a play book any day.

    I hope you continue to highlight this topic, OS. As you say this stuff is important. And I’m sure Joe appreciates the work.

  115. All that you said Mr.Scribe is all well a good however who here has not heard over and over over for well over 200 years if not more that Global Warming, regardless of CO2 cause and effect, will make___________MORE EXTREME. When the temperature goes up, everything else goes up with it, Almost comical in a sense, like Cheech and Chong up in smoke..

    When looking at the empirical data, one not need be a scientist to see that ALL weather related EXTREME EVENTS were worse years and years ago when CO2 was BELOW 350PPM vs what the world is experiencing now at 400PPM.

    Name it

    Lets look back at history and extreme events when CO2 was less than it is today and you show me how everything is becoming more extreme.

    India and China for floods. When was the last time millions of people were drowned in a single event in recent memories because of extreme rainfall.

    For Hurricanes look to the U.S. When was the last time during a ten year period, the NE U.S. dealt with a MAJOR HURRICANE. 1950 to 1960 saw 3 MAJOR Hurricane Cat3 or Higher in a ten year stretch, yet we are in the longest stretch in recorded hurricane history to go without a major strike on the U.S. coastline, currently 7 plus years. Katrina is no longer the new norm Sandy is even though Sandy was barely a hurricane we she made landfall. Barely a Cat 1. So Katrina Cat 5, Global Warming, Andrew Cat 5, Global Warming, Sandy Cat 1 ? wait for it……..Global Warming.

    Wanna talk about Global Cyclone. The trend over the last 50 years for a Super Cyclone has trended down. This year ACE, Accumulative Cyclone Energy is 40% of normal thus far this year and world wide tropical cyclone activity remains between 30-40 year lows for the 4th year in a row. Hard to argue that things are getting worse when the empirical evidence SHOWS other wise. It’s gonna get worse it’s gonna get worse it’s gonna get worse works for only so long.

    For drought, since the Dust Bowl how when CO2 was likely around 250-280PPM (300PPM 1960) has the United States experienced since then. The only place on the planet that experiences drought over and over and over for years and years and years is the Sahara. Turns out we here in the states want it that way. SAL (Saharan Air Layer) suppresses tropical cyclone activity. Really if we wanted to stop hurricanes at least the Cape Verde ones all you would need to do is build wind farms the blow towards the East Atlantic, crank them to high and keep the magic dust blowing every time a Tropical Wave exits the coast

    Tornado’s ? again U.S.A #1 in the world for location. They’re not getting more extreme, more people and buildings are showing up in their path. One again the empirical data shows that there is no correlation to rising temperature and or CO2 and more Extreme F3-F5 Tornandos. Over the last 50 years the trend is down.

    Now if you want to flip the coin to cold and extreme events there’s a whole new change coming and it’s already begun. When the whole theory will completely fall apart. The empirical evidence shows that as of late, last 15 years the trend for the Northern Hemi Cap is been getting colder and colder and it’s indisputable when one looks at extreme snowfall events over the last several years and the dropping temperatures on grand scales like we saw last week with over 1000 record cold temps broken here in the United States in the middle of summer. You didn’t hear about that. What you heard was that a Melt Pond appeared in a normal place at the normal time of year then used as propaganda that we are all going to die.

  116. And seeing how this is a constitutional attorney’s blog, (Hard to fathom when we are talking about queers and global warming) for those who don’t believe the issue/theory/problem has not been debated for 100’s if not thousands of years,prophecy

    The opposing voices in America’s first great debate about global warming was between Thomas Jefferson and Noah Webster in 1799.

    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Americas-First-Great-Global-Warming-Debate.html#ixzz2bBajnrJT

    Great Debate really and since then nothing has really changed except for the climate and the empirical evidence shows your on the wrong side of it.

  117. Correction

    And seeing how this is a constitutional attorney’s blog, (Hard to fathom when we are talking about queers and global warming)

    and Koch which I thought it’s pronounced COCK here because it appears that most of you really liked Anderson Coopers T-Bag comment only later to be learned it’s pronounced COKE which ironically is a by product of what ?

  118. Juliet when people get bored some try the art of playing with themselves. Might be time for you to try and rediscover yourself.

    Try it. At this point what do you have to loose, Try anything as it appears you are desperate looking for acceptance.

  119. Maybe you and the queer can get together and the two of you can demonstrate Personality Change. Crank the AC up after the two of you are done cause it’s getting hot in here. And you two can be used in a study called Personality Climate Change Disorder.

  120. Seeing how I have been labeled a troll and you make mention of troll you did address me. At least in the roll of a supposed troll. Think before you type and chances are you won’t get bitten.

  121. I love it how people can determine intelligence through the screen of a computer. Oh thats right, that’s the new norm for gathering it.

  122. Joe: “For Hurricanes look…yet we are in the longest stretch in recorded hurricane history to go without a major strike on the U.S. coastline, currently 7 plus years.”

    A notable hurricane that hits the US is still a notable hurricane and there have been several that have hit the US coastline. If, as you and many weather forecasters were saying lately, Sandy is potentially the new norm, so what? Sandy type storms are killers and economic disasters and they are caused by more moisture being picked up as a storm tracks. More moisture which could be caused by, lets see, what would put more moisture into the air over an ocean… could it be…. SATAN!, er, no. Warmer water.

    http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/outreach/history/

    As for cold, your same posting says: “cold and extreme events there’s a whole new change coming and it’s already begun. When the whole theory will completely fall apart. The empirical evidence shows that as of late, last 15 years the trend for the Northern Hemi Cap is been getting colder and colder and it’s indisputable when one looks at extreme snowfall events over the last several years and the dropping temperatures on grand scales like we saw last week with over 1000 record cold temps broken here in the United States….”

    So? Climate scientists have been saying for years, like over 10 years, that the first big climate (climate-long term) change in response to global warming is probably going to be an ice age. Unless the temperature escalates too fast wherein the excess solar heat can’t be moderated by weather and the excess radiated back to space, and the escalation becomes self sustaining. A new “Little Ice Age” may be the best case scenario we can look forward to.

  123. I’ve heard of these trolls but this is my first encounter with this sort of cyberstupidity.

    My understanding is that tree rings remain useful records for assessing climate before record-keeping. They are also a good illustration of the drawbacks of proxy records – they’re hard for pinheads to get their minds around. However, by cross-checking tree ring data with ice core samples, and cross checking both with diatomic fossil records, and then comparing the whole schmear to something else like paleobotanical records, a high degree of confidence in the accuracy of these proxies can be ascertained. A great book that makes the science fairly accessible is “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars”, by Michael Mann, one the climate researchers at the forefront of the science.

    As for prescribed burns, I’ve conduct prescribed burns in woodlands all the time, having done 27 in woodlands alone (I’ve more than twice that many in savanna and grasslands). Burning improves ecosystem health by removing invasives, opening up the canopy to let in more light, and returning nutrients to the soil It’s true that a certain amount of carbon is released intothe atmosphere, but it pales in comparison the amount of carbon stored underground by plants. Burning removes shallow rooted exotics and ruderals and improves conditions for prairie species to thrive. The mass of these prairie species exist underground as root structures. That’s why these areas are known as carbon-sinks.

    Also, I heard about that paper about plants moving further mountainsides that came out a year or so ago. I didn’t read it but I can guarantee that the plants were shifting in response to changes in hydrology, not temperature.

    OS: That wind map is really popular with birders. They use for trying to figure out what might be coming into the area.

  124. It’s not necessarily the severity of individual weather events that indicate shifting climate, it’s the increasing chaotic weather patterns.

    The strategy that climate deniers are using is similar to one used by the christian fundamentalists that Stephen Jay Gould found so annoying. Pointing out the limited time a researcher has to produce research during the span of his/her career, it was frustrating to have to spend significant amounts of that precious time continually explaining something as obvious and apparent as evolution.

    So the question before this group is, what are we gonna do about it? Continue to debate Joe Blow here, once he wakes up?

    I would urge everyone to oppose the proposed XL pipeline. We’ve seen how it caused the trampling of liberties, from seizures of land to the arrest of a 67 year old woman for trying to stop the destruction trees on on her own property. I know how OS feels about mountaintop removal and I view the tar sands the same way: those actions are crimes against nature and humanity.

    There’s a scandal brewing at the State Department.

    http://ens-newswire.com/2013/07/11/keystone-xl-environmental-consultant-lied-about-transcanada-ties/

  125. lottakatz wrote: “Climate scientists have been saying for years, like over 10 years, that the first big climate (climate-long term) change in response to global warming is probably going to be an ice age.”

    Talk about untestable hypothesis! If it gets warmer, see, we have global warming! If it gets colder, yeah, that was caused by global warming too, as predicted by the climatologists! No matter what happens, no matter what the data show, the global warming advocates were right all along.

    Some climatologists say that the earth is still in the tail end of an ice age, as evidenced by the ice sheets still on Greenland and Antarctica. During the Pliocene, temperatures averaged a good 5 degrees or more than now.
    It is entirely plausible that if the data is good and we are measuring real temperature averages that are rising, then it may be entirely a natural cycle that is independent of our production of CO2 gases caused through the burning of fossil fuels. In other words, global climate may be more complicated than just measuring CO2.

  126. Climate Change Spreads Disease Worldwide
    Annie Hauser
    Published: Aug 2, 2013
    http://www.weather.com/health/climate-change-spreads-disease-worldwide-20130802

    Excerpt:
    Climate change is affecting the spread of infectious diseases worldwide — posing serious threats to not only humans, but also animals and plants, a team of international disease ecologists write in the journal Science.

    Public health officials should change the way they model disease systems of all kinds to include climate variables, researchers argue. Taking climate into account could help more accurately predict and prevent the spread of deadly disease.

    The changing climate is already massively affecting plants and animals, researchers write in the study. The muskox, pictured above, is one arctic animal that’s already seeing higher mortality rates because of one climate change-spread infectious disease, researchers said. Biodiversity loss has even been linked to greater risks from certain infectious diseases, such as Lyme disease and the West Nile Virus, according to researchers.

    Additionally, certain human diseases, such as dengue, malaria and cholera, thrive in warmer temperatures, threatening much of the developing world. The warming globe’s impact on agricultural systems and game species pose a particular concern for the indigenous people of the Arctic, among other groups in rapidly changing areas.

    The next step, researchers say, is taking action.

    “We need to transcend simple arguments about which is more important — climate change or socioeconomics — and ask just how much harder will it be to control diseases as the climate warms?” coauthor Richard Ostfeld of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies said in a statement. “Will it be possible at all in developing countries?”

  127. ” Please keep your vulgar comments to yourself”

    I will second that.

    It is one thing to argue a point of view, however wrongheaded that point of view might be.

    It is quite another to make vulgar personal attacks.

    BTW, I am not a particularly sensitive person. I like dirty jokes and wide ranging, robust discussion.

  128. More moisture which could be caused by, lets see, what would put more moisture into the air over an ocean… could it be…. SATAN!, er, no. Warmer water.

    The reason given for the pause in warming over the last 15 years is hypothesized by the ocean storing the heat deep below the oceans surface temperature

    The warming of the oceans did put more moisture into the air and it is being returned in the form of heavy snowfall with temperatures trending cooler.

    Try this exercise at the Cryosphere, not sure how cry and sphere were put together. March 1st widely accepted as first of spring, some say April. Compare April 30th 2013 to April 30 1979 the beginning of the record. Decrease 2013 by one year leaving the beginning date of April 30th 1979. If it says no image available skip that year and go to the next.

    When finished do the reverse. Leave April 30th 2013 as the end date and increase April 30th 1979 by one year increments.repeat 10 times.

    What do you see

    Dates preset to start

    Cryosphere Today Daily Sea Ice Comparison
    Not only is ice increasing the snow cap is increasing. We are cooling now.

    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=04&fd=30&fy=1979&sm=04&sd=30&sy=2013

    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=04&fd=30&fy=1979&sm=04&sd=30&sy=2013

  129. Stop calling others names and profiling them. I was not the first to use vulgarity. I believe troll is a vulgar word and feel personally attacked when it is used to stifle discussion or against me You want respect you better give it.

    All of my post where about the subject on on topic Then several started with troll postings to try and divert the thread into a name calling session. You can not have an open discussion like this. If this is how you wish to discuss subject matter it is proven to lead to closed minded thinking.

    Do not think something is not possible without first looking at the possibilities.

  130. ” I believe troll is a vulgar word and feel personally attacked when it is used to stifle discussion or against me You want respect you better give it.”

    ‘Troll’ is a common term for a person who conducts a kind of disruptive behavior on a web site or message board.

    Whether or not a person is a troll is a relevant point of discussion because it goes to good order on the board and whether the users can easily conduct the business of the web site.

    I will not take a position whether you are or are not a troll. But the claim that you have been called a troll and discussion of that claim cannot be used to justify vulgar, personal attacks on others who use the board.

    The claim that a person is a troll may be wrong. But there is nothing particularly disrespectful about calling a person a troll – at least not in the same sense as using various well know pejoratives.

    Pointing out trolls and the techniques they uses is sometimes necessary and commendable.

  131. Joe: Again, I did not address you, and I certainly wasn’t vulgar toward you.

    vul·gar
    /ˈvəlgər/
    Adjective
    Lacking sophistication or good taste; unrefined: “the vulgar trappings of wealth”.
    Making explicit and offensive reference to sex or bodily functions; coarse and rude: “a vulgar joke”.
    Synonyms
    common – coarse – rude – gross – low – rough – plebeian

    However, you’ve certainly proven yourself ignorant, as well as vulgar. Someone should have informed you, before now, that respect is earned, not demanded.

  132. And seeing how we are talking GLOBAL what his happening In Antarctica.

    Not alot of people know this but Antarctic sea ice extent at the end of July was the highest on record for that day, growing to 18.077 million sq km. The previous record of 17.783 was set in 2010, whilst the 1981-2010 average was 16.869.

    Ice extent has been above average all year, and, according to NSIDC, is outside the 2 Standard Deviation range now.

  133. What about the other end

    Antarctic sea ice extent at the end of July was the highest on record for that day, growing to 18.077 million sq km. The previous record of 17.783 was set in 2010, whilst the 1981-2010 average was 16.869.

    Ice extent has been above average all year, and, according to NSIDC, is outside the 2 Standard Deviation range now.

    Sea ice area also continues to run at well above average.

    Global Cooling

  134. Arctic sea-ice levels at record low for June
    Scientists say that the latest observations suggest that Arctic sea ice cover is continuing to shrink and thin
    John Vidal, environment editor
    The Guardian
    Wednesday 27 June 2012
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jun/27/arctic-sea-ice-melt-rate

    Sea ice in the Arctic has melted faster this year than ever recorded before, according to the US government’s National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC).

    Satellite observations show the extent of the floating ice that melts and refreezes every year was 318,000 square miles less last week than the same day period in 2007, the year of record low extent, and the lowest observed at this time of year since records began in 1979. Separate observations by University of Washington researchers suggest that the volume of Arctic sea ice is also the smallest ever calculated for this time of year.

    Scientists cautioned that it is still early in the “melt season”, but said that the latest observations suggest that the Arctic sea ice cover is continuing to shrink and thin and the pattern of record annual melts seen since 2000 is now well established. Last year saw the second greatest sea ice melt on record, 36% below the average minimum from 1979-2000.

    “Recent ice loss rates have been 100,000 to 150,000 square kilometres (38,600 to 57,900 square miles) per day, which is more than double the climatological rate. While the extent is at a record low for the date, it is still early in the melt season. Changing weather patterns throughout the summer will affect the exact trajectory of the sea ice extent through the rest of the melt season,” said a spokesman for the NSIDC.

    The increased melting is believed to be a result of climate change. Arctic temperatures have risen more than twice as fast as the global average over the past half century.

  135. davidm:

    “global climate may be more complicated than just measuring CO2.”

    you think maybe? It is very complicated and there are a number of factors involved. There is a PBS show in which they used satellites to takes pictures of various phenomena using different spectrums of energy. It was a fascinating show.

    I came away thinking the earth is way to complex to be impacted by a single variable to any significant degree. People think of trees sequestering Carbon but there is so much biomass in the ocean doing the same thing.

    After seeing that show, I have a hard time believing that man-made CO2 [which is rather a misnomer since all Carbon already exists and we are just releasing it back into the atmosphere] has much significance in global climate change.

  136. To see what a great cyclone looks like in Real-Time that is as in today August 6 2013 in the Northern Hemi Cap we have three on this side of the Hemi. In this image 981 MB Low Near Alaska a 985 MB Low over Canada and a developing 988 MB Low Ghost of DORIAN near the Tip of Greenland. This is nearly the exact same setup from two weeks ago that was the factor in over 1000 record cold temperatures being broken in the U.S. last week

    GOES Project Science NASA

    As they say what GOES around comes around

  137. “Arctic Ice Extent is at almost the highest in Ten Years. The Arctic has gone through 100 consecutive days of temperature below normal.”

    Statements like this suggest that for global warming to be true we would have to observe monotonically increasing temperatures – that is only increases in temperature with no decreases.

    That idea is just false. Increasing long term average seasonal temperature includes the possibility that temperatures may stabilize or even decline for a while. It is the long term average that is significant.

    Besides, the quote is from someone who has already acknowledged that global warming is occurring. If global warming is occurring, which is clear from the data, then we know we will eventually get ice melt regardless of the exact year it occurs of if we have few years of cool weather.

  138. Global Warming has paused for the last 15 years. The Globe has been warming since the Little Ice Age so yes I believe in Global Warming. The Globe is now cooling. However the models did not show cooling they showed more warming remember the Hockey Stick

  139. Joe Blow: “Maybe you and the queer can get together and the two of you can demonstrate Personality Change. Crank the AC up after the…”
    ****

    Where is our ad hominem disectin’ moderator when you need him? That’s way out of line. I’m not necessarily one for censorship by consistency is a virtue.

  140. They started it with troll and how does it feel to work for Koch. They say it is pronounced COKE but I think they thing it’s pronounce COCK

  141. “Is this thread about trolls? why do you wish to continue talking about trolls”

    Joe,

    Uh….maybe because you evince all of the characteristics of a troll in your writing and manner. You see a troll is merely a propagandist who attempts to disrupt, without interacting. We’ve had more than a few trolls in the past and they act and write exactly as you do, though some with more facility than you’ve shown. Look if you’re making a living doing this than who am I to judge you? However, I reserve the right to call you out by stating what you are. Troll is not a vulgarity as you foolishly attempted to use with me missing entirely the point of my whole guest blog. Troll is a descriptive used to identify a person who acts in a particular manner on the internet. You also seem bought and paid for to me.

  142. ” Yes Global Warming is real, CO2 is just not the main driver.”
    “The Globe is now cooling.”

    As I understand your position we have global warming, not related to burning fossil fuels and we have global cooling, at least for the past 15 years…at the same time…right now.

  143. A recently released report is contrary to the denial dementia of Joe “Troll” Blow:

    A new massive federal study says the world in 2012 sweltered with continued signs of climate change. Rising sea levels, snow melt, heat buildup in the oceans, and melting Arctic sea ice and Greenland ice sheets, all broke or nearly broke records, but temperatures only sneaked into the top 10.

    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on Tuesday issued a peer-reviewed 260-page report, which agency chief Kathryn Sullivan calls its annual “checking on the pulse of the planet.” The report, written by 384 scientists around the world, compiles data already released, but it puts them in context of what’s been happening to Earth over decades.

    “It’s critically important to compile a big picture,” National Climatic Data Center director Tom Karl says. “The signs that we see are of a warming world.”

    (2012 Climate Change Report From NOAA Reveals Rising Seas, Snow Melt And More Warming).

  144. Juliet, I don’t always follow every posting in order on a thread, I drop in and out and read a block of postings. I will go back and read the entire thread if something catches my eye on a thread I’m dropping in/out of. I just read some more comments and yeah, that was vulgar. It was I’m sure a way around the filter that would have prevented a more direct statement with a banned four letter word. There’s always the DNFTT maxim: Do Not Feed The Trolls.
    *
    Blouise, And he didn’t even try to sneak that maths in under the radar- he just flaunted it, just made it central! I did not understand it but the flair with which it was brandished it did impress me. :-)

  145. lotta,

    That’s you, me, and Mike A (sigh) The problem with super smart guys like OS is that the rest of us, choking on dust, have no recourse but mockery. ;)

  146. “NOAA said 2012 was in the top 10 hottest years on record for global average temperature, but in the U.S. it was the hottest on record… the American Geophysical Union, which represents some 60,000 scientists who study the Earth… “Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years.” It added, “Human-induced climate change requires urgent action.”

    I just saw this on NPR. Their reporting is a mixed bag in my opinion. But you can read the rest of the report here:

    http://www.npr.org/2013/08/06/209462713/earth-scientists-pin-climate-change-squarely-on-humanity

    My guess is that NPR is at least quoting the sources correctly. So the question is do you believe institutions like NOAA and AGU or not.

    I can’t judge the science so I have to search for reliable authorities. The federal government employees I have known personally have been more than competent, and totally dedicated to their positions and doing the job the right way.

  147. “NOAA said 2012 was in the top 10 hottest years on record for global average temperature, but in the U.S. it was the hottest on record

    How long does the record go back ?

    Do you believe it’s hotter now in the U.S. than in the early 30’s

    Do you believe that the record is accurate now or before it was adjusted?

    When you look at the record now it was way cooler in the 30’s but the record didn’t always look the way it does today. So ask yourself is the U.S. experiencing conditions like we saw in the 30’s. Search google books and news paper clippings for the answer.

    As for the AGU…….. which by the way my answer was yes

    So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

    Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

  148. Let me also remind you of the past chair of AGU’s Task Force on Scientific Ethics, Dr. Peter Gleick and how ethical he is. He created a fake memo and committed identity fraud. A very ethical person which forced his resignation. For personal issues no less.. He should have just let the science speak for itself seeing how 98% of climate scientist agree the earth is warming/was.

  149. The federal government employees I have known personally have been more than competent, and totally dedicated to their positions and doing the job the right way.

    The president of the AGU Carol Finn is a federal employee by the way.

  150. The only answer or proposed theory to solve global warming so the seas will stop rising, forest will stop burning, highlands won’t turn it to wetlands. Hurricanes will go back to being weak and less in numbers and tornadoes will only come around once in a while is to reduce the level of CO2 back to 350PPM According to one of the worlds (supposedly) top climate scientist. See 350.org

    Question…… do you think if we took it a step further and reduced CO2 to 300 or below that the weather will get better.

  151. If you are a TV Weatherman/local met and are a skeptic, Forecast the Facts wants you to report them so they can assist in your denial.

    Too many broadcast meteorologists deny the scientific conclusions of their own professional organization, the American Meteorological Society: that human-induced global warming is changing our weather. Sign up below to join Forecast the Facts’ campaign to ensure that weathercasters accurately report climate facts to their viewers.

    http://forecastthefacts.org/weathercaster_watch/

    Feel free to report Joe Blow

  152. According to this video from Forecast the Facts the number of people who believe global warming is a scam is increasing and over half of TV meteorologist are skeptics. Why would this be if 98% of scientist agree and the science is overwhelming.

  153. Joe,

    The Mercatus Center: A Tentacle of the Deregulation-Loving Kochtopus Helping in the Effort to Deny Climate Change and Eviscerate the EPA
    10/10/11
    http://jonathanturley.org/2011/10/10/the-mercatus-center-a-tentacle-of-the-deregulation-loving-kochtopus-helping-in-the-effort-to-deny-climate-change-and-eviscerate-the-epa/

    Excerpt:
    From Climate Science Watch (March 18, 2010): To the libertarians, the widely-shared scientific assessment that human-caused climate change will likely produce major harmful consequences — and the communication of this evidence to the public by the leading climate scientists — poses a particularly serious threat. An informed public concerned about the likelihood of harmful impacts of unchecked global climatic disruption is more likely to call for significant government action to curb greenhouse gas emissions. In order to block proactive government policymaking and keep corporate interests unregulated, libertarian groups have focused a significant part of their efforts on climate change on distorting the science to confuse public opinion, denying the seriousness of the problem, and, most recently, impugning the integrity of the climate science community. The Koch brothers have stepped forward with deep pockets to bankroll such efforts.

  154. Are you trying to say that the reason more and more people are starting to believe the Theory of Global Warming is a scam is the COKE brothers fault?

    Isn’t that kinda like blame Bush ?

    Maybe they have asked themselves this question. You try it.

    The only answer or proposed theory to solve global warming so the seas will stop rising, forest will stop burning, highlands won’t turn it to wetlands, hurricanes will go back to being small weak and less in numbers and tornadoes will develop once in a while is to reduce the level of CO2 back to 350PPM According to one of the worlds top climate scientist. See 350.org

    Question…… do you think if we took a more radical step and reduced CO2 to 300 or below that the weather will get better ?

  155. It’s really a very simple question and one from very common sense perspective.

    Do you think if we reduced CO2 to 300 or below that the weather will get better ?

    and I might add that by doing so do you think the weather will repeat itself the way it was back when it was below 300PPM

  156. The other common sense question is what if we eliminated CO2 all together ? The result should give us paradise with lots of virgins.

  157. Had to add virgins seeing how Mr Gene threw in penis. Some believe these to belong together. Richard Goes INYA

  158. Actually, the relevant part was “fascist”, but since you like to play with Kochs anyway, I’ll defer to your predilection, Mr. Blow.

  159. “A Koch by any other name is still a fascist penis.” – Wm. Shakespeare

    Ok I’m confused is it COCK or COKE. I got called out by someone who said it was COKE like cocaine but this poster makes reference to penis.

    This place is very confusing. People want to be called queer and others making continuing reference to COCK and COKE.

    The last time I mixed COCK and COKE together it damn sure wasn’t with no queer.

  160. Joe,

    We have seen the kind of influence that money has in elections and advertising of commercial products. I think if we reduced the financial influence of KOCH2 in the climate change debate, we’d probably see a change in the attitudes of many people.

  161. Joe,

    Centuries ago, people believed that the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the Earth. What they believed was incorrect…wasn’t it?

  162. Joe,

    If being a Kochpuppet makes you happy, then I’m happy for you.

    However, when it comes to climate change, you’re entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. The vast majority of the climate sciences community – those not bought and paid for by fascists like the Kochs anyway – agree the AGW is a real thing. Anyone with a basic understanding of the chemistry of carbon can understand how the mechanism works. If taking action to mitigate the damage caused by human produced carbon to our environment takes profits from people like your nominal employer the Kochs? I really don’t care. Business is a risk and we as a species have no obligation to prop up their profits at the cost of our environment. In fact, we as a species have a survival obligation to put fascist sociopathic clowns like the Kochs out of business.

    Have a nice day.

  163. When I read this

    We have seen the kind of influence that money has in elections and advertising of commercial products. I think if we reduced the financial influence of KOCH2 in the climate change debate, we’d probably see a change in the attitudes of many people.

    I hear stifle debate. After all the theory of evolution,,gravity, relativity are theories but climate change is fact. It’s always changing.

  164. The vast majority of the climate sciences community –

    You must have missed this

    So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

    Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

  165. Centuries ago, people believed that the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the Earth. What they believed was incorrect…wasn’t it?

    And Just a few short years ago the majority of people believed climate change is real and man was the major cause. Today not so much. Why ? Because they probably asked themselves, 3rd time asking you……

    Do you think if we reduced CO2 to 300 or below that the weather will get better ?

  166. When I hear someone whine about corporate free speech as if it is a real thing, I hear a fascist/corporatist apologist who buys into the false paradigm of Buckley v. Valeo that money is the equivalent to free speech. It wasn’t then and it isn’t now, but it is a fine example of how money can and does corrupt the legislative and judicial processes to get counterfactual laws effected that trash the duty to the public good in favor of private profits.

  167. No, Joe, I just didn’t miss this:

    “Try the 97 out of 100 scientists that believe in man-made climate change.

    This data comes from a new survey out this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

    The study found that 97 percent of scientific experts agree that climate change is “very likely” caused mainly by human activity.

    The report is based on questions posed to 1,372 scientists. Nearly all the experts agreed that it is “very likely that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for most of the unequivocal warming of the Earth’s average global temperature in the second half of the twentieth century.”

    Click here for an interactive graphic that shows how global warming occurs.

    As for the 3 percent of scientists who remain unconvinced, the study found their average expertise is far below that of their colleagues, as measured by publication and citation rates.

    In the study, the authors wrote: “This extensive analysis of the mainstream versus skeptical/contrarian researchers suggests a strong role for considering expert credibility in the relative weight of and attention to these groups of researchers in future discussions in media, policy, and public forums regarding anthropogenic climate change.”

    The study authors were William R.L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold and Stephen H. Schneider.

    The report comes as the Earth continues to sizzle in 2010. So far, through May, 2010 is the warmest year ever recorded, according to the National Climatic Data Center.”

  168. E.M —So I take it your answer is yes the weather will get better

    G.H.—-Normally when someone ends with Have a Nice day it is assumed that they are leaving and saying good bye. Your like a canker sore that keeps coming back.

    Have a Nice day

  169. The report is based on questions posed to 1,372 scientists.

    I hope to hell there are alot more scientist out there than that or we are in for some real trouble.

  170. “Question…… do you think if we took a more radical step and reduced CO2 to 300 or below that the weather will get better ?”

    What do you mean by better?

    If CO2 has to do with effective radiation of heat from the surface of earth, then lower CO2, below a critical point, might lead to global cooling.

    What is the relevance of speculation regarding the output of models for CO2 in those ranges? If there were a real interest or a need to consider effects in those ranges why not just run the appropriate model instead of suggest that people outside the field guess?

  171. WSJ Publishes Op-Ed From 16 Climate Deniers, Refused Letter From 255 Top Scientists
    By Brad Johnson
    January 30, 2012
    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/01/30/414277/wsj-publishes-op-ed-from-16-climate-deniers-refused-letter-from-255-top-scientists/

    Excerpt:
    In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, sixteen prominent global warming deniers with scientific backgrounds — such as tobacco apologist Richard Lindzen of MIT and ExxonMobil executive Roger Cohen — concede that manmade carbon dioxide emissions have a warming effect on the planet, but argue that the effect is “small” and nothing to “panic” about. All the other scientists in the world who believe the science are part of a conspiracy to intimidate people like themselves, they write, just as Soviet biologists who believed in genes were “sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.”

    As climate scientist Peter Gleick reports at his Forbes.com blog, those other scientists include 255 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences who wrote a letter about the scientific threat of climate change for the Wall Street Journal — but were turned down:

    The most amazing and telling evidence of the bias of the Wall Street Journal with respect to manmade climate change is the fact that 255 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences wrote a scientifically accurate essay on the realities of climate change and on the need for improved and serious public debate around the issue, offered it to the Wall Street Journal, and were turned down. The National Academy of Sciences is the nation’s pre-eminent independent scientific organizations. Its members are among the most respected in the world in their fields. Yet the Journal wouldn’t publish this letter. Instead they chose to publish an error-filled and misleading piece on climate because 16 so-called experts aligned with their bias signed it. This may be good politics for them, but it is bad science and it is bad for the nation.

    The NAS letter was eventually published by Science magazine.

  172. “According to this video from Forecast the Facts the number of people who believe global warming is a scam is increasing and over half of TV meteorologist are skeptics. Why would this be if 98% of scientist agree and the science is overwhelming.”

    Perhaps it would be because of the huge amounts of money spent by the Koch Brothers and the rest of the Oil/Gas industry for propaganda to make it seem a scam. This is not a new technique since the Tobacco Companies used it for years to deny that smoking cigarettes caused health problems, when their own internal research showed them it did. So much money is being spent in anti-climate change propaganda that maybe it even trickles down to trolls like yourself.

  173. Apparently you neither understand sarcasm nor what constitutes proper statistical surveying methods, Joe.

    And if you’re irritated?

    I’m f**king ecstatic.

    I tend to have that reaction when I irritate the scientifically ignorant and corporatist apologists. That you’re both in one package? Joy!

  174. Joe Blow:

    Good luck to you.

    Climate changes all the time, its natural. In fact it changes from place to place.

  175. “How long does the record go back ?”

    Systematic recording of weather data by the weather service began in the US in the mid 1800’s.

    “Do you believe that the record is accurate now or before it was adjusted?”

    Even back yard mechanics know that sensors, even something as simple as a MAP sensor, sometimes have to be adjusted – biased or calibrated – to give accurate results to work with the rest of the electronics in the auto.

    It is my understanding that much of this data was collected by automated equipment. The question is not was the data adjusted but whether the adjustment is reasonable and appropriate. The people who actually work with this data seem to think the data has been handled appropriately.

    “He created a fake memo and committed identity fraud. A very ethical person which forced his resignation. ”

    His forced resignation ought to tell you something – there are zealots every where and the institution deals with problems as it becomes aware of them. The incident does not seem to have changed the opinions of members, or the consensus of the organization regarding this matter.

    “The president of the AGU Carol Finn is a federal employee by the way.”

    Your argument seems to be that the actions of one person impugns the integrity of all the people in a group. And then that group membership call into question the integrity of a different person, in particular Carol Finn.

    This is an ad hominem attack that reveals faulty reasoning at two points. First there is no reason to believe that bad actions by one government employee reflects on all government employees. The second is that Carol Finn’s employment in government somehow suggest she is not a capable leader.

    The fact is that thousands of professionals in this field choose Finn to represent them.

  176. “How long does the record go back ?”

    Systematic recording of weather data began in the US in the mid 1800’s.

    “Do you believe that the record is accurate now or before it was adjusted?”

    Even back yard mechanics know that sensors, even something as simple as a MAP sensor, sometimes have to be adjusted – biased or calibrated – to give accurate results to work with the rest of the electronics in the auto.

    It is my understanding that much of this data was collected by automated equipment. The question is not was the data adjusted but whether the adjustment is reasonable and appropriate. The people who actually work in this field seem to think the data has been handled appropriately.

    “He created a fake memo and committed identity fraud. A very ethical person which forced his resignation. ”

    His forced resignation ought to tell you something – there are zealots every where and the institution deals with problems as it becomes aware of them. The incident does not seem to have changed the opinions of members, or the consensus of the organization regarding this matter.

    “The president of the AGU Carol Finn is a federal employee by the way.”

    Your argument seems to be that the actions of one person impugns the integrity of all the people in a group. And then that group membership call into question the integrity of a different person, in particular Carol Finn.

    This is an ad hominem attack that reveals faulty reasoning at two points. First there is no reason to believe that bad actions by one government employee reflects on all government employees. The second is that Carol Finn’s employment in government somehow suggest she is not a capable leader.

    The fact is that thousands of professionals in this field choose Finn to represent them.

  177. What is the relevance of speculation regarding the output of models for CO2 in those ranges? If there were a real interest or a need to consider effects in those ranges why not just run the appropriate model instead of suggest that people outside the field guess?

    No need for speculation. The worlds top climate scientist has already testified years ago that 350PPM is just right see 350.org

    The problem is the weather was much much worse when CO2 was below 350PPM as evidence in the empirical data of everything from hurricanes to rain that ends up in the drain. So the questioned poised is. If 350PPM is just right to make the weather stable why not make it 300 like the old days and see what happens.

  178. NASA Climate Change Letter Belongs To Long Tradition Of Fake Expertise
    By Lucia Graves
    4/13/12
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/13/nasa-climate-change-denier-stunts_n_1424492.html

    Excerpt:
    WASHINGTON — When former NASA administrators, astronauts and engineers released a letter earlier this week attacking the science of climate change, its veneer of legitimacy kicked off a media blitz. Yet none of the letter’s 49 signatories are climate scientists, and with more than 18,000 people currently working for NASA, to say nothing of the tens of thousands more who are retired, the letter seems more than anything like an empty publicity stunt, and one for which there’s considerable precedent.

    “When you have an area of the science where there is a consensus like in climate change, where the problem is real and the scientific implications are on a collision course with vested interests like the fossil fuel industry, you often see this,” said Michael Mann, a well-known climate scientist and Penn State professor.

    NASA has been clear that it firmly accepts the reality of the science behind climate change, including the work of renowned climate scientist James Hansen, so complaints from a few dozen retired NASA administrators and a handful of astronauts and engineers calling on NASA to stop saying that anthropogenic carbon dioxide causes climate change can hardly be taken seriously.

    A full 98 percent of all working climate scientists affirm anthropogenic climate change, according to a paper published in 2010 in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found the evidence that the world is warming to be “unequivocal.”

    “They can’t discredit the science in the legitimate sphere of scientific debate, which is to say, the peer-reviewed literature, the various assessment reports published by various governments … so what they try to do is create the illusion that the science is being hotly contested by finding the small group, often of curmudgeonly individuals, who might feel left out,” said Mann, who documents this recurrent phenomenon in his newly released book, “The Hockey Stick And The Climate Wars: Dispatches From The Front Lines.”

    Author John Cook similarly considers such public announcements as one of the five most easily identifiable characteristics of science denialism, wherein deniers use fake experts to undermine established science.

    “These are individuals purporting to be experts but whose views are inconsistent with established knowledge,” writes Cook. “Fake experts have been used extensively by the tobacco industry who developed a strategy to recruit scientists who would counteract the growing evidence on the harmful effects of second-hand smoke.”

    The stunts gain traction in part because it can be hard for non-experts to determine what is and what isn’t legitimate criticism. Evolutionary biologists, who’ve long had to contend with such attacks, have parodied the trickery with “Project Steve,” a media stunt in which they collected the signatures only of evolutionary biologists named Steve to demonstrate how easy it is to round up a group people who’ll sign on to just about anything.

    There’s a long history of climate deniers who write such letters (their preferred vehicle) to voice their discontent. The much-discussed Oregon Petition has been repeatedly debunked, with both the scientific credentials and the authenticity of its signatories’ names being called into question. When Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories, for instance, only “11 said they still agreed with the petition — one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages.”

    Another effort, known as the Wall Street Journal 16, urged people not to take any actions to address climate change. Spearheaded by Harrison Schmitt, who also helped organize this week’s letter from former NASA employees, the op-ed boasted only two climate scientists who’d published climate research in the past three decades. What’s more, nearly half of the 16 scientists on the list had received fossil fuel industry funding, according to Skeptical Science.

  179. Viewers are reminded that we are in the longest stretch in the written hurricane record ( Notice I said written ? get tired of hearing hottest on record….. hottest on record) to go without a Major Hurricane Strike Cat 3 or higher on the coast of the United States. Barack Obama under any president has had the least amount of hurricanes during his presidency than any other U.S. President thus far.

    The number of F3-F5 violent tornadoes over the last 50 years is going down.

    The total acreage burnt of World Wide Wild fires over the last 50 years is going down. I love Smokey the Bear Only you can prevent wildfires.

    Number of Major floods last 50 years is decreasing.

    ON and On and On the only way to know this is by looking at the empirical data on each.

  180. I don’t know what you people are telling Joe Blow to go away.

    This is a wonderful opportunity to demonstrate the many fallacies of deniers.

    If you care about global warming then you must agree with me that it is important to give Joe all the time and space he needs to present all his inaccurate facts and flawed reasoning.

  181. “How long does the record go back ?”

    Systematic recording of weather data by the weather service began in the US in the mid 1800’s.

    “Do you believe that the record is accurate now or before it was adjusted?”

    Even back yard mechanics know that sensors, even something as simple as a MAP sensor, sometimes have to be adjusted – biased or calibrated – to give accurate results to work with the rest of the electronics in the auto.

    It is my understanding that much of this data was collected by automated equipment. The question is not was the data adjusted but whether the adjustment is reasonable and appropriate. The people who actually work with this data seem to think the data has been handled appropriately.

  182. 10 paragraphs is an excerpt ? No need to visit their website and I’m sure they appreciate that. Methinks you copy paste to much.

  183. “He created a fake memo and committed identity fraud. A very ethical person which forced his resignation. ”

    His forced resignation ought to tell you something – there are zealots every where and the institution deals with problems as it becomes aware of them. The incident does not seem to have changed the opinions of members, or the consensus of the organization regarding this matter.

    “The president of the AGU Carol Finn is a federal employee by the way.”

    Your argument seems to be that the actions of one government employee the integrity of all government employees. And further, that government employment calls into question the integrity of a government employee, in particular Carol Finn.

    This is an ad hominem attack that reveals faulty reasoning at two points. First there is no reason to believe that bad actions by one government employee reflects on all government employees. The second is that Carol Finn’s employment in government somehow suggest she is not a capable leader.

    The fact is that thousands of professionals in this field choose Finn to represent them.

  184. The question is not was the data adjusted but whether the adjustment is reasonable and appropriate. The people who actually work with this data seem to think the data has been handled appropriately.

    Excellent question

    So if the temperature record was recorded and it remained that way for years say 50 years and then one day somebody said you know what I don’t think it was that hot 50 years ago. I’m gonna adjust it and make it cooler. Then they said I dont think it was that hot 49 years ago think I’ll make it cooler.

    Do you think thats proper handling our would or could you consider this data tampering ?

  185. How climate deniers abuse statistics to mislead
    By James Temple
    July 22, 2013
    http://www.sfchronicle.com/technology/dotcommentary/article/How-climate-deniers-abuse-statistics-to-mislead-4677033.php

    In 1998, the global mean temperature was 58.3 degrees Fahrenheit, according to NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. In 2012, it was 58.2 degrees.

    That’s a 0.1 degree decrease. Look, I just disproved global warming! Hummers for everyone!

    As ridiculous as it sounds, that simplistic analysis is the basis for one of the most frequently cited critiques of climate science. Indeed, any time I write about global warming, an e-mail arguing that the globe hasn’t heated in 15 years reliably lands in my in-box.

    Those readers are probably taking their talking points from the many professional climate deniers who repeat this inaccuracy as often as possible, including in opinion pieces in Forbes and the Wall Street Journal.

    “Warming ended 15 years ago, and global temperatures have stopped increasing since then, if not actually cooled, even though global CO{-2} emissions have soared over this period,” wrote Peter Ferrara, a director at the Heartland Institute, in a representative Forbes.com piece.

    This conclusion isn’t at all surprising from a conservative think tank that routinely goes to great lengths to sow doubts about the science of global warming in the public mind. The problem is that arriving at it requires ignoring everything but the two dots on a chart that, in isolation, seem to make their case…

    The 1998 gambit…

    It becomes immediately obvious that this is a classic case of manipulating statistics to reach a predetermined conclusion, specifically by cherry-picking the start date. That red line that deniers are relying on doesn’t actually conform to the shape of that chart.

    If you want to know whether a climate change denier is attempting to mislead you, the first clue is the use of the year 1998. It was one of the hottest years on record thanks to an unusually strong El Niño.

    “The 1998 spike caused by an extraordinary El Niño event has been statistically abused for a long time,” said Reto Ruedy, a research associate at NASA, in an e-mail. “What appeared to be an extraordinary global temperature anomaly 15 years ago is now an expected occurrence and has been – within the margin of error – equaled 8 times since then.”

    In fact, he pointed out, the margin for error in these numbers is about 0.1 degree Fahrenheit, so there’s actually no statistical difference between the years 1998 and 2012.

  186. From the EPA I’m sure most of you would agree is a very trustful source.

    Key Points

    Heat waves occurred with high frequency in the 1930s, and these
    remain the most severe heat waves in the U.S. historical record
    (see Figure 1). Many years of intense drought (the “Dust Bowl”)
    contributed to these heat waves by depleting soil moisture and
    reducing the moderating effects of evaporation.

    There is no clear trend over the entire period tracked by the index. Although it is hard to see in Figure 1 (because of the extreme
    events of the 1930s), heat wave frequency decreased in the 1960s
    and 1970s but has risen since then (see Figure 1).

    Like the heat wave index, the percentage of the United States
    affected by heat waves has also risen steadily since the 1970s (see
    Figures 2 and 3). The recent period of increasing heat is distinguished by a rise in extremely high nighttime temperatures

    The Graph clearly shows how hot the 30’s to 40’s were.
    http://www.epa.gov/climate/climatechange/pdfs/print_heat-waves.pdf

  187. “No need for speculation. The worlds top climate scientist has already testified years ago that 350PPM is just right see 350.org

    The problem is the weather was much much worse when CO2 was below 350PPM as evidence in the empirical data of everything from hurricanes to rain that ends up in the drain. So the questioned poised is. If 350PPM is just right to make the weather stable why not make it 300 like the old days and see what happens.”

    So far as I know, no one is advocating for 300 ppm.

    You, yourself, seem to agree that 300 ppm would not improve conditions and would likely create other problems.

    There seems vanishingly small probability that we could achieve that level in the foreseeable future.

    What is the relevance of 300ppm of 0 ppm, I mean aside from some gee-whiz speculation?

  188. “Do you think thats proper handling our would or could you consider this data tampering ?”

    My understanding is that recorded data was adjusted to account for bias in the instruments from that time period which would be entirely appropriate.

    If the adjustment was faulty, or dishonest make the argument. Explain it to us.

    BTW, professionals who work in the field do not seem to be concerned with the adjustment. There is no outcry from professionals who actually used the data.

  189. There seems vanishingly small probability that we could achieve that level in the foreseeable future.

    World wide planting campaign. Plants love the stuff

  190. BTW, professionals who work in the field do not seem to be concerned with the adjustment. There is no outcry from professionals who actually used the data.

    as far as you know, right ?

  191. Joe,

    I see your response to the information that I provide is to comment on the number of paragraphs in the articles I post. That is certainly a good tactic for winning an argument.

  192. I’m not trying to win an argument and certainly wouldn’t win one with you if I was. Your mind is already made up and it’s all the COCK brothers fault.

  193. For those who believe that there is no heat island effect. From the EPA Link above.

    Like the heat wave index, the percentage of the United States
    affected by heat waves has also risen steadily since the 1970s (see
    Figures 2 and 3). The recent period of increasing heat is distinguished by a rise in extremely high nighttime temperatures

    The recent period of increasing heat is distinguished by a rise in extremely high nighttime temperatures

    The recent period of increasing heat is distinguished by a rise in extremely high nighttime temperatures

    The recent period of increasing heat is distinguished by a rise in extremely high nighttime temperatures

    The reason why concrete and asphalt are so hot but the cool deck around the pool is not. Concrete and asphalt retain heat.

  194. Joe Blow:

    who doesnt think there is a heat island effect?

    People have been leaving cities during summers for years.

    And people are using concrete mass in homes for passive solar heating and also using wind across water to cool homes.

    Whomever thinks that cities dont cause heat islands is a fool or worse.

  195. I will lead the blind by ways they have not known, along unfamiliar paths I will guide them; I will turn the darkness into light before them and make the rough places smooth. These are the things I will do; I will not forsake them.

    Isaiah 42:16

    Alright Seagull are you coming along or am I gonna have to slap you around some.

  196. BFM, Gene & Elaine,
    That question about how far the record goes back. Without naming names, someone keeps ignoring the longitudinal data from Antarctic ice cores that date back 414,000 years. Sedimentary ice patterns have been compared with ancient tree rings to establish whether the data are reliable and valid for comparison. Weather patterns are like fingerprints; no two patterns over several years are exactly alike, making it possible to take a block of wood from a tree, even a long-dead one, and establish what years that piece of lumber was alive and growing as part of a tree. Provided of course there are enough rings visible to make a good sample.

    The past couple of centuries, weather has been observed and measured all over the planet by human observers, and those data are now being analyzed and compared with tree rings and sedimentary samples. FWIW, not just by agencies like NOAA and NASA. The US Department of Agriculture has a strong interest in accurate data. And for the xenophobes among us, I have to break the news that it’s not just in the USA. For example, Russia, England, France and others have excellent weather reporting networks and their weather agencies are staffed with competent scientists. This is one area of research where international cooperation has been good.

    When looking at weather patterns over a long span of time, the patterns are unique, much like fingerprints. No two years are exactly alike, with each year giving a specific weather pattern. As an example, archaeologists and weather scientists working together figured out what happened to the settlers at Jamestown. Scientists working in teams examined tree ring records of what the weather was like at the time Jamestown was founded. The record shows that area had the worst drought in many years, and it lasted several consecutive years. That’s what happened to the Jamestown settlers. They could not cope with the drought, as their crops withered due to lack of rain and the summer heat. The Jamestown settlers starved or were killed by disease, all due to the multi-years dry spell in that area. As many of the deniers point out, weather varies. That is about the only thing they get right. Weather does vary, but climate is not weather. Climate is different from local weather, which is why it is less important to look at single years, or weather catastrophes in single years, but to evaluate climate, it is more important to monitor very large scale patterns over longer spans of time.

    Those ice cores from 4,000 meters deep in the ice give an accurate record going back almost a half-million years.

    As for TV meteorologists, how many are actually meteorologists, with a college major in meteorology? And of those, how many have either a Master’s or Doctorate in meteorology? Dr. Greg Forbes, the Weather Channel’s severe weather expert, has pointed out individual severe weather events, or even severe weather years are only a data point in evaluating climate change. In responding to a question about the high number of tornadoes in 2011 and the low number in 2012, he wrote on his Facebook page on November 17, 2012:

    “The upper flow pattern has been mostly from the northwest with a trough along the East Coast, and the favorable area is normally east of that – but it has been over the Atlantic Ocean this month. There has been a blocking pattern in parts of the Northern Hemisphere that have kept the pattern mostly unfavorable [for the development of tornadoes this year].”

    “The jet stream jumped way north real early this year and stayed there. That’s the kind of thing that we might expect to happen more and more due to global warming, but I’m not sure how much to attribute this year to that.”

    What Dr. Forbes is saying, in simple terms; do not take a single year or two and try to make determinations on long term global warming on that basis. It can’t be done. I trust Dr. Forbes to know what he is talking about. Since Dr. Ted Fujita died, there are few people in this country who know more about violent weather events than Forbes, who got his Master’s and Doctorate degrees under the supervision of Fujita.

    I have known several TV weather people, and used to have one as a client. Many of them are weather presenters, not meteorologists. They get the job on the basis of how good they look, and how well they can read a script or ad lib. My former client came out of journalism school, not a meteorology program. As has been pointed out, when I look at a petition or mass-signed letter, I want to know who these people are and what are their credentials for opining on a scientific subject.

    One of my lifetime friends was a signatory. He is a theoretical physicist, specializing in dense matter subatomic physics. He is not a weather expert. He is not particularly political, but what politics he has are quite a bit farther to the right than the average person. Despite his brilliance and substantial contributions to physics, he is not a climatologist.

  197. Here’s the 48 hour forecast animation of the EXTREMELY powerful Arctic Cyclone spinning over the North Pole. This is going to spread Arctic Ice even further and then when it refreezes the Arctic Ice extent will expand even greater.

  198. Sedimentary ice patterns have been compared with ancient tree rings to establish whether the data are reliable and valid for comparison. Weather patterns are like fingerprints; no two patterns over several years are exactly alike, making it possible to take a block of wood from a tree, even a long-dead one, and establish what years that piece of lumber was alive and growing as part of a tree. Provided of course there are enough rings visible to make a good sample.

    ALL very true now ask yourself how many trees were used and what location they came from.

    And besides, since your confirmation in tree ring belief it is turning out that the TREEmometer is not as good as the THERmometer

    A new paper by Brienen et al in the journal Global Biogeochemical Cycles suggests that there may be a whole new set of biases in tree ring studies.

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/3/20/a-whole-new-bias.html

    Science always in search of the truth, got ta love it

  199. but climate is not weather. Climate is different from local weather, which is why it is less important to look at single years, or weather catastrophes in single years, but to evaluate climate, it is more important to monitor very large scale patterns over longer spans of time.

    Which is done by recording the daily weather data. If they don’t record the daily weather they can’t do weekly,monthly,yearly averages. 15-30 year averages makes up one climatological year. Use to be 30 but somehow they keep changing the bar. Now it’s every extreme weather event is caused by climate change.

  200. Those ice cores from 4,000 meters deep in the ice give an accurate record going back almost a half-million years.

    and show Ice Age, Medieval Warming period and Little Ice Age. These all occurred before the invention of the SUV.

  201. In responding to a question about the high number of tornadoes in 2011 and the low number in 2012, he wrote on his Facebook page on November 17, 2012:

    You mention long term and then make note of a one year difference.

    FACT over the last 50 years the number of VIOLENT F3-F5 tornadoes are decreasing. The overall number of tornadoes are going up. This is likely do to more chasers as reporters and better technology in detection.

  202. Apologize I should have read further.

    What Dr. Forbes is saying, in simple terms; do not take a single year or two and try to make determinations on long term global warming on that basis.

    AGREED

  203. Joe wins the internet cherry-picking prize, despite formidable competition from all the other deniers, conspiracy theorists, religionists and True Believers.

  204. Agnotology is the study of ignorance generators like Joe Blow.

    His footprints lead back to conservative rags and propaganda generated by Oil-Qaeda:

    There is a growing divide in how conservatives and liberals in the USA understand the issue of global warming. Prior research suggests that the American public’s reliance on partisan media contributes to this gap. However, researchers have yet to identify intervening variables to explain the relationship between media use and public opinion about global warming. Several studies have shown that trust in scientists is an important heuristic many people use when reporting their opinions on science-related topics. Using within-subject panel data from a nationally representative sample of Americans, this study finds that trust in scientists mediates the effect of news media use on perceptions of global warming. Results demonstrate that conservative media use decreases trust in scientists which, in turn, decreases certainty that global warming is happening. By contrast, use of non-conservative media increases trust in scientists, which, in turn, increases certainty that global warming is happening.

    (Journal: Public Understanding of Science). Epistemology is the study of how “knowledge” is produced.

    Joe Blow’s brain was formed by Fox News, Luntz, Marshall Institute, The Heartland Institute, Koch Inc., and other propaganda ignorance generators.

  205. It’s comical that I respond on topic and when you don’t like my responses you revert back to attacking the messenger. Too funny.

    It’s all the COCK brothers fault.

    It’s been fun. I will leave you with one of my all time favorites as I get back to more productive things in my life.

  206. Joe Blow 1, August 6, 2013 at 12:19 am

    Tornadoes and Global Warming: Is There a Connection?
    Will the future bring more twisters to Oklahoma and Tornado Alley?

    There is no real evidence that tornadoes are happening more often.

    =====================================
    Evidence has nothing to do with denialism. It is a matter of psychological fear masking as evidence.

    Counting the numbers of tornadoes and observing trends is what sane people do.

    Very accurate tornado data have been collected since 1950.

    Less so before that.

    But only a Luddite would miss the increase from 1950 (206 tornadoes) to 2011 (1777 tornadoes).

    The meticulous data collected is done by NOAA (On The Origin of Tornadoes – 3).

  207. Joe,
    It is the deniers who are trying to stifle the debate on climate change. it.

    *****

    Cyberbullying Scientists: Using Threats in an Effort to Silence the Discussion on Climate Change
    2/18/12
    http://jonathanturley.org/2012/02/18/cyberbulling-scientists-using-threats-in-an-effort-to-silence-the-discussion-on-climate-change/

    Excerpt;
    Climate Change and the Integrity of Science, the letter that was signed by the 255 scientists, spoke of their concern about the recent escalation in assaults on scientists—especially climate scientists. They said that the assaults on both climate science and scientists came from climate change deniers who “are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence.” The scientists called “for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them.”

    Not long ago, I was disheartened to learn that climate scientists in the United States and in other countries have become victims of cyber-bullying. In 2010, Douglas Fisher wrote an article for Scientific American titled Cyber Bullying Intensifies as Climate Data Questioned. Fisher spoke of how climate researchers have to purge crude and crass emails that they find in their inboxes every day. Some consider purging such correspondence as a task they must deal with as part of the job of being a climate scientist. Others, however, “see the messages as threats and intimidation—cyber-bullying meant to shut down debate and cow scientists into limiting their participation in the public discourse.”

    Clive Hamilton, an Australian author and academic said, “The purpose of this new form of cyber-bullying seems clear; it is to upset and intimidate the targets, making them reluctant to participate further in the climate change debate.” Gavin Schmidt, a scientist who works for NASA, said that “organized, ‘McCarthyite’ tactics aimed at specific scientists by various groups can be stressful.” He added “‘Frivolous’ Freedom of Information Act requests can tie up considerable quantities of researchers’ time.” Schmidt claims that the worst things of all are the “‘intimidating letters’ from congressional members threatening dire consequences to scientists working on climate change.”

    Last month, MIT scientist Kerry Emanuel, a Republican and the director of MIT’s Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate program, received a “frenzy of hate male” after a video that featured an interview with him was published by Climate Desk…

    Mother Jones reported that the emails contained “veiled threats’ against Emanuel’s wife—as well as other “tangible threats.” Emanuel said, “They were vile, these emails. They were the kind of emails nobody would like to receive.” He added, “What was a little bit new about it was dragging family members into it and feeling that my family might be under threat, so naturally I didn’t feel very good about that at all. I thought it was low to drag somebody’s spouse into arguments like this.”

    The Guardian reported last June that Australian climate scientists had been receiving death threats. As a response to the large number of threatening emails and telephone calls, the Australia National University (ANU) in Canberra moved some of its “leading climate scientists to a secure facility…”

    Ian Young, ANU’s vice-chancellor, said, “Obviously climate research is an emotive issue at the present time. These are issues where we should have a logical public debate and it’s completely intolerable that people be subjected to this sort of abuse and to threats like this.” Young added that “scientists had been threatened with assault if they were identified in the street.”

    Canberra Times reported last year that more than 30 researchers in Australia—including ecologists, environmental policy experts, meteorologists, and atmospheric physicists—told the paper that they had been receiving a “stream of abusive emails threatening violence, sexual assault, public smear campaigns and attacks on family members.” Some of the scientists installed upgraded home security systems and switched to unlisted phone numbers because they were fearful that their homes and cars might be damaged.

    One researcher even spoke of “receiving threats of sexual assault and violence against her children after her photograph appeared in a newspaper article promoting a community tree-planting day as a local action to mitigate climate change.”

    One climate scientist, who did not want to be identified, told ABC News that a dead animal was once left on his doorstep. He said he now travels with bodyguards at times. David Koroly, a professor at the University of Melbourne’s School of Earth Science, told ABC that he receives threats whenever he is interviewed by the media. He said, “It is clear that there is a campaign in terms of either organised or disorganised threats to discourage scientists from presenting the best available climate science on television or radio.”

  208. OS, you certainly appear to have struck a nerve. It is both enlightening and informative to see the lengths denialists will go to in order to disrupt any dialogue, including a days-old thread on a blog. Keep it up. :-)

  209. Joe Blow 1, August 7, 2013 at 12:12 pm

    but climate is not weather. Climate is different from local weather, which is why it is less important to look at single years, or weather catastrophes in single years, but to evaluate climate, it is more important to monitor very large scale patterns over longer spans of time.

    Which is done by recording the daily weather data. If they don’t record the daily weather they can’t do weekly,monthly,yearly averages. 15-30 year averages makes up one climatological year. Use to be 30 but somehow they keep changing the bar. Now it’s every extreme weather event is caused by climate change.
    ===================================
    More of what your daddy taught you.

    The thing you need to focus on is The Global Climate System.

    It is a system, which has a special meaning in science:

    A system is an assembly of related parts that interact in patterned ways. If one part of a system changes, other parts will change.

    The ignorance generators do not want people to think of climate or weather as being components of a system.

    But it is a system, and it is damaged.

    Thus, any systemic event within the Global Climate System is part of a damage system:

    Since we deserve an answer, let’s contemplate this problem with an exercise in deductive logic, premised on the false meme under our consideration today:

    1) No single weather event can be linked directly to global warming;

    2) all weather events are single weather events;

    3) therefore, weather events can’t be directly linked to global warming.

    (see Doctors of Philosophy Make Phd. Mistakes). To see what the propagandists and/or apologists (who originally fabricated this false meme) are advancing, let’s analyze this a bit further by considering a realistic meme:

    1) Weather is a function of the global climate system;

    2) all single weather events are parts of the global climate system;

    3) the global climate system has been damaged by global warming;

    4) therefore, all single weather events are part of the global climate system that has been damaged by global warming;

    (see How Fifth Graders Analyze Hurricane Sandy). See the subtlety that the false meme forces, and see the bigger picture the accurate meme “global climate system” connotes?

    (False Climate Change Meme Infects The President). The appeal to parochial sentiments is a propaganda technique.

    Joe Blow you are naked and the commenters here see your private parts for what they are: the ignorance generators a la Fox, Koch, Limgaugh, Inhofe, and other reality deniers.

  210. Joe Blow 1, August 7, 2013 at 12:14 pm

    Those ice cores from 4,000 meters deep in the ice give an accurate record going back almost a half-million years.

    and show Ice Age, Medieval Warming period and Little Ice Age. These all occurred before the invention of the SUV.
    =======================================
    They are useless unless they also take into consideration the cycle of axial precession, then combine the data (A Savvy Ecocosmological Earth Calendar – 2). The ~26,000 year cycle within the Global Climate System is a factor.

  211. Attack the messenger? No, no. We’re attacking your rather transparent methodology as a propagandist and purveyor of distortion and contortion about a subject that is far more important than protecting the profits of your masters.

    I’ll bet any one of the people taking you to task can identify easily one or more of the propaganda tactics you’ve deployed here. Why? In part because we have an unusually smart group around here. In part because we discuss propaganda and its various nefarious methodologies all the time.

    Don’t feel too bad you’re having such a rough time of things though.

    Your bosses did the equivalent of throwing you to the wolves in sending you here.

  212. Joe Blow 1, August 7, 2013 at 11:51 am

    Here’s the 48 hour forecast animation of the EXTREMELY powerful Arctic Cyclone spinning over the North Pole. This is going to spread Arctic Ice even further and then when it refreezes the Arctic Ice extent will expand even greater.
    ================================
    Irrelevant straw man.

    Ice extent” is not a function of volume/quantity of ice.

    Ice extent is expressed in square kilometers or square miles.

    Ice volume/quantity, however, is expressed in cubic kilometers or cubic miles.

    If you want to know how much ice has melted or how much exists still, you must use a volume/quantity formula.

    Some ignorant deniers flaunt their ignorance like dancers in a parade:

    [ignorant denier example] Within just a few days in September, Arctic sea ice extent reached the lowest minimum ever recorded by satellites since 1979, while at the same time, Antarctic sea ice reached the greatest extent ever recorded.

    [NASA scientific example] When competent scientists determined that in fact Antarctic ice volume has been decreasing for some time, they speak in terms of thickness of the ice sheet when they are calculating the volume or amount of ice:

    To map the changing thickness of almost all the floating ice shelves around Antarctica, the team used a time series of 4.5 million surface height measurements taken by a laser instrument mounted on ICESat from October 2003 to October 2008. They measured how the ice shelf height changed over time …

    (NASA, emphasis added). Remember that volume is length x width x height (thickness), but also remember that extent or area is only length x width.

    (How Fifth Graders Calculate Ice Volume). Shame on you Joe Blow for endangering you fellow citizens and their children by trying to put their eyes out.

  213. Juliet,
    I saw that statement by King. It was definitely a coffee spew moment. How long is it going to take professional religionists to figure out he just threw them under the bus?

    “It is not proven, it’s not science,” King said Tuesday, according to The Messenger of Fort Dodge, Iowa. “It’s more of a religion than a science.”

    Who would have suspected religion is not science?

  214. I’m just surprised that “Douchebag” is their own district. I am not surprised, however, that King is their representative.

  215. Since Congress is now in recess for the entire month of August, it would be interesting to take readings of CO2 emissions in Washington, D.C. over the next several weeks.

  216. lottakatz 1, August 6, 2013 at 10:13 am

    … Climate scientists have been saying for years, like over 10 years, that the first big climate (climate-long term) change in response to global warming is probably going to be an ice age.

    =========================================
    Wrong.

    James Hansen, in ~1981, and other scientists before him such as Dr. Revelle, predicted a melting of the polar ice caps.

    An Ice age coming out of global warming is an Oil-Qaeda lie with footprints going back to the Marshall Institute.

    Which should be obvious – warm does not produce cold.

    See the video of a History of Science professor giving the history of both climate science and denialism I posted early on in this thread.

  217. For those who can’t watch a long video (~1 hr) that I posted upthread –a lecture by a professor concerning the history of climate change science, as well as denialism, here is a McQuickie for you.

    It is a 1958 video talking about “what some scientists say”:

  218. how much is the average temperature going to rise?

    how much does the average earth temperature have to rise to melt the ice caps?

    why is a small rise in average earth temperature a bad thing?

    doesnt warmer weather mean a longer growing season?

    more food more people, just like in the middle ages. Why would it be bad for the earth to have a billion or 2 more people?

  219. Bron 1, August 7, 2013 at 4:56 pm

    how much is the average temperature going to rise? [too much]

    how much does the average earth temperature have to rise to melt the ice caps? [already taking place now]

    why is a small rise in average earth temperature a bad thing? [see 1958 video above]

    doesnt warmer weather mean a longer growing season? [yes, things will be growing on the outside of the tall buildings that have been abandoned]

    more food more people, just like in the middle ages. Why would it be bad for the earth to have a billion or 2 more people? [yeah, let’s get back to the middle ages and the dark ages soon as we can so we can then get back here and the …]
    ===============================
    Bron, beef up on these issues.

    It is not like drag racing on your cul de sac with your homies.

  220. BAM report:

    Although the 2012 global surface temperature (combining land air and sea surface temperature) was not a record-setting value, it remained above the 1981–2010 average—rank-ing among the top 10 warmest yearson record.

    Globally-averaged, 2012 ranked as the eighth or ninth warmest year
    since records began in the mid-to-late 1800s, according to four independent analyses …

    (Government Climate Change Report – 7).

  221. Dredd:

    Why do you think man is the cause of global warming when the sun is what powers the earth?

    Why is CO2 any different than any other gas in our atmosphere? What is so special about CO2? If it was such a great insulator they would use it in double pain windows.

  222. Hey Troll Blow: Do you still get paid, even though you’ve succeeded in increasing the certainty in global warming for most of the participants on this board? BTW, the majority of this country, including Republicans, believe global warming is occurring as a result of human activity.

    Every post of yours has been specious and without merit. Moreover, you’re insincerity is readily apparent; I don’t think you believe a word of what you’ve posted concerning climate change and that’s what separates you from the genuinely deluded and ill conservatives who participate here.

    Good luck, you sack. I look forward to ignoring you.

    Suck on this:

    http://www.www.alternet.org/story/152849/huge_blow_to_science_deniers%3A_koch_funded_researchers_confirm_global_warming

  223. RTC:

    The earth has been going through warming and cooling periods for millions of years.

    So what if it gets a little warmer. You have to raise the average annual temperature by more than a few tenths of a degree to melt the poles.

    manipulating and screwing up the economy isnt enough for libs? Now they want to screw with the weather?

    That will work out just like every other jack booted er rigged scheme they ever had.

  224. Bron,

    Some businesses are actually worried about rising sea levels and and see that as a potential economic problem:

    Rising water levels threaten Boston’s waterfront
    Business is booming from end to end of the waterfront, but the specter of surging sea levels has developers on edge
    By Casey Ross
    Globe Staff
    August 04, 2013
    http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/08/03/water-threatening-waterfront-development/b4eCLXFdwk5d8hUHcYdIeI/story.html

    Excerpt:
    Boston’s effort to redevelop its waterfront is running into a major obstacle: Water.

    From downtown to East Boston to Dorchester, rising sea levels are posing an increasingly urgent threat to developers’ plans to build hundreds of homes, offices, stores, and parks along Boston Harbor, with many acknowledging the need to reinforce existing properties and redesign new ones in case of flooding from another Hurricane Sandy-like storm.

    “We can’t ignore it,” said Donald Chiofaro Jr. of the Chiofaro Co., which is seeking to redevelop the Harbor Garage along Atlantic Avenue. “We can’t allow ourselves to look the other way and end up in the same situation as lower Manhattan after Sandy.”

    Several building owners are already preparing for the growing possibility of flood waters. At Fan Pier, developer Joseph Fallon has moved critical electrical systems higher in his buildings. Nearby, developers of a residential tower at Pier 4 are proposing to use special flood barriers for lower entrances. And the newly built Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital in Charlestown is surrounded by protective walls and landscaping buffers, and no patient programs are located on the ground floor.

    In Boston, a city with more than $460 billion in real estate assets along the water, sea levels, projected to rise two feet by 2050, are not just an environmental concern, but a potent economic threat. Even now many waterfront buildings are only a few feet above the tide line, and a single storm surge could swiftly inflict massive financial losses and shut businesses for weeks — a combination that cost the New York area $50 billion after Sandy hit last year.

    Mayor Thomas M. Menino’s administration is currently assessing the city’s vulnerabilities and options to strengthen coastal protections and safeguard waterfront properties. In many ways, the threat of rising sea levels is an exasperating irony for Boston, which has spent billions of dollars to reconnect the city to its harbor, only to have the water emerge as a major physical and economic threat.

  225. Now I know your not suppose to cherry pick years but when someone predicts like this and it fails we call it in the forecasting business a busted forecast.

    Arctic WILL NOT BE Ice Free in 2013 LOL

    By Paul Beckwith

    On March 23, 2013, I made the following prediction:

    “For the record—I do not think that any sea ice will survive this summer. An event unprecedented in human history is today, this very moment, transpiring in the Arctic Ocean.

    The cracks in the sea ice that I reported in my Sierra blog and elsewhere have spread. Worse news is at this very moment the entire sea ice sheet (or about 99 percent of it) covering the Arctic Ocean is on the move (clockwise), and the thin, weakened icecap has literally begun to tear apart.

    This is abrupt climate change in real-time.
    http://www.sierraclub.ca/en/AdultDiscussionPlease

  226. If that guy had a clue he would have known that before it was moving clockwise, High Pressure. It was moving under 100 mph plus winds counter clockwise due to the Great Arctic Cyclone of 2012 which blew the ice AWAY from the North Pole to warmer waters where it began to melt.

  227. Then it was like Ice cubes floating in a bowl of water then somebody put the bowl in the freezer and Wa-La like magic it is now over 19,000 Manhattans strong at the end of the Summer Melt Season.

  228. So now you know the Arctic will not be Ice free in 2013 and even if it was it has been near that before, google USS Skate surfaces at the North Pole.

    Then look at how many times and the locations.

  229. Wow, Bron. For someone who says they are a civil engineer, you have remarakably little appreciation for the reality of flooding and its damages. Or perhaps you think that – like magic – the water will be pristine.

    It isn’t.

    And it stays polluted and filled with debris for a long time.

    Kind of like a mind flooded with Rand and von Mises.

  230. I would rather have global warming than an another ice age, can you imagine a glacier sliding down the Hudson River.

  231. Bron,
    “Why do you think man is the cause of global warming when the sun is what powers the earth?

    Why is CO2 any different than any other gas in our atmosphere? What is so special about CO2? If it was such a great insulator they would use it in double pain windows.”

    Your second question answered your first question.
    The nature of your questions indicates that you already know the answers.
    You are being willfully ignorant.
    Like the other deniers.

  232. Bruce,

    There is nothing that can be done that will deter the next ice age. They are caused by cyclic gravitational tugs from Jupiter and Saturn periodically elongating Earth’s orbit. This effect combines with periodical but slow changes in the direction and degree of Earth’s tilt (called “precession”) that are caused by the gravity of our moon. You cannot combat celestial mechanics. You can, however, alter the chemistry of Earth’s atmosphere.

  233. That remark seems to assume the only choices are global warming or an ice age. Surely we can figure out a way to strike a middle ground that avoids both.

    And it is not clear to me that the engineering challenges of dealing with an ice age are greater than dealing with global warming.

    Within a limited range, say +- 100c it might be less difficult to deal with the cold. If average ambient is 60c I could imagine many surviving -40c. I don’t see many surviving +160c.

    That being said, +160 is far beyond anything projected for global warming – at least in the next century or so.

    Is there any possibility of entering a range where a positive feed back loop leads to more and more warming. I am reminded of Venus with a surface temperature above 400c.

  234. NOAA Report Card For 2012’s Climate: More Warming
    SETH BORENSTEIN
    August 7, 2013
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/noaa-report-card-for-2012s-climate-more-warming.php?ref=fpb

    Excerpt:
    WASHINGTON (AP) — A new massive federal study says the world in 2012 sweltered with continued signs of climate change. Rising sea levels, snow melt, heat buildup in the oceans, and melting Arctic sea ice and Greenland ice sheets, all broke or nearly broke records, but temperatures only sneaked into the top 10.

    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on Tuesday issued a peer-reviewed 260-page report, which agency chief Kathryn Sullivan calls its annual “checking on the pulse of the planet.” The report, written by 384 scientists around the world, compiles data already released, but it puts them in context of what’s been happening to Earth over decades.

    “It’s critically important to compile a big picture,” National Climatic Data Center director Tom Karl says. “The signs that we see are of a warming world.”

    Sullivan says what is noticeable “are remarkable changes in key climate indicators,” mentioning dramatic spikes in ocean heat content, a record melt of Arctic sea ice in the summer, and whopping temporary melts of ice in most of Greenland last year. The data also shows a record-high sea level.

    The most noticeable and startling changes seen were in the Arctic, says report co-editor Deke Arndt, climate monitoring chief at the data center. Breaking records in the Arctic is so common that it is becoming the new normal, says study co-author Jackie Richter-Menge of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory in Hanover, N.H.

    Karl says when looked at together, all the indicators show a climate that is changing over the decades. Individually, however, the story isn’t as simple.

    Karl says surface temperatures haven’t risen in the last 10 years, but he notes that is only a blip in time due to natural variability. When looking at more scientifically meaningful time frames of 30 years, 50 years and more than 100 years, temperatures are rising quite a bit, Karl said. Since records have been kept in 1880, all 10 of the warmest years ever have been in the past 15 years, NOAA records show.

  235. Bron,,
    You said…

    “manipulating and screwing up the economy isnt enough for libs?”

    Then you said…

    “for every business that will be underwater, there will be a business that has waterfront property.”

    *****

    It appears you have a selective concern about problems with our economy. If coastal cities are flooded, seaports destroyed, waterfront businesses ruined due to rising sea levels, you couldn’t care less. You only care about economic problems caused by “libs.” Did I get that right?

  236. “Why is CO2 any different than any other gas in our atmosphere? What is so special about CO2? If it was such a great insulator they would use it in double pain windows.”

    Maybe it is time someone attempted a more detailed answer to this question. I am going to have to go to Wikipedia or something and look it up.

    But as a first cut: every gas has specific chemical and optical qualities. CO2 allows a broad spectrum light to pass through. That is one important fact because that allows light from the sun to warm the surface of the earth. But CO2 has different properties for infrared energy, which is the way heat radiates. CO2 tends not to transmit the infrared energy as well which is the second important point. When the infrared energy cannot radiate away from the surface of the earth, the earth heats up more than it otherwise would.

    Increasing levels of CO2 tend to trap more heat at the earths surface causing the earth to heat up more.

    CO2 is not a particularly good insulator. Even the most pessimistic projections suggest changes of a few degrees per century. But the effect on the earth can be great because the effect acts over long periods of time and over the entire surface of the earth which is huge. So when it comes to window pains which cover a few percent of you homes surface area, even if you run your Amish heater year round you will not see any significant difference in you utility bill.

    Is CO2 the only factor that affects global warming? The simple answer is – no. Specifically, there are many sources for CO2, and there are many gasses in the atmosphere and they all have different characteristics when it comes to the transmission of light and heat. Two other gasses frequently mentioned in regard to global warming are methane and refrigerant gasses like freon. But increasing levels of CO2 since the beginning of the industrial age seem a likely factor in the global warming that we see today.

    I apologize for any damage I might have done to science or scientists everywhere.

    If your really need a good explanation for how CO2 acts to warm the planet talk to any HS student who passed chemistry or physics.

  237. Elaine:

    I am pretty certain that industrial civilization is not the cause of global warming. My bet is that it is caused by the sun.

  238. Sullivan says what is noticeable “are remarkable changes in key climate indicators,” mentioning dramatic spikes in ocean heat content, a record melt of Arctic sea ice in the summer, and whopping temporary melts of ice in most of Greenland last year. The data also shows a record-high sea level.

    The most noticeable and startling changes seen were in the Arctic, says report co-editor Deke Arndt, climate monitoring chief at the data center. Breaking records in the Arctic is so common that it is becoming the new normal, says study co-author Jackie Richter-Menge of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory in Hanover, N.H.

    *mentioning dramatic spikes in ocean heat content

    They don’t know what it is. They are theorizing and the theory behind the last 15 year pause in warming is the warmth has to go some place so it must be in the deep ocean ready to come back to the surface with a vengence and produce rapid warming.

    Kevin Trenberth NCAR

    “In the last decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700 m, contributing significantly to an acceleration of the warming trend. The warming below 700 m remains even when the Argo observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced. Sensitivity experiments illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical distribution..”

    We only measure sea surface temperature. There are no measuring devices below 700 meters of the ocean. Hence the knock joke has Trenberth found the missing heat. That is the heat the models were predicting for surface temperature.

    * a record melt of Arctic sea ice in the summer-

    TRUE but already discussed Great Arctic Cyclone 2012. Now Arctic sea Ice 2nd highest on record IN SUMMER

    * whopping temporary melts of ice in most of Greenland last year.

    NASA
    “Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” said Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. “But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome.”
    http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2012-217

  239. The data also shows a record-high sea level.

    Do you consider 1 inch a decade sea level rising fast. Do the math and tell me how long it will take for the seas to rise a foot.

    NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas

    The red line in this image shows the long-term increase in global sea level since satellite altimeters began measuring it in the early 1990s. Since then, sea level has risen by a little more than an inch each decade, or about 3 millimeters per year. While most years have recorded a rise in global sea level, the recent drop of nearly a quarter of an inch, or half a centimeter, is attributable to the switch from El Niño to La Niña conditions in the Pacific. The insets show sea level changes in the Pacific Ocean caused by the recent El Niño and La Niña

    http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2011-262

  240. JoeBlow,

    I think you need to read that article more closely. I didn’t cherry pick information from that article. I posted an excerpt from and a link to the entire article–which wasn’t about just the year 2012.

    Here’s an excerpt from the excerpt that I posted above:

    “The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on Tuesday issued a peer-reviewed 260-page report, which agency chief Kathryn Sullivan calls its annual “checking on the pulse of the planet.” The report, written by 384 scientists around the world, compiles data already released, but it puts them in context of what’s been happening to Earth over decades.”

    Here’s another excerpt from the article:

    “Karl says surface temperatures haven’t risen in the last 10 years, but he notes that is only a blip in time due to natural variability. When looking at more scientifically meaningful time frames of 30 years, 50 years and more than 100 years, temperatures are rising quite a bit, Karl said. Since records have been kept in 1880, all 10 of the warmest years ever have been in the past 15 years, NOAA records show.”

  241. Elaine quoted article: “Karl says surface temperatures haven’t risen in the last 10 years, but he notes that is only a blip in time due to natural variability. When looking at more scientifically meaningful time frames of 30 years, 50 years and more than 100 years, temperatures are rising quite a bit, Karl said. Since records have been kept in 1880, all 10 of the warmest years ever have been in the past 15 years, NOAA records show.”

    Everyone is talking past each other, picking and choosing data and how to present it. I’m talking about both sides, as illustrated here in your quote.

    Previously I pointed to data manipulation to hide data trends, smooth data, and even eliminate data to show what the presenters wanted to show. I also referenced an article by McIntyre and McKitrick. It showed that for the long data trend being talked about in your quote, the infamous hockey stick graph, the data trend is a result of the transformations. They did the same transformations to randomly generated data and got the same hockey stick. So statistical significance of the trend is questionable.
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004GL021750/abstract

    I don’t know what to believe because I don’t trust the data and I don’t trust the ones giving us the data. There is money to be made, Al Gore being estimated at raising his net worth to $200 million through his climate change agenda. Many say he is on track to become the first carbon billionaire. Everyone wants a piece of that financial pie. So in the end, we have politically motivated science going on, with scientists having their hands out for investments in their research into global warming.

    My gut tells me that there probably is some warming trend, but that human activity makes only a slight contribution to it. No doubt that burning fuels contribute to warming because we understand the effect of sunlight on the gases produced, but if we stopped all fuel burning today and had a zero carbon footprint, I think the global warming trend, if it really exists, would still continue at pretty much the same pace. Again, this is only a hunch because I don’t trust the data being reported. My hunch is based more upon understanding the scrubbing effect the natural planet has and our current population levels and the vast amount of ocean surface etc.

  242. Your “hunch” would be entirely ignorant of how the chemistry of carbon sequestration in water works. When carbon is scrubbed from the air by sea water, it is converted into calcium carbonate. As the levels of calcium carbonate rises, the pH of the ocean lowers i.e. it becomes acidic. The more acidic the ocean, the less hospitable to life the sea becomes. In the past, ocean acidification has been directly traced to episodes of mass vulcanism and it led to mass extinctions in the seas. But we know where the carbon came from. Volcanoes releasing carbon that is otherwise normally trapped in geological strata. So absent some supervening event like vulcanism, the effects of global warming would not continue as they have. The carbon is coming from somewhere. That somewhere is the free release of carbon into the atmosphere and hydrosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. Global warming is caused by man. We’re the ones making the carbon available that would otherwise be trapped in geologic strata by drilling oil and mining coal and burning them.

  243. Nevertheless I think Davidm2575 has a good question regarding data and any tampering.

    I have known of some controversy regarding data tampering for more than a decade and stayed clear because I know that to really evaluate the issues one has to know some math and something about the subject.

    But there are some articles that seem to hit the main points, even if not the gory technical detail.

    Wikipedia has an article that addresses Climate Research Unit Email controversy. And a web sit called skeptical science at

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/CRU-tampered-temperature-data.htm

    also addresses the issue. I am sure there are many more

    Essentially some email came to light (hacked) that suggested that climate data was being manipulated.

    The real issue is not was data manipulated – transformed but whether that action was reasonable from the standpoint of science.

    Apparently the data ‘manipulation’ at CRU was investigated a number of times and the conclusion was that while the emails sound incriminating to non scientist the data was handled appropriately from the point of view science.

    A man has to know his limits and I know some of mine. If professionals in field who actually work with the data say that the transformations were appropriate then I have no tools to contradict them.

    I also came across an article published by CATO institute. One of the first listings on one of my google searches.

    That article (Michaels, Global Warming: correcting the data) says that the data collection he looked at was biased by social influences such as the growth of large urban areas. His calculation showed that the probability that the data set was free of bias was 1 in 14 trillion.

    But after all the correction Michaels’ conclusion was that the data set overstated global warming by only about 15% and that global warming was real but proceeding at a slower pace than previously asserted.

    I personally have to conclude that charges regarding data transformation indicate that the institution of science is working the way it is supposed to.

    One professional publishes. Someone else looks over his data and his model and presents their own ideas. If someone thinks the transformation is inappropriate then that person is free to make their own transformation and publish their own conclusions for everyone else’s review and comment.

    That is the way science works.

  244. Pardon me, I mispoke the influence of pain medication. I meant carbonic acid. Good catch, Bron. Mea maxima culpa.

  245. Your “hunch” would be entirely ignorant of how the chemistry of carbon sequestration in water works. When carbon is scrubbed from the air by sea water, it is converted into calcium carbonate. As the levels of calcium carbonate rises, the pH of the ocean lowers i.e. it becomes acidic.

    If you look back far enough to when CO2 was at its peak levels on the planet you will find that most mollusks and carbonate dependent organisms evolved at the same time that atmospheric CO2 concentration was over 8,000ppm. Before you get to claim that carbonate organisms are having problems they need to answer why carbonate organisms can’t deal with a CO2 increase of 30% while their ancestors thrived at concentrations higher than 200%. It just doesn’t make sense.

  246. Final remark on data transformation:

    As I was reading about data manipulation I came across several variables that never occurred to me. I have mentioned the growth of large urban areas mentioned in the Michaels’ paper, And I have previously mentioned the necessity to bias automated equipment and to correct data if a problem in calibration is later discovered.

    But others mention factors related to much simpler aspects of technology.

    In one period of time ocean temperature measurements were made from water dredged with canvas buckets and hauled up onto the deck of a ship. Does changing the method of collecting water temperature reading change the way we should handle the data? It should.

    Another person pointed out that thermometers might not change in accuracy but the aging of the color of the paint on the protective enclosure might affect the readings because darker enclosures would trap more heat. Should we try to account for that kind of change? Definitely, if we can make a reasonable estimate.

    Another pointed out that readings run for 24 hours starting at mid night. Now the readings are mostly automated so we can be assured of getting the maximum and the minimum for that 24 hour period.

    But decades ago readings were frequently made by hand at uniform but convenient hours. For example readings might be made at 7am and 5pm. Does that matter? It might if the thermometer had a device to capture the minimum temperature. If the thermometer was read at 7am and the minimum temperature capture device reset, then it is possible that the minimum recorded for the succeeding day would actually be the minimum from the preceding day. Should we correct for that. Well, if the data analyst can figure it out then sure, definitely.

    I have no idea if all the adjustments made to data sets are the best use we can make of the data regarding global warming. But it seems to me that the idea that we should try to use raw data with out any attempt to adjust to various anomalies reflects a naïve view that cannot be supported when one considers the many different conditions of data collection.

  247. ” Before you get to claim that carbonate organisms are having problems they need to answer why carbonate organisms can’t deal with a CO2 increase of 30% while their ancestors thrived at concentrations higher than 200%. It just doesn’t make sense.”

    The statement does not say that it is carbon itself that is the problem as you suggest. The statement clearly describes how carbon can lead to acidification of water. It is common knowledge that organisms require a narrow range of ph for life. If conditions are to acidic or to base then the organism will fail.and eventually die. Pickling with acetic or lactic acid is an example of using a solution with a ph balance that prevents the growth of most bacteria in order to preserve food.

    If you really believe that CO2 is not a problem at any level then you might demonstrate that by breathing 10% or 15% CO2 and let us know how that works out for you.

  248. BFM,
    My son had a hobby of raising tropical fish when he was a teenager. There were two things that caused more headaches than anything else. He asked me to help him. It did not take me long to learn that Ph balance and temperature range are vitally important when you have a dozen expensive fish in the tank. If the Ph was not within range, or the water temps were outside recommended limits, there were problems. Diseases and parasites would thrive, or the fish would simply die. Anyone who has kept an aquarium in home or office is probably rather sensitive to those two things. Fish have requirements, and hot or acidic water are not among them.

  249. Joe Blow:

    You state that it doesn’t make sense that carbonate organisms in the oceans should have trouble adapting to higher CO2 levels when their ancestors survived at much higher levels. The quick answer is that today’s organisms are not their ancestors. It may also be the case that acidity is increasing at a rate beyond the ability of organisms to adapt. I suspect that may be the case. What I know for a fact is what I have observed diving off the coast of Florida for the past 30 plus years: massive amounts of coral bleaching and actual coral disintegration. As others have noted, reef systems thrive within a narrow range of temperature and Ph.

    Scuba divers also understand that CO2 is not a harmless gas. It becomes toxic and extremely dangerous when it becomes too concentrated.

  250. What Mike A. said about evolution. if an organism has thousands, or even millions of years to adapt, covering untold millions of generations, that is one thing. Having less than a century to adapt, let alone a few tens of years is quite another. Also, given that a human generation only occurs about every twenty five years, four generations a century, we adapt WAY too slow.

    For anyone taking a cavalier approach to this issue for short term money, think about your great grandchildren watching their great-grandchildren having families. What will their lives be like if we ignore the problem? Or will they have lives? At what point does the earth become unsustainable? The Koch brothers and their ilk cannot take it with them, but they sure as heck are not going to give it to the unwashed masses. Also, fossil fuel sources are finite. What then?

  251. Yes. If the environment changes very slowly, say over millions of years, random mutations may allow organisms to adapt. They might just go extinct, instead. The mutations are random, not purposeful.
    If human interference causes the environment to change significantly within, say, 100 years, it’s very unlikely that organisms will adapt. They’ll probably just die out.
    And we’ll follow them. Poetic justice is satisfying, less so if you’re the one getting the justice.

  252. Excerpt— Key words Scientist at San Diego’s Scripps Institution

    Last month scientists at San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography and other authors published a study showing how much the pH level (measuring alkalinity versus acidity) varies naturally between parts of the ocean and at different times of the day, month and year.

    “On both a monthly and annual scale, even the most stable open ocean sites see pH changes many times larger than the annual rate of acidification,” say the authors of the study, adding that because good instruments to measure ocean pH have only recently been deployed, “this variation has been under-appreciated.” Over coral reefs, the pH decline between dusk and dawn is almost half as much as the decrease in average pH expected over the next 100 years. The noise is greater than the signal.

    Another recent study, by scientists from the U.K., Hawaii and Massachusetts, concluded that “marine and freshwater assemblages have always experienced variable pH conditions,” and that “in many freshwater lakes, pH changes that are orders of magnitude greater than those projected for the 22nd-century oceans can occur over periods of hours.”

  253. In a recent experiment in the Mediterranean, reported in Nature Climate Change, corals and mollusks were transplanted to lower pH sites, where they proved “able to calcify and grow at even faster than normal rates when exposed to the high [carbon-dioxide] levels projected for the next 300 years.” In any case, freshwater mussels thrive in Scottish rivers, where the pH is as low as five.

    Laboratory experiments find that more marine creatures thrive than suffer when carbon dioxide lowers the pH level to 7.8. This is because the carbon dioxide dissolves mainly as bicarbonate, which many calcifiers use as raw material for carbonate.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203550304577138561444464028.html

    Author Matt Ridley as in Turtle-Shell

    NEXT

  254. I will also point out that the ocean isn’t the only mechanism to remove CO2 from the atmosphere there are things called plants. And as CO2 has been steadily rising the tropical rain forest around the world or getting greener and greener. Now if we can just stop them from cutting them down.

  255. If the ocean is becoming more acidic preventing coral to grow and as some suggest leading to bleaching thus death how does one explain the coral at Bikini Atoll

  256. Excerpt

    Coral is again flourishing in the crater left by the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated by the United States, 54 years after the blast on Bikini Atoll, marine scientists reported Tuesday.

    A team of research divers visited Bravo crater — ground zero for the test of a thermonuclear weapon in the remote Marshall Islands on March 1, 1954 — and found large numbers of fish and coral growing, although some species appeared locally extinct.

    “I didn’t know what to expect, some kind of moonscape perhaps. But it was incredible, huge matrices of branching Porites coral had established, creating thriving coral reef habitat,” Zoe Richards, from Australia’s James Cook University, said of the trip to the atoll in the South Pacific.

    Richards, from the Australian government-backed Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, said the research team from Germany, Italy, Hawaii, Australia and the Marshall Islands found corals up to 27 feet tall and some with 12 inch-thick trunks.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/24132798/ns/world_news-world_environment/t/coral-flourishing-bikini-atoll-atomic-test-site/#.UgS-yqzKGfU

    “We saw communities not too far from any coral reef, with plenty of fish, corals and action going on, some really striking individual colonies,” she said.

    The 15 megaton hydrogen bomb was 1,000 times more powerful than the blast that destroyed Hiroshima, vaporizing islands with temperatures hitting 99,000 degres Fahrenheit, and shaking islands up to 120 miles away.

  257. And if seas are rising at an unprecedented rate the Marshall islands would be covered by now. But if one was to exam they would find that there has been near 0 SEA LEVEL RISE in the Islands. Not hard to fathom seeing how NASA records a rate of one inch of sea level rise per ten years since we began measuring via satellite.

    Most places that have recorded sea level rises mostly along the East Coast and North Gulf Coast is because the land is sinking. FACT

  258. OS:

    “For anyone taking a cavalier approach to this issue for short term money,”

    you talking about Al Gore?

  259. joe blow:

    that was some fascinating information.

    Thank the gods there are still people curious about our world and who are seeking the truth.

    I dont think we know enough to really have a good idea as to what is going on. Most probably a natural cycle. Say, werent there glaciers covering North America a while back?

    Thank god there was no human industry back then, we would still be living in caves and praying to Achk for deliverance from solar eclipses.

    Hmm, makes one wonder about the motivation of warmers doesnt it?

  260. Facts are always interesting. Please don’t bring Al Gore into the picture. Just like the polar bears (Numbers are increasing) we don’t talk about him this time of year.. We wait for winter and let Old Man Winter pound on him some.

  261. The polar bears love Old Man Winter and he has come two weeks early this year as the Arctic has now dropped below freezing signaling that the summer melt season is over.

  262. Joe Blow:

    when I worked up in Alaska we pulled anchor in September to head to Victoria, BC for drydock to avoid the sea ice. You telling me its earlier now than it was 30 years ago?

  263. Bron did you do this. It’s clear to see whats happening.

    Try this exercise at the Cryosphere, not sure how cry and sphere were put together. March 1st widely accepted as first of spring, some say April. Compare April 30th 2013 to April 30 1979 the beginning of the record. Decrease 2013 by one year leaving the beginning date of April 30th 1979. If it says no image available skip that year and go to the next.

    When finished do the reverse. Leave April 30th 2013 as the end date and increase April 30th 1979 by one year increments.repeat 10 times.

    What do you see

    Dates preset to start

    Cryosphere Today Daily Sea Ice Comparison
    Not only is ice increasing the snow cap is increasing. We are cooling now.

    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=04&fd=30&fy=1979&sm=04&sd=30&sy=2013

  264. Gene H wrote: “Your “hunch” would be entirely ignorant of how the chemistry of carbon sequestration in water works. When carbon is scrubbed from the air by sea water, it is converted into calcium carbonate. As the levels of calcium carbonate rises, the pH of the ocean lowers i.e. it becomes acidic.”

    It is strange how you accuse me of being “entirely ignorant” by putting out false information that reveals your own ignorance. The carbon cycle is a bit more complicated than you portray it to be. When CO2 is dissolved in the oceans, the molecules generally formed toward the surface are carbonic acid (H2CO3), bicarbonate (HCO3-), and Carbonate (CO3-2). The process of forming bicarbonate and carbonate releases hydrogen ions which are responsible for the pH increase. Calcium Carbonate is a base, not an acid, and it acts toward increasing the pH, making it less acidic, not decreasing it. Calcium Carbonate is a byproduct too, but it formed at deeper levels in the oceans, usually in the form of aragonite and calcite. The depth at which this happens is important for the biology being discussed. None of this detracts from the bottom line that CO2 works toward lowering pH in oceans, but your understanding of it and how that happens, and especially how organisms that rely on calcium production are affected, is not really based in science knowledge but the propaganda being put out by climatologists (who are scientists too, but scientists with a political agenda to secure grants and funding for themselves). Thirty years ago, there were scientists concerned about climate change, but it was a very small voice that didn’t gain the kind of traction representative of religious organizations because there was not a Vice President of the greatest nation on earth singing its praises and heralding its warnings. Since this has happened, investors have their checkbooks out to get in on the game and politicians all over the world are using tax dollars to fund research.

    Gene H wrote: ” So absent some supervening event like vulcanism, the effects of global warming would not continue as they have.”

    Please don’t tell me that you assume volcanism is a process of the past, or that it serves as a primary source of CO2. Gases like Sulphur Dioxide are more prevalent in that process, but I tire of giving science lessons to people who think that I am entirely ignorant of something for which I have a college degree. If you don’t like my hunches, so be it.

  265. Joe Blow –
    That was an interesting link to the Bikini Atoll. Evolutionists have long used coral reef growth data as an empirical clock to debunk creationist models of origins. I’m sure some of the creationists will use this data to debunk the critics of creationism, but our school systems will continue to refuse to allow this kind of interpretation and data into the classroom.

    Did you notice how the “surprised” Zoe Richards was quick to add at the end, “… resiliency does not mean the threat to corals from climate change had been overestimated. Climate change is an ongoing struggle to survive with coral, with no reprieve in sight.” Such a statement is a typical example of how it doesn’t matter what the data says, the dogma and paradigm overrules everything else. People think science has no bias, but examples like this keep reminding the observant reader that scientists are humans like everybody else, and they are far less objective than what they pretend to be.

  266. OS,

    The deniers and Koch Inc. are like the bears they are involved in slowly killing:

    … the males cannot wear collars because their necks are larger than their heads …

    (your link / ring of fire). They are bringing this on all of us.

  267. OS – I am not a denier, but articles like the one you link to bother me because they always quote some authority rather than objectively talk about the data. It kind of reminds me of the anti-abortionists who show a picture of a dead fetus and then quote some medical doctor who promotes their cause. I get suspicious of propaganda and agendas when reading articles like these.

    Some populations of polar bears are doing better and are increasing and some are doing worse. The ice sheet in the arctic has been shrinking, but how does this affect the 20,000 polar bears living there exactly?

    Here is some actual data that might help balance the article to which you link.
    http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/status-table.html

    I also consider the data with some skepticism because there definitely is an agenda to get a certain result.

  268. Bron 1, August 7, 2013 at 6:12 pm

    Dredd:

    Why do you think man is the cause of global warming when the sun is what powers the earth?

    Why is CO2 any different than any other gas in our atmosphere? What is so special about CO2? If it was such a great insulator they would use it in double pain windows.
    ==============================
    In general … according to Epistemology … basically, and in one word, trust:

    I find myself believing all sorts of things for which I do not possess evidence: that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer, that my car keeps stalling because the carburetor needs to be rebuild, that mass media threaten democracy, that slums cause emotional disorders, that my irregular heart beat is premature ventricular contraction, that students’ grades are not correlated with success in the nonacademic world, that nuclear power plants are not safe (enough) …

    The list of things I believe, though I have no evidence for the truth of them, is, if not infinite, virtually endless. And I am finite. Though I can readily imagine what I would have to do to obtain the evidence that would support any one of my beliefs, I cannot imagine being able to do this for all of my beliefs. I believe too much; there is too much relevant evidence (much of it available only after extensive, specialized training); intellect is too small and life too short.

    What are we as epistemologists to say about all these beliefs? If I, without the available evidence, nevertheless believe a proposition, are my belief and I in that belief necessarily irrational or non-rational? Is my belief then mere belief (Plato’s right opinion)? If not, why not? Are there other good reasons for believing propositions, reasons which do not reduce to having evidence for the truth of those propositions? What would these reasons look like?

    In this paper I want to consider the idea of intellectual authority, particularly that of experts. I want to explore the “logic” or epistemic structure of an appeal to intellectual authority and the way in which such an appeal constitutes justification for believing and knowing.

    (The Pillars of Knowledge: Faith and Trust?, quoting a scientific journal). I am like everyone else who is not a professional climate scientist, in that, I listen to scientists, read scientific papers, and then come to a personal conclusion by choosing which scientists to rely upon.

    Like professional scientists do (they rely on other scientists).

    Now, to your specific questions:

    Why do you think man is the cause of global warming when the sun is what powers the earth?

    ‘Powering the Earth’ is a poor choice of words.

    Nevertheless, energy in the form of photons emanating from the Sun enter the Earths atmosphere and are absorbed.

    That increases the ‘heat quantity’ around the globe.

    Concurrently heat is being radiated back into space from the Earth.

    When the amount being radiated back into space does not equal the amount entering the Earth, then an increase in heat energy takes place.

    Following the Fifth Mass Extinction Event, ~65 mya, caused by an asteroid impact, which was millions of years prior to ‘Petroleum Man’ there was a certain atmospheric mix.

    It was balanced – heat in = heat out.

    The industrial revolution of current human civilization began to burn fossil fuels, first coal, then petroleum, and natural gas.

    These eventually upset the atmospheric balance as to green house gases in the atmosphere – gases which inhibit the release of heat back into space.

    Thus, the biosphere / ecosphere begins to absorb the heat. Today the imbalance of heat in – heat out is about equivalent to 400,000 Hiroshima nuclear bombs per day. PER DAY.

    When the various carbon sinks can’t absorb it, the atmospheric content of green house gases increases causing the heat radiation back into space to decrease.

    The heat of the globe increases accordingly.

    Next you wrote:

    Why is CO2 any different than any other gas in our atmosphere?

    It has a different number of elements (1 ‘C’ atom, 2 ‘O’ atoms) in its molecules compared to other gases.

    Next you wrote:

    What is so special about CO2?

    Special is not a good choice … all gases are different from one another because of the quantity of atoms that are bound together to form their molecular construct.

    Next you wrote:

    If it was such a great insulator they would use it in double pain windows.

    Engineering based on molecular structure of gases, liquids, and solids is best done following experiments.

    Insulation technology as an applied science is based upon the experiments conducted in a specific context.

    Practicality then arises in terms of efficiency related to costs.

    That is why it is not used in double pane windows in most contexts.

  269. DavidM,

    With all due respect you’ve got a great patter going, but the problem is we can easily guess what side you’ll take in any discussion.

  270. In the forecast business this is known as a BUSTED forecast

    Back when the sea was thick and lasted for years, cyclones tended to spread the ice out and actually increase its extent, said Julienne Stroeve of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo. Now, when ice gets spread out, it simply breaks up and disappears.

    “As our ice cover has thinned, some of our old rules are changing,” said Stroeve.

    This year “will without a doubt” rank in the top five lowest levels of ice extent ever recorded in the satellite era, and there is a good possibility that 2013 could rank second in terms of recorded ice lows, said Walt Meier, a scientist at the National Snow & Ice Data Center.

    “It’s kind of remarkable that it’s as low as it is [this year], given that the weather conditions were not terribly optimal for ice loss,” Meier said.

    Centre for Ocean and Ice – Danish Meteorological Institute
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php

  271. @davidm2575

    Just trying to be clear, are you saying there is no threat to coral, or are you saying coral can adapt to the threat?

    And it is not clear to me that the challenge to life posed by atomic blast or nuclear radiation is the same as that posed by long term climate change.

    Maybe the forces are similar or even the same. But so far as I know that has not been established here, and in the absence of further explanation does not seem likely to me.

  272. Joe Blow 1, August 9, 2013 at 2:24 pm

    The sky is falling
    ===================================
    You cognition is failing.

    Try getting counsel, assuming you are an adult.

    Otherwise, talk with your parents about it.

  273. bigfatmike wrote: “are you saying there is no threat to coral, or are you saying coral can adapt to the threat?”

    The nuclear blast decimated everything there. The scientist was surprised at the huge coral there, growing like trees. She was surprised at what she found there because they always harp on how long it takes coral to grow, and that we are destroying something that will take 100,000 years to come back. I’m not joking. It is an artifact concerning how they interpret data through a uniformitarian mindset, and the popularity among other biologists to preach an environmental sermon about what they know. Sometimes information that comes from a super smart scientist or a prophet in touch with God himself is about the same thing.

  274. ” Sometimes information that comes from a super smart scientist or a prophet in touch with God himself is about the same thing.”

    Well I think we at least agree on a couple of things: sometimes scientist get it wrong and sometimes the smarter they are the more certain they are of themselves.

    Its curious, but if science is the process of attempting to falsify propositions, then scientist work in one of the very few professions where they get paid to prove themselves wrong.

    I am curious though regarding the coral, did anyone actually check to see if the formations were new growth? Or is it possible the large formations were actually saved from destruction by discontinuities in the blast and fireball?

  275. from NBC news: “The healthy condition of the coral at Bikini atoll today is proof of their resilience and ability to bounce back from massive disturbances,” Zoe said, “that is, if the reef is left undisturbed and there are healthy nearby reefs to source the recovery….She added that that resiliency does not mean the threat to corals from climate change had been overestimated….Climate change is an ongoing struggle to survive with coral, with no reprieve in sight,” she said”

    Davidm2575: “Such a statement is a typical example of how it doesn’t matter what the data says, the dogma and paradigm overrules everything else.”

    I think before I could conclude the observer is overlooking or denying something I would have to first to conclude that the situation is not just local and really does have implications for the world wide coral habitat.

    Reefs, currents, underwater land masses and islands all might affect local conditions of temperature, ph, salinity, and water borne nutrients. I am sure that anyone with an interest in biology could suggest other important factors.

    If the coral growth is due to local conditions then there may be no implications for global warming. In that circumstance there would be nothing to deny or overlook.

    I would argue that the facts presented in the article are not sufficient to determine if conditions at the atoll are local or more typical of the world wide habitat for coral. Without more facts it is an open question to what degree coral growth at the atoll reflects local conditions and what if any implications there are for global warming.

    Until we determine that there really are implications for global warming that are being ignored, we cannot reasonably conclude that “dogma and paradigm overrules everything else.”

  276. Just a few FACTS as CO2 continues to rise currently 400PPM. Next you’ll be claiming we need pump up CO2 to reverse this trend

    Coldest summer on record at the North Pole
    Highest August Arctic ice extent since 2006
    Record high August Antarctic ice extent
    No major hurricane strikes for eight years
    World Wide Cyclones 30-40 year lows 4 years in a row
    Slowest tornado season on record
    No global warming for 15 years
    Second slowest fire season on record
    Four of the five snowiest northern hemisphere winters have occurred since 2008

  277. Another major European media outlet is asking: Where’s the global warming?

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

    Moreover, they are featuring prominent skeptic scientists who are warning of a potential little ice age and dismissing CO2 as a major climate driver. And all of this just before the release of the IPCC’s 5AR, no less!

  278. The August 7 print edition of the Danish Jyllands-Posten features a full 2-page article bearing the headline: ”The behavior of the sun may trigger a new little ice age” followed by the sub-headline: “Defying all predictions, the globe may be on the road towards a new little ice age with much colder winters.”

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

  279. P asks scientist Sebastian Mernild of the Glaciology and Climate Change Laboratory Center for Scientific Studies in Chile, who insists that ocean currents have taken the heat “down to the deep sea”.

    Once unthinkable just a few years ago, the European media and JP are now starting to admit the oceans are a poorly understood wild card in the climate equation after all. JP openly states, “The oceans are generally regarded as the big wildcard in the climate discussion.” Jylland Posten ends its 2-page feature story with questions and comments by Svensmark:

    How should ocean water under 700 meters be warmed up without a warming in the upper part? … In the period 1990-2000 you could see a rise in the ocean temperatures, which fit with the greenhouse effect. But it hasn’t been seen for the last 10 years. Temperatures don’t rise without the heat content in the sea increasing. Several thousand buoys put into the sea to measure temperature haven’t registered any rise in sea temperatures.”

  280. The Partisan Divide on Global Warming
    http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/the-partisan-divide-on-global-warming/

    Excerpt:
    While 63% of Americans overall believe there is solid evidence of global warming, there is a sharp partisan and ideological divide on the issue. Nearly eight-in-ten (77%) Democrats believe that global warming is occurring compared to 43% of Republicans. Just over seven-in-ten (73%) of Democrats who describe themselves as conservative or moderate believe there is solid evidence of warming, as do 84% of liberal Democrats.

    Among Republicans, only 31% of conservatives believe in global warming. An intra-party division exists, as 63% of Republicans who describe themselves as moderate or liberal believe in global warming – though but they constitute a smaller share of the party than do conservatives.

    The large partisan and ideological gap over the existence of global warming is also reflected in opinions about whether it represents a serious problem. Nine-in-ten (90%) liberal Democrats say global warming is at least a somewhat serious problem, with 64% calling it “very serious.” Nearly three-quarters of conservative Republicans (73%) say global warming either is not too serious a problem or not a problem.

    Tea Party affiliation is also a useful prism for understanding Republican divisions on global warming.

    Among all Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who agree with the Tea Party, 30% say there is solid evidence of global warming and 11% say it is mostly caused by human activity. A majority (56%) of Republicans and GOP leaners who do not agree with the Tea Party see solid evidence of global warming, and 28% say it is mostly caused by human activity.

  281. “Poll is from 2011 and really is the problem with you folks constantly living in the past.”

    Actually a well constructed poll from 2011 might be a very good indicator of current attitudes. It depends on how much and how fast attitudes are changing.

    In any case living in the recent past beats living in denial any day.

    Oh, did I mention evidence of obvious mental confusion:

    ” Yes Global Warming is real, CO2 is just not the main driver.”
    “The Globe is now cooling.”

    Or are these just the remarks of someone who will say anything to obscure the facts.

  282. Read and weep suckers

    Titlu : ELIMINATION North Pole Lake

    Caption : EDITORS, PHOTO EDITORS, AND PHOTO LIBRARIANS – PLEASE ELIMINATE AP PHOTO NY109 THAT WAS SENT ON SATURDAY, JULY 27, 2013. THE CAPTION INACCURATELY STATED THAT ‘THE SHALLOW MELTWATER LAKE IS OCCURRING DUE TO AN UNUSUALLY WARM PERIOD.’ IN FACT, THE WATER ACCUMULATES IN THIS WAY EVERY SUMMER. IN ADDITION, THE IMAGES DO NOT NECESSARILY SHOW CONDITIONS AT THE NORTH POLE, BECAUSE THE WEATHER BUOY CARRYING THE CAMERA USED BY THE NORTH POLE ENVIRONMENTAL OBSERVATORY HAS DRIFTED HUNDREDS OF MILES FROM ITS ORIGINAL POSITION, WHICH WAS A FEW DOZEN MILES FROM THE POLE- This frame grab provided by NOAA shows images from the wide-angle camera trained on a weather buoy maintained by the North Pole Environmental Observatory at the North Pole. The top image is a June 7, 2013 frame grab. The bottom image is a July 25, 2013 frame grab. (AP Photo/NOAA)

    http://foto.agerpres.ro/index.php?i=7147048

  283. Joe Blow 1, August 10, 2013 at 11:36 am

    Poll is from 2011 and really is the problem with you folks constantly living in the past.

    *****

    So what? The poll shows what people thought at the time–and just two years ago. That’s the problem with you climate change deniers–always finding problems with polls and scientific data that doesn’t fit jibe with your propaganda.

  284. “The Globe has cooled and it is now cooling again”

    Climate change is long term change in seasonal averages. No event, season, year, or even a series of years can demonstrate or refute climate change. Some in the field suggest that periods of 30 years are the shortest that would be sufficient to distinguish trend from noise (the normal increases and decreases in temperature readings) in regard to climate change.

    What, exactly, is the evidence for global cooling. If the trend line is shorter than 30 years, how would we know that what we are seeing really is global cooling rather than the normal ups and downs we would expect to see as global warming occurs?

  285. For the record, NY Times:

    West Antarctica has warmed much more than scientists had thought over the last half century, new research suggests, an ominous finding given that the huge ice sheet there may be vulnerable to long-term collapse, with potentially drastic effects on sea levels.

    A paper released Sunday by the journal Nature Geoscience reports that the temperature at a research station in the middle of West Antarctica has warmed by 4.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1958. That is roughly twice as much as scientists previously thought and three times the overall rate of global warming, making central West Antarctica one of the fastest-warming regions on earth.

    “The surprises keep coming,” said Andrew J. Monaghan, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who took part in the study. “When you see this type of warming, I think it’s alarming.”

    The permafrost down in Antarctica is also in an accelerated melt mode:

    For the first time, scientists have documented an acceleration in the melt rate of permafrost, or ground ice, in a section of Antarctica where the ice had been considered stable. The melt rates are comparable with the Arctic, where accelerated melting of permafrost has become a regularly recurring phenomenon, and the change could offer a preview of melting permafrost in other parts of a warming Antarctic continent.

    (Climate Denial Crock of The Week).

  286. Even some red states have pockets of people who are not reality challenged like deceiver Joe Blow:

    University of Texas: July 24, 2013 AUSTIN, Texas — For the first time, scientists have documented an acceleration in the melt rate of permafrost, or ground ice, in a section of Antarctica where the ice had been considered stable. The melt rates are comparable with the Arctic, where accelerated melting of permafrost has become a regularly recurring phenomenon, and the change could offer a preview of melting permafrost in other parts of a warming Antarctic continent.

    (Stable Antarctic Permafrost Melting Faster than Expected).

  287. When Joe Blow the lame deceiver, who can only deceive himself further here on this blog, comes up with a neoCon denier talking point given to him by his handlers, go to this site and look it up:

    Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn’t what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?

    (Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation).

  288. Joe Blow seems to be going thru his handlers’ list of myth, so to keep things ahead of his denialist utterings, here is a list of myths he has or is likely to set forth.

    The myths are in quotes.

    Following each myth is the reality.

    After all is set forth, there is a link to the site where these come from so if you have an interest in a particular myth Joe Blow sets forth, you can go to the link and read the complete debunking of each of his myths.
    ================================
    “Climate Myth” (vs (What the Science Says}
    ================================
    1 “Climate’s changed before” (Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.)

    2 “It’s the sun” (In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.)

    3 “It’s not bad” (Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.)

    4 “There is no consensus” (97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.)

    5 “It’s cooling” (The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record.)

    6 “Models are unreliable” (Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.)

    7 “Temp record is unreliable” (The warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas, measured by thermometers and satellites.)

    8 “Animals and plants can adapt” (Global warming will cause mass extinctions of species that cannot adapt on short time scales.)

    9 “It hasn’t warmed since 1998″ (For global records, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005.)

    10 “Antarctica is gaining ice” (Satellites measure Antarctica losing land ice at an accelerating rate.)

    11 “Ice age predicted in the 70s” (The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.)

    12 “CO2 lags temperature” (CO2 didn’t initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.)

    13 “Climate sensitivity is low” (Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.)

    14 “We’re heading into an ice age” (Worry about global warming impacts in the next 100 years, not an ice age in over 10,000 years.)

    15 “Ocean acidification isn’t serious” (Ocean acidification threatens entire marine food chains.)

    16 “Hockey stick is broken” (Recent studies agree that recent global temperatures are unprecedented in the last 1000 years.)

    17 “Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy” (A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident.)

    18 “Hurricanes aren’t linked to global warming” (There is increasing evidence that hurricanes are getting stronger due to global warming.)

    19 “Al Gore got it wrong” (Al Gore book is quite accurate, and far more accurate than contrarian books.)

    20 “Glaciers are growing” (Most glaciers are retreating, posing a serious problem for millions who rely on glaciers for water.)

    21 “It’s cosmic rays” (Cosmic rays show no trend over the last 30 years & have had little impact on recent global warming.)

    22 “1934 – hottest year on record” (1934 was one of the hottest years in the US, not globally.)

    23 “It’s freaking cold!” (A local cold day has nothing to do with the long-term trend of increasing global temperatures.)

    24 “Extreme weather isn’t caused by global warming” (Extreme weather events are being made more frequent and worse by global warming.)

    25 “Sea level rise is exaggerated” (A variety of different measurements find steadily rising sea levels over the past century.)

    26 “It’s Urban Heat Island effect” (Urban and rural regions show the same warming trend.)

    27 “Medieval Warm Period was warmer” (Globally averaged temperature now is higher than global temperature in medieval times.)

    28 “Mars is warming” (Mars is not warming globally.)

    29 “Arctic ice melt is a natural cycle” (Thick arctic sea ice is undergoing a rapid retreat.)

    30 “Increasing CO2 has little to no effect” (The strong CO2 effect has been observed by many different measurements.)

    31 “Oceans are cooling” (The most recent ocean measurements show consistent warming.)

    32 “It’s a 1500 year cycle” (Ancient natural cycles are irrelevant for attributing recent global warming to humans.)

    33 “Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions” (The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any.)

    34 “IPCC is alarmist” (Numerous papers have documented how IPCC predictions are more likely to underestimate the climate response.)

    35 “Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas” (Rising CO2 increases atmospheric water vapor, which makes global warming much worse.)

    36 “Polar bear numbers are increasing” (Polar bears are in danger of extinction as well as many other species.)

    37 “CO2 limits will harm the economy” (The benefits of a price on carbon outweigh the costs several times over.)

    38 “It’s not happening” (There are many lines of evidence indicating global warming is unequivocal.)

    39 “Greenland was green” (Other parts of the earth got colder when Greenland got warmer.)

    40 “Greenland is gaining ice” (Greenland on the whole is losing ice, as confirmed by satellite measurement.)

    41 “CO2 is not a pollutant” (Through its impacts on the climate, CO2 presents a danger to public health and welfare, and thus qualifies as an air pollutant.)

    42 “CO2 is plant food” (The effects of enhanced CO2 on terrestrial plants are variable and complex and dependent on numerous factors.)

    43 “Other planets are warming” (Mars and Jupiter are not warming, and anyway the sun has recently been cooling slightly.)

    44 “Arctic sea ice has recovered” (Thick arctic sea ice is in rapid retreat.)

    45 “There’s no empirical evidence” (There are multiple lines of direct observations that humans are causing global warming.)

    46 “We’re coming out of the Little Ice Age” (Scientists have determined that the factors which caused the Little Ice Age cooling are not currently causing global warming.)

    47 “There’s no correlation CO2 and temperature” (There is long-term correlation between CO2 and global temperature; other effects are short-term.)

    48 “It cooled mid-century” (Mid-century cooling involved aerosols and is irrelevant for recent global warming.)

    49 “CO2 was higher in the past” (When CO2 was higher in the past, the sun was cooler.)

    50 “It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low” (Early 20th century warming is due to several causes, including rising CO2.)

    51 “Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????” (Global temperature is still rising and 2010 was the hottest recorded.)

    52 “Satellites show no warming in troposphere” (The most recent satellite data show that the the earth as a whole is warming.)

    53 “It’s aerosols” (Aerosols have been masking global warming, which would be worse otherwise.)

    54 “It’s El Niño” (El Nino has no trend and so is not responsible for the trend of global warming.)

    55 “2009-2010 winter saw record cold spells” (A cold day in Chicago in winter has nothing to do with the trend of global warming.)

    56 “It’s a natural cycle” (No known natural forcing fits the fingerprints of observed warming except anthropogenic greenhouse gases.)

    57 “Mt. Kilimanjaro’s ice loss is due to land use” (Most glaciers are in rapid retreat worldwide, notwithstanding a few complicated cases.)

    58 “There’s no tropospheric hot spot” (We see a clear ‘short-term hot spot’ there’s various evidence for a ‘long-term hot spot’.)

    59 “It’s not us” (Multiple sets of independent observations find a human fingerprint on climate change.)

    60 “It’s Pacific Decadal Oscillation” (The PDO shows no trend, and therefore the PDO is not responsible for the trend of global warming.)

    61 “IPCC were wrong about Himalayan glaciers” (Glaciers are in rapid retreat worldwide, despite 1 error in 1 paragraph in a 1000 page IPCC report.)

    62 “Scientists can’t even predict weather” (Weather and climate are different; climate predictions do not need weather detail.)

    63 “Greenhouse effect has been falsified” (The greenhouse effect is standard physics and confirmed by observations.)

    64 “2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory” (The 2nd law of thermodynamics is consistent with the greenhouse effect which is directly observed.)

    65 “CO2 limits will hurt the poor” (Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change.)

    66 “The science isn’t settled” (That human CO2 is causing global warming is known with high certainty & confirmed by observations.)

    67 “Clouds provide negative feedback” (Evidence is building that net cloud feedback is likely positive and unlikely to be strongly negative.)

    68 “Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated” (Sea level rise is now increasing faster than predicted due to unexpectedly rapid ice melting.)

    69 “It’s the ocean” (The oceans are warming and moreover are becoming more acidic, threatening the food chain.)

    70 “IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests” (The IPCC statement on Amazon rainforests was correct, and was incorrectly reported in some media.)

    71 “Corals are resilient to bleaching” (Globally about 1% of coral is dying out each year.)

    72 “Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans” (Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes.)

    73 “CO2 effect is saturated” (Direct measurements find that rising CO2 is trapping more heat.)

    74 “Greenland ice sheet won’t collapse” (When Greenland was 3 to 5 degrees C warmer than today, a large portion of the Ice Sheet melted.)

    75 “CO2 is just a trace gas” (Many substances are dangerous even in trace amounts; what really matters is the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.)

    76 “It’s methane” (Methane plays a minor role in global warming but could get much worse if permafrost starts to melt.)

    77 “CO2 has a short residence time” (Excess CO2 from human emissions has a long residence time of over 100 years.)

    78 “CO2 measurements are suspect” (CO2 levels are measured by hundreds of stations across the globe, all reporting the same trend.)

    79 “Humidity is falling” (Multiple lines of independent evidence indicate humidity is rising and provides positive feedback.)

    80 “500 scientists refute the consensus” (Around 97% of climate experts agree that humans are causing global warming.)

    81 “Neptune is warming” (And the sun is cooling.)

    82 “Springs aren’t advancing” (Hundreds of flowers across the UK are flowering earlier now than any time in 250 years.)

    83 “Jupiter is warming” (Jupiter is not warming, and anyway the sun is cooling.)

    84 “It’s land use” (Land use plays a minor role in climate change, although carbon sequestration may help to mitigate.)

    85 “Scientists tried to ‘hide the decline’ in global temperature” (The ‘decline’ refers to a decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature, and is openly discussed in papers and the IPCC reports.)

    86 “CO2 is not increasing” (CO2 is increasing rapidly, and is reaching levels not seen on the earth for millions of years.)

    87 “Record snowfall disproves global warming” (Warming leads to increased evaporation and precipitation, which falls as increased snow in winter.)

    88 “They changed the name from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change'” (‘Global warming’ and ‘climate change’ mean different things and have both been used for decades.)

    89 “Solar Cycle Length proves its the sun” (The sun has not warmed since 1970 and so cannot be driving global warming.)

    90 “CO2 is coming from the ocean” (The ocean is absorbing massive amounts of CO2, and is becoming more acidic as a result.)

    91 “IPCC overestimate temperature rise” (Monckton used the IPCC equation in an inappropriate manner.)

    92 “Pluto is warming” (And the sun has been recently cooling.)

    3 “CO2 is not the only driver of climate” (Theory, models and direct measurement confirm CO2 is currently the main driver of climate change.)

    94 “Peer review process was corrupted” (An Independent Review concluded that CRU’s actions were normal and didn’t threaten the integrity of peer review.)

    95 “Arctic was warmer in 1940″ (The actual data show high northern latitudes are warmer today than in 1940.)

    96 “Renewable energy is too expensive” (When you account for all of the costs associated with burning coal and other fossil fuels, like air pollution and health effects, in reality they are significantly more expensive than most renewable energy sources.)

    97 “Southern sea ice is increasing” (Antarctic sea ice has grown in recent decades despite the Southern Ocean warming at the same time.)

    98 “CO2 limits will make little difference” (If every nation agrees to limit CO2 emissions, we can achieve significant cuts on a global scale.)

    99 “Sea level rise is decelerating” (Global sea level data shows that sea level rise has been increasing since 1880 while future sea level rise predictions are based on physics, not statistics.)

    100 “It’s microsite influences” (Microsite influences on temperature changes are minimal; good and bad sites show the same trend.)

    101 “Phil Jones says no global warming since 1995″ (Phil Jones was misquoted.)

    102 “Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate” (Humans are small but powerful, and human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.)

    103 “Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity” (Lindzen and Choi’s paper is viewed as unacceptably flawed by other climate scientists.)

    104 “Dropped stations introduce warming bias” (If the dropped stations had been kept, the temperature would actually be slightly higher.)

    105 “It’s too hard” (Scientific studies have determined that current technology is sufficient to reduce greenhouse gas emissions enough to avoid dangerous climate change.)

    106 “It’s not urgent” (A large amount of warming is delayed, and if we don’t act now we could pass tipping points.)

    107 “It’s albedo” (Albedo change in the Arctic, due to receding ice, is increasing global warming.)

    108 “Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960″ (This is a detail that is complex, local, and irrelevant to the observed global warming trend.)

    109 “It’s soot” (Soot stays in the atmosphere for days to weeks; carbon dioxide causes warming for centuries.)

    110 “Hansen’s 1988 prediction was wrong” (Jim Hansen had several possible scenarios; his mid-level scenario B was right.)

    111 “Roy Spencer finds negative feedback” (Spencer’s model is too simple, excluding important factors like ocean dynamics and treats cloud feedbacks as forcings.)

    112 “It’s global brightening” (This is a complex aerosol effect with unclear temperature significance.)

    113 “Arctic sea ice loss is matched by Antarctic sea ice gain” (Arctic sea ice loss is three times greater than Antarctic sea ice gain.)

    114 “It’s a climate regime shift” (There is no evidence that climate has chaotic ‘regimes’ on a long-term basis.)

    115 “Earth hasn’t warmed as much as expected” (This argument ignores the cooling effect of aerosols and the planet’s thermal inertia.)

    116 “Solar cycles cause global warming” (Over recent decades, the sun has been slightly cooling & is irrelevant to recent global warming.)

    117 “Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming” (Around 97% of climate experts agree that humans are causing global warming.)

    118 “Ice isn’t melting” (Arctic sea ice has shrunk by an area equal to Western Australia, and summer or multi-year sea ice might be all gone within a decade.)

    119 “Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project” (The ‘OISM petition’ was signed by only a few climatologists.)

    120 “IPCC ‘disappeared’ the Medieval Warm Period” (The IPCC simply updated their temperature history graphs to show the best data available at the time.)

    121 “Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted” (Weather is chaotic but climate is driven by Earth’s energy imbalance, which is more predictable.)

    122 “It’s ozone” (Ozone has only a small effect.)

    123 “Freedom of Information (FOI) requests were ignored” (An independent inquiry found CRU is a small research unit with limited resources and their rigour and honesty are not in doubt.)

    124 “The IPCC consensus is phoney” (113 nations signed onto the 2007 IPCC report, which is simply a summary of the current body of climate science evidence.)

    125 “Sea level is not rising” (The claim sea level isn’t rising is based on blatantly doctored graphs contradicted by observations.)

    126 “Climate ‘Skeptics’ are like Galileo” (Modern scientists, not anti-science skeptics, follow in Galileo’s footsteps.)

    127 “Tuvalu sea level isn’t rising” (Tuvalu sea level is rising 3 times larger than the global average.)

    128 “A drop in volcanic activity caused warming” (Volcanoes have had no warming effect in recent global warming – if anything, a cooling effect.)

    129 “Trenberth can’t account for the lack of warming” (Trenberth is talking about the details of energy flow, not whether global warming is happening.)

    130 “Renewables can’t provide baseload power” (A number of renewable sources already do provide baseload power, and we don’t need renewables to provide a large percentage of baseload power immediately.)

    131 “Ice Sheet losses are overestimated” (A number of independent measurements find extensive ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland.)

    132 “CRU tampered with temperature data” (An independent inquiry went back to primary data sources and were able to replicate CRU’s results.)

    133 “Naomi Oreskes’ study on consensus was flawed” (Benny Peiser, the Oreskes critic, retracted his criticism.)

    134 “Melting ice isn’t warming the Arctic” (Melting ice leads to more sunlight being absorbed by water, thus heating the Arctic.)

    135 “Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup” (By breathing out, we are simply returning to the air the same CO2 that was there to begin with.)

    136 “Satellite error inflated Great Lakes temperatures” (Temperature errors in the Great Lakes region are not used in any global temperature records.)

    137 “Soares finds lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature” (Soares looks at short-term trends which are swamped by natural variations while ignoring the long-term correlation.)

    138 “We’re heading into cooling” (There is no scientific basis for claims that the planet will begin to cool in the near future.)

    139 “Murry Salby finds CO2 rise is natural” (Multiple lines of evidence make it very clear that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to human emissions.)

    140 “CO2 emissions do not correlate with CO2 concentration” (That humans are causing the rise in atmospheric CO2 is confirmed by multiple isotopic analyses.)

    141 “The sun is getting hotter” (The sun has just had the deepest solar minimum in 100 years.)

    142 “It’s waste heat” (Greenhouse warming is adding 100 times more heat to the climate than waste heat.)

    143 “Water vapor in the stratosphere stopped global warming” (This possibility just means that future global warming could be even worse.)

    144 “It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940″ (The warming trend over 1970 to 2001 is greater than warming from both 1860 to 1880 and 1910 to 1940.)

    145 “An exponential increase in CO2 will result in a linear increase in temperature” (CO2 levels are rising so fast that unless we decrease emissions, global warming will accelerate this century.)

    146 “Record high snow cover was set in winter 2008/2009″ (Winter snow cover in 2008/2009 was average while the long-term trend in spring, summer, and annual snow cover is rapid decline.)

    147 “Mauna Loa is a volcano” (The global trend is calculated from hundreds of CO2 measuring stations and confirmed by satellites.)

    148 “Venus doesn’t have a runaway greenhouse effect” (Venus very likely underwent a runaway or ‘moist’ greenhouse phase earlier in its history, and today is kept hot by a dense CO2 atmosphere.)

    149 “Antarctica is too cold to lose ice” (Glaciers are sliding faster into the ocean because ice shelves are thinning due to warming oceans.)

    150 “Positive feedback means runaway warming” (Positive feedback won’t lead to runaway warming; diminishing returns on feedback cycles limit the amplification.)

    151 “Skeptics were kept out of the IPCC?” (Official records, Editors and emails suggest CRU scientists acted in the spirit if not the letter of IPCC rules.)

    152 “Water levels correlate with sunspots” (This detail is irrelevant to the observation of global warming caused by humans.)

    153 “CO2 was higher in the late Ordovician” (The sun was much cooler during the Ordovician.)

    154 “It’s internal variability” (Internal variability can only account for small amounts of warming and cooling over periods of decades, and scientific studies have consistently shown that it cannot account for the global warming over the past century.)

    155 “CO2 increase is natural, not human-caused” (Many lines of evidence, including simple accounting, demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to human fossil fuel burning.)

    156 “It’s CFCs” (CFCs contribute at a small level.)

    157 “Scientists retracted claim that sea levels are rising” (The Siddall 2009 paper was retracted because its predicted sea level rise was too low.)

    158 “Warming causes CO2 rise” (Recent warming is due to rising CO2.)

    159 “Coral atolls grow as sea levels rise” (Thousands of coral atolls have “drowned” (when unable to grow fast enough to survive at sea level.)

    160 “Renewable energy investment kills jobs” (Investment in renewable energy creates more jobs than investment in fossil fuel energy.)

    161 “Greenland has only lost a tiny fraction of its ice mass” (Greenland’s ice loss is accelerating & will add metres of sea level rise in upcoming centuries.)

    162 “DMI show cooling Arctic” (While summer maximums have showed little trend, the annual average Arctic temperature has risen sharply in recent decades.)

    163 “CO2 limits won’t cool the planet” (CO2 limits won’t cool the planet, but they can make the difference between continued accelerating global warming to catastrophic levels vs.) slowing and eventually stopping the warming at hopefully safe levels.)

    164 “Royal Society embraces skepticism” (The Royal Society still strongly state that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming.)

    165 “It’s only a few degrees” (A few degrees of global warming has a huge impact on ice sheets, sea levels and other aspects of climate.)

    166 “It’s satellite microwave transmissions” (Satellite transmissions are extremely small and irrelevant.)

    167 “CO2 only causes 35% of global warming” (CO2 and corresponding water vapor feedback are the biggest cause of global warming.)

    168 “Sea level fell in 2010″ (The temporary drop in sea level in 2010 was due to intense land flooding caused by a strong La Nina.)

    169 “Arctic sea ice extent was lower in the past” (Current Arctic sea ice extent is the lowest in the past several thousand years.)

    170 “We didn’t have global warming during the Industrial Revolution” (CO2 emissions were much smaller 100 years ago.)

    171 “Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick” (Ljungqvist’s temperature reconstruction is very similar to other reconstructions by Moberg and Mann.)

    172 “Hansen predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater” (Hansen was speculating on changes that might happen if CO2 doubled.)

    173 “Removing all CO2 would make little difference” (Removing CO2 would cause most water in the air to rain out and cancel most of the greenhouse effect.)

    174 “Postma disproved the greenhouse effect” (Postma’s model contains many simple errors; in no way does Postma undermine the existence or necessity of the greenhouse effect.)

    Here is the link to the DEBUNKING SITE

  289. Dredd,
    That last comment should have come with a warning label. I was trying to drink a cup of coffee when I opened it. A two-spew, one-snort, and clean the screen read.

  290. Otteray Scribe 1, August 12, 2013 at 12:33 pm

    Dredd,
    That last comment should have come with a warning label. I was trying to drink a cup of coffee when I opened it. A two-spew, one-snort, and clean the screen read.
    ============================
    I messed up the one before that which stayed in the cue, thankfully, and did not show up.

    It had too much of a HTML table schema in it so it went into la la land.

    Delete if if you please or let it evaporate with the rest of them.

    All the comments I wanted to put up in order to support your post are up now.

    I owe you a screen? or a keyboard? or a cup o’ java?

  291. Thanks a bunch for sharing this with all folks you actually understand what you are talking
    about! Bookmarked. Please additionally visit my site =).
    We can have a hyperlink trade agreement among us

Comments are closed.