Temp in June 11th, 1986 was -0.25c and now (Feb 2012) +0.12c
A rise of just 0.37c in 25 yr. (Hansen prediction was 2.08 c in 23 yr)
He overestimated by 562%. (UAH satellite temp record; running 13 mth average)
Did he do better for sea levels? Err, no. He estimated 4.5 feet by the 2030’s. We are more than half way there and so far only seen 6cm since 1986 (0.19 feet) move sea!
Oops, according to ENVISAT and JASON 1+2 satellites IT’S NOW FALLING, and has been since 2008. (So is the temperature)
@1000frolly I've heard that lie before, who keeps telling people that. Perhaps could you mention what sensor you are citing? and what method you are using to process the data? Also include your statistical methodology and error please.
@StAverti Oh now i remember, some idiot was complaining that the correction algorithms used by the European Space Agency to keep its ENVISAT and JASON platform data accurate was a "fabrication of the data that shows sea levels declining". It's funny that those two are the only ones ever falsified by deniers, probably because the ESA has easier access to their calibration (which is a good thing for sure). I'll leave you idiots to guess what uncalibrated data is good for.
@StAverti PS JASONS sensor is measuring gravity not sea level, estimates are made through heavy calibration.... leave it to people who don't know data to spew trash about it .
In the last 6 months there has been a big rise in sea level, the sea is now higher than it was in 2004; its 2.7 mm higher now than in 2004.
The trend from ENVISAT is +0.348mm/year. If that continues to 2100, the MSL will be 0.348 x 88yrs = 30mm higher. Thats about an inch for you Yanks out there.
@1000frolly Like I asked the first time, what sensor are you citing? As for Hansen, his 1988 results have been revisited, and since he had 3 scenarios and results for each, you need to disclose which of his scenarios you are calculating your numbers from, and what the error is on your calculations as well as how observed data fit within the error he attributed to his modeled scenarios. What is the difference in the rate of sea level rise? Your responses just kind of show you don't have a clue...
@StAverti As for Hansen's 1988 projections, they were revisited in 2006, and guess what, they were still scientifically valid. While his Scenario B was slightly higher than the observed warming, but the actual warming is not only well within the margin of error he attributed to those calculations, but even the coefficient he used for climate sensitivity (which was a little bit high) was within the range accepted and validated by he IPCC.
@1000frolly Also, you seem to be citing the maximum on the ranges of possible temperatures and sea level rises Hansen produced. You neglect to include the over bounds he calculated, or conveniently leave those out... because if you included them you would see that observed data fit within his ranges for scenario B fairly well (though obviously not perfectly).
@StAverti I will admit, the gravity statement was a red herring, I was hoping to get you to realize the actual sensors (which you still haven't identified) are LASER altimeters (JASON1 & 2) and a Radio altimeter (ENVISAT). Since you were unwilling so far to mention the distinct limitations, I assume that hasn't crossed your mind. Long story short is that when properly calibrated, processed and taken with in situ data, sea level is indeed still experiencing an increasingly rapid increase.
@1000frolly As it seems, you've also forgotten to account for the larger volume of water being drawn from the ocean in terrestrial precipitation... but no worries, I won't insult you on such a novice mistake, it happens to the best of us.
@StAverti That is also not counting that you didn't derive the rate of increase in sea level rise, so while you should actually be solving a differential equation for change in rate over time to actually be able to integrate the real values over time you just use a useless flat rate... which isn't conducive with the reality that not only is sea level rising, the RATE of sea level rise is increasing... very simple physics there.
@1000frolly Actually, his published model in the 80's, although not exactly perfect, accurately predicted the current observed temperature rise with the bounds of his models error threshold. There have been several papers that confirmed this, perhaps you aren't familiar with them? I suppose maybe you don't have much science background huh?
Though I appreciate the doomsday talk very little and disagree with the imminence of such a thing (and I happen to believe that many pundits of this topic are generally attention-grabbing moneymakers, though Hansen is probably not) , I agree with David when he says that we need to get off fossil fuels anyhow. It's expensive, its harmful in many other ways, and we are very much nearly run dry of oil, ng, and coal. Imagine how much money these things cost. Why not invest in wind? You'll be rich.
• Survey of Climate Scientists by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch 2010. "Most climate scientists disagree with positions that are at the foundation of the alarmist case. This survey certainly shows no consensus on the science behind the global warming scare.
When asked questions scientists seem quick to admit their uncertainty. Majorities of climate scientists say they do not believe the scientific claims that underlie the theory and predictions of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change".
@Besetho Yeah, I've been brainwashed by taking courses in college in various fields of environmental science. Specifically, focusing on the effects of chemical industries effects as well as the future outcomes of finite natural resource depletion. Nonetheless, I'm sure you believe what you believe despite data and analysis that has been provided in numerous peer-reviewed articles and journals across the world.
@Besetho You might like to start by educating yourself before embarrassing yourself any further. Check out this video, one of a series debunking climate denial myths.
@Besetho The petition was a fraud and the 32,000 'scientists' included such luminaries as Hawkeye Pierce, Ginger Spice and Michael J. Fox. Sadly you are the one who is brainwashed.
@Besetho You are a scientist? Not according to your utterly ignorant comment you aren't! CO2 is rising at the fastest rate in the last 10,000yrs, Humans produce 10 times the amount of CO2 that occurs naturally & 100 times that of volcanoes annually...CO2 traps heat & is therefore warming the planet & humans are the reason CO2 is rising at the rate it is. Seriously, to deny any one of those FACTS is ABSURD! It is like denying all life on Earth Evolved to its current form! ABSURD!!
@Besetho There's really no point responding to ignorant people like you. But I am bored. The smallest amount of googling will give the answers about SUN, CO2 etc.
The fact is, the ONLY explanation for the rapid warming of the earth in the last half-century is our addition of CO2 to the atmosphere.
@widebody123 I totally agree with your reply to @Besetho...He is just another ignorant fool that has been confused & now is being used by the Professional Denialist...He is not a scientist as he claims or he would know better than to say the ignorant things he/she does! ABOUT THE VIDEO...I am with Letterman I think we are FUCKED! Way too many folks have chosen the path to utter ignorance rather than taking the time to understand just how bad things are & will get!
@widebody123 Survey of Climate Scientists by D.Bray and Hans von Storch 2010. "Most climate scientists disagree with positions that are at the foundation of the alarmist case.This survey certainly shows no consensus on the science behind the global warming scare When asked questions scientists seem quick to admit their uncertainty. Majorities of climate scientists say they do not believe the scientific claims that underlie the theory and predictions of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change"
These kinds of lawsuits are generally called 'smearing' or 'smear-campaigns'.
As in: James E Hansen, one of the most intelligent people on the planet, who's had access to the most advanced technology designed for studying the planet has come to an ethical and informed conclusion. The people/companies who stand to lose alot of money if people listen to Mr. Hansen have started a smear-campaign, hoping that Mr. Hansen's previously immaculate character is sullied.
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
@Slave2Reason It's a cult supported by every scientist on earth. And all you have to counter with his whimpering about Al Gore and climategate just like every other climate denier, because you cannot ignore the fact that co2 and methane are greenhouse gases and greenhouse gases are what makes the Earth warm, so adding more will make it warmer. Fairly simple.
@ThePollywog2 Yes - I was replying to imita's ridiculous post below - although I think imita's outlook on life & politics are probably very close to Hansen's: always pessimistic, always forecasting doom and gloom, blaming every natural disaster on capitalism, advocating high taxes and rule by unelected bureaucrats and activist scientists like himself. Basically a complete nutter.
@MMGWsceptic All you do is name calling, and ACTIVIST SCIENTIST!!! Get real! I'm studying advanced chemistry and hope to help solve future problems for mankind. We are actual scientists who analyze data. We scientists don't make up things. We simply observe and reason. Obviously, my theoretical capabilities annoy you since I assume you are unable to understand the difference between science and politics. Science is facts that haunt you. Politics are lies to keep you comfortable. Open your eyes.
@MMGWsceptic And, I made no comments about taxes or rule be unelected bureaucrats... oh yeah, and we are all still waiting for an intelligent comment from you. Where is it?
@MMGWsceptic.... Also, I'm going to assume you think you're going to heaven right? Hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah....
You're also a republican right?Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah.....Oh you're probably rich and white right? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah...... Yeah don't even reply.... just go kill yourself.... Hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahah
It's sad that earth will become a Museum. Let's face the facts the richest of the rich will most likely survive since they have the money to invest in a form of privatized space exploration while we the common people who never had a chance will sit on earth and die. Later on, the future humans in space will be taught that our deaths are a tragedy but a necessity of transitioning from a type 0 to type 1 civilization. We're simply being slowly murdered. We are good people, but nobody is listening.
@imita01 By every single measure of health and quality of life - mankind is better off today that we have been at any time in our history. The average occupant of planet earth has more food, better health, better education, more freedom, more leisure time and more disposable income than at any time since we crawled out of the swamps. And things are getting better all the time.
@MMGWsceptic Yes all the things you have mentioned has indeed become better for the wealthy. I've yet to see anything get better for every poor person in the world. Our system of living can get better for everyone if we wanted it to. Your living in a joke of a planet, and I'm living in a joke of a planet. Don't act as if you do not know. And, I refuse to cheer up until the problems that face our planet are fixed. Thus, I probably will never "cheer up", and that is fine with me.
Actually, coal is a very abundant resource. It's just dirty, destroys the land and is dangerous to mine. Oil on the other hand, yeah... we should have so been planning for this(oil phase out) 50 years ago! Not now, when the fat ladies doing warm-ups...
Brisbane had worse flooding in 1974. That's why they built the Wivenhoe dam. Shame it couldn't do it's job because eco-alarmists ordered the dam to be overfilled, ignorantly claiming the recent drought was permanent - rather than just a natural cycle.
I'll see your "record high in Greece" (now a cool 5-10oC) and raise you the coldest January in the UK for over 100 years and a new USA record low of -43oC in Minnesota on 21/1.
There you go again, lounge chair expert. The message is we will have more droughts and bigger floods. BTW, I hear whilst NY is having a cold time, the Arctic is 20 degrees warmer than normal... Y'see, GW predicts extreme events, as you know, record highs were also had in NY last summer. Record high in Greece at same time as record low in other parts of EU only 2 months ago. Global record floods now!
You just keep saying that... And keep hanging around your slowpoke mates who will pat you on the back and validate your inadequate life. You just stick with your contrary an mates and ignore 50 years of science. Your dark cloud of suspicions and conspiracies betray your world view. You have no way of understanding what is goin on. Keep it up, you surely won't be going places.
Also Treason, "anyone who can read..." you DIDN'T read those 'climate gate emails' for yourself because it is not possible to conclude there was any wrong doing from those emails. Your "modicum of common sense" appears to include believing what the thieves of those emails were trying to make them say. 'common sense' would demand you dont take a single phrase out of context then build a complete conspiracy theory around it.xt
Hey treason, your quote: "see the trouble with greens is they hate people" followed by "but as they say assuming makes an ass out of you".... Well, ah, is the irony lost on you?
@Slave2Reason Climate gate was a fizzer and you know it!
watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY
And lets now forget it was debunked over a year ago
watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
If you actually read the emails (I did) you couldn't possibly conclude waht the denier dummies were trying to make you believe... I guess the news hasn't hit you yet.
You are just let your angry amygdala run your brain
watch?v=KIHRGUMr3Ak
Yes... you're brain controls your ability to reason
You mean joking about believing doomsday predictions by activist 'scientists' who's jobs depend on producing ever more alarmist predictions? Activists who can't predict next week's weather nevermind in 50 yrs time?
Or joking about the cost of shutting down the economy based on these idiot activist's predictions?
1) There is no energy crisis - vast new natural gas resources are coming on tap thanks to shale gas extraction. The price is on the floor. Also, the whole Peak Oil thing is just scare story put about by oil producers to keep the price high.
2) Even if AGW is real (doubtful) then the costs of reducing CO2 emissions to zero far outweigh the benefits of continuing development and adapting to a warmer world.
@bernzeppi So Bern, if I use evil fossil fuels to drive my dad to the hospital - is that a waste of mother natures precious resources? If my Gran turns the heat on in winter to keep warm - is she a parasite raping the Earth?
Damn those evil oil companies that keep the lights on and hospitals running !! Damn them for generating all our jobs, wealth and prosperity !!.
See, the trouble with greens is they just hate people. They want us all dead so the Earth can remain "unspoilt" forever
@MMGWsceptic You peg me wrong. We need fossil fuels, no doubt but we need to reduce emissions to about 1999 levels.
Perhaps the best way is the molten salt reactor, a nuclear reactor developed concurrently with fast breeder reactors in the 50s. Has the advantage of not being able to blow up and u can't make a bomb from it.
It failed because you can't make a bomb from it (plutonium byproduct)
Greens don't hate people, that is ridiculous... hope your dad is OK
@bernzeppi Pure baloney. The globe hasn't warmed this century and the slight warming we saw in the 80's and 90's was no different to the warming in the 30's and 40's. Certainly no reason to divert massive resources from important things like health, education and economic development - to a pointless canute-like attempt to control natural climate change by waging war on a harmless natural gas that boosts plant growth.
PS. Actually they're both dead - just an example from the past.
@Propositum Makes no difference. It really doesn't matter whether you burn all the coal in the next 50 years or in the next 1000 years; what matters is whether you burn all the coal. We need to use more energy to bring population growth down to ~zero and it's a moral imperative to bring the worlds poorest up to a reasonable level(about 2 kW). This means nuclear on a massive scale and possibly solar in a couple of decades if you can get the cost down and the storage in place.
I wonder if, in the devastated future, the politicians and lawmakers/government officials who denied climate change and opposed doing something will be considered criminals. Hopefully they will put them in jail.
If we stop CO2 emissions that will not solve the problem.There are many more dangerous chemicals being routinely produced by industry eg nitrogen trifluoride,sulphur hexafluoride PFCs HFCs and CFCs not to mention nuclear waste.The reason CO2 is focused upon is that we all produce it in our everyday lives meaning a carbon tax will target us all and make so called environmentalists like Al Gore a lot of money.We all care about our environment but dont believe that a carbon tax is the way forward.
Just wanted to point out that Artic Sea Ice has just increased above the 1979-2000 average and is still rising!. The ice looks likely to set a new record for this century. The only thing melting is public support for CO2 taxes.
Dr Miskolczi showed that the solution to a differential equation for the greenhouse effect developed in 1922 by Arthur Milne, wrongly assumed an infinitely thick atmosphere. In re-solving this equation a new term and also a new law of physics have been proposed setting an upper limit to the greenhouse effect. Dr Miskolczis theory indicates that any warming from elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide will eventually be offset by a change in atmospheric moisture content
Here ya go... records set every season in Australia
. csiro . gov . au/files/files/pvfo . pdf
"In simple terms, it is getting hotter and drier. Also, sea level is rising and the level of dissolved carbon dioxide in the oceans is rising rapidly. Furthermore, atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane levels are also rising."-ITwire
We here in OZ break anew record almost monthly... it takes atoll on the farmers and food prices.
It was 47C (116F) at the Big Day Out this year, 35C in the OB truck
@bernzeppi its called a solar cycle. currently we are at peak solar activity with CME, flare, and spots becoming more frequent. will take a few more years to settle. CME= more carbon ions introduced into atmosphere fyi.
Hey Bernie! I see Sydney just recorded its coldest June morning since 1949 - Melbourne, Adelaide and Brisbane aren't far behind. How's that man-made global warming working out for you?
You really are a simpleton aren't you?! I just left Sydney to land in colder Melbourne... Setting up for 3D broadcast...
Yes it's frigin' cold!
What happens when you put more energy into an air conditioner? It gets even colder that's what.
If you are going to come back with every day should be hotter than the last in a GW argument you clearly have put yourself on the side of ignorance... Dimwit!
When it gets really hot in oz is when we get hail, you know about convection?
Ah... I get it. So when it's hot is man-made global warming, when it's cold it's man-made global warming. When there's a drought it's MMGW, when there's a flood it's MMGW....
Is there anything that isn't caused by man-made global warming??
It seems not: Google 'A complete list of things caused by global warming'
It turns out just about everything is caused my MMGW - from Acne to the Zebra Mussel Threat.
@MMGWsceptic There you go again. As you know and have been told umpteen times, you need to take the average temperatures. For instance that cold snap in US and Britain didn't change the fact that it was a warmer than usual winter.
Your inane bleats about recovering polar ice are just as misleading because you don't acknowledge it is very thin ice and the volume is down.
You are deliberately being a bonehead.
It's disappointing to see you remain selectively stupid
We've had hail (that other form of frozen water caused by hot humid conditions interfacing with a cold front) but not snow.
We wouldn't get 'lake effect snow' where cold winds blow over hot water (causing those blizzards in the midwest USA right now) because the (ocean) water is still cool from the winter currents.
@bernzeppi I've seen a peanut stand, heard a rubber band, seen a needle that winked it's eye, but I been done seen 'bout everthing when I see Hansen claim 2010 is the hottest year evaarrrhh!
Actually it's no suprise atall - Hansen's been cooking the books for decades - adjusting the 1930's down, biasing present-day temperatures upwards, applying a reverse UHI correction etc. Hadcrut aren't as practised as Hansen at data distortion. They still have 1998 as the warmest year.
WASHINGTON -- Global surface temperatures in 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest on record, according to an analysis released Wednesday by researchers at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.
@bernzeppi You are very smart and its underwater in New York by about 2016 for real everybody knows it. And its colder then ever in NY then I ever remember or any body else does to remember .So, its because of only the oil companys that control everything and President Obama controled, and Presidents of most of the rest of countrys too! Because the oil companys can control it. And Capitalism is wrong and just wwe need to have a few smart poeple to run it! SocialJustice for Globalworld today!!
@MMGWsceptic I've lived in Melbourne for 50yrs, frozen puddles were common when I was a child, I haven't seen one for 30yrs. We have Lorrikeets and flying foxes in large numbers, these are tropical species that did not exist in Melbourne when I was a kid. As someone else pointed out you are being deliberately stupid.
@Tapecutter59 Yes - it was colder when I was a child too. No doubt the Earth has warmed since the 70's. Just like it wamed in the 30's and cooled in the 40's-60's prompting fears of a new ice age . Looking further back we had the Medieval Warm Period then the Little Ice Age. No SUVs back then.
Animals are continually migrating & competing in the struggle for survival. History tells us climate is continually changing and wildlife continually adapting. It would be strange if they didn't
@MMGWsceptic I'm not sure if you realise this but the people at climate audit, WUWT, etc, who feed you those talking points think of you as a useful idiot in the fight against sane regulation. The think tanks that come up with those talking points (such as heartland and CEI) are all located within walking distance of K street. You have been duped and mislead into fighting against your own best interests by the same paid lobbyists who back in the 80's told us that smoking does not cause cancer.
@Tapecutter59 I see you're adopting the standard alarmist approach: when you have no facts or evidence to support your position you shout "Big Oil Shill" at anyone who disagree's with your irrational beliefs. What you fail to realise is the climate alarmists receive far more funding from corportations like BP, Shell & Exxon than the sceptics. Not to mention billions of tax-payer funding. Why? Because CO2 taxes are a licence to pick the pockets of the poor & gullible citizens.
@Trent1492 Evidence of what? Big oil funding of global warming alarmism? Well, it's no secret - you'll find the oil companies listed as sponsors of many environmental action groups (although BP has recently been dropped by many lol).
Alternatively you can google 'climategate shell' to read how the crooks at CRU regularly met with Shell and Amoco and BP to discuss funding. Or google 'Phil Jones funding' to read about the £13.7M of funding he received for cooking the books.
CO2 does not have a Thermal Capacity to have a 1.0 degree Celsius impact. Nitrogen's Thermal capacity is 1.0 with 780k ppm Oxygen's Thermal capacity is 0.9 with 209k ppm. CO2 Thermal capacity is 0.8 with 387 parts per million. To have the impact as claimed it should be 100.0 Thermal capacity. Thermal capacity is the ability of an atom or molecule to absorb heat and retain heat.
common guys... do you care about this planet or not? Its business people, not scientists, who are worried about this. Its simple science, known for decades, supported by 99.9% of the worlds scientists and its about the only place we have as a home. Stop and think for a bit about life. Study this if you are not sure thats fine. Scepticism is more danerous than anything... open minded curiosity is what we need.
Hey Mr Gullible, you're being played by con men. Think about who gains from this:
Energy companies get massive new income streams & subsidies for green energy.
Climate scientists get massive funding & prestige.
Politicians impose massive new taxes & controls while claiming they're saving the planet.
And what do we gain? Nothing - we sit shivering in the dark while our $ are transfered to the above 3 groups. And for what? To make the weather a bit colder next century? FFS
Does it really seem unrealistic that these people receive more funding because their research is legit? Thats how it works. Physicists have research on quantum mechanics, so they spend billions on particle accelerators. Cosmologists launch satellites. Paleontologists discover hints of new species in distant lands. You got it all backwards in conspiracy logic, in reality research grants are a testament to the quality of their research -not of some circular world-wide web of fraud.
And let's not forget Obama's told NASA to forget about space exploration and instead, to concentrate on promoting global warming alarmism.
And he's instructed the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to focus on corporate climate change bureaucracy rather than financial fraud.
It's ironic that instead of protecting the public against Madoff style fraud - the SEC will be helping Obama promote the greatest fraud in history: The MMGW CO2 taxing fraud.
I'm an electronic engineer but when corrupt politicians, rent-seeking scientists and eco-loonies say our taxes & energy bills need to sky rocket, everyone needs to check the science for themselves. When you do you'll discover it's a load of bollocks. They cooked the thermometers, made bogus hockey stick graphs that rewrote established climate history, made hysterical claims based on dodgey models that can't predict next month's weather, let alone next century. Yup - it's a scam.
2. "They." Thats a vague term. You mean which of the following: AMS, NOAA, NASA, GCRP, peer-review staff at all the climatology related journals, and/or international climate research organizations in the EU, CSIRO, and the vast number of climatologists at universities throughout the world.
Yes, its a world-wide conspiracy at all levels of scientists put forth by "They." And its been going on for a decade. And somehow research keeps coming.
My job involves measurement and analysis of real world variables - including temperature and light. So yes, I can plot a graph as well as the next man. It's not rocket science.
Re: your appeal to the supposed authority of various alarmist groups - in all cases their funding, jobs and reputation depend on promoting global warming. Despite that they still haven't found any hard evidence. All they have are computer models which failed to predict the cooling this century despite rising CO2.
Climatology is graph plotting in the sense that electrical engineering is plugging in batteries.
Wait. Wait. Wait. NASA, the AMS, journals like Science, Nature, etc and all across the world are promoting this viewpoint in order to maintain their jobs and funding? All these journals, and organizations existed before climate change became a major scientific theme. They *are* the source for climate information, of any kind.
Since 1991 climate science funding from the US government has increased 20-fold to $2.6Billion. The EU has a similar budget. The UK punches above it's weight with millions in climate change promotion funding going to the CRU, MET office, British Council and numerous NGOs like WWF producing junk science.
Seems to be working out pretty well for these alarmist climate profiteers.
Which sources to trust? The open, transparent and unbiased ones. That rules out the CRU and IPCC for a start.
Scientists who don't have a vested interest nor a religious belief in climate change (although after 20 yrs of government favouritism - it's hard to find many who fit that bill). Scientists who rely on observations & evidence rather than computer models, adjustments or 'tricks' & who publish full data & methodology so others can check their work - eg. McKintyre, Lindzen, Pielke Jnr & Snr, Landsea, Morner. Not Mann, Jones Briffa or Hansen.
@MMGWsceptic Then you would probably also know that climate systems are not discrete and predictable like classical FSM, but chaotic and fuzzy and can have many parallel feedback loops and recursivity.
The climate is a macroscopic system while weather is local and transient noise that may have extremes which does not detract from the overall trend.
How can you extrapolate a century long trend from local noise that are months in duration? You can't.
Yes indeed. The global warming hysteria is purely based on the mild warming trend that began in the 70's & ended in 2000. Eco-loons have predicted warming will accelerate based on their computer models which failed to predict the cooling this century. But the mild warming trend we've seen was no greater than other warming trends in the 1920's & 30's - and less than the warming during the Medieval & Roman warm periods. It's not about climate - it's about money.
Well, if you've been duped by the climate hysterics, YOUR ignorance of high school science astounds me. As does your credulity of self professed experts, and gullibility in the face of corrupt politicians and climate profiteers who are only interested in how much money they can make from this scam.
If on the other hand you work in the multi billion dollar climate alarm industry, then buddy, I think you're scum.
Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World's Oceans
by Tim P. Barnett (Scripps Institution of Oceanography) and six others
ABSTRACT:
"A warming signal has penetrated into the world's oceans over the past 40 years. The signal is complex, with a vertical structure that varies widely by ocean; ..."
"... it cannot be explained by natural internal climate variability or solar and volcanic forcing, but is well simulated by two anthropogenically forced climate models. We conclude that it is of human origin, a conclusion robust to observational sampling and model differences. Changes in advection combine with surface forcing to give the overall warming pattern. The implications of this study suggest that society needs to seriously consider model predictions of future climate change."
"The climatic impacts of releasing fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere will last longer than Stonehenge -- longer than time capsules, longer than nuclear waste, far longer than the age of human civilization so far."
Vancouver is known for mild winters. Average Feb = 4 degs & rainy. The organisers knew lack of snow would be a problem when they bid for the games.
Check wikipedia for a list of Australian droughts and floods going back 100's of years.
Since ancient times rulers have exploited natural climate variations and bad weather to demand tribute payments from the gullible masses, claiming they will appease the gods and make the weather better. Today is no different.
1974 Brisbane flood: Among the highest rainfall recordings were 1,318 mm, whilst in Brisbane itself 819 mm of rain fell, producing the worst city flooding in Australian history.
Gee - but that was 1974 - years before most of the supposed man-made global warming occured. What could have caused it? Hmmm.. could it just be bad weather in a chaotic variable climate?
Sorry - I'm a pom so I didn't appreciate how far apart they were :)
How about this from Wiki: "Sydney is prone to flash flooding from rain caused by East Coast Lows (a low pressure depression which can bring significant damage by heavy rain, cyclonic winds and huge swells). The most notable event was the great Sydney flood which occurred on 6 August 1986 and dumped a record 327.6 mm on the city in 24 hours.
Over 150 years Sydney's population has grown from zip to 4.4 million. No suprise their demand for water has increased.
Re: Perth rainfall. The BOM have a great site that lets you plot annual rainfall. I checked some stations around Perth - I couldn't see any significant trends. Certainly no 75% reductions.
You mean hunger striking farmers like Peter Spencer protest at the government seizing his land for their crazy carbon scheme?
@bernzeppi I hear the Brisbane Wivenhoe dam was kept so full due to global warming alarmism - that when the rains arrived they had no spare capacity so had to release massive amounts - flooding Brisbane. Incidentally - it's now mid-summer and the Sydney dams are at 73% capacity - so that $2Bn Sydney desalination plant is sitting idle. Probably end up being moth-balled like the Brisbane plant. That was money well spent wasn't it? Hope you enjoy paying your climate-profiteer-inflated water bills.
Here's fresh research about another ominous positive feedback for global warming.
dx. doi. org/10.1126/science.1186151
Science | 5 February 2010
Vol. 327 | no. 5966 | pp. 654-655
Iron and the Carbon Pump
by William G. Sunda (Beaufort Laboratory, National Ocean Service, NOAA)
"The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere has risen by 38% since the start of the industrial era as a result of fossil fuel burning and land use changes; if current trends continue, it is ..."
"... projected to increase further by at least a factor of 2 by 2100. About a quarter of the CO2 emitted through human activities has been absorbed by the ocean. On page 676 of this issue, Shi et al. show that the resulting acidification of ocean surface waters may decrease the biological availability of iron, which could in turn reduce the ability of the ocean to take up CO2."
Effect of Ocean Acidification on Iron Availability to Marine Phytoplankton
by Dalin Shi (Princeton University) and 3 others
ABSTRACT:
"The acidification caused by the dissolution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the ocean changes the chemistry and hence the bioavailability of iron (Fe), a limiting nutrient in large oceanic regions. Here, we show that the bioavailability of dissolved Fe ..."
"... may decline because of ocean acidification. Acidification of media containing various Fe compounds decreases the Fe uptake rate of diatoms and coccolithophores to an extent predicted by the changes in Fe chemistry. A slower Fe uptake ... is also seen in experiments with Atlantic surface water. The Fe requirement ... remains unchanged with increasing CO2. The ongoing acidification of seawater is likely to increase the Fe stress of phytoplankton populations in some areas of the ocean."
Yes, the alarmists are already moving onto the next bogus scare since the Earth has stubbornly failed to agree with their predictions and has been getting steadily cooler this century.
Well I ignored your insults and read the article. Boy - some very weak and unsupported arguments there. The models predicted accelerated warming as CO2 increases. It's been cooling since 1998. Argo measured cooling oceans. Sea level rise is decreasing. Antarctic sea ice extent is increasing. The Northern hemisphere has just experience one of the coldest winters on record - From the US to Europe to Asia. The sun looks to be entering a period similar to the Dalton minimum. I fear cold not warmth.
Yes, "no intelligence" is an insult directed at you and your ilk. But "no evidence" and "no logic" are statements of fact. AGW deniers provide no credible evidence, and they are quick to employ a wide range of logical fallacies.
Based on your recent comments here, I would say you are no different. In contrast to the peer-reivewed research that I posted (from Science Magazine, Grist and the numerous references in both), you provided nothing more than your unsupported and ridiculous opinion.
The paper you posted was pretty obscure: CO2 'may' affect iron 'in some areas of ocean'. Hmm, hardly earth shattering. There's plenty of evidence pointing the other way - eg. algae grow faster with more CO2. More algae = more plankton = more fish.
As for climate models; Here's what CRU scientist Kevin Trenberth had to say about them "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't". Gotta love those climategate emails :)
"There's plenty of evidence pointing the other way."
ROFLMAO ... Where????
The quote from Trenberth is regurgitated propaganda, because it is taken out of context with the intent to deceive. The entire e-mail "scandal" demonstrated the incredible dishonesty of AGW deniers and their campaign of disinformation.
Instead of wasting time on their spam, read this about Kevin Trenberth instead:
Evidence? Plants require CO2 to grow. It's widely known. Doubling CO2 increases growth rates up to 40%. Commercial greenhouses pump CO2 up to 500-1000ppm to boost grow. Algae sit at the base of the ocean food chain and they also benefit from CO2. You can ROLF all you like, it doesn't change the facts.
I read the full Trenberth email thread & the laughable attempts to justify it at various alarmist websites. The fact is, in public he stated 'the science is settled, the debate is over, MMGW is a fact' but in private he's admitting there's cooling and they can't account for it !!
What a charlatan. He's clearly stepped over the line from scientist to politician so his pronouncements should be treated accordingly: as politically biased opinions. No wonder the IPCC report he wrote was so biased.
CO2 is only useful when plants are not constrained by other factors such as the availability of water, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, various trace minerals or temperature.
Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will have mostly bad effects on actual crop production because of changing water distribution, both in time and place(e.g. glaciers absorb water in abrupt spurts, but they dribble it out slowly over years, acting as an excellent buffer to prevent droughts and floods).
Yes CO2 is one of many nutrients required by plants - it is a limiting factor in many cases. since modern irrigation & fertilizers ensures all other nutirients are in plentiful supply - except CO2 - which is why commercial greenhouses boost CO2 to boost growth. Recent increases in CO2 have been cited as one reason why there's been a notable greening of the sahara region and why many forrests are recording record growth rates.
There is no evidence of MM CO2 causing bad weather.
During a period when nitrogen fertilizer was unusually cheap there were a number of experimental plots to see if adding super-optimal amounts of N-fertilizer could boost yields by reducing competition from weeds.
It turns out that the weeds really liked the extra nitrogen, grew much better and soaked up the other limiting elements, leading to reduced productivity.
Adding extra CO2 could be a benefit to plant productivity while being detrimental to agriculture, it depends on particulars.
Fair enough - But alot of eco-loonies talk about CO2 as if it was some kind of manmade lethal poison. On the contrary - it's ESSENTIAL FOR PHOTOSYNTHEISIS - the process by which plants produce sugar and oxygen from CO2 and sunlight.
Here's the equation for photosynthesis: 2CO2 + 2H2O + photons = 2(CH2O) + 2O2
Without CO2 all plants on earth would die. And without plants we'd all DIE from lack of oxygen.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Hansens so full of shit. end of . theres no fighting it the global warming chicken's head has been cut off and its circling with blood spurting out. Face it warmers we have sunk your battleship. Hansens book will be good for fuel when we're keepiing warm next winter
I feel he's stepped over the line from science to advocacy. Having made such extreme alarmist claims how can he be trusted to carry out honest unbiased research? If he discovered evidence that undermined MMGW would he report it? His FOI'd email discussions suggest not.
Climate science is a complex study. So complex that not many will understand much. Problem is Science has taken a back door to political agenda. The facts are that cherry picked data can prove anything you want it to which is a prime example of the activities going on at the IPCC. IPCC needs funding and went the way of the oil companies. The science has been corrupted and the Mainstream media is on the side of this coerced political agenda sponsored by WWF, Greenpeace and the Royal Society. Fact
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Whatever happened to "Arctic (non) warming since 1958? This according to data from the Danish meteorological institute? If you ask me Hansen pretty closely fits with Ikes 2nd warning.. that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
A) Climate scientists who's jobs depend on promoting the scare - which they do by manipulating data, exaggerating dangers and suppressing debate & dissent.
B) Left-leaning politicians who just want an excuse to massively raise taxes and limit peoples freedom while pretending they're doing it to 'save the planet'.
C) Eco-facists who hate mankind and view our existance as a blight on the planet - and who want to return us to the dark ages.
When there's no hard evidence for A, when the promoters of A receive billions of funding from politicians who want to impose massive new taxes & controls based on A, and millions in funding from banks and corporations who stand to make billions in subsidies from A. When people who raise legitimate questions about A are derrided as 'deniers' and driven from their jobs.
THEN it's no suprise more and more people start to believe B.
Not really. In the 1970's Hansen and Schneider were predicting a new ice age. This guy is a serial climate scare promoter. Warming, cooling, doesn't matter to him - so long as there's a scare to exploit and research grants to win. In 10 years time when falling temperatures have finally buried this idiotic scare, Hansen will be sitting pretty on a beech somewhere, having made a tidy sum over the years. But I fear the reputation of NASA will be permanently damaged.
@MMGWsceptic the rational will always win over the irrational. The loudest guy is the weakest guy, you internet loudmouth. Uneducated loudmouth is what you are.
June 11th 1986; THE MIAMI NEWS - Dr. James Hansen predicts climate catastrophes from manmade greenhouse gasses.
Temperatures, early next century will be “well above any level experienced in the last 100,000 years”.
Global temps would rise by “between 0.5 and 1 deg F by 2000; and a further 2-4 deg F in the following decade”.(mid-range is 3.75 F, or 2.08 c)
“The rise would be 8 degrees F by the 2030’s”.
“This would also “raise sea level 4.5 feet”
Was he right? err, no.
1000frolly 1 day ago
Temp in June 11th, 1986 was -0.25c and now (Feb 2012) +0.12c
A rise of just 0.37c in 25 yr. (Hansen prediction was 2.08 c in 23 yr)
He overestimated by 562%. (UAH satellite temp record; running 13 mth average)
Did he do better for sea levels? Err, no. He estimated 4.5 feet by the 2030’s. We are more than half way there and so far only seen 6cm since 1986 (0.19 feet) move sea!
Oops, according to ENVISAT and JASON 1+2 satellites IT’S NOW FALLING, and has been since 2008. (So is the temperature)
1000frolly 1 day ago
@1000frolly I've heard that lie before, who keeps telling people that. Perhaps could you mention what sensor you are citing? and what method you are using to process the data? Also include your statistical methodology and error please.
StAverti 23 hours ago
@StAverti Oh now i remember, some idiot was complaining that the correction algorithms used by the European Space Agency to keep its ENVISAT and JASON platform data accurate was a "fabrication of the data that shows sea levels declining". It's funny that those two are the only ones ever falsified by deniers, probably because the ESA has easier access to their calibration (which is a good thing for sure). I'll leave you idiots to guess what uncalibrated data is good for.
StAverti 23 hours ago
@StAverti PS JASONS sensor is measuring gravity not sea level, estimates are made through heavy calibration.... leave it to people who don't know data to spew trash about it .
StAverti 22 hours ago
@StAverti
Both Jason-1 (since 2002) and Jason-2 (since 2008) are measuring sea level.
1000frolly 19 hours ago
@StAverti
Hold it!
Sorry; my info on ENVISAT is out of date.
In the last 6 months there has been a big rise in sea level, the sea is now higher than it was in 2004; its 2.7 mm higher now than in 2004.
The trend from ENVISAT is +0.348mm/year. If that continues to 2100, the MSL will be 0.348 x 88yrs = 30mm higher. Thats about an inch for you Yanks out there.
Hardly frightening is it?
1000frolly 19 hours ago
@1000frolly Like I asked the first time, what sensor are you citing? As for Hansen, his 1988 results have been revisited, and since he had 3 scenarios and results for each, you need to disclose which of his scenarios you are calculating your numbers from, and what the error is on your calculations as well as how observed data fit within the error he attributed to his modeled scenarios. What is the difference in the rate of sea level rise? Your responses just kind of show you don't have a clue...
StAverti 18 hours ago
@StAverti As for Hansen's 1988 projections, they were revisited in 2006, and guess what, they were still scientifically valid. While his Scenario B was slightly higher than the observed warming, but the actual warming is not only well within the margin of error he attributed to those calculations, but even the coefficient he used for climate sensitivity (which was a little bit high) was within the range accepted and validated by he IPCC.
StAverti 18 hours ago
@StAverti You can find the revisitation here:
pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha07110b.html
StAverti 18 hours ago
@1000frolly Also, you seem to be citing the maximum on the ranges of possible temperatures and sea level rises Hansen produced. You neglect to include the over bounds he calculated, or conveniently leave those out... because if you included them you would see that observed data fit within his ranges for scenario B fairly well (though obviously not perfectly).
StAverti 18 hours ago
@StAverti I will admit, the gravity statement was a red herring, I was hoping to get you to realize the actual sensors (which you still haven't identified) are LASER altimeters (JASON1 & 2) and a Radio altimeter (ENVISAT). Since you were unwilling so far to mention the distinct limitations, I assume that hasn't crossed your mind. Long story short is that when properly calibrated, processed and taken with in situ data, sea level is indeed still experiencing an increasingly rapid increase.
StAverti 18 hours ago
@1000frolly As it seems, you've also forgotten to account for the larger volume of water being drawn from the ocean in terrestrial precipitation... but no worries, I won't insult you on such a novice mistake, it happens to the best of us.
StAverti 18 hours ago
@StAverti That is also not counting that you didn't derive the rate of increase in sea level rise, so while you should actually be solving a differential equation for change in rate over time to actually be able to integrate the real values over time you just use a useless flat rate... which isn't conducive with the reality that not only is sea level rising, the RATE of sea level rise is increasing... very simple physics there.
StAverti 4 hours ago
@1000frolly Actually, his published model in the 80's, although not exactly perfect, accurately predicted the current observed temperature rise with the bounds of his models error threshold. There have been several papers that confirmed this, perhaps you aren't familiar with them? I suppose maybe you don't have much science background huh?
StAverti 23 hours ago
@StAverti
He was only out by a factor of 6 on temperature.
That's much better than what he is claiming for sea level, which is heading straight for +30mm by 2100 (see above satellite data).
Hansen is predicting 6,000mm; so in this case he will be out by a factor of 200.
I guess he sees that as being OK?
1000frolly 19 hours ago
Though I appreciate the doomsday talk very little and disagree with the imminence of such a thing (and I happen to believe that many pundits of this topic are generally attention-grabbing moneymakers, though Hansen is probably not) , I agree with David when he says that we need to get off fossil fuels anyhow. It's expensive, its harmful in many other ways, and we are very much nearly run dry of oil, ng, and coal. Imagine how much money these things cost. Why not invest in wind? You'll be rich.
CallMeShirlie 1 month ago
@Besetho without the Sun we would not be alive. Co2,methane,no2 do trap/store heat, look at the emissions system on your car
ianhowe007 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
• Survey of Climate Scientists by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch 2010. "Most climate scientists disagree with positions that are at the foundation of the alarmist case. This survey certainly shows no consensus on the science behind the global warming scare.
When asked questions scientists seem quick to admit their uncertainty. Majorities of climate scientists say they do not believe the scientific claims that underlie the theory and predictions of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change".
1000frolly 1 month ago
Thanks for posting. Thanks to Letterman for hosting this guest. Good grief charlie brown
mortsde 1 month ago
@Besetho Yeah, I've been brainwashed by taking courses in college in various fields of environmental science. Specifically, focusing on the effects of chemical industries effects as well as the future outcomes of finite natural resource depletion. Nonetheless, I'm sure you believe what you believe despite data and analysis that has been provided in numerous peer-reviewed articles and journals across the world.
imita01 2 months ago
As I suspect you are a victim of Lord Monckton's disinformation campaign, I would also suggest you look at this.
v=TRCyctTvuCo
widebody123 2 months ago
@Besetho You might like to start by educating yourself before embarrassing yourself any further. Check out this video, one of a series debunking climate denial myths.
v=Py2XVILHUjQ
widebody123 2 months ago
@Besetho The petition was a fraud and the 32,000 'scientists' included such luminaries as Hawkeye Pierce, Ginger Spice and Michael J. Fox. Sadly you are the one who is brainwashed.
widebody123 2 months ago
@Besetho How the hell did you find my comment?
Bellantoni 2 months ago
@Besetho Are you being paid to post this astroturfing drivel?
widebody123 2 months ago
@Besetho You are a scientist? Not according to your utterly ignorant comment you aren't! CO2 is rising at the fastest rate in the last 10,000yrs, Humans produce 10 times the amount of CO2 that occurs naturally & 100 times that of volcanoes annually...CO2 traps heat & is therefore warming the planet & humans are the reason CO2 is rising at the rate it is. Seriously, to deny any one of those FACTS is ABSURD! It is like denying all life on Earth Evolved to its current form! ABSURD!!
Viracocha711 2 months ago
@Besetho There's really no point responding to ignorant people like you. But I am bored. The smallest amount of googling will give the answers about SUN, CO2 etc.
The fact is, the ONLY explanation for the rapid warming of the earth in the last half-century is our addition of CO2 to the atmosphere.
widebody123 2 months ago
@widebody123 I totally agree with your reply to @Besetho...He is just another ignorant fool that has been confused & now is being used by the Professional Denialist...He is not a scientist as he claims or he would know better than to say the ignorant things he/she does! ABOUT THE VIDEO...I am with Letterman I think we are FUCKED! Way too many folks have chosen the path to utter ignorance rather than taking the time to understand just how bad things are & will get!
Viracocha711 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@widebody123 Survey of Climate Scientists by D.Bray and Hans von Storch 2010. "Most climate scientists disagree with positions that are at the foundation of the alarmist case.This survey certainly shows no consensus on the science behind the global warming scare When asked questions scientists seem quick to admit their uncertainty. Majorities of climate scientists say they do not believe the scientific claims that underlie the theory and predictions of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change"
1000frolly 1 month ago
Comment removed
Jrkdyw 4 months ago
denial is not a good answer
Jrkdyw 4 months ago
@al5mnd9trnksdr745bi
These kinds of lawsuits are generally called 'smearing' or 'smear-campaigns'.
As in: James E Hansen, one of the most intelligent people on the planet, who's had access to the most advanced technology designed for studying the planet has come to an ethical and informed conclusion. The people/companies who stand to lose alot of money if people listen to Mr. Hansen have started a smear-campaign, hoping that Mr. Hansen's previously immaculate character is sullied.
TMTdorame 6 months ago 4
glad to Letterman is on the right side of this issue
free484 6 months ago
Science aside, I'd take public transportation for a month for a chance to see James Hansen and Richard Lindzen duke it out in a boxing ring.
GorterPoss 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
2110kop 7 months ago
James Hansen= national hero
widebody123 7 months ago
James Hansen's tie is way too long.
widebody123 8 months ago
@Slave2Reason It's a cult supported by every scientist on earth. And all you have to counter with his whimpering about Al Gore and climategate just like every other climate denier, because you cannot ignore the fact that co2 and methane are greenhouse gases and greenhouse gases are what makes the Earth warm, so adding more will make it warmer. Fairly simple.
Bellantoni 9 months ago
@MMGWsceptic: You are missing the point entirely. Dr. Hansen isn't arguing about those issues at all.
ThePollywog2 10 months ago
@ThePollywog2 Yes - I was replying to imita's ridiculous post below - although I think imita's outlook on life & politics are probably very close to Hansen's: always pessimistic, always forecasting doom and gloom, blaming every natural disaster on capitalism, advocating high taxes and rule by unelected bureaucrats and activist scientists like himself. Basically a complete nutter.
MMGWsceptic 9 months ago
@MMGWsceptic All you do is name calling, and ACTIVIST SCIENTIST!!! Get real! I'm studying advanced chemistry and hope to help solve future problems for mankind. We are actual scientists who analyze data. We scientists don't make up things. We simply observe and reason. Obviously, my theoretical capabilities annoy you since I assume you are unable to understand the difference between science and politics. Science is facts that haunt you. Politics are lies to keep you comfortable. Open your eyes.
imita01 9 months ago
@MMGWsceptic And, I made no comments about taxes or rule be unelected bureaucrats... oh yeah, and we are all still waiting for an intelligent comment from you. Where is it?
imita01 9 months ago
@MMGWsceptic.... Also, I'm going to assume you think you're going to heaven right? Hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah....
You're also a republican right?Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah.....Oh you're probably rich and white right? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah...... Yeah don't even reply.... just go kill yourself.... Hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahah
imita01 9 months ago
It's sad that earth will become a Museum. Let's face the facts the richest of the rich will most likely survive since they have the money to invest in a form of privatized space exploration while we the common people who never had a chance will sit on earth and die. Later on, the future humans in space will be taught that our deaths are a tragedy but a necessity of transitioning from a type 0 to type 1 civilization. We're simply being slowly murdered. We are good people, but nobody is listening.
imita01 10 months ago
@imita01 By every single measure of health and quality of life - mankind is better off today that we have been at any time in our history. The average occupant of planet earth has more food, better health, better education, more freedom, more leisure time and more disposable income than at any time since we crawled out of the swamps. And things are getting better all the time.
Cheer up you daft muther fu<k3r
MMGWsceptic 10 months ago
@MMGWsceptic Yes all the things you have mentioned has indeed become better for the wealthy. I've yet to see anything get better for every poor person in the world. Our system of living can get better for everyone if we wanted it to. Your living in a joke of a planet, and I'm living in a joke of a planet. Don't act as if you do not know. And, I refuse to cheer up until the problems that face our planet are fixed. Thus, I probably will never "cheer up", and that is fine with me.
imita01 9 months ago
Actually, coal is a very abundant resource. It's just dirty, destroys the land and is dangerous to mine. Oil on the other hand, yeah... we should have so been planning for this(oil phase out) 50 years ago! Not now, when the fat ladies doing warm-ups...
PrimalPrime0 1 year ago
Brisbane had worse flooding in 1974. That's why they built the Wivenhoe dam. Shame it couldn't do it's job because eco-alarmists ordered the dam to be overfilled, ignorantly claiming the recent drought was permanent - rather than just a natural cycle.
I'll see your "record high in Greece" (now a cool 5-10oC) and raise you the coldest January in the UK for over 100 years and a new USA record low of -43oC in Minnesota on 21/1.
MMGWsceptic 1 year ago
There you go again, lounge chair expert. The message is we will have more droughts and bigger floods. BTW, I hear whilst NY is having a cold time, the Arctic is 20 degrees warmer than normal... Y'see, GW predicts extreme events, as you know, record highs were also had in NY last summer. Record high in Greece at same time as record low in other parts of EU only 2 months ago. Global record floods now!
bernzeppi 1 year ago
You just keep saying that... And keep hanging around your slowpoke mates who will pat you on the back and validate your inadequate life. You just stick with your contrary an mates and ignore 50 years of science. Your dark cloud of suspicions and conspiracies betray your world view. You have no way of understanding what is goin on. Keep it up, you surely won't be going places.
bernzeppi 1 year ago
Also Treason, "anyone who can read..." you DIDN'T read those 'climate gate emails' for yourself because it is not possible to conclude there was any wrong doing from those emails. Your "modicum of common sense" appears to include believing what the thieves of those emails were trying to make them say. 'common sense' would demand you dont take a single phrase out of context then build a complete conspiracy theory around it.xt
bernzeppi 1 year ago
Hey treason, your quote: "see the trouble with greens is they hate people" followed by "but as they say assuming makes an ass out of you".... Well, ah, is the irony lost on you?
bernzeppi 1 year ago
@Slave2Reason You don't have so much contention... you have contentious anger... thats why you are a slave-Treason
You are riding on your FOXnews (it's NOT news it's entertainment) angry rhetoric.
Stop shooting your politicians!
THAT is treason!
bernzeppi 1 year ago
@Slave2Reason Climate gate was a fizzer and you know it!
watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY
And lets now forget it was debunked over a year ago
watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
If you actually read the emails (I did) you couldn't possibly conclude waht the denier dummies were trying to make you believe... I guess the news hasn't hit you yet.
You are just let your angry amygdala run your brain
watch?v=KIHRGUMr3Ak
Yes... you're brain controls your ability to reason
bernzeppi 1 year ago
Once we develop the molten salt reactor and US's new battery technology the rantings of the coal minded opposition will be a thing of the past.
US, EU, and Australia subsidise coal to keep jobs...
It's time new tech got equal rights... it's gonna save the world desipte the dark suspicious minds of the FOXnews generation.
BTW, stop killing the good pollies!
Turn your guns on the evil manipulating pollies who back big carbon, hamper progress and call for the slow-pokes to be armed and dangerous.
bernzeppi 1 year ago
@Slave2Reason yeh right... and your credentials in support of this outrageous proclamation?
bernzeppi 1 year ago
@bernzeppi Slave'Treason, enemy of the light, of sound mind and of democratic progress
bernzeppi 1 year ago
@Propositum Me? Joking?
You mean joking about believing doomsday predictions by activist 'scientists' who's jobs depend on producing ever more alarmist predictions? Activists who can't predict next week's weather nevermind in 50 yrs time?
Or joking about the cost of shutting down the economy based on these idiot activist's predictions?
No. I'm not joking.
MMGWsceptic 1 year ago
James Hansen's tie is way too long.
widebody123 1 year ago
@Propositum 2 problems with that:
1) There is no energy crisis - vast new natural gas resources are coming on tap thanks to shale gas extraction. The price is on the floor. Also, the whole Peak Oil thing is just scare story put about by oil producers to keep the price high.
2) Even if AGW is real (doubtful) then the costs of reducing CO2 emissions to zero far outweigh the benefits of continuing development and adapting to a warmer world.
MMGWsceptic 1 year ago
@MMGWsceptic to 1) agreed... we have enough fossil fuel to burn ourselves right off the planet.
2) is inconsistent with you1) statement and is sadly misinformed.
You've parroted that from someone haven't you?
bernzeppi 1 year ago
@bernzeppi So Bern, if I use evil fossil fuels to drive my dad to the hospital - is that a waste of mother natures precious resources? If my Gran turns the heat on in winter to keep warm - is she a parasite raping the Earth?
Damn those evil oil companies that keep the lights on and hospitals running !! Damn them for generating all our jobs, wealth and prosperity !!.
See, the trouble with greens is they just hate people. They want us all dead so the Earth can remain "unspoilt" forever
MMGWsceptic 1 year ago
@MMGWsceptic You peg me wrong. We need fossil fuels, no doubt but we need to reduce emissions to about 1999 levels.
Perhaps the best way is the molten salt reactor, a nuclear reactor developed concurrently with fast breeder reactors in the 50s. Has the advantage of not being able to blow up and u can't make a bomb from it.
It failed because you can't make a bomb from it (plutonium byproduct)
Greens don't hate people, that is ridiculous... hope your dad is OK
Hope you remove your blinkers
bernzeppi 1 year ago
@bernzeppi Pure baloney. The globe hasn't warmed this century and the slight warming we saw in the 80's and 90's was no different to the warming in the 30's and 40's. Certainly no reason to divert massive resources from important things like health, education and economic development - to a pointless canute-like attempt to control natural climate change by waging war on a harmless natural gas that boosts plant growth.
PS. Actually they're both dead - just an example from the past.
MMGWsceptic 1 year ago
@Propositum Makes no difference. It really doesn't matter whether you burn all the coal in the next 50 years or in the next 1000 years; what matters is whether you burn all the coal. We need to use more energy to bring population growth down to ~zero and it's a moral imperative to bring the worlds poorest up to a reasonable level(about 2 kW). This means nuclear on a massive scale and possibly solar in a couple of decades if you can get the cost down and the storage in place.
soylentgreenb 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ice age coming.....
TheRobynhud 1 year ago
I wonder if, in the devastated future, the politicians and lawmakers/government officials who denied climate change and opposed doing something will be considered criminals. Hopefully they will put them in jail.
23skeedoo 1 year ago
If we stop CO2 emissions that will not solve the problem.There are many more dangerous chemicals being routinely produced by industry eg nitrogen trifluoride,sulphur hexafluoride PFCs HFCs and CFCs not to mention nuclear waste.The reason CO2 is focused upon is that we all produce it in our everyday lives meaning a carbon tax will target us all and make so called environmentalists like Al Gore a lot of money.We all care about our environment but dont believe that a carbon tax is the way forward.
rstanleyfortruth 1 year ago
Dr Roy Spencer and Dr John Christy of NASA reject Hansen's wild theories...
achtung07 1 year ago
Just wanted to point out that Artic Sea Ice has just increased above the 1979-2000 average and is still rising!. The ice looks likely to set a new record for this century. The only thing melting is public support for CO2 taxes.
MMGWsceptic 1 year ago
He resigned because he had too. He didnt consult w/ NASA Earth Science before he went public, I question his credibility.
SuperFifthwheel 1 year ago
CO2 is innocent!
Dr Miskolczi showed that the solution to a differential equation for the greenhouse effect developed in 1922 by Arthur Milne, wrongly assumed an infinitely thick atmosphere. In re-solving this equation a new term and also a new law of physics have been proposed setting an upper limit to the greenhouse effect. Dr Miskolczis theory indicates that any warming from elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide will eventually be offset by a change in atmospheric moisture content
judomagyar 2 years ago
Here ya go... records set every season in Australia
. csiro . gov . au/files/files/pvfo . pdf
"In simple terms, it is getting hotter and drier. Also, sea level is rising and the level of dissolved carbon dioxide in the oceans is rising rapidly. Furthermore, atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane levels are also rising."-ITwire
We here in OZ break anew record almost monthly... it takes atoll on the farmers and food prices.
It was 47C (116F) at the Big Day Out this year, 35C in the OB truck
bernzeppi 2 years ago
@bernzeppi its called a solar cycle. currently we are at peak solar activity with CME, flare, and spots becoming more frequent. will take a few more years to settle. CME= more carbon ions introduced into atmosphere fyi.
SuperFifthwheel 1 year ago
Hey Bernie! I see Sydney just recorded its coldest June morning since 1949 - Melbourne, Adelaide and Brisbane aren't far behind. How's that man-made global warming working out for you?
MMGWsceptic 1 year ago
@MMGWsceptic
You really are a simpleton aren't you?! I just left Sydney to land in colder Melbourne... Setting up for 3D broadcast...
Yes it's frigin' cold!
What happens when you put more energy into an air conditioner? It gets even colder that's what.
If you are going to come back with every day should be hotter than the last in a GW argument you clearly have put yourself on the side of ignorance... Dimwit!
When it gets really hot in oz is when we get hail, you know about convection?
bernzeppi 1 year ago
@bernzeppi
Ah... I get it. So when it's hot is man-made global warming, when it's cold it's man-made global warming. When there's a drought it's MMGW, when there's a flood it's MMGW....
Is there anything that isn't caused by man-made global warming??
It seems not: Google 'A complete list of things caused by global warming'
It turns out just about everything is caused my MMGW - from Acne to the Zebra Mussel Threat.
Ha ha
MMGWsceptic 1 year ago
@MMGWsceptic There you go again. As you know and have been told umpteen times, you need to take the average temperatures. For instance that cold snap in US and Britain didn't change the fact that it was a warmer than usual winter.
Your inane bleats about recovering polar ice are just as misleading because you don't acknowledge it is very thin ice and the volume is down.
You are deliberately being a bonehead.
It's disappointing to see you remain selectively stupid
Grow up.
bernzeppi 1 year ago
@bernzeppi Hey Bern. Are you enjoying the summer cold & snow? I hear you might be having a white summer Christmas down there. Enjoy.
MMGWsceptic 1 year ago
@MMGWsceptic Now that would be unreal!
Freaking unreal... and I'd love to see it.
We've had hail (that other form of frozen water caused by hot humid conditions interfacing with a cold front) but not snow.
We wouldn't get 'lake effect snow' where cold winds blow over hot water (causing those blizzards in the midwest USA right now) because the (ocean) water is still cool from the winter currents.
But ordinary everyday snow?
Nope, Not in Sydney.
BTW- Didja hear 2010 is hottest year on record?
bernzeppi 1 year ago
@bernzeppi I've seen a peanut stand, heard a rubber band, seen a needle that winked it's eye, but I been done seen 'bout everthing when I see Hansen claim 2010 is the hottest year evaarrrhh!
Actually it's no suprise atall - Hansen's been cooking the books for decades - adjusting the 1930's down, biasing present-day temperatures upwards, applying a reverse UHI correction etc. Hadcrut aren't as practised as Hansen at data distortion. They still have 1998 as the warmest year.
MMGWsceptic 1 year ago
@MMGWsceptic
WASHINGTON -- Global surface temperatures in 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest on record, according to an analysis released Wednesday by researchers at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.
willduquebec 10 months ago
@bernzeppi You are very smart and its underwater in New York by about 2016 for real everybody knows it. And its colder then ever in NY then I ever remember or any body else does to remember .So, its because of only the oil companys that control everything and President Obama controled, and Presidents of most of the rest of countrys too! Because the oil companys can control it. And Capitalism is wrong and just wwe need to have a few smart poeple to run it! SocialJustice for Globalworld today!!
YosupMofo 1 year ago
@MMGWsceptic I've lived in Melbourne for 50yrs, frozen puddles were common when I was a child, I haven't seen one for 30yrs. We have Lorrikeets and flying foxes in large numbers, these are tropical species that did not exist in Melbourne when I was a kid. As someone else pointed out you are being deliberately stupid.
Tapecutter59 1 year ago
@Tapecutter59 Yes - it was colder when I was a child too. No doubt the Earth has warmed since the 70's. Just like it wamed in the 30's and cooled in the 40's-60's prompting fears of a new ice age . Looking further back we had the Medieval Warm Period then the Little Ice Age. No SUVs back then.
Animals are continually migrating & competing in the struggle for survival. History tells us climate is continually changing and wildlife continually adapting. It would be strange if they didn't
MMGWsceptic 1 year ago
@MMGWsceptic I'm not sure if you realise this but the people at climate audit, WUWT, etc, who feed you those talking points think of you as a useful idiot in the fight against sane regulation. The think tanks that come up with those talking points (such as heartland and CEI) are all located within walking distance of K street. You have been duped and mislead into fighting against your own best interests by the same paid lobbyists who back in the 80's told us that smoking does not cause cancer.
Tapecutter59 1 year ago
@Tapecutter59 I see you're adopting the standard alarmist approach: when you have no facts or evidence to support your position you shout "Big Oil Shill" at anyone who disagree's with your irrational beliefs. What you fail to realise is the climate alarmists receive far more funding from corportations like BP, Shell & Exxon than the sceptics. Not to mention billions of tax-payer funding. Why? Because CO2 taxes are a licence to pick the pockets of the poor & gullible citizens.
MMGWsceptic 1 year ago
@MMGWsceptic
Evidence? Oh, I am sorry that I ask a inconvenient question?
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492 Evidence of what? Big oil funding of global warming alarmism? Well, it's no secret - you'll find the oil companies listed as sponsors of many environmental action groups (although BP has recently been dropped by many lol).
Alternatively you can google 'climategate shell' to read how the crooks at CRU regularly met with Shell and Amoco and BP to discuss funding. Or google 'Phil Jones funding' to read about the £13.7M of funding he received for cooking the books.
MMGWsceptic 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CO2 does not have a Thermal Capacity to have a 1.0 degree Celsius impact. Nitrogen's Thermal capacity is 1.0 with 780k ppm Oxygen's Thermal capacity is 0.9 with 209k ppm. CO2 Thermal capacity is 0.8 with 387 parts per million. To have the impact as claimed it should be 100.0 Thermal capacity. Thermal capacity is the ability of an atom or molecule to absorb heat and retain heat.
AtlasandLiberty 2 years ago
common guys... do you care about this planet or not? Its business people, not scientists, who are worried about this. Its simple science, known for decades, supported by 99.9% of the worlds scientists and its about the only place we have as a home. Stop and think for a bit about life. Study this if you are not sure thats fine. Scepticism is more danerous than anything... open minded curiosity is what we need.
B38qhTfw 2 years ago
Hey Mr Gullible, you're being played by con men. Think about who gains from this:
Energy companies get massive new income streams & subsidies for green energy.
Climate scientists get massive funding & prestige.
Politicians impose massive new taxes & controls while claiming they're saving the planet.
And what do we gain? Nothing - we sit shivering in the dark while our $ are transfered to the above 3 groups. And for what? To make the weather a bit colder next century? FFS
MMGWsceptic 2 years ago
*Sigh*.
Does it really seem unrealistic that these people receive more funding because their research is legit? Thats how it works. Physicists have research on quantum mechanics, so they spend billions on particle accelerators. Cosmologists launch satellites. Paleontologists discover hints of new species in distant lands. You got it all backwards in conspiracy logic, in reality research grants are a testament to the quality of their research -not of some circular world-wide web of fraud.
enverbatim 2 years ago
Here's a useful list of 690 things blamed on man made global warming - from kidney stones to cockroach migration:
tiny (dot) cc/cc928
For every item on the list there's a scientist or NGO getting research funding - all paid for by your tax dollars.
Here's some examples of the crap climate change research the UK & EU are funding this year :
tiny (dot) cc/cc365
Not to mention the $millions IPCC head Dr Pachurai has funnelled to his TERI organisation.
MMGWsceptic 2 years ago
And let's not forget Obama's told NASA to forget about space exploration and instead, to concentrate on promoting global warming alarmism.
And he's instructed the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to focus on corporate climate change bureaucracy rather than financial fraud.
It's ironic that instead of protecting the public against Madoff style fraud - the SEC will be helping Obama promote the greatest fraud in history: The MMGW CO2 taxing fraud.
MMGWsceptic 2 years ago
sure are alot of climatologists on these comments.
enverbatim 2 years ago
I'm an electronic engineer but when corrupt politicians, rent-seeking scientists and eco-loonies say our taxes & energy bills need to sky rocket, everyone needs to check the science for themselves. When you do you'll discover it's a load of bollocks. They cooked the thermometers, made bogus hockey stick graphs that rewrote established climate history, made hysterical claims based on dodgey models that can't predict next month's weather, let alone next century. Yup - it's a scam.
MMGWsceptic 2 years ago
1. You're an electronic engineer.
2. "They." Thats a vague term. You mean which of the following: AMS, NOAA, NASA, GCRP, peer-review staff at all the climatology related journals, and/or international climate research organizations in the EU, CSIRO, and the vast number of climatologists at universities throughout the world.
Yes, its a world-wide conspiracy at all levels of scientists put forth by "They." And its been going on for a decade. And somehow research keeps coming.
enverbatim 2 years ago
My job involves measurement and analysis of real world variables - including temperature and light. So yes, I can plot a graph as well as the next man. It's not rocket science.
Re: your appeal to the supposed authority of various alarmist groups - in all cases their funding, jobs and reputation depend on promoting global warming. Despite that they still haven't found any hard evidence. All they have are computer models which failed to predict the cooling this century despite rising CO2.
MMGWsceptic 2 years ago
Climatology is graph plotting in the sense that electrical engineering is plugging in batteries.
Wait. Wait. Wait. NASA, the AMS, journals like Science, Nature, etc and all across the world are promoting this viewpoint in order to maintain their jobs and funding? All these journals, and organizations existed before climate change became a major scientific theme. They *are* the source for climate information, of any kind.
What sources do you reference, if not these?
enverbatim 2 years ago
Since 1991 climate science funding from the US government has increased 20-fold to $2.6Billion. The EU has a similar budget. The UK punches above it's weight with millions in climate change promotion funding going to the CRU, MET office, British Council and numerous NGOs like WWF producing junk science.
Seems to be working out pretty well for these alarmist climate profiteers.
Which sources to trust? The open, transparent and unbiased ones. That rules out the CRU and IPCC for a start.
MMGWsceptic 2 years ago
And which organizations are the open, transparent, and unbiased ones?
enverbatim 2 years ago
Scientists who don't have a vested interest nor a religious belief in climate change (although after 20 yrs of government favouritism - it's hard to find many who fit that bill). Scientists who rely on observations & evidence rather than computer models, adjustments or 'tricks' & who publish full data & methodology so others can check their work - eg. McKintyre, Lindzen, Pielke Jnr & Snr, Landsea, Morner. Not Mann, Jones Briffa or Hansen.
MMGWsceptic 2 years ago
For the record, Hansen is not a climate modeler. He relies on evidence and disdains the climate models.
co2mmonsense 2 years ago
@MMGWsceptic Then you would probably also know that climate systems are not discrete and predictable like classical FSM, but chaotic and fuzzy and can have many parallel feedback loops and recursivity.
The climate is a macroscopic system while weather is local and transient noise that may have extremes which does not detract from the overall trend.
How can you extrapolate a century long trend from local noise that are months in duration? You can't.
technatezin 2 years ago
Yes indeed. The global warming hysteria is purely based on the mild warming trend that began in the 70's & ended in 2000. Eco-loons have predicted warming will accelerate based on their computer models which failed to predict the cooling this century. But the mild warming trend we've seen was no greater than other warming trends in the 1920's & 30's - and less than the warming during the Medieval & Roman warm periods. It's not about climate - it's about money.
MMGWsceptic 2 years ago
Your ignorance is astounding.
co2mmonsense 2 years ago
Well, if you've been duped by the climate hysterics, YOUR ignorance of high school science astounds me. As does your credulity of self professed experts, and gullibility in the face of corrupt politicians and climate profiteers who are only interested in how much money they can make from this scam.
If on the other hand you work in the multi billion dollar climate alarm industry, then buddy, I think you're scum.
MMGWsceptic 2 years ago
According to Richard Lindzen of MIT.. Co2 could double and the effects would be nil..
Professor Hansen is making assumptions based on bad data. He's using the fear mongers data... And he like Al Gore are wrong.
OldClay2 2 years ago
The grinch who almost stole christmas- Is it just me or does this guy look like the grinch?
keithmlarsen 2 years ago 2
@keithmlarsen
It is you.
Trent1492 1 year ago
dx. doi. org/10.1126/science.1112418
Science | 8 July 2005
Vol. 309 | no. 5732 | pp. 284-287
Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World's Oceans
by Tim P. Barnett (Scripps Institution of Oceanography) and six others
ABSTRACT:
"A warming signal has penetrated into the world's oceans over the past 40 years. The signal is complex, with a vertical structure that varies widely by ocean; ..."
substanti8 2 years ago
"... it cannot be explained by natural internal climate variability or solar and volcanic forcing, but is well simulated by two anthropogenically forced climate models. We conclude that it is of human origin, a conclusion robust to observational sampling and model differences. Changes in advection combine with surface forcing to give the overall warming pattern. The implications of this study suggest that society needs to seriously consider model predictions of future climate change."
substanti8 2 years ago
nature. com/climate/2008/0812/full/ climate.2008.122.html
"The climatic impacts of releasing fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere will last longer than Stonehenge -- longer than time capsules, longer than nuclear waste, far longer than the age of human civilization so far."
substanti8 2 years ago
Well, huge snows on east coast US, Vancouver is warm during the winter Olympics... there's that temperature gradient.
And in Australia floods AND droughts.
Last weekend Sydney had 300mm rain in one night... unheard of!
Trillions of tons of water are levitated to the sky by heat... more heat, more evaporation, more precipitation.
Last week a GW denier exclaimed "CO2 is heavier that air!"
well so is water, and jetliners, and rocket ships and cars that fly about during tornados
We're FUCKED!
bernzeppi 2 years ago
Vancouver is known for mild winters. Average Feb = 4 degs & rainy. The organisers knew lack of snow would be a problem when they bid for the games.
Check wikipedia for a list of Australian droughts and floods going back 100's of years.
Since ancient times rulers have exploited natural climate variations and bad weather to demand tribute payments from the gullible masses, claiming they will appease the gods and make the weather better. Today is no different.
MMGWsceptic 2 years ago
Here you go sport:
1974 Brisbane flood: Among the highest rainfall recordings were 1,318 mm, whilst in Brisbane itself 819 mm of rain fell, producing the worst city flooding in Australian history.
Gee - but that was 1974 - years before most of the supposed man-made global warming occured. What could have caused it? Hmmm.. could it just be bad weather in a chaotic variable climate?
MMGWsceptic 2 years ago
Gee that's Brisbane, completely different climate... tropical
Sydney.... semi arid broke an all time record BOM
There ya go sport
bernzeppi 2 years ago
I checked the annual Sydney rainfall on the BOM site from 1885 to 2010. No trend atall.
Checking Feburary rainfall at the Sydney Botanic gardens shows peaks in 1890, 1956 and 1990.
No MMGW fingerprint. Just natural variation.
MMGWsceptic 2 years ago
Didja check the record rainfall last week?
Do ya still think Brisbane is a good reference point for Sydney's weather?
bernzeppi 2 years ago
Sorry - I'm a pom so I didn't appreciate how far apart they were :)
How about this from Wiki: "Sydney is prone to flash flooding from rain caused by East Coast Lows (a low pressure depression which can bring significant damage by heavy rain, cyclonic winds and huge swells). The most notable event was the great Sydney flood which occurred on 6 August 1986 and dumped a record 327.6 mm on the city in 24 hours.
MMGWsceptic 2 years ago
"Sorry - I'm a pom so I didn't appreciate how far apart they were :)
How about this from Wiki: "Sydney is prone to flash flooding from rain caused..."-MMGW
Much respect to you for actually engaging properly, sadly most people on these blogs are bots
yes Sydney does have flash floods but it's been a while
I wasn't in Sydney for the rain, I was in Melb watching ACDC, great show they still got it.
When I arrived home media was abuzz with the new record set
I will chase this one up
bernzeppi 2 years ago
Here ya go sport, you seem cleverer than most
The climate (not weather) here has changed significantly
eg: Average rainfall in Perth has dropped 75% in 150 years... they now have desalination plant
Sydney, who's dams nearly emptied recently just put a desalination plant online, the worlds largest
mid US has cooled slightly recently but it only represents 2% of the planets surface, jeez I keep hearing that as a global figure, it's not
Aus has warmed significantly, farmers have walked away
bernzeppi 2 years ago
Over 150 years Sydney's population has grown from zip to 4.4 million. No suprise their demand for water has increased.
Re: Perth rainfall. The BOM have a great site that lets you plot annual rainfall. I checked some stations around Perth - I couldn't see any significant trends. Certainly no 75% reductions.
You mean hunger striking farmers like Peter Spencer protest at the government seizing his land for their crazy carbon scheme?
MMGWsceptic 2 years ago
"You mean hunger striking farmers like Peter Spencer protest at the government seizing his land for their crazy carbon scheme?"-MMGW
No I meant other farmer geezers... that guy was a fruit-loop... the AGW alarmist Government passed him off as such
But he opposition climate change deniers celebrated his clarity of mind and holds up his ideas as a model
bernzeppi 2 years ago
@bernzeppi I hear the Brisbane Wivenhoe dam was kept so full due to global warming alarmism - that when the rains arrived they had no spare capacity so had to release massive amounts - flooding Brisbane. Incidentally - it's now mid-summer and the Sydney dams are at 73% capacity - so that $2Bn Sydney desalination plant is sitting idle. Probably end up being moth-balled like the Brisbane plant. That was money well spent wasn't it? Hope you enjoy paying your climate-profiteer-inflated water bills.
MMGWsceptic 1 year ago
You might be aware then that the weather system pushed the snow south to the US?
bernzeppi 2 years ago
Here's fresh research about another ominous positive feedback for global warming.
dx. doi. org/10.1126/science.1186151
Science | 5 February 2010
Vol. 327 | no. 5966 | pp. 654-655
Iron and the Carbon Pump
by William G. Sunda (Beaufort Laboratory, National Ocean Service, NOAA)
"The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere has risen by 38% since the start of the industrial era as a result of fossil fuel burning and land use changes; if current trends continue, it is ..."
substanti8 2 years ago
"... projected to increase further by at least a factor of 2 by 2100. About a quarter of the CO2 emitted through human activities has been absorbed by the ocean. On page 676 of this issue, Shi et al. show that the resulting acidification of ocean surface waters may decrease the biological availability of iron, which could in turn reduce the ability of the ocean to take up CO2."
substanti8 2 years ago
dx. doi. org/10.1126/science.1183517
Science | 5 February 2010
Vol. 327 | no. 5966 | pp. 676-679
Effect of Ocean Acidification on Iron Availability to Marine Phytoplankton
by Dalin Shi (Princeton University) and 3 others
ABSTRACT:
"The acidification caused by the dissolution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the ocean changes the chemistry and hence the bioavailability of iron (Fe), a limiting nutrient in large oceanic regions. Here, we show that the bioavailability of dissolved Fe ..."
substanti8 2 years ago
"... may decline because of ocean acidification. Acidification of media containing various Fe compounds decreases the Fe uptake rate of diatoms and coccolithophores to an extent predicted by the changes in Fe chemistry. A slower Fe uptake ... is also seen in experiments with Atlantic surface water. The Fe requirement ... remains unchanged with increasing CO2. The ongoing acidification of seawater is likely to increase the Fe stress of phytoplankton populations in some areas of the ocean."
substanti8 2 years ago
Yes, the alarmists are already moving onto the next bogus scare since the Earth has stubbornly failed to agree with their predictions and has been getting steadily cooler this century.
MMGWsceptic 2 years ago
@MMGW Troll
"the Earth has stubbornly failed to agree with their predictions"
WRONG.
grist. org/article/ climate-models-are-unproven
Deniers -- no evidence, no logic, no intelligence
substanti8 2 years ago
Well I ignored your insults and read the article. Boy - some very weak and unsupported arguments there. The models predicted accelerated warming as CO2 increases. It's been cooling since 1998. Argo measured cooling oceans. Sea level rise is decreasing. Antarctic sea ice extent is increasing. The Northern hemisphere has just experience one of the coldest winters on record - From the US to Europe to Asia. The sun looks to be entering a period similar to the Dalton minimum. I fear cold not warmth.
MMGWsceptic 2 years ago
Yes, "no intelligence" is an insult directed at you and your ilk. But "no evidence" and "no logic" are statements of fact. AGW deniers provide no credible evidence, and they are quick to employ a wide range of logical fallacies.
Based on your recent comments here, I would say you are no different. In contrast to the peer-reivewed research that I posted (from Science Magazine, Grist and the numerous references in both), you provided nothing more than your unsupported and ridiculous opinion.
substanti8 2 years ago
The paper you posted was pretty obscure: CO2 'may' affect iron 'in some areas of ocean'. Hmm, hardly earth shattering. There's plenty of evidence pointing the other way - eg. algae grow faster with more CO2. More algae = more plankton = more fish.
As for climate models; Here's what CRU scientist Kevin Trenberth had to say about them "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't". Gotta love those climategate emails :)
MMGWsceptic 2 years ago
"There's plenty of evidence pointing the other way."
ROFLMAO ... Where????
The quote from Trenberth is regurgitated propaganda, because it is taken out of context with the intent to deceive. The entire e-mail "scandal" demonstrated the incredible dishonesty of AGW deniers and their campaign of disinformation.
Instead of wasting time on their spam, read this about Kevin Trenberth instead:
tiny (dot) cc/nG21K
substanti8 2 years ago
Evidence? Plants require CO2 to grow. It's widely known. Doubling CO2 increases growth rates up to 40%. Commercial greenhouses pump CO2 up to 500-1000ppm to boost grow. Algae sit at the base of the ocean food chain and they also benefit from CO2. You can ROLF all you like, it doesn't change the facts.
MMGWsceptic 2 years ago
I read the full Trenberth email thread & the laughable attempts to justify it at various alarmist websites. The fact is, in public he stated 'the science is settled, the debate is over, MMGW is a fact' but in private he's admitting there's cooling and they can't account for it !!
What a charlatan. He's clearly stepped over the line from scientist to politician so his pronouncements should be treated accordingly: as politically biased opinions. No wonder the IPCC report he wrote was so biased.
MMGWsceptic 2 years ago
"facts"
STILL ROFLMAO
It's all just more ignorant opinion from you.
You have no evidence and, therefore, your opinions are worthless.
substanti8 2 years ago
CO2 boosts plant growth. You can even buy commercial CO2 generators for your greenhouse. Try googling it.
A tip: when debating people it's best not to continually insult them. It does you no credit and makes you sound childish.
MMGWsceptic 2 years ago
@MMGWsceptic
I'm just giving you a preview of the scorn and ridicule with which you will be regarded by future generations.
Do you have children?
substanti8 2 years ago
So you've given up debating completely now and switched to childish insults.
I take it this means you accept that CO2 does indeed boost plant growth and is widely used in horticulture as a fertilizer?
Anyway, I think I'm done talking to you. Have a nice day :)
MMGWsceptic 2 years ago
Debate?
LOL ... you never provided one iota of evidence to support your ridiculous claims.
Do you have children?
substanti8 2 years ago
CO2 is only useful when plants are not constrained by other factors such as the availability of water, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, various trace minerals or temperature.
Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will have mostly bad effects on actual crop production because of changing water distribution, both in time and place(e.g. glaciers absorb water in abrupt spurts, but they dribble it out slowly over years, acting as an excellent buffer to prevent droughts and floods).
soylentgreenb 2 years ago
Yes CO2 is one of many nutrients required by plants - it is a limiting factor in many cases. since modern irrigation & fertilizers ensures all other nutirients are in plentiful supply - except CO2 - which is why commercial greenhouses boost CO2 to boost growth. Recent increases in CO2 have been cited as one reason why there's been a notable greening of the sahara region and why many forrests are recording record growth rates.
There is no evidence of MM CO2 causing bad weather.
MMGWsceptic 2 years ago
During a period when nitrogen fertilizer was unusually cheap there were a number of experimental plots to see if adding super-optimal amounts of N-fertilizer could boost yields by reducing competition from weeds.
It turns out that the weeds really liked the extra nitrogen, grew much better and soaked up the other limiting elements, leading to reduced productivity.
Adding extra CO2 could be a benefit to plant productivity while being detrimental to agriculture, it depends on particulars.
soylentgreenb 2 years ago
Fair enough - But alot of eco-loonies talk about CO2 as if it was some kind of manmade lethal poison. On the contrary - it's ESSENTIAL FOR PHOTOSYNTHEISIS - the process by which plants produce sugar and oxygen from CO2 and sunlight.
Here's the equation for photosynthesis: 2CO2 + 2H2O + photons = 2(CH2O) + 2O2
Without CO2 all plants on earth would die. And without plants we'd all DIE from lack of oxygen.
CO2 = LIFE you dumb muther fvckers!!
MMGWsceptic 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hansens so full of shit. end of . theres no fighting it the global warming chicken's head has been cut off and its circling with blood spurting out. Face it warmers we have sunk your battleship. Hansens book will be good for fuel when we're keepiing warm next winter
dvalentino007 2 years ago
I feel he's stepped over the line from science to advocacy. Having made such extreme alarmist claims how can he be trusted to carry out honest unbiased research? If he discovered evidence that undermined MMGW would he report it? His FOI'd email discussions suggest not.
MMGWsceptic 2 years ago
Climate science is a complex study. So complex that not many will understand much. Problem is Science has taken a back door to political agenda. The facts are that cherry picked data can prove anything you want it to which is a prime example of the activities going on at the IPCC. IPCC needs funding and went the way of the oil companies. The science has been corrupted and the Mainstream media is on the side of this coerced political agenda sponsored by WWF, Greenpeace and the Royal Society. Fact
dvalentino007 2 years ago
Wow... A Selective Skeptic found a typo somewhere and now expects me to deny global warming.
Do you get paid to spew that dangerous idiocy?
rapauli 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
only idiots trust in hansen or ipcc!
vogelstraussenior 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Whatever happened to "Arctic (non) warming since 1958? This according to data from the Danish meteorological institute? If you ask me Hansen pretty closely fits with Ikes 2nd warning.. that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
traxter42 2 years ago
When there's a scientific consensus that A is true, for some reason people keep going around believing B...
ratleaf 2 years ago
Yes I agree there's a consensus of:
A) Climate scientists who's jobs depend on promoting the scare - which they do by manipulating data, exaggerating dangers and suppressing debate & dissent.
B) Left-leaning politicians who just want an excuse to massively raise taxes and limit peoples freedom while pretending they're doing it to 'save the planet'.
C) Eco-facists who hate mankind and view our existance as a blight on the planet - and who want to return us to the dark ages.
MMGWsceptic 2 years ago
When there's no hard evidence for A, when the promoters of A receive billions of funding from politicians who want to impose massive new taxes & controls based on A, and millions in funding from banks and corporations who stand to make billions in subsidies from A. When people who raise legitimate questions about A are derrided as 'deniers' and driven from their jobs.
THEN it's no suprise more and more people start to believe B.
MMGWsceptic 2 years ago
Not really. In the 1970's Hansen and Schneider were predicting a new ice age. This guy is a serial climate scare promoter. Warming, cooling, doesn't matter to him - so long as there's a scare to exploit and research grants to win. In 10 years time when falling temperatures have finally buried this idiotic scare, Hansen will be sitting pretty on a beech somewhere, having made a tidy sum over the years. But I fear the reputation of NASA will be permanently damaged.
MMGWsceptic 2 years ago
@MMGWsceptic the rational will always win over the irrational. The loudest guy is the weakest guy, you internet loudmouth. Uneducated loudmouth is what you are.
23skeedoo 2 years ago
Who's an irrational loudmouth? I'm not advocating massive economy-crippling new taxes in an attempt to make the weather