More Global Warming Lies; 2014 Almost Certainly Not the Warmest Year on Record

DATCG: Likewise, citing experts changing sides is not evidence. No, however, there is a strong consensus in scientific community that humans are changing the climate. The basics are quite simple. Human emissions are changing the greenhouse properties of the atmosphere trapping heat at the surface (atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere). The distribution of this heat is chaotic and only partly understood. This consensus includes evidence from multiple fields of study, as developed by scientists in many different political and cultural milieus. Zachriel

Al Gore's dire warnings from Nobel speech, including Maslowski's dire prediction...

Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years. Seven years from now. In the last few months, it has been harder and harder to misinterpret the signs that our world is spinning out of kilter. Major cities in North and South America, Asia and Australia are nearly out of water due to massive droughts and melting glaciers

Al Gore was an investor in Chicago Climate Exchange(CCX) through a company in the UK - Generation Investment Management - as Chairman and Founding Partner. Trading of Carbon Credits through CCX estimated from billions on up. After Cap and Trade was defeated, CCX and European ECX was sold to Intercontinental Exchange or ICE. Founder Richard Sander is said to have made $98 million off of his 16% investment. Not sure how much Al Gore's GIM investment in CCX made. Chicago Climate Exchange Obama originally set on the Board of the Joyce Foundation that gave donations to CCX...

This transaction occurred when a young community organizer, Barack Obama, served on the Joyce Foundation’s board of directors, along with his mentor, present White House advisor Valerie Jarret. Eventually Joyce Foundation startup contributions for CCX totaled about $1.1 million, and its president, Paula DiPerna, later left the organization to become executive vice president of CCX.

DATCG

from content of link above by BBC 2007... Scientist or "expert" Maslowski projections were in the content...

By Jonathan Amos Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco Arctic summer melting in 2007 set new records Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice. Their latest modelling(sic) studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years. Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss. Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times. Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections. "Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC. "So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."

And later, to the BBC, Dr Serreze added: "I think Wieslaw is probably a little aggressive in his projections, simply because the luck of the draw means natural variability can kick in to give you a few years in which the ice loss is a little less than you've had in previous years. But Wieslaw is a smart guy and it would not surprise me if his projections came out." Former US Vice President Al Gore cited Professor Maslowski's analysis on Monday in his acceptance speech at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo.

Dr. Serreze projects a little later, but will happen suddenly...

"In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly. It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040."

The citation of "expert" of Maslowski for a dire 2013 prediction by Al Gore was wrong. Likewise, citing experts changing sides is not evidence. If that were the case, then world renown geneticist Dr. John Sanford's change from unguided evolution to Design should change all opposing minds here to ID. DATCG

3/4 of the Canadian northern ice has melted... My crazy brother thinks it is happening because God is reverting the Earth's climate to the same one as in the Eden Garden. He believes that soon all ice will melt, the climate will change into the paradisiac (I can't spell it sorry) I like bets, so I told him if the trend continues according to his prophecies, I will conform.... Quest

drc466: Now, does it really matter if it was the last 20, or just the last 17 minutes that don’t show heating? Yes, that is my point. It matters to the " pause". That is why it it a deliberate misrepresentation, if fact you provide the rationale And when the person measuring the statistics is being paid a lot of money only if the temperatures do show a correlation I contend that is exactly the genesis of the " no warming since x". And when even the cherry-picked and adjusted data don’t show a direct correlation, don’t you have to wonder if the other Fires might be significantly more important a factor Yes, but then I wonder how convienent that argument is for those who have a vested interest in producing CO2, and remember that a few years ago they argued that no warming was occurring at all. velikovskys

Another timely paper published in the most reliable science press media -- Science China Press, that is. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-01/scp-www011915.php

A major peer-reviewed climate physics paper in the first issue (January 2015: vol. 60 no. 1) of the prestigious Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and, as the Orient's equivalent of Science or Nature, one of the world's top six learned journals of science, exposes elementary but serious errors in the general-circulation models relied on by the UN's climate panel, the IPCC. The errors were the reason for concern about Man's effect on climate. Without them, there is no climate crisis.

awstar

Professor Schneider who served as a consultant to federal agencies and White House staff in the Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, second Bush and Obama administrations: "I readily confess a lingering frustration: uncertainties so infuse the issue of climate change that it is still impossible to rule out either mild or catastrophic outcomes, let alone provide confident probabilities for all the claims and counterclaims made about environmental problems. Even the most credible international assessment body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has refused to attempt subjective probabilistic estimates of future temperatures. This has forced politicians to make their own guesses about the likelihood of various degrees of global warming" http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Mediarology/Mediarology.html Eugen

Brent: We are just trying to cool ourselves from all this heat. The climate debate is all about thermodynamics. Zachriel

"we keep pointing to the evidence and you keep waving your hands." We are just trying to cool ourselves from all this heat. Brent

Nunavut Climate Change Centre http://www.climatechangenunavut.ca/en Zachriel

drc466: Say that you have a large boiler sitting above 4 different fires. You are attempting to prove that the continual increase of fire #2 is causing significant increases in the temperature of the water. You have models that predict how a change in the temperature of fire #2 will translate into a change in the temperature of the boiler water. Yes, we do have such models. If you light a fire under a container of water, the water's temperature will increase. The climate is somewhat different in that the heat is distributed chaotically. However, the overall energy of the system is increasing as expected. drc466: tell it to the Eskimos The Inuit, along with most native peoples, are very concerned about climate change. drc466: Counterpoint: In the last 200 years, the world’s population has grown from 1B to 9B people. I’m sure it can handle it if, in the next 200 years, 1B of those people have to pack up and move. Humanity will persevere. However, such an upheaval will cause social and political friction, possible war, and unnecessary human suffering. drc466: statement of Faith in the people cherry-picking and adjusting the data. It has nothing to do with faith, but scientific evidence. Notably, we keep pointing to the evidence and you keep waving your hands. Zachriel

hrun0815, Many thanks for the last word. I do now feel, however, that I should apologize and take back my statement that you are an ass. For it appears that you actually believe that I said, ". . . either ‘they are wrong’ or ‘they are right, but then they are idiots, so they are likely wrong anyway’," which means your case is considerably worse than I thought. I'm sorry. Brent

Zach @87 interpreted: Point 1: Zach's statement of Faith that the world is doomed because people will have to move, and warmer temperatures are somehow bad for agriculture (tell it to the Eskimos). Counterpoint: In the last 200 years, the world's population has grown from 1B to 9B people. I'm sure it can handle it if, in the next 200 years, 1B of those people have to pack up and move. Point 2: Zach's statement of Faith in the people cherry-picking and adjusting the data. drc466

Vel, If it will make you feel better: "Given that the last seventeen years have exhibited statistically no warming...". Now, since you aren't apparently able to make the distinction: does the modification to my statement make a qualitative difference to the point, namely that warming has NOT tracked against fossil fuel consumption for an extended period of time? No. Does the 38% confidence level of the claim that 2014 was the hottest on record make a difference to the qualitative reliability of the claim? Yes. Duh. Since this seems to be a sticking point, for climate change true believers, think of the following analogy: Say that you have a large boiler sitting above 4 different fires. You are attempting to prove that the continual increase of fire #2 is causing significant increases in the temperature of the water. You have models that predict how a change in the temperature of fire #2 will translate into a change in the temperature of the boiler water. For a thousand minutes, you increase the temperature of fire #2, slowly at first, then increasingly rapidly over time. You measure the temperature of the boiler water at 100 different points every minute. You average the temperatures, you get a mean temperature at 1000 points in time, and you have a perfectly correlated graph between fire #2 temperature and boiler water temperature. This is exactly what we see with climate change, with fire #2 = CO2 consumption, and boiler water = global temperatures - right? Wrong. First of all, you only have about 100 points, you have to extrapolate the other 900 from random photos taken of sections of the boiler water surface at various points in time. Next, you've added points over that 100 minutes, you're not using the same points as you used to when you started. And some of those points have changed position, or the chemical make-up of the liquid around them has changed. Further, you throw out any "anomalous" readings you get (i.e. points that don't show the expected temp gains). Also, you "adjust" certain points upward to account for some reasonable-sounding factors (e.g. "this point was near the surface of the boiler, where the metal is corroding, and so more heat is escaping at that point than used to!"). And any time that the numbers still don't match your boiler climate change models, you point to motion in the water, or accumulating silt deposits, or stored "heat content" in unmeasured areas in the boiler, etc. Now, does it really matter if it was the last 20, or just the last 17 minutes that don't show heating? And when the person measuring the statistics is being paid a lot of money only if the temperatures do show a correlation, don't you have to be a little skeptical? And when even the cherry-picked and adjusted data don't show a direct correlation, don't you have to wonder if the other Fires might be significantly more important a factor? And when fire #2 is needed to power the existence of billions of people, are you really willing to tell those billions of people you have to shut it down, even though fire #5 isn't available yet? Especially when the people screaming that you need to shut off fire #2 are using more of fire #2 than anyone else? drc466

That out of the way, perhaps you can also trust that Mr. Muller, who you seem obligated to now to not claim he is an idiot, and remembering that you think he was a genuine skeptic at that (and NOT an idiot, in case you’ve forgotten that part already), was in, in his own non-idiotic words, the same exact boat that I’m telling you that I’m in. He didn’t trust because of the wild-ass alarmism and thuggish behavior. I don’t trust because of it either. He changed his views. I haven’t.

Oh, you are so right. Mea culpa... Hang on, yes, you are right, I do believe that you and Muller were in the same boat. Turns out that Muller did not start reasoning like you did though. He did not make the claim that either 'they are wrong' or 'they are right, but then they are idiots, so they are likely wrong anyway'. He actually went ahead and checked for himself, quite needlessly one might add. And, in fact, there were many that did actually challenge his idiotic skepticism when he was charging that climate science is simply wrong and done so shoddily that it couldn't possibly be right. Just like there are people here who take you to task for dismissing stuff out of hand for some reason, and then coming up with some other reasons when the first were shown to be ridiculous. Since you are done, and it seems impolite to take the last word, I will give it to you:

Mr. Muller stuck to his guns no matter who said the data was solid; until he checked for himself. I will not believe until I see something that convinces me.

hrun0815

drc466: I’m also glad that you feel that the economic, political and social disruption of people moving is greater than that of having to replace the existing world’s energy sources. Turns out that when millions of people are dislocated it causes human suffering, as well as political tension as poor dislocated populations move to other areas. Sea level rise is not the only problem, of course, but disruption of agriculture, and loss of habitat and species. The Earth is on the cusp of a 6th great extinction event. Don't worry. Humans will survive, even if there are irretrievable ecological losses. We have great confidence that humans will change their behavior and avoid some of the most dire possible circumstances. That's the advantage of the foresight provided by science. drc466: When measuring climate change and its effects, scientist always use the complete set of raw data collected, and apply no cherry-picking or subjective adjustments of data. The original data was spliced manually, but nowadays, modern statistical techniques are used. Those original studies have largely been confirmed. Zachriel

Z, I'm glad you are comfortable with hey, sometimes temps go up, and hey, sometimes "heat content" of oceans rise as temps stay the same. CO2 effects can be so sneaky that way, with the head-fakes and all. I'm also glad that you feel that the economic, political and social disruption of people moving is greater than that of having to replace the existing world's energy sources. I'm not. Agree to Disagree. True or False: When measuring climate change and its effects, scientist always use the complete set of raw data collected, and apply no cherry-picking or subjective adjustments of data. If the answer is False (hint: it is), the conclusions are subject to strong confirmation bias. Even climate models cannot be used to validate the conclusions, as the models are both based on, and compared to, the modified and cherry-picked temperature data. So, at the end of the day, it comes down to whether you have Faith in the integrity of the scientists generating the climate-change alarmist studies (ref. Mann, Hansen). The OP is just one example of many (ref. Climategate) as to why Skepticism is warranted on this topic. Final word to Instapundit: I’LL BELIEVE IT’S A CRISIS WHEN THE PEOPLE WHO TELL ME IT’S A CRISIS START ACTING LIKE IT’S A CRISIS drc466

Brent Hrun is actually Eugene Goostman. At first seems serious but after 3 minutes you realize he's a robot. Eugen

Brent: my main contention is that it is natural variability. The evidence indicates otherwise. See Meehl et al., Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate, Journal of Climate 2004. Only CO2 forcing explains the data. http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/0/7/6/2/8/5/Meehl-with-labels-44587810031.jpeg Zachriel

Drc466 Given that the last two decades have exhibited statistically no warming 2014-1998 = 17, two decades would be 1995. The " pause" requires a extremely hot starting year, 1998 .Using 1995 would be problematic to the claim of a pause. Normally one would take two decades as a figure of speech but per Barry Here’s the main question I keep asking myself. If the science is so overwhelming, why does it appear that they believe they need to resort to deceptive tactics such as the NASA press release (and by “deceptive tactics” I mean the moral equivalent of a “damned lie”) to get people to believe them? velikovskys

hrun0815, Thank you. Now let me tell you something first and foremost. You are an ass. That out of the way, perhaps you can also trust that Mr. Muller, who you seem obligated to now to not claim he is an idiot, and remembering that you think he was a genuine skeptic at that (and NOT an idiot, in case you've forgotten that part already), was in, in his own non-idiotic words, the same exact boat that I'm telling you that I'm in. He didn't trust because of the wild-ass alarmism and thuggish behavior. I don't trust because of it either. He changed his views. I haven't. Mr. Muller stuck to his guns no matter who said the data was solid; until he checked for himself. I will not believe until I see something that convinces me. But convinces me of what? Though it won't matter to you, hrun, I'll just say that I don't CARE if global temperatures have risen basically as touted. I have concerns that the data isn't as accurate as it's said to be, but even if it is, my main contention is that it is natural variability. Continue your field day of twisting if you wish. I don't care. Brent

drc466: Given that the last two decades have exhibited statistically no warming There is a more than 90% chance the Earth's surface has warmed over the last two decades. Meanwhile, ocean heat content continues to increase. http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content700m2000myr.png drc466: Also – you are aware that 5m is hundreds of years’ worth of even accelerated sea level rise Here's the 1.5 meter levels for Bangladesh http://www.grida.no/images/series/vg-climate/large/33.jpg Here's Florida for one meter. http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/climate2025/fl_1meter_sm.gif Keep in mind that this is just one of many effects of climate change. drc466: How is it that you have faith that we can discover all kinds of effective, wonderful alternatives to fossil fuels in mere decades, yet your trust in human ingenuity fails when it comes to our ability to figure out how to adapt to rising sea levels over centuries? Of course people will adapt to sea level rise. They will move. This will cause economic, political, and social disruption. But they will adapt. Zachriel

Do you trust that the reporting on Muller is correct, that he was a genuine skeptic, and that his data and findings were pretty much correct?

1) Yes, even though I do not think it matters at all if the 'reporting on Muller' is correct. 2) Yes, even though I do not think it matters at all if Muller was a 'genuine skeptic'. 3) Yes, of course I do. His data is out there for everybody to see, nicely annotated for anybody to check. 4) Yes, why wouldn't I. His methods are laid out nicely, published, and accompanied by the code he used so everybody can test for themselves. You however should feel free to be doubtful about his work whether you check into it or not. And make sure you don't forget the new denialist mantra: - If I don’t believe them its their fault even if they are right. - But if they are too stupid to make me believe even if they are correct they truly must be idiots. - And if they are idiots, how likely is it that they really are correct. - So if they are wrong they are wrong, and if they are right, they also must be wrong because they are idiots. hrun0815

hrun0815, Well, that was all very well put. Well put, that is, if your intention was to twist beyond all recognition what I said. Nicely done. So nicely done, in fact, that I won't take the time to try to untwist it. I would like to ask you a question, however. Do you trust that the reporting on Muller is correct, that he was a genuine skeptic, and that his data and findings were pretty much correct? Brent

Re 76: And here we have some more goalpost moving. First it was a matter of Mueller publishing in the NYT and not releasing his methods. That was clearly wrong. Next try was that Muller wasn't a TRUE skeptic and he was using similar methods as the evil nefarious climate scientists all over the world. Well, clearly the 'TRUE skeptic' argument is as stupid as it comes and without explaining what OTHER method should have been used the second criticism doesn't hold any water either. But hey, let's move on and criticize something else:

I didn’t think the data was “clean” before Mr. Muller gave us his, and I have some concerns that his data may have some of the same dirt in it.

Hey, wow, now Muller is working with dirty data. That dastardly rascal. But it a good thing that clever Brent, who by the way wasn't mislead by the neatly labeled data on the well hidden BEST website, has figured out that his data is not "clean". And I am sure that if we start probing into why the data is dirty we will get another reason why nobody could trust the BEST study. So, please, Brent, do not bother to put up those reasons. I know you will find some and there will be many more. I realize this is ALL the fault of those climate alarmists that made you, clearly against your will, into such a skeptic that now no matter what they say you simply can not believe them. So I think we will just have to give up on you and indoctrinate kids when they are young like those evilutionists are doing so well. hrun0815

re #75

I’ll add: If it is in fact entirely true that global warming is happening anywhere relatively close to the scale that these alarmists are saying, I still blame them fully for my and others’ total reluctance to accept it. They have been the most stupid PR disaster ever if they happen to have the correct data.

Yes, after your post #44 and #46 this is totally believable. How dare these idiots from the BEST study hide their data in such a dastardly manner by publishing it secretly on the website 'http://berkeleyearth.org/' that only people in the know can find. And how dare they publicly announce their findings in the NY Times so that Brent is mislead into mistrusting them and then sneakily following them up with five detailed peer reviewed papers. And of course no right-thinking person would ever accept their findings because they obscured all source data so secretly by forcing honest folk to hover their cursor over a tab labeled 'data' and then having to click on some menu item they stupidly call 'source files'. And don't even get me started on their nefarious ploy to simply making their code available, but then confusing the matter by releasing new builds, bug reports, and a log! And then their data analysis... don't get me started. And they actually built data viewers to make it even harder for critical thinkers like Brent to trust them. So yes, it is obvious for every one to see that it could ONLY be because of BEST's missteps that Brent decided that BEST

He published in the NYT rather than subjecting his work to peer review. And as far as I understand he did not release his data and methods for scrutiny ...

And with that it is equally obvious why Brent would clearly gravitate to some blogger's critique of Mueller rather than trusting that such a bungling idiot did the work properly. So yes, Brent, as I wrote before, it is abundantly clear what you MEAN when you write these posts. By the way, I am particularly fond though of your new twist: - If I don't believe them its their fault even if they are right. - But if they are too stupid to make you believe even if they are correct they truly must be idiots. - And if they are idiots, how likely is it that they really are correct. - So if they are wrong they are wrong, and if they are right, they also must be wrong because they are idiots. So yup, it is now abundantly clear what you MEAN. Thanks for clarifying. hrun0815

hrun0815,

Re @50: And with this the goalposts are successfully shifted: now the charge is not incomplete data release or not publishing the miethids, but the question is now was this guy a TRUE skeptic and are there some bloggers that can sling some mud. And so we backpedal from previous announcements that Mueller is a TRUE sceptic and denial it’s like Watts will accept his finding to the standard denial. And maybe along will come an even TRUER sceptic and the dance will begin again. EDIT: It’s worth noting how accurately I predicted exactly how Brent will react to the correction of his massive misconceptions about Mueller’s BEST study:

Yet, even after clarifying your misconceptions about this for you, I doubt that in your mind this will actually change anything. You and other deniers will likely find another reason to dismiss these findings and wait for a TRUE skeptic scientist who will REALLY delve into the data and CONCLUSIVELY show that that it’s all nonsense made up by alarmists.

No, the goalposts did not get moved. I simply meant that, from the word go, I would not be quickly compelled to accept the findings of Muller (I think my spelling is correct, no?) if he was not willing to submit his findings to peer review or be open with his data. I then realized that those initial reservations I had were in fact not according to the facts; he had done both. My bad. It would be truer to say that I thought the goalposts were closer. Nothing more. And with that, you are surprised that I have reservations about the data itself, when, his methods seem to me to be very similar to the methods of the traditional gatekeepers of the alarmists? For what reason exactly? Why should you be surprised? I didn't think the data was "clean" before Mr. Muller gave us his, and I have some concerns that his data may have some of the same dirt in it. Mind you, I'm not totally sure what to think about his papers. I was made aware of him only about 24hrs ago. Can you blame me, when, even Muller says that the old gatekeepers have done their own work a disservice by being so sloppy and thuggish, etc.? And to him not being a true skeptic, I of course do not know. I saw some quotations supposedly from him that would indicate he was not. But I don't presently know if they are accurate. If they are, it would mean he was two-faced, being a skeptic publicly, but not privately. Brent

Barry said,

"Here’s the main question I keep asking myself. If the science is so overwhelming, why does it appear that they believe they need to resort to deceptive tactics such as the NASA press release (and by “deceptive tactics” I mean the moral equivalent of a “damned lie”) to get people to believe them?"

My same point @38: ". . .they even feel the distinct need to present an overblown sense of the magnitude of their findings. All I hear, therefore, is that they cannot even justify cooking the books enough to not feel the need to overstate the significance of their findings, which says that they really have no evidence at all." I'll add: If it is in fact entirely true that global warming is happening anywhere relatively close to the scale that these alarmists are saying, I still blame them fully for my and others' total reluctance to accept it. They have been the most stupid PR disaster ever if they happen to have the correct data. But that, then, leads me to my next question and conclusion: If they are so stupid as to bungle so thoroughly the ability to get a large number of people to accept their data because of their wild alarmism, why should I think they are smart enough to actually compile accurate data, accurately analyze it, and come to plausible conclusions? It seems to me the latter is more difficult than the former. Brent

Zach,

The Earth has alternated between warm and cold periods. The last few decades have exhibited anomalous warming.

Given that the last two decades have exhibited statistically no warming, and yet the greatest consumption of fossil fuels, I believe you made your point in the opposite direction you intended. Also - you are aware that 5m is hundreds of years' worth of even accelerated sea level rise? How is it that you have faith that we can discover all kinds of effective, wonderful alternatives to fossil fuels in mere decades, yet your trust in human ingenuity fails when it comes to our ability to figure out how to adapt to rising sea levels over centuries? Rather selective faith, if you ask me. As for the rest of your "rebuttals", once you factor in all the "almost certainly"'s, it comes down to "Zach has faith in Climate Change Alarmists". Duly noted. Here's the biggest problem, Zachriel et. al.: even if we accept everything that you say is true, the only use that these facts have been put to so far is to steal money from taxpayers, handcuff growth potential in developing countries, place roadblocks in the path of the progress, redirect money away from in-demand technologies (fracking) to politically-connected ones (solar, wind, rail transit), and pay for a bunch of already very rich politicians, academics and media personalities to go on expensive trips and feel better about themselves, while looking down their noses at the SUV and minivan-driving hoi polloi from inside their limos. Not exactly a winning marketing strategy for your side. drc466

RalphDavidWestfall: That was awfully convenient, wasn’t it? Nevertheless it’s irrelevant to the lack of transparency. As the cited article was about a lawsuit, the result of that lawsuit was certainly relevant. RalphDavidWestfall: So let’s see the data behind what was published. The raw data was always available to anyone who took the time and trouble to aggregate it. Today, it is easily available. The original studies have been largely confirmed. fifthmonarchyman: So is the increased extinction rate due to future warming? Climate change is one of many anthropogenic causes of extinction. fifthmonarchyman: So according to science predicted local flooding equals agricultural “disruption”? What about increased rainfall and prolonged growing seasons for large parts of the globe? You didn't answer our question, which entails the answer to your question. Millions of people who now live in places like Bangladesh will be forced to move. That causes social and political friction. fifthmonarchyman: Is there something in that statement about aggressive regulation? That's what's meant by a strong public sector. The public sector regulates markets, provides security, sets standards, protects the commons, and provides a minimal safety net. fifthmonarchyman: My point has been made What point was that? Zachriel

zac says “Current rates of extinction are about 1000 times the background rate of extinction.” I say, So is the increased extinction rate due to future warming? You say, Where do those millions of people go when their farmland is flooded? I say So according to science predicted local flooding equals agricultural "disruption"? What about increased rainfall and prolonged growing seasons for large parts of the globe? you say. Most economists have found that a mixed economy, one with robust markets and a strong public sector, is more likely to experience stable growth in the long run. I say, Is there something in that statement about aggressive regulation? peace PS I'm not going to get into yet another merry go round with you zac. My point has been made, feel free to have the last word fifthmonarchyman

Zachriel @ 42 In regard to http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/science/earth/23virginia.html?_r=0 the best you could come up with was two non sequiturs? "Cuccinelli lost the lawsuit." That was awfully convenient, wasn't it? Nevertheless it's irrelevant to the lack of transparency. "Rough drafts are not subject to the same level of scrutiny as published research." So let's see the data behind what was published. Real scientists are not afraid to expose their data and their methodologies to scrutiny. RalphDavidWestfall

fifthmonarchyman: Is this claim based on science or preconceptions? A simple example of agricultural disruption leading to social disruption. http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/images5/350px-Bangladesh_Sea_Level_Risks.png Where do those millions of people go when their farmland is flooded? To your neighborhood? Pimm et al., The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection, Science 2014: "Current rates of extinction are about 1000 times the background rate of extinction." fifthmonarchyman: Is this claim based on science or preconceptions? Humans are inventive. We know this because we observe that they keep inventing things. It's one of the distinguishing and most endearing of their characteristics. fifthmonarchyman: According to science is economic growth and technological innovation more likely in an environment that is highly regulated or one that is less so? Most economists have found that a mixed economy, one with robust markets and a strong public sector, is more likely to experience stable growth in the long run. Zachriel

drc466 @ 63 Excellent summary. Here's the main question I keep asking myself. If the science is so overwhelming, why does it appear that they believe they need to resort to deceptive tactics such as the NASA press release (and by "deceptive tactics" I mean the moral equivalent of a "damned lie") to get people to believe them? Can you imagine Newton or Einstein trying to trick people into believing their theories? Barry Arrington

Zac says, Changes in climate will almost certainly disrupt agriculture, cause social friction, and destroy much of humanity’s natural inheritance. I say Is this claim based on science or preconceptions? please support your answer scientifically While we are at it could you please define "disrupt" and "natural inheritance" in a scientific way zac says, That is incorrect. Humans are quite inventive people, and certainly have the ability to solve the problem they created. I say, Is this claim based on science or preconceptions? please support your answer especially the "certainly" part Zac says Solving the problem will require continued economic growth and technological innovation. I say, According to science is economic growth and technological innovation more likely in an environment that is highly regulated or one that is less so? peace fifthmonarchyman

drc466: Elevations in ocean level are the one reasonably certain harmful impact, and would occur so slowly that the cost of adapting is significantly less than the costs required to prevent. Here’s Florida with a 5 meter rise in sea levels. http://teachingboxes.org/seaLevel/lessons/lesson4_reefs/florida_shore_5m.jpg Any idea how many millions live in the red zone of Bangladesh? http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/images5/350px-Bangladesh_Sea_Level_Risks.png drc466: 5) There is little evidence that man COULD significantly reduce our impact, short of returning to pre-Industrial Revolution technology. That is incorrect. Humans are quite inventive people, and certainly have the ability to solve the problem they created. Returning to pre-Industrial technology will not solve the problem. Solving the problem will require continued economic growth and technological innovation. fifthmonarchyman: Is your position more scientific than the one drc466 expressed in 63? As it is based on science, not preconceptions, yes. Zachriel

drc466: 1) Global warming is almost certainly real. After all, it would be ridiculous to expect the earth to maintain a constant temperature, wouldn’t it? The Earth has alternated between warm and cold periods. The last few decades have exhibited anomalous warming. drc466: 2) Man’s use of fossil fuels is most likely a contributor. If you release stored energy, you convert it to heat. Plus you have the apparent impact of increased CO2 contributing to increased climate temperatures. Burning of fossil fuels is almost certainly a contributor to the current warming, but not because of the released energy, but due to changes in the atmosphere. drc466: 3) Man-made warming may be a significant contributor to global warming. The last 15-20 years would seem to provide evidence that other factors (e.g. solar activity) have greater impact than man-made warming. The current warming trend is almost certainly anthropogenic. Solar activity is not the cause. http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Solar_vs_Temp_basic.gif drc466: 4) The claim that warmer = worse is controversial and un-proven. Changes in climate will almost certainly disrupt agriculture, cause social friction, and destroy much of humanity's natural inheritance. Zachriel

I have a question for the other side. Is your position more scientific than the one drc466 expressed in 63? If so how? Be specific please. while we are at it is Quest's comment at 64 more or less scientific than drc466? Thanks in advance fifthmonarchyman

3/4 of northern Canada's ice has disappeared... I have been there; the Eskimos can't get across many destinations coz there is no ice... Many trucking companies are loosing business coz they can't deliver goods over what used to be icy roads over the frozen water... There may be no global warming per say, but something is up...up north of the globe... Quest

1) Global warming is almost certainly real. After all, it would be ridiculous to expect the earth to maintain a constant temperature, wouldn't it? 2) Man's use of fossil fuels is most likely a contributor. If you release stored energy, you convert it to heat. Plus you have the apparent impact of increased CO2 contributing to increased climate temperatures. 3) Man-made warming may be a significant contributor to global warming. The last 15-20 years would seem to provide evidence that other factors (e.g. solar activity) have greater impact than man-made warming. 4) The claim that warmer = worse is controversial and un-proven. Elevations in ocean level are the one reasonably certain harmful impact, and would occur so slowly that the cost of adapting is significantly less than the costs required to prevent. 5) There is little evidence that man COULD significantly reduce our impact, short of returning to pre-Industrial Revolution technology. Alternative sources of energy have proven themselves unable to meet modern energy demand (see Solar/Wind, ref. Germany, U.S., Australia, etc.). Nuclear remains the sole effective alternative, but is extremely unpopular with most warmist types. Having said that, I tend to take blogger Glenn Reynold (Instapundit)'s view: I'll believe it's a "Crisis" when the people saying it's a crisis, ACT like it's a crisis. Every last one of these doomsayers burns more carbon in a single plane flight than my car does all year. Not to mention all the energy-hog McMansions they purchase on the (supposedly-rising) ocean fronts. And if you took all the money spent on political climate change junkets and spent it on planting trees, you could reforest the Amazon. Besides - the same group is telling us that fossil fuels are being depleted more rapidly than they are being replenished, so in a hundred years or so, the problem solves itself, right? Want to know where the bias lies? Follow the money, fame, and power. Climate change alarmism is being used for all three - money grab, fame-seeking, and increased government control over businesses and individuals. And there is no way I can support any of that. So for now, I'll just sit back and enjoy the increased crop yields, and tell the warmist alarmists to "sod off, swampy". drc466

Mapou: I got better things to do. You asked some questions, and you were provided answers to those questions, along with supporting scientific citations. That you don't wish to consider those answers is completely up to you. Zachriel

Barry, Other people can read my comments and see well enough what I am and am not saying. Why don't you answer some of the questions put to you? Does this "plateau" you refer to represent a statistically significant change in the rate or warming? Do you stand by the claim made here that a probability 62% is "almost certain" and "overwhelmingly" probable? Or did you perhaps misunderstand the original post, there would be no shame in withdrawing a statement made in confusion, after all. wd400

Zachriel, give it a rest, man. You are both a mental midget and mentally ill. I will not argue with someone who insists that he is more than one person and refers to himself as a "we". LOL. I got better things to do. Mapou

wd400, you are correct. Your contributions, for instance, have been precious. You're OK with the distribution of false climate alarmism, so long as in your view the false information is not "certainly false" or "overwhelming likely to be false." And a 63% chance that the data is false, in your view, qualifies as neither. Therefore, you believe that touting as undeniable fact an assertion that has a 63% chance of being false is perfectly acceptable. Thank you for illustrating the credulity and bad faith of those pushing the climate alarmist agenda. Barry Arrington

Mapou: You guys are milking a barren heifer. Handwaving. Do you disagree that there is such as thing as a greenhouse effect? Do you disagree that the oceans are warming? In what way is Meehl et al. wrong? Zachriel

Mapou: If CO2 is causing global warming, why is it that, even though humans are generating CO2 at unprecedented rates, the rise in global temperatures has not kept pace with CO2 levels in the atmosphere in the last 20 years or so? If one doesn't cherry pick 1998 as a start point the temperatures show a temperatures following an upward trend, if you have a statistically bent try https://tamino.wordpress.com. velikovskys

@54 and 55, You guys are milking a barren heifer. Your replies are just stupid. It pains me to even think about them. :-D Mapou

Mapou: 1. If CO2 is causing global warming, why is it that, even though humans are generating CO2 at unprecedented rates, the rise in global temperatures has not kept pace with CO2 levels in the atmosphere in the last 20 years or so? Because even though the overall heat contained in the Earth's surface (atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere) is increasing, the distribution of that heat is chaotic. Oceans absorb most of the heat. http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content700m2000myr.png Mapou: 2. Assuming that CO2 levels in the atmosphere is the chief cause of the modern rise in global temperatures, why is it that archaeologists are finding thousands of human artifacts under melting glaciers in places like Canada and Norway? As climatologists have discovered, there are many drivers of climate change, including solar irradiance, volcanism, orbital variations, composition of the atmosphere, continental drift, mountain building, albedo, variations in sea currents, changes in greenhouse gases, even cometary impacts. Mapou: How does one distinguish between the global warming that happened back then and our modern global warming? While the distribution of heat through the Earth's surface (atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere) is chaotic, the basic heat equation due to greenhouse warming is fairly direct. If you add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the surface will warm while the upper atmosphere will cool. The open question is the amount of amplification due to water vapor, but various methods have found a climate sensitivity of about 2-4°C. Another way is by looking at all the various forcings, and determining their relative contributions. See Meehl et al., Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate, Journal of Climate 2004. Only CO2 forcing explains the data. http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/0/7/6/2/8/5/Meehl-with-labels-44587810031.jpeg Zachriel

Re @53: Oh my gosh, with just a couple of questions Mapou has demolished hundreds or even thousands of dedicated scientist who have been pushing this global warming racket down our throats. How could these numbnuts possibly think they'd get away with ignoring such simple questions? Or it could also be that Mapou's google is broken. hrun0815

Here are a few questions. I'm sure they've been debated over and over but it's always a good thing to keep them at the forefront of global warming discussions. 1. If CO2 is causing global warming, why is it that, even though humans are generating CO2 at unprecedented rates, the rise in global temperatures has not kept pace with CO2 levels in the atmosphere in the last 20 years or so? 2. Assuming that CO2 levels in the atmosphere is the chief cause of the modern rise in global temperatures, why is it that archaeologists are finding thousands of human artifacts under melting glaciers in places like Canada and Norway? How does one distinguish between the global warming that happened back then and our modern global warming? Does the evidence not show that global warming is a normal occurrence of the earth's climate? Inquiring minds and all that. Mapou

This thread is great -- it's as if the IDer/skeptic cohort set out to demonstrate what confirmation bias is. It starts with Barry discounting news, waiting for that great pillar of responsible journalism the Daily Mail to provide a comforting angle, goes on to PaV googling up any link he can find and, as per usual, not being "skeptical" enough to understand the first word of it. Now we have Brent writing cheques the evidence can't cash, so instead of withdrawing the point going of in search of skeptic sites to undermine the evidence in a different way! wd400

Re @50: And with this the goalposts are successfully shifted: now the charge is not incomplete data release or not publishing the miethids, but the question is now was this guy a TRUE skeptic and are there some bloggers that can sling some mud. And so we backpedal from previous announcements that Mueller is a TRUE sceptic and denial it's like Watts will accept his finding to the standard denial. And maybe along will come an even TRUER sceptic and the dance will begin again. EDIT: It's worth noting how accurately I predicted exactly how Brent will react to the correction of his massive misconceptions about Mueller's BEST study:

Yet, even after clarifying your misconceptions about this for you, I doubt that in your mind this will actually change anything. You and other deniers will likely find another reason to dismiss these findings and wait for a TRUE skeptic scientist who will REALLY delve into the data and CONCLUSIVELY show that that it’s all nonsense made up by alarmists.

hrun0815

And before I came back to see your reply, I indeed found what I was looking for. I wrongly assumed that my cursory (twice admitted . . .) review would have quickly turned up the fact of being published in a peer reviewed manner, but it didn't. And I see that his data and methods are also available. And with that . . . I see that his data and methods are subject to the same criticisms as are the long prominent criers'. Not that it is surprising, seeing as there is some question as to whether Mr. Muller was really the skeptic that he was painted as being. Still cursory, mind you, but interesting. http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5946 http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=4530 http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5949 http://www.informath.org/apprise/a5700.htm Brent

hrun0815: You are charging Mueller with publishing in the NYT when in fact they published five papers in 2013 on the BEST results. Berkeley Earth: Summary of findings http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings Zachriel

hrun0815: You are charging Mueller with publishing in the NYT when in fact they published five papers in 2013 on the BEST results. Berkeley Earth: Summary of findings http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings Zachriel

hrun0815, You know what I mean. He published in the NYT rather than subjecting his work to peer review. And as far as I understand he did not release his data and methods for scrutiny (but I may be wrong on this — I haven’t checked specifically).

Brent, I know exactly what you MEAN. The question is, do you actually know what is true? And from your post I would conclude: 'No, you do not actually know the truth.' --> You are charging Mueller with publishing in the NYT when in fact they published five papers in 2013 on the BEST results. --> You are saying the did not release the data when in fact BEST has a whole website that releases their collected data along with about 50 source files of the data neatly labeled and collected for other's convenience. --> You are saying that they did not release their methods for scrutiny when in fact both on their website and in their papers they are explicit about the methods. So, yes, we all know what you mean. You had a conclusion about Mueller in mind that actually does not match reality. Yet, even after clarifying your misconceptions about this for you, I doubt that in your mind this will actually change anything. You and other deniers will likely find another reason to dismiss these findings and wait for a TRUE skeptic scientist who will REALLY delve into the data and CONCLUSIVELY show that that it's all nonsense made up by alarmists. EDIT: data: http://berkeleyearth.org/data publications: http://berkeleyearth.org/papers sources of the data: http://berkeleyearth.org/source-files code: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/downloads/Berkeley_Earth_nightly.tar.gz hrun0815

hrun0815, You know what I mean. He published in the NYT rather than subjecting his work to peer review. And as far as I understand he did not release his data and methods for scrutiny (but I may be wrong on this --- I haven't checked specifically). Brent

Brent, how do you think he should have published instead to actually make a dent? And how was he not open and up front with his data? hrun0815

Mark, From my very cursory review, I was surprised that this was a couple years ago regarding Richard Muller's article and "conversion". It seems to me that his views have had no noticeable impact on the controversy at all. I would guess that is largely due to how he published his findings, i.e. in the very same vein that he actually decries, not being open and up front with data and grabbing, quite literally, the headlines. It seems to me he can be likened to the latest storm that the alarmist community clasps with herculean tenacity as the latest indisputable evidence of global warming. He was a flash in the pan. Brent

Re @41: Buffoon alert, buffoon alert. Do not read and do not click on the links. However, if you are interested after all, here is the full link: http://climatecrocks.com/2015/01/09/richard-muller-i-was-wrong-on-global-warming/ hrun0815

DATCG: From BBC article in 2007… Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013? From the content of the BBC article in 2007:

In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly. It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040.

These other teams have variously produced dates for an open summer ocean that, broadly speaking, go out from about 2040 to 2100.

Brent: So, Al G. et all get it wrong again, and again, and again, and you say they should be let off the hook because they used the qualifier “could”. http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/images-essays/fig4.2-perovich.gif RalphDavidWestfall: See http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/science/earth/23virginia.html Cuccinelli lost the lawsuit. Rough drafts are not subject to the same level of scrutiny as published research. DATCG: Is weather cyclical over larger time frames? Yes, if you mean is climate cyclical. DATCG: 125,000 years ago, did humans create global warming that caused 4-5 meter higher sea level? No. As climatologists have discovered, there are many drivers of climate change, including solar irradiance, volcanism, orbital variations, composition of the atmosphere, continental drift, mountain building, albedo, variations in sea currents, changes in greenhouse gases, even cometary impacts. Zachriel

When this came up a few weeks ago hrun0815 wrote this:

I think that a lot of skeptics could take a look at Richard Muller. A highly trained physicist, Muller was doubtful about many global warming claims, and said so in no uncertain terms in a series of public lectures. Ultimately Muller decided to show all those alarmists wrong. He secured funding from Gates, the Koch brothers and others, surrounded himself with Scirntists that did not have a stake in global warming (yet were highly skilled in math, stats, and other relevant disciplines) and recreated the climate data from scratch. My guess is that many of you know or can guess the results, but it’s still worth listening to him now: http://climatecrocks.com/2015/.....l-warming/

Also Aurelio Smith linked to an article by Muller in the NYT. To quote: CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause. As far as I can see none of the sceptical side responded to this. I applaud scepticism but this not a simple subject and somewhere along the line we have to begin to accept the judgement of experts. If you are an expert and you conclude this really is an important and urgent problem and a sceptic insists on revisiting all the data and work you did and ends up agreeing with you - well then you might be forgiven for thinking it is time to move on. Mark Frank

Mapou writes

My bad, I meant Vinland.

Pleased you acknowledged the error. Always good to see. But the most likely candidate for Viking Vinland is New England where wild grapes grew and still grow and where wine production is carried on today (Niagara and Finger Lakes for example). I don't think Barry's claim about grape growing holds water. Alicia Renard

All you really need to know about global warming is that the scientists most involved with promoting the concept don't make all their data and methods available for scrutiny by other scientists. See http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/science/earth/23virginia.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 which reports that up front and then devotes the rest of the article trying to obfuscate the implications. RalphDavidWestfall

Zachriel,

The other thing to note is that Gore discusses two different projections, and includes the qualifier “could”.

Awesome! So, Al G. et all get it wrong again, and again, and again, and you say they should be let off the hook because they used the qualifier "could". Well, the sun "could" come crashing down to earth in the next 8 minutes. "Could" you, please, explain to me the significance of any statement that anyone makes with the qualifier "could" if they don't mean to imply it was a very real and genuine possibility? Thanks. Just how is it that these charlatans get away with this utter nonsense? We are expected to jump and panic and change our lifestyles at their prophesies, and yet every single prediction and expected result of an increasing global temperature is not only simply disconfirmed, but very often disconfirmed grandly, by the 100% opposite result being observed. The only prediction that is supposedly confirmed is that the measured temperature is increasing. Well, excuse me for having my doubts, since those who are doing the measuring happen to be the same ones who are doing the prophesying. And on top of that, they even feel the distinct need to present an overblown sense of the magnitude of their findings. All I hear, therefore, is that they cannot even justify cooking the books enough to not feel the need to overstate the significance of their findings, which says that they really have no evidence at all. Their lips are moving? (I heard this originally about lawyers, Barry :) ) What can be worse than talking, talking, talking when you don't even know what you're talking about? I'll tell you. Not even caring that you don't know what you're talking about. And THAT is the global warming scientist in a nutshell. Brent

Is weather cyclical over larger time frames? Global Temperatures - 350,000 years and CO2 DATCG

“Obviously, a single year, even if it is a record, cannot tell us much about climate trends,” said Stefan Rahmstorf, head of earth system analysis at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. “However, the fact that the warmest years on record are 2014, 2010 and 2005 clearly indicates that global warming has not ‘stopped in 1998,’ as some like to falsely claim.” http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/17/science/earth/2014-was-hottest-year-on-record-surpassing-2010.html?_r=0 Does it bother you that your two-faced politicians tell the lie that there is no climate change to the public, then fund the planning of US military base movements from low-lying areas? Look it up.... REC

"During the last interglacial period 125.000 years ago, temperatures in Greenland were 5 degrees higher and global sea level was 4-5 meters higher than it is today." Zachriel, 125,000 years ago, did humans create global warming that caused 4-5 meter higher sea level? DATCG

From BBC article in 2007... Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013' DATCG

Vikings grew barley in Greenland

“Now we can see that the Vikings could grow corn, and this was very important for their nourishment and survival,” he says.

Little Ice Age stopped corn cultivation The Greenland climate was a bit warmer than it is today, and the southernmost tip of the great island was luscious and green and no doubt tempted Eric the Red and his followers. This encouraged them to cultivate some of the seed corn they brought with them from Iceland. The Vikings also tried to grow other agricultural crops. Their attempts to grow these crops and barley did not last long, however, as the climate cooled over the next couple of centuries until the Little Ice Age started in the 13th century.

DATCG

DATCG: During the last interglacial period 125.000 years ago, temperatures in Greenland were 5 degrees higher and global sea level was 4-5 meters higher than it is today Here's Florida with a 5 meter rise in sea levels. http://teachingboxes.org/seaLevel/lessons/lesson4_reefs/florida_shore_5m.jpg Any idea how many millions live in the red zone of Bangladesh? http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/images5/350px-Bangladesh_Sea_Level_Risks.png Zachriel

Mapou: Here’s an example of the kind of lies we can expect from the warmist doomsayers and professional liars. “Arctic ice could be gone in as little as seven years.” When making accusations of lying, it's best to avoid putting words into quotes unless it's an actual quote.

Al Gore: Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/gore-lecture_en.html

The other thing to note is that Gore discusses two different projections, and includes the qualifier "could". "Time series of Arctic sea ice extent anomalies in March (the month of maximum ice extent, black symbols) and September (the month of minimum ice extent, red symbols)." http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/images-essays/fig4.2-perovich.gif Zachriel

Fossil DNA Proves Greenland Once Had Lush Forests; Ice Sheet Is Surprisingly Stable

Climate theories over-turned "The research results are the first direct proof that there was forest in southern Greenland. Furthermore Willerslev found genetic traces of insects such as butterflies, moths, flies and beetles."

During the last interglacial period 125.000 years ago, temperatures in Greenland were 5 degrees higher and global sea level was 4-5 meters higher than it is today

DATCG

I don't even know what "overwhelmingly false" means, something is true or it a'int. Evidence might overwhelming support a hypothesis, but are you really trying to say a probability o 62% is "overwhelming" in addition to "almost certain"? wd400

Chicago's coldest winter thru 2014 Chicago, where Al Gore's UK company Generation Investment Management invested in Chicago Climate Exchange(CCX). Obama prior to becoming President helped fund CCX through the Joyce Foundation as a Board Member. Politicians and investors like Al Gore pushed Global Warming hysteria, apocalypse and doom, not science. Many like Gore made millions in profit off Global Warming. Like Gore, many might have made billions off of CCX carbon credits through investments. Is this political corruption and greed by Al Gore and others? By some of those involved in CCX investments? DATCG

wd400 @ 12: So you admit that it is overwhelmingly false; just not certainly false. And that makes you feel better? Well, whatever gets you through the night. Barry Arrington

Alicia Renard @24, My bad, I meant Vinland. Mapou

Zachriel:

Rock beats scissors.

Here's an example of the kind of lies we can expect from the warmist doomsayers and professional liars.

In his 2007 Nobel Prize acceptance speech, former Vice President Al Gore warned that the “Arctic ice could be gone in as little as seven years.” Last week, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution reported:

“The North and South Poles are not melting.” In that report, oceanographer Ted Maksym noted that polar ice “is much more stable than climate scientists once predicted and could even be much thicker than previously thought.”

That Woods Hole study was confirmed by today’s NOAA Arctic radar map which shows the Arctic Ice Cap at more than 4,000,000 square miles, larger than on any December 28 in the past five years. Reaching the North Pole requires either a dog sled or a nuclear sub; Al Gore’s cruise ship will stay in the tropics. At the South Pole, Antarctic ice coverage is at the highest extent since radar measurement began 35 years ago.

Mapou

Mapou asserts:

The vikings used to have vineyards in Greenland.

I can't find any evidence to support this claim. Are you confusing Greenland with Vinland, perhaps? Alicia Renard

Mapou: And as we all know, they all have a lame pony in this race. Rock beats scissors. Scissors beat paper. Evidence beats aspersions. Zachriel

Zachriel:

Multiple lines of evidence gathered by independent researchers tell the same story.

And as we all know, they all have a lame pony in this race. Mapou

Mapou: Not if the evidence is a bunch of made up lies. Multiple lines of evidence gathered by independent researchers tell the same story. National Research Council, Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2000 Years, The National Academies Press 2006. 2k Consortium, Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia, Nature Geoscience 2013. Zachriel

Zachriel:

In any case, it’s not the current temperature that’s the problem, but the projected increases over the next century that will cause substantial economic and social disruption, along with permanent losses of humanity’s nature heritage.

All cults have their doom and gloom prophecies and very little science. Mapou

Zachriel:

Mapou: Why should anybody believe anything he says? It’s the evidence that counts, not the messenger.

Not if the evidence is a bunch of made up lies. Mapou

The wine-growing business has really taken off in England.

Big deal. The vikings used to have vineyards in Greenland. Mapou

Mapou: Mann is known liar (hockey stick) and global warming alarmist. Rock beats scissors. Scissors beat paper. Evidence beats aspersions. Mapou: Why should anybody believe anything he says? It's the evidence that counts, not the messenger. Zachriel

V @ 2: The data state that there have been no statistically significant increases (or decreases) in global temps for nearly 20 years. We plateaued in about 1998. So, to answer your question, 2010 was about the same. The pause requires a start date of 1998, if you like I can provide a link. If you start the trend in say in 2000 then if you are correct we should see no significant warming, correct? After all it should not matter where on the plateau you start. velikovskys

Zachriel:

See Mann et al.

Mann is known liar (hockey stick) and global warming alarmist. Why should anybody believe anything he says? Mapou

Alicia Renard: the Romans were also keen asparagus growers That would explain Augustus' pet saying, 'Quicker than boiled asparagus.' Zachriel

Happy New Year to Barry and all fellow commenters. I see there are so many developments in Intelligent Design it will take a while to catch up. The wine-growing business has really taken off in England. I wonder why that could be? :) They even have vineyards in Lancashire and Yorkshire. That's a little further north than Northamptonshire, I think, which is where Roman vineyards were confirmed from pollen analysis. I can't find any references to pollen finds with regard to a Roman vineyard in Lincolnshire. The Romans were also keen asparagus growers and the archaeology is apparently similar. Alicia Renard

62% is "almost certainly" and you are accusing others of being fast and loose with numbers? As for the "plateau", has there been a statistically significant change in trend since 1998? Ad Pav apparently missed the first word of his/her quoted passage . FWIW, the real story, spelled out in NASA's reports, is that 2014 has the highest point-estimate in both the NASA and NOAA datasets. When coverage and uncertainties are accounted for, 2014 is also the single year most likely to be the hottest in both datasets (quite a lot more probably in the NOAA dataset, which the Mail somehow failed to mention...). The probability is almost entirely divided between three recent years (2005,2010 and 2014) so it's hard to see how this "plateau" is an end to global warming... wd400

Barry Arrington: So it is your position that it was actually cooler at a time when grapes were being grown in northern England? The Domesday Book only lists vineyards south of Gloucestershire. In any case, there are many vineyards in England today, including red wine grapes in the south. Zachriel

Barry Arrington: So it is your position that it was actually cooler at a time when grapes were being grown in northern England? Some regions were warmer than others; however, the global mean temperature was probably not higher than the mid-twentieth century. Zachriel

Z @ 8: So it is your position that it was actually cooler at a time when grapes were being grown in northern England? Barry Arrington

PaV: This NOAA and NASA are presumably using ‘surface’ temperatures, which are not as accurate as satellite temps, which show 2014 was the “15th warmest year” on record. Satellites don't measure surface temperature, but radiation in the atmosphere. Mapou: We know that the earth was much warmer than today during the medieval warm period. That is incorrect. The Medieval Warm Period *globally* was probably somewhat cooler than the mid-twentieth century, and significantly cooler than the last few decades. See Mann et al., Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly, Science 2009. In any case, it's not the current temperature that's the problem, but the projected increases over the next century that will cause substantial economic and social disruption, along with permanent losses of humanity's nature heritage. Zachriel

Climate alarmist forget to mention Roman warm period. http://www.co2science.org/subject/r/summaries/rwpeurope.php Eugen

V @ 2: The data state that there have been no statistically significant increases (or decreases) in global temps for nearly 20 years. We plateaued in about 1998. So, to answer your question, 2010 was about the same. Barry Arrington

Mapou: "... who is promoting it." The wealthiest people on earth. Just read a figure: the top 1% of the world hold over 50% of all the wealth. Crony capitalism---the 'capitalist' form of fascism. PaV

This NOAA and NASA are presumably using 'surface' temperatures, which are not as accurate as satellite temps, which show 2014 was the "15th warmest year" on record.

September 2014 ranks as the 15th warmest in the RSS satellite measured temperature record which dates back to 1979. It follows an anomaly of +0.19C in August which ranked as the 14th warmest August in the RSS record despite announcements from both NASA and NOAA that global surface temperatures – as opposed to tropospheric temperatures - in August were the hottest ever recorded.

PaV

What's worse, IMO, is that "hottest year on record" is just propaganda. We know that the earth was much warmer than today during the medieval warm period. In fact, human artifacts are frequently found underneath receding glaciers. There is something evil about global warming alarmism. I still can't figure out what the true motivation is and who is clandestinely promoting it. Mapou

BA: Summary: margin of error one tenth of a degree; alleged difference two hundreds of a degree. The change is five times smaller than the margin of error of the measurement What was the margin of error on the 2010 measurement? Does possible second hottest year on record support no climate change, if so how? I noticed that the surface area of the oceans was hottest year recorded, any idea the ocean Heating up is significant in explaining a "pause"? velikovskys

Barry, the pile of dirty snow out front is now higher than me (not that that in particular is any big feat, maybe, but ...). I slipped on the snow-ice-snow twice recently, re-breaking the trail across the park for the fifth time this winter. My neighbour lectures me about the correct snow shovel to buy if I get near the WalMart Canada any time soon, but the wind is up, so I get warnings about flash freezing. And when I get there, they will probably be sold out like they were sold out of road salt last year. All the other stores were sold out too. The hot water heater company shut off my services Friday because of CO leak risks. They say they'll try to do something for me this afternoon. But they are really busy. Lots of people have the same problem as me. My point? 1. Where is global warming when you NEED it? Like, I really need it. 2. I want crocuses to be coming up in the front yard and then I will believe global warming. Right now all I see is the blinding wind blowing snow off roofs. News