If you are truly serious about any of this - then don't fly, but SWIM to Paris!

Well said, Yuyutsu.

I was under the impression at the time of Copenhagen in 2009 that that conference was the last chance to prevent global warming. We have another last chance? At the moment all that is expected from the Paris conference is a series of declarations about what each country hopes to achieve in emission reductions. This will all be unenforceable and essentially meaningless, as was the agreement between US and China.

As for the author's enthusiasm for green power, I was under the impression that for every MW of green power the Chinese plan to install they are building 5 MW of coal fired capacity, but I could be wrong on the ratio. Can anybody reference the capacity of coal being build? I know its colossal - every year more than the existing Australian capacity or some such.

The Paris talks will be a complete waste of time and money. Countries who's politicians, should have more intelligence and loyalty, will make absurd, costly (to the citizens of their countries) pledges to undertake idiotic measures and without any proof whatsoever that man can do anything at all about climate change; let alone wondering if man has any business at all playing God. The mendicant states will be doing their usual trick - demanding more money for their dictators, and their will be drivel and slavering against free speech - cries for legal actions against 'deniers'. His Royal Idiotship's call for a Maga Carta for the environment could even get legs from the worlds leading a..holes.

Too bad that current pledges are inadequate because I think even some of those won't be met. For example Germany spends $25 bn a year on green subsidies yet has only managed a tiny emissions cut one year out of the last five. They will almost certainly not achieve their 2020 and 2030 emissions targets and therefore their INDC pledges. US plans are mired in opposition and may even be repealed or 'forgotten' after Obama. China reserves the right to increase coal burning til 2030.

If there is any light on the horizon it could be that old coal fired power stations will need to be replaced within 20 years while outside the US gas is getting expensive. Secondly cheap oil is nearly at peak extraction. They will need alternatives that can reliably meet our energy needs.

Yet more bumph from another gravy train rider, this one an "environment consultant".

These people must be desperate to get something into law, before the planet shoots more holes in their scam.

Hugely cold very early in Europe this year yet again. Any of them who actually have any science can see another very cold period, perhaps another little ice age, roaring down on them.

Come on Fred, it's over. Find another scam!

How many times does one have to say the obvious? If 'they' knew how to cut emissions enough to stop warming (by around 80% is the IPCC figure) 'they' would be doing it. The renewable energy dreamers have of course captured most attention so no-one bothers to think critically about the bigger energy picture. All we hear is that renewables are/will soon be cheaper than fossil fuels. That may be close to true for rooftop solar electricity, where everything you need apart from the solar panels themselves is already in place. It certainly is not true for grid-scale electricity, or even for manufacturing solar panels, copper cable, wind turbines etc. And it has hardly anything to do with the other 60% or so (non-electric) of primary energy applications for which there are simply no viable substitutes for fossil fuels. Unless these simple truths are accepted, and politicians stop making promises they don't know how to keep, there will be no answer to climate change.

The effects of climate change, red ot one minute and freezing cold the next. Depends on which way the wind is blowing, some would say climate change is effecting jet streams in the upper atmosphere.

Whatever it is we had best take it seriously, climate change is not going to take thousands of years. It is gaining pace with every record ot year that goes by. Ice melt is a large concern, increasing sea ice in the winter and increasing glacial ice melt in the summer.

Remember those scientists that got trapped in sea ice, not there one day and hundreds of square miles of sea ice the next. That is what happens when you have unsalted water on top of ocean water, it goes harder quicker.

Green land is the big danger, the amount of glacial movement increasing and bigger chunks of ice breaking off. Some up to 3 km’s thick. The worst part of our climate changing is we done it. Whether it can be arrested or not remains to be seen.

To Change the ways of our ocean’s getting warmer, and ice melting is going to take more than praying to the sun god. Abrupt climate change is upon us.

The world is expecting an added 3 degrees of warming, which the world as we know it will have massive changes. Australia is in the box seat to become a desert island. Victoria is now in drought mode, all we can say is how long for, the last one was 10 years.

Bushfires in October, says how dry the state is. We are in for an extended summer period after a dryer than Average winter. No doubt a hotter than average summer with 45 + degree days.

How long before we go underground. My plan is on the drawing board.

400 PPM of Co2 is far too much unless we drag that down to 1960 levels, we are in for one hell of a ride. 1950 was a strong turning point, since then Co2 has continued to accelerate, and has now broken all records

The time for opinions against climate change should be over to allow for action.

Recent revelations that ExxonMobil's scientists were in the vanguard of man induced climate science in the 1970s and 1980s have pulled the rug from under deniers who believe no or little action should take place. Management refused to accept the science; profits being seen to be more important than science.

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/08102015/highlighting-allure-synfuels-exxon-played-down-climate-risks

There have been 6 major 1in 1,000 year flooding events in the US since 2010. I wonder what the odds of that occurring are.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/10/07/3709459/south-carolina-flooding-impacts/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=cptop3&elq=8e0dc11c6b5540dcb4b434679c95ea45&elqCampaignId=4032&elqaid=27502&elqat=1&elqTrackId=9a13355fb64348128760e67267df4e3a

Cleaning up emissions will have a positive impact on climate, with the bonus being that there will be a reduction in death rate and disease from mining coal and using it for energy.

The greatest scientist to ever grace the world has spoken. Take a bow "Hasbeen" the retired car park attendant has sorted out global warming and before he goes to bed tonight will cure cancer, tomorrow he will tackle Ebola. Next week peace in the middle east.

"The time for opinions against climate change should be over to allow for action." (ant).

I agree. The time for talking is passed. Its time for action.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YawagQ6lLrA&ab_channel=JohnGibson

Seriously, this is just so much media hype. Nothing will come out of this 'last chance' meeting, just as nothing come out of all the other 'last chance' meetings. The only thing ever really decided is where they're gunna hold the next 'last chance' meeting. (somewhere nice, picturesque, 5 star hotels, plenty of hookers).

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/gropenhagen-prostitutes-offer-free-climate-summit-sex/

Here's what's going to happen. First we'll be told, in hushed tones, that its not looking so good for an agreement - omg we're all gunna fry!! We'll be told that [insert your favourite bogey-man/country] is being unhelpful/bloody-minded (the description depends on whether the country is one the media likes - eg china- of one they despise eg Oz).

We'll be told that, although things look grim, the valiant delegates are determined to work right through the night (stopping only for that 5 course banquet) to achieve a breakthrough.

Then the allotted time for a decision will pass and, despite the fact that they all think we're gunna fry 20 years from next Tuesday week, the celebrity politicians will started heading home.

Then, salvation. At the last possible minute there comes a breakthrough. And we're all saved, at least until the next last chance meeting. But when the breakthrough is examined in the cold light of day we find that the agreement is just to agree to talk more about making an agreement. Go to 1 above and repeat.

Its smoke and mirrors. The sane west (what's left of it) won't commit economic suicide and the emerging nations have no intention of delaying their growth to satisfy the foibles of the west's poseurs.

And in the meantime, the climate, which we should remember, has barely warmed one iota in the past two decades, will continue to do what it does, oblivious to the pretensions of puny man.

mhaze; yep, Monty Python is a good reference to use as those who deny climate change have few references, Watts just tops it off.

It has been stated that ExxonMobil climate scientists were in the vanguard in the 1970s and 1980s.

Quote:
"Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
Top executives were warned of possible catastrophe from greenhouse effect, then led efforts to block solutions."

From:
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming

Quote from another article in the series:

"Knisely projected that unless fossil fuel use was constrained, there would be "noticeable temperature changes" and 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air by 2010, up from about 280 ppm before the Industrial Revolution. The summer intern's predictions turned out to be very close to the mark."

From:

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/18092015/exxon-confirmed-global-warming-consensus-in-1982-with-in-house-climate-models

A further quote from another article in the series:

"Documents and other evidence uncovered by InsideClimate News also show that Exxon calculated that Natuna's emissions would have twice the climate impact of coal. The company spent years researching possible remedies, but found them all too costly or ineffective, ICN's eight-month investigation found."

From:

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/08102015/Exxons-Business-Ambition-Collided-with-Climate-Change-Under-a-Distant-Sea

The articles indicate that there was much co-operation between public and MobilExxon climate scientists in the 1970s and 1980s. The articles offer profiles and quotes from ExxonMobil scientists and from scientists who did not work for ExxonMobil.

If you want to carry on with Monty Python; mhaze, the sketch in relation to the knight having his arms and legs chopped off fits deniers admirably.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

An incredible amount of climate science has been completed since the 1980s, metaphorically the arms and legs of deniers have been cut off.

"The greatest scientist to ever grace the world has spoken," writes man's best friend, Cobber the hound.

Well I don't know if physicist Freeman Dyson lays claim to being the world's greatest scientist, but he's definitely one of the greats, and he has indeed spoken. The following is a transcript of a recent interview with The Register.

The Register
Top boffin Freeman Dyson on climate change
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/11/freeman_dyson_interview/

Some notable Dyson quotes from the interview -

"How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?"

And -

"It is true that there's a large community of people who make their money by scaring the public, so money is certainly involved to some extent..."

And for a review of that interview -

Breitbart
Top physicist Freeman Dyson: Obama has picked the ‘Wrong Side’ on Climate Change
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/13/top-physicist-freeman-dyson-obama-picked-wrong-side-climate-change/

Cobber you really should expand your circles of information gathering and Ant, contrary to your beliefs, the time for opinions against climate change is now ripe with overwhelming empirical evidence stacking up for the consensus of blind scientists to begin to evaluate.

What about the 33,000 scientists (round figures) who are 'deniers'. What about the lack of proof that we can do anything at all about (not denied by me) climate change. What about this 'consenus' nonsense that isn't among climate scientists, but among Left, ratbag, rent seekers and activists.

So, let's accept that climate change is real. But let's HAVE PROOF THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING ABOUT, AND THAT OUR MONEY IS NOT JUST BEING WASTED AS IT ALREADY HAS BEEN!

Could the money be better spent on ADAPTING to climate change!

Q, do we have global cooling?

http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/28/study-predicts-decades-of-global-cooling-ahead/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

only 13,200,000 results from a Google search

https://www.google.com.au/webhp?ei=rgUeVvjOE-LNmwW4obuIBA&ved=0CAUQqS4oAw#q=global+cooling

//Could the money be better spent on ADAPTING to climate change!//

It probably could. Humans are really good at adapting to their environment and adapting their environment to them on a local scale, but I have doubts about their ability to succeed at geo-engineering on the scale that hippies call for.

VoxUnius, Lawrence Krauss, a Physicist, stated on a Q&A program that every scientist wishes to find where a strongly held science hypothesis is wrong, and provide a new hypothesis that explains why.
The science study you have promoted hasn't exactly been taken in as a milestone in science.

Warmth in the oceans and atmosphere are ramping up at present; when can we expect the isoprene to kick in?

There are no magic bullets in relation to climate change. As indicated earlier, the climate scientists employed by ExxonMobil in the &0s and 80s fully supported the view of man created climate change. It was the management of ExxonMobil that decided to undermine climate science.

This article is out of date. Contrary to what it states, India has now submitted its INDC. Some aspects of this are as follows:

"Produce 40 per cent of electricity from non-fossil fuel based energy resources by 2030, if international community helps with technology transfer and low cost finance.
How:
- Install 175 GW of solar, wind and biomass electricity by 2022, and scale up further in following years
- Aggressively pursue development of hydropower
- Achieve the target of 63 GW of installed nuclear power capacity by 2032"
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/here-are-indias-indc-objectives-and-how-much-it-will-cost/

What fanciful hype for the December climate talks!

For realistic commentary, see
http://catallaxyfiles.ozblogistan.com.au/2015/10/14/warming-and-armageddon-the-hype-intensifies/

Raycom, your Catallaxy Files reference is a blog site.
When going to the "About" section this quote came up:

"It is hard to avoid the conclusion that their primary goal is to achieve a puritanical victory against nicotine rather than to save lives."
— David Leyonhjelm

The credibility of anything offered immediately dissipates when quotes such as that are displayed.
Science is promoted by slabs of data, politics employs huge amounts of the stuff expelled by the fundamental orifice of a bull.

Jo Nova, was mentioned in your reference, she was shredded by Lord Deben on the Drum a couple of weeks ago. Jo Nova is a climate change denier; she was supportive of the Australian government's emissions plan being taken to Paris when interviewed on the Drum. Lord Deben pointed out the low point that Australia was coming from. The main point being, Jo Nova was supporting CO2 emissions being controlled.

http://insideclimatenews.org/

Click on the top right hand side...Exxon The Road Not Taken

Information showing that climate change denial was pushed hard from a non scientific flawed base... in the 1970s and 1980s ExxonMobil scientists believed in man created climate change. There are quotes and profiles from some of the ExxonMobil scientists.

Deniers pretty well ignore comments about permafrost thawing (Siberian methane explosions and "drunken trees") or the rate of melting on the surface of the Greenland ice sheet.

Oh dear, ant, I think you rather missed the point I was making ie that the talks in Paris will be just talks and the result will be (as with the PFJ) more talks. Calls for 'action' will be listened to politely and then talked about. They will do little to nothing to reduce CO2 levels in this or any other decade.

Now I get that you've found some documents from the 1980's and think they are a slam-dunk for your prejudices. So let's stipulate that Exxon and indeed, most probably, every other fuel (fossil or otherwise) company was looking at the purported warming post 1975 and evaluating what it meant for their business. That's part of their job. Equally I'd venture they were looking, in 1970, at the purported global cooling and evaluating what it meant for their business. That's part of their job.

I'd also venture that others who would eventually morph into Enron and Solyndra and Pacific Hydro were also looking at the changing climate and looking for the main chance.

But what all these organisations did or didn't do had no effect on the actual climate. The pause for example occurred and would have occurred despite the actions or inactions of the corporate world. I know people like you get all so very excited by the politics and the conspiracy theories but Gaia doesn't care about that. No really, she doesn't.

"An incredible amount of climate science has been completed since the 1980s, metaphorically the arms and legs of deniers have been cut off." (ant)

Yes it has. Yes it has.

There was the climate science around the hockey stick. Oh wait, that was proven wrong.

There was the climate science that found that the arctic would be ice free by 2015. Oh wait, that didn't happen.

There was the climate science that found that parts of New York would be under water by 2015. Oh wait.....

There was the climate science that found that Australia's dams would never fill again and that we needed desal plants aplenty. ummmm!

There was the climate science that found that Oz is way way hotter (a whole 0.09 degrees) that 700 years ago (Gergis et al 2013). Oh wait that turned out to be wrong too.

And so on and so on.

Climate science has made many predictions that have proven to be rubbish. The biggest was what was going to happen to temperatures into the future. They predicted continued and/or accelerated rises in temps. But there has been no rise this century. and they have no idea why.

Yet on such flimsy data, we are asked to upturn western civilisation. No thanks.

ant wrote:""It is hard to avoid the conclusion that their primary goal is to achieve a puritanical victory against nicotine rather than to save lives."
— David Leyonhjelm

The credibility of anything offered immediately dissipates when quotes such as that are displayed. "

Leyonhjelm was talking about vaping which has been shown to be perfectly safe and not a danger in the slightest in terms of second-hand smoke (of which there isn't any). Your ignorance is profound.

Vaping of nicotine is banned because it can be, not because it should be.

So to clear it up; this is the "LAST Chance" or the next to last Last Chance or the next to, next to Last Chance?

We have had so many I am confused which one it is. Anyway, any modeling that relies on positive feedback in normal range is an oxymoron. Sorry Warmists you're oxymorons.

mhaze, wrote about the so called hiatus; the Pacific, Indian and North Atlantic Oceans say otherwise. They have been pouring out warmth.

Mhaze, also wrote, “There was the climate science around the hockey stick. Oh wait, that was proven wrong.”
Many subsequent papers have been published showing that the hockey stick concept was correct, Dr Mann has commented that subsequent studies were more sophisticated than his.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/07/01/206340/michael-mann-hockey-stick-exonerated-penn-state/

With the huge fuss deniers have made in relation to the so called climategate, ExxonMobil management trying to shut down climate science does have a bearing in any comments.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong/

In relation to other points, I have references for all the points below:
There is a cold water area that is South of Greenland in the North Atlantic, the best explanation being caused by melt water and ice sheet collapse off Greenland.
The trend line in relation to Artic disintegration is continuing, how do you explain Barrow being inundated by 11-13 foot waves earlier in 2015.

Queensland continues to have a drought, I believe there are areas in NSW as well. Tasmanian farmers are stating that there have been 3 seasons where precipitation has been down, they suggest the “d word” is not far off. The fire season is already happening in Tasmania months ahead of usual indicating dry soil structure. They are experiencing drought at the Solomon Islands according to a friend who has just come back from a visit.

Near hot bulb temperature have been experienced in a number of countries this year causing the death of thousands of people in India, Pakistan, Japan, Middle Eastern countries and Cyprus. Hospitals were overrun. Full on hot bulb conditions are deadly for healthy people where there is a combination of high humidity and high temperature.
To be continued

ant...come on. Now you're clutching at straws.

" so called hiatus"
You might wish it weren't real but even the IPCC acknowledges that there has been a pause.

"Pacific, Indian and North Atlantic Oceans....have been pouring out warmth."
Based on the Argo data for depths 0 - 2000 metres:
Trend for Pacific Ocean - +.009 degrees /decade.
Trend for North Atlantic Ocean - +.007 degrees /decade.
Trend for Indian OCean - +.067degrees / decade.

ie no statistically significant warming in any of those places.
This by the way is adjusted data. The raw data is even worse for your assertions. Sorry to confront you with real data but some of us think its rather important.

So M. Mann has confirmed that his graphs was correct. Well colour me convinced. Again even the IPCC doesn't want to talk about his assertions any more and AR5 reintroduced the MWP/LIA to the conversation - things that the hockey stick was designed to get rid of.

So there are droughts here and there. Wow must be caused by mankind. I'm wondering however if there might have been droughts prior to 1950. Just a thought. If there were then perhaps they were caused by natural events and maybe, therefore, the current droughts are just part of the natural cycle. Worth considering?

Q, will the AGW scare brigade stop making their outrageous claims when they have been successfully convicted of economic treason & economic terrorism?

A number of scientific papers published since the IPCC's last Report have stated the so called "hiatus" did not happen. The trend line over many decades is still going up.

Over the last couple of years there has been an area of the Eastern portion of the North Pacific where temperatures have been very high, it had been termed "the blob". The blob extended from California to Alaska. Many sea organisms have died, others had to be rescued. There are many references to "the blob".

Drought is one of the matters of extreme weather; there has been drought in Europe, California, Brazil, Caribbean, Colombo, Solomon Islands, apart from Australia in 2015. Drought in the Amazon Basin is quite a serious matter, a potential tipping point. There have been a number of droughts over the last decade in the Amazon Basin; a serious matter which is silly to try and minimize. Deforestation is the issue which impacts on the water cycle and climate; deforestation being an aspect of changing climate.

No comments about the Greenland ice sheet melting; you might like to comment on "drunken trees". Deniers are not able to comment in any kind of sensible way on "drunken trees".

You have set yourself up as an expert; mhaze, suggesting you know more than scientists, on that basis you should be able to decipher what’s happening in relation to data presented by Copernicus:

http://macc.copernicus-atmosphere.eu/d/services/gac/nrt/nrt_fields_ghg!Methane!Surface!120!Global!macc!od!enfo!nrt_fields_ghg!2015101200!!/

http://macc.copernicus-atmosphere.eu/d/services/gac/nrt/nrt_fields_ghg!Carbon%20dioxide!Surface!120!Global!macc!od!enfo!nrt_fields_ghg!2015101200!!/

Go to 850hPa and 500hPa etc and you can find out what is happening at various levels in the atmosphere.
CO2 levels were about 280 ppm pre Industrial Revolution, and methane levels were around 780 ppb

mhaze, you try to downplay ExxonMobil management ignoring the advice of their on climate scientists in the 1970s and 1980s. Yet, despite there having been a number of enquires into the so called "climategate" all investigations cleared the scientists. Deniers have pushed "climategate" as though it was a knockout punch; it still comes up from time to time. Nonsense proved wrong.

In relation to ExxonMobil, scientists were interviewed or unambiguous quotes were provided in the series of articles. US Senator Whitehouse has stated that he is considering taking legal action.

The Union of Concerned Scientists gained access to documentation of ExxonMobil and came to the same conclusion that lay management had ignored the information provided by their scientists about climate change. Not only did management ignore the advice of their scientists but they sought to undermine the science itself.

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming

http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/climate-deception-dossiers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.ViANnH4rLIU

A quote from Union of Concerned Scientists's document:

"Indeed, one of the key documents highlighted in the deception dossiers is a 1995 internal memo written by a team headed by a Mobil Corporation scientist and distributed to many major fossil fuel companies. The internal report warned unequivocally that burning the companies' products was causing climate change and that the relevant science "is well established and cannot be denied."

The fundamental premise of climate change is that CO2 and infrared light react; it was known decades before the 1970s, The ARM 11 year study taking in thousands of bits of data showed the premise to be upheld in two outdoor settings in Oklahoma and Alaska.
Those who disagree with climate science do not have such a solid foundation for their views.

A recently published paper (September 2015) regarding the so called "hiatus" stated in abstract:
"...We find compelling evidence that recent claims of a “hiatus” in global warming lack sound scientific basis...."

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-015-1495-y

ant,

Here's what the IPCC says about drought....
"[T]he AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in hydrological droughts since the 1970s are no longer supported. Owing to the low confidence in observed large-scale trends in dryness combined with difficulties in distinguishing decadal-scale variability in drought from long-term climate change, there is now low confidence in the attribution of changes in drought over global land since the mid-20th century to human influence. "

Stripped of bureaucratese this means that the IPCC scientists have no real evidence that drought is a worsening problem or that, if it is, that its caused by man ie if its getting worse then its part of the natural cycle.

As with most things, those of a certain leaning will accept as gospel what the IPCC says when it suits and ignore it when it says what they don't want to hear.


I am aware that some people are working to get rid of the pause. It's done by adjusting the data.The data for the period pre-2000 is changed so that it appears cooler, temps for the period post-2000 are adjusted up. That's the way climate science works - very sad really.
There are several datasets for temps over the preceding decades. The consensus of these is that there was and remains a pause. But again, since things like the satellite data shows things you prefer weren't true, they are ignored.

I'm aware that companies work to change the politics to their advantage. What Exxon did/does is hardly shocking. Your problem is that you assume that because Exxon et al wanted to shift the debate this way or that, that anyone who even partially agrees with their view must have been influenced and/or bought by them.

Its part of the basic philosophy of the true beleiver. To them, the truth is so obvious that anyone who disagrees is either a fool or has been bought. It doesn't compute that honest people can look at the same data and reach different conclusions.

Of course the multi-national meme can work both ways. Has Greenpeace influenced/ bought the alarmist scientists?

The whole drunken tree BS is a good example of how the whole AGW debate has deteriorated. When did the drunken tree phenomena start? Last Tuesday week? No? In fact its been observed all the way back to the 19th century. What caused it then? Natural causes?

The southern range of permafrost reached its highest levels in the LIA (17th century). Since then its been receding as the global comes out of the LIA. Quite natural. No CO2 to blame it on in the 19th century. But now the perpetual alarmed see a tilted forest and assume that it must (1) new and (2) caused by man. Its neither.

BTW ant, talking about arctic melting, are you aware that as glaciers recede they are revealing forests that previously existed and were then engulfed by the advancing glacier. So, logically, it must have been warmer at the time the forest existed than today. One such is the Mendenhall Glacier which has revealed a forest that existed around 1000AD. Its almost as though there was a Medieval Warm Period. But that can't be true, because Mr Mann's highly respected graph did away with such notions. So obviously those forests don't really exist.(sarc off).

voxUnius, commented on isoprene through his references. Sadly, mate, the science has been misinterpreted by deniers. The reference provided has been written by a scientist.

A couple of quotes from an author:

"Our study is a new brick that should help understanding our complex world, by providing new knowledge on air-sea exchanges, but it definitively does not question climate change, it just helps us understand its impact.

There is no question that the global climate will become warmer. The question is just how much, how fast and how the effects will change our lives." The point being ..."it does not question climate change...."

The other quote from Professor Piers Forster :
"The natural aerosol cooling could be 100 times bigger than our current estimate, but it would make no difference to climate change as it would stay more-or-less constant with time."

From:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/oct/15/propaganda-trumps-journalism-in-conservative-media-climate-reporting

mhaze, what a creative answer in regard to "drunken trees" but very wrong. Where permafrost has been thawing live trees are no longer held in a stable state by their roots; through the thawing process the ground moves and the trees move as well. Buildings have become uninhabitable through the same process.
Other features of thawing permafrost in tundra areas are that shrubs begin to grow and bogs are created in low areas. A worrying feature is the amount of methane being released from bogs.

You presented a often present myth about the medieval period. The problem is that deniers are not able to keep up with current science ;and so, recycle myths.

Ant
You fail to convince with your rantings and warmist references.

Warmists erroneously place their faith in unvalidated climate models.

Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, there has been no statistically significant global warming for the last 18 or so years, .

Raycom, the Austfonna ice sheet was found to be regressing quickly through analysis of photos taken by satellites, where is the modelling?
Glaciers generally regressing, where is the modelling?
"Drunken trees" are caused through permafrost thawing, modelling involved?
Did modelling cause the methane explosions of pingos in Siberia?
Various low lying islands being inundated through rising sea levels associated with storm surges; where is the modelling?
Numerous extreme weather events happening, created through modelling?
A number of droughts in the Amazon Basin in the last decade, created through modelling?

We are meant to accept misrepresented science by deniers; eg, isoprene.

Another separate investigation into ExxonMobil; where scientist employees were interviewed, has shown management were fully aware of climate change.

Quote:
"The gulf between Exxon’s internal and external approach to climate change from the 1980s through the early 2000s was evident in a review of hundreds of internal documents, decades of peer-reviewed published material and dozens of interviews conducted by Columbia University’s Energy & Environmental Reporting Project and the Los Angeles Times."

And

"That reasoning was backed by models built by Exxon scientists, including Flannery, as well as Marty Hoffert, a New York University physicist. Their work, published in 1984, showed that global warming would be most pronounced near the poles."

http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/

Strange isn't it Raycom, that Exxon used models in 1984 which have been shown to be true in 2015.

The pure evil cynicism of ExxonMobil has been disclosed in relation to hiding their climate science; now there is a possibility of an official investigation taking place.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-investigation-exxonmobil-20151015-story.html

The other extremely cynical step has been doing a cost benefit analysis as to when the best time to drill in the Beaufort Sea would be.

Quote:

Croasdale, senior ice researcher for Exxon’s Canadian subsidiary stated:
"The good news for Exxon, he told an audience of academics and government researchers in 1992, was that “potential global warming can only help lower exploration and development costs” in the Beaufort Sea."

http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/

He was saying that if they wait there will be less ice in the Beaufort Sea being a hindrance to drilling and there would be a longer period that drilling could take place. The downside being larger waves due to a longer fetch of waves.

ant,

I get that you think the "drunken tree" meme is a winner for you and that you're not going to let mere facts get in the way of a useful story. But just tell us this:

The melting of the permafrost and the consequent 'drunken tree' phenomena has been going on since at least the middle of the 19th century. What caused that melting back then and why shouldn't we assume that that remains the cause now?

I assume you won't answer because you don't like the answer. And that will be answer enough.

ant wrote" You presented a often present myth about the medieval period."
I mentioned the fact that forest are being found under receding glaciers which date to 1000AD. Laughably you think that those trees are a myth because the models say they can't be there. But in the real world (you should join it one day) real tree stumps trump computer algorithms.

Since he first infested the pages of OLO as a determined climate fraud supporter ant has been asked, more than once, to refer us to science showing any measurable effect of human emissions on climate. He has failed to do so because there is no such science, a fact of which he must now be aware.
Not surprising when human emissions contribute three per cent of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, against 97% by nature. The human effect is trivial, and not measurable.
Support for the climate fraud can only be based on ignorance or dishonesty. Since ant cannot plead ignorance, his support of the fraudulent assertion of human caused global warming can only be based on dishonesty.
He has disqualified himself from participation in rational interaction on the topic, by his refusal to make any rational assertion. He should be disregarded

Leo, the scientists from ExxonMobil in the 1970s and 80s wrote and talked human created climate change. ExxonMobil even did cost analysis of drilling in the Beaufort Sea on the basis of sea ice disappearing. When a major fossil fuel company has agreed that human created climate change exists it pulls the rug from under you doesn't it; Leo, I can understand you're upset.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

http://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green.htm

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11644-climate-myths-it-was-warmer-during-the-medieval-period-with-vineyards-in-england/

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong/

Leo Lane: “Since he first infested the pages of OLO as a determined climate fraud supporter ant has been asked, more than once, to refer us to science showing any measurable effect of human emissions on climate. He has failed to do so because there is no such science, a fact of which he must now be aware. …

He has disqualified himself from participation in rational interaction on the topic, by his refusal to make any rational assertion. He should be disregarded.”

Well said. He shall be disregarded.

Hey ant,
Noticed that the http://insideclimatenews.org organisation was founded by the Rockefellers.

Are they paying you to promote their agenda?
If not they should be, because you're putting a lot of effort into it.

Oh, and just in case you aren't smart enough to make the connection.
Rockefeller = Standard Oil Company = Exxon and Mobil.

Dear Raycom,

You wrote;

“Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, there has been no statistically significant global warming for the last 18 or so years.”

Bulldust.

Show me what data you have used to make this extraordinary claim.

ArmchairCritic, the Rockefeller's have divested from shares in fossil fuel quite some time ago.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/22/rockefeller-heirs-divest-fossil-fuels-climate-change

Yes that's right.
They divested into renewables and green energy, hence they have a financial interest in pushing climate change.
I'd almost bet they're planning to profit from carbon pricing.

Other than that, I just don't trust the globalists in their push for a New World Order.
Its an agenda, not an issue.

SteeleRedux,
In regards to Raycom's claim of 18 years, its actually 18yrs 9mths.
This was the first article I found, but I'm sure you can find more info if you look.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/08/06/a-new-record-pause-length-no-global-warming-for-18-years-7-months-temperature-standstill-extends-to-233-months/

Armchair Critic, thanks for the input.

On 30 Sept 2014, CNSNews.com reported Dr John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at the University of Alabama/Huntsville, saying that the Earth’s temperature has “plateaued” and there has been no global warming for at least the last 18 years.See (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/satellite-data-no-global-warming-past-18-years)

The "plateau" is evident in the climate record Christy and former NASA scientist Roy Spencer compiled using actual raw temperature data collected from 14 instruments aboard various weather satellites.
When asked why the UN climate models were proven wrong, Christy replied:
“You’re going back to a fundamental question of science that when you understand a system, you are able to predict its behaviour. The fact that no one predicted what’s happened in the past 18 years indicates we have a long way to go to understand the climate system.”

“And that the way the predictions were wrong were all to one direction, which means the predictions or the science is biased in one direction, toward overcooking the atmosphere.”

Christy added that basing government policy affecting millions of Americans on “very poor” climate models that have been shown to be inaccurate is “a fool’s errand.”

What a fitting description for the Paris Climate Talks.

SteeleRedux,

Bear in mind that the claim was that there had been no "statistically significant"warming in the period. Statistical significance has a very particular meaning to do with complex calculations around 'least squares' analysis, r-values etc.

What its all about is trying to determine how much reliance can be placed on the data given the inherent margins of error in temperature data collections. Even though a particular database might show a rising temperature, calculations have to be made to determine if that apparent rise might be due to limitations in the data. If there's a rise of (say) 1 degree but the calculations show that the margins of error are +/- 2 degrees then all that can be truthfully said is that we know the temperature changed between -1 and +3 degrees. So we can't be sure there was warming and therefore its not statistically significant.

To get a simplified handle on this go to:
www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

(skepticalscience is a pro-warming site so you can trust the data)

As an example enter 1997 as the start date. Enter 2015.5 (ie june 2015) as the end date. Select RSS as the database to use and click "Calculate". You'll see that is shows cooling over the period of -0.004 degrees per decade. Choose UAH as the database and click "Calculate". It shows warming of 0.102 degrees per decade but an error margin of ±0.175 °C/decade. So it isn't statistically significant warming. And so on with most the other databases.

So not bulldust. Instead accepted science. Even the IPCC acknowledges it and alarmist scientists are scrambling to try to find out why the real world isn't doing what their models say it should.

Strange isn't it Raycom, that Exxon used models in 1984 which have been shown to be true in 2015.
Discussed in: http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/

A number of Alaskan communities ( e.g Newtok and Kivalina, plus others) need to be moved; exactly why is that the case?
How does that fit into the notion that temperatures have not been increasing, and models are wrong?

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/10/06/3709050/alaska-climate-threatened-community-relocating/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=cptop3

http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/small-alaskan-island-kivalina-expected-to-be-covered-by-water-within-10-years/story-fnjwvztl-1227506491329

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-arctic-obama-20150830-story.html

Since 2005 there have been 6 flooding events in the US that statistically each one was seen to be a 1 in 1,000 year chance of occurring, according to a Meteorologist.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/10/07/3709459/south-carolina-flooding-impacts/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=cptop3&elq=8e0dc11c6b5540dcb4b434679c95ea45&elqCampaignId=4032&elqaid=27502&elqat=1&elqTrackId=9a13355fb64348128760e67267df4e3a

For major precipitation events to happen the atmosphere needs to be carrying more water vapour.
What causes more water vapour to be in the atmosphere in the first place?

mhaze, the trend line in relation to climate change continues to increase, a factor that has been noticeable for many decades.
Methane plumes have been noted off Oregon, USA; they have been said to rise from a depth of 500 metres. The good part is that while methane is being released at depth it is converted to CO2. The bad part is that the CO2 created and saltwater create a weak acid.

Quote:
"... Methane deposits are abundant on the continental margin of the Pacific Northwest coast. A 2014 study from UW documented that the ocean in the region is warming at a depth of 500 meters (0.3 miles), by water that formed decades ago in a global warming hotspot off Siberia and then travelled with ocean currents east across the Pacific Ocean...."

From:
http://news.agu.org/press-release/bubble-plumes-off-washington-oregon-suggest-warmer-ocean-may-be-releasing-frozen-methane

Similar voiding of methane has been happening off New Zealand.

Dear mhaze,

I went to the site you posted and tried the 4 different datasets for 'Global' temperatures.

Each of these showed a Global Warming Trend greater than that of error bands.

You might need to tell me why I should take a set of satellite data, which the skeptics pair Christy and Spence have been forced to adjust repeatedly, and take it as definite when it is obviously not?

mhaze
There are lies dammed lies and statistics. The biggest problem with statistics is that are plenty of examples of scientists from numerous disciplines getting the interpretation wrong. My nephew makes a living out of checking professional scientists statistical work. I do not claim to have any skill in this area, but I am reasonable sure that the data from all sources can be compounded. For example if the data shows that the horse "winner takes all" only wins once in 33 races and other data shows she only wins 1 in 40 races when drawn in barrier 10 or above, she also only wins 1 in 50 times in the wet. The question is what based on previous stats are her chances of winning from barrier 10 in the rain. According to your interpretation above the answer is 1 in 50. I confident her chances winning are significantly worst than that. All of the data for the last 17 years show surface temperatures and lower atmosphere in the mid point are positive, and while a few few fail to show significant warming greater than the 97% probability level, when all the data is combined together it is a sure bet that warming has continued. I would also point out this only works when you very selective with the numbers you input into the calculator.

In any event we do not need to rely on temperature data, other evidence such as accelerating loss of global ice, rising sea levels, and a lot of other observations all point to the fact the warming is unequivocal.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

SteeleRedux,

I showed you one example. I can't do all the work for you. Change the dates and you'll find that all the databases show that there has been a warming 'pause' for some extended period. Try making the start 2000 etc. Some show the pause being for 18 or so years, others show it for 15 or so years. But an extended and unexplained pause nonetheless.

"You might need to tell me why I should take a set of satellite data, which the skeptics pair Christy and Spence have been forced to adjust repeatedly, and take it as definite when it is obviously not?"

Does their data show a pause because they are sceptics or are they sceptics because their data shows a pause?
"adjusted repeatedly". Bulldust. UAH hasn't been adjusted for over a decade and even then the adjustments are minor.

But obviously, since you are so fair minded, I'm sure you are also very worried by the many many adjustments made to the terrestrial databases eg GISTEMP which for some strange reason always end up making the past cooler and the present warmer.

mhaze, as I have continually pointed out, the arguments you try to push about a hiatus having happened is academic. Many of my posts point out the practical happenings in relation to climate change:

.permafrost thawing
.Inuit communities needing to be moved
.glaciers regressing
.ice sheets regressing quickly...Austfonna
.huge flooding events through the atmosphere carrying greater quantities of water vapour...eg Atacama desert in Chile, just one example of many.
.partial hot bulb conditions being experienced in several countries.
.marine organisms moving North and South of the equator and being found in waters that previously had been considered too cool.

It is not cooling, nor a neutral global temperature that is having an impact on what has developed over decades. For permafrost to thaw there needs to be a trend in temperature increase.

Dear mhaze,

You wrote;

“Change the dates and you'll find that all the databases show that there has been a warming 'pause' for some extended period. Try making the start 2000 etc. Some show the pause being for 18 or so years, others show it for 15 or so years. But an extended and unexplained pause nonetheless.”

You are a funny guy.

Either that or you don't have much of an idea about statistics.

You do realise as you drop the time frame you will inevitably increase the error margin thus trends become no longer 'statistically significant' purely because a narrower time parameter was selected.

Try it for yourself on your climate sceptic mates UAH data set. From 1980 until now the trend is 0.142 with an error band of plus or minus 0.067 degrees centigrade per decade therefore statistically significant.

Now split it up taking 1980 to 1999 (Trend: 0.119 ±0.196 °C/decade) then 1998 to 2015 (Trend: 0.070 ±0.199 °C/decade). Would you look at that, the statistical significance has disappeared.

This is very basic stuff mate. Pretty hard to take you seriously if you can't grasp it.

You are a persistent fraud supporter, ant, and disregard the fact that the satellite temperature record of the troposphere is the most reliable and clearly shows the absence of global warming for almost 19 years. You have no science to support your position, and are aware that there is no science which demonstrates any measurable effect of human emissions on climate.
You cannot be the dunce you pretend to be. You must be aware that your assertions are blatant falsehoods.
It would be interesting to ascertain how the Exxon Mobil scientists were corrupted into supporting the climate fraud, but at least the company did not fall for it. The Company disregarded their flawed "science".
How about learning some science, ant? You make as big a fool of yourself as Rusty Reflux, with the nonsense you talk.

Leo, if you reread all comments that I have made about ExxonMobil scientists I have constantly said that they advised management about man created climate change. The references make it very clear as to what was going on. You constantly call people who do not agree with you frauds; all you have to offer is ad hominem attacks, you offer no science to support your view.

The scientists from ExxonMobil were saying that man has an impact on climate, you obviously have not read the references provided.

Between 2013 and 2014 there were 24,000 peer reviewed papers published in Journals in relation to climate change, per James Powell. Mostly papers have a number of authors; you're suggesting through your comments that these scientists (except for a few) commit fraud through studying the impact of human created climate change.

Once people resort to abuse; Leo, it is a red flag to show they have nothing to offer.

Thank you for all the home goals.

Round & round we go; same arguments over & over again.
Back on page 2 Tombee raised the real argument, how do we generate the
energy we need ?
Coal & Oil have started their decline irrespective of all the carryon
about global warming and CO2 reduction. It was always going to happen.

Solar & wind will ease the change but will not be the final solution.
They just cannot do the job.
Until some other magic solution appears we need to make a start on
nuclear energy as it is the only long term solution in sight.
I am not sure we can afford a fleet of nuclear stations but what else is there ?

Bazz
The first and most serious problem is CO2 emissions. The consensus is that in order to keep global temperature increases below 2 Deg C we can only add at most 886 giga tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere. The know economic reserves of oil and gas contain 2795 giga tonnes of potential CO2 which is at least three times greater than the amount we can safely emit.

http://www.theactuary.com/features/2013/09/the-environment-the-carbon-bubble/

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/apr/17/why-cant-we-give-up-fossil-fuels

The problem that conventional oil will likely become become increasingly more expensive is serious, but not in the same league as climate change. Oil supplies can and are being extended by the use of unconventional oil such as tar sands. Also there are alternatives such as LPG and LNG, biodiesel and even synthetic fuel made from coal.

No Warmair as I explained earlier the IPCCC's figures for the available
coal & oil are wrong.
This was pointed out by the Uppsala University's Global Energy Systems
Group a few years back.

It does not matter anyway the decline has started.

SteeleRedux wrote: "You are a funny guy.
Either that or you don't have much of an idea about statistics."

This from the dill who didn't even know there was such a thing as the pause until I lead him by the hand to the truth.

I made no claims about the pause other than it exists. Poor old SteeleRedux thinks that showing other periods that don't have a pause means something. But that's because he doesn't understand the significance of the current hiatus. How could he when he was blissfully unaware of it two days ago.

Gentle soul that I am, I give him a little education.

The climate models don't predict a pause. A mere 2% of climate simulations predict a 15yr pause at any time. None predict a 20yr pause. So the significance of the pause be it 15, 18 or 20 yrs is that it calls into question the accuracy of the models. Any number of scientists including many so-called consensus scientists have acknowledged this dilemma.

In the end this whole stupid stupid scare is based on the predictions of the models. If the models showed that many factors other than CO2 caused claimte change and that the future scenarios of warming were more benign, then the scare wouldn't have taken off. IF the models are wrong, if they overstate by a significant amount, the predicted warming, the whole flimsy edifice collapses.

There's much more but let's not over extend SteeleRedux.

But one last thing. The models didn't predict a pause. But some scientists did (eg the late great John Daly). In a better world their reputation would be enhanced. But alas.

ant,

"permafrost thawing".

If you refuse, as you have, to offer any explanation as to why we should blame this thawing on AGW when it was also occurring 150yrs ago, then, unfortunately my dear lad, you have zero credibility.

mhaze, where is your evidence about permafrost thawing 150 years ago?

A quote from National Geographic:

"Most of Alaska sits on top of permafrost, and as the climate has warmed, the permafrost has started to melt. In this video Torre Jorgenson, a landscape ecologist at Alaska Biological Research, shows a spot in Alaska where the melting permafrost has turned the forest into ponds.
For the first time in tens of thousands of years, Siberia's frozen land is undergoing a thaw. Scientists warn that the process could release billions of tons of carbon, which could quickly turn into greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and further accelerate global warming."

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/geopedia/Permafrost

The so called Little Ice Age lasted from 1300-1870, your comment about permafrost thawing in a very significant manner doesn't mesh.
A few hot days in summer does not cause permafrost to thaw, it needs a constant period of warmth for the thawing process to take place.

Read the conclusion from:

http://www.unep.org/pdf/permafrost.pdf

ant,

"Drunken trees are not a completely new phenomenon—dendrochronological evidence can date thermokarst tilting back to at least the 19th century. The southern extent of the subarctic permafrost reached a peak during the Little Ice Age of the 16th and 17th centuries, and has been in decline since then."

http://datab.us/i/Drunken%20trees

"Osterkamp says trees sometimes recover from leaning in a drunken forest by growing back toward the sky. He and his colleagues recently found a spruce tree with a curved, bow-like trunk. By the unique pattern of the tree rings, they determined the tree began its fight to right itself after a thermokarst developed 120 years ago."

http://www2.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF12/1253.html

You asked me to "Read the conclusion from:
http://www.unep.org/pdf/permafrost.pdf"

I've read it before. You just don't get it.

The issue isn't whether or not its melting. It is. The issue isn't whether or not we've warmed in the last 100 or so years. We have.

The issue is the cause. The melting started before our CO2 emissions kicked in. Warming like that in the last 100 yrs has occurred several times in the past 2-3000yrs without the help of anthropogenic CO2.

The melting is natural. Fret about it that's you wont. But there's bugger all we can do about it.

Oh my dear mhaze,

Now you are just camping it up.

You didn't show me a pause because there isn't one.

From your link;

Degrees C warming per Decade

Land/Ocean
HadCRUT4 - Trend: +.084
NOAA - Trend: +.121
Karl(2015) - Trend: +.121

Global
GISTEMP - Trend: +.123
Berkeley - Trend: +.098
HadCRUT4 krig v2 - Trend: +.098
Karl(2015) global - Trend: +.134

Land
Berkeley - Trend: +.134
NOAA - Trend: +.151

Satellite
RSS - Trend: -.027
UAH - Trend: +.076

So 10 data sets showing upward trends in global temperatures, only 1 showing a negative trend. 6 of the 10 actually show a trend above .12 degrees which perfectly reflects the predicted .13 rate.

Here is a little video on climate models for ya mate. Enjoy.
http://youtu.be/Y_jKXcgR_QA

You really are a comedian.

mhaze, thank you for your references which pretty well dove tail into many others in relation to "drunken trees".
You might be interested in reviewing buildings breaking up through permafrost thawing.

The question you put is whether climate change is a natural phenomena; or, has man helped it along.

The science in relation to climate change goes back a long way; Francois Fourier (1768-1830) suggested the atmosphere was what maintained earth's warmth; John Tyndall (1820-1893) developed Fourier's views further, he showed how CO2 and infrared light reacted through experimentation.

The fundamental premise of climate science is that infrared light reacts with CO2 and creates warmth. The source of CO2 whether it is from volcanoes or burning of fossil fuels etc can be identified through the isotopes displayed.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/

There are very simple experiments that can be done in a classroom to show the impact of light and CO2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ

A far more sophisticated experiment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX4eOg2LaSY

The most sophisticated experiment was conducted in situ in Oklahoma and Alaska. Eleven years of study collecting thousands of bits of data:

http://www.arm.gov/news/features/post/32853

Bazz
There is more than enough carbon available in the know reserves of fossil fuels to cause extreme climate change. This is not a matter of opinion it is a well researched topic the figures I quoted originated from Oxford university in England. I admit that some years ago I would have agreed with your view, but every time I looked at the evidence, it became obvious that there is way more carbon available in recoverable fossil fuels than we can possible burn without doing irreparable harm to the climate. The fact is coal represents 80% of the currently available carbon in fossil fuels.

http://www.trunity.net/SampleofEnergyandClimatePrimer/view/article/51dda7410cf2b3d06e25993a/?topic=5283f05d0cf2cad8a99b636e

Some figures for you to think about:-

If we add an extra 585 Gt of CO2 to the atmosphere we enter the danger zone for climate and if that climbs to 886 Gt/t we have blown it.

The know reserves of coal are 861 Gt which is equivalent to 2462 Gt of CO2 if we are lucky nature will continue to absorb 60% of our emissions
So burning the current know reserves of coal would add at least 985 Gt of CO2 to the atmosphere thus putting us past the danger zone for CO2 levels. This does not even consider burning any oil or gas,finding more fossil reserves, the clearing of land, or the rising emissions of methane in the Arctic regions.

http://www.worldcoal.org/coal/where-is-coal-found/
Quote "It has been estimated that there are over 861 billion tonnes of proven coal reserves worldwide"

SteeleRedux,

Its traditional when showing rends to note the start and end period. I'd have thought that your extensive 35 minutes of research on this issue might have taught you that. A trend is from this period to that. Claiming a trend without noting the periods is like providing an exchange rate without noting the currencies - completely useless and rather indicative of the author.

"You didn't show me a pause because there isn't one."

There isn't a pause! Three days ago you didn't even know such a thing was claimed. But your 35 minutes of intensive research has proven to your satisfaction that no pause exists.

The two thousand or so scientists who worked on the IPCC's AR5 thought there was pause and they wrote extensively about it. They were clearly wrong. But then they didn't have the benefit of your extensive research.

The hundreds (or thousands) of scientists who have been working and publishing papers trying to explain the cause of the pause (at last count there were over 50 claimed reasons for the pause), they obviously thought it existed. But then hadn't spent as much time or effort as you, and hence spent all that time and money trying to explain why something that didn't happen, happened.

The myriad climate modelers who are trying to work out why their models showed significant warming since 2000 when no such warming is in the record, are clearly dills because, if they'd just had access to your expertise, they would know that the pause that everyone's talking about doesn't exist.

What a berk.

Warmair
Thats is what I have been trying to tell you !
It is the figures that the IPCC is using in the models that are wrong.
If all the available oil & coal was burnt you would get all that CO2.

BUT

You cannot get all of it out of the ground.
No one has that much money, it would take more energy to get out than
it would provide.

Go to the Uppsala web site and look for the paper.

Dear mhaze,

You wrote;

“Its traditional when showing rends(sic) to note the start and end period.”

I'm sorry, I hadn't realised there was more than one 'pause'. How many more have you got ready to spring on us?

Anyway back to your initial imaginary pause.

“Global warming has not undergone a ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’, according to US government research that undermines one of the key arguments used by sceptics to question climate science.”

“The results, published on Thursday in the journal Science, showed the rate of warming over the past 15 years (0.116C per decade) was almost exactly the same, in fact slightly higher, as the past five decades (0.113C per decade).”

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/04/global-warming-hasnt-paused-study-finds

Your link showed 10 of 11 data sets showing increasing temperature trends of of those 6 were substantial yet you want to put forward the fallacy the warming has paused?

Good luck with that.

I wonder if anyone has worked out how many billions have been wasted on this religion. The believers in this gw nonsense are very similar to the brainwashed scientologist. They need deprogramming. Obviously they wont allow truth or facts to get in the way of their dogma.

Runner, the sciences of physics and chemistry, support man created climate change. The science of climate change was in its infancy when John Tyndall(1820-1893) began experimenting; denial of climate change is a recent phenomena since the late 1980s, created to protect the profits of fossil fuel companies.

In a previous post I provided information about simple experiments that can be conducted in a school science laboratory through to the sophisticated 11 year ARM study which collected data on a daily basis in the outside natural environment at two locations.

Quote in relation to ARM study:

"Study results agree with theoretical predictions of the greenhouse effect due to human activity, which had not been experimentally confirmed outside of a laboratory until now. The research, funded by the DOE Atmospheric System Research program, also provides further confirmation that the calculations used in today’s climate models are on track when it comes to representing the impact of carbon dioxide.

“We see, for the first time in the field, the amplification of the greenhouse effect because there’s more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to absorb what the Earth emits in response to incoming solar radiation,” said Daniel Feldman, a scientist at Berkeley Lab and lead author of the Nature paper.""

From:

http://www.arm.gov/news/features/post/32853

Deforestation is part of climate change; is there any science to suggest that it is not caused by humans? In the last decade there have been a number of droughts in the Amazon Basin; what is your explanation?

Please provide science to prove the ARM study is wrong.
Making a few comments doesn't touch it; you need science to show it to be wrong.

"I'm sorry, I hadn't realised there was more than one 'pause'. How many more have you got ready to spring on us?"

Wow, you really don't understand this stuff, do you? And after all that extensive research </sarc>

I think I'll leave you to wallow in your ignorance.

ant,

I'm doing you the courtesy of assuming that this is not beyond you an that you are being obtuse because you are trying to avoid the nose on your face.

You wrote "The question you put is whether climate change is a natural phenomena; or, has man helped it along."

That's not the question I put at all. Indeed I think we'd be in general agreement on that question.

My point was that, since the 'drunken tree' phenomena was occurring long before man's CO2 emissions could have had any affect, then the fact that the phenomena continues is neither proof nor disproof of AGW.

You started off by claiming that the phenomena was indisputable proof that AGW was occurring and disputing that 'drunken trees' occurred prior to recent times. I've now shown you a few of the myriad records of this from times before CO2 emissions kicked-in. Surely its time to drop this as your go-to proof. After all there are so many other fables that the perpetually alarmed can refer to, to try prove that we're all gunna die.

Dear mhaze,

Lol

Bazz
I have looked at the Uppsala web site, but can not find the paper you refer too.

I am absolutely certain that all the coal that constitute the known economic reserves can be extracted, which is more than enough to blow the CO2 budget, even using the lowest sensitivity of climate to CO2 emissions.

It is important to understand the difference between reserves and resources. A reserve is a deposit that can be economically exploited at current prices. On the other hand a resource is a known deposit of the mineral which may or may not be possible to extract economically. The figure of 981 Giga tonnes of coal are known reserves, which we can exploit and by definition must have a net energy return. The know resources of coal are a great deal higher, some of which will be possible to mine economically. So there is no question that burning all the coal available will blow the carbon budget and that it can be done at a profit.

mhaze, those who try to dispute climate change tend to think in a linear way I believe.
Experimentation has shown that CO2 and infrared light interact as climate scientists have stated (ARM study). Debunk that mhaze.

I'm fully aware that areas of permafrost moves North and South along the fringes. Anton Vaks and an International team studied cave structure in areas with permanent permafrost, areas where it is intermittent, and areas where there was no permafrost. A conclusion the team came too was that when the global temperatures were 1.5C above the Pre Industrial period that permafrost began to thaw. Because of the huge el nino event happening at present it has been predicted that 1C temperature will be recorded for the year.

http://oncirculation.com/2013/04/18/using-stalagmites-to-measure-permafrost-melt/

Permafrost areas contain huge amounts of carbon; it has been stated that there is twice as much CO2 and methane when converted as in the atmosphere at present.

There were huge wildfires in the Arctic Circle area over their last summer; the vast majority caused by lightening strikes. One Alaskan fire burnt 500,000 acres of boreal forest in a 24 hour period. One source has suggested that the fire was made worse through methane being released. It is a plausible explanation.

mhaze, "drunken trees" is a way of showing warming is happening at present; the same as glaciers regressing, something else that has happened in the past. Currently, glacier regression has potentially dire consequences.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/976105/pakistans-climate-change-time-bomb-is-already-ticking/

http://www.carbonbrief.org/data-dashboard-climate-change/

Warmair, it is probably 3 or 4 years since I read it.
Pretty certain I do not have it here.
It was written by Prof Kjell Alklett and others in the energy systems group.
You might try an email. There was graph showing the computed temp rise
for the three IPCC quantities, high medium & low and the trace for
the GESG was well below the lowest IPCC.

Over the years I've come to see a significant degree of Manichean 'thinking' among those who profess to follow the science. This black-v-white attitude leads to the view that,since the sceptics don't buy the whole CAGW package they must have rejected the lot.

Thus we see ant saying "Experimentation has shown that CO2 and infrared light interact as climate scientists have stated (ARM study). Debunk that mhaze" since clearly, if I don't accept his loony notions about permafrost melting then I must reject the whole of established science.

Just for your edification ant, I'd venture that you'd find very very very few sceptcs who don't, as a matter of coarse, accept that CO2, all else equal causes heating. Its just laughable, hilarious even, to think that sceptics reject this. You see ant, I don't reject climate change. I think its been happening for, oh, the last 4 billion years. I even accept that man in the last half century has had some affect on that change. Where I and most sceptics part ways with the perpetually alarmed is that I don't accept as certain that man has had a major effect on the climate since 1950, I don't accept that the warming has been bad for humankind and I most definitely don't accept that the future holds catastrophic warming in its path.

So looking at the term CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropological Global Warming) I accept the 'GW', am ambivalent about 'A' and reject 'C'. And that's where most sceptics sit.

/cont

/cont

I've never been able to quite fathom why alarmists (ant is by no means alone here) are so clueless about the true views of the sceptics, but I think its mainly due to them (the alarmists) not reading what the sceptics have to say because they've been indoctrinated by the leaders of the so-called consensus that the sceptics are all charlatans on the take and should be avoided (there be dragons!) and also because they (the alarmists) are somewhat afraid that they might come across something that will shake their faith.

I make a point of keeping up with the so-called consensus by reading SkS and Real Climate and a few others. I'd recommend that those interested in the search for truth rather than the search for confirmation, read things like WUWT, CliamteAudit or Judith Curry's site.

mhaze, Watts has been caught out in relation to temperature and Arctic ice extent; his views are unreliable.
Watts is not a skeptic he is a denier; he has no official qualifications; whereas, Judith Curry is a skeptic having appropriate qualifications. I have visited the Watts site several times, mhaze. Watts was involved with the so called "climategate" allegations, he has been financed by Heartlands which received its revenue from fossil fuel companies. There were a number of investigations in relation to "climategate" no misbehaviour was found.

The ARM study supports exactly the view that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which has the very impact on climate as scientists are saying. The source of CO2 can be identified through the isotopes displayed.

As stated earlier ExxonMobil management sought to debunk the view expressed by their scientists about human created climate change. The chickens may be coming home to roost:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/10/20/3713761/exxon-climate-denial/

Earlier a denier suggested that isoprene was promoted as being a substance that would stop warming; next day in my newsfeed was an article about the author of the paper saying his science was completely misrepresented.

When terming respondents as "warmists" is presents a flag saying denier.

An interesting survey that arrived in my newsfeed last week in relation to the views of scientists who have not specialised in climate science:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/09/25/yet-another-survey-shows-the-climate-change-debate-is-settled-among-scientists

Dear mhaze,

You wrote;

“So looking at the term CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropological Global Warming) I accept the 'GW', am ambivalent about 'A' and reject 'C'. And that's where most sceptics sit.”

A quick trot back to your early posts on the subject in 2007 clearly reveals you were not a sceptic then but rather a full blown, self confessed, denier. You were not only rejecting 'C' but 'A' and 'GW' with such fervent conviction to get to where you are now admittedly takes some courage.

“Actually Demos, after a decade of zero warming and now that we are entering a multi-decade cooling period, it is the so-called denialists who are saying "told you so". Its just that you can't hear us because you're too busy listening to false prophets.”
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 13 December 2007

“The sunspot count for November stands at zero. We are entering a new solar cycle. If it is as intense as predicted then prepare to break out your fur coats (and perhaps a little humble pie). Although I expect that the eco-chondriacs won't miss a beat in a cooling world, but instead move on with nary a breathe to the next 'sky-is-falling' scare.”
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 16 November 2007

You had tempered a little by 2012 but faring not much better in the predictions.

“What do those who were right say about the future? Well they predict a slow decline in temps over the next 20-30 years followed by another jump similar to the 1975-1995 jump followed by a further decline with 2100AD having a similar climate to now. How can they be simply dismissed as tools of Big Oil or whatever?”
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 28 December 2012

Well mate I do recognise your transformation over the years. Admittedly it has been slow but hopefully it continues. It will be interesting when you will be in another 10 years.

Some very interesting quotes, Steele.

I like the one about the lack of sun activity which means the planet should be cooling; there should have been cooling; except, temperature has gone in the opposite direction. The question is what has caused that to happen?

Deniers have generally had to agree that there is global warming; but, they still seek to minimise the science.

This is the kind of data that deniers are not able to discount:

http://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/about-cams

The push for legal action against ExxonMobil continues:

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20102015/bernie-sanders-calls-investigation-justice-department-exxon-climate-change-science

In relation to temperature, there are strong odds that 2015 will be the warmest ever recorded:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/science/2015-likely-to-be-hottest-year-ever-recorded.html?emc=edit_tnt_20151021&nlid=38021197&tntemail0=y&_r=1

How is it possible to have a prediction that global temperature will be the highest since recording began, and the sun is at a low point?

ant,

"Watts has been caught out in relation to temperature"

Yes he was 'caught' proving his theory that the US terrestrial weather station system was seriously flawed. Since his revelation, things have somewhat improved.

"Watts was involved with the so called "climategate" allegations"

They weren't allegations. A whistle-blower/hacker code-named FOIA really did release highly embarrassing emails from climate scientists.

"he has been financed by Heartlands which received its revenue from fossil fuel companies. "

He received a VERY SMALL amount of remuneration from Heartland who recieved a VERY SMALL amount of funding from organisations associated with fossil fuels. Of coarse the allegation from the perpetually alarmed is that the funding skews the research. I wonder if they think that people who get funding from the government skew their research to suit what the government wants to hear? Nah, that'd never happen </sarc>.

"When terming respondents as "warmists" is presents a flag saying denier."

Yeah, "deniers" using pejoratives like "warmist" are the worst. :) (I doubt you see the double standard)

Your debate-is-settled survey...
Far from proving the debate is settled these people don't even understand what the debate is. They've proved that most scientists think the earth is warming and man is at least partially to blame. But that's not the real debate. Most of the people you'd laughingly call deniers would agree with those statements. I certainly would.

If they really wanted to find out what was happening they'd go on to ask things like: what percentage of the warming is caused by man, how much do you think the earth will warm in the next 50/100/200 years, what measures, if any, do you think should be taken by government over climate change?

These questions are never asked because, I think, the researchers are scared of the answer. These surveys are used for propaganda not elucidation.

SteeleRedux,

Well it is gratifying that you have chosen to continue your education by referring back to my previous posts. At this rate will have you up to speed in no time flat.

I have changed my views over the years. Back in the mid-1990s I was as convinced that we were headed for disaster as any alarmist is now. My view back then was that nuclear power was the obvious answer. But then I started to get access to other opinions via that newfangled internet and in turn found one or two books providing a view that the MSM were suppressing. The best of these was written by a great Australian named John Daly. So by the 1995 or so, I became increasingly doubtful of the scare and by the mid naughties I was convinced the scare was massively over-blown.

" A quick trot back to your early posts on the subject in 2007 clearly reveals you were not a sceptic then but rather a full blown, self confessed, denier. You were not only rejecting 'C' but 'A' and 'GW' with such fervent conviction..."

I don't see anything in those quotes or indeed anything I wrote back then to support your assertions. I didn't then doubt the long term warming nor man's part in it. But I did and still do think that natural forcings could and will overwhelm the human contribution.

One thing I did get wrong was my views on how the lack of warming would affect the scare. I naively thought back then that the data mattered to the warmists and that a decade or two of non-warming/cooling would cause them to re-evaluate. But isn't the case and now I know that the scare will continue irrespective of the data.

mhaze, something noticeable is that when science matters such as ARM and Copernicus are mentioned you do not tackle the science.

Watts was right according to you in relation to the measure of temperature in the US; definitely not so:

http://scholarsandrogues.com/2010/01/25/us-temp-record-reliable/

Notice how Heartlands gets a mention.

In relation to sea ice, it is not the only time Watts has been shown to be wrong, it is a recent example; it is my understanding that Neven is a climate scientist:

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2015/06/ocean-circulation-and-arctic-sea-ice-retreat.html

When a contender for the US Presidency (Bernie Sanders) suggests that ExxonMobil need to be investigated it becomes a very serious matter.

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20102015/bernie-sanders-calls-investigation-justice-department-exxon-climate-change-science

The methane explosions of pingos on the Yamal Peninsula last year are a big deal in a permafrost area; here is something else to consider:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/10/20/scientists-confirm-fears-that-alaskan-wildfires-could-make-global-warming-worse/

http://www.adn.com/article/20151020/scientists-confirm-fears-alaska-wildfires-could-make-global-warming-worse

http://robertscribbler.com/2015/06/ ...497,000acres burnt in a 24 hour period.

Forty years ago the Amazon was described as the lungs of the planet; we now know it is important, though phytoplankton are also important.

Photos of the Rio Negro a tributary of the Amazon River. Drought has been a feature of the Amazon Basin in the last decade.

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/multimedia/Severe-Drought-in-Brazilian-Amazon-Leaves-Boats-High-and-Dry-20151019-0044.html

Deniers argue against the concept of man created catastrophic climate change; but what does that mean? When can a prefix of catastrophic begin to be used? Hundreds of people have been kill around the globe through flash flooding? Is that where catastrophic begins, as future forecasting suggests there will be no improvements? Infrastructure and agricultural land is damaged during these events.

People in Ethiopia are starving and there are calls for humanitarian aide. Likewise people in the areas of New Guinea do not have enough food. Catastrophic?

Water is barely available in a number of countries, a necessity for life. Glaciers act as water reserves for numerous communities; they are generally regressing. Is it a catastrophe when glaciers die?

Near wet bulb conditions have killed thousands of people in 2015, the direct result of high humidity and temperature. Catastrophic?
A warmer atmosphere carriers more water vapour.
Oklahoma and Texas had been drought stricken, afterwards hit by huge deluges. A double whammy, catastrophic?

If we take the nonsensical view that we are heading for an ice age; Maurice Newman has suggested this; then, the result would be loss of agricultural land and in many areas there would not be an infrastructure to maintain life...would that be catastrophic?

The question is; what does CAGW really mean? When can the concept begin to be used?

"mhaze, something noticeable is that when science matters such as ARM and Copernicus are mentioned you do not tackle the science."

ant, you think ARM is important. I think it is just an interesting exercise. Hence I don't comment. Again you think its important because you misunderstand what the people you call deniers think. Very very few such people don't accept that, all else being equal, CO2 has a warming effect. Therefore ARM is hardly a game-changer.

Speaking of game-changers, following advice from someone at WUWT, I read the actual Exxon documents rather than the InsideClimateNews commentary on it. You should do likewise to learn how ICN cherry-picked and selectively and deceptively quoted to spin a story which, its clear, once you read the full text, isn't there.

" the Amazon was described as the lungs of the planet"
Yes at the time they meant it sucked in CO2 and exhaled oxygen, whcih is the opposite of lungs. But there is now some research that it indeed uses more oxygen (for decomposition) than it exhales.

" When can a prefix of catastrophic begin to be used?"
Simply listing a bunch f things that are clearly catastrophes doesn't cut it. The point is that those events have to be linked with some degree of certainty to AGW to create CAGW. But if you read the last IPCC report you'll see that even those devotees of the new faith have to admit that they have very little confidence that science can indeed link these things to AGW.

/cont

/cont
The history of mankind is, in part, the history of catastrophe. Was the plague which wiped out 1/3 of Europe a catasttrophe? Was it caused by man? Was Gilgamesh's flood a catastrophe? Was it cause by man? Well, yes it was if you accept that it was punishment for man's sins. And that's a little of what's going on here in the new religion. These catastrophes are seen by the new priesthood as punishment from the green Gods for the sin of burn fossil fuels, the sin of advancement.

There is a new hurricane developing of Mexico which is claimed to be one of the biggest recorded. Despite the fact that hurricane incidence is at a very low historic level and that, again, the IPCC acknowledges that they can't relate hurricane/cyclones to GW, its inevitable that the spruikers will claim that it is a man made catastrophe and proof of AGW. I suspect you'll buy that. But just in case you want to be somewhat informed....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_Atlantic_hurricanes

mhaze, the Los Angels Times and InsideClimateNews interviewed scientists who had worked for ExxonMobil and scientists from Government Agencies who had collaborated with the Companies scientists. It was not just quotes from documents as you suggested that were used. Many articles have been written taking on different aspects.

Anything in relation to WUWT is highly questionable, an example has already been given in relation to sea ice.

mhaze, the IPCC has been by passed by much science since their last Report.

Some glib comment about the Amazon, does not hide the difficulties of drought as displayed in the reference provided above. The Rio Negro normally is quite a large river. There is drought in the Amazon Basin caused by man with ramifications for climate change.

The current technique of deniers is to suggest they believe that anthropogenic climate change is happening; and then try and rebut everything that the science suggests.

Your WUWT person clearly did not have all the details ,mhaze.

To labour the point, you wrote: " following advice from someone at WUWT, I read the actual Exxon documents rather than the InsideClimateNews commentary on it. You should do likewise to learn how ICN cherry-picked and selectively and deceptively quoted to spin a story which, its clear, once you read the full text, isn't there."

Did your WUWT person tell you how Michael MacCracken; a government scientist, collaborated with ExxonMobil scientists?

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/22102015/Exxon-Sowed-Doubt-about-Climate-Science-for-Decades-by-Stressing-Uncertainty

There are very extensive articles with short film clips of the relevant scientists making comments. Trust WUWT, I wouldn't, you have been conned.

Did your WUWT mate tell you about this clip from a scientist who worked for ExxonMobil, featuring Richard Werthamer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37L_qi1hupI&feature=youtu.be

"the IPCC has been by passed by much science since their last Report."

The report was released less than a year ago. Are you saying that after 5 years of research, evaluation and debate, the report is outdated after 12 months. Pretty funny. What you really mean is that you don't like the results and are prepared to grasp any straw so you can look the other way.

So what are these new miraculous studies that disprove what the IPCC said about hurricane/cyclones, droughts, floods etc?

The link I got from WUWT was to the original source documents. I read them. I prefer to get my data unfiltered by partisans. You should try it some time. As I said before, what Exxon said or didn't say, did or didn't do, is of passing interest only. The data is the point and unless there's some indication that Exxon et al managed to manipulate the data then its really by the by.

I understand that the true alarmist believes what he's been told - that the so-called deniers are in receipt of vast sums to deceive the public. I'd point you to the work down by Nova to show that deniers are outspent by the alarmists by orders of magnitude, but I suspect that would be a wasted effort.

The IPCC uses peer reviewed papers, it takes at least a year for papers to be accepted for publication. So the IPCC document represents science literature that is about two years old. James Powell study has shown that there were 24,000 peer reviewed papers published during 2013 and 2014.

Photography from satellites has produced data since the last IPCC report that has significance.
A few fairly recent papers have been about hydro fracking, and seismic activity created by ice sheets calving (not to be confused with geological seismic activity). These are natural processes, but they indicate the depth of study involved with climate science. However, with greater breakdown of ice sheets these mechanical processes have a greater impact. There has been recent research on aerosols published, aerosols impact on climate. The point being that deniers often do not know what they are denying.

I'm aware that an earlier article; though not from insideclimatenews, about ExxonMobil covered documents only.
A Facebook film clip came my way yesterday of Bernie Fraser being interviewed by MSNBC, a quote going with video:

"Senator Bernie Sanders discusses his call for an investigation into ExxonMobil's climate denial, and the ways in which fossil fuel money--including billions from the Koch brothers--are behind Republican climate denial."

ExxonMobil used a tanker to study climate science, there is a film clip of a scientist involved with that project. The film clip shows a young scientist working on the tanker, interspersed with him speaking in recent times.

continued

continued

ExxonMobil scientists modelled what was expected to happen in the Arctic through climate change in 1984, their work has been found to be accurate. The names of a couple of ExxonMobil workers involved with the modelling have been included in the ICN papers.

The ICN incorporates some documentation in their articles, quotes scientists from the 70s and 80s, has interviewed some of the scientists, and has provided some film clips of scientists making comments about what was going on.

The Los Angeles Times independent research supports the thrust of what insideclimatenews has been stating about ExxonMobil.

There is a prima facie case against ExxonMobil supported by Sharon Eubanks, a former U.S. Department of Justice attorney.
So you can try and downplay the matter, a denier technique; mhaze, but the facts speak for themselves.

So I repeat..."So what are these new miraculous studies that disprove what the IPCC said about hurricane/cyclones, droughts, floods etc?"

Specifically give me the papers issued in the last year or so that show that cyclone activity is caused by AGW after the IPCC, having reviewed all evidence up to 2014, had concluded that there was low confidence that cyclone activity was caused by AGW

The IPCC would not have been aware of this expose, mhaze:

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20102015/bernie-sanders-calls-investigation-justice-department-exxon-climate-change-science

You might find this article interesting:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-the-koch-brothers-toxic-empire-20140924

Where is your current science; mhaze, I see several references to new science every week through my email and Facebook

ant,

When you doubted that there were indeed 'drunken trees' back in the 19th century you asked for proof. I provided it.

When I doubt that there is any new data that would cause a rethink on the IPCC's considered view that there is low confidence that most climate 'catastrophes' are caused by AGW, you simply assert that that must be the case since there are so many papers written each year. See the difference in approach here?

Just because you want it to be so doesn't make it so.

Hang on mhaze, just steady on with the paraphrasing of the IPCC report summary. You cant just rewrite things to suit yourself.

The IPCC report does indeed use the words low confidence in this paragraph:

"There is low confidence that long-term changes in tropical
cyclone activity are robust, and there is low confidence in the
attribution of global changes to any particular cause. However, it
is virtually certain that intense tropical cyclone activity has increased in the North Atlantic since 1970."

What that is saying is not that Climate Change doesn't contribute to extreme events, but that particular global changes in tropical cyclone activity are difficult to attribute to any particular cause, including I might add that old catch-all 'natural variability'.

It is explained in the document what those terms 'low confidence' mean and why they are used. Mainly it is because the strength of the evidence are limited by various factors, depending on the statement or effect being discussed.
The way you've written your statement seems to imply that the IPCC doesn't think that Climate Change is causing any catastrophic or extreme events, which is actually not the case.

For instance, they do think it's 'very likely' that its decreasing the number of cold days and nights and increasing the number of warm days and nights globally (I know you think there's a 'pause' but they don't). Including increasing heat waves.
'Likely' that extreme sea levels (eg storm surges) have increased since 1970, due to sea level rise.

"Direct and insured losses from weather-related disasters have
increased substantially in recent decades, both globally and
regionally. Increasing exposure of people and economic assets has
been the major cause of long-term increases in economic losses from
weather- and climate-related disasters (high confidence)."

mhaze, the ExxonMobil "gate" pulls the rug from under those who deny anthropogenic climate change.
I previously mentioned the ARM 11 year study which you tried to undervalue; trying to understate climate science is a denier technique.

On that basis, you are setting yourself up as an expert, and it must be assumed that you know more than scientists who have generally spent more than 10 years to gain their PhD.

On that basis you and your denier mates must know more about:

. paleoclimate discoveries
. know more about Physics and Chemistry
. know more about Oceanography
. know more about Glaciology
. know more about Biology
. know more about Meteorology
. know more about Astrophysics
. know more about how to measure temperature
. know more about Mathematics
. know more about computer modelling
. know more about atmospherics
.all scientific papers written about climate change for the last hundred past years are known to you.
.etc etc

Many studies from different disciplines dovetail neatly into one another; yet, deniers say they know better.Scientists involved in the above disciplines have agreed that anthropogenic climate change is real. Logically, if you plan to debunk anthropogenic climate change you need to know the science intimately.

The fraud supporters are really carried away, today, by their own nonsense.
Bugsy, in effect, says that there is some significance in the fact that global warming has not been ruled out as a cause of extreme weather. So what?
None of you fraud-promoters have referred us to any science showing any measurable effect of human emissions on climate.
Max Puce repeated the mantra that laboratory science showed that co2 affected climate. He had no reply when it was pointed out that the IPCC had failed to produce any empirical evidence that the science worked in the real world. When demonstrated through computer models, it failed.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/10/scafetta-2013-simple-solar-astronomical-model-beats-ipcc-climate-models/
The unverified IPCC models assume CO2 has a powerful influence (backed up by laboratory experiment, but not backed up with empirical data from the climate)
The statement by ant:” if you plan to debunk anthropogenic climate change you need to know the science intimately.”.
What science would that be, ant?. You have the temerity to refer to “deniers”, when you have no science to deny. There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate. Your assertions are supported only by your dishonesty. You have been repeatedly asked for science, and have none. Your chosen name is inappropriate. You shoul call yourself “flea”..

Dear Leo Lane,

Really mate, you can sit there all day with your head up your backside intoning your little mantra about there being no evidence that humans are impacting the climate yet you refuse to pull your sizable scone out to take a look.

It ain't rocket science my friend, humans are putting greater amounts of CO2 into the air which by the laws of physics has to warm the planet and this is in turn clearly showing up in the temperature record. Your leap of faith that it is not happening is on a par with the best of the sack cloth and ashes zealots. Either thant or you have a terminal case of CCDD.

http://FunnyOrDie.com/m/9lxl

Steele,
Leo is setting himself up as an expert on CO2 isotopes.
He also has better data than the ARM 11 year study which collected data on pretty well a daily basis in the environment at two locations. According to Leo that's not science.

ExxonMobil has been caught out having at the very best committed vile misrepresentation of the science that ExxonMobil scientists had come up with in relation to anthropogenic climate change. ExxonMobil had even set up a tanker to collect data from various locations.
The modelling set up by ExxonMobil scientists in 1984 of sea ice in the Arctic has proven to be accurate.
When the science collected by ExxonMobil in the 1970s and 1980s states that anthropogenic climate change is happening; the question is why did management go against the science produced by their scientists? Anybody with a non-blinkered view can work that out.

mhaze, earlier I wrote about a study by Vaks et al about formations in caves in permafrost areas and caves where permafrost was intermittent. That relates very directly to the spread of "drunken trees".

This is your comment after I had referred to the Vaks et al study:
"When you doubted that there were indeed 'drunken trees' back in the 19th century you asked for proof."

Vaks et al wrote about the permafrost areas moving North and South over thousands of years; "drunken trees" being a product of the shift of permafrost.

Continued:

Continued:

A previous quote provided from National Geographic:
"For the first time in tens of thousands of years, Siberia's frozen land is undergoing a thaw. Scientists warn that the process could release billions of tons of carbon, which could quickly turn into greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and further accelerate global warming."

In other words, the permafrost thawing has moved far North of where it had been previously been known. The importance of the Vaks et al paper is that he established the temperature point where permafrost begins to thaw. The IPCC hardly dealt with the issue of permafrost.

I do continually ask for proof; mhaze, it's a mechanism to get people to check out the science.

Interesting post there Bugsy. You start of advising I "cant just rewrite things to suit yourself." You then acknowledge that the IPCC indeed uses the words I use and end up meekly assertion that I might have implied something that you didn't like.

You've made an unfounded assertions and debunked that assertion all in one post. Kudos.

ant,
Read the Exxon sourcedocuments yet?
Found these fabled papers that overturn the IPCC's AR5 opinion?

I get what you're saying ant. There are lots of scientists who think that AGW is happening and you're anxious to abdicate you're own logic facilities to their better judgement.

I know I'm going to get tired of saying this but I also agree that there is warming and some part of it is caused by man's CO2. The issue is how much is caused by man? How much more will it warm?Whether the warming is good or bad. What should be done, if anything, to reduce CO2 emissions.
You have this childish view of what so-called deniers think which you then seek to nobly refute. But you're fighting a phantom. Perhaps, as I suggested earlier, if you read more widely you'd have a clearer understanding of what the issues are.

You're getting a little confused on permafrost. Now you're referring to the Vaks study which showed melting in previous periods. But previously you thought that the current postulated thawing was somehow special and required that I provide proof to the contrary.

BTW, did you read the Vaks study or as is your wont, did you just read what others wanted you to know about it. In that study they say that we need 1.5c of warming to cause any real concern. Perhaps reading the report would help your understanding.

SteeleRedux,
Ed Begley Jr? I'd be more circumspect about those I defer to.
Go here to find out about the ethics of this climate warrior...
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/05/james-okeefe-punks-hollywood-greens.php

Actually mhaze, what you've written is not what they wrote. You used the same words but reordered them to suit your own interpretation.

That's misrepresentation.

mhaze, in relation to permafrost thawing it is happening closer to the North Pole than had previously been found over thousands of years ago.
I'm sorry that you cannot comprehend the relationship between Zaks et al, permafrost thawing , and the National Geographic reference provided. In relation to Zaks et al ; as you asked, I have seen film clips of him being interviewed, read the article in Science Journal, and have seen commentary from others.

By suggesting some kind of comparison between the IPCC AP5 not answering your question, and ExxonMobil management overturning the science of their own workers is a bit cute. When taking into account the number of papers published in previous years and the thousands that have been published this year (24,000 between 2013 and 2014).

It is highly likely that ExxonMobil will be investigated with the potential of criminal charges being laid under the RICO Act. Time is the only factor that may be in their favour.

As shown by SteeleRedux, your commentary has changed from years ago. Though your more recent posts have changed from years ago, you still display the denier technique of trying to cast doubt.
An illustration is in first referencing ExxonMobil "gate", I mentioned the breadth of the evidence against ExxonMobil beyond documentation. Very clearly provided in the references present. Your response was that you spoke with somebody from WUWT, who suggested the documentation did not show any problems.

Your WUWT colleague proved to be wrong.
The denier technique of trying to down play what has happened.

Currently, we are seeing what can be described as a crime against humanity created by greed and having an impact on climate. The fires in Indonesia are impacting on a number of Asian countries; people have died, thousands of others have had major health problems, schools and airports have had to be closed.

ant,
1. Zaks et al?? Its Vaks. Good to see you're so conversant with this. I've given up trying toget you to read source material. Clearly its too complex or you're just worried that you might find something that you don't want to find.
Here's part of the conclusion to the Vaks (or Zaks?) study.."Using PWP SST as a surrogate for global temperature suggests
that increase in global temperatures by 0.5-1.0°C will degrade only noncontinuous permafrost in southern Siberia with the Gobi Desert remaining arid. Warming of ~1.5°C (i.e., as in MIS-11) may cause a substantial thaw of continuous permafrost as far north as 60°N, and create wetter conditions in the Gobi Desert."

Now I don't know how much you don't know but I just tell you that we've had warming of 0.5-1.0°C. So according to Vaks this will "degrade only noncontinuous permafrost". So the warming to date is in areas that have been frozen in the last few centuries. We have to get to 1.5c warming to have the affects you claim. And if you read more you'd know that we haven't had that yet and won't for decades to come at current rates. The conclusion is obvious but I doubt you'll get it.

2. "When taking into account the number of papers published in previous years and the thousands that have been published this year"

Yes I get it. You haven't got the foggiest idea if the IPCC conclusions have been overturned but hope that they have been and this, to you, makes it a fact. Oh dear!

/cont

/cont

3. Exxon. Obviously you have no intention of reading the actual documents since it might not confirm what you want to be true. So I'll give you just a flavour of what you'd find if you had the slightest interest in seeking the truth.

Here's what you heroes at ICN said " Black delivered a sobering message: carbon dioxide from the world's use of fossil fuels would warm the planet and could eventually endanger humanity.". If you read the Black report you'd indeed find him saying that the current models show a warming of 2-3c for a doubling of CO2. BUT you'd also find all the caveats he puts on that eg "Mathematical models for predicting the climatic effect of a
C02 increase have not progressed to the point at which all the feedback interactions which can be important to the outcome can be included" or "The CO2 increase measured to date is not capable of producing an effect large enough to be distinguished from normal climate variations."

ICN picked out the part where he stated the current state of the science and neglected to point out how he then described all the problems with the then current state of the science.
They basically lied to their readers and you fell for it. Now don't you feel silly? That's why you have to read the source documents. Here endeth the lesson.

4. "your commentary has changed from years ago. "
Well Steele claimed that and when I asked for evidence, his reply was a firm, unequivocal, silence. But that doesn't matter to you.

5. So now the Indonesian fires are caused by CAGW? I guess in the fantasy-world you inhabit EVERY problem is caused by CO2. I stubbed my toe yesterday. CO2 obviously caused it.
A great shame about cyclone Patricia. All the usual suspects were predicting it to be the biggest of all time blah blah blah. And then it was a fizzer. But that doesn't matter. They just move onto the next 'proof' that we're all gunna die, and the perpetually gullible will sagely nod along.

The first signature on the ridiculous letter sent by Sanders to Obama and others is a professor Shukla, of George Mason University, who is now the centre of an enquiry into the misapplication of funds from the Institute of Global Environment

“Under federal law, state employees may not be remunerated for doing work which falls under their state employee remit. As a Professor at GMU, Shukla is definitely an employee of the state. And the work for which he has most lavishly been rewarding himself at IGES appears to be remarkably similar to the work he does at GMU as professor of climate dynamics.”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/02/climate-alarmist-caught-largest-science-scandal-u-s-history/

Serious allegations, as against the nonsense about Exxon Mobil in support ofwhich there is no science to show that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate, as the flea is well aware. He posts nonsense like this, attempting to divert from the fact that he has no more science to support his nonsense than the delusional Rusty Reflux. Their basis for support of the climate fraud is purely dishonesty, as they have no rational basis, and no basis in science

mhaze, the absolute doozy in your last reply was stating SteeleRedux had not displayed your comments from the past.
SteeleRedux wrote:"“Actually Demos, after a decade of zero warming and now that we are entering a multi-decade cooling period, it is the so-called denialists who are saying "told you so". Its just that you can't hear us because you're too busy listening to false prophets.” There are other quotes from you that SteeleRedux provided on the 22 October 2015.

There's an incredible amount of permafrost in Arctic Circle, the definition of permafrost is areas that have been frozen for two or more years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N71YvYqJWQc

There have been at least 3 separate investigations into ExxonMobile, one concentrated on documentation, the other two employed documentation, and quotes and interviews; one includes film clips.
It has been the Union of Concerned Scientists, Los Angeles Times and ICN.
Deforestation is seen to be part of climate change; fires lite by man have caused the current problems in Indonesia.

As stated earlier Leo would not accept the science provided by the 11 year ARM study, which brought in thousands of bits of data. Leo has shown himself not to have any understanding of isotopes.

Senator Whitehouse requested official investigations into ExxonMobil much before Bernie Sanders.

Reflux has posted more irrelevant nonsense, but no science, just complaints that I point out that there is no science to back his support of the climate fraud.
Give us the reference, Reflux, to the science which demonstrates a measurable effect of human emissions on climate.
Human emissions of carbon dioxide are about 3% as against 97% by nature. The human effect is trivial, and not measurable.
“. It is therefore crystal clear that there is nothing inherently unusual, nor necessarily dangerous, about the ‘extra’ carbon dioxide that is currently being contributed to the atmosphere by human activity, which anyway amounts annually to only about three per cent of the natural flux”
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/2007%2005-03%20AusIMM%20corrected.pdf

Leo, regardless of the evidence placed about science you have been making the same refrain for several years. Try the ARM 11 year study and the science around isotopes.
The ARM study was about CO2 and how it reacts in the open environment.

ExxonMobil scientists accepted the science of anthropogenic climate change in the 1970s and 80s. ExxonMobil even fitted a tanker to measure CO2 at various locations. The Inside Climate News show a film clip of a young scientist working on the tanker and also displays comments made in more recent times from the scientist.

ant,

I don't know why I need to explain this to you. I don't know why I bother since I now suspect you struggle to follow the simplest of logical processes.
SteeleRedux provided a number of quotes from my past and asserted that they prove I've changed my views. I disagreed and asked him to explain how those quotes demonstrated what he claimed they demonstrated. He replied with utter silence. Why that is so hard for you to follow should be, perhaps, the subject of a whole new thread.

Clearly you have no interest in the pursuit of the truth. You simply chant mantras which cannot be penetrated by any evidence. You claim that the continuous permafrost is melting by refering to a paper by a scientists whose name you forget. I show by using direct quotes that your understanding is utterly wrong and you just continue in your false mantra without trying,even in your inept way, to address the points I raise.

You fall hook line and sinker for a story from a minor news source which I show to be a best misleading. And you you just continue in your false mantra without trying,even in your inept way, to address the points I raise.

You, hilariously, claim to be following the science. Science is the pursuit of truth through evidence. But you don't do that. You adopt a view on the scantiest and often misunderstood evidence and then refuse to listen to or even read ANY contrary evidence. That's not science. That's not truth seeking.

I've done you the courtesy of assuming you were at least honest in your misunderstanding of these things. But I now see I was wrong in that assumption. I won't waste any more time.

mhaze, a quote from you in relation to going into an ice age says it all. The sun has been in a minimal stage for sometime, and so temperatures should have been cooler. The question is what has stopped temperatures becoming cooler?
You have been sprung; mhaze, SteeleRedux has sprung you, and bugsy has stated that you have misrepresented a reference.
Your WUWT contact is wrong.
You cherry pick, do not have any understanding about how one piece of science slots into another.
You appear to agree with the fundamental premise that CO2 and light interact; and then, virtually abandon that view in other posts.
You down play science references that do not fit into your opinion.

You do seem to follow through and check some references, here's something you might find interesting, completely up to date science, google "yedoma"

You set yourself up as an expert saying thousands of climate scientists are wrong.
A recent survey in the US of non specialist climate scientists showed that of those surveyed, the vast majority agreed that man has an impact on the climate.
You say you agree with that; but, what you write does not follow a logical pattern to support that view. Your writings follow the sequence of the embattled Tobacco Industry; where even though the science was proven, deniers continued to push wrong views

" a quote from you in relation to going into an ice age says it all"

Nowhere in any of those quotes did I mention an ice age. Yes it does "say it all". It says that your relationship with facts is rather tenuous.

You really should stop. Even I'm getting embarrassed for you.

mhaze, what you stated was...."Actually Demos, after a decade of zero warming and now that we are entering a multi-decade cooling period, it is the so-called denialists who are saying "told you so". Its just that you can't hear us because you're too busy listening to false prophets.”

You were certainly wrong, and I did exaggerate the quote that SteeleRedux provided.
Your response was so out of line compared to what has been happening. Deniers have posited the view we are going into an ice age e.g. Maurice Newman.

But, regardless of what you write the ExxonMobil "gate" has pulled the rug from under you. You posit documentation as defence; yet, the evidence far exceeds documentation.

An interesting article of what might have been if ExxonMobil had been upfront about climate change.

Quote:

"More urgently, rapid development of renewables might well have kept half of Delhi’s children — 2.5 million children — from developing irreversible lung damage."

From:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/28/imagine-if-exxon-had-told-the-truth-on-climate-change

And:

"James F. Black, a senior Exxon scientist, warned the company in 1977 that the continued burning of fossil fuels such as gasoline could lead to a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Trapped heat could boost global temperatures by 4 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit — even higher at the poles. Black and other Exxon scientists warned of dire agricultural effects, skewed rainfall patterns and growing desertification — amazing prescience considering today’s rising seas, increasingly violent and costly storms, severe droughts and heavy flooding."

From:

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20151020-editorial-exxons-missed-opportunity-to-address-climate-change.ece

Steel of poor quality corrodes and becomes rusty. Redux of stomach contents when it hits the esophagus and causes nausea is called reflux, so the evolution to the appropriate name of Rusty Reflux was inevitable.
When faced with the truth, and verification of his dishonesty he responds with schoolyard smut:” sit there all day with your head up your backside i “. A loser, sunk in his puerile delusional dishonesty, in his support of climate fraud. He can find no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate, so resorts to abuse, which is the best a fraud-backer can do.