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.