All you in this communist bureau of propaganda - go starve!

The climate alarmists claim the "science is in". Finished. It's all done.

Therefore, there is no rational reason why we to continue to spend (waste) money on climate science.

The world is wasting $1.5 trillion per year on the 'climate industry' - for no measurable benefit of climate damages avoided. It;s totally irrational. Stop the waste!

It could be said that climate 'science' is not a science at all. We can't even rely on their day to day predictions, let alone what they think might happen in 2050 or some future date. They deal in consensus, not science.

utterly wasteful and deceitfull religous indusrty. Spend tax payer money on real issues.

The LNP are pushing for the far North of Australia to be extensively developed.
Climate change is happening and impacts on various areas within Australia it needs to be better understood. The science of identifying particular weather events with climate change is developing.
For example, the current El Nino is having quite an impact around the planet, some of the impact is quite unexpected, further research is required to understand better what strategies need to be employed to safeguard communities and infrastructure.

Before launching into me, consider:

Satellite data shows that BOM is not fiddling temperature records as suggested by Maurice Newman in the Australian. If anything satellite temperature recording is slightly higher than what has been measured by weather stations.

https://theconversation.com/the-weather-bureau-might-be-underestimating-australian-warming-heres-why-53982

Oceans are warming as shown by recent papers. One compared historic records created by the British research vessel Challenger in the 1870s with contemporary records.
Another paper used satellite data to show that Oceans are warming.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/18/world-oceans-warming-faster-rate-new-study-fossil-fuels?CMP=soc_567

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-01/uob-cco012516.php

Managing a research organisation is all about setting priorities. An easily understood way of setting research priorities is to look at attractiveness and feasibility. These are broad headings. Under them are questions like: How useful will the results be? How will they be put to such use? Who will benefit from their application? Can the research be performed successfully in practice? Does the organisation have the people, equipment etc. to do the work? What’s the competition like? How will we know when the research is finished, or at least has gone as far as it can usefully go, given the almost inevitable diminishing returns over time? And in a large multi-mission outfit, how does the sum total of all the answers for one research field stack up against all the other opportunities available within the overall brief of that outfit?

Overlaying all these questions, and more, is the vital matter of who is providing the answers. Those answers are generally not easily quantifiable. The ‘judgement’ of the decision makers, vague as that term might be, is central to getting it right, if there is indeed a ‘right’.

CSIRO’s Larry Marshall has set the cat among the pigeons alright. The field he has decided to put lower down his priority list is one beloved by the public. Never mind looking objectively at the above issues; climate change is really, really important, the research is top priority, leave it alone.

Imogen Jubb has invested much, maybe all, of her career in the subject. She is a dedicated climate change specialist and communicator with the Australian Conservation Foundation. She can certainly advocate for one side of the debate. Is she the right person to tell us whether CSIRO needs 50, 100, 350, 800 or all of its scientists working on climate change? I have my doubts.

Quote;
"About the Author
Imogen Jubb is a communications advisor for the Climate Reality Project at the Australian Conservation Foundation. She was previously employed as the communications advisor to the Australian Climate Chance Science Program – a joint initiative of the Australian government and CSIRO". That would be spin doctor in normal conversation, wouldn't it?

Incidentally that was a pretty bad analogy Imogen, really fast drivers, racing formula 1, don't have speedos love, they use judgement. Something the CSIRO appears to be finally developing, even if only under pressure.

Ever thought of hiring a scientific adviser, or perhaps a real life adviser? A good one of the latter could help you a lot.

Imogen. I think that Peter Lang (above) has provided a figure identifying the $ being spent on the "settled science".

Whilst it is valuable that Australia (Southern Hemisphere) supplies 'raw data' to such organisations as the IPCC, UEA climate research division, NASSA etc, who have invested billions in super computers etc to interpret the data and provide 'projections' etc, it is no loss or risk to Australia to redirect science research $ to areas most immediately relevant to Australia.

Much research could be devoted to transforming the 'north' of Australia into the 'food bowel of Asia' as has been promoted. Why should Australian taxpayers fund design and research into nuclear reactors, submarines, horizontal drilling etc when these technologies are available 'off the shelf' from other countries?

Those scientists with expertise in climate control/adaptation research can relocate to overseas organisations that are well funded to undertake the work.

Blind Freddy can see that Australia is in a position where a reduction in government spending is a current priority. I think this is an excellent example of how this can be progressed.

Hearty congratulations to Larry Marshall for his forward thinking and sensible decision in re-focussing CSIRO research efforts/directions.

How can they say that religion is dieing when clearly the church of denial is still going strong?

It is a relief that Malcolm Turnbull, who has not shown much sign of supporting the truth about climate change, has allowed the fraud-supporting CSIRO to be dealt with in an appropriate manner, in having its funding cut.
Imogen draws the ridiculous analogy:” Cutting climate science is like throwing out your speedometer while driving at full speed down a road you have never been down before. We know the direction, but we lose our ability to control how fast we are going.”
Cutting funding to the CSIRO is like switching off an instrument that is demonstrably faulty, so that you will no longer be misled by it.
Robert le Page is back with his scurrilous and baseless use of the word "denial" in relation to truth supporters. Where is the science which is being denied, Robert?
There is no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate, Robert, no doubt because the human effect is trivial, and not measurable.

Yes Ant, and all happening while our solar furnace has been in a waning (cooling) phase since the mid seventies.(NASA)

I'm all for more innovation and can only hope some of it can be directed at ameliorating against man made climate change!

Man made, given it's a sure bet none of what we've seen in over a quarter of a century, as so ably identified by you, was the product of the sun!

And an elliptical orbit creates warmer times and cooler ones, natural variations, rather ever upward trend lines!

As for cooler winters, more intense blizzards, higher average wind speeds, what have you?

Exactly what you'd expect from additional heat related global warming/convection!

But don't hold your breath waiting for the money men, or their American mouthpiece to do more than bleed a captive energy market white!?

When what we need to incentivate behavior change is not only alternative carbon free energy, but cheaper energy as well. And for mine, that's exclusively in publicly owned and supplied paradigms.

And exactly what this country needs to assist the real entrepreneurs of the future to build energy dependant high tech manufacture!

Even if it starts in a suburban garages with 3D printers making subsitute body parts or replacement car parts, HHO generators for autos etc?

Now that we are no longer making cars, rejuvenating those we have now will become a growth industry, as will quite massively increasing fuel economies!

As will devices that further add to vehicle economy like water injectors that replace energy sapping radiators.


Obviously the most important thing we can do for the economy, in a land confounded by the tyranny of distance and the cost to us of transporting our trade goods anywhere! Is to reduce that cost!
Rhrosty.

Back on 1 Feb, ant was telling us that the satellite record was unreliable..."The temperature derived from satellites does not measure the surface where we reside."

Now he thinks the satellite record is useful because it shows that the BOM is under-estimating temperatures.

To believe in what the head of the CSIRO calls the religion of climate change requires a certain 'flexibility' of thought. The facts today might not be the facts tomorrow if they don't provide the right answer.

Rhrosty wrote:"And an elliptical orbit creates warmer times and cooler ones, natural variations, rather ever upward trend lines!"

Oh dear! The changes in the eccentricity of the elliptical orbit occur of periods of millennia, often over 10's of thousands of years. They most definitely can cause upward trends over the time frames of a few hundred years.

mhaze

Deniers keep saying satellite data is more accurate than temperature measured at weather stations.

The last words from the reference provided about satellite inferred temperature stated:

"... if we were to trust the satellite data, that Australia may even be warming (slightly) faster than the Bureau’s data indicate."
Satellites do not measure temperature directly and modelling is required to produce inferred temperature. A much more complex matter than dealing with temperature measured at a weather station. A number of times the modelling had to be redefined to get more accurate inferred temperature.

But nature shows changes in temperature.

Remap shows how marine organisms are moving South; tropical fish off Sydney, and yellowfin off the East Coast of Tasmania are examples.

"Rain bombs" are becoming quite frequent, "rain bombs" being huge downpours in a short time frame.

Glaciers are in the main regressing.

Just lately sea ice off Antarctica was below average for the time of year.

Arctic sea ice is at the lowest extent ever recorded by satellites.

At Christmas time in New York people were able to comfortably be outside in T shirts.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/phytoplankton-rapidly-disappearing-indian-ocean

mhaze

An interesting article about views that Cruz suggests show that climate change is not happening.
The video clip attachment to the article discusses the issue of inferred temperature from satellites.
The article also discusses Antarctic sea ice in 2013/14. About a fortnight ago Antaractic sea ice extent was down by about 200,000 ks from the long term average.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2016/feb/11/checking-ted-cruzs-climate-science-denial-clangers

Cruz would seem to have a personal interest in trying to debunk climate science:

"The oil and gas industry has been one of the largest financial supporters of Cruz’s 2016 presidential campaign, contributing nearly $1 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And Cruz’s personal wealth is also inherently tied to the fossil fuel industry, with nearly a quarter of his total assets coming from investments in oil and gas. According to Christian R. Grose, an associate professor of political science at the University of Southern California, a politician’s personal investments tend to impact their decision making."

From:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/02/09/3747265/texas-flood-survivor-confronts-cruz-on-climate-change/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tptop3&utm_term=1&utm_content=53&elq=4453df52edc346f78c749864b4fc2e81&elqCampaignId=4996&elqaid=29078&elqat=1&elqTrackId=bd02143a16a44d69b03db23d82ed5c73

Just checked sea ice extent for Antarctica and it is still below the long term average as shown by graph, click on Antarctic daily images:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Imogen forgets that there are thousands of scientists around the world already at this trough.

As the atmosphere in Aus is directly linked to the rest of the world, the local climate scientists only need to cut and paste the research from others (which I believe they were doing already)

The flea is usually whining because the satellite record shows that global warming has stopped.
The article to which he referred us was about how the satellite record showed that BOM had underestimated global warming.
How is this possible, when the satellite record shows global warming has stopped?
Easy. The clown who wrote the article, made up his own graphs.
This is the sort of rubbish the flea inflicts on us, when his obligation is to supply a reference to science to justify his baseless assertions. His ceaseless monologue of nonsense rarely has a reference to science, and when it does, it is pseudo-scince, like this article.
There is no science to show that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate, is there, flea?

Leo,
"The article to which he referred us was about how the satellite record showed that BOM had underestimated global warming.
How is this possible, when the satellite record shows global warming has stopped?"

It isn't. The satellite records conclusively disprove your claim that global warming has stopped.

Leo

If you watched the film clip referred you would have noted that a number of scientists discussed how a model is used to create inferred temperatures from satellite data.

We have weather stations, satelittess, and nature showing warming is going on.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2016/feb/11/checking-ted-cruzs-climate-science-denial-clangers

You should update yourself, aiden, there is no global warming:
“the new warming trend for 1900-2013 is still not significantly different from zero at the 90% confidence level. H/T, Pat Michaels)”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/03/even-though-warming-has-stopped-it-keeps-getting-worse/

Just try to understand that zero means none, aiden.
The flea contributes another piece of off topic nonsense to remind us of what a pest he is. What about the journalist who made up his own graphs to support a lie, to which you referred us? You consistently ignore anything relevant, but, of course, that is the only way a fraud supporter, like you, can participate.

You should think more about what you read, Leo, and stop restricting yourself to things that concur with your wishful thinking.

I'm well aware of what zero means.
I'm also aware that a blog post which fails to state what it means by "significant" is unlikely to be high enough quality to base a valid opinion on.
I'm also aware that the claim is based on dubious adjustments to the data.
I'm also aware that there doesn't have to be 90% confidence of something for it to be a serious threat.

I'm also aware of the great irony of you telling me to update myself, when 2015 was the hottest year on record. A blog post almost a year old, based on even older data, has been obviated by events. 'Tis time to update yourself, Leo. Of course it's harder for you to do so than most people, as the evidence that appears to support your fraud keeps getting sparser.

Leo

A quote from Dr Spencer's blog:

"Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels (mostly coal, petroleum, and natural gas) releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and this is believed to be enhancing the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. As of 2008, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 40% to 45% higher than it was before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800’s."

In 2008, Dr Spencer would not have had access to the 11 year ARM study which took data from the natural environment showing the impact of radiated infrared long waves on CO2.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm

Quote:

""Numerous studies show rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but our study provides the critical link between those concentrations and the addition of energy to the system, or the greenhouse effect," Feldman adds."

Feldman says that there is a 0.2 of a Watt increase per square meter per decade, seemingly a very small increase. However, the question arises; how many billions of square meters do we multiply that 0.2 Watt by to obtain a decadal increase?

The other interesting feature is that above the earth's greenhouse blanket there is cooling happening. Less warmth is escaping into outer space.

Dr Spencer believes implicitly in data from satellites; a quite recent paper showed that Oceans are warming. As indicated in a previously provided reference satellites take data from layers and then a model is used to translate the data. Ocean temperature changes very slowly due to their sheer volume (70% of Earth); they have a major influence on climate.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-01/uob-cco012516.php

A study of phytoplankton that supports Oceans are warming:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL066979/abstract

A science question:

Leo, how do you explain the break down of Greenland glaciers at a quickening rate?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/melting-greenland-ice-changing-ocean-circulation-earth-s-gravitational-field-1.343790

"Deniers keep saying satellite data is more accurate than temperature measured at weather stations."

Well since I don't say that I mustn't be a denier. whooohoo!

ALL of the official temperature records are guesses. Which one guesses the best at any particular point is unknowable and in the who-cares category. In terms of the hottest this or th warmest that, we are talking about small margins of difference that fall within the margin of error. Of coarse the MoE is also a guess.

Remember when we were told that 2014 was the then hottest year ever. A little later NASA admitted that they were only 38% sure that it was the hottest year because it was a guess.

They are all educated guesses because they are based on real data. But then the data is manipulated for myriad reasons. eg the Urban Heat-Island effect. No one doubts that the effect exists but the extent of value of the effect is unknown and therefore any adjustments to the original data are.....guesses. And not only is the current data altered but data from the 20th century is still be adjusted as and when it suits.

Again we are working on minute changes here such that even a small error in the adjustment algorithm will move a year from so-so to the hottest ever.

Remember the Gergis et al paper. Its now withdrawn because Steve McIntyre found so many errors in it. But before that Karoly and his pals were claiming that it showed that Asutralia was hotter than ever before. How much hotter? Well 0.09c hotter than 1417AD!!
And this was based on three proxy records that included one from Fiji. The point isn't the accuracy of the data but the headlines that ant and those like him fall for, over and over again.

So, are we warmer now than in 1934? Probably but I'm not sure. And if they were honest, neither is anyone else. And even if we are warmer, its by such a small amount that, except in these times of Gaia worship no one would notice and/or care.

According to the climate fraud supporters, each year as it arrives is “the hottest year on record”. The truth comes out shortly afterwards, and the fraud supporters announce that the next year will be “the hottest year ever”.The assertion on 2015 was just another fraud-promoting lie.
“Satellite temperature readings going back to 1979 show 1998 was by far the warmest year in the satellite era, followed by 2010. 2015 comes in third. And these results are only for the period since 1979.
2015 should have been warmer. This past year saw what is likelythe most powerful El Nino during the satellite temperature record. With a record El Nino, we should have experienced record high temperatures. Yet we didn’t.”

“it is not too difficult for activists to paint a picture of an exceptionally warm world – record El Nino or not – when they conveniently define “the record” as merely extending back to the late 1800s. Global warming activists do not extend “the record” back any further, they say, because it has only been since the late 1800s that we have had a global network of mercury thermometers. But we do have other reliable indicators of temperatures before the late 1800s, and the evidence shows temperatures have been warmer than today for most of the past several thousand years, including warmer-than-present temperatures for most of the human civilization time period.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2016/01/14/2015-was-not-even-close-to-hottest-year-on-record/#5b52fde423c6
Update yourself, aiden.

mhaze

The graph in attached article shows how NASA, NOAAA, Met Office, Cowan and Way and Berkley Earth all show the same trend in relation to temperature increase.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/record-hot-2015-glimpse-future-global-warming.html

The Japanese Meteorological Agency has stated that 2015 has been the warmest year on record and 2014 was the second warmest.

Nature has a habit of doing the same; for example positive temperatures in winter at Svalbard Airport around Christmas time. Svalbard is within the Arctic Circle and temperatures above 0C were measured, 20C above normal for a number of days.
Sea ice extent for the Arctic and Antarctic are low at present; lowest ever for Arctic since satellites have been used, and Antarctic sea ice is below the long term average at present.

Leo

James Taylor is employed by Heartlands which obtains funds to create doubt in relation to science. He is not a scientist.

http://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/james-taylor-2015-was-not-even-close-to-hottest-year-on-record/

Taylor has written garbage about sea ice extent as well just to show how unreliable his articles are:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/05/27/climate-skeptics-think-you-shouldnt-worry-about-melting-polar-ice-heres-why-theyre-wrong/

Sea ice extent can be obtained from:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

"The graph in attached article shows how NASA, NOAAA, Met Office, Cowan and Way and Berkley [sic] Earth all show the same trend in relation to temperature increase."

So what? They all use the same data. Some of them then do their own manipulations, some just configure it in different combinations. I get the impression that you really don't know how this works. At one point you were treating the fact that satellite data needs to be inferred as some major flaw, seemingly oblivious to the fact that ground based systems are altered much more and much more often that satellite data.

350 words is nowhere near enough to give you even a quick summary. But you need to know that vast areas of the planet aren't covered by weather stations and need to have their temperature values inferred (I call it guessing). Equally, many, particularly poorer nations, aren't all that vigilant in maintaining their temperature records nor the actual weather station. Experiments have shown that a poorly maintained station can be in error by up to 2c.

Its a vast area of study which is no closer to an answer than it was 20 years ago when John Daly and Watts started talking about how problematic the world's weather station data was.

But the committed aren't interested in nuance. So long as the data tells the right story, that's good enough. And if it doesn't just wait a year or two and some new way will be found to recalibrate the raw data such that it DOES tell the correct story.

In the meantime it all remains guesses and it tells us precisely nothing about the cause of whatever increase is postulated and it tells us nothing about whatever increase is forecast.

The flea, in relation to James Taylor’s purpose states it is:” to create doubt in relation to science..”
What science would that be, flea? Refer us to the science which shows any measurable human effect on climate. You have no science upon which to cast doubt. Your support for the climate fraud is based solely on your dishonesty, and you ignore all requests to refer us to any science to justify your position
Claiming that 2015 was the “hottest year on record” is fraud promoting nonsense;
“ government spokespeople rarely mention the inconvenient fact that these records are being set by less than the uncertainty in the statistics. NOAA claims an uncertainty of 14 one-hundredths of a degree in its temperature averages, or near twice the amount by which they say the record was set.NASA says that their data is typically accurate to one tenth of a degree, five times the amount by which their new record was set.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/23/tom-harris-global-warming-deceptive-temperature-re/

mhaze

You forgot to mention JMA which has a slightly different starting point.
You mentioned satellite inferred temperature and weather stations; but, not how nature is showing changes.

What does lack of sea ice extent suggest?
8C temperature was measured at Svalbard Airport during winter; it is normally a significant minus temperature.
Over the last years there have been a number of anomalies.

Leo

The JMA were the first to notify us that 2015 was the warmest year on record.
Its a bit odd that 1998 is continually held as the year when temperatures were at their highest; yet, 2015 an El Nino year, isn't.
Like James Taylor, Tom Harris belongs to a denier Agency; the International Climate Science Coalition , prior to that he was a lobbyist for Energy Companies.

James Taylor and Tom Harris get paid to try and confuse climate science.

I'd be very interested in having rain bombs explained by deniers, its not a technical term but aptly explains huge amounts of rain falling in a short time frame. The flooding of South Carolina, and flooding of the Atacama Desert being examples of many instances.

I didn't forget JMA, ant. I just don't take much notice of it. You need to learn that all these organisations use the same data just configured in different ways. That they end up with roughly the same results is significant only to those who want it to be significant.

Much more significant is that satellite data and balloon data, independently obtained, largely agree. That's not conclusive of anything really, but much more convincing than GISS agreeing with Cowtan or whatever.

ant,

You keep demanding that I respond to this or that piece of anomaly data that you stumble across in your trolling of alarmist websites but ignore and just pass over any facts I advance that don't correspondence with your we're-all-gunna-die alarmism. Temperature data are guesses as demonstrated by the admission that NOAA was only 38% sure that 2014 was the then warmist year. Address that.

As to ice...there is this unstated belief among the alarmists that somehow every change is for the worst. We started measuring ice in 1979. Alarmist think that, magically, whatever the ice extent then was 'normal' and any change is both abnormal and caused by man. But who knows that it was normal. Maybe the ice extent in 1979 was abnormal and the past 30years has just been a return to normal. No one knows for sure, but the alarmist doesn't bother with such doubt, going from one unsupported assumption to another unsupported assumption.

The same goes for temperatures. The assumption is that temperatures in 1850 were normal and any increase is abnormal. But even alarmist paleo-climatologists admit that temperature over the past 11000 years has been higher than present 25% of the time. Somehow species survived those higher temperatures, the world didn't flood, man survived, glaciers advanced and retreated. If we survived temperatures 2c above now in Minoan times how much better suited are we to do so now.

But there is this disease of presentism. What conditions are presently are normal and any change from that is to lamented. But its just a lack of imagination and a lack of historic understanding.

mhaze

I do not stumble or troll for material I present, it either comes to me via email; or via Facebook; a completely wrong supposition on your part again.
An interesting theory on conspiracy in relation to the measurement of temperature; we have Japan, USA, Britain, Cowan and Way, and Berkeley Earth all involved in fiddling with data according to you.

http://berkeleyearth.org/about/

http://climatecrocks.com/2015/01/09/richard-muller-i-was-wrong-on-global-warming/

On every front; mhaze, you try to minimalist what the science is saying; yet, offer nothing convincing in return.

If you are going to make claims please present citations

The flea has tried to mislead again by taking something said by Spencer out of context and giving an incorrect link. I will give the correct link below. Reminiscent of when the flea lied about what Judith Curry said.
Spencer also said:” Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that mankind is responsible for that warming. This website describes evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/
This just reminds the flea that any assertion that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate is dishonest.

Leo

I went to the reference you gave previously and looked further into what Dr Spencer was saying on his blog.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/

Funny how it is inconvenient when somebody delves further into a reference you provided.

Confirmation that CO2 and radiated infrared long waves create warmth:

"The scientists used incredibly precise spectroscopic instruments operated by the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility, a DOE Office of Science User Facility. These instruments, located at ARM research sites in Oklahoma and Alaska, measure thermal infrared energy that travels down through the atmosphere to the surface. They can detect the unique spectral signature of infrared energy from CO2."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm

ant,

"...all involved in fiddling with data according to you."

Nowhere have I said the data is being fiddled. Never said, don't believe it.
As we've seen in other threads, when cornered you just make stuff up.
And stuff-up is a phrase you'd be well used to.
But I do think there is an element of confirmation bias in the way the raw data is homogenised. For example if you are a believer in AGW and you design algorithms to take account of say UHIE which show a cooling, you are most likely to assume the algorithms are faulty and to rework them. But if they show a warming, then you'll assume they're right and not seek further confirmation. Hence, confirmation bias.

I'm not sure what I've said above that you need to see citations for. I've not mentioned anything that ought not to known to anyone who was aware of the full story. The problem I find is that many people only like to read one side of the story and thereby are oblivious to other data. I guess you are an example of that.

One thing you might find controversial is my noting that "even alarmist paleo-climatologists admit that temperature over the past 11000 years has been higher than present 25% of the time." This comes from Marcott et al 2013 which found that " Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history."

Somehow, the world and civilisation survived those warmer periods. Given the scare-mongering that goes on these days, that must be a real puzzle for the dedicated alarmist and explains why they prefer to ignore it.

The flea, because he has no science to support his fraudulent assertions, uses scurrilous, untrue defamation of anyone who tells the truth about climate.
He was saved the trouble, and has referred us to the lies about Ted Cruz prepared by the journalist, Graham Readfern, a well known climate liar. I enumerate Readfern’s lies, in the article:
1. The ship of fools led by scientist Chris Turney was not stuck in the Antarctic ice because they believed that the ice would be melted.
2. The hottest year on record was 2015.Absolute nonsense.
3. That Cruz was wrong to say in the 1970s “you had Liberal politicians and scientists who were talking about global cooling” Readfern sets out facts in his article which prove Cruz is correct
4. He says Cruz is incorrect to say that climate change is a religion. There is no science to support it, so it must be based on faith.
Readfern’s lies are better organised than the flea’s, but just as disgraceful and toxic.

mhaze

It is quite often that deniers say that temperature records have been fiddled with.

Berkeley Earth is a private Agency; Richard Muller, a Physicist was skeptical of how temperature was measured, he was partially funded by Charles Koch to research the matter. Much to the chagrin of deniers he concluded that temperature measured by official Agencies was quite accurate.

Paleoclimatologists indicate that temperatures were not warmer in previous historic times. However, in past epochs prior to human existence, temperatures were higher; and CO2 levels were high at times after periods of high volcanic action.

As the ARM 11 year study shows, when higher levels of CO2 are created in the atmosphere then extra warmth is created.

Leo

Cruz obtains donations from mining companies and has investments in mining companies.

Science does not support what you say; Leo, if it did you would be able to provide up to date citations.
You play with words; rather than provide evidence.
You suggest that 2015 was not the warmest year; where is your evidence?
The El Nino year of 1997/8 has been used as a bench mark by deniers to say warming has not happened; consequently, 2015 needs to be debunked as the edifice of the denier argument goes down the drain.

Two recently published papers have indicated that Oceans are warming; the papers used different methodologies to show that to be the case. Oceans have an impact on climate; due to their sheer volume they take a long time to either warm or cool.
Interestingly there is a cool spot developing South of Greenland; why is that the case Leo?

You have stated I lied about Judith Curry; I quoted a tweet she had published.
Quoting WUWT or James Taylor are not rigorous citations. The best you have come up with is a citation from Dr Spencer.
Science is constantly moving forward as old views are shown to be wrong. That applies to all branches of science; a hypothesis is made and then gets proven wrong. The ARM study showed how comments Dr Spencer made in 2008 had been superseded.

No science from you, flea, just more scurrilous, dishonest defamation.
If you have any science to contradict Cruz, let us have it. I gave the reference to show that 2015 was not the hottest year on record, so you are lying again, when you say I gave no reference.I repeat the reference:
“ these records are being set by less than the uncertainty in the statistics. NOAA claims an uncertainty of 14 one-hundredths of a degree in its temperature averages, or near twice the amount by which they say the record was set.NASA says that their data is typically accurate to one tenth of a degree, five times the amount by which their new record was set.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/23/tom-harris-global-warming-deceptive-temperature-re/’
Where is your reference to any science, flea, to support your fraud promoting nonsense? Where is the science upon which you rely to show any measurable human effect on climate?

Leo

It is not that long ago that ExxonMobil executives stated that the science of climate science is valid; something their scientists in the 1970s and 1980s had agreed on.

A major British paper which has assessed climate change risk:

http://www.csap.cam.ac.uk/media/uploads/files/1/climate-change--a-risk-assessment-v11.pdf

This is the kind of material you say is lies, Leo.

The flea states:” This is the kind of material you say is lies, Leo”
That is an untrue statement, flea, a lie.. I do not say that, I say that none of it is scientific proof, and Exxon Mobil’s unsound belief in climate change is not scientific proof.
You need to refer us to science which shows that human emissions have a measurable effect on climate, not point to someone asserting an unsupported and erroneous belief.
You cannot be as stupid as you pretend to be, flea, which is why I find you dishonest.

Leo

You stated: "...Exxon Mobil’s unsound belief in climate change is not scientific proof...."
Scientists working for ExxonMobil wrote papers that supported the the scientific consensus.

Leo you have previously stated that: "... Claiming that 2015 was the “hottest year on record” is fraud promoting nonsense;
“ government spokespeople rarely mention the inconvenient fact that these records are being set by less than the uncertainty in the statistics. NOAA claims an uncertainty of 14 one-hundredths of a degree in its temperature averages...."

Already in early December 2015, many were commenting that 2015 would be the warmest year recorded on the basis that measures of temperature of prior months had significantly increased. The probability of not reaching a record in 2015 when commented on in December were extremely remote. The increase was not in hundredths of a degree, as you intimated Leo.
December 2015 was when ski fields in Europe did not have enough snow for skiers, people in New York were able to be outside in T shirts at Christmas time, and temperatures in the Arctic Circle were for a short period being measured above freezing (Svalbard Airport).

Quote:

"Climate projections of the future need to be placed in the context of our understanding of the climate system. We have a clear and longstanding knowledge of the basic physics that tell us increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases are expected to warm the planet.10 We know that the planet has warmed over recent decades and that this warming is unusual compared to the expected natural variations.11 This can be explained by the extra energy accumulated in the climate system."

From:

http://www.csap.cam.ac.uk/media/uploads/files/1/climate-change--a-risk-assessment-v11.pd

The kind of paper you claim is not science , Leo.

ant,

Frankly ant I have decided to give up on you. You aren't interested in open discussion but in simply regurgitating what you hope is true as though its fact.

This is the second time I've caught you out just asserting someone has said something which they didn't say. And on both occasions you've tried to justify your outright fabrication on the basis that some deniers think it therefore all deniers think it. So, since some deniers think temperature records are falsified, mhaze, being a denier (according to ant) also thinks it and therefore its fine to accuse him of saying it.

The first time you did this most dishonest of deeds I assumed it was an error and you just weren't courageous enough to own up. But now its obviously a pattern. Its juvenile in the extreme and about as dishonest as it gets.

Additionally we see that you really aren't interested in 'the science' only that part of it which supports your screwy assertions. For example you wrote "Paleoclimatologists indicate that temperatures were not warmer in previous historic times."

That my boy is arrant rubbish and doubly so since I'd just linked, at your request, to a study that said the exact opposite. But I understand your problem. If temperature in the past 10000 years were higher than now, then half of what you consider to be your research is out the window. So you just assert the truth is what you want it to be rather than what it is.

As to the ARM 11 year study that you keep refering to as though its a killer blow to sceptics...well you'll be please to know that sceptics don't and, for the main part, never have doubted that CO2 has some warming effect. But you wouldn't know that because you only read approved texts. The issue is how much warming does it cause and does this out-weigh the negative feedbacks.

Leo,

ant tells you that "Scientists working for ExxonMobil wrote papers that supported the the scientific consensus."

They actually didn't. He made that up. Surprised?

Leo

The listed Royal Society papers are not science according to you, as climate change is discussed:

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/cc/species-on-the-move-from-royal-society-publishing

mhaze

Deniers have had to shift from a strident climate change isn't happening; some suggest that the planet is cooling, while others say there is change though not happening at the rate the science is stating.
mhaze, about 2 years ago I spent quite a lot of time researching historic temperature in comparison to contemporary temperature.

https://youtu.be/AD16nCsvjqs

In relation to papers written by ExxonMobil scientists I came across a list of papers that the scientists had written. There was extensive research done on ExxonMobil by Inside Climate News, Los Angeles Times and Union of Concerned Scientists. ExxonMobil is being investigated for criminal activity as it has been alleged they have misled financial the market through their scientists in the 1970s and 1980s saying that man was impacting on climate and executives were funding denier groups. ExxonMobil even rigged up an oil tanker to better understand climate science.

Elsewhere I mentioned how ExxonMobil Scientists had modelled the breakdown of sea ice in the Arctic which has been found to be quite accurate.

Deniers have tried to down play the ARM research which showed in a pragmatic way that CO2 and radiated infrared long wave do react. Words down playing the ARM research are meaningless, you need arguments incorporating Physics and Mathematics. Deniers have no such fundamental principle.

notice it was about 17 degrees today in Melbourne and 15 in Hobart. Oh well I suppose it only makes the news when you get a hot day in summer. The long hot summer that is predicted every year.

The flea says:” Royal Society papers are not science according to you, as climate change is discussed:”

This is not only a lie, but a stupid lie. I have mentioned, on more than one occasion, that the Royal Society, after its statement that climate change was human caused, was forced by its own membership to issue a revised statement acknowledging all of the uncertainties in relation to the climate change science.Its current statement does this. The superseded staements were wrong. I am not going to check whether the flea included them in his list.
The flea established at the outset that he has no science to support his backing of the assertion of human caused climate change, and his position is based solely on his dishonesty.
As I have said before, he is not fit to participate in rational or properly conducted discussion. He is incapable of sensible or honest response, and his boorish conduct nullifies any value of his contribution, in the doubtful possibility that it had any value.
He mentions some “research” he did by reading the lies in “Inside Climate News” Even the headlines in that scurrilous paper were lies. The ideal source for the flea

Which particular 'statement' would that be Leo?

Surely not the current Climate Communique?

https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/Publications/2015/21-07-15-climate-communique.PDF

FYI this communique is endorsed by 24 scientific societies and organisations from the UK.

Leo

You are very amusing.

You suggest what has been researched by the Royal Society, NASA, NOAA, CSIRO et at, and the numerous Universities involved with climate science research are wrong.

You were quite a bit out in relation to 2015 temperature increase:

https://youtu.be/iEjM5yytgg0

Admiral Titley, had been a skeptic in relation to climate change; in a clip he explains issues in relation to satellites:

https://youtu.be/iEjM5yytgg0

The flea has made up something else to assert that I said:” You suggest what has been researched by the Royal Society, NASA, NOAA, CSIRO et at, and the numerous Universities involved with climate science research are wrong. “
No, flea, that is a lie.
The flea has no correct procedure for anything he does on the list. I set out his precise words, if I comment on something he says.
He makes up an untruthful, commentary version of what he asserts I said.
His misconduct and ignorance show him to be unfit to participate in reasonable discourse. Nothing he asserts is to be believed.

Leo

As said before, you are amusing.
So when challenged you try and duck and weave; yet, favourite words you use are "fraud" and "lies" in relation to climate science. Those who accept climate science are "fraud supporters".
It is very easy to check, all people need to do is access your user details page.

Your ad homemen attacks are a red flag that you have nothing to offer.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/global-temperatures-leap-higher-in-january-smashing-records-20160215-gmuv8f.html#ixzz40IOyk2j6

"mhaze, about 2 years ago I spent quite a lot of time researching historic temperature in comparison to contemporary temperature. "

Well if that's true, you must have come across Marcott et al which was the premier record of Holocene temperatures at that time. Yet now you reject it for no apparent reason other than it doesn't support your religious views.

Marcott13 had a number of problems with its data and presentation which had to be resolved and fixed in later amendments. But none of those had anything to do with the early Holocene temperature data. Rejecting it is the victory of hope over fact - you hope its wrong but don't have any idea how to factually justify that hope.

Leo

Via Facebook, even flora and fauna are committing fraud:

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/opinion/talking-point-scientists-reveal-life-on-the-move-on-rapidly-warming-planet/news-story/bebdcffe28ae669b32df86a75c72e9b1

The flea says:” favourite words you use are "fraud" and "lies" in relation to climate science. Those who accept climate science are "fraud supporters".
Those who accept climate science, which is that human emissions have no measurable effect on climate, are truth supporters. People like the flea, who have no science to support their position are supporting a fraud.
Where is the science to show that there is a measurable human effect on climate, flea?
You have no science but have the brazen, baseless, dishonest temerity to use the term “denier”. How can non-existent science be denied? Yet another of your lies, flea

mhaze, I typed “Marcott climate change” into Google, this is the first entry.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/marcott-hockey-stick-real-skepticism.html

It is a fairly common occurrence that deniers often misunderstand a paper ( e.g. isoprene ), or misrepresent a paper by cherry picking.

The hockey stick view of temperature change Dr Mann created has been investigated a number of times and vindicated. Dr Mann has stated that far more sophisticated subsequent studies have shown the same conclusions that he had derived.

http://grist.org/climate-skeptics/2011-08-22-climate-scientist-michael-mann-quietly-vindicated-for-the-umptee/http://grist.org/climate-skeptics/2011-08-22-climate-scientist-michael-mann-quietly-vindicated-for-the-umptee/

In trying to retrieve a document which had Professor North’s investigation vindicate Dr Mann, I came across a World Meteorological Organisation document:

http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/wcdmp/documents/wmo_1152_en.pdf

Think Progress reports that January 2016 has been the warmest recorded:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/02/16/3749815/carbon-pollution-hottest-12-months-january/

Leo

Thank you for proving my point with your last spray.

The origin of CO2 can be identified by its isotopes.
The relationship between CO2 and radiated infrared long waves has been established.

So ant,

You claimed to have spent a deal of time two years ago looking into the issue of historic temperatures, but, miraculously, were blissfully unaware of the most important paper on Holocene temperatures of the last decade. Does anyone see a flaw there?

So then, you decide to belatedly look in Marcott et al 2013 which in your terms involves reading a Google headline about the paper. Some people might think it might be important to actually make some effort to read the paper or just some portion of it. But those people would be interested in getting the fatcs and ant isn't. ant is anxious to find some way to avoid the facts that doesn't suit.

So based on what has to be called the most inane checking of the paper ant decides I've misunderstood it. What a dill.

ant, the quote I showed above (I won't repeat it cos you really don't care anyway) ...that quote was directly from the abstract of the paper. So if I misunderstood the paper then so did Marcott and his pals. But then they didn't read the Google headlines so maybe they didn't understand what they wrote. What a dill.

fin

mhaze

There are literally thousands of peer reviewed papers published in relation to climate change every year. Deniers have given the Marcott metal paper undue emphasis after misinterpreting its content.
The second entry from Google :

Quote:

"The study... confirms the now famous “hockey stick” graph that Michael Mann published more than a decade ago. That study showed a sharp upward temperature trend over the past century after more than a thousand years of relatively flat temperatures. . .

“What’s striking,” said lead author Shaun Marcott of Oregon State University in an interview, “is that the records we use are completely independent, and produce the same result.”"

From:

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/fixing-marcott-mess-in-climate-science.html

A quote from Marcott's paper:

"Our global temperature reconstruction for the past 1500 years is indistinguishable within uncertainty from the Mann et al. (2) reconstruction; both reconstructions document a cooling trend from a warm interval (~1500 to 1000 yr B.P.) to a cold interval (~500 to 100 yr B.P.), which is approximately equivalent to the Little Ice Age (Fig. 1A). This similarity confirms that published temperature reconstructions of the past two millennia capture long-term variability, despite their short time span (3, 12, 13). Our median estimate of this long-term cooling trend is somewhat smaller than in Mann et al. (2) though, which may reflect our bias toward marine and lower-latitude records."

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html

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

ant,

I could walk you through the various criticisms of Marcott2013 which resulted in them issuing addenda to the original paper and finally admitting that the devices they used to get a HS were invalid and ought not be relied upon. But that would presuppose that you were interested in getting to the truth and we both know that's not going to happen.

But the original point was that temperatures over the past 11000 yrs were higher than now 25% of the time. That was my point and I used Marcott2013 as one piece of evidence to support that. There is plenty of other papers and databases making the same point. You simply asserted the opposite, have not attempted in the slightest to refute what Marcott himself said about past temperatures, have not bothered to read the actual paper and have provided not a skerrick of evidence to support you ludicrous assertions that Marcott/my original point was wrong. Nothing.

You are exactly the type of disciple the AGW movement lives off. Someone who believes everything he is told that suits the 'theory' without bothering to check for himself, and searches for any reason to reject things that don't suit no matter how silly or anti-intellectual those reasons might be.

mhaze

Your last post was somewhat patronising.

As stated there are thousands of peer reviewed papers published each year in relation to climate change, the science of climate change does not hang on whether Dr Mann's hockey stick is debunked.
However, as shown a number of studies have agreed with Dr Mann's conclusions as shown in the second diagram of reference.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/11/30/mcintyre-mission-obsessive-quest-disprove-michael-mann-hockey-stick

The arguments about the hockey stick are being recycled again, meanwhile the climate is changing.

The fundamental principle that CO2 and infrared radiation react has not been touched. Just saying it is not a strong effect is meaningless without showing proven Physics to support the view.
The sun is in a dimming phase at present, climate should be cooling. Yet two very recent papers using different strategies show that the Oceans are warming.

Interestingly even though it is still winter in the USA the weather forecast is for high temperatures and there are fire warnings currently put out for Oklahoma, Texas and Colorado.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/18/us/warm-weather-february/index.html

Oklahoma and Texas over the last years have been hit by severe drought, severe flooding and now are at risk of fire at the end of their winter period.

Tasmania has had severe continuing fires, a sub alpine area that hasn't been hit by fires for over a thousand years has been destroyed, there had been severe flooding, and smoke from the fires has lingered for weeks exceptionally unprecedented . All very unusual compared to past fires. The Mercury, Fairfax papers and a number of online papers have discussed the Tasmanian fires. The fires were almost solely started by dry lightening strikes, an unknown phenomena in Tasmania.

http://gizmodo.com/a-global-tragedy-is-unfolding-in-tasmania-1758130617?utm_medium=sharefromsite&utm_source=Gizmodo_facebook

http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/earth-on-fire-a-catalyst-special/SQ1398H001S00

Latest news about temperature for January 2016 and the state of the Arctic:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/02/18/scientists-are-floored-by-whats-happening-in-the-arctic-right-now/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_green

ant,

"Your last post was somewhat patronising. "

That's not true. My last post was COMPLETELY patronising. Lets' face it, this thread hasn't been your finest moment.

So far you've:

* been found out just wantonly fabricating quotes,
* making claims about special knowledge that you clearly didn't have
* made assertions about paleo-climate data which were utterly wrong
* refused to even try to provide evidentiary support for those wrong claims
* refused to read a paper which demonstrated that your claims were wrong
* asserted that the author of that paper didn't understand his own paper

And then laughably you claim to follow the science.

mhaze

i'd be very interested in the quotes that I have made up.
As you would realise by cutting and pasting quotes to Google you can find the source.
Deniers provide very few references, those they do produce have often have no scientific merit, e.g. Taylor, Watts, Jo Nova, and Monckton.

You are not able to debunk the ARM 11 year study, Physics.
The references I provide are often completely up to date.
I read the science and thats where whatever I write stems from.

mhaze, you do not have science to support you so now resort to personal attack.

This and another similar article came my way today:

http://robertscribbler.com/2016/02/18/no-winter-for-the-arctic-in-2016-nasa-marks-hottest-january-ever-recorded/

The Arctic is plainly in quite a mess.

The other article about the Arctic:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/02/18/scientists-are-floored-by-whats-happening-in-the-arctic-right-now/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_green

References to Oceans warming:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-01/uob-cco012516.php

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/18/world-oceans-warming-faster-rate-new-study-fossil-fuels?CMP=soc_567

Phytoplankton are dying in the Indian Ocean, warmth seen to be the reason:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/phytoplankton-rapidly-disappearing-indian-ocean

This also arrived today:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/02/17/warming-oceans-are-turning-sea-stars-to-goo-and-killing-lobsters-scientists-say/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_green

Star fish and lobsters are dying due to warm waters.

mhaze

I wondered about you suggesting that I had fabricated a quote, it came from Science, your need to be registered with them before being able to access papers two or more years old.

You could register; and find the truth in what iI have stated.

This is the quote:

"Our global temperature reconstruction for the past 1500 years is indistinguishable within uncertainty from the Mann et al. (2) reconstruction; both reconstructions document a cooling trend from a warm interval (~1500 to 1000 yr B.P.) to a cold interval (~500 to 100 yr B.P.), which is approximately equivalent to the Little Ice Age (Fig. 1A). This similarity confirms that published temperature reconstructions of the past two millennia capture long-term variability, despite their short time span (3, 12, 13). Our median estimate of this long-term cooling trend is somewhat smaller than in Mann et al. (2) though, which may reflect our bias toward marine and lower-latitude records.""

From:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/339/6124/1198.full.pdf?sid=bddc088d-11d5-4ac8-a40a-f4aae6733cd4

Join Science and see who needs to apologise.

mhaze

To make it easier to register with the Science Journal, it is published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Google: Science AAAS

A few interesting references received today via email and Facebook:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-02-17/global-warming-crushes-records-again

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasmania/time-to-protect-a-global-treasure/news-story/ff5986aa6159d495de1c1a04554992ff

https://cage.uit.no/news/ice-age-blob-of-warm-ocean-water-discovered-south-of-greenland/

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/02/19/3750787/republican-clean-energy-pac/

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/feb/19/republicans-favorite-climate-chart-has-some-serious-problems

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/02/18/kiribati-president-climate-induced-migration-is-5-years-away/?utm_term=0_29c928ffb5-2643c430f3-327786693&utm_content=bufferbb150&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

http://grist.org/business-technology/big-oil-could-be-hit-with-a-wave-of-oil-company-bankruptcies/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feedgrist

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/arctic-sea-ice-record-low-again-20044?utm_content=buffer1b125&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

http://mashable.com/2016/02/19/cyclone-winston-threatens-to-devastate-fiji/#T9YyoB4TvqqI

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/weather/seattle-breaks-winter-rain-record-set-in-1999/?utm_content=buffer748d1&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=owned_buffer

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-congress-shell-climate-change-20160218-story.html

An extremely interesting interview with a Geologist, arrived yesterday:

http://nautil.us/issue/33/attraction/why-our-intuition-about-sea_level-rise-is-wrong

All of those references have come to my inbox in the last 24 hours, except for the last.

ant,

You fabricated claims about what I'd said and haven't once tried to disavow or disprove that.

ant, I feel that you are honest in your beliefs which is why I keep trying. Its just that you aren't open to other views or conclusions. That attitude is clearly unscientific since a proper scientific approach always has to allow that the hypothesis is wrong. You don't make such allowance.

Its all very well for you to regurgitate every instance of unusual weather that comes your way but it means nothing. As you've (hopefully) learned in the last few days, temperatures in the Holocene have very often been higher than now. (No need to thank me for teaching you this truth).

So if these unusual events are caused by higher temperatures then they have occurred before when temperatures were also higher. If, for example, lobsters survived the Minoan warm period, they'll survive the current warm period. After a quarter century of these false claims of imminent extinction of species from polar bears to frogs to monarch butterflies, surely we'll come to realise that none of these extinctions will occur at anything like the temperatures predicted for this century. These creatures and ecologies have survived previous warm periods and they'll do so again. Kiribati didn't go under during the Roman warm period and won't go under this time. Droughts occurred, floods occurred but they presumably occurred in other warm phases.

So just listing unusual events is pointless. You ought to think about it and think about what things might cause you to question the hypothesis. If there is nothing then its no longer science for you but religion. I suspect that's the case.

mhaze

Comments you would not expect from Christy and Spencer:

"Every month University of Alabama in Huntsville climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer publish global temperature trend data derived from NOAA satellite measurements. Their latest analysis finds that January, 2016 was the warmest first month of the year since satellite data began to be reported in 1978. January's global average temperature was +0.54 degrees Celsius above the 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported. The next warmest Januarys occurred in 1998 (+0.49°C) and 2010 (+0.48°C)."

From:

http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/05/hottest-january-in-satellite-temperature

I was skeptical, and so did use Google:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/02/uah-v6-global-temperature-update-for-january-2016-0-54-deg-c/

Listing unusual events supports the views what scientists are saying is happening with climate.
Unusual weather circumstances have been happening for a couple of decades. The Catalyst film I referenced discusses how the nature of fires has changed.

You have said you are a lukewarmer from memory; yet, try to constantly create as much doubt as possible which equals denier.

As usual in relation to this article, I have found references provided by deniers are not as substantive as being made out.

So I see that you are just going to pretend that these temperatures are unusual and haven't happened before during the Holocene. Just ignoring data isn't the scientific way.

Is it hotter now than any time in the last 800 years? Probably.
Is it hotter now than any time in the last 10000 years? No.
What caused those hotter temps in the past? Natural variations.
What caused the hotter temps now? A combination of natural variations and somewhat enhanced CO2 levels. In that order.
Did species and civilisation survive those higher past temp? Obviously yes.
Will they survive the current high temps? Obviously yes.

I may be a lukewarmer depending on what you mean by that.
I may be a denier depending on what you mean by that. What am I suppose to deny?

"Unusual weather circumstances have been happening for a couple of decades. " Not just the last few decades....forever. That's the nature of climate. The Thames froze in the 1600s...was that usual or unusual? Greenland was green in the 1000s...was that usual?

" the nature of fires has changed"
IS that due to warming? If yes then they must have changed before when the temps were this high. So you can call it changing...and I can call it going back to the way they were - and we're both right.

But if you are determined to ignore the science about past temps then you are condemned to misunderstand the nature of these changes.

Bugsy, your link was wrong, you are quite inept at Google. Try this one
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/this-issue/climate-change/royal-society-issues-revised-statement-on-climate-change.html
The Royal Society, after a complaint from its members about its assertion of human caused climate change, issued a less dishonest statement.

mhaze

You stated ... "Is it hotter now than any time in the last 10000 years? No." "NO" being In response to my earlier comments.

Where are your citations about past temperatures, one or two papers do not prove your case.
Please provide appropriate URLs.

Comments from an Astro Physicist on misunderstanding and misusing science from my FB page.

http://www.techinsider.io/category/ndgt-explains-everything

Further articles popped up on Facebook today, with another article was about the continuing drought in California, it has only slightly eased in some areas. The expectation had been that with El Nino they would get high levels of precipitation; which had seemed likely weeks ago.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/us-drought-monitor-update-february-16-2016

WUWT is arguing about the graph of Arctic sea ice, they have inverted the graph shown in reference below; they have placed the line defined as "you are here" on top side of graph. A discredited program being used to obtain result.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/arctic-sea-ice-record-low-again-20044?utm_content=buffera2987&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

http://greatwhitecon.info/2016/02/global-sea-ice-extent-at-lowest-ever-level/

The WUWT graph is a joke, temperature records and records of storms makes it completely impossible for the WUWT graph to be credible, more than two standard deviations out.

A further article about lobsters:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/grub-street/climate-change-is-decimat_b_9277194.html

It is not only glacial ice that is disappearing (FB):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/grub-street/climate-change-is-decimat_b_9277194.html

Drought in Africa:

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/event-tracker/not-so-rainy-season-drought-southern-africa-january-2016

Well, I for one am impressed that it only took you 5 days to dig up that particular fossil Leo. I bow to the Google master.

If by 'wrong' you mean 'more current', then I would agree with you. However, how could it be 'wrong' when you never specified which 'statement' you were referring to in the first place? The Royal Society puts out a lot of statements, you know.

My link was to one of them, one that was put out last year, what year was the one you were referring to Leo?

What a joke! The flea demanding references to the science relied upon, and saying “one or two papers do not prove your case.Please provide appropriate URLs.”
This from an ignoramus who has no science to justify his support of the baseless “human caused climate change”. No science, much less urls.
All references from the flea are in respect of extreme weather events not shown to have any causal link or in respect of warming attributed to human emissions, despite the fact that he has no science to show any measurable human effect on climate.This
Is the ignoramus demanding references to science. He referred us to an article by a journalist about whom a scientist has written an article:
” You've heard of pseudoscience, of course. Well, Chris Mooney is a pseudoscientific writer. He twists and bends and remolds data any way he can to come to the "proper" conclusion.”
https://cei.org/blog/yes-pseudoscience-writer-chris-mooney-dishonest

Yes, Chris Mooney is a great find for the flea.

Leo

You are a comedian.

When you can provide evidence that the 11 year ARM study which measured CO2 interaction with radiated infrared long waves then you may have a point. The source of CO2 can be identified. In the past I have provided a reference directed at children in relation to isotopes.

Science AAAS publishes science papers from a great number of science disciplines, it is a premier source of science papers and includes papers in relation to climate science.

You say you were a lawyer; and so, have no expertise in saying what is science and what is not.
Climate science has Physics and Chemistry as its basis.

I always look forward to your nonsense comments.

ant,

One paper might not be enough to satisfy you since you really don't want it to be true. Very scientific approach! Might I point out that you haven't offered one skerrick of evidence to justify your claim that "Paleoclimatologists indicate that temperatures were not warmer in previous historic times." Not a passing attempt at even fudging a defence of that most ridiculous of assertions. Very scientific approach!

You want more proof? OK:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

1. (dark blue) Sediment core ODP 658,
2. (blue) Vostok ice core, Petit J. R et al
3. (light blue) GISP2 ice core, Alley, R. B et al
4 (green) Kilimanjaro ice core, δ18O, Thompson, L. G.et al
5. (yellow) Sediment core PL07-39PC,North Atlantic: Lea, D. W.et al
6. (orange) Pollen distributions, Europe: B. A. S. Davis et al
7. (red) EPICA ice core, EPICA community members (2004)
8. (dark red) Composite sediment cores, Western Tropical Pacific: L. D. Stott et al

The black line is the average of the others.

I'd call it convincing.You'd call it inconvenient and therefore you'll pretend it doesn't exist. Still it'll be fun to see what gymnastics you go through to try to convince yourself that you have adopted a scientific approach to this inconvenient data. The one thing we can be sure of is this new (for you) data won't cause you to even think twice about your religious beliefs.

I'll wait to see your counter URLs. As if....

mhaze

You need to provide peer reviewed papers to support your graph.
The graph is meant to say"Your wrong". A graph from a denier is pretty meaningless; Monckton has produced some humdingers in the past and has been caught out.

Thompson L et al is one of the references you provided, Lonnie Thompson believes firmly that anthropogenic climate change is happening. He had been interviewed for the series Denial 101x.
Lonnie Thompson's name was recognised through having done the course.

So much more information about the graph is needed, though climate science does not hang on the point you are trying to make.

Actually ant, I don't need to provide you with more peer reviewed data. So far I've provided you with the MArcott 2013 paper and now this graph which summaries 8 different raw temperature databases for the period in question. I could provide you with the peer reviewed studies for each of the databases but that'd be futile since you really aren't interested in the facts anyway.

The graph isn't mine. Its been put together by wikimedia from the data in each of the studies in question.

I appreciate that you don't want it to be true and will therefore pretend it isn't. So be it. Frankly, the fact you didn't know any of this simply shows how superficial has been your 'research' on climate matters. Childish even.

I note that you still haven't been able to provide ANY evidence that might support your initial ludicrous claims but will leave it there

mhaze

If that is what you rest your case on then it is very pathetic. Wikipedia is not a stringent peer reviewed reference; metaphorically bugs bunny could have provided the graph.

Just lately, a well known climate scientist has stated the El Nino we have experienced was not a strong one; he stated that it has been the strong greenhouse effect that has mostly caused all the damage around the planet. Without any kind of peer reviewed paper written, his comment is neither proven nor disproven, its in limbo.
The same status as your stand alone graph.

We have discussed the Marcott paper previously; I gave a quote from Science AAAS, which you stated was fraudulent, have you registered with Science AAAS to check the quote out?

You did not comment on the WUWT inverted graph of Arctic sea ice extent, mhaze.
It is complete garbage.

Something else to consider the number of Category 5 cyclones that have been experienced and when in time they impacted.
The sun is in a dimming phase at present which means the climate should have cooled; however, even Drs Spence and Christy have indicted temperature has increased. A reference has been provided earlier.

Video titled " HOW CO2 TRAPS SUN'S WARMTH "

http://thiniceclimate.org/blog/details/1906/how-co2-traps-sun39s-warmth

The flea says:” You say you were a lawyer; and so, have no expertise in saying what is science and what is not.”.
Is this simply a stupid statement, or is it a lie?
Since even the flea could not be stupid enough to believe it, it has to be a lie..
The flea has never stated his qualification, and from his display of ignorance, I assumed he had none, so has “ no expertise in saying what is science and what is not.”.
Did you ever have gainful employment, flea, before you gravitated to lying about climate? Of course, I realise that in your current state, you are unemployable.

Nice to see that the fraud promoters are losing, in Australia:” IT’S a miracle. Most Australians are now global warming sceptics, despite years of being misled by the media.
A CSIRO survey of more than 5000 people has confirmed it, even though warmist reporters tried to spin it.
For the first time since Al Gore’s 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth claimed man was heating the world to disaster, Australians who believe this scare are outnumbered by those who don’t. True, a worrying 45.9 per cent of Australians do still think man is mostly to blame for what warming we’ve seen over the past several decades.”
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/andrew-bolt/csiro-survey-shows-more-aussies-are-cool-on-warming/news-story/31fa9e2c7f0a060fc87c2a768168be40

Leo

As stated before Leo; using ad hominem attacks is a form of logical fallacy.

You have provided WUWT as a reference in the past; here is a reference which displays exactly how farcical their graph of the current situation of sea ice extent in the Arctic is:

http://neven1.typepad.com/

Neven happens to display the accepted sea ice extent graph.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

The WUWT graph shows an error of over two standard deviations, if you have been following what is happening to sea ice extent over the last years you would realise that WUWT is completely wrong.

The flea is really unhinged. Not only does he have no science to support his ratbaggery, but he uses the fact that I have referred to Anthony Watts in the past to raise an invalid criticism by some pretend scientist who calls himself “Neven” criticising a reputable blog site, and an established and world recognised scientist like Roy Spencer.
Neven no doubt has the same qualification as the flea, absolutely none, but the flea introduces his nonsense as if it has any relevance.
The flea has produced no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, in relation to his support of the climate fraud.
He is an unqualified, ignorant fraud supporter, who constantly finds unqualified unidentified, ignorant liars, like Neven, to support his nonsense.
Robert Carter once remarked that the analytical ability of a lawyer made them effective in climate discussion.
The flea's lack of qualification, and ignorance, certainly makes him a pest.

Leo

In your retirement you should take up comedy.

About half an hour ago this story popped up on my Face Book page:

http://stratfordobserver.co.uk/news/climate-change-setback-stratford-polar-explorer/

Quote:

"Ettington adventurer Mark Wood was set to embark on a 600 mile journey from the Russian Arctic Coast to the geographic North Pole on Saturday February 20 – ironically with the aim of exposing the “true extent” of climate change in the Arctic.

But with just days to go before 38 year-old Mark, and his two serving soldier teammates Mark Langridge and Paul Vicary, were due to set off it was revealed the Arctic conditions it would face had never been so treacherous as Arctic sea ice levels had hit a “record low”."

Watts has Arctic sea ice extent expanding.

The official site referenced below, says:

"Arctic sea ice extent during January averaged 13.53 million square kilometers (5.2 million square miles), which is 1.04 million square kilometers (402,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average. This was the lowest January extent in the satellite record...."

From:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

If you go to the site you will see that the sea ice extent is still at a record low level for 25 February 2016.

Watts is more than two standard deviations in what he presents, meaning he is absolutely wrong.