Risible rubbish straight from the pen of a flat earther, whose ability to ignore the inconvenient science and the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is simply breathtaking.

He seems to be saying if we don't have fossil fuels our economies will dry up and die? Nothing could be further from the truth, given investment in vastly cheaper carbon free or carbon neutral alternatives could quite literally turbocharge the economies that adopt them first!

Yes, that could harm a few folk in the hip pocket or bank balances? Just not sovereign nations who refuse to carry the can for debt laden foreign speculators!

And we should begin now as we intend to continue, with the roll out of recharging stations for electric vehicles, the creation of a nuclear powered national fleet, the conversion of our power stations to very localized, cheaper than coal, state owned and operated thorium power, which we have enough of to power the world for 700 years!?

Other alternatives are proven solar thermal options, which as evidenced, can be rollout as very large scale projects, at comparable cost to similar sized coal-fired projects, with the only huge remaining difference, the solar thermal option uses forever free fuel!

Finally, we need to stop wasting our waste! Projected population numbers compel that outcome. Every family produces enough biological waste if converted, to completely power their domiciles 24/7 for far less than they pay now!

Moreover, if the traditional diesel engine is replaced by a super silent ceramic fuel cell, the vastly superior energy coefficient will double the available useable electrical power, produce endless free hot water, a salable surplus and several other useful byproducts; Like a completely sanitised,carbon rich soil improver and sanitized reusable water loaded to the gills with costly fertiliser, with the exhaust product, mostly pristine water vapor.
Alan B.

"Clexit" sounds good to me, and the chances of it occurring are looking better, given the severe pants-kicking the apologies for politicians are getting.

' The world must abandon this suicidal Global Warming crusade. Man does not and cannot control the climate. Climate and weather are always changing, but apart from cyclic spikes of El Nino warming, there has been no measurable warming for twenty years.'

thanks Viv, you obviously have not been dumbed down by all the propaganda and consensus 'science'. A good breath of fresh air. Thankfully I no longer have to pay tax on it.

the only flat earthers here are those that hold to false religion ir gw religion. What a group of shonskers.

I too am all for Clexit.

Meanwhile this essay is very interesting:
http://www.flassbeck-economics.com/how-climate-change-is-rapidly-taking-the-planet-apart

runner, you seem to have abandoned Christianity for the false religion of climate denialsim!

Like all false religions it's based on lies, and you're enthusiastically spreading them.

Your claim that "Man does not and cannot control the climate" only holds if we sick to a very narrow definition of "control". We do have a lot of influence on the climate.

Your claim that "apart from cyclic spikes of El Nino warming, there has been no measurable warming for twenty years" is a blatant lie. When you disregard the effects of the El Niño spikes, there is a very clear warming trend. To get the cherry picked data that the "no measurable warming" claim is based on, you have to disregard the most recent El Niño spike but not the 1998 one. BTW it's generally agreed that one of the effects of the effects of global warming will be more El Niño events.

I urge you to renounce the lies you're currently spreading and return to the truth! Abandon the suicidal attempts to defend the actions that are causing global warming, and accept our duty to take care of what God has given us.

What a breath of fresh air.

It is hard to believe that there are still thinking people, reasonably intelligent & moderately educated who can ignore all the evidence & actually believe the Global warming scam.

Of course it is possible there are no such people. Perhaps all those who push the scam here & elsewhere all have an axe to grind, or a financial interest in furthering the lie.

Lets face it so many people are now on the gravy train one way or another. When there are trillions being spent in taxpayer dollars every year, there is a lot of incentive to keep it going by the smarties. The money to be made here by those smarties make the last huge scare, the Y2K bug scam, mere chicken feed.

It does now appear that the planet has had enough, & is about to hit the scammers where it hurts, with a new little ice age. What we have to do is make sure the same scammers don't swap sides, & continue to rip us off with a global cooling scam.

The trendy Greenies in this thread are deluded:

The author is spot on that guilty Western intentions will lead to no benefit. There are no plastic bubbles of goodness over climate signing countries that shield them from the dirty smokestacks of what the author calls

"the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) ...gaming the system by selling carbon credits...while remaining free to build their own...coal/gas...grid."

These BRICS nationas (especially the near 3 Billion people in India and China) politically and out of international equity:

- need to lift their populations out of lack of electricity, which results in daily blackouts and brownouts

- give their businesses economic growth building hydro-carbon truck and train transport, and

- the private cars their people demand.

No moral, goodness examples from Western nations will stop India and China from wanting to grow their economies. This takes cheap energy - mainly the hydrocarbons that grew Western economies over history.

and Hasbeen

Spot on bro.

Respect!

Another interesting reference:
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/37042-the-front-lines-of-climate-disruption-alaskans-witness-collapsing-mountains-shattered-lives

Aidan,

if you are not able to see that the lifetyle you have been privileged to is largely a result of electricity and farming then there is little hope of delivering you from your insane gw faith.

'Like all false religions it's based on lies, and you're enthusiastically spreading them.'

you mean like the idiotic failed prophecies of the IPCC, the distorted papers and totally dud prophecies from the likes of Flannery.

Aidan,

We can do diddly squat with nature. Anybody who thinks otherwise is a fool or a charlatan (in the case of the people making money out of the scam).

Sorry, I cannot perform a Clexit because I have never Clentered.

I'll pay that one Yuyutsu :)

In a Guardian article there was a story about how Plimer lost a bet in relation to climate change.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/aug/01/a-climate-scientist-and-economist-made-big-bucks-betting-on-global-warming

Rex Tillerson, the current CEO of ExxonMobil has acknowledged that fossil fuels have an impact on climate in an advert in the New York Journal; it's necessary to dig into hyperlinks to find it:

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/07/21/climate-change-op-ed-wall-street-journal-simply-doesnt-need

Rain bombs are continually going off.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-29/forget-tornadoes-rain-bombs-are-coming-for-your-town

Disease vectors are expanding; but, an unexpected anthrax out break in Siberia is completely unexpected:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/01/anthrax-outbreak-climate-change-arctic-circle-russia

Wildfires are increasing in severity and season becoming longer.

Deniers have yet to provide a good explanation for the methane explosions of pingos, new ones found again in 2016.

Ant, just a little advice.

If you want to be taken seriously, don't ever quote the Guardian.

Hasbeen, It does sting when a skeptical scientist loses a bet about climate change.

It is difficult to continue arguing against man's impact on climate change when Rex Tillerson; CEO of ExxonMobil, has advertisements in the New York Journal acknowledging the science of climate change.

The Guardian often has articles about climate change written by scientists; articles provide hyperlinks to studies they are writing about.

No comments about anthrax in Siberia?

Another reference:

https://www.wunderground.com/news/anthrax-released-from-thawed-reindeer-amid-siberian-heat-wave?__prclt=zUDwKTxX

No comment about rain bombs?

Ellicott City, in Maryland, USA; received 4.5 inches of rain in an hour. in two hours 6 inches of rain fell. It was not long ago that China was hit twice by severe damage created by rain bombs.

No debunking of methane explosions in Siberia?

Any comments about glaciers melting at an increasing pace? The "Third Pole" has been in the news lately.

Alan B wrote that we should convert "our power stations to very localized, cheaper than coal, state owned and operated thorium power, which we have enough of to power the world for 700 years!?"

That's be a great idea if only there was such a thing as a commercial thorium power plant. There isn't such a thing and won't be for at least a decade, if ever. Perhaps we can run our economy on power derived from wishful-thinking.

There is no power source that is as efficient or cheap as fossil fuels. Sth Australia is finding that out to their cost. Germany is backing away from Energiewende as quickly as they can. Denmark (claimed to be the wind power capital of the world) is abandoning wind power!!

Renewable energy policies produce one thing more efficiently than fossil fuels - subsidies and wealth transfers.

If they are cheaper (as claimed) let them compete. If not, leave them to do more research and come back when they can compete.

In the meantime, the fabled temperature armageddon continues to recede into the fevered minds of AGW warriors and the world is doing just fine as the majority of it ignores the CO2 scare

runner,

Firstly I do not have any insane gw faith. I have rational beliefs based on evidence. Whereas you have irrational beliefs which appear to be based on wishful thinking - you don't want global warming to be true, so you decide it must be false. So you cherry pick evidence that appears to back your position, and ignore all the scrutiny it doesn't stand up to.

Secondly, of course I can see that the lifestyle I have been privileged to is largely a result of electricity and farming. So why did you try to build a strawman? Nothing I've said could reasonably be construed to imply that I'm against electricity and farming. I do of course want to make them environmentally sustainable, but there's no reason why that should be at all controversial.

Thirdly, the IPCC do not make prophecies. They report on the extent of the scientific understanding of the climate, and your accusation that they've failed is also disingenuous.

Fourthly, the distorted papers are a myth. Unlike the GW deniers, the climate scientists' methodology does stand up to scrutiny. But because the deniers are quick to pounce on anything scientific that appears to support their claims, and people like you accept what the deniers say and ignore any refutation of that, a couple of scientists were reluctant to release data and early results before their paper was finished.

Fifthly, if you listen to what Flannery actually said, rather than the absurd spin which some of his opponents put on it, you'll find that it's quite reasonable. He did not claim it would never rain again. His "prophecies" are nothing of the sort; they're simply warnings about the likely effects of inaction.

__________________________________________________________________________________

ttbn,

We can do, and indeed have done, much more with nature than you think. We have fundamentally altered our environment. And unfortunately we've made many species extinct.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Yuyutsu,

You clentered when you were born. You will clexit when you die.

"If the Paris climate accord is ratified, or enforced locally by compliant governments"

And there it is..."if".

But the promises will never be enforced, at least not to the point where it affects economic well-being. Sure, preening Western politicians will make the right noises and maybe even implement some window dressing to make it look like they are doing something to save the world. But when the cost gets too great they will back away from their self-imposed abyss and do the economic thing not the Co2 thing. As in Germany, we see coal making a come-back. As in Denmark we see wind being rejected. The new British government appears to be tip-toeing away from previous promises. And the USA..?

Meanwhile the non-western world has no intention of following this madness. China makes the right noises when need be but continues to open coal power plants. India has said outright that the economy comes first.

It may well come about that the whole thing becomes mute due to some technological break-through that provides amply power without CO2. It seems to me that Lomborg's prediction ((made a decade ago) that solar will be competitive with coal by 2035 remains on track. But until then, the world will continue to add to the CO2 levels in the atmosphere and the climate will do as it has always done...change.

'Whereas you have irrational beliefs which appear to be based on wishful thinking - you don't want global warming to be true'

I can assure you Aiden I wish the gw fairytale was true. I hate the cold. I also assure you and anyone else that can think that more people die from cold than heat on this planet. Check out the hospitals in winter and you might get the drift. Just don't let facts get in the way of your fantasy.

I agree with Viv's point about renewables being unreliable and intermittent, despite the fact that Viv's climate denial smacks of "I'm a farmer and I know better than all those physics types." (Dude, get a grip: the physics of CO2 was proved hundreds of years ago. It's nearly the 200th anniversary of the discovery of greenhouse gases! That's either one heck of a conspiracy theory, (up there with FK being killed by Elvis who lives on the moon) or just plain true.

But if true, what can we do about it? Is there a reliable, baseload, non-carbon emitting source of ABUNDANT power? Yes. And we're the Saudi Arabia of it! Nuclear: the French showed us how in the 70's, and the world can easily wean off it at just 115 GW a year. That's a *slower* build out rate on a reactor per unit GDP basis than the French already built out!

The LEFT say climate change is true, so we all have to go back to the middle ages. The RIGHT say climate isn't true, but if it were, nuclear is the answer. Somehow we need to break through these pathetically outdated mantra's, and actually listen to the scientists involved. Sadly, many groups quote Dr James Hansen on the problem of climate change, while ignoring his stated *solution*. He says that believing in 100% RENEWABLES is like believing in the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy. (Yes, he's aware of all the 'studies' that say we can, but still thinks storage is ridiculously expensive and cannot do the job).
http://goo.gl/8qidgV

Dear Aidan,

«You clentered when you were born. You will clexit when you die.»

If you are born to a Muslim father then you are considered a Muslim from birth and if you are born to a Jewish mother then you are considered a Jew from birth. If you happen to be born to both, then you are both Muslim and Jewish and only death can release you from this predicament.

Interesting perspective...

Runner,
you seem to be confusing "the cold" as a killer, when it is our behaviour changes in winter such as closing doors and staying inside more often that increases the transmission vector of virus. You're discussing the flu! We're discussing the climate!

You also seem confused about 'cold killing' and 'heat killing'. It's not that simple. Climate does NOT equal weather. Get a dictionary! Climate is about what happens when there is more ENERGY in the atmosphere, not just more heat. A two degree warmer plant DOES NOT equal a one degree warmer day where-ever you are. That completely misses the point of how that energy is actually spread through the various micro-systems on earth.

Anyway, demonstrating CO2's heat trapping physics is easy peasy. Even someone like you should understand the following videos.
A few short video's that show CO2's heat trapping ability:-
Mythbusters: 3 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

Watch the candle at 90 seconds in! The candle heat demonstration only goes for a minute. (The rest of the video is great, and demonstrates the accuracy of today's climate models).
http://climatecrocks.com/2009/07/25/this-years-model/

mhaze

Rex Tillerson, the current CEO of ExxonMobil says man created climate science has been shown to be true.

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/534ec657e4b03c887dde2641/575b069a01dbaec33dd004a9/575ec31de707eb86c44f7a4e/1465828227986/WSJ-Fenton-Adsv3_1.jpg?format=300w.

Please show where Rex Tillerson is wrong

Max, has provided an experiment showing: a flame, a burst of CO2 and the impact it has.

What explanation do you have, for what has occurred, mhaze?

Max Green,

Just a couple of points to consider.
You seem to think that proof that CO2 traps heat is significant and revelatory. But it isn't. That it traps heat is beyond dispute. None of what you'd call deniers dispute it. Its an easily demonstrable fact known for 150 yrs. But the real issue is two-fold:
1) how much heat gets trapped by increased CO2 levels
2) what other factors come into play and what effect do they have on the level of heat trapped. The candle experiment involves changing one element. But climate involves 10's of 1000's of elements. Changing one changes others. These are the so-called feedback mechanisms. A doubling of CO2 levels from 1850 levels is calculated to cause an increase of temperatures by 1- 1.5c if nothing else changed. The issue is whether the feedbacks will enhance this warming or offset it. The last IPCC report basically admitted that they (and we) don't know the answer to that.

As to the models, your link is from 2009. At that time, it was still possible (barely) to claim that the models were accurate. But even then there were murmurs, even among so-called consensus climate scientists that the difference between the models and reality was growing too large to ignore. (eg Trenberth to Mann "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment").

Since 2009, the models and reality have become more disconnected.

As von Storch said in 2013 "we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations."

Massive efforts are being made to improve models and they may get it right. But each time they 'fix' a problem, it ends up with a lowering in the expected climate catastrophe.

ant wrote "Please show where Rex Tillerson is wrong"

Tillerson isn't wrong and I agree with most of what he said.

Now, ant, as we've seen previously, you are loath to look too deeply into issues, lest you find things that might not suit your prejudices. So you see a carefully selected quote from an activist group and pretend that that's the end of it. I on the other hand prefer to get my information unfiltered by partisans.

So I went to the actual words of Tillerson here ...
http://www.cfr.org/world/ceo-speaker-series-conversation-rex-w-tillerson/p35286

If (and I know that for you that's a big 'if') you read it you'll see why I agree with Tillerson..in the main.

eg "how large it[the warming] is is what is very hard for anyone to predict." and "we believe those consequences are manageable. They do require us to begin to exert -- or spend more policy effort on adaptation."

The risk is way off in the future and we are quite capable of managing that risk when the time comes.

Read the article. It might help your understanding.

PS. last time you graced these pages you asserted that "Paleoclimatologists indicate that temperatures were not warmer in previous historic times." Since that was patently wrong, I (1) showed you 10 or papers which showed the opposite and (2) invited you to support your claims with evidence. Whereupon you did a runner. Care to revisit that or recant?

Mhaze,
you quoted this out of context.

(eg Trenberth to Mann "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment").

Why don't you just quote the 'Hide the decline?' meme so we all know you're one of *those?*

Dude, Trenberth never doubted that the planet is heating. He was lamenting the need to more accurately track where that heat goes, the various heat journeys through the ocean, etc.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Kevin-Trenberth-travesty-cant-account-for-the-lack-of-warming-intermediate.htm

mhaze
Rex Tillerson's advert relates to 2016 not 2012.

ExxonMobil have been smoked out through the current investigations.

Rex Tillerson acknowledges climate change is happening in a recent advert.

Max Green,

"you quoted this out of context"

Actually Max, you took me out of context when saying I took Trenberth out of context :). Despite you saying "Trenberth never doubted that the planet is heating" I never claimed he did. I know that Trenberth is wedded to the CAGW theory and among the Hockey Team is the one most likely to go to his grave still believing the forecast warming will eventuate.

I quoted Trenberth to show that, even in 2009, even the most committed of the warming fraternity were acknowledging, in private, that there was something wrong with the models. The reason behind the failure is by-the-by. They didn't predict the pause and they couldn't explain it. QED. The models are about surface temperatures and, even if Trenberth is right that the heat is hiding in the deep oceans, the models didn't include or predict that. QED.

ant,

For God sake. Your preparedness to embarrass yourself is endless. The advert that you're so fond of uses a quote from a 2012 interview. Therefore you have to read or listen to that interview to understand the context. Well actually you don't have to, but someone truly interested in the truth should (read it).

By the way, are you aware that, over the past 11000 years, temperatures have been hotter than now approximately 25% of the time. I wonder how that happened?

mhaze
Max caught you out in relation to a material you misrepresented.
Previously, I believe we had a discussion about your claim that temperature was higher 11,000 years ago. Much the same circumstance applied, you misrepresented a particular study; I gave a quotation from the study which had been published by AAAS, to access the study you need to register with AAAS. Did you ever do so? You accused me of making up the quote provided.
Another situation of about the same time was when you provided a graph/diagram showing a few studies including Lonnie Thompson a Glaciologist. I have seen Lonnie Thompson on a video clip being interviewed; he has a very firm consensus view on climate change.

Here is a quote from another advertisement placed after the Tillerson one in the New York Journal:

"Climate change has become too sore a subject. We’d like to move past it. Wouldn’t you? Maybe a good place to start is the basics. Carbon dioxide (CO2) keeps much of the sun’s heat from escaping back into space.

We’ve known this for more than a century. In the 1820s, French physicist Jean-Baptiste Fourier identified the Greenhouse Effect.[i] By 1896, Swedish physicist Svante Arrhenius showed how CO2 from industrial emissions would cause temperatures to rise.[ii]

This isn’t a left or right issue. It’s science."

The advertisements had been placed by major fossil fuel companies.

http://www.partnershipforresponsiblegrowth.org/pricecarbon/

Fossil fuel companies; particularly ExxonMobil have allegedly been playing a double game; saying the science is not wrong; and yet, funding denier groups such as Heartlands, the Cato Institute, ALEC et al. It is a crime in the US to provide wrong information to the financial market. ExxonMobil is being investigated by a number of State Attorney Generals at present.

As Monbiot says:-

What is salient is not important. What is important is not salient. The media turns us away from the issues that will determine the course of our lives, and towards topics of brain-melting irrelevance.

This, on current trends, will be the hottest year ever measured. The previous record was set in 2015; the one before in 2014. Fifteen of the 16 warmest years have occurred in the 21st century. Each of the past 14 months has beaten the global monthly temperature record. But you can still hear people repeating the old claim, first proposed by fossil fuel lobbyists, that global warming stopped in 1998.

Arctic sea ice covered a smaller area last winter than in any winter since records began. In Siberia, an anthrax outbreak is raging through the human and reindeer populations because infected corpses locked in permafrost since the last epidemic in 1941 have thawed. India has been hammered by cycles of drought and flood, as withering heat parches the soil and torches glaciers in the Himalayas. Southern and eastern Africa have been pitched into humanitarian emergencies by drought. Wildfires storm across America; coral reefs around the world are bleaching and dying.
https://goo.gl/zuu9hN

'You also seem confused about 'cold killing' and 'heat killing'. It's not that simple. Climate does NOT equal weather. Get a dictionary! Climate is about what happens when there is more ENERGY in the atmosphere, not just more heat. A two degree warmer plant DOES NOT equal a one degree warmer day where-ever you are'

Yeah I know Max every prediction by the alarmist has proven false and now the heat is 'hidden' in the ocean. Keep fighting the 'good' fight. Your support base is dwindling.

Runner,
the heat is not 'hidden' in the ocean. Read some basic climate science: they all admit that well over 95% of the additional 4 Hiroshima bombs per second trapped by CO2 ends up in the oceans! Therein lies the danger. It shouldn't be called 'global warming' but 'ocean warming': and it's bad. Real bad.

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

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/

Max Green

"Fifteen of the 16 warmest years have occurred in the 21st century."

According to SOME of the databases. Others tell a different story. Those that are most 'homogenised' tell the approved story.

Strange how, when the temperatures hadn't risen for well over a decade we were told that that was much too short a time to draw any conclusions but now it seems that a year or two of El Nino induced warming is crucial. Science or propaganda?

" hear people repeating the old claim, first proposed by fossil fuel lobbyists, that global warming stopped in 1998."

I don't think many said it stopped. That's the very essence of the realist case - that climate change doesn't stop. And despite the meme from the alarmists that 1998 is the crucial year, in fact you can go back to 1995 to see where the pause started. But repeating the 1998 meme reduces the need to actually think.

Anthrax? The last time an outbreak occurred was 1941, a particularly cold year as that nice Herr Guderian could attest. I wonder what caused that outbreak? Strange how every unusual event gets blamed on GW by the usual suspects and then, when the evidence comes in they just move on to the next claim. What's causing the decline in frog numbers?

" torches glaciers in the Himalayas."

Yes, I hear they'll be gone by 2035....oh wait!

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake

Are you aware that temperatures over the past 11700 years have been higher than now approx 25% of the time? How ever did we survive all that anthrax, melting glaciers and ancillary disasters in those times. Strangely, civilisation seemed to do best during these higher temperatures but that doesn't suit the scare so we'll pretend its not true.

Maze, the world’s top 4 temperature databases confirm that the planet is warming.

NASA
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/03/01/february_2016_s_shocking_global_warming_temperature_record.html

I’m sorry, why are NASA in on ‘the conspiracy’?
http://climate.nasa.gov/

“Geneva, 21 July 2016 (WMO) _ Global temperatures for the first six months of this year shattered yet more records, and mean that 2016 is on track to be the world’s hottest year on record.”
http://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/global-climate-breaks-new-records-january-june-2016

I’m sorry, but why are the WMO in on ‘the conspiracy’?

The Met office are in on it as well. Why?
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature

So are NOAA. Why?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/

They all confirm what we can see in the observable, repeatable, demonstrable physics: CO2 traps heat. Yes, the ocean soaks up most of this heat: then burps it out again in catastrophic El Nino’s that exacerbate the already dangerous heat gain in the atmosphere, while raising sea levels, increasing wildfires, releasing toxic anthrax, moving weather patterns, increasing both famines and floods as the global hydrological cycle shifts. Did you know that for every 1 degree warmer the air gets it can carry an extra 5% moisture? That’s huge. That changes agriculture profoundly.

“Are you aware that temperatures over the past 11700 years have been higher than now approx 25% of the time?”

Are you aware that Mhaze makes outrageous claims without linking to a shred of data 99% of the time?

Max,

Who said conspiracy? It looks to me that you have a series of go-to arguments and use them whether or not they are relevant. Oh, I'll mock him for thinking there's a conspiracy even though he didn't say that. Oh, I'll mock him for thinking the pause relies on an exceptional El Nino year even though he said the opposite.

I note you didn't show any satellite data in your list of approved databases. I can't imagine why.... :)

"Are you aware that Mhaze makes outrageous claims without linking to a shred of data 99% of the time?".

Sorry I thought you be up on this. But alas.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198

"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."
Warmer 75% of the time = not as warm 25% of the time

By the way, Marcott is not a denier but very much part of the Hockey Team.

I can provide dozens of similar papers showing past temperatures. Last time I did that poor old 'ant' decided he had no choice but to leave the group for a while. Please don't feel so compelled.

If you duck off to RealClimate you'll find a few reasons why you should ignore these facts about the past. Basically they boil down to - 'I don't want it to be true, therefore it isn't'.

Maze,
you’re the one suggesting something very like a conspiracy when you say there are other databases that tell a different story to the ‘homogenised’ databases. ;-) But hey, don’t worry, you’re not suggesting a conspiracy: just that you don’t trust the world’s top 4 databases because they’ve been ‘homogenised.’ Go ahead and get all offended about the conspiracy accusation. Just don’t explain WHY you don’t trust the world’s top 4 databases! ;-) If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

By the way, we note that you failed to link to those databases that you *do* trust. Failure to link 99% of the time, or what? ;-)

Your attitude to Real Climate is real interesting. So you don’t like the peer-reviewed process? See, peer-review is how science moves forward. It’s how we discovered “Glacier-gate” — that one of the thousands of papers that got into the IPCC was actually suspicious. I like peer-review. Why don’t you?

Anyway, you raised Marcott. Whatever the story about an earlier Milankovitch variation in temperatures, which are of course what you want us to focus on, his PROJECTIONS are 100% with us, and are of course what you WANT TO IGNORE.

“Climate models project that temperatures are likely to exceed the full distribution of Holocene warmth by 2100 for all versions of the temperature stack, regardless of the greenhouse gas emission scenario considered (excluding the year 2000 constant composition scenario, which has already been exceeded). By 2100, global average temperatures will probably be 5 to 12 standard deviations above the Holocene temperature mean for the A1B scenario based on our Standard5×5 plus high-frequency addition stack.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/the-two-epochs-of-marcott.html

Oops. Forgot to read that did we? ;-)

Max,

Although I don't think there is a conspiracy in the homogenising process I do think there is a degree of confirmation bias. So if, for example, someone who believes in warming comes across the raw data like, say, Rutherglen which shows a cooling, they homogenise until it shows a warming. They aren't trying to fudge the data but to correct what they think is an obvious error.

I have much more faith in the satellite record.

I don't see where you got the idea that I don't like peer review. I think its a great idea and works well most of the time. Just another of those things you've just made up out of whole fabric.

As to Marcott13, its strange that you think I hadn't read it since I bought it to your attention. I'm aware that the paper talks about temperatures through to 2100. But that entirely misses the point I was making.

You're running around clucking that this or that or every problem is caused by the recent warming and I simply use Marcott13 and many other papers to show that the CURRENT warming is unexceptional and that we obviously survived (indeed thrived in) those previous and comparable warm periods. If the Himalaya glaciers didn't melt then, why do should we believe they'll melt now. And if the arctic did melt then without undue problems, why should we think it'll cause problems now. If Siberian anthrax is caused by warming why (1) did it occur during a cold period and (2) how did Siberians survive previous warm periods.

I accept that a warming over the next century of say 3c might cause some problems. But I don't accept that the current warming is the cause for the postulated problems ascribed to it by the perennial chicken-littles.

Finally you said my claims about previous warm periods was "outrageous" and required linked data. Which I provided. But we see no acknowledgement that you were wrong to say it was outrageous or wrong to think that the data wasn't there. Not exactly honourable my good man.

re Marcott, mhaze, he also demonstrates that the rate of surface temperature increase since the industrial revolution is the sharpest it has ever been in the Halocene.

It's the trajectory that is the problem, not where we are right now.

Just a reminder that the average global surface temperature during the last ice (when Europe and north America New york were a mile under ice was 4 or 5 degrees below today's. We're heading for a similar differential above today's temperature, which will hit the southern hemisphere (Oz) particularly hard.

Nice if you live in Greenland or Siberia. Hey, but it's OK, we've got air conditioning, right?

BTW, love it or hate it, here's some of Marcott's work incorporated into an awareness poster:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5NgIqKD_aX4M05NNmsyRXQxWm8/edit

Given what Arrhenius discovered re CO2 and heat retention, and Marcott's work, the CO2 hypothesis cannot be blithely pushed aside without putting up something else up to fit the facts beyond ye olde natural variation.

I don't want all this to be true, just as much as the next bloke. Adapting to higher temperatures is a nice idea, if we can limit the rise, but we aren't doing anything about it that works, i.e. nuclear.

mhaze
Firstly, my apologies for misattributing a series of advertisements to fossil fuel companies. The advertisements do come from a conservative source. The adverts fully support the science of climate change.

Secondly, you stated: "PS. last time you graced these pages you asserted that "Paleoclimatologists indicate that temperatures were not warmer in previous historic times." Since that was patently wrong, I (1) showed you 10 or papers which showed the opposite and (2) invited you to support your claims with evidence."

That is not true, I provided a quote in relation to Marcott which you suggested was fraudulent.
I suggested you sign up with AAAS to confirm the truth of my quote and to obtain references to science. WUWT tries very hard to push the proverbial uphill.
Now, you have also been caught out by Max Green and Luciferase in relation to the Marcott study. At the time I also wrote about Lonnie Thompson as he was meant to support your point of view through the poor reference you gave.
Also, I have responded to a number of articles since we had that discussion.
And you write about confirmation bias.

In the past we have discussed permafrost; what is happening in the Arctic does not suit your point of view, and down played the impacts. Your comment about confirmation bias gave me quite a chuckle.

Luciferase,

"the rate of surface temperature increase since the industrial revolution is the sharpest it has ever been in the Halocene.

It's the trajectory that is the problem, not where we are right now."

Sorry but that's wrong. The original paper sort of made that claim, but, following criticism, Marcott was forced to 'clarify' the situation via a series of addenda. Here's what he and his colleagues said in a Q & A release:

"Q: Is the rate of global temperature rise over the last 100 years faster than at any time during the past 11,300 years?

A: Our study did not directly address this question because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century."

In other words, the paleotemperature record isn't detailed enough to know whether there were other periods where temps rose just as fast as they did in the 20th century. Elsewhere he has said that the resolution for earlier periods was no better than 300 years.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/

Again, I'm not disputing that Marcott claimed that temps will be higher in 2100 than the rest of Holocene but that is based on educated guesses rather than demonstrable data.

My point is that, right now, all these claims that our supposed unprecedented temps are causing this or that disaster are based on a fantasy being that these temps are unprecedented.

We live in normal times climate-wise, despite the propaganda.

ant,

On 15/2/16 you said "Paleoclimatologists indicate that temperatures were not warmer in previous historic times" in response to my saying the opposite. You demanded that I support my claim with papers. I provided about a dozen such papers although there are many others. You however have never provided a any data to support your fantasy. You just want it to be true and for some that's enough to make it true.

Until you either provide data or accept you were wrong (with all that implies) I have nothing more to say to you on the issue.

"My point is that, right now, all these claims that our supposed unprecedented temps are causing this or that disaster are based on a fantasy being that these temps are unprecedented."

They're not geologically unprecedented, but are unprecedented for civilised history. See the difference? While there *may* have been (but I have not read the studies detailing this) short periods around today's temperatures during the last 11000 years or so, the crisis comes from the fact that we have quickly and artificially increased temperatures. My understanding of Milankovitch cycles were that they took around 800 years to cause an ice age. (Bad for civilisation). Coming out of them took about that long as well. (Good for civilisation). Cold = bad. Warm = good. But now we're moving into hot, with today being hotter than *most* of the Holocene, and tomorrow risks becoming as hot as some of the super-greenhouse Extinction Level Events.

Cold = bad.
Warm = good.
Hot = ELE.
Deal with it.

"The original paper sort of made that claim, but, following criticism, Marcott was forced to 'clarify' the situation via a series of addenda. Here's what he and his colleagues said in a Q & A release:"

mhaze, Your tone suggests you think Marcott set to to deceive. Confirmation bias?

Whatever, to hold your position you have to believe CO2 and warming are completely unrelated. Amongst other papers on this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22481357

Now, I'm convinced the conclusion of above paper to be right so I'll stick to what I said, Marcott's work supports an "unprecedented" rate of increase.

From the same site you drew quotes, see comment 23:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/#comment-325942 the required timescale for CO2 concentration to fall after an out-gas would ensure sharp spikes would appear in Marcott's analysis. But they don't.

We live in unprecedented times on a geological scale with the rate of temperature increase we are experiencing. Natural variation doesn't cut it as an explanation for that

mhaze, I went back to your comment of 16/2/2016
Here is a statement you made at the time that is wrong:

"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?"

A number of Attorney Generals are currently investigating ExxonMobil, at present. When I wrote previously it had only been the Attorney General of New York State only.

ExxonMobil funded denier groups, and they're scientists in the 1970s were warning management that man created climate change was a matter of concern. The investigations into ExxonMobil are about mutually exclusive messages being sent to the financial market.

Inside Climate News and Union of Concerned Scientists have written about this matter.

https://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken

Blurb introducing the series:

Quote:

"After eight months of investigation, InsideClimate News presents this multi-part history of Exxon's engagement with the emerging science of climate change. The story spans four decades, and is based on primary sources including internal company files dating back to the late 1970s, interviews with former company employees, and other evidence, much of which is being published here for the first time."

Also:

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf

I had provided references previously, you stated: "He made that up."

When discussing the matter previously; mhaze, you stated you would consult with somebody from WUWT in relation to comments made by Cohen a former executive of ExxonMobil!

Extreme confirmation bias on your part, mhaze. Not only confirmation bias exhibited but not being truthful in your statement " he made that up."
Your comments previously about permafrost break down have also displayed confirmation bias.

Max Green

"They're not geologically unprecedented, but are unprecedented for civilised history."

Well that's simply untrue and if you do get around to reading the studies you see why. Over the past 12000 years for approx 3000 years temperatures were warmer than now. And if you want to just look at the past 5000 years (on the basis that civilisation began around 3200 BC then that proportion remains true with extend periods of temperatures warmer than today eg the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman WP and the Medieval WP.

Luciferase,

So despite the actual authors saying that their paper can't make any judgements that present warming is unprecedented, YOU think their paper proves the opposite. Perhaps you know more about their data than they do? Wow.
Incidentally I don't think "Marcott set to to deceive". I rather admired the way he fronted up to the criticisms of his paper and admitted that the way it was being used by the alarmist fraternity didn't gel with the actual data. If only there were more like him

ant,
You're looking at the wrong post. I said 15/2/16 not 16/2/16. Check the post timed as 6:03 am.
As to the Exxon papers, as I've told you before there's no real point discussing it until you've read the source material and , I suspect, if you ever did so you wouldn't want to discuss it since you'd see you are wrong. Besides, the case against Exxon is falling apart and the various AG's are running for cover.

"YOU think their paper proves the opposite"

Nothing is proven in science, only supported or falsified.

That there are no spikes in the Marcott analysis supports the "unprecedented" claim because:
1) CO2 levels both correlate with and affect T, and,
2) A spike in CO2 level would show up in the time averaged data as it takes much, much longer than the temporal resolution of ~120 years for the CO2 to dissipate after a spike such as we are experiencing now. For example, it will take centuries for current CO2 level to fall to the pre-industrial level if we stopped producing it today so a future Marcott analysis would show a spike for our times.

Further, it's not just what "I" say its what experts in the field (unlike you) say.

mhaze, do you have a phantom post at 15.02.2016 timed at 6:03 am?

Please resend it, it is not recorded on the list of posts attributed to you!

In relation to ExxonMobil, it is a bit of a dogs breakfast created by the Republican Tea Party.
As you would realise Republics do well from donations from fossil fuel company companies.
The Republican Tea Party takes a particularly stupid view to man created climate change saying it's a hoax.
I have seen papers where ExxonMobil have provided donations to denier groups.
I fully understand why you wish to divert away from ExxonMobil.

Water bombs:

https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/four-deadly-floods-taking-place-right-this-second/70911

Luciferase,

I wonder if you get the circular thinking you have here.

*the only thing that could cause a spike is CO2
* since there was no CO2 spike there was no temperature spike even though there was nothing in the data about CO2

No chance apparently that the rises in temperature were caused by things other than CO2. A little like a devoted Christian saying there is no chance apparently that the world was created by things other than the deity.

And how do we know there was no CO2 spike? We don't but if you really want it to be so, then it is. Science?

Who are these experts who agree say there was a spike? The only expert that matters in this is the guys who put together and analysed the data and they said there was no way to know if there was a spike.

The bottom line is what we know is that the current temperatures are not at all unusual as compared to the past. What we don't know is whether the changes usually occur over a period of 170yrs or more or less.

ant,

" do you have a phantom post at 15.02.2016 timed at 6:03 am?"

We were talking about YOUR post of that time and date. Sheesh.

mhaze

My post of the 15/2 had been about a former climate skeptic Physicist Richard Muller, closely investigating climate science and found it to be accurate.

Also, Paleoclimatologists have shown how temperatures on Earth had been extremely high after major volcanic action millions of years ago during different epochs. These volcanic actions led to mass extinctions. Also, I stated that temperature was lower in past historical times, than now.

Temperature over the last couple of years have been higher than when Narcott had his paper published.

Also, wrote about the 11 year ARM study which no critic has been able to decimate. The ARM study took data on pretty well a daily basis, so theres a lot of data.
Taking ARM into account you might like to consider forcing in the atmosphere which NOAA has been capturing for decades. The forcing for all greenhouse gases for 2015 was 2.974 watts per square meter. The table at the bottom of the article shows the table.

Remember that the source of CO2 can be identified by identifying isotopes.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html

You didn't pick up on my comments about ExxonMobil.

"No chance apparently that the rises in temperature were caused by things other than CO2"

If there is a spike missed by low temporal resolution it can only be because it was short-lived. You have no proposal for the mechanism for such a short-lived global event, yet you insist it did or can happen as a a part of natural variation!

You can't have it both ways.

Mhaze cracks me up.

His argument is the intellectual equivalent of "Look, bright shiny thing over there." As long as we don't focus on the CONCLUSIONS of Marcott's report, and as long as we don't focus on the MAJORITY CONSENSUS of climate science, and as long as we don't respect the PEER REVIEW CONCLUSIONS of the IPCC, but narrowly focus on his 'bright shiny thing' over there, we're all good. Yeah. Right mate. Riiiiight. ;-)

Once again:

“Climate models project that temperatures are likely to exceed the full distribution of Holocene warmth by 2100 for all versions of the temperature stack, regardless of the greenhouse gas emission scenario considered (excluding the year 2000 constant composition scenario, which has already been exceeded). By 2100, global average temperatures will probably be 5 to 12 standard deviations above the Holocene temperature mean for the A1B scenario based on our Standard5×5 plus high-frequency addition stack.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/the-two-epochs-of-marcott.html

Luciferase,

The data tell us that current temperatures are by no means unusual. Since that doesn't suit you decide that the recent rise is unusual even though there is nothing in the data that supports such a notion. So in the end you want to call wishful-thinking as though its data. I don't say that there definitely were rises similar to that of 1970-2000 since its impossible to know that as a fact. But given that we do know that other similar rises eg 1910 - 1940 have occurred without the help of CO2 it seems that your wishful-thinking data is suspect.

Max Green,

This all started because you were outraged that someone would say something as silly as temperatures in the past being higher than now. I used Marcott to assuage your ignorant outrage. I could have used any of a number of similar studies but I rather like Marcott. But there are two parts to Marcott13 - the actual data as concerns the past, and the predictions as concerns the future(calling that second part the conclusion misunderstands the paper which is easy when you don't read it). Those predictions are based on models that are increasingly suspect but are predictions, not data. I prefer data.

"The data tell us that current temperatures are by no means unusual. Since that doesn't suit you decide that the recent rise is unusual even though there is nothing in the data that supports such a notion."

Again you conflate temperature with its rate of rise. Whatever.

Your 1910-1940 gambit. While that has been covered well in a range of studies, the period falls within the last ~150 years for which the rate of increase, overall, has been unprecedented. This period also includes the supposed "hiatus" of which "skeptics" like to pick over.

I've entered into a whack-a-mole exercise for which I haven't more energy. Others can to go through the motions. The science is settled.

You prefer the 'bright shiny thing over there', otherwise known as today's temperatures which - if you actually did respect data - are actually quite alarming thank you very much! They're way above where they should be, given the state of the Milankovitch cycles. Read the IPCC papers. They account for all the forcings, and we are way above normal, even by Marcott's standards!

You don't prefer data, but soundbytes, and cut and paste Marcott out of context to your denialist ends. You're all outraged that I would remind people of Marcott's conclusions, and actually divert their gaze away from your 'bright shiny thing' over there. I suggest growing up and learning to respect the peer-review process?

Quick, where's that bright shiny thing?

"For a second consecutive year the globe experienced its hottest year on record, beating the 2014 record by more than 0.1 degrees. From May 2015 onwards, each month set a temperature record for that particular month, a pattern that has yet to end.

The record-breaking temperature anomaly in 2015 (around 1 degree higher, on average, than what would be expected in a world without humans) was in large part due to human-caused climate change. A small fraction of the heat was because of a major El Niño event, which developed midway through 2015 and ran into this year."
https://theconversation.com/state-of-the-climate-2015-global-warming-and-el-nino-sent-records-tumbling-63511

Luciferase and Max, mhaze likes to try and run us down blind allies in the hope of creating doubt. Discussions on Narcott being an example; climate science does not hinge on whether Narcott is right or wrong; it does hinge on physics and chemistry though. But, with the Narcott study he doesn't present anything convincing. There are literally thousands of peer reviewed papers published on a yearly basis from a number of disciplines which display a consilience in relation to climate change. mhaze, is not able to provide completely up to date references in what is happening around the globe as very little is provided by skeptical climate scientists in peer reviewed journals.

An example, 3 August 2016:

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-first-map-of-thawed-areas-under-greenland-ice-sheet

The scientists used 4 different methodologies to arrive at their conclusions. My bet is that mhaze is not up to the challenge of trying to create doubt in relation to this study. He would need to provide data, not just words.
In such a case, the usual denier technique is to attack the Agency, or authors rather than the study itself.

Apparently the current temperatures are unusual not because they are unusual but because the rise is unusual even though the evidence for that is more in the hopes of our resident masterminds than in the data.
Nonetheless this rapid rise explains the melting of the permafrost and the relative decline in arctic sea ice, apparently. These melts are, apparently, unusual in the Holocene because, as we all know ice melts during periods of rapid temperature rises but not during periods of sustained higher temperatures!!

Now, apparently, a year or three of higher temperatures trumps 1000s of years of higher temperatures because, shut up.

Does anyone remember when 2014 was the hottest year ever, until NASA was forced to admit that they were only 38% sure of that claim due to inherent uncertainty in the data. But, since this is the sort of thing we'd prefer not to know, its probably outrageous to mention it.

You need to provide citations, mhaze.

Just producing verbiage is meaningless.

You cannot meet the challenge provided in the here and now proposed in my last post in relation to Greenland..

ant,

As regards you, I don't "need" to do anything. Besides I don't know how much you don't know so I don't know what you need cited since there's nothing in my last post that anyone even vaguely conversant with the facts wouldn't already know.

What you need to do is:

1) read the source documents in regards to the Exxon papers
2) provide some sort of evidence in support of your claim that "Paleoclimatologists indicate that temperatures were not warmer in previous historic times"
3) learn how to spell Marcott's name.

As regards you last bit on Greenland, it appears the study isn't about AGW and even it was then we'd have to assume that the same melting on the lower levels of the ice must have occurred in previous periods (eg 1000 AD) when, as we've learned over the last few days, temperatures were as higher or higher than now.

mhaze, studies have already been provided that show you are wrong about temperature over the last 11,000 years.

I've seen much material in relation to ExxonMobi; ExxonMobil is being investigated by a number of Attorney Generals. The Union of Concerned Scientists and Inside Climate News provide a paper trail from ExxonMobil.

Clearly, Greenland sheet ice being undermined does have an impact on climate change.
As predicted you cannot debunk that matter.

mhaze, you would not have seen these comments from ExxonMobil:

http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position

Quote:

"The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks."

The American Geophysical Union say:

" ... AGU’s Organizational Support Policy states “AGU will
not accept funding from organizational partners that
promote and/or disseminate misinformation of
science, or that fund organizations that publicly
promote misinformation of science,”....

ExxonMobil and a number of fossil fuel companies involved in promoting deception.

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf

See Figure 4 Road Map

Figure 7 is quite funny in a way.

Inside Climate News also goes into much detail through interviews with ExxonMobil employees, shows film clips, paper trail. Investigative journalism also displayed by Los Angeles Times.

Why would an Attorney General accuse ExxonMobil of deceit when ExxonMobil does not have a case to answer?

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/09082016/massachusetts-ag-maura-healey-criticizes-exxon-continuing-climate-deceit

The alleged case against ExxonMobil could come unstuck by the First and Forth Amendments; rather than, the evidence being flimsy.

The Huffington Post provides an article about ExxonMobil funding politicians.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/does-exxonmobil-really-su_b_9246950.htm

"studies have already been provided that show you are wrong about temperature over the last 11,000 years."

Now you're straight out lying.

I make no comment on the Exxon BS until you've read the source documents. Once you've read them you'll understand why the various AG's are running away from this as fast as possible.

mhaze, lying?

I didn't say that I had provided the references.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5NgIqKD_aX4M05NNmsyRXQxWm8/edit?pref=2&pli=1

Also:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/the-two-epochs-of-marcott.html

Another reference is:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm

Powell et al in a study in 2013 and 2014 found there was something like 12,000 peer reviewed climate science papers published each year in journals. In no way does climate science hang on your blind alley.

You have accused me of lying previously in relation to a quote. The quote came from AAAS which you need to register with to view papers that are over two/three years old. A few times I suggested you register with AAAS, bet you haven't.

Apparently there is some psychological projection going on.

Hi Ant,
the first graphic on this page says it all, doesn't it? One has to cherrypick some very specific areas of the chart to take MHaze's fazed out, hazed out point of view.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/the-two-epochs-of-marcott.html

An interesting film clip about the balmy Medieval period, an illustration about how material emanating from science becomes misrepresented.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY4Yecsx_-s

No one has ever explained why the rising temperature in the geological
past has PRECEDED increasing CO2 !

Anyway I will chide you all again for wasting your time on this red herring.
It does not MATTER a damn whether global warming is real or not.
It is a minor problem compared to the problem we have on energy.
We will reduce our use of oil and coal faster than a million Paris conferences.

Coal has already peaked or havn't you heard ?
Crude oil peaked in 2006 and all the price volatility, low growth,
declining demand, low growth in all countries, negative interest rates,
Central Banks losing control, nothing they do does what the money
used to do, interest down inflation supposed to go up, instead the
currency goes up !

What the hell do you think is going on ?

And what are you worrying about ?
A couple of bloody degrees !

mhaze, I saw this film clip a few years ago. The conclusions that can be drawn in relation to what deniers suggest, when using graphs, is that they are highly creative, do not know the parameters used in the graph, or consciously misrepresent an authors work.

A film clip in relation to the Medieval period which provides the basis for such suggestions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY4Yecsx_-s

A master of misrepresentation is the President of Clexit, Monckton.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xx5h1KNMAA

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

"No one has ever explained why the rising temperature in the geological
past has PRECEDED increasing CO2 !"

You must not have read any climate science, because they're all over this! Milankovitch cycles unlock ice-sheets which release CO2, raising temps. Milankovitch cycles are the forcing, worth about 60%, but CO2 accounts for about 40% of the temperature difference in ice ages!
(See the 2nd paragraph, column 2 of page 144).
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1990/1990_Lorius_etal.pdf

It's about climate change, not peak oil. I used to be one of Sydney's leading peak oil activists, marching in to brief the NSW Cross-Benchers back in 2005 on the day oil hit the record price of $60 a barrel. We predicted it would be around $150 to $200 today, maybe even *rationed*! But the oil men predicted fracking. Doomers said no way, EROEI and all that. But look at the fracking, and look at the oil price today! Who was right Bazz? You see $150 a barrel anywhere?
Peak oil doomers have been hanging around http://dieoff.com/ too long.

In an oil crisis we'll adopt rationing, paint extra bicycle lanes, download Uber-like car-sharing apps that load passengers on the way to work, build out electric trolley-buses quick smart (with a line from Ryde to Sydney's CBD estimated to take far less than a year by Roy Leembruggen, inventor of the double-decker train), etc. Tesla motors will have 1.5 million EV's coming off the line annually in the early 2020's.

Smart charging overnight will allow about 45% of our cars to charge, and just under 90% of (American) driving could be charged on today's grid! That means no new power plants are required for 90% of our fleet! Page 10 here https://goo.gl/aixcfT

Peak oil is NOTHING! Climate is EVERYTHING! I *hope* peak oil is as soon as some say, because it will finally force us to do what we need to do to get off the stuff, and take bikes, trains, trams, and EV's a lot more seriously. Imagine a world where Chevron didn't rule so much energy policy, or fund so much climate denial? Awesome.

Max, the IPCC's model assumes that oil & coal will continue to burn
until it does affect the temperature.

The catch 22 is we cannot afford to burn it all as we just cannot afford it.
Absorb that and it changes everything.

Max, had to go, the fracking has made a big difference but its cost
has meant that together with the short life means a break even cost
above what the economy can afford, so that as the mix changes the
final pump price needs to rise.
However demand reduction set in and caused the fall in price.
This volatility in price is exactly what Campbell, Laherre and Defreyes predicted.
We have had two big peaks, perhaps we will get a third.

Even at $60 it is three times the earlier $20 (in 2010 $) and it is
that, that is the root cause of the economic problem.

The reduction by oil companies in search & development, because the
return is just not there, means they & we cannot afford it.
The oil rigs in use in the US fell from 1600 in 2014 to to about 400.
What does that tell you ?
The rise in oil co bankruptcies tells the other side of the story.
Perhaps you stopped watching closely after fracking started.

"The oil rigs in use in the US fell from 1600 in 2014 to to about 400.
What does that tell you ? "

It tells me gas fracking is on the rise, and that gas is taking over. Liquid fuels are fungible. Coal to liquids that the Nazi's perfected in WW2 might even take up some of the slack, if we're not careful.

Peak oil is NOTHING! It could be solved in 15 years if we got serious.
In fact, as EV's become cheaper than Internal Combustion Engine cars (because there's no engine to service and electricity is half the cost of oil per km), Tesla & others may replace family car oil merely through market forces.

But climate? That will be stuffed for millennia if we're not serious about it now.

Thawing of permafrost has unexpected results, thawing only takes place when temperatures have been high for an extended period.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-11/scientists-warn-anthrax-just-one-threat-as-russian-permafrost-m/7720362

Max said;
It tells me gas fracking is on the rise, and that gas is taking over.

The figures I have seen are for both oil & gas wells.
Certainly in the US gas is taking over from coal for power stations.
Have you read this Max ? If not, I am sure you will find it interesting.

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-08-02/some-reflections-on-the-twilight-of-the-oil-age-part-1

Bazz,
Sorry, but before I bother with yet another link from yourself, you really owe me the courtesy of checking out the link I supplied up thread about the ice ages.
You said: "No one has ever explained why the rising temperature in the geological
past has PRECEDED increasing CO2 !"

I said:
“You must not have read any climate science, because they're all over this! Milankovitch cycles unlock ice-sheets which release CO2, raising temps. Milankovitch cycles are the forcing, worth about 60%, but CO2 accounts for about 40% of the temperature difference in ice ages!
(See the 2nd paragraph, column 2 of page 144).”
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1990/1990_Lorius_etal.pdf
If you are happy to agree with the peer-reviewed climate science, then please, just say so!

I’ve met various people from the resilience website, including Richard Heinberg. We hosted one of his tours. But here’s the thing, exactly how much oil are we producing today? How many cars will Tesla alone be producing in the 2020’s? And what did they predict back in 2003 when "The End of Suburbia" came out? Given that many of the solutions for climate change also help solve peak oil, I don’t have a clue why you’re so suspicious of climate change. But if we try and solve peak oil at the expense of the climate, via stuff like coal-to-liquids programs, we could end up well and truly cooked. Nuclear power can solve both of these issues, quickly and permanently. We already have enough nuclear waste for hundreds of years!

Rain bombs are happening at a rate that are quite worrying with numbers of people being killed, and they do incredible damage to property, crops and infrastructure.

Eric Holthaus, is a Meteorologist:

Quote

"Today’s rainstorm in Louisiana is at least the eighth 500-year rainfall event across America in little more than a year, including similarly extreme downpours in Oklahoma last May, central Texas (twice: last May and last October), South Carolina last October, northern Louisiana this March, West Virginia in June, and Maryland last month."

From

https://psmag.com/americas-latest-500-year-rainstorm-is-underway-right-now-in-louisiana-98acbdf435d0#.x22tsvoyb

Elsewhere there have been 6 rain bombs falling in different parts of Earth in August 2016.

Rain bombs being excessive rain falling in a short period; for example, Ellicott City, Maryland where 112 ml ( 4.5 inches ) of rain fell in an hour and 150 ml (6 inches ) had fallen in 2 hours.

"Rain bomb" is also called "wet microbursts" by the experts. But that's not as scary as "bombs" and the aim is all about scaring the perpetually terrified.

Disappointingly, even though we are, apparently, going to be inundated with this blitz from Gaia, "even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems,".

Oh the humanity!

In other news, Mhaze seems indifferent to massive hits on agriculture, farms and homesteads being washed away, lives being lost, and real estate being threatened. But hey, what's a trillion dollar hit on the insurance industry every year? Oh wait, that's the very industry that says they might not be able to cover the statistically noticeable increase in extreme weather events. What was that about sarcasm being the lowest form of wit?

"Being a big business, the insurance industry is a strong backer of free enterprise and its laissez-faire leaders. But a rift could be developing now that some major carriers are staking claims in the climate change cause while many of their congressional backers have remained skeptical of the science.

For insurers, it’s not about the political machinations but rather, it’s about the potential economic losses. If even part of the predictions hold — the ones released by the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change that ascribe temperature change to humans with 95 percent certainty — then the rate of extreme weather events will only increase and the effects would be more severe. That, in turn, would lead to greater damages and more payouts.

“The heavy losses caused by weather-related natural catastrophes in the USA showed that greater loss-prevention efforts are needed,” says Munich Re board member Torsen Jeworrek."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2014/05/18/rift-widening-between-energy-and-insurance-industries-over-climate-change/#54f2f5b075ee

Max, I was unable to reply as I had run out of posts.
You said; Sorry, but before I bother with yet another link from
yourself, you really owe me the courtesy of checking out the link I
supplied up thread about the ice ages.

I tried that link several times but all I got was Not found.
That is an unusual result for Firefox, but just tried again with the same result.

Not much more to say if you did not read my reference.

mhaze, it does sound more pleasant when the term "wet micro bursts' is used to describe people being killed, houses and cars being washed away, businesses having stock ruined, crops being destroyed, and live stock being killed. It is a bit like when innocent people are killed by military forces the term "collateral damage" is used. The term "rain bombs" fully explains what's going on.

The President of Clexit: Monckton, has been shown to misrepresent climate science papers.
Monckton, and other deniers miss out information in graphs that do not support they're views.
The reference provided, invited people to go to original studies to view what has been left out. See above video references.

Hi Bazz,
sorry if that link didn't work.
This one is probably better.
It's the "Temperature leads carbon" crock. It responds to the accusation that it's been warmer before, as if climatologists are completely unaware of what actually causes ice ages and then warmer interglacial periods.
It's about 11 minutes of youtube, and quite entertaining and good graphics to illustrate what's happening, and much more consumable than the paper I was asking you to read.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nrvrkVBt24

I read your article. It's the typical peaknik doomer stuff I used to push, and is easily debunked. Oil can and will be replaced as we move quick smart to long term, sustainable nuclear with a high EROEI and incremental returns. France deployed 75% of their grid in 15 years, and we can charge over 80% of today's driving as EV's on the existing grid! Unused off peak night-time electricity is already 'spare', and could charge about 45% of today's car fleet.
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/recharge/

Elon Musk has opened Stage 1 of his Gigafactory for super-efficient bulk manufacturing of lithium batteries for EV’s! The world in 2014 produced 30 GW lithium batteries, but Elon’s factory will produce 50 GW a year from 218, and 150 GW per year in the 2020’s. Elon plans to be selling 1.5 million EV’s a year by the 2020’s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GBnJNLoBuw

And that's just him. There are other car companies making big plans to go electric: Elon's worrying them. With his EV's coming down to $35k, other companies are trying other means to beat even that price. Expensive electric cars will not have to be purchased, they'll be HIRED by us on a transport plan, much like a mobile phone plan, because they'll be super-cheap robot-cabs with no salary to pay to any driver. Telstra's chief scientist says human driving should be ILLEGAL in 14 years!
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/drive/will-driverless-cars-rule-the-road-by-2030/7683344

Ultimately, consumers will be the winners.

IPCC AR5:

"In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due..."

"There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century”

"Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated."

“In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”

"there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems”

Always believe the peer-reviewed science...unless it doesn't tell you what you want to hear. In that case go with the self-interested assertion.

You reading the same report I am?

"Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950. Some of these changes have been linked to human influences, including a decrease in cold temperature extremes, an increase in warm temperature extremes, an increase in extreme high sea levels and an increase in the number of heavy precipitation events in a number of regions. {1.4}"
Page 7
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

It continues: "There are likely more land regions where the number of heavy precipitation events has increased than where it has decreased. Recent detection of increasing trends in extreme precipitation and discharge in some catchments implies greater risks of flooding at regional scale (medium confidence). "

mhaze, you would have us believe that warm Oceans and Seas along with a warming atmosphere have nothing to do with rain bombs.

Science keeps moving, the reference below is about researching atmospheric rivers, though it is still in its infancy:

https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/researching-the-wet-wild-world-of-atmospheric-rivers

Max
mhaze, is getting caught out every which way

We are both quoting from the same report, sort of. But I'm quoting from the Working Groups. You, unsurprisingly, go to the SPM.

Science v. politics.

mhaze, the SPM has clearly identified the trend. Nature bats last.
Previously, I have written about South Carolina being flooded where in some cases flood waters were above the top of posts placed to show flood levels.
The Mississippi and Missouri Rivers flooded out of season creating record floods not long ago.
Remember, Eric Holthaus, a Meteorologist stated that the US had been rain bombed 8 times in about a year causing huge financial costs.

It is not long ago that a stone bridge in Britain built about 400 years ago was damaged to the extent of being irreparable by flood waters. At about the same time a castle had to be evacuated due to the risk of flood waters undermining the foundations.
It is not long ago that France and Germany were hit hard by flooding; and the list goes on.

While Louisianna is being hit hard by flooding the Middle East is being impacted by high temperature:

http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/the-middle-east-is-in-the-middle-of-a-hellish-heatwave-right-now/news-story/faaff6a64926163839894e1c50f6376e

The first sentences say:

"THOUGHT your average Aussie summer was rough?
The Middle East is currently facing one of its most extreme heatwaves ever, with experts warning temperatures are getting almost too hot for human survival."

Down further in the article temperature of 60C is discussed.

OK, so to clarify some statements MHaze made, we need to realise that the Summary for PolicyMakers (SPM) is actually a chapter in the Working Group 1 paper. It’s just the science, abbreviated for politicians.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf

What does the Executive Summary on page 121 say? This is the same Working Groups summary that Mhaze endorses in the post above, where he smugly says: “We are both quoting from the same report, sort of. But I'm quoting from the Working Groups. You, unsurprisingly, go to the SPM. Science v. politics.”

Sorry dude, but the SPM is within the one and same Working Group document you’ve endorsed, and the Working Group Executive Summary itself says:

“Climate change, whether driven by natural or human forcing, can lead to changes in the likelihood of the occurrence or strength of extreme weather and climate events or both. Since the AR4, the observational basis has increased substantially, so that some extremes are now examined over most land areas. Furthermore, more models with higher resolution and a greater number of regional models have been used in the simulations and projections of extremes. {1.3.3; Figure 1.9}

(Continued next post....)

... (continued from above)
Do you comprehend what’s going on? Your dishonest heroes have conned you. You’ve fallen for it hook line and sinker. They cherrypicked a paragraph or two about the difficulty of presenting summary statements for GLOBAL models, which are very hard to do, but instead the focus of the consequences has moved to REGIONAL modelling. There is no ‘science’ versus ‘politics’ here, but ‘comprehension’ versus ‘illiteracy’, or ‘honesty’ versus ‘dishonest cherrypicking’.

Page 134 says:

“Climate change, whether driven by natural or human forcings, can lead to changes in the likelihood of the occurrence or strength of extreme weather and climate events such as extreme precipitation events or warm spells .” (Page 134)

Also on page 134 we read more about the GLOBAL V REGIONAL modelling: “By definition, the characteristics of what is called extreme weather may vary from place to place in an absolute sense.“

Chapter 9 has an interesting paragraph on BLOCKING, a REGIONAL weather phenomenon that can exacerbate regional extreme weather.

In fact, the whole of Chapter 10 is entitled:

“Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional”

Where page 916 says: “ Because most of this large-scale warming is very likely due to the increase in atmospheric GHG concentrations, it is possible to attribute, via a multi-step procedure, some of the increase in probability of these REGIONAL events to human influence on climate. We conclude that it is LIKELY that human influence has substantially increased the probability of occurrence of heat waves in SOME LOCATIONS.“

But Mhaze wants to narrow our focus in on the GLOBAL comments, and then draw up a completely phoney distinction between the Working Group and the SPM!

To paraphrase what Mhaze said to me:
“Always believe the peer-reviewed science...unless it doesn't tell you what you want to hear. In that case unthinkingly parrot your denials heroes, and use cherrypicked data”.

mhaze, what scientists have to say about rain bombs/flooding:

http://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/louisiana-flooding-natural-disaster-weather-climate-change-oliver-milman-the-guardian/

Loss of arable land:

http://www.ipsnews.net/2016/08/arable-land-lost-at-unprecedented-rate-33000-hectares-a-day/

Ice melt ponds/lakes on the East Antarctic ice sheet:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/08/17/these-stunning-blue-lakes-just-gave-us-a-new-reason-to-worry-about-antarctica/?utm_term=.811d23325c15

mhaze, have you registered with AAAS yet?

Don't tell me Mhaze has run?

Max,

The Working Group reports are prepared by the scientists in the IPCC. Its far from a perfect system as the Himalayan debacle demonstrated but it is, finally, the considered opinion of those scientists who get to decide what goes into the report and what gets left out.

The SPM on the other hand is prepared by and signed off by governments (" The final draft of the report is distributed to governments for a final round of written comments on the SPM, before governments meet in plenary session to approve the SPM line by line and accept the underlying report. (See IPCC Factsheet – How does the IPCC approve reports?)". All relevant governments have to agree to each line in the SPM. So in the end, its a political document emphasising those parts of the relevant WG that the politicians want emphasised. As such its a political document based on aspects of the science, not the science itself.

That it ends up in the same PDF is neither here nor there.

I hope that brings you up to speed.

BTW Max, while you're acquainting yourself with the IPCC reports you might like to look at what they say about climate forcings. Previously you wrote "Read the IPCC papers. They account for all the forcings". That's about as wrong as any one sentence can be but at the time I let it pass because there was so much else I had to set you straight on and I figured you couldn't handle too much at once. Rather than accounting for all the forcings AR5 agreed that the know little about the extent or even the sign of the forcings.

Oh dear oh dear;
You know what is wrong about all this climate arguing ?
It ends up with people who probably have a lot in common getting
annoyed with each other calling one side flat earthers and the other
dupes of the greens and UN.

It is all so unnecessary. It does not matter who is right and who
is wrong, we cannot afford to dig and drill out all the fossil fuel
that will/might/never cause the temperature to rise.

The whole thing is a total waste of money which would be better put
into research on energy storage systems.
We have very little time left. We have just wasted 10 years since
peak crude oil arguing about the weather and now we have peak coal
and still we argue about the weather.

Aaaarrrggghhhh !

mhaze, you can refer to the IPCC if you like and try and debate its meaning, meanwhile:

Sudan-
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/08/sudan-floods-160805164516083.html

Illinois-
http://chicagoweathercenter.com/blog/cloudbursts-friday-hit-illinois-state-fair-in-springfield-with-more-than-5-56-of-rain-3-44-of-it-in-just-one-hour-while-drenching-rains-submerge-sections-of-the-chicago-area-int-he-wake-of-the

Louisiana-
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/louisiana-flooding-u-s-s-worst-disaster-hurricane-sandy-red-n632496

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/08/19/110000-homes-worth-a-combined-21-billion-are-in-louisianas-flood-affected-zones-study-says/?utm_term=.048e6fed345a

Macedonia-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-3727795/Storm-leaves-15-dead-6-missing-22-injured-Macedonia.html

India, Bangladesh, Nepal-
http://www.ifrc.org/en/news-and-media/news-stories/asia-pacific/india/millions-hit-by-floods-and-landslides-after-severe-monsoon-rains-72397/

US general comments-
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-29/forget-tornadoes-rain-bombs-are-coming-for-your-town

China-
https://www.rt.com/news/352888-china-floods-millions-displaced/

mhaze, your normal response is to minimalist these events where people are killed, or billions of dollars worth of infra structure, homes and cars are severely damaged or lost. Millions of people have been impacted, the examples provided have all happened within a current 30 day time frame.

Max,

Now let's see if I've got this straight - you're complaining that I'm narrowing the focus to the globe while you're expanding the focus to the regional. Surely even you see the logic error there.

Basically what's happening is that the global data isn't doing what the activists want so they create regional data via untested (and probably untestable) models. And then the usual purveyors of the gullible buy in and assume that what is data is wrong and what isn't data is true. oh well!

Bazz,

The definition of peak oil (and peak this and peak that) has changed as circumstances have changed. Its not really possible to argue that peak oil hasn't occurred when the goal posts keep changing. So what is your understanding of the term 'peak oil'?

maze,

1. Is the Summary for Policy Makers written BY the scientists FOR the politicians?

Yes or no?

2. Did your Denialist heroes just cherrypick the working group’s *global* findings, and completely ignore their *regional* findings on extreme weather events?

Yes or no?

3. To rephrase the question above, do the Working Group papers on REGIONAL extreme weather events actually agree with the SPM after all?

Yes or no?

4. Does ‘Glaciergate’ demonstrate that the IPCC peer-review process actually works after all, and will eventually admit and expose error when they are exposed?

Yes or no?

What if all your suspicions about climate change are false, and it actually is as advertised? What if you could drop a paranoid conspiracy theory worldview and have a little bit more confidence in the scientific process? Wouldn’t it be good to just leave all that suspicion and paranoia and conspiracy rubbish behind, and actually accept what the science is telling us: that there’s a problem, but there’s also a good solution?

no no yes no

"paranoid conspiracy theory worldview"

I don't have a "conspiracy theory worldview", paranoid or otherwise.

I do accept what the science is tell us. But it isn't tell us that we have enough data to know if there is a problem and I'm opposed to unending society on the basis of guesses.

I'm entirely in favour of a 'no regrets' approach to a potential future problem. I'm opposed to policies designed to fix a problem that may or may not exist where the costs of the fix are out of all proportion to the known problem. For example, if it turns out that sea levels do rise by 1 metre over the next 80 years the people who will be faced with that problem will be well placed and significantly better off materially to address the problem at that time. There is little point in us 'fixing' that problem now when we don't know it will be a problem then.

So the SPM was not written by the scientists for the policy makers? Do you have any evidence of that, not just assertion?

Now, remember this Working Group V SPM all originated in your denialist dogma doosie that there are no likely increases in extreme weather events? What do you make of this from the Working Group, which you previously said you stood by?

“Climate change, whether driven by natural or human forcings, can lead to changes in the likelihood of the occurrence or strength of extreme weather and climate events such as extreme precipitation events or warm spells .” (Page 134)

“Because most of this large-scale warming is very likely due to the increase in atmospheric GHG concentrations, it is possible to attribute, via a multi-step procedure, some of the increase in probability of these REGIONAL events to human influence on climate. We conclude that it is LIKELY that human influence has substantially increased the probability of occurrence of heat waves in SOME LOCATIONS.“
Page 916: again from the Working Group: CAPS mine to illustrate the change in topic from the GLOBAL quotes your sources cherrypicked.

You're just embarrassed that you didn't read that bit of the report! But filtering your sources of evidence down to the denialist sound-bytes will embarrass you like that. Why not join the actual scientific discussion, and drop the denialist dogma?

Glacier gate shows that the truth will out. The IPCC eventually dumped that report. It's been rebuked. Done and dusted. It would be a different matter if the IPCC tried to cover it up and stood by that report, but they don't.

Sorry, but the verdict is in. You just don't like it.

Mhaze, what I said was "Peak Crude Oil".
ie the source of oil that has been coming from long term fields.
This peaked as predicted in either late 2005 or early 2006.
As the supply tightened in 2007 then further in 2008 the increasing
price rose to US$147 and caused the triggering of the fraudulent
non prime housing loans, the economy collapsed the price fell to US$35.

That was peak oil. Then price started rising again to US$110
in 2010 and made an old technique of horizontal drilling and fracking feasible.

This gave us a few years of excess supply but as was predicted
this has resulted in another period of volatile prices now around
US$45.
Around 2000 the price of oil was US$20 so the current "low" price is
more than double the 2015 adjusted for inflation price.
The current price is higher than what the economy can afford but is
lower than what the tight shale oil producers can make a profit.
That is why there are so many bankruptcies of the US oil companies.
Additionally, the major oil companies, the Shells, BP, Mobil etc are
in real trouble with very large falls in profits and $Tillions tied
up in search and development and unable to make it pay.

So to get back to your question, that is what I mean by "Peak Oil".
Except for the temporary supply of tight oil which has given an extra
cover at high expense for some 8 years it is exactly as Campbell,
Defreyes and De Lahrerre predicted for peak oil. High price volatility
following glut and shortage. Although falling demand seems to be a
replacement for shortage so far.

Hope that clarifies what I mean. We are in a serious position because
to get a new energy system up and running with comparible reliability
to our present expectations without affordable oil & coal is going to
be very difficult.

So you see why I am frustrated to see people chasing the wrong solution.
We do not have 50 years, we have if we are lucky between 10 and 20 years.

mhaze, you stated that:

"And then the usual purveyors of the gullible buy in and assume that what is data is wrong and what isn't data is true. oh well!"

mhaze
Please show us data; then, you haven't till so far..

You take the stance of the usual denier (luke warmer) and make many statements that are unfounded without any empirical evidence. Or, as Max states use cherry picked data.

Here is a reference you most likely have not come across:

https://theconversation.com/our-planet-is-heating-the-empirical-evidence-63990

In relation to your last post, Miami is already spending huge amounts of capital to hold back "fine day flood waters", it is recognised I understand that it is not considered a complete solution.

mhaze you say there is not enough evidence for action to take place in relation man created climate change.
.We have incredible flooding through rain bombs
.Dry lightening causing huge wild fires; fire seasons are getting longer, and the fires are becoming bigger
.Glaciers are breaking down.
.Arable land being destroyed.
.Permafrost thawing causing huge costs to repair infra structure e.g. Alaska Highway.
.Marine environments are changing.

The science is there showing CO2 to be implicated.

mhaze, the only weapon you have against those situations is to try and minimalist them, you provide no references which debunks them

Peak oilers keep redefining peak oil. Back in the good old days it was total oil produced, and nothing, no tar-sands, no shale-oil, no horizontal drilling, NOTHING would get it above 86mbd or 90 mbd or whatever. This is laws of physics stuff, they told us. There are profound technical reasons it can't be so, they told us. EROEI. Supply not meeting demand. Etc etc etc.

Instead, what do we find?

"World oil supply hit 97.2 million barrels per day at the end of 2015."
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/06/world-oil-demand-and-supply-could-hit.html

Now peak oil is just peaking of *conventional* fluids, not *all* fluids. Or it's some economic definition, or some other demand side definition, or it's peak oil because the price has crashed!? Just change the definitions as the prophecies of doom fail to pass. While I acknowledge that all fossil fuels WILL one day peak and decline, it seems our technology just keeps finding new cheap enough ways to get at the dirtier and dirtier stuff. I mean, Canada's tar sands were at 2.3mbd back in 2014!
http://www.energy.alberta.ca/oilsands/791.asp

In a real emergency, we can even do Coal-to-liquids and underground coal gasification. Fossil fuel supply is not the issue. Climate is! We can't even burn all the remaining oil without pushing way passed 2 degrees!

Now the good news. NREL studies have shown that we can charge over 80% of today's driving as EV's on the existing grid! Unused off peak night-time electricity is already 'spare', and could charge about 45% of today's car fleet.
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/recharge/

Elon Musk has opened Stage 1 of his Gigafactory for bulk manufacturing of lithium batteries for EV’s! The world in 2014 produced 30 GW lithium batteries, but Elon’s factory will produce 50 GW a year from 218, and 150 GW per year in the 2020’s. Elon plans to be selling 1.5 million EV’s a year by the 2020’s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GBnJNLoBuw

And that's just Tesla. There are other major car companies starting down the electric pathway. Once most trucks and cars are electric, there's no real problem.

Well Max, I am a fan of electric cars having driven two of them but
could not afford to buy one. I had to cancel my order when they told
me the price. They were $27,500 DEARER than in the US and $17,500
dearer than in the UK. There are problems that you have ignored, such
as the supply of lithium, it is beginning to look like Teslar might
use up the available supply on its model 30.
Trucks are another problem, by the time you load up the truck for a
1000 mile journey with its batteries there is no room for cargo !
That is roughly the way it is, you can argue around the edges but a
truck that has to stop every say 200km for a several hour charge is
just uneconomic. Obviously the railway is the way to go.

I am sure that you understand the limits of the tight oil so I won't
bother pointing it out to you here

mhaze

In the past I have written about Inuit communities needing to move, the latest example:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/leaving-ancestral-home-alaska-village-votes-move-due/story?id=41482755

Quote:

"And, since the 90s, the community had to move about 19 houses from one side of the island to the other because of coastal erosion, he said.

"My grandfather said the ice used to freeze in October when he was growing up and now this past winter we had to wait until late November, December, to safely go out on the ice," Sinnok said. He said his uncle passed away after he "fell through ice where it was usually thick enough" to walk over."

1. EV's are coming down in price, and a number of metal solutions and new chemistries are being experimented with. But yes, if we head into 100 Tesla gigafactories, then yes, there will be a problem in 17 years. But remember, lithium is recyclable.

2. But there’s another solution altogether. Boron powder. Yes, metal powder. It also is recyclable / de-rustable. It has about the same energy density as oil, and could easily run trucks and harvesters, and is infinitely recyclable.

And guess who also supports boron as a contender?
Yup. Dr James Hansen.

Also, a lot of the recycling could happen at night on off-peak power.

https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/recharge/

Once again, all of this can be run by just one invention — forever.
GE's S-PRISM. The EBR2 was the physics prototype, and passed every energy and passive safety test they tried. We have already invented the 'forever' machine.

S-PRISM + boron + some synfuels for airlines = sustainability.
For billions of years.

I *hope* and *pray* that we'll hit peak oil soon, and that it will at least force us into a Greater Depression, because NOTHING the peer-reviewed, real, solid science of climate change says seems to be able to convince the self-interested denialist dogma. So I actually hope you're right, and that there's a serious oil crisis soon. But sadly, I just don't think it's coming soon enough.

Max,

Regional v global. You say I'm wrong to say there's no evidence of an overall increase in extreme weather events because there may be, based on models, not data, an increase in regional extreme weather events.

Its the equivalent to saying its wrong to call the sky's blue because the clouds are white.

Is there a probability that regional weather has changed since some arbitrary earlier time? Yes. Climate changes, always has always will. Is there evidence that AGW has caused detrimental changes to global weather events? No. Ask the scientists in the IPCC. Don't you want to follow the science?

Peak oil.
= = =
There will be atime when the volume of oil extracted will peak. We may be already there although probably not. But its entirely beside the point.

The only issue is how the volume of oil extracted relates to the demand for that oil. We can see how that tracks based on the price. If the price of oil falls then it means that the supply is increasing vis a vis the demand for that oil.

Mankind has never run out of a resource. Never. And we'll never run out of oil (or coal, or wood or iced vo-vos). As we've seen, as the price of the resource increases, either new ways are found to get more of that resource or other resources are utilised to fulfill the demand for that resource eg gas picks up the slack.

The classic recent example is copper. In the 70s it was confidently asserted that we'd run out of copper wire and therefore the telecommunications revolution would stall. Then came fibre optics and now we have more copper vis a vis demand than ever before.

Long before we run out accessible oil, we'll have moved on to some other method to create the energy we need - maybe solar, or thorium or ultra-safe nuclear or gerbils running tread mills. Who knows?

There is an innate human need to foresee doom. History tells us to beware of the doomsayers.

mhaze
You keep going back to the IPCC; yet, whats happening in the natural world completely underlines how the SPM is right.
Where do 8, 500 year flooding events in the US alone for a little over a year fit into your IPCC interpretation? Those events have happened after the IPCC had published they're report.
There are lots of other examples elsewhere apart from the U, some references have been provided.

Mhaze,
*I* said nothing of the sort. The Working Group did. Remember the Working Group? That paper you cherry-picked and SAID you supported when you THOUGHT it supported NO extreme weather events? Yeah, that Working Group. *They* said it.

Run. Change the topic. Do anything you can to avoid admitting that YES, the IPCC Working Group admits there is an increase in Extreme Weather events!

What was it you said? “Always believe the peer-reviewed science...unless it doesn't tell you what you want to hear. In that case go with the self-interested assertion.”

So, do you always believe the peer reviewed science? Or do you just go with the self-interested assertion? Want to revise your statement that you accept the Working Group science now that you’re disagreeing with it, or would that be too much like admitting that you’re just a Denialist shill who copies and pastes without reading the documents for themselves?

Max,

All my original quotes on this were from the AR5. They concerned the level of low confidence and /or lack of evidence that there is a global trend in droughts, floods and other extreme weather events.

Do you think that what was said in AR5 was just plain wrong? On what basis do you think that?

As you've already done several times you take my fully sourced data and try to disavow it by going off at a tangent. I say current temperatures have been exceeded in 3000 or so of the last 11700 years. You've never sought to disprove that but seek to ignore it by saying firstly that temps are rising faster than previously and (when that was shown to be false) saying future temps will be higher than the last 11700 years. That may or may not be true but doesn't contradict my original point.

Same here. I show that AR5 points to the lack of evidence that extreme weather events are increasing globally, and, without trying in the slightest to disprove that, you simply seek to ignore it by reverting to regional models. They may or may not be right but either way my original point stands.

Oh and the sky is blue. :)

As to my comment about peer-reviewed science, I was sending up your attitude which you've continued to display. The science shows that temps aren't unusually high at present and you do your best to look the other way. The science shows that we have little information about global extreme weather patterns and you do your best to look the other way.

I don't mind if you want to argue that the data on current temps are immaterial in the scheme of things or that data on current global weather patterns don't matter, but that's entirely different to just pretending that the data isn't there.

"Same here. I show that AR5 points to the lack of evidence that extreme weather events are increasing globally, and, without trying in the slightest to disprove that, you simply seek to ignore it by reverting to regional models. They may or may not be right but either way my original point stands."

No, you're point fails because your original copy and paste sources cherrypicked those segments they wanted to, didn't they? Your 'point' was that the Working Group said there was no evidence of increased incidence of extreme weather events. My point is that is not what the Working Group said at all. My point is READ THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT and stop cherrypicking! Or at least go back and read my double-post reply to your Working Group assertions, you'll see all the quotes you need to.

Posted by Max Green, Thursday, 18 August 2016 8:27:24 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18419&page=15

Ignore? I didn't ignore anything. I happily concede what the Working Group said about GLOBAL models: because talking about extreme weather event son a global basis seems to be almost meaningless.

But when discussing regional extreme weather events, the Working Group is clear. They're increasing. The fact that you just don't like it doesn't mean it isn't true. It could be one of those "Inconvenient Truths" that Al Gore was talking about.

Lastly, don't try and bring your favourite paper into it about the temps just after the last Ice Age. That was an interesting conversation, and I'm not afraid of it. But the last few pages we've been discussing Extreme Weather events. Stop trying to change the topic.

mhaze

As with so many deniers/lukewarmers you provide lots of verbiage; but, very few references. Where references have been provided they display cherry picking, misrepresentation of data, or references are very poorly presented.

You have been shown to be wrong in relation to:
. the IPCC and extreme weather, Max has explained that very well.
.you are wrong about Marcott, ever join AAAS?
.when discussing the cryosphere...drunken trees, methane explosions, breakdown of infrastructure through permafrost thawing you down played that matter.

All you can do is try and caste doubt, when references to science papers or quotes from scientists/meteorologists to what say; you are completely wrong.
Semantics does not stand up to actual examples.

His response is just as I predicted a few days ago: "Run. Change the topic. Do anything you can to avoid admitting that YES, the IPCC Working Group admits there is an increase in Extreme Weather events!"

The hypocrisy here is that it was Mhaze who castigated US with ....

“Always believe the peer-reviewed science...unless it doesn't tell you what you want to hear. In that case go with the self-interested assertion.”

Hypocrisy, much?

Max

I appreciate that your self-esteem took a hit over the 'outrageous' temperature issue and that even you would realise how silly it looks to be sooooo convinced of AGW without knowing the past temperatures.
Its only human to try to salvage some face by trying to find some other issue to score points.

But climate extremes isn't it.

Some background:
AR4 made a big play around supposed increases in extreme events. Like AR5 this was based on little data but lots of model results. But as the data came in, it showed that claimed global extremes weren't there which is why the climbdown in AR5 was such a big admission. To mask that the IPCC then started talking about regional extremes, based again on little data and lots of model results. We'll have to wait to see if the data supports those claims in AR6.

However it should be easier for them to maintain this claim since there'll always be some region or other that experiences unusual events.

Given, as you now have learned, that current temperatures have occurred in the recent past, if it is true that these extreme events are caused by warming and notby the normal ebbs and flows of climate variability, we can deduce that similar extremes must have occurred regionally in the recent past. That is why I treat events like the claimed permafrost melting, 'drunken' trees and glacial melts as mere passing curiosities.

Its true that AR5_WG1 talked both about global and regional extremes. I didn't ignore the regional claims. I just don't think they are either important or proven.

That the perpetually scared latch onto the scare around regional changes and overlook the admissions about global changes is to be expected - it was always thus.

mhaze
This might be of interest:

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/index.php

https://youtu.be/zn_9uBIubzU