On the Larsen ice shelf a crack is speeding up. A survey 9 years ago said the ice was thinning and softening but a fracture was unlikely.
From the info it seems it began 40 years ago at 2.5km year then did 10km year from 2010 to 2014. Then up to 2016 it got to 12km year and now is doing 50km year. That makes a graph like a rectangular hyperbola which goes along flat then abruptly turns upwards. Earthquakes are similar where tension slowly rises then suddenly snaps. The crack would be moving about 2mm a second so is visible and probably making a noise like a tin roof on a hot day. Greenland's glaciers can be heard splitting and booming.

Ask the idiots from the ship of fools if the Antarctic is cracking up.

Reference was made to a ship of fools. In Climate Change discussions, such ships are populated with CC denialists. It is unfortunate that such people dive into climate change discussions offering myths, delusions and beliefs. It is a pity that they do not address facts. Perhaps they do not understand the attributes of facts. They are often triumpherate with their arguments. Thankfully the fog of uncertainty each lives in is diminishing, with their boats growing much smaller, and numbers reducing. It is probable that each denier occupies his or her own boat. It is almost impossible to find compatible denialists who can live in the same fog of uncertainty, as each has cultivated their own individual set of beliefs and myths.

PS: the rate of Antarctic ice melt is icreasing exponentially with time, driven by deep sea currents heated by climate change.

Actually Tony, if you had any grasp of the science you would know that the Antarctic ice mass is growing https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses.

Also, given that the Antarctic is a land mass, warm seas are not melting the ice sheets. Most of the ice is inland, and for all of the year below zero celsius.

The problem with this area is that there are too many people who have not the foggiest idea what they are talking about, prepared to weigh into the debate, calling other people names, and muddying the waters. They are the ones who are anti-science.

Dear Sir
"if you had any grasp of the science"...that's not very OLO style.

Larsen holds back glaciers which do move a rivers of ice.

"Australian Antarctic Division Glaciologist, Dr Ben Galton-Fenzi, said researchers want to better understand how much this glacial melt is driving sea-level rise.
“Since the 1900s the global sea-level has risen by around 20 centimetres and by the end of the century it’s projected to rise by up to one metre or more,,"

"Future sea level rises could put more than $200 billion of Australian infrastructure at risk, a report by the Climate Council has found."

.." Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study, which was published on Oct. 30 in the Journal of Glaciology.
But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”

Tony was deriding others for knowing nothing. That is not very OLO. Pulling him into line is what the site ought to be about. The report shows that ice loss is not accelerating. He is wrong.

The quotes you put in support of your argument are all from people saying what is going to happen in the future. When we've got to the future we'll have some basis for judging whether they are right or not. The record of accuracy of predictions of people in this area of science is not very good, so I think, on the balance of probabilities, their hundred year and fifty year forecasts will be well off the money as well.

Lets have a competition for all the 1970's predictions that are a tad embarrassing to the people who made them.
My favourite is the head of the Maldives saying they would be under water by the turn of the century (17 years ago). Underwater? The population (Under Sharia Law no less) has more than doubled?
I am sure that can be bettered but we need the author's name and we can email them and embarrass them.
No, not that nice Australian of the Year Chris Flannery he has had enough tish on his head of late.

Graham
" The record of accuracy of predictions of people in this area of science is not very good, ."

However , the same NASA person who you rely on makes such prediction.
If science is worth paying for , then scientists agree that Larsen C
is cactus , up the creek , out for a duck.

I'm not quoting him for his predictions, but his observations Nick.

That was Tim Flannery, btw JBowyer, but I reckon that could be a fun project. But why don't we start a new thread. I think it would be a bit close to hijacking this one.

Observations are old hat:
Stable Antarctic Ice Is Suddenly Melting Fast - Scientific American
https://www.scientificamerican.com/.../stable-antarctic-ice-is-suddenly-m...
May 21, 2015 - Multiple glaciers, previously frozen solid, are adding vast quantities of water to ... region of Antarctica that is suddenly melting, and at a fast rate.
----
Snow doesn't need sub-zero cooling but does increase with humidity due to warmth. Parts of Antarctica are like a desert but stronger winds are observed with more snow , due to warmth.

Hi Nick, this is the first time anyone has tried to rebut more recent observations by earlier ones. BTW, your link is incomplete so I can't comment more on what you have presented. However, Scientific American is one of the least reliable publications on these issues. It is very keen to push the alarmist case, which is not very scientific of it.

Glacier melt and snowfall are different although California is alarmingly full of crack. Alarms can be observed and heard scientifically.
2015, 2016 , 201....
Accelerated glacier melting in West Antarctica documented: Study ...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161025113327.htm
Accelerated glacier melting in West Antarctica documented ... Date: October 25, 2016; Source: University of California, Irvine; Summary: Two new studies have ...

Antarctica is a very complex place, and observable 'facts' can be very misleading.

Many people mistake volume of sea ice, for instance, with size. When the winds blow off the continent the size of sea ice increases, but not the volume. When winds blow onto the continent the size of sea ice decreases. Measurements have concluded that the volume of sea ice is decreasing, and has been for a while.

Ice on the continent is kilometres deep, and melt is hard to measure because the land mass is pushed down by the weight of it. As the weight decreases the land will rise. Melt from the continent can also become sea ice, making it even more difficult to measure.

The Antarctic might be warming, bits might be break off, bits melting away. We'll know more in a decade or two by which time new 'predictions' (always dire) will be around.

But if whatever's happening is caused by warming then we can take comfort in knowing that it all happened before and somehow we and the planet survived. The world has been warmer than now 25% of the time over the past 12000 years. It was warmer 1000 yBP, 2000 yBP, 3000 yBP and many times before that. Presumably the Antarctic melted and had bits break off in those times as well, if warming is the issue.

Since we and the Antarctic and the Arctic survived those earlier warmings, we should just chill -so to speak.

The world might be warming and it might be caused in part by man We'll know more in a decade or three. But that's not good enough for those who want to up-end society now, so a never ending trail and tale of impending disaster is predicted. That those predictions fail to come to fruition, is of little concern to those of a certain persuasion. Its not about being right, its about getting support for desired changes.

London had about 12,000 people at 1000BP and maybe 60,000 in Roman times. Brisbane a bit less and people could shift camp at a moment's notice.
"Future sea level rises could put more than $200 billion of Australian infrastructure at risk, a report by the Climate Council has found.

The report's lead author, Professor Will Steffen, warned national income would suffer huge losses .. "You're looking at anywhere from three tenths of a per cent of loss of GDP per year, all the way up to 9 per cent loss of GDP per year," Professor Steffen said.

Coastal flooding report:

At least $226 billion of infrastructure exposed to flooding and erosion (with a 1.1m sea level rise), including:

$81b – commercial buildings
$72b – residential
$67b – road and rail
$6b – light industrial buildings

Source: Climate Council

With more than 75 per cent of Australians living near the coast, Professor Steffen said large swathes of infrastructure were at risk.

"The people who are investing actually went to the best scientists here in Australia, experts of sea level rises, and decided they were going to build that Brisbane airport runway higher than previously planned," he said.

If sea level rises were ignored, by 2050 the report predicted the global impact of coastal flooding would cost $US1 trillion per year - the same size as the Australian economy."

Thanks for that Nick, I feel a lot safer now.

After all, the climate council is run by that, "It aint gunna rain no more" bloke, & we all know how useful that twits forecasts are don't we?

With the way the sun is going, yep that source of all our heat, we could, [yes we rational folk can use that word too], be about to go into a new Maunder minimum, so are more likely to find our harbours drying out, rather than our suburbs going under water.

Some time shortly a new ice age will develop, [yes will, not could], & the Great Barrier Reef will revert to a range of low coastal hills, as it was 10000 years back. This time it will be topped with a bit of coral for a little while.

I have to ask, do you actually believe this stuff, or is there some advantage to you personally, in having a bunch of dills believe it?

Of course you could be just a mean people hating Green, which would explain things

wowie , now I'm pushing world twit geophysics research , London river barrier and Brisbane airport runway , at 1.5% gross commission.
Would / could you love to see people having their coastal houses eroded in value and become Green beach gravel ?

nicknamenick,

The Steffan report assumes a sea level rise of 1.1metre by 2100. Well the IPCC comes up with a somewhat lower number than that but let's pretend the number is right - as an old girl friend used to say, what's a few centimetres matter anyway.

I'm guessing the lower IPCC number didn't give the required scariness so a larger number was 'derived'.

Let's assume the scenario is right.

So we are to assume that the people of 2100CE (and remember these are people whose grandparents haven't been born yet) are just going to sit around slack-jawed as the seas rise. It won't occur to them that they might salvage the infrastructure by elevating it a metre or two. They apparently will still be using trains but they won't think to raise the level of the tracks a bit. They will sit in their houses askant as the waters lap their front door.

There won't be any technological advances that might mitigate the rise. Even though they'll be 4 - 6 times richer than us in real terms they won't have the funds, knowledge or wherewithal to build sea walls as required. We are to assume that our great-great-great grandkids are all gunna be morons.

This is standard modus operandi for the alarmist with a pedigree going back to at least Malthus - assume nothing changes except for that thing that you disapprove off and then predict disaster. Malthus was wrong, Erhlich was wrong, Club of Rome was wrong and Steffan is wrong.

The seas might rise and the rise might accelerate but our vastly wealthier, and more technologically advanced descendents will cope just fine.

You're right again.
Aussie Gumboot
$25.00
Best Ever Gumboot – non safety
All purpose gumboot
Colour: Black.

Sydney Airport is 6.5 metres above the alarming hot water now which will rise a terrifying metre as passengers work in gumboots with the loads of concrete 5.5 metres above the sharks.

"The storm peaked during the night of the 10th-11th May,reaching 8.43 m at both Sydney and Port Kembla and 8.86 m at Botany Bay. Strong winds from the intense low pressure cell created the monster 17.7m wave, which was recorded near Eden about 4.30am on June 6, a statement by the NSW Public Works advised from the tsunami wreckage of the Airport amid crocodile attacks.
The wave easily eclipsed the previous record of 14.9m recorded in April 2015,
"Average wave heights in excess of 5 metres have been recorded along the NSW coast on Sunday, with highest waves exceeding 12 metres," an advisory statement said from the Flood Commandant of BOM at Bathurst Gumboot Bunker .

I'm with mhaze on this one. I think we should just do nothing, after all, the ones most affected aren't born yet, so why should we care?

If we are wrong, and the temperature starts rising exponentially, instead of at the present rate, half the population of the world will starve to death, which is surely a good thing, isn't it?

Better to carry on polluting and ignoring the evidence, even though it will cost later generations dearly, which, as I said, doesn't bother me because I won't be here.

Graham and others,
Reference has been made to the latest IPCC report regarding Antarctic ice melt.

Note that the IPCC report was based on peer reviewed papers in 2014. Hence its findings were based on relatively old science, possibly 2012 and earlier.

Go to the following URL to find one of the latest papers on Antarctic ice melt, and related topics. It is authored by James Hansen and some 15 other highly credentialed scientists.

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016.pdf

Its title is:
Ice Melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2C global warming could be dangerous".

Extracts from the paper:
"These climate feedbacks aid interpretation of events in the prior interglacial, when sea level rose to plus 6 to 9 meters with evidence of extreme storms while the earth was less than 1 C warmer than today".

"growing sea level rise, reaching several meters over a timescale of 50 to 150 years."

My comments:
If other research groups come to the same conclusions, there could be a one in three chance of such sea level rise before 2100 - our world is heading into a disastrous climatic environment because we continue polluting our atmosphere with CO2e.

Only those who are active researchers in this domain are equipped to debate the contents of this paper. Even though I spent a year at Mawson as an atmospheric physicist long ago, I am not so qualified. But, I do trust the scientists involved.

Their conclusions are very frightening.

I can understand readers wanting a comforting cloak of not understanding. But, to push such non-understandings is helping to delay necessary actions.

Tony

Well it seems, according to Billyd, that this 1m rise in sea levels is gunna kill half the human race. Who'd of thunk it. Perhaps he's just being hyperbolic, but who can tell with the we're-all-gunna-die crowd.

Still there was a time when rapid sea level rise wiped out almost the entirety of humanity save for one family. So there is a precedent and as we know past experience is vital in understanding future climate events.

On the other hand, over the past 2 centuries of rising temperatures has seen a 10 fold plus increase in food supply. So no precedent and as we know past experience has nothing to do with understanding future climate events.

So writing "temperature starts rising exponentially" translates into "rapid sea level rise"?

I'll have to remember to consult my English to Bogan translator next time I address you.

"over the past 2 centuries of rising temperatures has seen a 10 fold plus increase in food supply."

What an amazing coincidence, the population of Earth has increased at roughly the same rate!

How lucky is that?

One benefit is that boats won't become trapped under the Sydney opera House and so the cladding can be removed as Utzon intended. The music shell will then seem to float on the waters.
"One of Utzon’s options for the skirts of the broadwalk involved short cladding panels which did not extend to the water line, thus revealing the pile structure below . As this strip would be mostly cast in deep shadow, it would produce an intentional dark underlining to the podium. The solution chosen by Hall, Todd and Littlemore continued the precast skirting below the low water mark. This was partly an aesthetic preference and partly a result of Maritime Services Board advice that an open front in the disturbed waters round Bennelong Point could trap and endanger small boats ."

Tony 153. Thanks for getting us Trump! Your elitist claptrap was why us average Joe's and Josephine's do not trust you at all.
Forty years ago up to the minute peer reviewed scientists convinced politicians that diesel powered vehicles were cleaner than petrol. Forty years later they say they are not, in fact much worse? No inquest in who said what, just another pay day for the filthy corrupt scientists, again!
No funding, in fact let us start putting in a tax bond for scientist so when the technology gets changed they lose their pensions?

We could easily do this discussion by Austpost and avoid slow NBN , ads , wrist damage and electronic cancers.

Billyd,

"So writing "temperature starts rising exponentially" translates into "rapid sea level rise"?"

You parodied my views through an inappropriate segue without regards to my actual views and I replied in kind. My fault...I keep forgetting that with the self-righteous such things are a one-way street.

"What an amazing coincidence, the population of Earth has increased at roughly the same rate!"

Well actually the increase in food production has outpaced that of population increase so per capita calorie availability has increased over time. The point is that this occurred while temperatures increased. But to the serially (cereally?) alarmed this 200 year trend will miraculously reverse any time now. It seems not to matter to them that such predictions have always been wrong

The estimated population of the Earth 200 years ago is around 800 million, today it is 7.4 billion, so close to ten times.

What happened historically to temperature rises is irrelevant to today. The situation now is unique, post industrial revolution, there hasn't been a time like this in history. Of course temperatures have been rising for thousands of years, since the end of the last ice age. After the planet heats up they will drop again, when another ice age kicks in, unless we stuff it up. In the past, temperature rises have been natural, the Earth had no help, now it does, us. What scientists are worried about is not the natural rise, it's the possibility of an exponential rise, and that the Earth may not be able to cope.

Anyone who thinks 300 years of burning fossil fuels, more and more every year, has no affect on the environment is a fool, they probably claimed the hole in the ozone layer had nothing to do with CFCs.

Hi Jbower,
When you say you distrust scientists, does that include:
- medical scientists
- pharmacology scientists
-.dental scientists
- space scientists
- food and agriculture scentists
- ecology and biology scientists

and all of a long list of scientists working on global warming, impacts, mitigation and adaptation, such as those in the following fields:
- atmospheric modelling
- armospheric chemistry
- ocean - surface and deep - rising sea levels
- ocean currents
- ocean acidification being caused by. Increasing atmospheric CO2
- ecology
- coral biology
- space science and effect of sun on earths temperature
- glacier science
- fisheries
- agricultural science
- atmospheric heat management
- paleo science (what was our environment like hundreds of thousands of years ago?)
- tree ring science
- glacier and Antarctic ice core (the have determined temperature and CO2 concentrations for past 800,000 years - using Russian ice cores obtained from surface to 3 km depth)
- metnane management from farting/belching cattle (major problem for Aust)

And many more.
Most on government salaries.
Not rich compared with fossil fuel magnates.

Cheers
Tony
PS - love our scientists

Yes Tony the whole lot of them! They have kept on researching dishonestly and their own peers colluded with them. History is littered with examples of scientists and "Experts" getting it wrong.
Do not just take my word for it re-read the famous Eisenhower speech on the military industrial complex. The very next paragraph warned of researchers (All those people you listed) just angling for more money with lots of promises. Mind you first middle and last the prediction"You are all going to dieeeeeeeeeeee!"

Scientists are reading your mind JB especially palaeoanthropologists and the dentists , with the shiny diamond pointed drills that scream in your head and steal your emotions, memory and fingernails . Stay out of banks , avoid cracks in pavement.

Billyd,

According to the FAO per capita calorie production world-wide increased by 38% since 1800 and by 24% since 1960 when the green revolution was in its infancy.

Despite a long and lamentable history of dills predicting the imminent decline of food availability, it never happens. In period since 1975 when we've supposedly had this unprecedented rise in temperatures, world food production per capita has increased by 18%.

These are world statistics. The improvement in the developing world is even more impressive.

"What happened historically to temperature rises is irrelevant to today. The situation now is unique"

Philip Stott used to call this the error of presentism. Every generation believes its time is special, unique, never been faced before etc. But with a little historic perspective one gets to see that presentism is a very common and natural human frailty.

"What scientists are worried about is not the natural rise, it's the possibility of an exponential rise, "

Yes they are. But in the hands of the dedicated alarmist, "the possibility" morphs into "the certainty" and idiocy like 50% of the population dying from starvation.

"Anyone who thinks 300 years of burning fossil fuels, more and more every year, has no affect (sic) on the environment is a fool,"

Agreed. Very few of what you'd derisively call 'deniers' thinks there's "no effect".

"they probably claimed the hole in the ozone layer had nothing to do with CFCs."

Given that the banning of CFCs seems to have little effect on the so-called hole, you might want to withhold judgement on that just yet.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-30/ozone-hole-over-antarctica-expands-to-near-record-levels/6898824

"presentism is a human frailty"
indeed yes and your article explains "We expect in the southern hemisphere that the ozone hole will not completely recover for another 40 to 60 years, when it recovers back to pre-1980 levels when the ozone hole was first discovered."

Tony153,

"PS - love our scientists"

Oh good, so I guess you love:

Judith Curry
Svensmark
Freeman Dyson
Roy Spencer
John Christy
Fred Singer
Richard Lindzen
Habibullo Abdussamatov

should I go on?

In terms of climate science you left a few important professions off your list:
Economists - you can't predict future emissions without guessing future economic activity
Statisticians - who work out how to process the data derived from paleo and similar work

PS is Tony, ANTony? Very similar views and writing styles.

Nick, whilst you are feeling so superior explain the Ozone hole again? Science settled? I read that the lack of sunlight was what made the hole. Bigger in the South because the loss of sunlight is more. So the "Scientists" say get rid of CFC's (Still made in Russia and India) and then in a thousand years it will get better. Mmmmm sounds like another con to me.
My point is still valid. Put bonds on these people. Personally I am fed up with seeing them thieve so much money from tax payers.

"Scientists observe first signs of healing in the Antarctic ozone layer

September ozone hole has shrunk by 4 million square kilometres since 2000."

http://news.mit.edu/2016/signs-healing-antarctic-ozone-layer-0630

JB
now I get it. Your science teacher gave you a hard time? and your common-sense teacher? and English comprehension?

I have no argument with you..i'm spechless

Billyd,

"September ozone hole has shrunk by 4 million square kilometres since 2000."

Yep, sometimes it increases (see CSIRO link above), sometimes it decreases. Its almost as though there are natural variations in nature. Nah...must be caused by man.

Incidentally, it was claimed above that the hole was discovered around 1980. In fact it was first observed by French scientists in the 1950. Back then they observed that it was getting smaller. Those were the days before scientists had worked out how to convert natural phenomena into scare-campaigns and research dollars and lucrative careers. So the French merely noted the change and moved onto other things. Fools missed a golden opportunity to become rich and famous.

Meanwhile in the real world:

"At 11:59 am eastern, the official White House website had a lengthy information page about the threat of climate change and the steps the federal government had taken to fight it. At noon, at the instant Donald Trump took office, the page was gone, as well as any mention of climate change or global warming."

He said God bless America. God bless Trump.

How anyone can quote Trump as an authority on climate change is beyond me!

The mind does indeed boggle!

Mhaze,
As a general comment, as scientists become well known through in depth research in their subject areas, they generally have little deep knowledge in other areas (I have not considered Judith Curry who has left her research position). So, if you wish to know more about ocean acidification, you would not consult a solar physicist.

The list of scientists you offered earlier are not researchers in climate change nor closely related areas. They are listened to by denialists who listen to any scientist who has views anti climate change. I notice at least one in your list quotes religious reasons for his view.

So, the list you provide may have had good careers in some branch of science, however their views on climate change, in my view, have no weight. Another factor you might like to research is that each in your list probably has a view on climate change that has little similarity to others in the list.

You might like to find more "scientists" willing to provide the stuff you like to read on this site:-
https://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database

Tony

Tony,

Oh dear! You reject my list of scientists to 'love' for a variety of totally spurious reasons:

"The list of scientists you offered earlier are not researchers in climate change nor closely related areas. "

Lindzen is an atmospheric physicist and an IPCC lead author. Yep nothing to do with Climate Change

Singer, among other accomplishments, is an atmospheric physicist and Professor emeritus of environmental science, University of Virginia.

Christy is climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the head of the team that complies one of the main temperature records. Yep nothing to do with Climate Change.

Spencer - well too much to mention. See here to see how little he has to do with CC research </sarc>:(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist) ) Seriously Tony!

Svensmark is a leading expert on cloud formation and negative feedbacks.

You list armospheric(sic) chemistry as a profession to be 'loved' but apparently not the atmospheric scientists in my list. Wonder why?

"Another factor you might like to research is that each in your list probably has a view on climate change that has little similarity to others in the list."

Yes, because scientists should only be considered worthy if they agree with each other. Dill.

The bottom line, Tony, you 'love' those people who tell you what you want to hear and ignore those equally or better qualified who challenge your prejudices.

Tony, this confirms in my mind that you are ant.

For those playing along, ant disappeared from the group after making so many errors and unethical assertions that even he became too embarrassed to remain.

Have you read the Exxon papers yet Tony?

Task for Mhaze,

1. Prove Herschel did not discover infrared radiation in 1800;

2. Prove Fourier wrong when in 1820 measured daily solar energy , calculated night time heat loss that should have resulted in a -20C surface temperature; then surmised there is a blanket in the atmosphere keeping temperature at about plus 15C;

3. Disprove Tyndall’s 1850’s discovery that CO2 and water vapour are greenhouse gases;

4. Find fault with Nobel Laureate, Svante Arrhenius – 1900 - calculated that doubling CO2 would create a 4C to 6C temperature rise. As a Swede, he wanted a warmer world, but calculated it would take 3000 years to happen

Can you undo this 150 years or so science?

Referenced the following source of information?
https://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database

Look at one of your leading lights, Lindzen who according to the reference, received funds from fossil fuel organisations – presumably to push their point of view.

ExxonMobil recently accepted that their 1970s science group understood climate warming, the role fossil fuels play, and the world wide impacts that were arising from additional CO2 in the atmosphere. ExxonMobil didn’t heed their scientists – they apparently preferred, and prefer, profits. I understand they are before the courts in the US for not heeding the science in the 1970s, and therefore wantonly pushing the world to the situation we are now in. And the courts deal with facts, not these illusory sets of “empirical evidence”.

Other court cases in the US: children are taking governments to court for harming the environment they will have to live in. And winning those cases at lower courts – and heading towards higher courts.

Unfortunately for denialists, the courts require facts.

Oh, and Michael Mann is suing denialists for damage done to his reputation many years ago. And heading in the winning direction.
So, mhaze, beware of those you belittle and whose characters you besmirch.

But, by all means, become involved in fact based debates on the science. Good science arises from such debates.

Tony, this is a stupid post. mhaze didn't deny any of those things you ask him to disprove. So what is your point? It appears to be to try to verbal people who you disagree with. Which is a very nasty thing to do.

The only court case I am aware of on the substance of climate change claims was one in the UK where it was found that An Inconvenient Truth was propaganda and couldn't be shown to UK children in schools without disclaimers as to its accuracy. Children wouldn't have standing to sue, so I doubt that part of your story.

Desmog Blog is an astroturf operation run by a public relations company which earns money from Big Enviro.

Michael Manne has sued for defamation, but would be unlikely to win. He perpetrated a fraud with his hockey stick graph where he discarded proxies once they failed to confirm his hypothesis and replaced them with other measurements. It's the 20th century equivalent of the Piltdown Man, and he's welcome to have a go at suing me. Wouldn't get very far.

So your evidence is irrelevant, tainted, or wrong, and aimed at denigrating a valued member of this forum. Please show some respect when you post.

Graham,

Accepting the validity of that 1800's science is, in effect, acceptance that AGW is real.

If you wish to maintain that it is not real, then you need to disprove that science.

Or, as is often the case, build a fiction that has no factual base.

Tony

" Tony, this is a stupid post.. It appears to be to try to verbal people who you disagree with. Which is a very nasty thing to do.

Desmog Blog is an astroturf operation.. Michael Manne ..perpetrated a fraud . So your evidence is.. and aimed at denigrating . Please show some respect when you post."

blink, blink

"The bottom line, Tony, you 'love' those people who tell you what you want to hear and ignore those equally or better qualified who challenge your prejudices. Tony, this confirms in my mind that you are ant. For those playing along, ant disappeared from the group after making so many errors and unethical assertions that even he became too embarrassed to remain."

by mhaze , with approval of Graham

I have to laugh - why do you denigrate DesmogBlog's site owner and Michael Mann?

By the way, here is the judgement against the United States of America for not acting to preserve an environment suitable for children to live in. I understand that fossil fuel interests were not allowed intervene.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2016/AikenOrder.2016.10November.pdf

And Michael Mann has just won a court case against those who denigrated him without cause

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/12/22/michael-mann-wins-court-decision/

So I guess that your position on AGW is offside with thousands of scientist, and offside with at least with the law in the US.

As I said in an earlier post, be careful who you denigrate.

Cheers
Tony

Hi Tony, I've never disputed that emissions of CO2 will cause the atmosphere to be hotter than what it would otherwise be, all other things being equal. That's not what the argument is about.

The argument is about exactly how sensitive to additional CO2 the atmosphere is, what other forces are acting on the atmosphere both to heat and cool it, and what we ought to do about the additional heating.

The answer to the sensitivity question is increasingly obvious - the atmosphere is less sensitive than the models suggest it should be. We are still working out exactly what else is acting on the atmosphere, and how much warming or cooling it causes.

On the question of the additional warmth, I am with Arrhenius, who first predicted the CO2 effect, and thought some additional warmth would be a good thing. Again, the studies that I see tend to confirm this, plus the fact that the additional CO2 is helping to feed the world. On those grounds, building some additional robustness into our systems is probably the best answer to what to do about CO2 emissions.

Your court cases are merely preliminary skirmishes about whether his matters can even be allowed to proceed or whether they should be dismissed. They don't uphold your position. Michael Mann hasn't been vindicated at all.

To mhaze,Graham, nicknamenick, - which could be 1, 2 or 3 people

Not that qualifications should not matter in this discussion, but I think I do know what I have been talking about:

PhD - Upper atmospheric physics - Melb Uni
One year as auroral scientist at Mawson in the Antarctic
12 years in IT at the Bureau of Meteorology
Running a climate change course for over 6 or so years

And much more

BUT, I am not a climate schange scientist

AND am enjoying the fun of offering facts
when I come across people
who not only do not understand AGW,
but who pretend to do so,
who develop and promulgate myths,

not caring if they delay necessary action to mitigate AGW
and adapt to a rapidly changing environment:

Those who have no care for our world's future.

Graham,
you need to update your views on Mann.

My quandary is to understand whether you knew the following and just intended to obfuscate, or whether you really did not know the current status of court actions.

This is the sixth out of six decisions that have come down in favor of science:
Cuccinelli v. UVA/Mann,
Cuccinelli v. UVA/Mann supreme Court Appeal,
ATI v. UVA/Mann,
ATI v. UVA/Mann Supreme Court Appeal,
Mann v. CEI/NRO/etc DC District Court,
Mann v. CEI/NRO DC Appeals Court.

Hi Tony, if you want anyone to believe that list of qualifications you are going to have to tell us who you are so we can fact check you. You certainly are not conducting yourself on here as someone with a serious understanding of climate science. It is mostly trolling. So until you do produce some proof I'm going to assume you are most likely a troll.

Everyone knows who I am, and no, I am not mhaze and certainly not Nick.

With respect to Mann, he has won some court cases, but they have been preliminary skirmishes as to whether other actions he has launched can even proceed, or attempts to hide information from the public or public authorities. In no sense have the judges ruled on whether his "science" or "the science", is correct, whatever you might mean by the second concept.

You can check my website if you wish

my-info.co

Quid pro co (Spelling?)

What qualifications do you have that back up your piece on sea-level rise?
Any research? Perhaps some fishing? (sorry, just trying to insert some humor)

The tone of your blog, appears to me, as that of a denialist generating yet another myth to counter ocean scientists' factual views on global warming impact.
Sorry if I have misinterpreted your article.

http://www.ambitgambit.com/2017/01/10/so-how-fast-is-the-sea-really-rising/

And you appear to have closed comments on what is a fairly recent blog??

On Mann, you are not reading the data.
His team won all 6 cases of which 3 were appeals.
Me thinks your mind will not accept that his science was correct, and the hockey stick representation was exactly as the data lay. Yes, real science, real data, understandable but frightening results.

Hi Tony. So you don't want to allow anyone to verify your claims about your identity? The website of course wasn't yours.

My blog piece consisted of a number of graphs generated from the BOM stats which demonstrate that Will Steffen was exaggerating the level of sea rise. The graphs speak for themselves. He specifically mentioned Sydney, so you might like to test what he says against the graph from Botany Bay which shows no acceleration whatsoever, and in fact very little rise at all.

The Mann court cases fall into two categories.

The first category was where the AG of Virginia was trying to access university documents to determine whether Mann was fraudulently gaining funding. He was denied access to the documents. Under the same category the American Tradition Institute was also trying to access documents, and were again unsuccessful. So these are cover-ups by Mann which he's been able to maintain through legal technicalities. Of course, if he had nothing to hide he would allow the authorities access. Perhaps Wikileaks can let us know what is there.

The second category concerns his defamation action against Mark Steyn and others. In these cases the defendants are moving that his actions be struck out. The courts are allowing him to proceed.

What is common between the two categories is that none of them deals with science.

So it appears you deny data when it is presented to you, and you misrepresent (or possibly don't understand) legal cases. Same techniques as many other propagandists, including tobacco lobbysists.

graham,
I am rather taken by your integrity and truthfulness.
The last line on the Author page on my web site re- asks you a question?

What author page? You need to provide a link if there is indeed an author page at all. And I suspect it will be just as anonymous as this. Why don't you give me a link to your Facebook page, or LinkedIn page?

Tony/ant,

That AGW is real is both completely true and utterly beside the point. CO2 traps heat.Every time I breathe out I add to the CO2 levels and therefore create AGW. Every time you write some moronic post you use power which creates CO2 which warms.

The issue isn't the laboratory proof that CO2 warms. The issue is how much does it warm, is that warming good or bad or neither (or both), and what is the extent of the so-called feedbacks to that warming.

That man's activities causes some warming is basically beyond dispute. The dispute is how much. AGW is real. Is CAGW real? That's the issue.

I've explained this to you so often and in such detail that its clear you have neither the intellectual capacity nor intellectual curiosity required to get it. As such I don't intend to waste my time on that any longer. I used to hold some hope that you were merely uninformed, relying solely on alarmist data and that, if given other data, you'd at least come to realise the uncertainties. But you aren't interested in the search for truth.

All this, your current misunderstandings and the monumental errors as 'ant' which were so embarrassing even to someone as clueless as you that you had to retire the nickname, means that your claims for academic credentials are both laughable and truly pathetic.

For those playing at home, just a quick work on #ExxonKnew. Its fallen apart as I told Tony/ant it would more than 1 year ago. You only needed to read the source documents to know this would happen but alas this was beyond the capabilities of Tony/ant. The various state Attorneys-General who launched the Exxon probes are running for cover. Exxon no longer face any serious inquiry. There remains a chance that one or two of the A-Gs will be impeached. The media that fomented the claims have been exposed as in the pay of private environmental groups seeking financial advantage. And the Exxon executive who featured in the claims is now the most powerful diplomate on the planet. Laughable!

Graham
Goto other
Then to site author

OK girls, break it up! This has gone on too long. You all think you are right and one of you is but I am opting for peace here. Go and have a cry in the big girls toilet and move on.
Even though I have always been an atheist I love the "Blessed are the peace-makers" tag. Do not thank me it is just what I do.

Peacemaker! Harrumph.

Do you see what you did there? "OK girls, break it up!" Girls? Implying that only girls would bicker. Sexist in the extreme. As well as assuming that none are actual girls. Genderist.

And in these days where self-identification as to gender is de rigueur, while I might currently identify as CIS male, what if I identify as female tomorrow. How offended would I then be? Transphobia in the extreme. What's more, we know that transvestites regularly refer to each other as 'girls'. Homophobic.

Let's face it, you're omniphobic. Your posts should come with trigger warnings.

Contra peacemaker this post is probably the most incendiary on these pages so far this year

http://my-info.co/ refers to U3A which, it turns out, is a real thing.

The U3A has a contact page for all U3A affiliated sites in Australia.

Tony/ant's page isn't mentioned.

Ignore and pity seems to be the best approach.

mhaze - I would like to apologise from the bottom of my heart, with every fibre of my being and also say I am a total fool and do this stuff all the time.
I will try to do better from now on.
This grovelling, insincere and pathetic apology usually satisfies the leftists of the world and no, I do not consider them shallow, stupid bullies either.

The Larsen C has cracked 10km in the past 3 weeks or 170km year. That's 5mm second. A 170km long lever acting on 20km hinge. It doesn't stand a chance.

Nothing stands a chance while climate change is ignored.

A little bit of a worry has emerged. How smart are scientists?

Scientists say they've solved the mystery of Antarctica's missing iron ...
www.sciencealert.com/iron-meteorites-in-antarctica-could-be-hiding-just...
Feb 18, 2016 - But for a specific kind of meteorite – those rich in iron – far fewer have ever been found in Antarctica, providing a long-running mystery that has .
-
An iron meteorite gets warm on its way down (as in burning up a space shuttle) and gets warm the next day in the sunshine sitting on the ice. Along comes 3mm of snow at night and what happens? dunno , mystery

Wired.UK has a pic of the ice shelf next to a map of Wales. The iceberg will then be a new south Wales , evidently , and free of Antarctic Treaty restrictions. Unless China gets in first it will be available for inspection and occupation. Being south of Australia it will be useful as territory to protect south whales against Japan and ideal for boat people detention.