On another thread two poster's claimed that there was increased melt of Greenland's ice sheet, without providing proof. I've done a Google search, and can't find anything apart from a reference here http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/11/why-did-greenland-s-vikings-disappear to increased temperatures. However this is contradicted by the graphs and references here http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/02/20/greenland-antarctica-and-dozens-of-areas-worldwide-have-not-seen-any-warming-in-60-years/ So global warming seems not to be an issue in Greenland.

So is the ice melting or not? And if it is, should I be worried? Well, what we can tell from the links I have posted is that if it is warmer now, it was just as warm in the past when Vikings inhabited Greenland.

One also has to deal with the fact that it is below zero a fair bit of the time in Greenland, so a bit of temperature increase won't make much difference http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UO2Q8ObPFWo/VA6anzcQYnI/AAAAAAAAAFg/jbtm5loABFM/s1600/nuuk-climate-graph.gif It might even increase ice cover as there could be more precipitation. So a little bit of global warming, such as we've been having, probably won't make much difference, except that more mass in a glacier makes it move down hill a bit faster.

Interested in what others can dig up on on this issue.

Start by watching http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/on-top-of-the-world/9371502

Seriously? You'd prefer a doco to actually looking at some data? So if I find a doco that contradicts your doco, then I win the argument? If you don't want to be accurately described as trolling, don't do it. Or if data is too hard for you, just say so.

It is very hard to believe anything that is said by the climate hysterics. They have told so many lies that have since proven to be lies by responsible scientists, and there is no reason to think this one is a not lie also. Crying 'wolf' and 'crapping in their own nest' come to mind.

Dear Grahamy,

I would love to see a doco from a reputable from a reputable source using reputable scientists engaged in the field stating that the ice sheets of Greenland are not melting.

They might be melting, but you need more than a doco to prove that. But if they are, the issue would be why. And the data you have here shows temperature hasn't changed in a long time. If no temperature increase, then it can't be global warming. Maybe it's geo-thermal - that's one of the reasons they are melting in Iceland. But that's not global warming either.

As you should appreciate, after interjecting on my threads a lot of times, I actually believe the globe should be warming because of CO2, and I'm continually disappointed that it doesn't appear to be warming as much as predicted, and, in a lot of spots, doesn't appear to be warming at all.

Graham seems have to stopped the ultra-Left contrarian, Steeleredux, dead in his tracks. Good stuff.

Dear Grahamy,

We have hoed this row more than once so I'm a little loathed to put too much time into it particularly as chasing shifting goal posts can get a little tiresome.

Perhaps we can bite off some small chunks and see where that leads us.

You stated; “They might be melting, but you need more than a doco to prove that.”

Here is a Greenland surface ice melt chart which I like. It is interactive and features figures from 1979 through to 2017.

If you look at the first 10 years and their relation to the defined median 1981-2010, then compare that to the last 10 years, there certainly seems to have been an overall increase even given the fact that the last two have not been as pronounced.

http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/greenland-surface-melt-extent-interactive-chart/

So we had better ascertain whether the National Snow and Ice data Center is an acceptable source to you? If not you should probably furnish a reasonable explanation why?

If you accept the veracity of the data but would like more I am happy to put some time in to looking for it.

He had to prove me wrong, but he still doesn't know the difference between 'loath' and 'loathe'. He's also stuffed up big time by saying "I am loathed....". On the other hand, he might have got the message that he is loathed by many posters. Nobody so ignorant of the basics of his own language has any business laying down the law to anyone.

High Graham,
You will have noticed that those who understand Climate Change no longer post to, or comment on, this site. The reason is obvious - your post would suit a comedic site, as would past posts on Climare Change. And your current post references another comedic site, where graphic artists have followed Trumpism with fake data.

I guess you are into government created conspiracies, such as man landing on the moon.

Could you provide intelligent commentary on this site: it might be full of such conspiracies:

www.climate.nasa.gov

This graph (http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2016/ArtMID/5022/ArticleID/277/Greenland-Ice-Sheet) from NOAA shows that, in the period 2002 to 2016, Greenland lost about 3200 GT of ice mass. We know from Danish measurements that about 500gt we added in 2017. (NOAA hasn't updated their data for 2017 yet...it always seems to take longer to update when the news doesn't suit the narrative).

So lets say 3000gt in 15 yrs. Sounds like a lot.

But the total ice mass of Greenland is approximately 2.7 million gt.

So 3000gt is approximately 0.1% of the total. And anyone who thinks we can measure to to level of accuracy should contact me about this bridge I have for sale.

Let's assume those numbers are in the ball-park. Its said that a complete melt of Greenland's ice would raise sea levels by 7.2metres. 0.1% of 7.2metres is 0.7 cm (about .5 mm per year) which is within the margin of error for sea levels measurements.

So, is it melting? Perhaps. It seems to have been for 14 of the past 15 yrs. But as with all things climate, less than 30 yrs data is entirely speculative.

Does it matter if it is melting? Not in the slightest. Its in the ho-hum category.

As to the causes of the putative melt, given the apparent lack of warming.

Maybe geo-thermal....http://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-19244-x

Maybe microbes....http://academic.oup.com/femsec/article/92/9/fiw127/2197710

or maybe its just the ebbs and flows of climate.

Steele, I opened this thread to explore an issue that some posters were using to try to obfuscate the issues on Jennifer's article. I don't know whether Greenland is losing ice or not. I have an open-mind. Interesting interactive graph, but there must be some better data than that. And you might address the issue that temperature has been very stable in Greenland. The real issue isn't whether ice is melting, but if it is, why. Temperature doesn't look like the answer.

Dear GrahamY,

You do keep saying 'if'.

As Toni intimated many of us feel debating recalcitrant skeptics on this forum about global warming after the world has really moved past these questions holds little attraction.

The data behind the interactive graph is both substantial

“This data set offers users a 25 km daily record of surface/near-surface melting on the Greenland Ice Sheet. The presence of melting is determined from brightness temperature data acquired during a 34 year span by three satellite-borne microwave radiometers: the Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR), the Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I), and the Special Sensor Microwave Imager/Sounder (SSMIS).”

... and freely available.
http://nsidc.org/data/nsidc-0533#

To send me on another errand without an explanation of why this is inadequate would be a little rude.

Indeed in light of that I hope you recognise it is a bit rich to ask me to look at explanations of why something is happening, if you are unsure whether it is occurring at all.

Do you or don't you accept the trend from 1981 until now is that the extent of melting over the Greenland ice sheet is increasing?

Hi again, Graham,

I had not realised you were trying to assist Jennifer (presumably Marohasy). Dificult task - Jennifer did try to disturb BOM over a long time on her spurios interpretation of Rutherglen temperature data - and now Greenland data (presumably - I am not inclined to chase her article).

However, a solution to your problem (and Jennifers).

Are you able to take your mind back to the 1940s? I can remember our cool box at home with two compartments. The top was filled with ice on a regular basis, and food was stored in the lower compartment.

Now, there is no way that you would take the lower compartments temperature and expect it to reflect the house’s ambient temperature.

Houses, and temperature recording apparatus (read Stevensons screens) in Greenland, co-exist, closely, with the worlds second largest ice block. Only those with inhibited mental processing capability would expect to see any Greenland temperature records that reflect global averages, either as raw data, or anomilies. Those global averages clearly attest to existence of global warming that today is causing great harm, and will be getting worse over coming years and decades.

That you Graham, and Jennifer, want to use Greenland temperature records to support denialist thinking shows how shallow your thinking is.

Such thinking may be required, however, by the Koch brothers, the IPA and your organisation, Malcolm, and many others.

Hello again,
By the way, to say you believe in global warming but cannot find the data to prove it is a very tasteless psychological process to give your self a little credibility.

It doesn’t.

I do find it interesting that these warmists are so aggressive & obnoxious. I guess that when you have pinned your hopes for the establishment of a new world order to a scam like CO2 caused global warming, & can see the whole thing unravelling before your eyes, the tendency is to get a bit narky.

It must be hard after conning the world into spend trillions on looking for something to incriminate a harmless, & in fact essential gas that you can't find a single bit of incriminating evidence.

I must admit to not bothering to read much of their twaddle these days. After thousands of failed "projections" it gets a bit boring. Now the planet is showing them entirely wrong, with increasing frequency, they have only invective to stand on. I guess that like the USSR they will fade into history soon.

Apparently it's snowing in Mexico.

//Apparently it's snowing in Mexico.//

Which bit? Mexico has its own glaciers, so a bit of snow should hardly come as surprise.

Apparently it's snowing in Mexico.

Posted by ttbn.

And in the Sahara desert. I wonder if it has glaciers too?

Hell it is even snowing in Oz in Summer.

Must be caused by CO2 induced global warming.

Many moons ago a Prof Viner predigwcted that snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”."

At the time we thought he meant that snow would stop falling in places where it used to fall.

But he really meant that due to AGE (or something) and because of reasons (or something) snow would start falling in places where it would be rare and exciting to the locals.

The man's a genius. No really, WILTY?

Let me try that again...its not a good idea to try to post using your phone.

Many moons ago a Prof Viner predicted that snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”."

At the time we thought he meant that snow would stop falling in places where it used to fall.

But he really meant that due to AGW (or something) and because of reasons (or something) snow would start falling in places where it would be rare and exciting to the locals.

The man's a genius. No really, WILTY?

Thanks Tony, I started the thread not to assist Jennifer, but to assist the argument.

Interesting parable about the ice box, and you will see that in our atmosphere it gets cooler as it gets higher, to a point. Apart from that it's not much of an analogy. The thermometer is not in a box with ice.

No one was using Greenland as a proxy for global warming, apart from the person who claimed that the ice was melting faster there than it had been. It was completely irrelevant to Jennifer's thread, which was about thermometer calibration in Australia.

But if you wanted to look at global temperature you would look at the satellite record, because it doesn't have the issues associated with surface-based thermometers such as uneven distribution, moving sites, urban heat island effect, and changing the equipment.

However, most of the scientists, including those doing the IPCC reports, use the surface measurements, which you have just told me that you would need "inhibited mental processing capability" to do. I think that's too harsh a judgement, even though I try to use the satellite record as much as I can.

Mind you, the presence of ice is not an issue, and the warming is supposed to be highest in the arctic regions, which is going to be mostly measured in the presence of large slabs of ice. But it appears that this warming is not occurring in Greenland.

Which leads back to the original question. Steele has given some evidence that there may be accelerated melt, but no evidence as to why.

Graham,
If you were really in the business of researching ice melt versus temperature, you would know that 90% of the additional heat that is captured by excessive greenhouse gasses is absorbed oceans. AND that the prime Greenland and Antarctic ice melt is driven by warmer deep ocean currents. Glaciers melting primarily from underneath independent of surface airtemperatures.

And you would understand the maths for calculating global averages. Your preference, satellite data, allows spurious graphs to be generated. I could point you to a video by Prof Muller who was a denialist, who received funding from Koch bros to analyse temps properly. He did, as his work validated climate science. He ceased being a denialist.

You would also understand the role of over 3000 Argo buoys that continuously measure ocean data down to 2 km below surface with regular reporting to satellites.

By the way, you seemed to have trouble understanding my analogy in earlier post. I do think you are trying to create a false trump like view of Climate Change. You slightly change what I said to create a false understanding.

I can direct you to a video or two where highly credentialed scientists are very
concerned as their modelling and paleo data analysis forecast 30% to 50% probable six to nine meter sea level rises by 2100 (I may not have correct probabilities).

I tossed the bracketed comment in to give you something to play with.

Graham, you obviously do not have a background to go toe to toe with climate scientists. Your aim appears to be directed at those who for various reasons cannot easily separate real science from fake science. Although I can direct you to a video expressing life and death concern in Africa as CC has so changed the climate that local elders no longer have useful farming information. CC has destroyed past farming and animal husbandry practices. CC is creating some 60 million CC refugees - many families sending children towards Europe. Syrian wars initiated by CC partly.

Do you, Graham, have any concern for such people? Your actions say NO. Shame.

Hi Graham - again,

I referenced the following YouTube video in an earlier post.
Nothing to do with Greenland, but should make you concerned for humanity.

Oh, if you look, you will find numbers of videos on excessive ice melt in Greenland, with various reporters, including credentialled scientists.

Out of Africa with Thomas Friedman (6 minutes)
https://youtu.be/yEpsygGKObI

bear in mind that Tony153 and ant are the same person. So while 153 is here professing ignorance of the Marohasy discussion around Greenland, ant is in the middle of that discussion. Words fail me.

153/ant is incapable of mounting or following a logical argument. He simply regurgitates, without, I think, fully comprehending, what he gets fed by sites like RealClimate and ICN.

eg

"90% of the additional heat that is captured by excessive greenhouse gasses is absorbed oceans."
That was a number thrown around when warmists were panicking that surface temperature rises were in hiatus. It didn't and doesn't have any science behind it and has been dropped long ago. Part of the reason for that is Argo (whch 153/ant mentions without understanding) which shows that sea temperatures from 2004 for depths of 1 - 1900 metres are rising at the rate of 0.02 degrees c per decade. You can't build a scare-campaign out of that so its been ignored and getting the data is becoming increasingly more difficult.

" forecast 30% to 50% probable six to nine meter sea level rises by 2100"

The last IPCC report forecast for RCP8.5 was for an 80-100cm rise. What a berk.

" Prof Muller who was a denialist"

That's one of those things that 153/ant regurgitates without knowledge. Muller was never a denialist. He did reject Mann's hockey stick but anyone vaguely numerate did that as well. Muller in 2004 "If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do),..."

re ant/153 - ignore and pity.

Tony153, it would be highly unlikely that sea water temperature would be melting Greenland's glaciers, as they are not ice bergs, but glaciers, and sit on land. There could be an indirect link, in that warmer water will warm the air - that is what ultimately drives air temperature on earth. In which case you don't need to look at the water temperature, but the air temperature, and we've done that already, and there is no significant increase in temperature in this area.

I don't understand why you dismiss the satellite records of temperature. That part of your post made no sense at all. But if you reject the satellite record, and you reject the land record, then I'm not sure what your basis is for claiming anything about temperature.

So the mystery of the Greenland melt continues. I've just found some work on the ice mass balance in Greenland, and it appears to be higher than the average for the period from 1981 to 2010. Of course its possible for this to happen at the same time as it melts around the edges at a higher rate, but it has to give pause to those worried that sea levels will rise because of increased melt. The increase in mass appears to be more than enough to counter this. https://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/

GrahamY,

I'd again point out (see above) that the losses in Greenland are minuscule as compared the total ice mass. Even assuming that the GRACE figures are accurate, the losses in Greenland over a 16 yrs period amount to a mere one-tenth of one percent of the total mass.

As to the accuracy of GRACE: in regards to the Antarctic GRACE says that the losses in the decade to 2013 were 64gt +/- 44gt. That is, the margin of error is almost as big as the purported melting.
(Bear in mind that the total ice mass in Antarctica is around 24 million gt. So as loss of 64gt over 10 yrs is 0.0003% of the total and may be as low as 0.0002%. At this level the losses are mere rounding errors.)

I haven't yet found the MOE for GRACE's Greenland numbers but it'll be in similar proportions.

Greenland is one of those things that the consensus currently likes to talk about. Since temperatures haven't accelerated at anything near the pace predicted, they've floundered around trying to find other 'scary scenarios' to keep the fear going. Polar bears refuse to die, the oceans refuse to warm as predicted, hurricanes refuse to increase in intensity, the meme around weather related disasters is unravelling (Munich Re who pushed this meme recently admitted that "The blanket statement that weather-dependent damages worldwide show a climate signal cannot be supported”) and so they go looking for things that are moving in the direction they hope.

That Greenland (and Antarctica) have lost some mass is probably true - after all they have been losing mass on average for the last 12000 yrs. But the loss is so small compared to the total mass of these ice sheets that its of little or no concern. Its like a cancer patient fretting over the new zit on his chin.

When it's all boiled down, what is melting or not melting is purely something to talk about - if you like being bored stiff. Nothing can be done about climate change. All the lies and rip offs: higher power prices, billions given to dodgy researchers and scientists, lies about islands like Tuvulu sinking when they are actually growing (yes studies by NZ and satellite photographs prove this) - none of these things have made an iota of difference to climate change. Nature will change again when it is good and ready. Puny man, crooked man, can not do a damn thing about it.

Hi Graham,
Did you watch the Africa video? I dont expect an answer, because if you said yes, you might have to explain yourself to an amada from the far right.

Well, glaciers, unit 1.

Greenland and Antarctic glaciers protrude into the nearest ocean. Parts may break off, and become icebergs. Ice in a glacier tongue has very gradually made its way towards the ocean. The part of the tongue that appears to be in the ocean will stil be resting on rock underneath. There may be a number of rocky bumps impeding free flow of the glacier. Such may have been the situation for thousands of years. But, nowadays, the bottoms of these glacier tongues are bathed in warmer water. Hence their bottoms melt rather quickly. Hindrance provided by rock bottoms reduce quickly, and the glacier speeds up. Some begin to calve large icebergs many kilometers upsteam of historical calving locations. Some glaciers have thousands of square kilometers of snow and ice in upstream bowls, all of which find down stream travel becoming easier. Also, as calving points move upstream, the calving vertical cliff becomes much higher, to the extent that it cannot support itself. So sudden large collapse, like a falling row of dominoes. Hence predictions of 6 to 9 meters of sea level rise. Possibly by 2100.

By the way, tipping points may have been reached. That is, once started, not stoppable.

And, places in the Arctic have had winter temperatures 30 to 50F higher than normal.

Research “methane tipping point”.

If you have children, tell them you are doing all you can to allow global warming to trash our one and only planet.

Hello again, Graham,
There are many videos showing the summer extent of melt lakes on the Greenland ice cap.

These lakes form partly because of atmospheric warmth, but also in a big way because of black carbon soot caused by fossil fuel combustion. And, the lakes look dark blue. Hence they absorb much more heat from the sun than does white ice/snow.

A question for you: many of these lakes are joined by creeks full of very fast moving cold water. Where do these creeks drain?

I will answer for you, knowing your deplorable lack of knowledge on such matters.

Much of the water drains down to the ice/rock boundary far below the surface. Guess what, this water significantly reduces the friction between rock and ice. Hence ice follows gravity at a higher speed. The water racing down valleys to the ocean is increasing in volume rapidly.

Here is a six minute video on the increasing rate of Greenland ice mass:

https://youtu.be/kmmDb1RX5dg

Of course, there are numerous other Greenland ice loss videos.

But, Graham, I would recommend not watching it, as to do so might cause your very simple views on cryospere science to dwindle to nothingness.

Cheers Tony

Hi Graham,

Here is a 15 minute video on ice melt and its dangerous impacts on our world.

https://youtu.be/KLk8Uy2-Lsk

And it is one of the world’s top Climate Change scientists. His presentation is easy to understand.

But, if you do watch it, dont mention it to your colleagues. Nothing worse than having to contend with real science. You could pretend you were with Alice, in Wonderland.

Hi Tony, check out https://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/ and you'll see that hardly any part of the Greenland glaciers go into the ocean. And if there is less weight on the end of the glacier it is less likely to slide. That's physics for you. The reason for the melting under a glacier is either pressure from above, which lowers the temperature at which water becomes solid, or heating in the earth. So, the more weight above on the glacier, the faster it moves. Or the more volcanic activity there is, the faster it might slide. Take weight off the bottom and it won't speed it up, but it might slow it down.

End of article states “As mentioned, satellites measuring the ice sheet mass have observed a loss of around 200 Gt/year over the last decade.”

200 Gt/Year spells ice sheet reduction to me. Question is: is the loss increasing with time?

Graham,
You seem to reside in your own cacoon of limited knowledge.
Here is another article, scientist written, describing many Greenland glaciers, with long tongues, where the most prominent ablation mechanism is bottom melting - warm oceans doing the ablation.

You seem to have a block to discussing CC caused warming of deep ocean currents, and their impacts on glacier melting.

But, I understand. Being of the far right, politics trumps science everywhere. The far right abhors government regulation, and if a position of science would cause further regulation, the far right attempts to trash the reputation of scientists, without understanding the science.

I am afraid that is how I view your writings.

Such an approach delayed the formal recognition of the smoking / lung cancer link for decades, and attempted to destroy the reputations of climate scientists.

It is as if the free market is a religious structure that must be protected. Its holy grail is maximising profit, primarily for the rich.

Even, it appears, if such protective actions ruin a world for all children.

How much of Greenland is actually land & how much is ocean? It looks like to me that Greenland is multiple Islands topped with Ice. How much Geo Thermal activity is there is in Iceland just next door?

I doubt very much if all the melting is due to burning Coal as claimed by the Brain dead Greenies.

Dear GrahamY,

You wrote;

“Steele has given some evidence that there may be accelerated melt, but no evidence as to why.”

If you turn that “may be” into 'from the evidence there appears to be' I think we could move forward. As my previous posts reiterated without either a broad acceptance that there is an increase in Greenland ice melt, or a reasonable explanation of why you found the evidence I provided to be suspect, then exploring why it is happening is a rather moot exercise.

Michael Mann, fabricator of the infamous 'hockey stick', was keynote speaker at last weekend's Pacific Climate Change Conference in New Zealand. He was still spouting about "unprecedented" weather events caused by current climate change. You would think that a publicly exposed liar would shut up and go into seclusion. Not the human-caused climate change liars apparently.

Two distinct issues here. The first relates to what is happening. There is now substantial evidence that globally glaciers are in retreat. The second relates to what is the cause of the ice melt not only in Greenland but globally.
Relating specific events to human activity is an imprecise science but as we observe what is happening it does prompt the question what impact will these events have on the way we live our lives.
If Greenland were to revert back to what it was when the Vikings were able to farm then we would also need to know what was happening in the rest of the world. With a population of 6 billion people cannot migrate to lands with a more favourable climate; this in turn means we cannot view events in isolation.

wasn't it Gore who claimed that England would be without snow by now. Oh well just another false prophecy. abc certainly not willing to hold anyone to account unless of course they disagree with the narratives. The more 'educated' we get the more dumbed down.

runner: wasn't it Gore who claimed that England would be without snow by now. Oh well just another false prophecy.

Well yes. At the moment Europe is in the Grip of a Cold Event which hasn't happened since the Winter of 1944. Snowing in Rome. Feel like 15 degrees below Zero. The UK has issued warnings.

Gore, another false Prophet.

Runner,
Gore doesn't "claim" anything as some sort of expert. He is just an commentator in the way that Attenborough talks about the wildlife (that he didn't actually discover).
He's talking about matters that have been under investigation for decades and not from a 2006 documentary that came out of nowhere.

There's also another false claim going around that Greenland was one "green" - hence the name.
It's name comes from "Grund-land", meaning Homeland and has been under ice for at least 10,000 years. It was once so inhospitable that even the hardy Vikings abandoned some of their early settlements.

They are finding that the timing and length of seasons are changing, bringing some benefits but also problems, such as unexpected "snap freezing" and insect plagues. Glacial ice is also disappearing rapidly and not being replaced at the same rate.

People will still be arguing about this as extreme weather events (as predicted back in the 60s) continue and tropical diseases spread into new regions.

I find it amazing that someone who accepts the utter craziest of notions is unable to look at things rationally, critically and without prejudice. Then again, somebody has done your thinking for you.

'Gore doesn't "claim" anything as some sort of expert.'

if that is the case Rache why did our dumbed down teachers show his lies at school causing little kids to be scared with fiction?

ttbn,
I had intended to say nothing else on this topic. However, your maligning of Michael Mann should not be allowed to fester. He is a renowned climate scientist whose “hockey stick” research result has been lauded. His work has been well and truly verified. You can read about reviews that verified his wwork.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

If you wish to comment, do so from a base of knowledge and understanding. Otherwise, please shutup!!

Tony Mann's work is shoddy and basially fraudulent. That he continues to have a reputation anyone would defend is amazing. The statistical techniques he used were shown to have been wrongly applied - check out Wegman's report. And that was before anyone found out that he actually jettisoned the proxy data when they didn't show what he wanted and substituted a thermometer record for them. This is basically fraud. While he noted that he'd moved from proxies to instrumental he never said it was because at this point the proxies showed a decline in temperature. Which meant they were unreliable as proxies and should never have been used. This is why I call him Piltdown Mann.

We are indebted to McIntyre and McKitrick for their work in uncovering the problems with his work, and it is a good demonstration of how citizen science works. McKitrick has a good summary of the points here http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/hockey-stick-retrospective.pdf

Just disgraceful that you would leave your post here, obviously trying to confuse someone who is following this thread.

Talk about pot kettle black Tony153, Mann's hockey stick has been so completely discredited, that he should be too ashamed to show his face in public. What planet have you been on the last 15 years.

Prey tell, are you a gravy train rider, or just a fellow traveller.

I think black would be white to Tony 153 who probably still believes in Father Christmas.

With all the technologies available for conferencing these days, the likes of Mann still like the junkets, paid for by someone else, including big emission flights from one side of the world to the other. That other liar, Gore, is also a big personal polluter and user of recourses. 'Hypocritical' doesn't even begin describe these confidence tricksters.

Dear GrahamY,

If you are reluctant to accept the conclusions of the National Snow and Ice Data Center (backed up by robust and publicly available data) that there is a measurable increase in the area of the Greenland Ice sheet which is melting, then I'm interested to know what evidence it would take to convince you?

“Seeing things that don't exist is a particular quality of the left” (Tim Blair).

Steele, I just posted about Michael Mann, so this would appear to be an attempt at misdirection.

Be that as it may, the only evidence posted here which is in any sense rigorous and quantitative shows that ice mass in Greenland is not changing significantly. I'm not sure why you insist on making things up.

You ideological warriors really annoy me. You can't discuss an issue rationally. I started off asking for evidence of increased melt. That hasn't been available, apart from a couple of docos that I'm not going to give any weight to.

But I'm happy to accept that there could be some increased ice melt. (You ask why I won't say it is definite and the answer is it is so miniscule in all the sources you have quoted, and there is no eidence of an acceleration). The issue then arises as to why this might be happening, and what it might mean.

On that front, temperature in the area hasn't gone up, so we should be able to rule out global warming, unless someone has got an hypothesis that implicates it - haven't seen that one yet.

And then there is the issue as to whether increased melt, assuming someone can show it, leads to decreased mass, and again, there is no evidence of significant decreased mass.

Dear GrahamY,

No, referencing Mann in a debate about Greenland ice melt is a misdirection. I brought the discussion back to the topic at hand; Is there Greenland ice melt, and is it due to global warming?

Then this from you;

“You ideological warriors really annoy me. You can't discuss an issue rationally. I started off asking for evidence of increased melt. That hasn't been available, apart from a couple of docos that I'm not going to give any weight to.”

I did not give you a link to a documentary, rather one to an extremely robust set of data showing an increase in the area of Greenland melt.

It is now coming down to whether you can accept from that data that there is melting or whether you are sticking to 'could be'. I quite legitimately asked what would it take for you to accept that there is an increase in the area of melt and your response “You ideological warriors really annoy me. You can't discuss an issue rationally.” would seem to be projection rather than being prepared to 'discuss an issue rationally'.

Graham,

In an earlier post, you recommended

https://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget

This research document notes that: “The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.” I mentioned this to you earlier, but you chose not to comment on it, as that simple figure caused all of your position statements to be false.

Regarding Mann, if capable, read this article. Manns position fully validated.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

A summary at the end of this article states:

“New studies using different methods continued to extend the period covered by reconstructions. Ljungqvist's 2,000 year extratropical Northern Hemisphere reconstruction generally agreed well with Mann et al. 2008, though it used different methods and covered a different area.[212] Studies by Christiansen and Ljungqvist investigated previous underestimation of low-frequency variability, and reaffirmed Mann et al.'s conclusions about the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period.[213] as did Ljungqvist et al. 2012 which used a larger network of proxies than previous studies. Marcott et al. 2013 used seafloor and lake bed sediment proxies to reconstruct global temperatures over the past 11,300 years, the last 1,000 years of which confirmed the original MBH99 hockey stick graph.[214]”

Very solid validation of the original paper by Mann on the Hockey Stick graph.

The McIntyre and McKitrick work was generally deemed to be of no value for a variety of technical and other reasons.

Why do denialists resort to false facts? Graham, you are expert at ignoring any truth that attacks your house of straw.

Guys, it is an age old fact that if there is not consensus about a particular submission or finding, then it is in doubt. If it is in doubt, neither the fore or against camp are right. I have said many times, if a scientific argument is found or published, it is always scrutinised and undergoes strict peer reviews. If anyone of these experts disagree with the original paper, it is immediately put into doubt or question. So any related debate arguing for or against is moot. I am again reminded of the fact that in such situations we have to consider who stands to gain from their particular stance. I can see how people like Gore are making money from this topic. I would like to believe that those opposing may be telling the truth because if anyone can tell me where they are making money from playing down such things as global warming and so on, I would very much like to know. Just a thought.

Poor Tony 153 must be the only person in the world who doesn't know that Mann's hockey stick was totally discredited. Talk about making a total fool of yourself, Tony! And you had the cheek tell me to shut up!

Dear Tony153,

Mann was spectacularly vindicated by the North Report in 2006.

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators". It said "Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Report

I'm even more impressed by Hansen whose predictions are proving to be very impressive given the state of modelling when he first raised the issue.

Rock solid science usually stands the test of time and these two have been standouts.

ALTRAV
An interesting view on this conversation. Somewhat distorted by toss away comment on Al Gore. Do you know how much he spends on Climate Change actions? How many CC speakers has he trained? Can you compare his income with that of fossil fuel industry heads? Your tone is that of a denialist. However, consensus - well and truly addressed, as long as a 97% to 3% of climate change scientist agreeing that CC is real and frightening. See the next item that gives detailed insight into how consensus was measured. I would like to know if Graham suggested such a topic to you.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=home

GRAHAM - I think others should know more about your organisation:

https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/11/21/climate-science-denial-promoters-queensland-energy-scare-election-headlines

That reference goes to a specific page on that site that covers your organisation, the Australian Institute for Progress, youself and others..

It issued a report just before coming Qld elections. “Nervous Energy” read the headline, claiming an “Exclusive” on a “Dire warning of power station closures, blackout.”
Although AIP claimed it was based on a model, none could be provided.

The “institute” is stacked with current and former senior Liberal National Party members. 
What’s more, the same institute has heavily promoted the rejection of the science linking fossil fuel burning to dangerous climate change.

The AiP also has strong and enduring political ties to the LNP.  Graham Young, AiP’s executive director, is a former campaign chairman of the state Liberals.

Young also rejects the evidence that human-caused climate change is a problem and, as publisher of the OnLine Opinion website, has given a platform to several (read MANY) climate science deniers.

The Desmog page mentions a number of events where AIP apparently paraded numbers of well known skeptics, the views of which are without a science base.

Of course Graham cant agree with views that understand CC.

It means, that where possible, his writings must contain only fake science, if any at all. And, he must not comment when knowing people, fearing for what we are leaving our children, want to publish TRUTH.

SR, science is mostly theory and little factually confirmed and proven. ALL the scientists must agree with the conclusions. Global warming has been de-buncked years ago when it was found that it was not true. So the greens, not wanting to lose even more cred, decided to find a name that was hard to denigrate. So the new con was renamed climate change, because the climate has been changing naturally since the very beginning of the world and it is virtually impossible to quantify and compare temperature changes due to a lack of real historical numbers and not theoretical ones. So I'll stick with those saying global warming is a load of crap, until all the scientists agree, one way or the other.

Tony, I have no co-conspirators, only reason and common sense. Whilst a lot of comments are made on this topic and a lot of references mentioned, I would not be too quick to accept any of the conclusions just yet. Tony I care not how much Gore says he spends on anything he says. Whatever he spends I can assure you he receives far more than he spends. Politicians will say and use whatever tactics and language they can to make their point. Gore is a nobody. His biggest claim to fame is he is a politician. Tony you sound like a better informed person than myself and plenty of others here so I would have thought that you would be a little more skeptical and wary of people like Gore and not take them at face value. I also do not accept your 97% to 3% example you gave as it is out of sync with historical figures quoted regularly. There are too many scientists at odds over this. The imbalance is much closer than your figures. You may have read your figures somewhere but I'll bet if you went and looked for more stats you would find it was always changing, like a work in progress.

ALTRAV,
There are "scientists" around who still insist that smoking not as harmful as the rest insist and they have blurred the science enough to prevent the US Surgeon General from having it banned.
Likewise there are others who want DDT bans lifted and others who claim acid rain is not caused by heavy industrial fallout.

There are other people who claim that the earth is flat and others who insist the moon landing was a hoax. How many of these are required to activate your personal doubt trigger?

There's a meme around that says "You are about to drive over a bridge but there are 100 engineers standing in your way. 97 of them claim that the bridge is unsafe while 3 say it's OK. Would you drive over that bridge?"

If it's not 97 to 3 percent, what are the real figures?

You will never get 100% consensus on ANYTHING and science is about constant and examination and re-revaluation.

It cannot be some sort of global mass delusion so it must the an international conspiracy unlike any we have ever seen before and has been decades in the making. If so, who is behind it and why? The ones who started it all are gone so who profits?

I don't need proof that gravity exists yet there is constant scientific debate about how it actually works. Some things are pretty obvious to most of us on the balance of plain old logic and common sense. Yours seems very different.

Re Mann: have those who rely on Wikipedia (ie (an)Tony and SR) to provide them with comfort that Mann really was right, ought to acquaint themselves with William Connelly, and to understand that going to Wikipedia on matters climate is like going to the Vatican on matters religious.

Two examples:
1. (an)Tony quotes (accurately..a new first!!) Wikipedia as saying that Marcott13 supported the hockey stick BS. But anyone who is even passingly familiar with the Marcott13 reconstruction (http://www.opednews.com/populum/uploadnic/--png_505486_20170331-85.png) knows that it utterly debunks the hockey stick claims. Whatismore, the Marcott paper itself acknowledges the LIA which Mann purported to disprove, and that temperature were often higher during the Holocene than at present.

2. SR falls for the propaganda around North. Remember that this was a political document which pussy-footed around the criticisms of Mann thus allowing the dissemblers to extract bits to fool the likes of SR. But a full reading of North shows that they held no truck with Mann. North was very supportive of the McIntyre debunking of Mann's methods. North, answering questions about his report to Congress said, "Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his coworkers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman." Remember Wegman was highly critical of Mann.

Even the IPCC has dropped all use of MBH98 and the last report accepted the reality of the LIA/MWP.

________________________________________________________________

Re Greenland

I've seen no reason to doubt the overall data from GRACE which shows a loss of about 200gt/yr over the past 15 years.

BUT two things mean that this is a "so-what" issue:

1. The margin of error admitted by GRACE is significant and could be as high as 50%.

2. 200gt out of 2,700,000gt which is the total mass of Greenland is a mere rounding error. Just to highlight how insignificant it is, 200gt is a mere 0.007% of the total. At this rate Greenland's ice will be gone by the year 16500AD. Oh the humanity!

Rache, no not at all. I am a technical person, engineering is my background, so I have a slightly more acute understanding of what goes on around me. Your examples of the people you describe are based on theories contrived from data and 'best guess' assumptions. Remember, 'science relies on theory'. Engineering is based on facts. Your example of the bridge and engineers is probably not the best to use, as I know the answer. In engineering terms, the 3% you mention are clearly wrong because had they taken the time to quantify the strength of the base materials used (it is standard procedure to check each batch of concrete and the strength of the reinforcing steel used in concrete structures) in the bridge they should have arrived at the same conclusion as the other 97%. Science has too many variables and in the case of weather patterns, particularly historical ones, it is impossible to be completely certain of the data. Again 'best guess'. I do not make decisions based on anything but absolutes. In life we are faced with a lot of decisions based on imperfect data. We are placed in a situation whereby we are forced to make a decision, or else! So it is that we find all too late that it was the wrong decision, based on the wrong criteria. There has been too much controversy over this (now it's called) 'climate change', for people like myself to concur.
The arguments against are many and so are the experts who are demonised and called denialists. At best I would put myself in the skeptic category. All this means is,I may not be right, but I am definitely not wrong.

Rache, sorry a clarification or correction. I had a dyslexic moment. The 97%, 3% example should be the other way round, as you quoted. Unless the bridge was in some third world country, your example is moot. Just to touch on another of your examples. Even though we know that the ingestion of smoke, of any kind, is clearly harmful. We must keep in mind that in life all is not what it seems and one size does NOT fit all. To completely throw the numbers out of whack there are millions of people who defy the rules by smoking a pack or more a day and living to well into their nineties. As opposed to a non-smoker who died of lung cancer. Go figure. As for your other examples of the flat earth fraternity and moon landings, I think you may be overreaching a little. Your example on gravity is also moot. Saying it exists but then you switch to 'how it actually works'. Two different topics, again un-related. As for global conspiracies and mass delusions, we have seen them before. I'm not sure who started what, but there is a lot of money being made from promoting climate change. I put it to you that those experts who are not convinced are getting nothing for their opinion or stance. The same cannot be said for the ones pushing the climate change banner. Gore is one of them. He is making money out of this and we know he is. You choose to believe the climate change stance. That is your prerogative. It does not mean you are backing the winning team, it just means you are barracking for the climate change team.

ALTRAV,
Here is some Climate Change science you might like to validate, or disprove, or ignore. And, this science is all based on fact, as is the majority of science.

Herschel found infrared radiation in the early 1800s. You probable appreciate that the earth keeps cool by radiating infra red into space.

As an engineer, you may have come across Fourier analysis - much used in the communications industry. In the 1820s, Fourier measured the amount of heat coming onto the earth, and determined the amount of infrared radiation that should be leaving the earth. His measurements and maths showed that the average temperature of the earth should be between -15C and -20C. This could be called a snowball earth, which the earth definitely wasn’t. So he assumed there must be some form of blanket in the atmosphere keeping the earth warm.

In the 1850s, John Tyndal measured the amount of IR radiation that passes through a glass container containing various gases. His measurements showed that carbon dioxide and water vapour absorb IR. They were, and are, greenhouse gases.

Towards the end of the 1890s, Nobel Laureate Svante Arrhenius calculated that doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere would increase our world’s temperature by 4C to 6C.

In 1965, President Johnson made a speech to Congress that included a reference to rising CO2 levels:-

‘Within a few short centuries, we are returning
to the air a significant part of the carbon
that was extracted by plants and
buried in the sediments during half a billion years’

‘Through his worldwide industrial civilization,
Man is unwittingly conducting a vast geophysical experiment.
Within a few generations he is burning the fossil fuels that slowly accumulated in the earth over the past 500 million years’

‘By the year 2000 the increase in CO2 will be close to 25%.
This may be sufficient to produce measurable
and perhaps marked changes in climate.’

‘The climate changes that may be produced
by the increased CO2 content could be
deleterious from the point of view of human beings.’

Enjoy

//Remember, 'science relies on theory'.//

And empirical evidence.

//Engineering is based on facts.//

Which came courtesy of science. You're welcome. Those civil engineers working on that bridge? They're using Newtonian mechanics. Newtonian as in Isaac Newton, the famous scientist.

//it is impossible to be completely certain of the data.//

It is impossible to be completely certain of anything. That's why scientists go to such trouble to quantify uncertainty.

//I do not make decisions based on anything but absolutes.//

Yes you do.

//but I am definitely not wrong.//

Yes you are.

//To completely throw the numbers out of whack there are millions of people who defy the rules by smoking a pack or more a day and living to well into their nineties. As opposed to a non-smoker who died of lung cancer.//

Except that those cases of long-lived smokers and short-lived health nuts don't throw the numbers out of whack at all, because the numbers that say smoking is bad for you are averages.

//I put it to you that those experts who are not convinced are getting nothing for their opinion or stance.//

Volunteer scientists? I've yet to encounter any. It's a job, people get paid for it.

//The same cannot be said for the ones pushing the climate change banner. Gore is one of them.//

Gore isn't a scientist. He's a retired politician, who is totally cereal about tracking down manbearpig. Excelsior!

Tony, you cannot be taken seriously if all you do is simply reject a statement or suggestion. Your assertion about science and engineering is at best foggy logic. As I explained, to build a bridge the steel and the concrete are tested and must conform to a set of standards laid down to achieve the desired strength in the resulting bridge. The steel has a pre-concieved strength, so too the concrete. If these two materials come in below the required spec, they will be rejected and not used, until the material with the right specs are found. Climate change cannot boast of such 'actual' numbers. I don't care who said what and who's theory was what. You will find that there is always someone contradicting someone in this damn climate change BS. No one wants to own the fact that a new satellite found that the CO2 levels are 30% more than previously thought and that the CO2 was actually coming from the forests and large areas of plant life. They were shocked to find that unlike previous 'assumptions', the cities emitted so little CO2 it was considered negligible and not worth including in the stats. As for 'getting paid', Gore is 'killing the pig', he's not just getting a wage. I'll say it again, the scientists you claim are climate deniers are not 'making' any money out of this. But you already know this.

//Tony, you cannot be taken seriously if all you do is simply reject a statement or suggestion. Your assertion about science and engineering is at best foggy logic.//

Seriously? You don't get the connection between science and engineering? The mind boggles, ALTRAVinglunatic.

Perhaps an example from a different field of engineering might help you. Why do you think electrical engineering didn't really become a thing until after scientists got a decent handle on electromagnetism?

//As I explained, to build a bridge the steel and the concrete are tested and must conform to a set of standards laid down to achieve the desired strength in the resulting bridge. The steel has a pre-concieved strength, so too the concrete.//

OK...

How do you know what the appropriate standards to test for are? Well, to determine that somebody has to do experiments to find out what those numbers need to be... science.

And how do you quantify that information? I mean, it's no good if Dr. Bunsen does his experiments and then reports his findings and then has no way to report that data. And if you're measuring quantities and setting those as standards, you need to have some way of making sure that the measurements are standardised. If Dr. Bunsen determines by careful experiment that good concrete slumps in the range of 3-5 units of length but his units of length are hand widths, and he has tiny little Muppet hands whilst the civil engineer suffers from gigantism, then the slump test results won't be meaningful. Welcome to the wonderful world of metrology, the science of measurement and uncertainty (not to be confused with meteorology, the science of weather)... science.

//Climate change cannot boast of such 'actual' numbers.//

It's not my field, but yes, they definitely measure things. And record the results. Because that's what scientists do.

//You will find that there is always someone contradicting someone in this damn climate change BS.//

Yeah, that's one of the other things scientists do. All the time.

//No one wants to own the fact that a new satellite found that the CO2 levels are 30% more than previously thought//

Atmospheric CO2 concentration is currently approx. 408ppm, according to all the sources I've looked at. If you have a reliable source claiming that it's actually closer to 530ppm, I should very much like to see it.

//and that the CO2 was actually coming from the forests and large areas of plant life.//

Yeah, plants emit CO2. Were you not aware of that? They emit nearly as much CO2 as they absorb. If they only absorbed it they'd rapidly deplete the atmosphere of CO2, which would be a Bad Thing.

//They were shocked to find that unlike previous 'assumptions', the cities emitted so little CO2 it was considered negligible and not worth including in the stats.//

Intriguing... might we be permitted to view this paper?

//As for 'getting paid', Gore is 'killing the pig'//

Killing the pig? That's not what Al Gore's about. He's about killing the manbearpig, and he's super cereal about it. Excelsior!

//he's not just getting a wage.//

Well, no. He's self-employed. Hunting manbearpig! Oh, why won't anybody take him cereal?

//I'll say it again, the scientists you claim are climate deniers are not 'making' any money out of this.//

I haven't claimed any scientists are 'climate deniers'. I have claimed that there are no scientists, to the best of my knowledge, that are carrying out their work in a volunteer (or slave, I suppose) capacity. That used to be the case a few hundred years ago, and maybe it's a shame that science can no longer take advantage of free labour. Scientists may not be the most well paid professionals, but I've never seen any evidence that they work for free. But by all means present it, if you have it. Otherwise, be prepared for your fantastical claims to go unbelieved.

OK Rache, let's have a closer look at your 100 engineers.

Bt way of background let's see how that 97% figure came about...Two researchers sent out two questions to ~10000 scientists. About 3000 replied. When the researchers compiled the answers they didn't like the results. So they started discarding certain types of scientists eg geologists, solar experts (after all, what's the sun got to do with climate!!) and so on. Finally they got the result they wanted - 75 out of 77 (97%) answered yes to both questions. Remember that's 77 out of the original ~10000. Only in a field so corrupt as climate science would this be considered appropriate. But it was the result everyone wanted and how it was arrived at was immaterial to those who used it.

So what were the two questions..1. Do you think temperatures have increased since 1800 and 2." “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” (Significant wasn't defined so could mean anything from 10% to 100%.

So back to your engineers. They aren't saying the bridge isn't safe. They are saying its changed since it was built and man played some part in it. That's it.

Now we know from climate science that most of that 97% doesn't think its currently unsafe. And we know that at least some think it'll never be unsafe.

/cont

/cont

But since we're now in the realms of pretend let's say that most of your 97 engineers think it will be unsafe at some time. When?
Tomorrow? next month? Next year? Now in fact it'll be toward the end of the century. So they aren't saying you shouldn't cross now but that your great grand-kids shouldn't cross it in 80 or 90 years because it'll be unsafe then.

Now we know our great grandkids will be immeasurably more wealthy we we are, and we know that they'll have access to technology that our futurists haven't even imagined yet, but somehow we also think they'll be morons who won't be able to repair the bridge themselves. So we have to do it for them.

Enter government. Let's put a toll on the bridge they say, to both reduce its use and therefore prolong its life, and to provide funds so that we, in our usual efficient and spendthrift fashion, will be able to do the repairs that our moronic great grandkids won't be able to do.

Me? Well I'm inclined to ignore the engineers blocking my path.

The bridge might become unsafe in the future. But its entirely useless to worry about it now when it is both safe now and when we are unsure if it'll ever be unsafe. But if your engineers are anything like some climate scientists they are anxious to scare you about future problems so that you continue to fund their 'research' into those future potential problems. Add to that the fact that no government is going to pass up the chance to levy a toll and gather more funds while being able to claim its for the good of the great grandkids and, hey presto....the greatest example of mass hysteria in the history of mankind.

mhaze, I definitely could not have said it better. You have hit the nail on the head. I thought I was reading one of my posts as I read. Only you make your points so much quicker and so much clearer with more impact, I only wish I had such linguistic abilities. To clarify, I agree with you because I've always thought the govt is ripping us off at every turn and opportunity. This is just another con job. I do not react to pressure groups very well and so come out fighting (verbally). I think it is a sign of maturity to listen to all the arguments fore and against and then with the use of reason and common sense, begin forming an opinion. Where money is concerned, reason and common sense are dirty words. The thought of an ex-politician like Al Gore being lauded is the height of stupidity and shows a lack of imagination and depth of thought. And this is what I see as one of the reasons people make the wrong decisions throughout their lives. It all begins at the ballot box.

mhaze’s consensus views: I am using the structure used by Toni Lavis.

A // prefixes comments made by mhaze’s post on 4 March.
My comments have come from the original consensus project, viewable here:

https://skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=home

// Two researchers sent out two questions to ~10000 scientists. About 3000 replied //
FALSE: Abstracts from published research papers were analysed by Consensus Project scientists, and each paper’s author. No mhaze-like questions to scientists. Approx 12,000 papers reviewed.

// When the researchers compiled the answers, they didn't like the results//
FALSE: Each abstract was classified according to: endorse, reject or no position on AGW. “like” played no role in assessment. Assessments available on web site

// Finally they got the result they wanted - 75 out of 77 (97%) answered yes to both questions. Remember that's 77 out of the original ~10000.//
FALSE: Of 11,964 papers assessed, 3898 endorsed AGW (read CC); 7976 had no position, 77 rejected the concept of AGW.


// Remember that's 77 out of the original ~10000. Only in a field so corrupt as climate science would this be considered appropriate. But it was the result everyone wanted and how it was arrived at was immaterial to those who used it.//
FALSE: To repeat: 3898 endorsements, only 77 rejections. So, only 77 out of the 12,000 papers rejected AGW.
The consensus paper has been well respected and downloaded half a million times.

// Only in a field so corrupt as climate science would this be considered appropriate.//
FALSE: Only in mhaze’s dark fantasy world are climate scientists regarded as corrupt.

He follows a well-worn process by attempting to destroy CC scientists’ reputations, while he, and others, have no knowledge of climate science.

As mentioned in earlier post, this modus-operandi has been used, and continues to be used, to besmirch scientists whose work, if accepted, drives further government regulation.

A peer-reviewed paper Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature is freely available at the Environmental Research Letters (ERL) website.

Deary me (an)Tony, embarrassing yourself again. Surely you get tired of being shown to be so clueless....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change#Doran_and_Kendall_Zimmerman,_2009

(using Wikipedia is against my better judgement but we have to keep it simple for poor (an)Tony).

(an)Tony is referring to the Cook et al paper. That paper was rubbish and has been roundly debunked including by scientists who affirmed that Cook had misrepresented/misunderstand their papers.

Look I've had a gut-full of this CC crap. We have so many anti CC backers that I WILL NOT just accept the words of the YAY side as long as there are voices on the NAY side. So Tony, either you contact the NAY side and convince or blackmail them to change their views to agree with the YAY side or just drop it. Can't you see that for every example you produce, many more appear and are presented to contradict you. WE are wasting our time. The first chink in the armour against this topic was the very first title used to describe it; Global Warming. That con/lie didn't float so the vested interest groups had their little think tank session behind the public toilets and hey presto, they came up with a title that could not be de-bunked. 'Climate Change'. The con-men reasoned that the climate has and will always be changing so it was a sure bet that this title will float. So began this pointless game of let's show how 'the world is getting hotter because of what we did'. I'm sorry but the jury is still out on this one whether you and/or your mates like it or not. There are just too many nay sayers to draw a final conclusion. As far as I am concerned, what the world is going through is business as usual for it. I will repeat what a scientist being interviewed on radio once said. 'How arrogant is mankind to think they can change the state of the world'. The world has always had gasses flowing around. Such as volcanoes, whole countries would be razed by fire and so on. Maybe one of the fires or volcanic eruptions killed off the dinosaurs? Don't know but the Earth has been doing this, (settling down) since its creation. And it will keep settling long after we are gone.

mhaze,
Hey, a great Wikipedia reference: Survey of scientists views on Climate Change:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change#Doran_and_Kendall_Zimmerman,_2009

Seven groups of scientist - 7 CC Consensus analyses, including the John Cook's. The respective percentage agreement with CC are: 100%, 97%, 97%, 97%, 91%, 93%, 97%. The percentages rejecting the concept of AGW - Climate Change are: 0%, 3%, 3%, 3%, 9%, 7%, 3%.

In the article you provided, there is no support your view, mhaze. Over the many years, there is much consolidation of scientists views, worldwide.

Nil support of your view that climate scientists are corrupt.

ALTRAV
Nay side science voices number less than 3%. No value whatever in getting involved with the nay side. Too much to do addressing awesome negative CC impacts world-wide, today, yesterday, and getting worse tomorrow.

Nay side views cannot be changed, as many with those views are in organisations supported by the fossil fuel industry. And, some, unfortunately come from those who cannot contemplate what is happening.

And, another aspect of nay siders, they all have different views and descriptions of what is happening.


Anthropogenic Global Warming causes CC.

Of course climate is always changing. Think of ice ages with tens of thousands of years between iceages, driven by the Milanchovich cycles driving our earth a little closer to the sun, or a little further away.

The changes we are experiencing today are happening almost a thousand times faster that a single Milanchovich cycle. By the way, we should be in a cooling stage of glaciation now - but we are not.

Consider this: over the last 800,000 years, iceages have come and gone. During peak warmth, carbon dioxide levels never went above about 280 ppm, and during glaciations, never below about 180 ppm.

We are now at 410 ppm, and rising quickly. All we can do is stop the rising. We have no way of reducing CO2.

Oh, and many debates with the likes of Cook, Australian writers and more. All have their own views that do not coalesce with views of others. None could substantiate their views. GrahamY is one such person.

I gave a summary as to how the original 97% figure came about.

(an)Tony claimed that what I said was false.

I gave a link PROVING that my summary was entirely correct.

The correct response from anyone with even a modicum of ethics would be to concede he was wrong to label my summary as false.

Then there's (an)Tony.

It's quite entertaining watching all the armchair scientists adapting their knowledge in one field to other specialised fields and extrapolating in order to justify their personal opinion.
I wonder how many started from one position and changed their mind. More likely they took an immediate stance and simply refuse to budge.

It's OK to challenge my analogy of bridge safety but I could just as easily used smoking itself as an example. There's a prominent and official scientific opinion about it's effects on health but there are still those who challenge "the science". The bridge was all about the associated risk - not proof of itself.

Likewise it's funny how people accepted the hole in the ozone layer without attacking the minutae of the data or it's causes and solution. That's because the Chemical Industry behind it problem was also able to supply the remedy. Nobody needed to argue against it to for financial reasons.

It's an undeniable fact that ExxonMobile knew about the potential effects of fossil fuels on the climate and has been actively funding denialism since the 1970s.
Even economic neo-fascists like Thatcher and Reagan were convinced about it during their terms in office and took preliminary steps for environmental reasons.

It's unfortunate (for some) that the early effects (extreme weather events) had been forecast some decades ago to start at this time but more unfortunate (for most) that little had been done when they had the chance.

//Me? Well I'm inclined to ignore the engineers blocking my path.//

Yeah, and you'll be alright because the bridge is safe to cross. But what happens if your crossing dislodges a stone and hits poor Mr. Beaver on the head, killing him stone dead? There's a little old lady in the village down the road who erected a sign reading '$5 to see the beaver', and remarkably some people actually paid up (it's amazing what some people will pay to see what they could see for free just because a sign tells them they should pay). So there's that little old lady's income gone. With the beaver gone, his dam falls into disrepair, and in the next good storm it breaks, sending floodwaters cascading down into the village. They submerge a farmer's wheat crop, completely destroying it.

So well done you. You've completely destroyed the local eco-tourism and agricultural industries, and left a little old lady and a hard-working farmer destitute. But at least you made it to the other side of the bridge safe and dry, and managed to avoid the toll. Happy days! You're alright, and the consequences (even though far more dire than having to pay a meagre toll) are conveniently concealed by a Somebody Else's Problem field.

Apologies for mentioning Cook, when it should have been Patrick Moore

Toni,

I'm sort of hoping that your little beaver story was a rather cryptic attempt at humour...otherwise I've badly misjudged you, and not in a good way.

Still I'll treat post as a straight opinion....

Your story is a form of the precautionary principle ie if we do 'A' then 'B' might happen (even though its highly unlikely) and the 'C' might happen and then the spectacularly unlikely 'D' might happen and then...disaster. So don't do 'A'.

But its a ludicrous argument since it is based on mere fear rather than facts. And it can be played by any side.

eg: I was gunna cross the bridge to visit the shop in the other side. But I didn't and that lost sale meant the owner could make rent. So he lost his business and committed suicide. His virginal daughter, left with no other choice went into the city to make her way and ended up as the crack addicted sex slave of the local mafia boss. Had she stayed with her dad she'd have married the boy next door and conceived a little girl born on census night who'd grow to be the leader of a new female oriented religion. So under the circumstances I really need to cross the bridge and am probably justified in running over a few engineers in the process.

.........

oh one other problem with your story. Even if I paid the toll, the stone could still be dislodged. The existence or non-existence of the toll doesn't affect the outcome...just like the existence or non-existence of Australia's GHG abatement measures doesn't affect the climate outcome.

rache,

"It's OK to challenge my analogy of bridge safety "

I wasn't challenging it. I was using it to illustrate how you've utterly misunderstood the meaning of the 97% meme. You've accepted the lie that 97%of scientists agree that the future climate will be dangerous. But that was never true. You've accepted it because that's what was pushed by the alarmists. Now, I'm wondering whether, having been shown the error, you'll reconsider you views. I also wonder if you'll ponder what else you might have been misinformed about. Actually I think we both know the answer to that.

"how many started from one position and changed their mind. More likely they took an immediate stance and simply refuse to budge."

Actually, and I've written about this elsewhere in these pages, I did indeed start out beleiving the climate hype, but later, having accessed more and better data, moved to my current position. Did you take "an immediate stance and simply refuse to budge" or were you a 'denier' previously? Actually I think we both know the answer to that.

"It's an undeniable fact that ExxonMobile knew about the potential effects of fossil fuels on the climate and has been actively funding denialism since the 1970s."

The former is true, the later not. Exxon knew of the potential problems, as did everyone, and recognised that, if the science improved and validated the problems , things would have to change. But science failed to validate the potential problems, at least for now. Exxon did just what any honest organisation would do, which is why the #ExxonKnew court cases have fallen apart.

"It's unfortunate (for some) that the early effects (extreme weather events) had been forecast some decades ago to start at this time ..."

Yes it is unfortunate for alarmists when their forecasts are proven wrong. But, as we've seen, they can just make new forecasts and all the loyal followers will pretend to forget the past error.

"economic neo-fascists like Thatcher and Reagan.."

I'm sorry Rache, I can only educate you on one monumnetal misunderstanding at a time.

To add to my reluctance to 'jump into bed with the CC people', I would like to add another of many 'predictions' that were proven wrong in the end. We may all recall the 'millennium bug'. The computers were going to crash, as were aircraft and all manner of disasters were going to befall the world because, it was feared that computer clocks were only programmed for the twentieth century. Well midnight 1999 came and went and to the best of my knowledge, nothing happened. I imagine, those computers that were identified with the 'potential' problem, were fixed. But it was not possible to get to all of them in time. So here we have another example of science and data. Only this time ALL the data was available and not historic, and did not have to be extrapolated through theoretical means, because the information being sought was centuries old and there was no actual data. So imagine my surprise when I find out that all these bloody so-called experts simply theorise and calculate and eventually come up with the future. I am sorry but I am one of those people who believe in realities. I have experienced smog in many capitol cities around the world. In each case the air was clear and clean as it could ever be the next morning. In some cases it was blown out to sea, but in the main it was dispersed, to leave the environment clear to begin the process all over again in the new day. So those of you who believe in witchcraft, sorcery, theories and other intangibles, you are more than welcome to keep doing so. Until ALL the experts agree I'm staying put.

ALTRAV
Before turning away from all Climate Change science, please disprove the science of the 1800s in an earlier post of mine. Those scientists created the prime building blocks for todays understanding.

Then visit
https://climate.nasa.gov
and
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/indicators.php
and open your mind, or report back to this forum as to why you refused to look at these sites, if you are game!

Toni, I get the feeling that these sites will attempt to help your side of the discussion. If that is the case I already know what to expect. We'll see if I decide to check em out. In the meantime I am reminded of Nostradamus. His story has similar connotations to many events of past. Even though I believe his abilities to be bogus, he still managed to garner a lot of influential and common people to believe him. I have always thought he wrote his predictions as vague as possible so that a reader would interpret them to suite their expectations. This of course was not helped by the many translations over the years.
I have just read some of the NASA link. I find typically, too many non-committal words such as 'could be', 'possibly', 'it is thought to be', 'it is possible'. In other words it all sounds very 'possible', but is it accurate and absolutely true? No the articles I have read so far give 'best guess' analyses. So even though you are convinced because institutions like NASA are supposed to be credible and therefore believable, it is because they do not write in definites and actuals that I am skeptical of such reports and documents and their contents or findings. In some ways not unlike our friend Nostradamus.

Look at tonight’s 4 Corners. Listen to farmers facing major changes in managing farms. Listen to emergency services speaking. Listen to financial organisations demanding Climate Change risks be addressed, must be addressed according to APRA. Listen to CC caused coastal damage, and need for all coastal regions needing to plan for sea level rise. And much more.

Grace data on Greenland Ice Sheet mass can be found here http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/mass/Grace_curve_La_EN_20170100.png

This clearly shows a reduction in mass since 2002 of about 3,600 Gt of ice.

There really shouldn't be an argument about this. The Greenland Ice Sheet has since 2002 been, on average, melting. There was a small increase in 2017 due to a snowier winter and less melting, but expect melting to start again in 2018.

//I'm sort of hoping that your little beaver story was a rather cryptic attempt at humour...otherwise I've badly misjudged you, and not in a good way.//

Well, humour is perhaps too strong of a word. Personally, I'd plump for 'whimsy'.

But with a point nonetheless: I see far too much use of SEP fields when it comes to greenhouse emissions. And as I'm sure you'll recall from your Hitch-Hiker's Guide, SEP fields only make things invisible, they don't actually make them go away.

Establishing an SEP field around Australia's greenhouse emissions - because they're so minuscule, it would only take a tiny SEP field - seems tempting. 'Emissions? Our problem? Don't be silly, it's Somebody Else's Problem. You must be thinking of the Chinese.'

And establishing an SEP field around the whole world's emissions for an indefinite period - until we've decided we've good enough technology and sufficient wealth, whenever that may happen to be - seems very tempting indeed. 'Emissions? Our problem? Don't be silly, it's Somebody Else's Problem. You must be thinking of the people who'll be alive after I'm dead.'

But - I hear you cry triumphantly - how can you be completely certain that emissions are actually a problem at all?

I can't. Science isn't about complete certainty. In my childish naivety, I used to believe it was. I used to draw some comfort from my belief that science offered certainty in our understanding of the world. And then I learnt a bit more, and discovered that no scientific knowledge is certain, that the history of science is just a long litany of people getting things wrong... and that it doesn't matter because the scientific method still remains the best method we've yet devised of understanding our universe; precisely because it does not hold truths to be sacred and absolute, and says that getting things wrong is fine if you learn from your mistakes.

So no, I can't be certain that greenhouse emissions are a problem. I can't be absolutely certain about the laws of chemistry that say if we produce CO2 faster than it can....

Tony, you've just hit a nerve. If this is the same APRA that is supposed to to be the Bank watchdogs, then you have just lost me and any chance of me further discussing this or any topic that APRA is mentioned in. You really have no idea who these guys are? Just look up, 'Bail-in'. And then YOU tell me about credible entities. We have been pushing for years, to get Glass-Steagall re-instated in our banking system since that Rothschild puppet, Clinton, the bastard repealed it in the US. You check it out. It is not on topic but gives you an insight into why I am a skeptic. I will add, do not imply or try to blame natural events such as coastal erosion on the alleged CC. This has been going on since creation. And what is this load of rubbish 'the ice is melting, oh but it increased for a while and then it went back to melting'. If you want actuals and not theories, I can tell you as a younger man having been born in Perth, we all experienced 'heat waves', which if you are old enough meant that we had weeks of hot days and nights when the temp stayed above 100F as it was in those days. So I can give you actuals when the so called science community can't, and only give us theories. BTW it appears you are in the East. I am in the West, so no go with 4 Corners. Anyway I've heard it all before, remember this is where most of the farming goes on. Tony I don't know who's making money out of this but it is just another Macro-Scam, in which the govt is a party to.

... be absorbed, it builds up in the atmosphere. But since my training is in chemistry and to a lesser extent physics, I have a strong faith in chemistry and physics. I can't even be certain about the measured concentration of 408ppm, although I have an almost absolute faith in metrology (you're lost without metrology). I can't be certain that there are more greenhouse gases in our atmosphere than there have been in a quite a while, even on a geological timescale. I can't be certain that the concentration of those gases is increasing rapidly. I can't be certain that the rate of increase of said gaseous concentrations is increasing. But I take all those things on faith.

I really can't be certain that all these greenhouse gases are going to be a problem. Or not a problem. I don't think anybody can, and that is what most concerns me: we're flying blind. The pessimists who say 'it will all end in tears' are just as dubious as the optimists who say 'nah, it'll all be fine mate'. They don't know, and neither does anybody else. The knowledge that I take on faith says that we are currently conducting, on a global scale, an experiment with our own damn atmosphere, with little theoretical understanding of that the results might be and no way to make meaningful predictions.

I'm all in favour of experiments, but they're best employed in order to test specific predictions. Open-ended experiments that don't examine a testable hypothesis seem pointless. And when you're carrying out global open-ended experiments... potentially dangerous. What happens if it all goes pear-shaped? Hope that Elon Musk already has three Ark Ships waiting in orbit, and that we don't get selected for Ark Ship B?

Too much of a risk. The Reptilian insurance firms have washed their claws of this one; they won't bail us out if we f&*k it all up. We're on our own. Maybe time to put the brakes on this particular line of research until we've found a suitable uninhabited Earth-like planet to play with to our hearts content.

Sorry guys, I just realised there are two, well, lets put it this way, there is a Tony and a Toni. I am certain I have answered the wrong Ton? so my comments will have to be taken as response to the appropriate Ton?

//I am certain I have answered the wrong Ton? so my comments will have to be taken as response to the appropriate Ton?//

I had no idea spelling was such a chore. One can only wonder at how you fare with homophones.

Any court cases against Exxon will probably go the same way as the anti-tobacco case where the US Surgeon General refused to accept the claim that smoking was officially harmful as should be banned. All subsequent anti-smoking legislation was based on behaviourable restrictions rather than health-based ones. The science was deliberately "blurred" by interested parties.

Meanwhile -
"A 2007 report offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue.
ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.

The oil company, like the tobacco industry in previous decades, has

1. Raised doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence
2. Funded an array of front organizations to create the appearance of a broad platform for a tight-knit group of vocal climate change contrarians who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings
3. Attempted to portray its opposition to action as a positive quest for "sound science" rather than business self-interest
4. Used its access to the Bush administration to block federal policies and shape government communications on global warming"

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf

I don't claim to "know" AGW is real but on the basis of probablity and plain old common sense I accept it is more likely than some sort of global conspiracy by scientists to obtain ongoing grant funding or an attempt to create a World Government or any of the other half-baked reasons out there.
I don't accept that increasing extreme weather events are spontaneous and natural in origin or due to sunspot activity or that any change in climate is suddenly happening for entirely no reason.

I also accept that nothing significant is likely to happen - at least in the short term - and one way or another we have sealed our own fate. I won't be around to see how things work out but my decendents will.

Toni, what I am trying to say, rather awkwardly I might add, is, I stuffed up. I did not pay close attention to the authors names on each post. I only realised that there is a Toni and a Tony. That's the crux of my comment re; Ton?. That's all.

Tony153: Listen to financial organisations demanding Climate Change risks be addressed,

Your post has hit the nail on the head. Big Business isn’t worried about how CC will affect people, they are worried about their bottom line & investments. Places like Manhattan that are worth millions of Dollars per Square Metre will lose their value. Millionaires who have large waterfront Mansions will find their properties worthless.

TL: the history of science is just a long litany of people getting things wrong...

I read an article by a scientist researcher. His findings on Dogs. Method: Catch a dog. Restrain the Dog in a Clamp. Use a mechanical hand to pat the dog on the head. Come back in the morning to see if the Dog liked being patted on the head. Conclusion, “Dogs don’t like being patted on the head.”

My conclusion, some scientists are just plain wacky. Mostly lefty, Greenie, Socialists.

Rache: I accept it is more likely than some sort of global conspiracy by scientists to obtain ongoing grant funding

Yep, that’s what I recon.

Of course it has to do with money. I was treating this topic with the usual scrutinee and skepticism. Then the name APRA was mentioned and suddenly I saw red. One of the most vial and scumbag organisations ever contrived by a govt. APRA is described as the banks watchdog. It's supposed to keep the bastards honest. Unfortunately, they are govt's puppets, and recently put us all at financial risk. Going off topic for a moment. The govt just pushed through a bill when there was a handfull of ministers sitting. The bill allows the banks to take money from depositors accounts, without our knowledge, to prop up the bank, should it get into a situation where it might fail. Now I don't give a rats if the banks fail, and I can't see how anyone can justify stealing from the public to save a bloody bank from collapse. I actually would prefer the banks to drop dead and suffer a very painful fate after the pain and suffering they have caused people. Anyway, I strongly believe that we are always the victim of some distant and unreachable force keeping us just where they want us, so they can manipulate us at their leisure. (Rothschild?, the bilderberg group?, the elite?)

Toni,

Setting up a SEP field only makes sense when there's a 'P'. No point creating the SEP to hide the alien ship hovering over the cricket ground if the alien ship ain't there.

"What happens if it all goes pear-shaped? "

Doctor to patient: yes that paper cut on your pinky has become infected.

Patient: so what are we gunna do about it.

DR: well antibiotics might work but there's a chance it'll turn gangrenous so I think we should take your hand off at the wrist

Patient: isn't that a bit alarmist. Can't we wait and see what happens.

DR: well we could wait but "if it all goes pear-shaped" then we'll have to take the whole arm. Best to be safe.

Adopting a precautionary attitude is fine if there are no or only minor costs involved. But upending our economies to cut emissions isn't cost free. Witness the increased power costs. Witness Adani. Of coarse, the costs aren't borne evenly but if it costs others then clearly the costs are a SEP. The people of Batman are more than willing to pay the costs of closing Adani because it'll be the people of FNQ who'll pay those costs.

And that's not even the half of it. Reducing emissions in defence of Gaia will be bad for some in the developed world. But it'll be disastrous for many in the developing and undeveloped world. But some are perfectly happy that those others pay the costs so that they can get the warm inner-glow or doing something for the planet.

My view is that there is enormous uncertainty about the real dangers here and there is plenty of time to wait and see if the infection clears up before talking the hand. The purported dangers won't occur for 5- 9 decades (if ever) and in the meantime we can afford to wait and see what happens. And then, if we need to do something when the science is less uncertain, we, or our grandkids will be in a much better position to do so,

Rache,

So no acknowledgement that you got it wrong on the meaning of the 97% meme? Disappointing. Not surprising..but disappointing.

When I suggested that you ought to ponder what else you been misled about, #ExxonKnew was one such thing. A coupla years ago 'ant' who now goes by Tony153 was all cock-a-hoop about the Exxon 'revelations'. At the time I encouraged him to read the actual Exxon papers to learn why the hype put out by the alarmists was wrong. He refused to do so. I urge you to do so if you've the slightest interest in understanding why Exxon won't be found guilty. Hint:what's been reported is not at all what the Exxon papers say.

At the time I opined that the loyal followers of the consensus would, when Exxon was found innocent of the claims, assert that it proved that the system protected them. And there you are doing so.
If Exxon is found guilt it proves they were wrong and if they're found innocent it proves they were wrong, n'est pas?

Standard alarmism:

Floods = AGW
Drought = AGW
Heavy Snow = AGW
No snow = AGW
Warming = AGW
cooling = AGW
Guilty/not guilty...same result.

That's not science.

"increasing extreme weather events "

That's another area you might like to ponder as to whether you were misled. Perhaps start by checking the last IPCC report which spent a lot of time explaining how they have "low confidence" that extreme events were increasing and trying to correct their (now) false claims from prior reports.Or check out Munich Re who were the most vocal insurance company pushing the extreme weather meme who now admit "The blanket statement that weather-dependent damages worldwide show a climate signal cannot be supported”

...if you're interested in the facts that is.

Interesting that those with anti CC leanings have next to no facts supporting their opinions, no support for their wacky ideas. Funny, really. No comments on work by scientists in the 1800s. No lefty stuff back then. No understanding of the scientific method, with world wide reviews of research papers before general acceptance. Like frogs happily swimming in a saucepan of warm water, getting hotter and hotter, without noticing. Very comedic. And, sad, as with gay abandon, they are happy to besmirch hard working scientists.
PS. I have no idea who this Ant is.

Tony, in answer to your challenge of producing evidence or data or anything to back our anti CC claims, I ask one thing of you.
Have you been reading the posts on this topic? I'll assume you have. Firstly I don't have to do any research or produce my own proof, because everyone else has done it for us.
And secondly and most importantly, if the YES camp was absolutely correct in it's assumptions, then we would not get so many articles and examples and research data debunking the CC push.
And as for the possibility of it being some worldwide conspiracy; I would not put that one away quite yet.
The majority of the population are ignorant of so many things and believe things for all the wrong reasons. Most of them follow like sheep because it sounds right or they just don't have the stones to stand and fight. It's so much easier and more comfortable to agree and everyone lives happily ever after as opposed to the opposite.
Unlike me, you choose to believe what the big end of town spews out. I have learned not to trust these major claims and issues because in every case there has been another agenda which was never disclosed and only came to light by accident or by whistle blower.
Just listen to all the things that are continually being released after they had been top secret under the freedom of information act. One recent example. Queen Elizabeth was the victim of a sniper attack whilst visiting NZ many years ago.
Even though he managed to fire several shots, all missed as he was over a km away.
It was suppressed and never made public because, as they said, 'It would put NZ in a bad light and she may not ever come back.
So don't tell me the top end of town is incapable of an international conspiracy.
If you have evidence to counter this claim, please produce it.

A question to this forum’s factless CC critic.

So, if there is a giant secret conspiracy of government organisations and hundreds of climate research groups in universities, how much money would be given by the news media to the first insider to spill the beans? And how many “insiders” have outlined the secret conspiracy and collected the cash? And, were the scientists in the 1800s part of the conspiracy?

Alice in wonderland stuff, although the author of Alice was a top mathematician. Very difficult today to get false CC papers into science magazines. The most such false scientists can expect is a free meal at a presentation to organisations like GrahamY’s.

Dear mhaze,

Good lord the steed has surely expired my young squire, no need to keep flogging the carcass.

As loathed as I am to play this record over again I invite you to tell me what part of the physical properties of CO2 would you like me to suspend in order to believe that global worming is not occurring?

//My view is that there is enormous uncertainty about the real dangers here and there is plenty of time to wait and see if the infection clears up before talking the hand. The purported dangers won't occur for 5- 9 decades (if ever) and in the meantime we can afford to wait and see what happens. And then, if we need to do something when the science is less uncertain, we, or our grandkids will be in a much better position to do so,//

TLDR: 'nah, it'll all be fine mate'.

I don't believe you. I don't think you have sufficient evidence to back up your hypothesis. There is no existing empirical data to guide us, because we've never performed this experiment before. We don't know how it will turn out.

It might all be fine, mate. Then again, it might not. Would you we be willing to wager a large sum of cash on a game of chance with indeterminate odds?

What about a whole planet?

SR,

"..the physical properties of CO2 would you like me to suspend in order to believe that global worming is not occurring?"

At no time have I ever said global warming is not occurring. Whatismore, the vast majority of skeptics accept that there's been some warming over the past 150yrs.

So perhaps you could start by learning to not construct strawmen.

The issue isn't whether there's been some warming but about how much of it was caused by man's emissions, how much more might occur in the future and whether that extra warming might be dangerous.

I find rather amazing that people such as yourself are so adamant and dogmatic in their faith in the alarmist story while utterly failing to understand or even have any interest in the alternate arguments. It's all very well to reject the skeptic arguments having fully understood them but to reject them without understanding them is the height of ignorance. The opposite of intellectual rigour.

As to the physical properties of CO2, I'm not sure which parts you need to learn more about to better understand this issue. I assume that you have the naive view that since CO2 causes warming then all else follows. But in terms of understanding the properties of CO2 I'd like you to understand some of the following:

1. The current majority scientific view is that a doubling of CO2 levels would cause between 1 and 2 degrees of warming - the so-called TCR of CO2

2. We are a very very long way from doubling CO2 levels from pre-industrial levels.

3. The warming effect of CO2 is logarithmic. That is each new tonne of CO2 emitted is less effective that the last tonne at warming. So even though we are half way to the doubling, ~75% of the TCR has already occurred.

4. The warming that has occurred has been, in large measure, of benefit to mankind. ie are things better or worse than in 1850?

The attitude that some CO2 causes warming therefore we're-all-gunna-die is pathetically simplistic. But its almost entirely what the scare is based on.

Toni,

" I don't think you have sufficient evidence to back up your hypothesis. "

That's true. But then again there's insufficient evidence to back up the alternate hypothesis. The whole thing remains a highly speculative area. What is not speculative is that we have plenty of time before needing to panic. The world has warmed around 0.7c degrees since 1850 and even the most alarmist of the alarmists don't see a problem before we get to 1.5c and most talk about 2c of even 4c.
(2c used to be the benchmark but as it became increasingly unlikely that that was going to happen this side of the next century, the 1.5c benchmark was invented to maintain the alarm. There's no science behind that number).

I understand the argument that we can't take even a small chance and must sacrifice progress in order to obviate even a small risk of CAGW. That type of argument is probably persuasive if you're living in a first world city with benefits that entails and where the costs of the sacrifice are minor and manageable - maybe higher power costs, maybe using the air-conditioner a little less, perhaps higher petrol costs. But even then, those who are all gung-ho for the sacrifice object when it hits them. I found it fascinating that Rudd, who called AGW the greatest challenge of our time, worked assiduously to reduce petrol prices to garner votes when he should have been working to increase prices and celebrating the reduced use of petrol.

/cont

/cont

So supporting and advocating for the sacrifice is easy for some. But I wonder how it looks to those who are actually paying the costs. Its all very well to sit in Melbourne and cheer for the closure of Adani, but I wonder how those who are told they have to remain unemployed and have no future where they live, feel. I wonder if they might think that paying the costs on the as yet quantified chance things might turn bad in 50yrs, is worth it.

Or I wonder if someone living in some sh!thole country, being told that, sorry you can't have a first world life-style because we've gotta save the planet, feel. I wonder if they might think its best to wait for a generation or two before pulling the rug out from under them thus giving them a chance to have a first world life-style and the luxury of sacrificing progress for the warm inner-glow of averting a potentially non-existent problem.

//Would you we be willing to wager a large sum of cash on a game of chance with indeterminate odds?//

So that's a yes then?

Toni,

No I wouldn't...I'd prefer to wait until the odds were somewhat less indeterminate.

But clearly you would bet...so long as you're betting with someone else's money.

So no compassion for those that'll actually bear the costs of your precautionary zeal ?

Dear mhaze,

You wrote;

“At no time have I ever said global warming is not occurring.”

But you had also written;

“How do we know man-made Global Warming exists? Because a consensus of those most involved in the issue (climate scientists) believe it exists. How do we know God exists? Because a consensus of those most involved in the issue believe it exists.”

Could you please tell the rest of us when your 'Road to Damascus' moment occurred.

Hear Ye, Hear Ye, Some CO2 info:
Some many posts ago, I listed scientists who in the 1800s compiled the basic underpinning CC science: atmosphere must have a blanket or world temps would be -16C to -20C on average, found infrared radiation, found CO2 is a greenhouse gas, etc.

But, you need to know more!
Do you know what snow is? Crystals of ice plus air filling the spaces. A layer of snow falls in the Antarctic. I stays put, and next winter, another layer forms, and so on. At Vostok in the Antarctic, the frozen snow and compressed snow is 3km deep. The Russians retrieved a core of compressed ice 3km long. It contains over 800,000 years of snow, and each piece of snow provides temperature data (a proxy) and CO2 concentration. Plotting this data shows a number of ice ages, showing cooling periods, and warming periods. You may not know, but the lowest concentration of CO2 during peak glaciation was never below about 160ppm and during
warm periods, CO2 concentration never exceeded about 280ppm. Our lifestyle over past decades has raised the world’s blanket to CO2 during warm periods to 410ppm, and still rising. We have no way of decreasing CO2 levels. Scientists calculated that some increase is possibly ok, but that we should not exceed 350 ppm. We have! A very new technical paper authored by over 20 scientists is out for review. The world has agreed to not go above a 2C rise. But the unexpected magnitude of extreme events, loss of water, heatwaves and more is causing the IPCC to almost demand that we do not exceed 1.5C. Unfortunately we may exceed 1.5 within the next few years.

Hear Ye, Hear Ye, Some CO2 info: INTENDED VERSION
Some many posts ago, I listed scientists who in the 1800s compiled the basic underpinning CC science: atmosphere must have a blanket or world temps would be -16C to -20C on average, found infrared radiation, found CO2 is a greenhouse gas, etc.

But, you need to know more!
Do you know what snow is? Crystals of ice plus air filling the spaces. A layer of snow falls in the Antarctic. It stays put, and next winter, another layer forms, and so on.

At Vostok in the Antarctic, the frozen snow and compressed snow is 3km deep. The Russians retrieved a core of compressed ice 3km long. It contains over 800,000 years of snow, and each piece of snow provides temperature data (a proxy) and CO2 concentration. Plotting this data shows a number of ice ages, showing cooling periods, and warming periods.

You may not know, but the lowest concentration of CO2 during peak glaciation was never below about 160ppm and during warm periods, CO2 concentration never exceeded about 280ppm.

Our lifestyle over past decades has raised the world’s blanket of CO2 to 410ppm, and still rising.

We have no way of decreasing CO2 levels.

Scientists calculated that some increase is possibly ok, but that we should not exceed 350 ppm.

We have!

A very new technical IPCC paper authored by over 20 scientists is out for review. The world has agreed to not go above a 2C rise. But the unexpected magnitude of extreme events, loss of water, heatwaves and much more is causing the IPCC to almost demand that we do not exceed 1.5C.

Unfortunately we may exceed 1.5C within the next few years. And, about 16 renowned scientists wrote, almost a year ago, that there is a possibility that with Antarctic and Greenland and Arctic ice melt, we could have 6 to 9 meters sea level rise by 2100.

Ahh, well Tony. I guess we're all gonna die. Not that it matters to the earth that much. Extinctions come & go as they have done for 3.8 Billion years. The loss of humans on this planet will be no big deal to the planet.

Maybe next time intelligent life evolves on Earth it will be Octopuses or Octopi, whatever takes your fancy. Still, the name of the Game is "Survival of the Fittest"

//But clearly you would bet//

Nope, that's a sucker's bet.

Fascinating that you aren't willing to risk your hard-earned but you are willing to risk something much more valuable. You know we can't just buy a new planet, right? Magrathea is closed for business.

As we all know, the Earth varies from one place to another. I am curious as to where these readings are taken from. If it is one place then it simply shows the status of that particular location. If it is taken at random anywhere, then it is possible for the environment at those locations are also varied, in time. Thereby putting into question the validity of the data. Just a thought.

Toni,

I get the impression that you don't really understand that doing something to save the planet isn't cost-free. It'll cost and depending who you read it'll cost somewhere between a lot and a sh!tload.

But those costs will be disproportionately borne by people who aren't you and that, it seems is perfectly fine as far as you're concerned.

I don't see any indication that you appreciate that these decisions don't have to be made now. There is no particular hurry other than the hurry to get the policies in place before , perhaps, inconvenient data is in place.

There's every chance that emissions won't ever reach the levels being touted as dangerous and that even if they do it'll be a century before that happens.

So why the rush? Some people might say that the planet's in danger and therefore all measures are justified. But I can equally opine that 'doing something' will endanger the planet and the people's of earth and therefore no measures are justified(eg imposing undue costs on the economy => depression => political breakdown => authoritarian regimes => war => Armageddon).

So place your bet using other people's future....I'll wait to see what happens and then spend my money.

SR,

I have no idea what that quote has to do with anything under discussion here other than your feeble attempt to change the subject - the subject being that you'd made up the assertion that I thought GW wasn't occurring.

Having been called out, a better man would have owned up and then moved on. But SR, being SR, moves with alacrity to change the subject.

While I'm here, perhaps you could also let me know if there's any other properties of CO2 that you've utterly misunderstood that I could help you with.

Tony153,

Just a couple of other things about the vostok ice cores:

1. Recent paleo-climate studies have drawn some doubt as to the accuracy of ice-core data since its been found that some microbes feast on the air bubbles caught in the ice thus changing its nature and therefore the conclusions drawn from that trapped air. Also its been found that the weight of the ice can cause the bubbles to move within the ice sheets and therefore disrupt dating processes.

2. The vostok cores show that increases in temperature PREceeded increases in CO2 - ie if there is a relationship then its temperature increases causing CO2 increases not the other way around.

But I'm sure you knew all that and just forgot to mention it. I know you wouldn't try to just fudge or hide the data...unlike the ant person who did it all the time.

mhaze
I think you inhabit Alice’s fantasy world.
See extract from

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/11/australia-potentially-disastrous-consequences-of-climate-change-inquiry-told

//Military and climate experts, including a former chief of the defence force, have warned that Australia faces potential “disastrous consequences” from climate change, including “revolving” natural disasters and the forced migration of tens of millions of people across the region, overwhelming security forces and government.//

If you are not aware of CC impacts in Australia and around the world, your involvement in forums such as this is time wasting.

On ice age: of course CO2 does not initiate warming. Milancovich cycle does. As life begins to prosper during initial warming, CO2 becomes a strong amplifier, and drives rate of warming

T153: Australia faces potential “disastrous consequences” from climate change, including “revolving” natural disasters and the forced migration of tens of millions of people across the region, overwhelming security forces and government.

Another reason to stop them from coming or getting to Australia. Ay.

Tony153, I must pick you up on your 6 - 9 metre rise in oceans. These numbers are fanciful. If you calculate all the water in the sky (clouds), rivers, glaciers, ice bergs and so on, I have said many times, it will not raise the ocean levels more than 1 - 2 inches. You cannot calculate the volume of snow, for example as being a solid mass. It is a powder like form, with air interwoven to give a false mass reading. A more accurate method of reading snow is doing a sample core then melting it. The resultant volume of water that came from the sample core in question would end up at single digit volumes by comparison. So we will never get sea rises such as you have mentioned.

James Hansen has been conducting CC research since 1980s or earlier. His predictions in 1980 for the climate situation in 2000 were generally thought to have little validity.

Come 2000, most of his 1980 predictions were, unfortunately, validated. Initially as a top
NASA scientist and now leading a university CC science department. He and about 15 other top scientists published a paper on Antarctic ice melt.

You can listen to the results of his recent research in this video. Ice melt is one thing - super storms another. Yes, and very frightening sea level rise.

https://youtu.be/KLk8Uy2-Lsk

Jayb

The rich western countries are responsible for CC. The poor, who are most likely to be impacted the most, bear no responsibility for what is happening. What role should the West play to assist many tens of millions of climate refugees?

Tony153, this is the main reason I don't put any faith in 'experts'. One mob say one thing then another mob completely destroys the first mobs theories. So I don't know where the guy you mention is going to get all this water, because it is not coming from mother earth. You only have to have a quick look at the map of the world, to get an idea of how big the ocean is compared to the size of the ice and snow areas. As a realist I believe it is unrealistic to quote the kind of numbers you say will be the oceans rise.

Yes almost all of Hansen's predictions are correct, especially if you ignore all the one's that were hopelessly wrong. The loyal army of flying monkeys exemplified by (an)Tony do indeed ignore such errors without thinking.

But Hansen is quite smart. For example, he made three predictions about future temps in 1988 - a high, a medium and a low. Then he and his loyal followers spent decades only talking about the high scenario as though it were fact. Then when the data came in and the pause screwed with their scare, they pivoted, without blinking, to saying his low forecast was right and was really the one he favoured all along. But (an)Tony won't know about this because it doesn't suit the faith.

If you really want to be scared by Hansen's little horror video, its best to watch it on a hot day with the air-conditioning turned off....http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/07/12/1988-james-hansen-and-tim-wirth-sabotaged-the-air-conditioning-in-congress/

"What role should the West play to assist many tens of millions of climate refugees?"

Well the role of the west and the UN is to continue to pretend that there are climate refugees....http://www.thegwpf.com/un-embarrassed-by-forecast-on-climate-refugees/

Just while we're talking about melting this and heating that, I found this interesting t'other day...http://www.archaeology.org/issues/105-1309/letter-from/1165-glaciers-ice-patches-norway-global-warming

I tried to explain the logic of this to (an)Tony previously but it went over his head. But the point is that if melting is revealing artefacts from 3400 yrs ago, then obviously the region was at least as warm then as now. Warming that occurred without the help of those nasty capitalists. This sort of thing is happening regularly. Last year I linked here to a region in Sweden where old forests that had been overwhelmed by previous cooling about 1000 yrs ago, were being revealed again as part of the cyclic warming/cooling phases of the earth's climate.

Altrav
A very easy excursion into Wikipedia will find a graph showing sea level variations as the earth moves from interglacial to another: between 200m and 300m.

So 6 to 9 meters relatively small.

Dont forget that what we are doing to our earh in a hundred years or so is a thousand (many thousands?) times faster that Mr Milachovic and his cycles.

You should consider the rise in sea levels due to thermal expansion of the water. My memory needs validation, but todays sea level rise is 60% thermal.

Take a look at Miami where much work to restrain constant flooding of roads because of sea level rise.

Mhaze
From a position of steep ignorance, you besmitch someone you do not underdstand.

One simple concept you do not understand. Simple really!

Changing climate is changing climate, no matter whenever it happens,
with the horrendous difference berween now and then:

BEING RATE OF CHANGE

Mentioned often, unable to comprehend, often

Bye

mhaze, I have made the point you mention about finding flora and fauna, (including people) in such cases before and I said the exact same thing you have. For all this evidence to now become exposed by the melting? of ice and snow means they were there before or probably, because, of the cooling of that environment or location at some time in the past. So it is reasonable to assume that the earth has always been having weather changes or cycles.
Tony153, I take your point about changing climate and rate of change. These are all relevant. What I and others are saying is that the changing climate or global warming or whatever is the latest name for it is in fact occurring because of natural 'growing pains' of the Earth. These phenomena have been going on since the earth was born. I believe that the amount of baddies the human race has produced is not enough to effect something the size of the earth. I'm not suggesting we have not produced some bad emissions, but not so many as being the main or major culprit of any wrong doing. I will cautiously agree to your suggestions of thermal expansion. I realise water expands when heated and expands when cooled, but not to the extent or extremes you are suggesting. I would consider, wind, tide and other natural events to be be the most likely culprits for these extreme oceanic events.

ALTRAV
Why have you ignored the gradual build up of climate understanding in the 1800s, culminating in calculations by a Nobel Laureate in the late 1890s which showed that a doubling in atmospheric CO2 woud cause a 4C to 6C increase in average global temperature?

Your current “knowledge” seem to have very little to no grounding in science.

Tony153, I'm sorry if I gave you the impression I'm up with science. No I'm not. I, like the rest of the rocking chair 'scientists' on OLO get our info from snippets of news, or things we just pick up along the way, not to mention having lived through a long enough period where we feel we can somewhat contribute to a particular topic. As for quoting people from long ago. I don't have a lot of time for forecasters and predictors. They cannot see or calculate things in the future. There are to many variables going forward. I mean one good volcanic blow, one good sized meteor hit, and so on, and the numbers must change. So I cannot believe these figures from long ago. I would however put them in a similar group as Nostradamus. He is still getting away with it by quoting very hazy predictions and the 'followers' just fill in what they want to see. Tony I am a skeptic, but I'm also a realist. I am pragmatic and not prone to just accepting something because someone said so. I don't know, maybe I'm just human.

The scientists referenced from the 1800s explored very simple science compared with today. Even you could use a prism to separate various solar colours. With a thermometer, you can effectively measure the energy transmitted in each colour band. With the same thermometer you can identify the invisible infrared band. With a little bit bmuilding, you can fill a glass container with carbon dioxide. Put it in the beam of infra red radiation. Use thermometer to measure amount of heat energy not transmitted through container, because of IR radiation scattering. Voila, you have proven CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Easy.

But, I get the distinct impression you are in GrahamY s group. No matter what the science says, your role is to not give any indication that CC is real and dangerous. I notice GrahamY left this conversation, under his real name, and is probably contributing under a pseudonym. Perhaps you are the elusive editor of this site.

I can see writing, even though you understood all that said, you would find the words to call it fake science.

Tony153, No,No, I would not be so impudent. I simply don't understand the science. Even your explanation just now, I can see that you understand it. I just don't get the interaction between different mediums. No, where I stand is not the science but how can we be sure of the findings so far back in time. Why was CO2 even a thing back then?
I question things like forecasting and predictions as we don't know exactly what stands before us. And of course I personally do not see how certain predictions can be realised, such as the rise in ocean levels. I will not move on that one unless I see some real evidence of it happening and not predictions and forecasts.

ALTRAV,
Just look at Miami where streets are flooding at high tide, and flooding is getting worse with time. CC intimately involved.

ALTRAV,
Why CO2? Excellent question.
Why do you breath?
Why do you eat?

Your body, and that of most living things, is basically made of carbon. What you eat is basically carbon. Our living world, animal, plants etc are basically carbon.

You breath to take in oxygen. Within your body, carbon and oxygen combine to make CO2, plus Energy. Carbon in fossil fuels is basically carbon from which we get energy for transport and much more, when combining carbon and oxygen to make CO2.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere reflects the amount of energy we need. More people, demands for more energy per person, the more CO2 into the atmosphere, and oceans. And CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a very long time, and CO2 is affectively a blanket, warming the earth. Increasing CO2, increasing warming of air and ocean, leading to heat waves, stronger extreme events, droughts, ecosystem change, acidic oceans, glacier melting, uncontrolled tipping points - once things like glacier and ice plateau starts melting we could, and probly already have, passed melting tipping points. Meaning even if we cant reduce atmospheric CO2, which we can’t, ice melting continues with no stopping. The Arctic is most probably on a one way journey to no ice. It is feared that Anarctica is following suit. Towns in mountainous valleys are finding that complete glacier loss at the tops of their valleys is resulting in no essential melt water in summer. Millions of Africans realising that centuries old farming practices no longer work because of CC. Millions moving north .... Long term drought in Euphrates valley caused millions to move to cities in Syria - but no gov help. Leading to uprising. Etc etc etc

Dear mhaze,

Happy to do this again.

You asserted;

“At no time have I ever said global warming is not occurring.”

But you had have written;

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

I think when you refer to 'us denialists' so emphatically then you shouldn't object to being called out for having been one.

And how is that multi-decade cooling period going?

So we are left with two choices here; accept you are a lying hound too embarrassed to own up when you have been so utterly wrong about something or, that you have talked yourself into believing you never had any doubts about global warming in the first place. Either one strips you substantially of credibility on this issue.

Guys, I just remembered that the stuff coming out of all fossil fuel powered vehicles is in fact CO (Carbon MONOXIDE) not CO2 (Carbon DIOXIDE). When did that happen? And why do we still keep calling it CO2 and not CO?

SR,

Whilst trolling back through my past posts on GW might do you the world of good in furthering your obviously abysmal knowledge in the issue, you'll search in vain for me saying GW hasn't occurred.

Just finding old quotes that you try to take out of context in your efforts to avoid admitting that you simply made up the original claim, won't help you here.

In your absolutist delirium, you seem to think that recognising the fact that there was a decade of no warming is the same as repudiating overall warming. Its as though you think that someone who says its cold today is denying that it was hot yesterday.
Even though I know that there was a decade (actually more than that) of no warming and am prepared to recognise it, doesn't mean that I don't also know that there was previous decades of warming and am prepared to recognise that also.

But then, hilariously (or maybe sadly), having quoted me as saying "so-called denialists" (perhaps you don't know what 'so-called' means), you then assert that I said "us denialists". Dearie me, the urge to avoid admitting error is strong in this one.

"And how is that multi-decade cooling period going?"

As expected.

T253: Just look at Miami where streets are flooding at high tide, and flooding is getting worse with time.

I can't find it at the moment but I did read a Science Report that said Florida was actually sinking & other parts of the Country behind Florida were rising.

That may account for some of the flooding.

Maybe someone else has read the same report. It was a few years ago.

Jayb, your right.I just can't remember when I became aware of this. It doesn't matter, like all my examples and posts, I have read or seen something to know that it is true, but as usual when asked by some of the pesty commentors on OLO, I can't quote link's or any reference because it is all historical and I don't care to remember such details, only the info within. So I'm glad you said it first. I did not have the guts to suggest it because I would only be attacked for not producing evidence and the usual blah, blah, blah. Good for you.

Jayb,

Its called 'glacial isostatic adjustment' or glacial rebound. Think of the North American continent as a giant plate. During the last ice age, millions (billions) of tonnes of ice weighted down the northern part of the plate (ie Canada) which sunk under the weight and therefore the other side (eg Florida) rose.

Now that the ice age has finished, the volume of ice is vastly decreased and therefore Canada is rising. Equally as it rises, the other side of the plate (eg Florida) is sinking. Florida is expected to utterly submerge over the coming centuries or millennia.

Similar effects are found around the world eg southern England is sinking while Scotland is rising. Its also why you find most rivers in the upper Northern Hemisphere running basically north-south.

I have another question. Knowing that water expands when it's heated and when it's cooled. My question is; how can we say that the ocean is expanding with only 1-2degree increase in temp, when we need to get water closer to boiling point for this to happen. I maintain there is no expansion of the oceans with such a small change in temp. Where-as, the glaciers and ice that is close to zero degrees will melt with a change of 1 or 2 degrees. As the bulk of the ice (glaciers etc) are sitting at well below zero degrees, so I can't see them melting as reported. Only the ice and snow close to zero. So if we melt all the ice, (the stuff beneath the water) will actually produce less volume when turned back into water from when it was ice. So no increase in the oceans there. The temp change has to be quite a lot to effect the volume of the oceans and therefore raise sea levels enough to be of any note.

Dear mhaze,

I took nothing out of context. You were obviously thought AGW was a myth and scuttling about trying to say black is white is just making you look silly now. Time to stop. It is okay for you to have changed your mind on something but to claim you had always had a different view is just ludicrous, especially when you have been presented with your very words giving lie to it.

OK SR,

So you struggle to understand the simple written word. Got it.

OR is it that you prefer to carry that image than to admit the original error. Either way, not very edifying.

For those who wish to be informed I suggest that they have a look at The Water Will Come: Rising Seas, Sinking Cities and the Remaking of the Civilised World by Jeff Goodell - there is a good review of the book in the London review of Books, unfortunately it is behind a paywall and it is too long to post here. But perhaps the following quote may give a flavour of the piece: Global sea level rise is hard for scientists to predict, but the trend is clear. Massive ice sheets in Greenland and the Antarctic have begun to collapse, in a phenomenon known as ‘marine ice-sheet instability’, which previous models of global sea level rise didn’t take into account.
We are moving into unchartered territory. In the past humans could relocate inland but we are now so dependent on urban infra structure that the past is a poor guide.