New World: Climate Change

[manxman]

My minds not made up Goggs, if new data shows me that catastrophic warming is underway i will be all for action by the 2 biggest polluting countries in the world, the science is to young to be considered anywhere near definitive, christ 80% of climate science is less than 20yrs old, and natural solar warming trends with the planet coming out of an ice age make's perfect logical sense to me, we are not effected in the slightest way here where i live, seas are rising 1mm a year following the correct global trend, not a thing to worry about in that respect for 100yrs, ive checked, and i posted it a page back, central UK has had a 21yr level average temperature, no warming, no cooling, just our normal weather, and when we expect to get it, nothing unusual to report.

It just doesnt sit right with me, this recruiting, the fear mongering utter nonsense based only loosely on reality, so i am just going to temper the hyperbole with sober summaries, that way theres an option, activist hyperbole or science summary, by scientists who welcome comment, wouldnt it be interesting to watch tyger deploy his skeptical science The Debunking Handbook: against the authors of the papers up for peer review.

He wont do that of course, he will just keep posting alarmist dross, and trying to convert/befriend anyone who shows the slightest interest, just as the book says, this has been and is one big social experiment to him, i will bet my house he has been hugely busy on the pm system trying to encourage support, but their not interested, as you say most are fed up, me i just dont tire of trying to keep a balance to the extremism.

Wherever i find it, and whichever guise it takes, its about balance Goggs, not being mr popular, just balance to the political bullshit behind most debates, climate change, Islam, muslims, ete etc, its about balance Goggs.

I might live on a speck of rock at the arse end of nowhere, but it gives me an advantage.
I look in at other countries problems, im at arms length, disconnected, i see both sides of the debate equally, and i try to bring that balance to unbalanced debate, doesnt mean i support islam muslims or anything else, what i rail against is one sided bullshit.


All the advices in that SS handbook are all displayed here, colour emphasis, short impacting quotes, the demonising and sidelining dissent [which worked a treat for him, for awhile], right down to how to stroke ego's to befriend them and 'recruit' them.
I mean 'recruit' ffs recruit, like some terrorist organisation, only they label it activism.
And frankly he can shove his activism up his arse.

My replies to his thread will be by way of my thoughts followed by a summary, or summary's that best explain my thoughts, no hassle, no sarcasm no anything but a sober overview of his lastest activist hype, i think members like Constance and Jimi are more than capable of sober reflection, when provided with sober unbiased deep long well sourced science paper summaries, neither of them are muggs, and neither are most of the others for that matter, it should P them off that theyve been recruited by the false face of activism, rather than pursuaded by science.

 

[Tyger]

So this is just going on for ever and ever!

You have it in your power to stop it. Just move the posts to the threads that are 'debating' the science.

I don't know who each 'side' is trying to convince because minds are already made up.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything - that is a fantasy Manxman indulges in. This thread is exploring the reality of climate change. The evidence is everywhere and being reported. The situation created by the deniers - especially in the US - is part of the New World coming. We are going to be hit far harder because of this denial stuff than if we just started being judicious regarding our energy sources.

Surely no other person who stumbles onto this or another climate change thread is going to make up their mind vis a vis climate change, just from any reading/viewing at this forum.

Bingo! Dead-on! Agree 100%.

Nor is anyone of already made-up mindage going to be 'converted' to the opposite view, by arguments posted in this forum.

Correct. This thread is solely to explore the situation as a fact rather than a debate - it's an aspect that is rarely fully fleshed out in conversation. There is lots of elbow room to have differing views regarding the future within the scope of human induced climate change. Are we headed for extinction in 15 years? Couldn't say. Why? Because I don't have a grasp of the science to fully assess the reasoning of the scientists who are making the claims - but it's fascinating to read their reasoning. The number of scientists saying so - and their bona fides - gives one pause. Why not look at the scenarios? Why not consider it?

So on balance, this looks to be a pissing contest by the posters alone - both 'sides'.

That's totally unfair, Goggs. Not from my end. Never from my end. I have never been rude - and yet I have been subjected to the most bizarre focus of two posters who seem to be personally affronted that I have not been bullied into silence. Further, that I have had the temerity to stand up for myself and ask admin to put a stop to the badgering, hectoring and bullying.

I purposely started this thread to avoid the two posters - to leave them to their debate elsewhere - yet I have been followed over here and the spamming continues. You turn that into 'both sides' when I have not said one word in response to Manxman's posts? Reminding him that Pixel has set up a thread specially for the kind of posts he is posting here?

Or a real case of not wishing to be seen to 'back down'.

You must be referring to Manxman. He is the one refusing to let go of the bone (in this case, my avatar appears to be the bone).

There is so much fantasy surrounding this for Manxman and Pixel - regarding me - that at this point it's genuinely creepy. I have never really been in debate or conversation with these two, except on a few occasions when their posts became absurd enough to need correction. Generally, I have defended myself from them, but never really addressed them. This seems to be the crux of the issue. I ignore them. Trolls don't like to be ignored btw. You do the math.

 

[Tyger]

My minds not made up Goggs, if new data shows me that catastrophic warming is underway i will be all for action by the 2 biggest polluting countries in the world, the science is to young to be considered anywhere near definitive, christ 80% of climate science is less than 20yrs old, and natural solar warming trends with the planet coming out of an ice age make's perfect logical sense to me, we are not effected in the slightest way here where i live, seas are rising 1mm a year following the correct global trend, not a thing to worry about in that respect for 100yrs, ive checked, and i posted it a page back, central UK has had a 21yr level average temperature, no warming, no cooling, just our normal weather, and when we expect to get it, nothing unusual to report.

Take it to the climate change threads - of which there are scores. Why spam this thread?

It just doesnt sit right with me, this recruiting,

You are delusional. No one is 'recruiting'.

the fear mongering utter nonsense based only loosely on reality,

Unfortunately, I do have a science background and I know full well that none of this is 'loosely based on realty'. As for 'fear-mongering' - that's an opinion. You seem to scare easy.

so i am just going to temper the hyperbole with sober summaries, that way theres an option, activist hyperbole or science summary, by scientists who welcome comment,

Do so on the appropriate threads. This thread is for another kind of exploration, that you seem incapable of entertaining.

wouldn't it be interesting to watch tyger deploy his skeptical science The Debunking Handbook: against the authors of the papers up for peer review.

What alternate universe do you live in, Manxman? 'Deploy [my] skeptical science' and then you list a link? At this point, are you deluded enough to think that I click on any of your links? That anyone does? Or that I even read your rambling, poorly quoted posts? I don't. I pretty well assume you don't read my posts or click on my links because of the inaccurate way you reference the content - giving away your ignorance with every rant.

He wont do that of course, he will

just keep posting alarmist dross, and trying to convert/befriend anyone who shows the slightest interest,

@Goggs Mackay You don't think the above starts to reek of serious delusion? And bullying? If the above can be allowed to stand, then why not claim all the talk of UFO's and chemtrails and UFO abductions and reptilian take-overs - oh lordy! - on this Paranormal site (ghosts and crytozoology, etc) - is 'alarmist dross'? I'm speechless.

just as the book says, this has been and is one big social experiment to him,

What book? What 'social experiment' ? This is chilling if Manxamn honestly believes what he is saying - though I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he is simply trolling. Bad enough behavior as it is. There is a serious attempt to shut me down. To have me cease posting on this subject. If I don't post, there is no posting on his part. If I post, bang! The rising up takes place. It's clear what is being attempted.

I am concerned for young posters ever finding themselves confronting this kind of thing. I'm here to say, it's not okay. Posters have a right to complain about such posting behavior towards them. Posters have a right to be buffered from such characters on an internet chat-site forum.

i will bet my house he has been hugely busy on the pm system trying to encourage support, but their not interested,

What? Delusion.

as you say most are fed up,

I am fed up. That's who is fed up. As for others, from what I hear on threads is that most simply do not want to deal with what posters like yourself are dishing out. What you are doing is keeping the posters away. No one wants to post with a troll roaming the hallways.

me i just dont tire of trying to keep a balance to the extremism.

You don't tire of being a troll. It's fun for you. That is what you are doing.

Wherever i find it, and whichever guise it takes, its about balance Goggs, not being mr popular, just balance to the political bullshit behind most debates, climate change, Islam, muslims, ete etc, its about balance Goggs.

Take it to the threads that are debating the science. This thread is not doing that.

I might live on a speck of rock at the arse end of nowhere, but it gives me an advantage.
I look in at other countries problems, im at arms length, disconnected, i see both sides of the debate equally, and i try to bring that balance to unbalanced debate, doesnt mean i support islam muslims or anything else, what i rail against is one sided bullshit.

Whatever your issues are, why not confine them to the appropriate threads?

All the advices in that SS handbook are all displayed here, colour emphasis, short impacting quotes, the demonising and sidelining dissent [which worked a treat for him, for awhile], right down to how to stroke ego's to befriend them and 'recruit' them. I mean 'recruit' ffs recruit, like some terrorist organisation, only they label it activism.

What SS handbook? This is probably the 3rd or 4th time I have taken the time to answer you point-by-point. It takes time and it's a senseless waste of time. You are a conspiracy theorist? If you are, you've got a hard row to hoe. Paranoia is never easy to live with. You have my sympathy.

And frankly he can shove his activism up his arse.

And there we are. The rudeness - the male locker-room nastiness - is repellant. You're a jerk, and that's about as rude as I'll get.

My replies to his thread will be by way of my thoughts followed by a summary, or summary's that best explain my thoughts, no hassle, no sarcasm no anything but a sober overview of his lastest activist hype, i think members like Constance and Jimi are more than capable of sober reflection, when provided with sober unbiased deep long well sourced science paper summaries, neither of them are muggs, and neither are most of the others for that matter, it should P them off that theyve been recruited by the false face of activism, rather than pursuaded by science.

@Goggs Mackay Here it is stated outright. Manxman fully intends to debate on this thread. The unwarranted ad hominems continue. I have never once been rude to this poster in the way he has been with me - yet you allow him to continue. You will allow him to continue spamming the thread. In doing so you send a clear message. Good luck with that.

 

[Tyger]

Manxman, you are spamming this thread. Please take your debate to the Climate Change threads. This thread is not a debate on the science of Climate Change.

 

[manxman]

I have shown i am the only one willing to read and discuss some of your summaries of mainly catastrophic warming from mainly activist sources, we both agree the world is warming right ?.

You keep posting summaries, whats wrong with the summaries i have posted ?
is your problem because the Connollys summaries are long thorough and without a trace of bias to one side of the global warming debate or the other ? .

How do summations do anything other than summarize, you have been posting summations from post 1, again what justifiable complaint can you have, its a climate change summation thread by YOUR own parameters.

Manxman, you are spamming this thread. Please take your debate to the Climate Change threads. This thread is not a debate on the science of Climate Change.

Im not discussing 'the science' you however keep on doing just that.
Im not a scientist, i will however post other peoples summaries when i can see that they understand and have written a full unbiasd review of the subject matter your conjecture concerns.

You may find these skeptical science books of interest, full of good stuff and debating technique's for 'waging war' on denial.

How to be a climate activist, ''first silence or marginalize the denier's''

The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download

Climate Change Denial book now available!


ps. if you want a blogg why dont you just get one, you can delete any comments that you dont like that way, perfect solution.

This is a forum, by definition a round table of discussion, i have not brought the science of climate change' into your thread, and i wont, even tho you constantly do, i post sober professional summary, of some of the science, you post.

For this reason i will occasionally post a review, of the science you bring to the thread. [ i quote it, then reply ]
I realise they are long and dull, no bias no sensationalism, but as a scientist you will realise that science is long and dull, we should be grateful scientists write such sober indepth summaries for us laymen, and only go where logic and experimentation takes them, in any subject of science.

It is there to educate first and foremost fellow scientists like any essay/s papers, we are lucky when they translate summarize it to layman, it may be long and boring, but you cannot pretend it isnt there.

Its there to educate all, thats why it is so thorough, and bias free, you only take away what logic tells you, for activists it will highlight all their logical disconnects, so well worth reading when i post them now and then in full.

 

[Tyger]

I have shown i am the only one willing to read and discuss some of your summaries

Not interested in your strange perceptions, manxman. You're an odd one. What do I care if you think you are the 'only one'? Bizarre. You think in curious ways.

You keep posting summaries, whats wrong with the summaries i have posted ?
is your problem because the Connollys summaries are long thorough and without a trace of bias to one side of the global warming debate or the other ?

This is not a thread that is debating Climate Change.

its a climate change summation thread by YOUR own parameters.

No, it is not. You prove yet again a serious inability to understand written text.

Im not discussing 'the science' you however keep on doing just that.

No, I am not. You clearly have a problem. Your intent is clearly to heckle me off the topic. Why you chose to focus on me I will never know but it's my view that it's because I did not 'shut-up' right away after you started hectoring me. I have noticed that most people steer a wide berth from any Climate Change discussions after you nip at their heels. Pixel - and now you - effectively shut down all discussion on this topic. It's not anything you should be proud of imo. Plain and simple - you're both bullies, and for some reason - under the guise of 'freedom of expression' - you are being allowed to engage in what amounts to pre-adolescent badgering. Not healthy. And an extremely bad 'show' for the Paracast Forum. Not good 'press' by any standard.

So fire away, as I know you will. Sad. It's not me you are hurting - it's the reputation of the Paracast forum. But if Gene is willing to have the nonsense you are peddling set the tone for threads on this subject, who am I to gainsay the choice. As I say, fire away. It's not me you're hitting.

 

[manxman]

This is my last reply to you off topic here.

Your constant accussations are tiresome, your attempted deception above splitting my reply to Goggs down into tiny bite size chunks and replying as if i was talking directly to you is distasteful, then accusations of bullying etc, you are mischief making, why dont you just stop and get on with your thread.

I have supplied a couple of links you may learn something from.

Overkill - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

The Boy Who Cried Wolf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[manxman]

2014 Was the Warmest Year Ever Recorded on Earth by Justin Gillis January 16, 2015
LINK: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/17/s....html?emc=edit_na_20150116&nlid=54852892&_r=0

TEXT: "Last year was the hottest in earth’s recorded history, scientists reported on Friday, underscoring scientific warnings about the risks of runaway emissions and undermining claims by climate-change contrarians that global warming had somehow stopped.

"Extreme heat blanketed Alaska and much of the western United States last year. Several European countries set temperature records. And the ocean surface was unusually warm virtually everywhere except around Antarctica, the scientists said, providing the energy that fueled damaging Pacific storms.

"In the annals of climatology, 2014 now surpasses 2010 as the warmest year in a global temperature record that stretches back to 1880. The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1997, a reflection of the relentless planetary warming that scientists say is a consequence of human emissions and poses profound long-term risks to civilization and to the natural world.

"Of the large inhabited land areas, only the eastern half of the United States recorded below-average temperatures in 2014, a sort of mirror image of the unusual heat in the West. Some experts think the stuck-in-place weather pattern that produced those extremes in the United States is itself an indirect consequence of the release of greenhouse gases, though that is not proven.

"Several scientists said the most remarkable thing about the 2014 record was that it occurred in a year that did not feature El Niño, a large-scale weather pattern in which the ocean dumps an enormous amount of heat into the atmosphere.

"Longstanding claims by climate-change skeptics that global warming has stopped, seized on by politicians in Washington to justify inaction on emissions, depend on a particular starting year: 1998, when an unusually powerful El Niño produced the hottest year of the 20th century.

"With the continued heating of the atmosphere and the surface of the ocean, 1998 is now being surpassed every four or five years, with 2014 being the first time that has happened in a year featuring no real El Niño pattern. Gavin A. Schmidt, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, said the next time a strong El Niño occurs, it is likely to blow away all temperature records. “Obviously, a single year, even if it is a record, cannot tell us much about climate trends,” said Stefan Rahmstorf, head of earth system analysis at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. “However, the fact that the warmest years on record are 2014, 2010 and 2005 clearly indicates that global warming has not ‘stopped in 1998,’ as some like to falsely claim.”

"Such claims are unlikely to go away, though. John R. Christy, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville who is known for his skepticism about the seriousness of global warming, pointed out in an interview that 2014 had surpassed the other record-warm years by only a few hundredths of a degree, well within the error margin of global temperature measurements. “Since the end of the 20th century, the temperature hasn’t done much,” Dr. Christy said. “It’s on this kind of warmish plateau.”

"NASA and the other American agency that maintains long-term temperature records, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, issued separate data compilations on Friday that confirmed the 2014 record. A Japanese agency had released preliminary information in early January showing 2014 as the warmest year. The last scientific group that curates the world’s temperature record, in Britain, is scheduled to report in the coming weeks. “Why do we keep getting so many record-warm years?” Dr. Schmidt asked in an interview. “It’s because the planet is warming. The basic issue is the long-term trend, and it is not going away.”

"February 1985 was the last time global temperatures fell below the 20th-century average for a given month, meaning that no one younger than 30 has ever lived through a below-average month. The contiguous United States set its temperature record in 2012. But, mainly because of the unusual chill in the East last year, 2014 was only the 34th warmest year on record for the lower 48 states. That cold was brought into the interior of the country by a loop in a current called the jet stream that allowed Arctic air to spill southward. But an offsetting kink allowed unusually warm tropical air to settle over the West, large parts of Alaska and much of the Arctic. A few recent scientific papers say that such long-lasting kinks in the jet stream have become more likely because global warming is rapidly melting the sea ice in the Arctic, disturbing longstanding weather patterns. But many leading scientists are not convinced on that point.

"Whatever the underlying cause, last year’s extreme warmth in the West meant that Alaska, Arizona, California and Nevada all set temperature records. Some parts of California had basically no winter last year, with temperatures sometimes running 10 or 15 degrees above normal for the season. Those conditions exacerbated the severe drought in California, which has been alleviated only slightly by recent rains. Some small towns have run out of water, the sort of impact that scientists fear will become commonplace as global warming proceeds in the coming decades."



.................................................




Do you see the problem yet ?.

You post that, now no-one can criticize that summary of 2014 global temperatures, we can only agree or say nothing, am i right so far ?.

But you see the bits i know are just plain downright untrue, i ignore and just let you play make believe, do you preface you posts so guest viewers know its all classed as 'given conjecture', how can they, your post above shouldn't be allowed to stand uncorrected.

But to be fair you haven't got the option to edit or delete.

It was a politically motivated claim.
Manufactured for up coming summit headlines, manufactured from cherry picked satellite data, from one set out of the 3 sets that are combined to give the linear average. [satellite thermometer sea surface ] they cherry picked just the satellite data and compared that against the 15yr complete data set linear av.

The global average temp of 2014 was the 11th highest in the 16yrs since their records begun, when the 3 data sets are combined in the normal way and averaged.
There's no shame for a headline maker, they played their game well, they are professionals, but a publicity stunt is just a publicity stunt, hollow, no substance.

That's why I've highlighted in red the indisputable inaccuracies.


Global temperatures will resume their long term growth trend within five to 10 years ending the so called pause in global warming, a leading climate scientist has predicted. The pause – which on some measures has gone on since the mid-1990s – continued into 2014 on the basis of global temperature data released last week by US space agency NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the US. However, the warming effect of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide will grow sufficiently to overcome the combined impact of various natural climate cooling factors, journalists on a telephone news conference were told last week by Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies. –Reporting Climate Science, 19 January 2015

Bolded fact, from the very people your newspaper article is about, and dated 19th jan, indisputable.

Red just speculation.

I am highlighting this so for future record, and if you carry on posting any different as fact, i will pull you up on it.

The pause – which on some measures has gone on since the mid-1990s – continued into 2014

Thats 19yrs no warming, right direct from the Goddard Centre on jan 19th 2015.


............................................




2014 Was the Warmest Year Ever Recorded on Earth by Justin Gillis January 16, 2015
LINK: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/17/s....html?emc=edit_na_20150116&nlid=54852892&_r=0

TEXT: "Last year was the hottest in earth’s recorded history, scientists reported on Friday, underscoring scientific warnings about the risks of runaway emissions and undermining claims by climate-change contrarians that global warming had somehow stopped.

"Extreme heat blanketed Alaska and much of the western United States last year. Several European countries set temperature records. And the ocean surface was unusually warm virtually everywhere except around Antarctica, the scientists said, providing the energy that fueled damaging Pacific storms.

"In the annals of climatology, 2014 now surpasses 2010 as the warmest year in a global temperature record that stretches back to 1880. The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1997, a reflection of the relentless planetary warming that scientists say is a consequence of human emissions and poses profound long-term risks to civilization and to the natural world.

"Of the large inhabited land areas, only the eastern half of the United States recorded below-average temperatures in 2014, a sort of mirror image of the unusual heat in the West. Some experts think the stuck-in-place weather pattern that produced those extremes in the United States is itself an indirect consequence of the release of greenhouse gases, though that is not proven.

"Several scientists said the most remarkable thing about the 2014 record was that it occurred in a year that did not feature El Niño, a large-scale weather pattern in which the ocean dumps an enormous amount of heat into the atmosphere.

"Longstanding claims by climate-change skeptics that global warming has stopped, seized on by politicians in Washington to justify inaction on emissions, depend on a particular starting year: 1998, when an unusually powerful El Niño produced the hottest year of the 20th century.

"With the continued heating of the atmosphere and the surface of the ocean, 1998 is now being surpassed every four or five years, with 2014 being the first time that has happened in a year featuring no real El Niño pattern. Gavin A. Schmidt, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, said the next time a strong El Niño occurs, it is likely to blow away all temperature records. “Obviously, a single year, even if it is a record, cannot tell us much about climate trends,” said Stefan Rahmstorf, head of earth system analysis at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. “However, the fact that the warmest years on record are 2014, 2010 and 2005 clearly indicates that global warming has not ‘stopped in 1998,’ as some like to falsely claim.”

"Such claims are unlikely to go away, though. John R. Christy, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville who is known for his skepticism about the seriousness of global warming, pointed out in an interview that 2014 had surpassed the other record-warm years by only a few hundredths of a degree, well within the error margin of global temperature measurements. “Since the end of the 20th century, the temperature hasn’t done much,” Dr. Christy said. “It’s on this kind of warmish plateau.”

"NASA and the other American agency that maintains long-term temperature records, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, issued separate data compilations on Friday that confirmed the 2014 record. A Japanese agency had released preliminary information in early January showing 2014 as the warmest year. The last scientific group that curates the world’s temperature record, in Britain, is scheduled to report in the coming weeks. “Why do we keep getting so many record-warm years?” Dr. Schmidt asked in an interview. “It’s because the planet is warming. The basic issue is the long-term trend, and it is not going away.”

"February 1985 was the last time global temperatures fell below the 20th-century average for a given month, meaning that no one younger than 30 has ever lived through a below-average month. The contiguous United States set its temperature record in 2012. But, mainly because of the unusual chill in the East last year, 2014 was only the 34th warmest year on record for the lower 48 states. That cold was brought into the interior of the country by a loop in a current called the jet stream that allowed Arctic air to spill southward. But an offsetting kink allowed unusually warm tropical air to settle over the West, large parts of Alaska and much of the Arctic. A few recent scientific papers say that such long-lasting kinks in the jet stream have become more likely because global warming is rapidly melting the sea ice in the Arctic, disturbing longstanding weather patterns. But many leading scientists are not convinced on that point.

"Whatever the underlying cause, last year’s extreme warmth in the West meant that Alaska, Arizona, California and Nevada all set temperature records. Some parts of California had basically no winter last year, with temperatures sometimes running 10 or 15 degrees above normal for the season. Those conditions exacerbated the severe drought in California, which has been alleviated only slightly by recent rains. Some small towns have run out of water, the sort of impact that scientists fear will become commonplace as global warming proceeds in the coming decades."



The rest of the article that's is left, could i have no doubt be as easy falsifiable, i just haven't got the time.

You have already seen pixels post in the other climate thread, where the Goddard Institute come clean over the issue.

Do i really need to burden 2 threads with pixels post, you shouldn't have copy cat posted in both threads, when both are abjectly wrong, i mean 2 threads, same post, and it is me you accuse of spamming.

And just so you finally get how the 'magic' headline was created, error bars, take your pick and place the year in whichever position in the 16yr record you wish.

“All temperature values have uncertainties, which arise mainly from gaps in data coverage. The size of the uncertainties is such that the global average temperature for 2006 is statistically indistinguishable from, and could be anywhere between, the first and the eighth warmest year on record.” –Paul Homewood



And one more observation, the warming hiatus is longer/older by 3 years, than the science measuring it.



And one last request, if you have a problem with me posting here inthis thread, then discuss it in the noisy thread, theres no need to burden your thread with side talk, i dont want it, you dont want it.



.

 

[manxman]

Heres an interview with a NASA astronaut and a more 'proper' patriot you could never get, put his life on the line for both country and NASA.

Its an interesting conversation and his dismay is palpable.
It also links heavily into the Goddard Institute's political sytematic corruption.




Apollo 7 astronaut Walter Cunningham knows a lot about science and the importance of getting it right. Walt has earned undergraduate and graduate degrees in physics. He has also completed all coursework for a doctorate in that discipline, but those studies were interrupted by other commitments before completing thesis requirements. In addition, he is a graduate of the Harvard Business School Advanced Management Program.

Walt put his science and technology background into real action as a Marine Corps fighter pilot and Apollo Lunar Module pilot. He has logged more than 4,500 hours of flying time of including more than 3,400 in jet aircraft, and more than 263 hours in space. (I’m not sure how many hours he has logged flying closer to Earth over Texas highways in his Corvette.) Walt was called upon to further apply his mission training and flight experiences as Chief of NASA’s Skylab Branch of the Astronaut Office.

Col. Cunningham, like many other scientifically- and technologically-experienced space program professionals, is an outspoken critic of pseudo-scientific climate alarmist claims. In this interview he explains why.

Apollo 7 astronaut Walter Cunningham knows a lot about science and the importance of getting it right. Walt has earned undergraduate and graduate degrees in physics. He has also completed all coursework for a doctorate in that discipline, but those studies were interrupted by other commitments before completing thesis requirements. In addition, he is a graduate of the Harvard Business School Advanced Management Program.

Walt put his science and technology background into real action as a Marine Corps fighter pilot and Apollo Lunar Module pilot. He has logged more than 4,500 hours of flying time of including more than 3,400 in jet aircraft, and more than 263 hours in space. (I’m not sure how many hours he has logged flying closer to Earth over Texas highways in his Corvette.) Walt was called upon to further apply his mission training and flight experiences as Chief of NASA’s Skylab Branch of the Astronaut Office.

Col. Cunningham, like many other scientifically- and technologically-experienced space program professionals, is an outspoken critic of pseudo-scientific climate alarmist claims. In this interview he explains why.









Walt, you kindly contributed an endorsement of my book commenting that “Those of us fortunate enough to have traveled in space bet our lives on the competence, dedication, and integrity of the science and technology professionals who made our missions possible…In the last twenty years, I have watched the high standards of science being violated by a few influential climate scientists, including some at NASA, while special interest opportunists have abused our public trust.”

What issues stand out most as reasons for arriving at this conclusion?

Larry, I come from a background where responsible science and technology are the difference between life and death. The Apollo Program relied on quality data and objective interpretation to advance knowledge in areas of science and technology that had never before been explored. All of us had complete trust in the competence, integrity and accountability of those we worked with to create the systems and hardware we depended on in the most extreme environment. We did not allow the media to affect our conclusions; our conclusions influenced the media.

Over the years, NASA has slowly, but inexorably changed their culture and filled management positions with those compatible with the new culture. They absorbed their “new ways of thinking, new people, and new means.” They have contributed to a society that is becoming less and less capable of measuring up to the motivation, inspiration, challenge, risk acceptance and accomplishments of Apollo.

We didn’t expect our scientists and engineers to know everything, or that their hypotheses would always be right. Hypotheses are ideas to be challenged, and to ultimately be proven or disproven by empirical evidence.








During a 2008 CBS 60 Minutes interview, Al Gore, who was launching a major global warming crisis advertising campaign at the time, responded to a question by Leslie Stahl about skeptics stating: “I think those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view. They’re almost like the ones who still believe that the Moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat.”

Having seen the Earth from orbit, I don’t expect you are one of those “flat- Earther” skeptics Gore referred to, are you?

No, Larry, I can emphatically vouch for the fact that the Earth is spherical. But, when it comes to global warming, the public- at-large really doesn’t know whom to believe anymore. And NASA has contributed to that confusion.

With lots of help from James Hansen and others at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), alarmist camps have been hammering us for years. The media is made up mostly of “true believers”. Politicians, in the absence of understanding and knowledge about climate science, have put themselves out on a limb from which it is difficult to retreat. Given the economic interests and the political powers involved, this dilemma will not go away quietly or anytime soon. In the court of public opinion, media and money play powerful roles.

The biggest problems I see with the sorry state of “climate science,” as the public comes to know it through the media, are the alarmist claims, unsupported by data and history, being presented as facts. When these claims cannot be validated by empirical data, they attempt to justify them by equally dishonest claims of proof by “consensus”. These alarmist claims create unwarranted fear in order to promote their political and profiteering agendas, while establishing regulatory policies that kill business and grow government–all at a terrific cost to taxpayers and energy consumers.

Without the science to back up their wild forecasts and claims, and the overwhelming evidence for natural temperature variation, alarmists try to exploit this unwarranted fear by resorting to the precautionary argument: “We must do something just in case we are responsible, because the consequences are too terrible if we are to blame and do nothing.”

Those of us who challenge alarmist claims of accepted theory and “consensus” are referred to as “skeptics”, as if that’s a bad thing. Responsible scientists are supposed to be skeptical. Those who aren’t qualify as demagogues. In the days of Apollo, astronauts, engineers, flight controllers and managers were skeptical of anything that might impact landing a man on the Moon. That attitude led to success in one of the biggest challenges in history.

If you buy a phony conclusion, as Al Gore obviously did, the consequences can be terribly costly.






It’s interesting to me that while NASA, particularly GISS, has contributed much to this misinformation and public confusion, there are also quite a number of NASA professionals, mostly retirees, who aren’t drinking the human-caused climate crisis Kool-Aid. Last year you and others lodged formal complaints to NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden, Jr. regarding the dismal and embarrassing state of the agency’s climate science programs.

Many of NASA’s retirees have grown increasingly concerned that GISS, a NASA organization located in a midtown Manhattan office building, was allowing its science to be politicized, compromising their credibility. Our concern, beyond damage to the NASA’s exemplary reputation, was damage to their current or former scientists and employees, and even compromising the reputation of science itself.

We developed a letter to NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden and obtained signatures from seven Apollo astronauts, several former Headquarters managers and Center directors, and 40 former management-level technical specialists. We asked that he restrain NASA from including unproven claims in public releases and on websites. Statements by NASA that man-made carbon dioxide was having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. It is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is inconsistent with NASA’s history of conducting an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements. They should be emphasizing to the media that human- caused global warming is a hypothesis, not a scientific fact.





And the second letter?

Well, NASA Chief Scientist, Dr. Waleed Abdalati, testified at a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing that the sea level was projected to rise between 0.2 meters and 2 meters within the next 87 years. This was based upon the warmest temperature scenarios, derived of course, from highly theoretical computer models.

A group of NASA retirees responded with another letter charging that NASA in general, and GISS in particular, has failed to objectively assess all available data on climate change, while relying too heavily upon complex climate models that have not succeeded in predicting climate. The letter specifically asked that GISS, then headed by James Hansen, not incorporate unproven remarks in public releases and websites.

Thankfully, James Hansen has since resigned. He was an embarrassment and disgrace to the agency.








So that behavior struck you as playing to a political Obama administration agenda?

That would be a fair observation. We felt that NASA’s commitment to climate science should be consistent with the agency’s reputation for rigorous science. When they don’t have real facts, as in this case, they should be honest about what they actually do and don’t know.

Understanding global climate and what, if anything, humans can do to affect it are scientific questions that can be answered only by honest science and scientific data. Yet, global warming alarmists invariably try to make their case through rhetoric, dogma, opinion, and emotion. They like to cite their climate models, and the public buys it.

Shouldn’t we be emphasizing that models are not data, and that climate models have never successfully predicted anything? Models are built upon assumptions (opinions), and if the bases for the assumptions are wrong, the results can never accurately predict future behavior.

Anytime the “evidence” is debatable, we should push for open and honest public debate in an effort to get to the “truth.” Unfortunately, believers in human caused global warming avoid debate like the plague.

Of course, your NASA colleagues, along with any other crisis skeptics outside the politically correct “climate establishment”, can be expected to have their debate credentials derided (not the “right stuff” in this case), and often their motives challenged as well. I’m aware that you have encountered that just as I have, along with several of our mutual friends.

The human contribution to climate has to be put into context with the 18-20 highly complex, natural climate drivers constantly at work. Most of those who study climate are specialists in one special discipline or another. They are not “big picture” people who see and connect all of the dots. I’m a geophysicist, which provides the skills and understanding of important principles. I know how to collect and analyze technical/scientific data. And, while I don’t claim to be a “climate scientist”, I do follow the subject closely enough to recognize incongruities in data and logic.

A response to one of my articles on climate change acknowledged my education in physics and then concluded with, “Nothing in your bio leads anyone to believe that you are remotely any sort of an authority on climatology.”

To paraphrase one response to our NASA letters: “Why should we pay attention to what you say, you’re just a dumb astronaut.”

The aerospace culture is comprised of technically sophisticated, problem-solving professionals who work together to connect the dots so that what they create can be verified to work. The people who signed those letters to Administrator Bolden are those kinds of individuals. Many of us conducted the science, designed and managed the manufacture of enabling hardware and software systems, tested their reliability, launched them, and flew colleagues to another body in our solar system a quarter of a million miles away and safely back again.







It’s not as if our government isn’t already throwing enough money at a contrived climate crisis. The National Research Council just released a report based upon a two-year-long study that concluded that President Obama’s sweeping new green energy subsidy program costing tens of billions to combat “climate change” is virtually useless. This new spending is on top of an estimated $48 billion spent in just the past two years.

Arguments to justify this ongoing waste depend upon data from compliant fright factories like NASA’s GISS. But what is a legitimate role for NASA in the climate science arena?

NASA should be at the forefront in the collection of scientific evidence and debunking the current hysteria over human-caused [anthropogenic] global warming [AGW]. Unfortunately, it is becoming just another agency caught up in the politics of global warming, or worse, politicized science. Advocacy and support for the White House agenda is replacing objective evaluation of data, while scientific data is being ignored in favor of emotions and politics.

The conflict over AGW has deteriorated into a religious war; a war between true believers in a human-caused global warming problem and nonbelievers; between those who accept AGW on faith, and those who consider themselves more sensible and better informed. “True believers” are beyond being interested in evidence; it is impossible to reason a person out of positions they have not been reasoned into.




.......................


He is spot on here about CCC being a religion.

You touch on it in your first posting, where you say its like a religous awakening, i think it was there, it may have been the 'other' thread where you talk about being a 'visionary' at the cutting edge of CCC, soewhere around the time you revealed you are actually a 'real' scientist 24/7 yourself.

What branch of science are you in ?.


The conflict over AGW has deteriorated into a religious war; a war between true believers in a human-caused global warming problem and nonbelievers; between those who accept AGW on faith, and those who consider themselves more sensible and better informed.


Plus i think he should just call those who do not believe the ccc hype, like himself, Climate Athiest's

 

[manxman]

The new world of climate change, has its benefits.

Benefits to Humans

Benefits to humans - CO2 - Carbon Dioxide


Far from being a pollutant, rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations will never directly harm human health, but will indirectly benefit humans in a number of ways. Chief among these benefits is global food security. People must have sufficient food, simply to sustain themselves; and the rise in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration that has occurred since the inception of the Industrial Revolution (an increase of approximately 100 ppm) has done wonders for humanity in this regard. And, it will continue to work wonders in helping us meet the rising food consumption needs of a larger, future population.


In addition to increasing the quantity of food available for human consumption, the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is also increasing the quality of the foods we eat. It significantly increases the quantity and potency of the many beneficial substances found in their tissues (such as the vitamin C concentration of citrus fruit), which ultimately make their way onto our dinner tables and into many of the medicines we take, improving our health and helping us better contend with the multitude of diseases and other maladies that regularly afflict us. In just one species of spider lily, for example, enriching the air with CO2 has led to the production of higher concentrations of several substances that have been demonstrated to be effective in fighting a number of human maladies, including leukemia, ovary sarcoma, melanoma, and brain, colon, lung and renal cancers, as well as Japanese encephalitis and yellow, dengue, Punta Tora and Rift Valley fevers.





............


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/

Andrew Bolt – Friday, February 11, 11 (06:50 pm)

If you want more fish on your plate, fire up the barbecue, the car, the lights, the afterburner….
From a University of Queensland paper published by Global Change Biology:
Climate change is altering the rate and distribution of primary production in the world’s oceans…. We simulated the effects of change in primary production on diverse marine ecosystems across a wide latitudinal range in Australia using the marine food web model Ecosim…
Under a plausible climate change scenario, primary production will increase around Australia and generally this benefits fisheries catch and value and leads to increased biomass of threatened marine animals such as turtles and sharks.


And for Humans.

Carbon Dioxide: Health Effects, Uses and Benefits

Any medical or physiological textbook, which discusses control or regulation of breathing in the human body, states that breathing is mainly controlled by carbon dioxide concentrations in the brain and arterial blood. Obviously, should CO2 be poisonous, it would be normal to have it as little as possible, but the situation is opposite and the "poison" controls respiration, the fundamental function of the human body...

This myth ("CO2 is a toxic, waste, and poisonous gas") is one of the greatest modern superstitions. Thousands of medical studies have proven that reduced carbon dioxide levels in cells, tissues, organs, and fluids of the human organism cause numerous adverse effects.


Main CO2 health effects and uses in the human body
Follow the links for dozens of research references

- Vasodilation (expansion of arteries and arterioles). As physiological studies found, hypocapnia (low CO2 concentration in the arterial blood) constricts blood vessels and leads to decreased perfusion of all vital organs

- The Bohr effect was first described in 1904 by the Danish physiologist Christian Bohr (father of physicist Niels Bohr). This law can be found in modern medical textbooks on physiology. The Bohr effect states that arterial hypocapnia will cause reduced oxygen release in tissue capillaries.

- Cell Oxygen Levels are controlled by alveolar CO2 and breathing. Hyperventilation, regardless of the arterial CO2 changes, causes alveolar hypocapnia (CO2 deficiency), which leads to cell hypoxia (low cell-oxygen concentrations).

- Oxygen Transport, therefore, depends on breathing and these 2 effects (Vasoconstriction-Vasodilation and the Bohr effect) explain the influence of hypocapnia (low CO2 content in the blood and cells) on circulation and reduced O2 delivery.

- Free Radicals Generation takes place due to anaerobic cell respiration caused by cell hypoxia. Hence, antioxidant defenses of the human body are also regulated by CO2 and breathing, as these medical studies have found.

- Inflammatory Response, as well as chronic inflammation, are also regulated by breathing since hypoxia leads to or intensifies inflammation. Therefore, hyperventilation naturally promotes inflammatory health problems and CO2 and Earthing (electrical grounding the human body) are the key anti-inflammatory agents.

- Nerve Stabilization is due to calmative or sedative effects of carbon dioxide on nervous cells. Lack of CO2 in the brain leads to "spontaneous and asynchronous firing of neurons" (medical quote) "inviting" virtually all mental and psychological abnormalities ranging from panic attacks and seizures to sleeping problems, addictions, depression and schizophrenia.

- Muscle relaxation or relaxation of muscle cells is normal at high CO2 levels, while hypocapnia causes muscular tension, poor posture and, sometimes, aggression and violence.

- Bronchodilation - dilation of airways: bronchi and bronchioles are dilated by carbon dioxide, and their constriction occurs due to hypocapnia.

- Blood pH regulation and regulation of other bodily fluids.

- CO2: Lung Damage Healer: Elevated carbon dioxide levels prevents injury and promotes healing of lung tissues.

- CO2: Skin and Tissue Healer.

- Synthesis of Glutamine in the Brain, CO2 fixation, and other chemical reactions: there are many other regulatory and facilitating effects related to uses of carbon dioxide.

- Regularity and Smoothness of Breathing is controlled by CO2. Lack of CO2 leads to "hypocapnic central apnea", which is a popular scientific term used by many doctors and scientists to describe the origins of sleep apnea.

- Hypercapnia (or Hypercarbia): Is it a pathology or a sign of super health?

 

[manxman]

Back to future climate politics this time.

Is it madness to think that for American's, climate terrorism could be just around the corner ?.

Enviromentalist's and animal rights groups have a potted history including murder by car bomb etc, will climate activism get gradually infected with that radicalism ?, is this the real face of climate change in 5 10 years time, because change doesnt move along fast enough..

Theres march's now regularly, infuture tho will they turn violent ?.

The Enviromentalist;

Environmentalist: Ferguson Happened Because of Climate Change

According to a top environmentalist organizer, climate change is responsible for this summer’s violence in Ferguson, Mo.



Turns out it is “environmental racism” because the poor folks of Ferguson have fewer resources to deal with the impacts of climate change.
So obviously thats mitigating circumstances for the rioting i mean they cannot help being a victim of climate change, we are all victims of it now.




Ferguson or not, is this the blueprint for America's streets.

Copenhagen climate summit: arrests follow riots as 30,000 gather for demo

And is it right that if the climate radicals riot we just shrug and say arhh they are passionate.
They are dressed like para-military's, is the short term miss-selling of a couple theories, for both political and financial short-term gain, really worth radicalizing, or legitimizing whatever brand of climate communism you Americans end up with.

Will you just sit numb while policy makers and politicians bandy about terms like 'climate racism' etc while liberals wet themselves weeping demanding you throw money at every potential Ferguson, for ''climate equality''.

At what point will it become un-patriotic to doubt the meme, because that implication will follow, as sure as night follows day, at some point, you will have to be either with your president or against him, on climate catastrophe..

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Don't people think half of these posts are too long? Is a single person reading the lot?

Manxman, Gene kindly asked for this thread not to be about climate chance science debate. Am I to take it that regardless of the thread, you will feel compelled to argue your case vis-vis climate change?

No-one is being 'taken in' by anyone, I personally do not care about this topic but to fix this, Tyger has agreed not to post elsewhere on this subject, so will you agree, for my sake if not anyone elses, to leave this thread, or abide by - yes Tyger's - outline at the start of what the thread is about? (It is not a precedent that who starts a thread, controls it, It's just that there already exists other threads to post the info you are posting in this thread.)

 

[manxman]

Don't people think half of these posts are too long? Is a single person reading the lot?

Manxman, Gene kindly asked for this thread not to be about climate chance science debate. Am I to take it that regardless of the thread, you will feel compelled to argue your case vis-vis climate change?

No-one is being 'taken in' by anyone, I personally do not care about this topic but to fix this, Tyger has agreed not to post elsewhere on this subject, so will you agree, for my sake if not anyone elses, to leave this thread, or abide by - yes Tyger's - outline at the start of what the thread is about? (It is not a precedent that who starts a thread, controls it, It's just that there already exists other threads to post the info you are posting in this thread.)

My post/s are not about science Goggs, unless it relates to future consequence, which is again on topic, who isnt relieved to read the future for coral for example, the future was forcast dire, now its the opposite.

Climate politic's are all within is remit.

It is a question posed many times to climate change audience's by a leading ipcc figure.

The question posits a conundrum for the future again well in keeping with thread parameters.

I am not addressing anyone but the reader.

And Gene did indeed make a final decision yesterday in the private convo, invite me back in and i will show you, because once he had spoken for the last time i bailed the convo.

My posts are not about tyger, nor are they to him, they are however within the criteria of his original post.


And ps.
Since when has alot information in one post been bad, instead of just a quoted attention seeking headline.

As long as a post is rich in cites, it can be the source of a nights reading.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Manxman, please stop posting in this one thread. I removed a couple from view that are blatant scientific arguing, when the premise of the thread is a future in which climate change is happening (rightly or wrongly).
If you wish those long posts to go elsewhere, I am happy to oblige.

 

[manxman]

Goggs, i refer you to Genes last words yesterday about this thread in the private conversation i have now left, my last post to that discussion is just above genes thanking him for reading all the posts there

His message was, clear suck it up, grow up, and get on with it, tygers special pleadings were rejected, it was the message to everyone.

I will not be posting to him or about him anywhere.

 

[mike]

Newswise — Off the West Coast of the United States, methane gas is trapped in frozen layers below the seafloor. New research from the University of Washington shows that water at intermediate depths is warming enough to cause these carbon deposits to melt, releasing methane into the sediments and surrounding water.
Researchers found that water off the coast of Washington is gradually warming at a depth of 500 meters, about a third of a mile down. That is the same depth where methane transforms from a solid to a gas. The research suggests that ocean warming could be triggering the release of a powerful greenhouse gas.

While scientists believe that global warming will release methane from gas hydrates worldwide, most of the current focus has been on deposits in the Arctic. This paper estimates that from 1970 to 2013, some 4 million metric tons of methane has been released from hydrate decomposition off Washington. That's an amount each year equal to the methane from natural gas released in the 2010 Deepwater Horizon blowout off the coast of Louisiana, and 500 times the rate at which methane is naturally released from the seafloor.
"Methane hydrates are a very large and fragile reservoir of carbon that can be released if temperatures change," Solomon said. "I was skeptical at first, but when we looked at the amounts, it's significant."

Warmer Pacific Ocean Could Release Millions of Tons of Seafloor Methane[has_multimedia]=

Perhaps another example of how focusing on single factors, blinkers our view of the complex interlinked mechanisms at play

The biosphere is a complex interlinked system. Its becoming increasingly more obvious we are changing that system in negative ways

 

[manxman]

He also said keep 'it' of the forum, its pm or ignore, you are on ignore mike.

 

[mike]

The Assyrian Empire once dominated the ancient Near East. At the start of the 7th century BC, it was a mighty military machine and the largest empire the Old World had yet seen. But then, before the century was out, it had collapsed. Why? An international study now offers two new factors as possible contributors to the empire’s sudden demise – overpopulation and drought.

“We’re not saying that the Assyrians suddenly starved to death or were forced to wander off into the desert en masse, abandoning their cities,” Schneider said. “Rather, we’re saying that drought and overpopulation affected the economy and destabilized the political system to a point where the empire couldn’t withstand unrest and the onslaught of other peoples.”

On a more global scale, Schneider and Adalı conclude, modern societies should pay attention to what can happen when immediate gains are prioritized over considerations of the long term.
“The Assyrians can be ‘excused’ to some extent,” they write, “for focusing on short-term economic or political goals which increased their risk of being negatively impacted by climate change, given their technological capacity and their level of scientific understanding about how the natural world works. We, however, have no such excuses, and we also possess the additional benefit of hindsight, which allows us to piece together from the past what can go wrong if we choose not to enact policies that promote longer-term sustainability.”

Too Many People, Not Enough Water – Now and 2700 Years Ago


This is a significant aspect imo, they fell foul of overpopulation and a natural disruption of the environment, arguing whether our current situation is man made becomes moot when looked at in this context.

Having said that , its obvious we are a geological force in our own right now, we ARE changing the planet.

Six Ways Human Activity Is Changing the Planet | The Dirt

But the Trigger factors that did the Assyrians in are the same, overpopulation and negative changes to the environment

 

[Tyger]

He also said keep 'it' of the forum, its pm or ignore, you are on ignore mike.

You've not just been asked but told - very nicely - to stay clear, manxman. Thank you for abiding by the truce. No more posting to this thread in any form. Much obliged.

 

[manxman]

You are also on ignore.