Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

[seadna]

Seadna, you said:
The IPCC reports, the AAAS reports the numerous other reports by scientific bodies and governmental agencies due their best to represent that consensus and to display the estimated degree of uncertainty in the various models and projections. Spending time trying to defend each and every statement (or trying to shoot down each and every statement) is a fools errand.

So what you are saying is do not question anything, no matter how stupid or much a lie it might be, because we know better and you do not?

This really what you mean?

No what YOU are saying YOU THINK you heard is "do not question anything.....". What I'm saying is that overall such reports represent the best scientific consensus presently available. The primary messages of these reports are:
1) The climate is warming and it is warming at a rate faster than anything observed in human history or which can be inferred from other data over a much longer period of time.
2) Much of the driver for this unusual warming is CO2 that was introduced into the atmosphere at a higher rate than is "normal" and that this increase in CO2 is mostly due to human burning of fossil fuels.
3) Our current understanding of physics allows us to model temperature rises based on such things as increase amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, decreases in ice etc. Those models (as does reasoned extrapolation of current trends) predict a range of temperature increases in the future that will likely result in problems for humanity and that such problems could be reduced if we act to reduce carbon emissions.
4) The increase in CO2 is also increasing the acidity of the oceans and again the rate of change is faster than anything previously observed or inferred from other data.
5) The RATE of change in temperature, sea level and ocean pH is high enough that it may not be possible for many species to evolve rapidly enough to cope. The rate of change in sea level is rapid enough (estimated at about 1meter over the next 100 years) that some governments may not be able to respond rapidly enough to significantly modify coastal infrastructure to cope effectively.

The above messages are the general scientific and social consensus and to challenge those messages you need truly extraordinary data, models etc. as there is a TON of data and modeling done by highly skilled professionals and scientists and published in peer reviewed journals which (on a consensus basis) arrive at roughly the same conclusions. And yes, those scientists know better than you or I what is actually going on and will be better at modeling the future than you or I. We ignore them at our own peril.

Now.... one of the reasons I picked on your previous Einstein "quotes" is that they were emblematic of a larger problem in both logic and attempts to sway public opinion to ignore the science. Your previous signature line had a quote in it similar to "Science is not achieved by consensus. Even Einstein recognized that if 100 people agreed with him, it would only take one to prove him wrong" (I can't reproduce the exact quote since you now have changed your signature). So what was wrong with this "quote"/statement? First, as I said before, in fact science usually does in fact come to a consensus opinion about what the data actually is and what models best reproduce the data. Second, Einstein was referring to a book entitled "100 Authors against Einstein" in which (actually 47) authors contributed texts attempting to refute the theory of relativity. Einstein's response was "If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!". In fact he wasn't wrong and this has been proven over and over again by other (often more well respected and well reasoned) scientists, observational data, experiments and extensions to the theory that explain other phenomena (quantum electrodynamics for example). So now the CONSENSUS opinion amongst those who actually study physics is that the theory of relativity is quite good and to date no data has been found that conflicts with the theory. So, yes, the scientific community has come to the CONSENSUS opinion that Einstein and his theory of relativity are correct in that the theory is consistent with all of the available data to date. That said, there are still a variety of whackadoodles out there (some with Ph.D.'s) who insist that the theory is wrong. Every year or two, I get an email from some physicist who is looking for an outlet for their paper and ideas on why Einstein is wrong. In accademia, one gets a number of such unsolicited emails. I ignore these since whenever I invest effort in attempting to understand what is written, it rapidly becomes apparent that the author is delusional or confused in some way (Ph.D. or not). So the point of this story is that this statement which was previously in your quote was:
a) Factually incorrect in representing what Einstein thought and said and
b) If looked into in any depth, actually proves the opposite of what was intended as overtime the consensus scientific opinion (which is BASED ON MATCHING WITH DATA) ultimately converged around Einsteins theory as opposed to the opinions of "100" other, lesser scientists (who were not taken seriously by the good physicists at the time).

However, by attaching Einstein's name to such a statement and twisting it around a bit, the authors of your original statement were trying to imply that scientific consensus doesn't matter and were attempting to use Einstein's authority to make their point. It's methods and logic such as this that continue to suck in people such as yourself and that continue to imply that it's OK to simply ignore the majority opinion of science whenever it doesn't fit with our own goals or plans. For homework, I suggest you also look into the Einstein "quote" you currently have in your signature that reads "If the facts don't fit theory, change the facts. Einstein". In reality, Einstein never actually said such a thing and the nearest actual quote to that (when read in context) implies the exact opposite - e.g. that the theory must be adjusted to fit the data.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Warmist New claim: ‘Recent sea level rise is highest in 6,000 years’ — DEBUNKED

Latest warmist claim on sea level here.
Debunking here - Also see: Claim: 'No change in sea level until modern times – but that change is dwarfed by sea levels of the past'
Rebuttal: Examination of the data from the paper, however, shows the range of proxy sea levels is approximately 10 meters, far too large to discern the tiny ~1.5 mm/yr sea level rise over the past 150 years. The authors instead assume from other published studies of tide gauge measurements that the ~1.5 mm/yr sea level rise over the past 150+ years began at that point in time. Other papers find sea levels rising only 1.1-1.3 mm/yr over the past 203 years, and without acceleration.
Regardless, even the IPCC concedes that there was no significant anthropogenic influence on climate prior to 1950, thus man is not be responsible for sea level rise beginning 150-200 years ago, at the end of the Little Ice Age.
The sea level rise over the past ~200 years shows no evidence of acceleration, which is necessary to assume a man-made influence. Sea level rise instead decelerated over the 20th century, decelerated 31% since 2002 and decelerated 44% since 2004 to less than 7 inches per century. There is no evidence of an acceleration of sea level rise, and therefore no evidence of any man-made effect on sea levels. Sea level rise is primarily a local phenomenon related to land subsidence, not CO2 levels. Therefore, areas with groundwater depletion and land subsidence have much higher rates of relative sea level rise, but this has absolutely nothing to do with man-made CO2.
#
rate-sea-level-rise
Note the tiny blip at the right, our present sea level rise.

By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotOctober 15, 2014 1:00 PM with 3 comments

Via: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/10/new-paper-claims-after-6000-year-pause.html
New paper claims after 6,000 year ‘pause’, sea levels began rising 150 years ago
A new paper published in PNAS finds global sea levels rose up to 8 times faster than the present after the peak of the last ice age ~20,000 years ago, followed by a large deceleration starting ~6,000 years ago to stable levels until “the renewed sea-level rise [beginning] at 100–150 years ago.”Examination of the data from the paper, however, shows the range of proxy sea levels is approximately 10 meters, far too large to discern the tiny ~1.5 mm/yr sea level rise over the past 150 years. The authors instead assume from other published studies of tide gauge measurements that the ~1.5 mm/yr sea level rise over the past 150+ years began at that point in time. Other papers find sea levels rising only 1.1-1.3 mm/yr over the past 203 years, and without acceleration.
Regardless, even the IPCC concedes that there was no significant anthropogenic influence on climate prior to 1950, thus man is not be responsible for sea level rise beginning 150-200 years ago, at the end of the Little Ice Age.
The sea level rise over the past ~200 years shows no evidence of acceleration, which is necessary to assume a man-made influence. Sea level rise instead decelerated over the 20th century, decelerated 31% since 2002 and decelerated 44% since 2004 to less than 7 inches per century. There is no evidence of an acceleration of sea level rise, and therefore no evidence of any man-made effect on sea levels. Sea level rise is primarily a local phenomenon related to land subsidence, not CO2 levels. Therefore, areas with groundwater depletion and land subsidence have much higher rates of relative sea level rise, but this has absolutely nothing to do with man-made CO2.As this post was being written, WUWT posted on this same journal article, which makes additional recommended points regarding much higher sea levels during prior interglacials, etc.

Fig. 1. Global sea levels over the past 35,000 years. Horizontal axis is thousands of years before the present [i.e. present at the left side of graph]. Range of proxy studies of sea levels is approximately 10 meters over the past ~15,000 years.
Sea level and global ice volumes from the Last Glacial Maximum to the Holocene
Kurt Lambecka,b,1,
Hélène Roubya,b,
Anthony Purcella,
Yiying Sunc, and
Malcolm Sambridgea
Author Affiliations
Contributed by Kurt Lambeck, September 12, 2014 (sent for review July 1, 2014; reviewed by Edouard Bard, Jerry X. Mitrovica, and Peter U. Clark)
Abstract

 

[OldBlackDog]

Our Best Technology, Satellites, Say 2014 Will Not be the Warmest
Our satellite estimates of global temperature, which have much more complete geographic coverage than thermometers, reveal that 2014 won’t be even close to a record warm year.

In fact, the satellite and thermometer technologies seem to be diverging in what they are telling us in recent years, with the thermometers continuing to warm, and the satellite temperatures essentially flat-lining.

So, why have world governments chosen to rely on surface thermometers, which were never designed for high accuracy, and yet ignore their own high-tech satellite network of calibrated sensors, especially when the satellites also agree with weather balloon data?

No what YOU are saying YOU THINK you heard is "do not question anything.....". What I'm saying is that overall such reports represent the best scientific consensus presently available. The primary messages of these reports are:
1) The climate is warming and it is warming at a rate faster than anything observed in human history or which can be inferred from other data over a much longer period of time.
2) Much of the driver for this unusual warming is CO2 that was introduced into the atmosphere at a higher rate than is "normal" and that this increase in CO2 is mostly due to human burning of fossil fuels.
3) Our current understanding of physics allows us to model temperature rises based on such things as increase amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, decreases in ice etc. Those models (as does reasoned extrapolation of current trends) predict a range of temperature increases in the future that will likely result in problems for humanity and that such problems could be reduced if we act to reduce carbon emissions.
4) The increase in CO2 is also increasing the acidity of the oceans and again the rate of change is faster than anything previously observed or inferred from other data.
5) The RATE of change in temperature, sea level and ocean pH is high enough that it may not be possible for many species to evolve rapidly enough to cope. The rate of change in sea level is rapid enough (estimated at about 1meter over the next 100 years) that some governments may not be able to respond rapidly enough to significantly modify coastal infrastructure to cope effectively.

The above messages are the general scientific and social consensus and to challenge those messages you need truly extraordinary data, models etc. as there is a TON of data and modeling done by highly skilled professionals and scientists and published in peer reviewed journals which (on a consensus basis) arrive at roughly the same conclusions. And yes, those scientists know better than you or I what is actually going on and will be better at modeling the future than you or I. We ignore them at our own peril.

Now.... one of the reasons I picked on your previous Einstein "quotes" is that they were emblematic of a larger problem in both logic and attempts to sway public opinion to ignore the science. Your previous signature line had a quote in it similar to "Science is not achieved by consensus. Even Einstein recognized that if 100 people agreed with him, it would only take one to prove him wrong" (I can't reproduce the exact quote since you now have changed your signature). So what was wrong with this "quote"/statement? First, as I said before, in fact science usually does in fact come to a consensus opinion about what the data actually is and what models best reproduce the data. Second, Einstein was referring to a book entitled "100 Authors against Einstein" in which (actually 47) authors contributed texts attempting to refute the theory of relativity. Einstein's response was "If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!". In fact he wasn't wrong and this has been proven over and over again by other (often more well respected and well reasoned) scientists, observational data, experiments and extensions to the theory that explain other phenomena (quantum electrodynamics for example). So now the CONSENSUS opinion amongst those who actually study physics is that the theory of relativity is quite good and to date no data has been found that conflicts with the theory. So, yes, the scientific community has come to the CONSENSUS opinion that Einstein and his theory of relativity are correct in that the theory is consistent with all of the available data to date. That said, there are still a variety of whackadoodles out there (some with Ph.D.'s) who insist that the theory is wrong. Every year or two, I get an email from some physicist who is looking for an outlet for their paper and ideas on why Einstein is wrong. In accademia, one gets a number of such unsolicited emails. I ignore these since whenever I invest effort in attempting to understand what is written, it rapidly becomes apparent that the author is delusional or confused in some way (Ph.D. or not). So the point of this story is that this statement which was previously in your quote was:
a) Factually incorrect in representing what Einstein thought and said and
b) If looked into in any depth, actually proves the opposite of what was intended as overtime the consensus scientific opinion (which is BASED ON MATCHING WITH DATA) ultimately converged around Einsteins theory as opposed to the opinions of "100" other, lesser scientists (who were not taken seriously by the good physicists at the time).

However, by attaching Einstein's name to such a statement and twisting it around a bit, the authors of your original statement were trying to imply that scientific consensus doesn't matter and were attempting to use Einstein's authority to make their point. It's methods and logic such as this that continue to suck in people such as yourself and that continue to imply that it's OK to simply ignore the majority opinion of science whenever it doesn't fit with our own goals or plans. For homework, I suggest you also look into the Einstein "quote" you currently have in your signature that reads "If the facts don't fit theory, change the facts. Einstein". In reality, Einstein never actually said such a thing and the nearest actual quote to that (when read in context) implies the exact opposite - e.g. that the theory must be adjusted to fit the data.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Satellites show 2014 was NOT the hottest ever spring (or winter or summer or autumn) in Australia.

The headlines are burning around the nation: 2014 was the hottest ever spring! Except it wasn’t. The UAH satellite coverage sees all of Australia, day and night, and are not affected by urban heat, airport tarmacs, “gaps in the stations”, or inexplicable adjustments.

When will the Bureau of Meteorology discover satellites? How many years will it take to train the ABC journalists to ask the BOM if satellite measurements agree or disagree with their highly adjusted, altered, deleted, and homogenised ground stations?

I used exactly no tax dollars to email John Christy of UAH, get the latest data, and graph it to show that in Australia 2014 was not the hottest spring, and not the hottest winter, summer or autumn either. Why can’t the BOM or the $1.1 billion ABC do that?

The obsession with cherry picked, unscientific and irrelevant single season records that are not even records shows how unscientific the Bureau of Met is. By its actions we see a diligent PR and marketing agency. If the BOM served the public, they would make sure the public knew that these records depend entirely on their choice of dataset and on their mysterious homogenization procedures. If the BOM were outstanding and honest, they would provide the full picture instead of activist’s sound-bites. It’s as if the BOM were working for Greenpeace instead of us…

 

[OldBlackDog]

Arctic Sea Ice Continues Its Move Back To The 35 Year Mean

Arctic sea ice extent is the highest in a decade, and in a few days will be near or at the 35 year mean. This story will not be covered by any of the criminals in government or the mainstream media who are pushing the global warming scam.Science Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institute.


http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php

 

[Dave H]

Satellites show 2014 was NOT the hottest ever spring (or winter or summer or autumn) in Australia.

The headlines are burning around the nation: 2014 was the hottest ever spring! Except it wasn’t. The UAH satellite coverage sees all of Australia, day and night, and are not affected by urban heat, airport tarmacs, “gaps in the stations”, or inexplicable adjustments.

When will the Bureau of Meteorology discover satellites? How many years will it take to train the ABC journalists to ask the BOM if satellite measurements agree or disagree with their highly adjusted, altered, deleted, and homogenised ground stations?

I used exactly no tax dollars to email John Christy of UAH, get the latest data, and graph it to show that in Australia 2014 was not the hottest spring, and not the hottest winter, summer or autumn either. Why can’t the BOM or the $1.1 billion ABC do that?

The obsession with cherry picked, unscientific and irrelevant single season records that are not even records shows how unscientific the Bureau of Met is. By its actions we see a diligent PR and marketing agency. If the BOM served the public, they would make sure the public knew that these records depend entirely on their choice of dataset and on their mysterious homogenization procedures. If the BOM were outstanding and honest, they would provide the full picture instead of activist’s sound-bites. It’s as if the BOM were working for Greenpeace instead of us…

I hope this question isn't too difficult for you OBD, given your obvious lack of ability to read and comprehend, but exactly when did Australia become the whole planet??

Does the world "global" not mean anything to you??

And did you recently have a stroke or something that I haven't heard about??

You are manifesting some degree of retardedness in some of your posts and I'm wondering why.

And just who are you quoting here??

Posting unattributed quotes that spout nothing but garbage doesn't seem the actions of a normal person either, unless you're just bored of life and can't find anything better to do than troll here.

Sad if so.


Take care.

 

[agentaqua]

North Pole Sues Koch-Owned Oil Company Over Contaminated Water
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/12/04/3599276/north-pole-koch-lawsuit/

 

[agentaqua]

Conservation Council pleased with environmental focus in Throne Speech
http://www.conservationcouncil.ca/c...ed-with-environmental-focus-in-throne-speech/
"We are also extremely pleased with the announcement reversing the previous government’s ill-advised decision to scrap energy efficiency programming. Reinstating home energy efficiency retrofit programs, especially those aimed at helping low-income New Brunswickers, and expanding the government’s efficiency investment in all building sectors, will put people to work, help people save money, and benefit the environment by reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas pollution that causes climate change."
Read the full Throne Speech 2014: http://www.gnb.ca/cnb/promos/throne-2014/PDF/ThroneSpeech2014-e.pdf

 

[seadna]

Satellites show 2014 was NOT the hottest ever spring (or winter or summer or autumn) in Australia.

The headlines are burning around the nation: 2014 was the hottest ever spring! Except it wasn’t. The UAH satellite coverage sees all of Australia, day and night, and are not affected by urban heat, airport tarmacs, “gaps in the stations”, or inexplicable adjustments.

When will the Bureau of Meteorology discover satellites? How many years will it take to train the ABC journalists to ask the BOM if satellite measurements agree or disagree with their highly adjusted, altered, deleted, and homogenised ground stations?

I used exactly no tax dollars to email John Christy of UAH, get the latest data, and graph it to show that in Australia 2014 was not the hottest spring, and not the hottest winter, summer or autumn either. Why can’t the BOM or the $1.1 billion ABC do that?

The obsession with cherry picked, unscientific and irrelevant single season records that are not even records shows how unscientific the Bureau of Met is. By its actions we see a diligent PR and marketing agency. If the BOM served the public, they would make sure the public knew that these records depend entirely on their choice of dataset and on their mysterious homogenization procedures. If the BOM were outstanding and honest, they would provide the full picture instead of activist’s sound-bites. It’s as if the BOM were working for Greenpeace instead of us…

Of course the above was not written not by a practicing researcher but by a woman named Jo Nova whose past vocations included hosting of children’s program in Australia and touring Australia with a “Shell Questacon Science Circus". Good work! You've found the equivalent of the whackadoodle who sends me email refuting the theory of relativity. Keep up the solid analysis, the reference to good scientific work and the stellar contributions you are making to mankind's understanding of climate!

If you actually bothered to look at the primary research, you'd find that the satellite data is not ignored but that it also has correction factors that must be applied. Ask yourself this, if the thermometer outside your door reads one temperature and the satellite's estimate of the temperature outside your door another, which would you believe? We do in fact have thermometers over much of the earth's surface and the technology (invented in the 1500's and refined into the 1700's) is pretty well understood. However, if one's intent is to debunk global warming, it's easier and better to assume that 1000's of climate scientist are idiots who cannot use the best temperature measurements available and/or who are colluding to misrepresent the truth. I note that similar arguments are made by the whackadoodles who want to prove that the theory of relativity is wrong and that the theory of evolution is wrong.

 

[agentaqua]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force.[3][4]

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity (Occam's razor). As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings- in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then desired. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g. Newton's laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities which are small relative to the speed of light).

Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions.[5] They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g. electricity, chemistry, astronomy). Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a conjecture, hypothesis, or guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative).[6]


Essential criteria[edit]

The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no observable predictions is not a scientific theory at all. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is not applicable.

A central prediction from a current theory: the general theory of relativity predicts the bending of light in a gravitational field. This prediction was first tested during the solar eclipse of May 1919.[7]

A body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory if it fulfills the following criteria:

It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).

It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct.

It is consistent with pre-existing experimental results and at least as accurate in its predictions as are any pre-existing theories.

It can be subjected to minor adaptations to account for new data that do not fit it perfectly, as they are discovered, thus increasing its predictive capability over time.

It is among the most parsimonious explanations, economical in the use of proposed entities or explanatory steps. (See Occam's razor. Since there is no generally accepted objective definition of parsimony, this is not a strict criterion, but some theories are much less economical than others.)

The first three criteria are the most important. Theories considered scientific meet at least most of the criteria, but ideally all of them. This is true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, the modern evolutionary synthesis, etc."

 

[OldBlackDog]

Love it , you do not believe in satellite measurements. Says a lot About your science.
We are talking a out global science not science that does not measure all the areas of the earth.

Of course the above was not written not by a practicing researcher but by a woman named Jo Nova whose past vocations included hosting of children’s program in Australia and touring Australia with a “Shell Questacon Science Circus". Good work! You've found the equivalent of the whackadoodle who sends me email refuting the theory of relativity. Keep up the solid analysis, the reference to good scientific work and the stellar contributions you are making to mankind's understanding of climate!

If you actually bothered to look at the primary research, you'd find that the satellite data is not ignored but that it also has correction factors that must be applied. Ask yourself this, if the thermometer outside your door reads one temperature and the satellite's estimate of the temperature outside your door another, which would you believe? We do in fact have thermometers over much of the earth's surface and the technology (invented in the 1500's and refined into the 1700's) is pretty well understood. However, if one's intent is to debunk global warming, it's easier and better to assume that 1000's of climate scientist are idiots who cannot use the best temperature measurements available and/or who are colluding to misrepresent the truth. I note that similar arguments are made by the whackadoodles who want to prove that the theory of relativity is wrong and that the theory of evolution is wrong.

 

[OldBlackDog]

So, seadna, you disagree with this??

2014 a Record Warm Year? Probably Not.
December 4th, 2014
As continual fiddling with the global surface thermometer data leads to an ever-warmer present and an ever-cooler past, many of us are increasingly skeptical that beating a previous “warmest” year by hundredths of a degree has any real-world meaning. Yet, the current UN climate meeting in Lima, Peru, is setting the stage for some very real changes in energy policy that will inevitably make energy more expensive for everyone, no matter their economic status.

But there are some very good reasons to be skeptical of the claim that 2014 will be the “hottest year ever”…at the very least from the standpoint of it having any real impact on peoples’ lives.

No One Has Ever Felt “Global Warming”
If you turn up your thermostat by 1 deg. F, you might feel slightly warmer in the few minutes it takes for the warming to occur. But no one has felt the 1 deg. F rise in global average temperature in the last 50 to 100 years. It is too small to notice, when we are routinely experiencing day-night, day-to-day, and seasonal swings of tens of degrees.

The Urban Heat Island Effect Has Hopelessly Corrupted the Land Thermometer Data
Most thermometers measure temperature where people live, and people tend to build stuff that warms the local environment around the thermometer.

Called the urban heat island (UHI) effect, most of the warming occurs long before the thermometer site actually becomes “urban”. For instance, if you compare neighboring thermometers around the world, and also compare their population densities (as a rough indication of UHI influence), it can be easily demonstrated that substantial average UHI warming occurs even at low population densities, about ~1 deg. F at only 10 persons per sq. km!

This effect, which has been studied and published for many decades, has not been adequately addressed in the global temperature datasets, partly because there is no good way to apply it to individual thermometer sites.

2014 Won’t Be Statistically Different from 2010
For a “record” temperature to be statistically significant, it has to rise above its level of measurement error, of which there are many for thermometers: relating to changes in location, instrumentation, measurement times of day, inadequate coverage of the Earth, etc. Oh…and that pesky urban heat island effect.

A couple hundredths of a degree warmer than a previous year (which 2014 will likely be) should be considered a “tie”, not a record.

Our Best Technology, Satellites, Say 2014 Will Not be the Warmest
Our satellite estimates of global temperature, which have much more complete geographic coverage than thermometers, reveal that 2014 won’t be even close to a record warm year.

In fact, the satellite and thermometer technologies seem to be diverging in what they are telling us in recent years, with the thermometers continuing to warm, and the satellite temperatures essentially flat-lining.

So, why have world governments chosen to rely on surface thermometers, which were never designed for high accuracy, and yet ignore their own high-tech satellite network of calibrated sensors, especially when the satellites also agree with weather balloon data?

I will leave it to the reader to answer that one.

 

[OldBlackDog]

If you read it an cannot get the point , so sad.

I hope this question isn't too difficult for you OBD, given your obvious lack of ability to read and comprehend, but exactly when did Australia become the whole planet??

Does the world "global" not mean anything to you??

And did you recently have a stroke or something that I haven't heard about??

You are manifesting some degree of retardedness in some of your posts and I'm wondering why.

And just who are you quoting here??

Posting unattributed quotes that spout nothing but garbage doesn't seem the actions of a normal person either, unless you're just bored of life and can't find anything better to do than troll here.

Sad if so.


Take care.

 

[GLG]

Arctic Sea Ice Continues Its Move Back To The 35 Year Mean

Arctic sea ice extent is the highest in a decade, and in a few days will be near or at the 35 year mean. This story will not be covered by any of the criminals in government or the mainstream media who are pushing the global warming scam.


http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php

Well that sounds kind of sciencyyyy LOL. Don't words like that send up a red flag in your noggin?
So lets see what the "criminals" are posting to check out your latest "making things up" on the Arctic Sea Ice.

Well nope things are not back to normal... Those two black lines would be touching if it were.... Looks like 2014 is much the same as 2013.... just another bad year in a list of other bad years for sea ice in the Arctic. Do let us know when things are back to normal.... Better luck next year with your science from the denial blogosphere of "bob" and "steve" climate denial of the month club... I do hope you are not sending them money as from what I hear they're doing fine with their income from the Koch Brothers....

 

[OldBlackDog]

Arctic Sea Ice Continues Its Move Back To The 35 Year Mean

Arctic sea ice extent is the highest in a decade, and in a few days will be near or at the 35 year mean. This story will not be covered by any of the criminals in government or the mainstream media who are pushing the global warming scam.


http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php


Really, did you actually read this?
I think not.
FYI.
A decade is a period of 10 years. The word is derived (via French and Latin) from the Ancient Greek dekas which means ten. Other words for spans of years also come from Latin: biennium, triennium, quadrennium, quinquennium (5 years), lustrum (5 years), century (100 years), millennium (1000 years).

Well that sounds kind of sciencyyyy LOL. Don't words like that send up a red flag in your noggin?
So lets see what the "criminals" are posting to check out your latest "making things up" on the Arctic Sea Ice.

Well nope things are not back to normal... Those two black lines would be touching if it were.... Looks like 2014 is much the same as 2013.... just another bad year in a list of other bad years for sea ice in the Arctic. Do let us know when things are back to normal.... Better luck next year with your science from the denial blogosphere of "bob" and "steve" climate denial of the month club... I do hope you are not sending them money as from what I hear they're doing fine with their income from the Koch Brothers....

 

[GLG]

Hadley Centre Central England Temperature (HadCET) dataset

The CET dataset is the longest instrumental record of temperature in the world. The mean, minimum and maximum datasets are updated monthly, with data for a month usually available by the 3rd of the next month. A provisional CET value for the current month is calculated on a daily basis. The mean daily data series begins in 1772 and the mean monthly data in 1659. Mean maximum and minimum daily and monthly data are also available, beginning in 1878.

OBD do you see a pattern? Now remember this is not the global temperature it's just one set of many readings from around the world that happens to be the oldest....

 

[OldBlackDog]

It is not global! This is weather as you like to say.
Further put in the wrong areas then moved as they discovered this.
Nice try though.

Hadley Centre Central England Temperature (HadCET) dataset

The CET dataset is the longest instrumental record of temperature in the world. The mean, minimum and maximum datasets are updated monthly, with data for a month usually available by the 3rd of the next month. A provisional CET value for the current month is calculated on a daily basis. The mean daily data series begins in 1772 and the mean monthly data in 1659. Mean maximum and minimum daily and monthly data are also available, beginning in 1878.

OBD do you see a pattern? Now remember this is not the global temperature it's just one set of many readings from around the world that happens to be the oldest....

 

[OldBlackDog]

Peer Reviewed!!!


Proved: There is no climate crisis
Major paper shows CO2’s effect on temperature was overstated 500-2000%
WASHINGTON (7-15-08) - Mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 46,000-strong American Physical Society, SPPI reports.
Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN’s climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is “climate sensitivity” (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2’s effect on temperature in the IPCC’s latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.
Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered [http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/index.cfm] demonstrates that later this century a doubling of the concentration of CO2 compared with pre-industrial levels will increase global mean surface temperature not by the 6 °F predicted by the IPCC but, harmlessly, by little more than 1 °F. Lord Monckton concludes –
“... Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no ‘climate crisis’ at all. ... The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.”
Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chair (2004) of the New England Section of the American Physical Society (APS), has been studying climate-change science for four years. He said:
“I was impressed by an hour-long academic lecture which criticized claims about ‘global warming’ and explained the implications of the physics of radiative transfer for climate change. I was pleased that the audience responded to the informative presentation with a prolonged, standing ovation. That is what happened when, at the invitation of the President of our University, Christopher Monckton lectured here in Hartford this spring. I am delighted that Physics and Society, an APS journal, has published his detailed paper refining and reporting his important and revealing results.
“To me the value of this paper lies in its dispassionate but ruthlessly clear exposition – or, rather, exposé – of the IPCC’s method of evaluating climate sensitivity. The detailed arguments in this paper, and, indeed, in a large number of other scientific papers, point up extensive errors, including numerous projection errors of climate models, as well as misleading statements by the IPCC. Consequently, there are no rational grounds for believing either the IPCC or any other claims of dangerous anthropogenic ‘global warming’.”
Lord Monckton’s paper reveals that –
 The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
 CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
 Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
 The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
 The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
 “Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
 Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
 The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;
 It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
 Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
 In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.
Contact:
Robert Ferguson, Science and Public Policy Institute www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org 202-288-5699 bferguson@sppinstitute.org

 

[OldBlackDog]

Following Barack Obama’s recent visit to China, the White House issued a joint US-China climate announcement that says “China intends to achieve the peaking of C02 emissions around 2030.” But that isn’t news.

A report published three-and-a-half-years ago and funded by the US Department of Energy had already predicted this. Titled China’s Energy and Carbon Emissions Outlook to 2050, it says that population growth, urbanization, and other factors are all expected to peak in China by 2030. Therefore, emissions will, too.

Welcome to the smoke-and-mirrors world of climate negotiations. First, Mr. Obama’s “historic” agreement takes credit for forces already in motion in a foreign country. Second, despite all evidence to the contrary, it pretends that America is capable of reducing its own emissions dramatically over the next decade.

When the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was born in 1992, humanity collectively emitted 21 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. By 2012, this number had increased by 50% to 31 billion tonnes. What was the rate of increase between 1971 and 1991, before the treaty? Amusingly enough, it too was 50%.

Keen to pose as saviours of the planet, politicians across the political spectrum have spent two decades announcing UN-inspired emissions targets that no one has any realistic hope of meeting. When discussing these matters, Roger Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, uses phrases such as “fantasy island” and “emissions impossible.”

In 2011, he called Australia’s 2020 emissions reduction goal “fanciful at best.” Much of Australia’s electricity comes from coal. Replacing sufficient amounts of this electricity would require the construction of 56 nuclear power plants, or 12,000 solar power facilities, in less than a decade.

More recently, Pielke has observed that, following the passage of the UK’s Climate Change Act, that nation’s economy has decarbonized at a rate of 1 percent per year. But meeting its 2022 emissions target, a mere seven years away, implies an annual decarbonization rate 4 to 5 times that.

On November 16, Der Spiegel reported that Germany will also miss its 2020 emissions goal. New coal-fired power plants are currently being built not because the German public doesn’t prefer wind and solar but because those technologies can’t produce enough of the reasonably-priced, reliable energy necessary to power an advanced, industrial economy.

Even the editors of the MIT Technology Review, who believe climate change should be Mr. Obama’s top priority, have publicly acknowledged that “Renewable energy sources, like solar and advanced biofuels, are simply not yet ready to compete with fossil fuels.”

Over the past 40 years, worldwide CO2 emissions dropped significantly only once: during the 2009 financial crisis. The New York Times says four million additional Americans fell below the poverty line that year, and that median family incomes “were 5 percent lower than in 1999.”

According to the World Bank, “virtually every developing country” was hit hard in 2009; an additional 50,000 African children may have died of malnutrition that year, and an estimated “64 million more people around the world” may well have been pushed back into abject poverty.

This is the dirty little secret lurking behind every new emissions deal: when emissions disappear, so do jobs, economic opportunities, and human well-being.

The manufacturing jobs found in factories and the auto industry need affordable power – not the intermittent, stupendously-priced, boutique power generated by wind turbines. Coal mining feeds families. Oil wells put food on the table.

We used to view the dignity that accompanies a paying job as an important social good. We used to understand that working class families are vulnerable. We used to care that unemployment, substance abuse, and family breakdown are closely connected.

These days, we’ve convinced ourselves that driving CO2-emitting factories into bankruptcy is smart. That throwing people out of work makes sense. That plunging families into crisis is the path to glory.

What a strange new religion we’ve adopted in the name of saving the planet.

 

[Dave H]

Lord Monckton again??

Hilarious on the one hand but much more evidence that you've suffered some mental breakdown or something on the other.

Nobody who can read would use him as some kind of authority on global warming and the attendant climate change.

Nobody save a paid performer, a dupe or a troll.

All three options are sad in their own way too, when you look at them.



Take care.