i have a little problem with the past predictions of oceans rising.
(since the '60's!)
They haven't.

If water evaporates quicker under lower atmospheric pressure,
then a rise in ocean levels would accelerate evaporation,
reducing that rise.

Current species extinction rates are unprecedented in the fossil record.

Royal Society: “There are very strong indications that the current rate of species extinctions far exceeds anything in the fossil record.”

Please take time to absorb all that is written there including many excellent comment.

and that is not all.

Heard of the North Pacific gyre and the plastic garbage patch?:

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch - Good Morning America

Message to lunk:

Avoiding the answering of my questions by locking a thread is not fair play as in:

Stephen Schneider thread

Insrtead you repeat stuff I have debunked backed with evidence and you provide a singular lack of support for your erroneous ideas as with this:



The reason that you see lower tides in your local is because the land is rising as the Pacific plate subducts beneath, as I have repeatedly told you. But that is another well researched and sound scientifically known fact that you refuse to acknowledge.

Try explaining how the structure that is the European Alps formed by an expanding earth. Ask yourself why the top of the Matterhorn is a huge chunk of gneiss, albeit somewhat ground down by glaciers and then the carbon cycle working with rain, winds and gravity to further errode, that could only have come from the African continent.

Here are some clues, not that I have not supplied many more over time:

Waves in the bathtub Why sea level rise isn’t level at all

Scientists withdraw low-ball estimate of sea level rise — media are confused and anti-science crowd pounces

and as for:


Is atmospheric pressure overall falling? Who is telling you that?

You should study this:

The sky IS falling

On the other hand, what is causing a rise in atmospheric moisture levels is rising temperature. The energy stored is put into an accelerated hydrological cycle as people in Pakistan have discovered. Tropical storms over parts of the US have also intensified whilst other parts continue to desicate:

Masters: “Strongest storm ever recorded in the Midwest smashes all-time pressure records”

Study: Global warming is driving increased frequency of extreme wet or dry summer weather in southeast, so droughts and deluges are likely to get worse

Lunk, it would make a change if you tried to grasp these topics rather than evading and repeating unsupported nonsense dressed up as verse.

People say, "think globally, act Locally". I say, "Think and act "Locally", and f&#k anything with the term "Global" attached to it, because anything these days termed "global" means the 'Global elite' and their "One-world-government" agenda.

Jeeeze, I almost sound like a "conspiracy-theorist". Hey, that's because there is a very dangerous and very real conspiracy at foot. Omega, if you are with "us", ... please quit being a megaphone for the elite.

Atmospheric physicist, MIT Professor of Meteorology and former IPCC lead author Richard S. Lindzen joins us to discuss the state of the climate change debate, the lack of evidence for catastrophic warming and what the science really tells us.

local daily weather is not climate. Wrong scale.

if we can't predict much more than 3 days,
how can we even get to the century scale of climate with any accuracy at all?!

As I have mentioned before I credit Mike Ruppert's "Crossing the Rubicon" with starting me down the road to where I am now in 9/11 Truth.

Instead he has refocused on peak oil and the resultant collapse that appears imminent.

"THE GREATEST SCIENTIFIC SCANDAL OF OUR TIME'

'Solar activity closely associated with climate'
E. Friis-Christensen and K. Lassen
Reviewed by Svensmark.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

Click on: 'pdf paper on this strong critique'

Cheers

The 1991 Science paper by Friis-Christensen & Lassen, work by Henrik Svensmark (Physical Review Letters), and calculations done by Scafetta & West (in the journals Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Geophysical Research, and Physics Today) have inspired the idea that the recent warming is due to changes in the sun, rather than greenhouse gases.

We have discussed these papers before here on RealClimate (here, here, and here), and I think it’s fair to say that these studies have been fairly influential one way or the other. But has anybody ever seen the details of the methods used, or the data? I believe that a full disclosure of their codes and data would really boost the confidence in their work, if they were sound. So if they believe so strongly that their work is solid, why not more transparency?


There is a recent story in the British paper The Independent, where Friis-Christensen and Svensmark responded to the criticism forwarded by Peter Laut (here). All this would perhaps be unnecessary if they had disclosed their codes and data.

Gavin and I published a paper in Journal of Geophysical Research, where we tested the general approach used by Scafetta & West, and tried to repeat their analysis. We were up-front about our lack of success in a 100% replication of their work, but we argue that the any pronounced effect – as claimed by Scafetta & West – should be detectable even if the set-up is not 100% identical.

However, Scafetta does not accept our analysis and has criticized me for lacking knowledge about wavelet analysis – he tells me to read the text books. So I asked him to post his code openly on the Internet so that others could repeat our test with their code. That should settle our controversy.

After repeated requests, he told me that he doesn’t really understand why I’m not able to write my own program to reproduce the calculations (actually, I did in the paper together with Gavin, but Scafetta wouldn’t accept our analysis), and keeps insulting me by telling me to take a course on wavelet analysis. Furthermore, he stated that there “are several other and even more serious problems” in our work. I figure then that the easiest way to get to the bottom of this issue it to repeat our tests with his code.

A replication in general doesn’t require full disclosure of source code because the description in the paper should be sufficient, though in this case it clearly wasn’t. So to both save having us do it again and perhaps miss some other little detail – in addition to using an algorithm that Scafetta is happy with – it’s worth getting the code with which to validate our efforts.

It should be a common courtesy to provide methods requested by other scientists in order to speedily get to the essence of the issue, and not to waste time with the minutiae of which year is picked to end the analysis.

The reason why Gavin and I were not able to repeat Scafetta’s analysis in exact details is that his papers didn’t disclose all the necessary details. The first point he raised was that we used periodic instead of reflection boundaries. The fact that the paper referred to the expression ‘1/2 A sin (2 pi t)’ to describe the temperatures or solar forcing would normally suggest that they used periodic rather than reflection boundaries. There was no information in the paper about reflection boundary. But this is no big deal, as we have subsequently repeated the analysis with reflection boundary, and that doesn’t alter our conclusions.

After further communication, we found out that Scafetta re-sampled the data in such a way that the center of the wavelet band pass filter was located exactly on the 11 and 22 year solar cycles, which were the frequencies of interest. He also informed me that a reasonable choice of the year when the reflection boudary was made should be the year 2002-3 when the sun experienced a maximum for both the 11 and 22 year cycles. This information was not provided in the papers.

I’m no psychic, so I couldn’t have guessed that all this was needed to reproduce his result. But since Scafetta has lost faith in my ability to repeat his work, I think it’s even a greater reason to disclose his code so that others can have a go.

For the record, we did not just use wavelets to filter the data – we obtained the same conclusion with an ordinary band-pass filter.

.... as far as peak oil goes, it depends on what the 'agenda' is. there has been talk in the past about abiotic oil, the huge gull island oil field as well as the field ( i forget the name) that covers part of wyoming and montana. also some huge field off the coast of brazil and so on etc. question becomes, who do you trust? .

Let me know what you think.

Lord Christopher Monckton, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, has been a leader of CFACT's delegations to numerous UN summits. He has held positions with the British press and in government, as a press officer at the Conservative Central Office and as Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's policy advisor. Monckton advised Thatcher on technical issues such as warship hydrodynamics, psephological modeling; embryological research, hydrogeology, public-service investment analysis, public welfare modeling, and epidemiological analysis. He is author of a detailed analysis and summary of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes' Fourth Assessment Report.

corbettreport

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu9fprxnkEI

Dr Richard Lindzen is a respected member of the faculty of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences. He has led a distinguished career since the 1960's, publishing hundreds of peer-reviewed articles studying and modeling Earth's atmosphere, receiving numerous awards and being selected for membership in the prestigious National Academy of Sciences. As a professor of meteorology and particularly with the studies of radiative and dynamical atmospheric processes that he has conducted, he certainly qualifies as an eminent climate scientist. He is also well-known as being skeptical about climate "alarmism", arguing that feedback effects are much smaller than most other scientists have assessed. At #136 on Jim Prall's list of most cited authors on climate change he is the third-highest-rated of the "skeptics" (after Roger Pielke Sr. and Freeman Dyson).

All of that is fine. While 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are responsible for significant climate change, there are still those 3% who disagree. [UPDATE The exact survey wording on the question was "Has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures" - which is a slightly different emphasis than my paraphrase (but is it "significant"?), and I apologize for any confusion caused]. Their arguments to the extent they are logical and have any scientific merit should be heard. Lindzen continues to publish in scientific journals, and while some of his recent papers have been greatly flawed, at least he's continuing to actively try to put forth his position in a logical and scientific manner.

But he also has other ambitions. Lindzen's current publication list includes two 2006 Wall Street Journal opinion pieces - "Climate of Fear" from April 2006, and "There is no ‘consensus’ on global warming" from June of that year. This past December Lindzen returned to the Wall Street Journal with The Climate Science Isn't Settled, and now celebrating Earth Day, April 22, 2010 we find Climate Science in Denial (subscription required). Both of these opinion pieces are filled with egregious misrepresentations of the facts, statements I find shocking coming from such a respected scientist. From his latest piece one can only conclude that either Lindzen has descended into the epistemic closure of paranoia and conspiracy theories that has become far too prevalent among some Americans lately or, worse, that he is consciously participating in the malicious disinformation campaign on climate that has recently been extensively documented by Greenpeace and elsewhere.

Either way, given that Penn State was forced to investigate complaints about Michael Mann's scientific work, continued congressional attacks on climate scientists, and the several investigations in England over the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, I want to know when MIT will initiate an investigation of Richard Lindzen's recent output, and whether he is, inadvertently or deliberately, dragging the good name of that institution through the mud.

And I would also like to know when, for balance, the Wall Street Journal plans to run the over 100 op-ed pieces it owes to the 97% of climate scientists who understand the impact of humans on our planet, given these 4 pieces it has already run by Lindzen. I'm not going to hold my breath for Rupert Murdoch though.

maybe cold fusion....

corbettreport

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu9fprxnkEI

Richard S. Lindzen

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, a distinguished professor of meteorology at
MIT, is one of a small band of global warming skeptics used by
industry to undermine and delay any kind of regulatory action meant to
address the looming environmental crisis.

Lindzen was reported in 1995 to "charges oil and coal interests $2,500
a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a
Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote,
entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific
Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." [1]

According to Ross Gelbspan, Lindzen and skeptics like him -- including
Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S.
Fred Singer, among others -- "assert flatly that their science is
untainted by funding. Nevertheless, in this persistent and well-funded
campaign of [global warming] denial they have become interchangeable
ornaments on the hood of a high-powered engine of disinformation.
Their dissenting opinions are amplified beyond all proportion through
the media while the concerns of the dominant majority of the world's
scientific establishment are marginalized. By keeping the discussion
focused on whether there is a problem in the first place, they have
effectively silenced the debate over what to do about it." [2]

External links

* Ross Gelbspan, "The Heat is On: The warming of the world's
climate sparks a blaze of denial," Harper's magazine, December 1995.
* Daniel Grossman, Dissent in the Maelstrom,"Scientific American,
November 2001.
* "Richard Lindzen," Wikipedia.

http://dieoff.org/page82.htm
THE HEAT IS ON:
The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial
by Ross Gelbspan.
from HARPER'S MAGAZINE/December, 1995

... The people who run the world's oil and coal companies know that
the march of science, and of political action, may be slowed by
disinformation. In the last year and a half, one of the leading oil
industry public relations outlets, the Global Climate Coalition, has
spent more than a million dollars to downplay the threat of climate
change. It expects to spend another $850,000 on the issue next year.
Similarly, the National Coal Association spent more than $700,000 on
the global climate issue in 1992 and 1993. In 1993 alone, the American
Petroleum Institute, just one of fifty-four industry members of the
GCC, paid $1.8 million to the public relations firm of Burson-
Marsteller partly in an effort to defeat a proposed tax on fossil
fuels. For perspective, this is only slightly less than the combined
yearly expenditures on global warming of the five major environmental
groups that focus on climate issues -- about $2.1 million, according
to officials of the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources
Defense Council, the Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists,
and the World Wildlife Fund.

For the most part the industry has relied on a small band of skeptics
-- Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr.
Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, among others -- who have proven
extraordinarily adept at draining the issue of all sense of crisis.
Through their frequent pronouncements in the press and on radio and
television, they have helped to create the illusion that the question
is hopelessly mired in unknowns. Most damaging has been their
influence on decision makers; their contrarian views have allowed
conservative Republicans such as Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R.,
Calif.) to dismiss legitimate research concerns as "liberal claptrap"
and have provided the basis for the recent round of budget cuts to
those government science programs designed to monitor the health of
the planet.

Last May, Minnesota held hearings in St. Paul to determine the
environmental cost of coal burning by state power plants. Three of the
skeptics -- Lindzen, Michaels, and Balling -- were hired as expert
witnesses to testify on behalf of Western Fuels Association, a $400
million consortium of coal suppliers and coal-fired utilities.
[#1] ...

[#l In 1991, Western Fuels spent an estimated $250,000 to produce and
distribute a video entitled "The Greening of Planet Earth," which was
shown frequently inside the Bush White House as well as within the
governments of OPEC. In near-evangelical tones, the video promises
that a new age of agricultural abundance will result from increasing
concentrations of carbon dioxide. It portrays a world where vast areas
of desert are reclaimed by the carbon dioxide-forced growth of new
grasslands, where the earth's diminishing forests are replenished by a
nurturing atmosphere. Unfortunately, it overlooks the bugs. Experts
note that even a minor elevation in temperature would trigger an
explosion in the planet's insect population, leading to potentially
significant disruptions in food supplies from crop damage as well as
to a surge in insect-borne diseases. It appears that Western Fuels'
video fails to tell people what the termites in New Orleans may be
trying to tell them now.]

corbettreport

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu9fprxnkEI

The third consists essentially of free riding. Here the emphasis is on what are euphemistically
called impacts. The specialties of the scientists involved lie well outside of climate physics, but
they can find funding and recognition by attempting to relate their specialty to global warming.
Their ‘results’ are to be found in the newspapers every day. Cockroaches and malaria spreading,
sex drive of butterflies diminishing, polar bears in potential danger, etc. From the point of view
of serious science, this group is mostly a nuisance, but they play a major role in the maintenance
of alarm. They also artificially swell the numbers of scientists who endorse the alarmist view.

corbettreport

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu9fprxnkEI

minus ten Celsius thereabouts midday here,
this is a good thing, i guess.
lake effect snow.
...snow tires...

Apparently, there is little difference between the global average temperatures today, and the temperatures during an ice-age.

The good news is, that the oceans will be going down at least 100 meters, giving everybody lots of new habitable, waterfront land.
My concern is, of course, how to defend oneself against a roving polar bear, with just an icicle.

Why worry about climate change when we have ongoing weather modification?

http://weathermodification.com/projects.php

Any weather can be modified, in any way, anywhere in the world,
for a price.
Any talk of drought, is fear mongering,
any strange weather is intentional.

We may control the clouds, but we don't control the sun, yet.

Whilst on ice, there is a certain South American glacier that has vanished ahead of expected by some glaciologists as melting rate tripled. There, that is a little home work assignment for you - name the glacier and elaborate.

Hmm, name a glacier...

i don't know, if that's the right approach...

some are shrinking, but some are growing, it depends where they are.

i'm still trying to figure out if the gulf current, has really stopped.

What we do know, is that they have only been adding "leap" seconds to calibrate the Earths daily rotation with extremely accurate atomic clocks, about half a minute worth, just in the last century!

This implies to me, that the actual rotation of the Earth is slowing down.

This slight change in daily rotation will cause, the Earth to lose its' gyroscopic oblate-ness.
And this would cause the polar circles to move closer to their poles. (and cause glaciers in those latitudes, to melt, too).

We are seeing lower sea levels,

and earlier sunrises in Northern latitudes. (and probably Southern ones, too.)

Omega, this is from research, i've done after going through many "theories", verified observations and documentation from official sources.

The ocean gulf current is the one that goes from the gulf of Mexico to Europe, and is thought to be responsible for keeping the Northern European latitudes warmer and moderating the climate there.

LOL you were the one who got me looking into the Earths' "oblateness", caused by the daily rotation of the Earth!

If continental rebound was taking place,

then the West coast of N. America has risen over a foot, in the last 40 years. i think it is more likely rather, that just sea level has dropped, there.

A large pane of solid glass has some flex to it,

If, the Earth is losing it's oblate-ness, what would we expect to see?

The sun, as seen from Earth in the Northern and Southern latitudes would be appearing higher above the horizon.

Ah CO2 again...
did you know that the less CO2 in the air, the greater the panic?
Hyperventilation can be caused by the fear that one is not getting enough oxygen, and is remedied by breathing into a paper bag.
This increases the CO2, which is essential to regulating our breathing.)

i think that we are going through major Earth changes, right now. And these changes will become more frequent.
But this is part of a natural cycle.
...as the Earth turns round.

OK Lunk, and others, lets have a look at some of the tactics that the unscrupulous use to baffle you with bullshit. Your responses are all too clearly based on ill-informed prejudice.

Case in point is straw men arguments and as an illustration we have the one that suggests that climate scientists claim that CO2 increase has always led temperature:

.
When you have watched that have a look at the originating site and note the latest item 450 more lies from the climate change Deniers.

Of course there is very little pressure in the upper atmosphere and the refractive indexes of all these gasses should be about the same closer to the vacuum, where the speed of light is the fastest.

(edit) added, oh, that was a video.

i really don't like the use of the word "denier." It's so "psycho-linguistic" and weighted with very negative connotations that have absolutely nothing to do with the weather.

Even "straw man" is becoming a loaded expression, to many, meaning much more than a flawed method of argument.

i do think we are seeing a climate change, and possibly the start of another ice age.

BTW, to get mile thick ice sheets, it first must precipitate a lot.

Quite, quite wrong. The sun is already known to have dipped below the horizon before it disappears from sight.

You, by thinking up all manner of reasons for polar warming are trying to argue that climate change is nothing to do with the activities of humans if I am not mistaken. Thus you are denying that humans have input a big signature into global warming and resultant climatic changes. If you don't like it then study the non-pseudo-science.

Omega, there exist few people like you, that to such extent spend his whole life quoting other sources,
thereby trying to appear knowledgeable, but are in fact, in this way, simply trying to hide the fact that he is
unable to think for himself. (It's a politicians way, and you do the same)!

What you quote above is silly and immature,

Humans have only an 'indirect' influence on the climate.

All man made so-called co2 emissions, such that comes from power plants, coal fire stations, factories, exhausts,
fires etc. etc., has no influence on the climate. All these emissions simply revert back to their origin within a rather
short span of time.

All these emissions are totally harmless, as they have lost their "vitality". They are no longer active or polarized.

Animals have been breathing, belching, and passing gas, forever.

It should be hotter than ever, today.
It isn't.

Weather changes day to day, season to season, year to year.

Ice ages happen regularly, and persist much longer, than any warm period, of recent.

Ice-ages appear to begin very quickly, and warm slowly.

Ironically, prior to publishing a book in 2007 which blamed the current warming on D-O cycles, Singer argued that the planet wasn't warming as recently as 2003. So the planet isn't warming, but it's warming due to the D-O cycles? It's quite clear that in reality, neither of these contradictory arguments is even remotely correct.

Inability to explain empirical observations

Aside from the fact that solar effects cannot physically explain the recent global warming, as with GCRs, there are several empirical observations which solar warming could not account for. For example, if global warming were due to increased solar output, we would expect to see all layers of the atmosphere warm, and more warming during the day when the surface is bombarded with solar radiation than at night. Instead we observe a cooling of the upper atmosphere and greater warming at night, which are fingerprints of the increased greenhouse effect.

It's not the Sun

As illustrated above, neither direct nor indirect solar influences can explain a significant amount of the global warming over the past century, and certainly not over the past 30 years. As Ray Pierrehumbert said about solar warming,

"That's a coffin with so many nails in it already that the hard part is finding a place to hammer in a new one."

Could the 1974 flood happen again?
Daniel Hurst
October 13, 2010

"The decision to stop the dam is a victory for people power and the thousands who campaigned against the Traveston Crossing Dam through submissions, marching, writing letters and voicing their objections in so many different ways," he said.

Greens Senator Bob Brown said Mr Garrett had shown great courage in acting for the environment.

"Australia faces mass extinctions in the coming century and this dam threatened to accelerate the process," he said.

"The dam threatened the lung fish, a species which shows how the spine was brought out of the ocean and taken up by land creatures. Peter has shown that spine today at its best."

Wyoming says:

February 26, 2011 at 12:26 pm

K. Nockels




I too am a small organic farmer. The last two years we have had unusual early warmth (a high in the 90’s in March) and late cold (frosts in early May). Played havoc with the fruit trees. On top of that we had a record hot summer with drought. A number of farmers had cabbage go directly to seed without forming heads. Fall brasicas in some cases never formed heads. Germination was poor due to the excess heat. Not to mention the bugs and molds which seem to be getting worse all the time. And now we have the Asian stink bug infestation to deal with. Times are going to be interesting for those who do not grow their own food in the future. I get mine first, everyone else gets seconds.

Your education system has failed you. I would ask for a refund if I were you.

Pot meet kettle!

Vitality, active and polarized being used without a clue as to what they mean.

Time for you to study some real science so until you have done that quit the ad hominum attacks!

In my days, and probably still, education was/is free in my home country.

Our eyes do not care for distance nor the speed of radiations.

They simply 'see' what they see.
The radiations from the Sun are continues.

Thus it becomes completely meaningless to talk about
the time of 8 minutes it takes for certain particles from the Sun to reach the Earth, at least in the
case we are talking about.

This would only have some bearing if a persons 'vision' did not extent further than the nose, but
this, fortunately enough, does not apply to the vast majority of humankind.

To tell the Truth, as i did, and which you further confirm in your responses in your following post,
can never be called "ad hominum"!

What you quote above is silly and immature, which you would have found out if you had spend some small
time thinking about it!
I urge you to do this, and you'll hopefully see the stupidity of it all.

That is just it, if we are told to believe it is going to be hot, when it is really going to get cold,
it's a little too late, once winter kicks in.

If it gets too hot,
i'll jump in a lake.

While I am not a believer in co2 global warming,

Huh! Our vision has the capacity to estimate distances. HTF do you think pilots of aircraft manage to land planes and cricketers to hit or catch balls - well in the case of England's Ashes winning team anyway.

Sorry but I haven't a clue what you are on about here, in either statement the latter of which makes no sense. What is, 'the case we are talking about'?

Oh! Really! So what is this:

Finally. Please try to be coherent, making sense of your torrents of abuse is tedious and non-productive.

'Richard Dawkins' f. ex., is one of those people who, when it comes to "the Truth", has a long long long way
to go yet!

It is not a question of belief but of understanding the evidence. Something you have obviously yet to do.

I also believe that you are supporting an agenda that has little to do with sustainability, quite the contrary, anyway the evidence point in that direction...

The only agenda I am supporting is one that will ensure that we are not overwhelmed by environmental catastrophe due to global warming caused by humans - this is proven BTW and I have provided ample evidence for that

Um, just wondering... do aircraft wobble lots before they crash?