Global warming and the end

[eclipsenow]

Climate deniers formed a 'charity' to gang up on REAL SCIENTISTS with nothing more than lies and character attacks. They brought an expensive legal case against NZ climatologists. They lost. Their 'charity' evaporated, and they refused to pay the bill. Tax payers will probably foot the bill of nearly $90,000 legal fees. GO CLIMATE DENIERS! (What a disgusting breed of lying hypocrits. What is WRONG with them?)

Taxpayers left to foot the bill

After an appeal that was withdrawn at the last minute, late last year the NZCSET was ordered to pay NIWA NZ$89,000 in costs from the original case, plus further costs from the appeal.
But just this month, we have learned that the people behind the NZCSET have sent it into liquidation as they cannot afford the fees, leaving the New Zealand taxpayer at a substantial, six-figure loss.
Commenting on the lost time and money involved with the case, NIWA’s chief executive John Morgan has said that:

On the surface it looks like the trust was purely for the purpose of taking action, which is not what one would consider the normal use of a charitable trust.
​

This has been an insidious saga. The Trust aggressively attacked the scientists, instead of engaging with them to understand the technical issues; they ignored evidence that didn’t suit their case; and they regularly misrepresented NIWA statements by taking them out of context.
Yet their attack has now been repeatedly rejected in Parliament, by scientists, and by the courts.
The end result of the antics by a few individuals and this Trust is probably going to be a six-figure bill for New Zealanders to pay.
My former colleagues have had valuable weeks tied up with wasted time in defending these manufactured allegations. That’s time that could have profitably been used investigating further what is happening with our climate.

...


Earlier this month, the news broke that major tobacco companies will finally admit they “deliberately deceived the American public”, in “corrective statements” that would run on prime-time TV, in newspapers and even on cigarette packs.
It’s taken a 15-year court battle with the US government to reach this point, and it shows that evidence can trump doubt-mongering in the long run.
A similar day may come for those who actively work to cast doubt on climate science.

https://theconversation.com/an-insiders-story-of-the-global-attack-on-climate-science-21972

 

[eclipsenow]

Anyone care to explain the Arctic's heat this winter?
Arctic Heat Wave Sets off Hottest Ever Winter-Time Temperatures, Major Melt, Disasters for Coastal and Interior Alaska | robertscribbler

It also seems to be part of a trend.




[1] Arctic air temperatures have increased in recent decades, along with documented reductions in sea ice, glacier size, and snow cover. However, the extent to which recent Arctic warming has been anomalous with respect to long-term natural climate variability remains uncertain. Here we use 145 radiocarbon dates on rooted tundra plants revealed by receding cold-based ice caps in the eastern Canadian Arctic to show that 5000 years of regional summertime cooling has been reversed, with average summer temperatures of the last ~100 years now higher than during any century in more than 44,000 years, including the peak warmth of the early Holocene when high-latitude summer insolation was 9% greater than present. Reconstructed changes in snowline elevation suggest that summers cooled ~2.7°C over the past 5000 years, approximately twice the response predicted by Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 climate models. Our results indicate that anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases have led to unprecedented regional warmth.

Unprecedented recent summer warmth in Arctic Canada - Miller - 2013 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

 

[Interplanner]

Here is a quote from skepticalscience.com which is skeptical about global warming skepticism (ie, in favor of the main theory today):

1. Ned at 11:39 AM on 26 March, 2010
   Oh, yes, you're quite right .... I'm not at all minimizing the problems resulting from doubling CO2 on short timescales. Just pointing out that when people refer to the very high CO2 in the Paleozoic, 400 million years ago, they need to realize that it was countered by what was a much lower solar irradiance. If CO2 hadn't dropped over time, the world would be more or less uninhabitable today.
   
   Or, another way of putting it is that a much smaller increase in CO2 today will produce a climate that would have required much higher CO2 to achieve in the Paleozoic.

I am posting here to affirm that it is good that he stays out of the business of hitting industry, and because there is tacit admission of the increased power of the sun. As I recall in the documentary THE PRIVILEGED PLANET you couldn't adjust the irradiation of the sun even 1% without havoc on earth. Yet here is a standard-theory warming scientist saying it is 4% higher than a period 400mya. That's why "Ned" calls such previous levels "much lower."

 

[Interplanner]

As for Arctic heat, I only heard this month that in July 2013 the solar poles switched. Clear the desks; it will take years to factor that into a coherent overall climate theory. No wonder this solar-sized piece of news was NOWHERE IN THE WESTERN PRESS THIS WHOLE TIME.

 

[eclipsenow]

Here is a quote from skepticalscience.com which is skeptical about global warming skepticism (ie, in favor of the main theory today):

1. Ned at 11:39 AM on 26 March, 2010
   Oh, yes, you're quite right .... I'm not at all minimizing the problems resulting from doubling CO2 on short timescales. Just pointing out that when people refer to the very high CO2 in the Paleozoic, 400 million years ago, they need to realize that it was countered by what was a much lower solar irradiance. If CO2 hadn't dropped over time, the world would be more or less uninhabitable today.
   
   Or, another way of putting it is that a much smaller increase in CO2 today will produce a climate that would have required much higher CO2 to achieve in the Paleozoic.

I am posting here to affirm that it is good that he stays out of the business of hitting industry, and because there is tacit admission of the increased power of the sun. As I recall in the documentary THE PRIVILEGED PLANET you couldn't adjust the irradiation of the sun even 1% without havoc on earth. Yet here is a standard-theory warming scientist saying it is 4% higher than a period 400mya. That's why "Ned" calls such previous levels "much lower."

I'm confused: are you now saying you doubt the sun is pumping out more heat than before the dinosaurs walked the earth? Are you a 6-day literal creationist or something? Nothing here is incompatible. Climatologists know about the warming sun (over hundreds of millions of years!) and it is not responsible for the immediate warming we're seeing: CO2 is.

And what's this about 'hitting industry'? Climate scientists are trying to save industrial civilisation!

 

[eclipsenow]

As for Arctic heat, I only heard this month that in July 2013 the solar poles switched. Clear the desks; it will take years to factor that into a coherent overall climate theory. No wonder this solar-sized piece of news was NOWHERE IN THE WESTERN PRESS THIS WHOLE TIME.

I heard the Easter Bunny was to blame!

(Shock me and try and back your statements with links to real science sites for once?)

 

[Interplanner]

Large Lakes Observatory says Superior is nearly frozen, and will at least break its record this year from 1991 of 91% frozen. Duluth has been below 0 for 23 straight days a record.

I take readings from the center of our continents far more weighty than those at the edges where ocean currents are affecting them.

http://www.dennisprager.com/

 

[eclipsenow]

I take readings from the center of our continents far more weighty than those at the edges where ocean currents are affecting them.

You do that! I mean, the Earth's only 75% ocean, but you go ahead and take seriously whatever you want. Not cherrypicking much?

 

[johnregnier]

You do that! I mean, the Earth's only 75% ocean, but you go ahead and take seriously whatever you want. Not cherrypicking much?

Who's in charge of the weather my friend. According to the Word, God is. Just study Gen. 8 if you don't believe me.


May God bless, John

 

[eclipsenow]

Who's in charge of the weather my friend. According to the Word, God is. Just study Gen. 8 if you don't believe me.

May God bless, John

Who's in charge of the laws of physics, of the spin of the electrons around the atomic structure of the metal in a knife? Yet God still allows us to experience the consequences of our actions: the knife still stabs and kills.

Ultimately God is sovereign over your entire life: and you are personally encouraged not to worry about tomorrow or your life or clothes or security. But does that mean you don't lock the house at night, study hard to get the best job you can, or even look both ways before crossing the road?

Also, look up 'weather' and 'climate' in a dictionary. You sound confused about the two.

 

[johnregnier]

Who's in charge of the laws of physics, of the spin of the electrons around the atomic structure of the metal in a knife? Yet God still allows us to experience the consequences of our actions: the knife still stabs and kills.

Ultimately God is sovereign over your entire life: and you are personally encouraged not to worry about tomorrow or your life or clothes or security. But does that mean you don't lock the house at night, study hard to get the best job you can, or even look both ways before crossing the road?

Also, look up 'weather' and 'climate' in a dictionary. You sound confused about the two.

Straw man argument my friend. Did you study Gen. 8 yet?

May God bless, John

 

[n2thelight]

Climate deniers formed a 'charity' to gang up on REAL SCIENTISTS with nothing more than lies and character attacks. They brought an expensive legal case against NZ climatologists. They lost. Their 'charity' evaporated, and they refused to pay the bill. Tax payers will probably foot the bill of nearly $90,000 legal fees. GO CLIMATE DENIERS! (What a disgusting breed of lying hypocrits. What is WRONG with them?)

Do you understand what the climate control bill entails?

 

[eclipsenow]

Straw man argument my friend. Did you study Gen. 8 yet?

May God bless, John

Straw man answer, my friend. Did you study Romans 1? This is about human selfishness and greed, not an attack on God's sovereignty. Unless, of course, you're a republican voter. Then this is actually about your political bias, and not the bible at all.

 

[Interplanner]

I was a bit off on numbers. Lake Superior was at 91% ice in 1994, when Fargo flooded because the Red could not drain to the north. It averages 56% by week each year (8 weeks after winter solstice) . But this week it is at 80%, and on track or pace to repeat 1994. Records show that it regularly reaches this level every 30-40 years, even in the century of "unprecedented global warming from industry." It is not even due yet for that 'cycle'-wise, yet it is 24% more frozen than average.

It is the largest freshwater body in the world, and it is very centered on the continent from the temperature changes that occur from ocean currents, so it is the more true indicator of what our climate is doing.

"Science has become a game" --F. Schaeffer, HE IS THERE AND HE IS NOT SILENT, 1972, p79. The comment was made in the context of illustrating the mentality that floods the West's education, media and entertainment vs. that which is found in the Bible although both deal with ordinary knowledge.

 

[eclipsenow]

It is the largest freshwater body in the world, and it is very centered on the continent from the temperature changes that occur from ocean currents, so it is the more true indicator of what our climate is doing.

Says who? Only if you want to cherry-pick data. Global warming is — ahem — global. Your proposal is bad as the (wildly conspiratorial and false) accusations your camp make about the 'urban heat island effect'. Your camp accused our camp of cherry-picking data from hotter city localities. False!

We must look at GLOBAL temperatures. That that data tells us the temperature differential between the equator and poles has made the Arctic 'drunk' on global warming. The jet stream is destabilised, just as climatologists predicted. You are, in effect, quoting evidence FOR warming! A warming globe has more energy in it, and in a few rare situations the warming GLOBE results in cooler LOCATIONS because the extra energy has moved some cold spots about.

 

[Biblewriter]

Says who? Only if you want to cherry-pick data. Global warming is — ahem — global. Your proposal is bad as the (wildly conspiratorial and false) accusations your camp make about the 'urban heat island effect'. Your camp accused our camp of cherry-picking data from hotter city localities. False!

We must look at GLOBAL temperatures. That that data tells us the temperature differential between the equator and poles has made the Arctic 'drunk' on global warming. The jet stream is destabilised, just as climatologists predicted. You are, in effect, quoting evidence FOR warming! A warming globe has more energy in it, and in a few rare situations the warming GLOBE results in cooler LOCATIONS because the extra energy has moved some cold spots about.

Yes, is is just cooler in a few locations, like the entire United States, and at the same time eurpoe, the Middle East, and India. But of course, these are not "scientific" studies, just reports the come to me from my personal contacts all over the world. (I have well over 500 Facebook friends, scattered all over the globe.)

 

[eclipsenow]

Yes, is is just cooler in a few locations, like the entire United States, and at the same time eurpoe, the Middle East, and India. But of course, these are not "scientific" studies, just reports the come to me from my personal contacts all over the world. (I have well over 500 Facebook friends, scattered all over the globe.)

Riiight. You still haven't bothered to read the many, many, many summaries of the peer-reviewed studies I've supplied. Go with your anecdotes mate: it confirms your literalistic creationist and political presuppositions.

But don't confuse your anecdotes with science. (I mean, FB friends? Really? You know better. )


Edit to add: this is what's happening. The Arctic jet stream can't drive in straight lines any more because it's 'drunk' on global warming. A smaller temperature differential (because the Arctic has warmed so much compared to it's usual temperatures!) means the Jet Stream is not held in as tight a band as it used to be. It meanders. It's 'drunk'.

 

[eclipsenow]

The Guardian says it all: It's time for deniers to put up or shut up.

******

They are always the sniping antagonists, rarely, if ever, standing up to say: we believe in the following facts and here is our research. It is a risk-free strategy – at least for the moment – that comes almost exclusively from the political right and is, as often as not, incentivised by simple capitalist gain. Hearing Lord Lawson argue with the impeccably reasonable climate scientist Sir Brian Hoskins on the BBC Today programme last week, I finally boiled over. It is surely now time for the deniers to make their case and hold an international conference, where they set out their scientific stall, which, while stating that the climate is fundamentally chaotic, provides positive, underlying evidence that man's activity has had no impact on sea and atmosphere temperatures, diminishing icecaps and glaciers, rising sea levels and so on.

Until such a conference is held and people such as Lawson, Lord Monckton, Christopher Booker, Samuel Brittan and Viscount Ridley – names that begin to give you some idea of the demographic – are required to provide the proof of their case, rather than feeding off that of their opponents, they should be treated with mild disdain. I don't say deniers should be banned from media outlets, as the website Reddit has attempted to do, but just that there should be agreement that they must now qualify, with argument and facts, for the balanced coverage they receive in such places as the BBC.

I believe so passionately in the Natural Causes Climate Change Conference (the NCCCC, perhaps) that the fee for this column is offered to start the ball rolling. And I will be the first to buy a ticket, because the deniers' case has about a tenth of the strength of the warmists' case and I want to see them flounder, as all the scientific guns are trained on them. Of course this will not happen – why would someone such as Lawson exchange the comfortable position of ringside critic for the roll of protagonist? But for him and the rest of the deniers, a failure to put up will soon mean they have to shut up, simply because no one is listening.
Climate change: time for the sceptics to put up or shut up | Comment is free | The Observer

 

[Biblewriter]

The Guardian says it all: It's time for deniers to put up or shut up.

******

They are always the sniping antagonists, rarely, if ever, standing up to say: we believe in the following facts and here is our research. It is a risk-free strategy – at least for the moment – that comes almost exclusively from the political right and is, as often as not, incentivised by simple capitalist gain. Hearing Lord Lawson argue with the impeccably reasonable climate scientist Sir Brian Hoskins on the BBC Today programme last week, I finally boiled over. It is surely now time for the deniers to make their case and hold an international conference, where they set out their scientific stall, which, while stating that the climate is fundamentally chaotic, provides positive, underlying evidence that man's activity has had no impact on sea and atmosphere temperatures, diminishing icecaps and glaciers, rising sea levels and so on.

Until such a conference is held and people such as Lawson, Lord Monckton, Christopher Booker, Samuel Brittan and Viscount Ridley – names that begin to give you some idea of the demographic – are required to provide the proof of their case, rather than feeding off that of their opponents, they should be treated with mild disdain. I don't say deniers should be banned from media outlets, as the website Reddit has attempted to do, but just that there should be agreement that they must now qualify, with argument and facts, for the balanced coverage they receive in such places as the BBC.

I believe so passionately in the Natural Causes Climate Change Conference (the NCCCC, perhaps) that the fee for this column is offered to start the ball rolling. And I will be the first to buy a ticket, because the deniers' case has about a tenth of the strength of the warmists' case and I want to see them flounder, as all the scientific guns are trained on them. Of course this will not happen – why would someone such as Lawson exchange the comfortable position of ringside critic for the roll of protagonist? But for him and the rest of the deniers, a failure to put up will soon mean they have to shut up, simply because no one is listening.
Climate change: time for the sceptics to put up or shut up | Comment is free | The Observer

Plenty of such research and facts have been provided, but it is simply ignored. Enjoy your Kool-Aid.

 

[eclipsenow]

Plenty of such research and facts have been provided, but it is simply ignored. Enjoy your Kool-Aid.

I think you meant to say "Plenty of such sniping from the sidelines has been provided, but no consistent alternative theories about climate drivers have been published, and nothing else explains why global temperatures are increasing."

Enjoy your unscientific Republican denialism.