To address climate change, nothing substitutes for reducing CO2 emissions

Jun 27, 2014
Raymond Pierrehumbert is the Louis Block Professor in Geophysical Sciences at the University of Chicago, and holder of the King Carl XVI Gustaf Chair in Environmental Sciences at Stockholm University for 2014-2015. His latest study, published in Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, indicates that reducing CO2 emissions is essentially the only way to address climate change. Credit: Robert Kozloff/University of Chicago

The politically expedient way to mitigate climate change is essentially no way at all, according to a comprehensive new study by University of Chicago climatologist Raymond Pierrehumbert.

Among the climate pollutants humans put into the atmosphere in significant quantities, the effects of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the longest-lived, with effects on climate that extend thousands of years after emissions cease. But finding the political consensus to act on reducing CO2 emissions has been nearly impossible. So there has been a movement to make up for that inaction by reducing emissions of other, shorter-lived gasses, such as , hydrofluorocarbons, and nitrous oxide, and particulates such as soot and black carbon, all of which contribute to warming as well.

Pierrehumbert 's study shows that effort to be, as he puts it, a delusion. "Until we do something about CO2, nothing we do about methane or these other things is going to matter much for climate," he said.

Pierrehumbert is the Louis Block Professor in Geophysical Sciences at UChicago, and holder of the King Carl XVI Gustaf Chair in Environmental Sciences at Stockholm University for 2014-2015. His study, published in Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, brings together findings from the scientific literature with new research and analysis. Its conclusions are clear.

"Ray convincingly shows the benefit and importance of doing everything we can to lower CO2 emissions, and as soon as possible," said Katherine H. Freeman, professor of geosciences at Pennsylvania State University. "We should lower short-lived pollutants like methane too. But, as he makes clear, we should not let them distract us from the urgent need to stop burning fossil fuels."

The basic physics of climate pollutants has been well known for a long time. The warming effect of methane and other short-lived climate pollutants disappears quite quickly after the pollutants are removed from the atmosphere. When you remove them, you get a one-time-only, lump-sum benefit. CO2, on the other hand, lingers in the atmosphere. And if you are still emitting CO2 while you are reducing methane and its fellows, that additional CO2 continues to affect the climate for thousands of years.

Perhaps as a result of wishful thinking, the policy implications of those facts had become confused, said Pierrehumbert. Part of the problem is that the statistical tool used to compare the climate effect of gasses is badly flawed. The measure, called Global Warming Potential (GWP), predicts the effect on climate by comparing the emission rate of with the emission rate of methane. But a one-ton-per-year reduction in the amount of methane emitted translates into a single lowering of the global thermostat, while a one-ton-per-year reduction in CO2 yields a climate benefit that increases over time. That's because each extra ton of CO2 that would have been emitted would have irreversibly ratcheted up the global thermostat by an additional increment.

Despite its well-known defects, GWP has been used since 1990 and was incorporated into the Kyoto Protocols in the climate-trading schemes implemented by Europe. Pierrehumbert proposes a different metric, which looks at the climate effect of reducing CO2 emission by a fixed number of tons and then finds the rate by which you have to reduce to get the same effect.

Pierrehumbert's study doesn't propose a single "right" policy on , said Richard Alley, Evan Pugh Professor of Geosciences at Penn State. "But it is a very useful analysis that will be viewed carefully by people who are interested in making good policies, and the main conclusions will help inform those policies."

Pierrehumbert himself hopes that his work will help lead policymakers to abandon Kyoto-style multi-gas trading schemes, which treat the gasses equivalently, and put the emphasis on CO2 for the next 50 years or so. "I see puncturing the excessive enthusiasm about short-lived climate pollution control as a step in the right direction," he said, "because it takes away one of the grounds for procrastination on CO2. If you're serious about protecting climate, it's the CO2 you've got to deal with first."

Explore further: Study provides new metric for comparing the greenhouse gases methane and carbon dioxide

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Studying wetlands as a producer of greenhouse gases

4 hours ago

(Phys.org) —Wetlands are well known for their beneficial role in the environment. But UConn Honors student Emily McInerney '15 (CAHNR) is studying a less widely known role of wetlands – as a major producer ...

User comments : 124

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

mememine69
2.1 / 5 (21) Jun 27, 2014
You climate blame scientists have done to science what perverted priests did for religion.
What you remaining "believers", news editors and politicians never mention in our so called information age;
*Canada and the USA have not had ANY smog whatsoever in close to ten years now because those "Alerts", "Advisories" "Watches" and "Be Kind to the Air Days" are not measurements of smog and are only "predictions" that a "Smog Warning Day" (real smog) "could be" issued within the next 36 hours and 10 years later…………………? Success! And we are still increasing longevity rates in an era when we are living longer now than at any time in our history as a species. Fear sells however.
*And you determined climate blame"believers" also eagerly ignore the fact that you "believe" "beyond science's laughable 32 years of nothing beyond; "could be" and "95%". But the scientists are 100% sure the planet is not flat and CO2 "could" flatten" it?
Returners
1.9 / 5 (18) Jun 27, 2014
Despite its well-known defects, GWP has been used since 1990 and was incorporated into the Kyoto Protocols in the climate-trading schemes implemented by Europe. Pierrehumbert proposes a different metric, which looks at the climate effect of reducing CO2 emission by a fixed number of tons and then finds the rate by which you have to reduce methane emissions to get the same effect.


Translation:
He wants to assign an arbitrary (but cleverly derived) economic damage value to CO2 over time periods of thousands of years, and then tax people according to that value. If people were taxed according to how much CO2 they exhale, then people would be taxed a couple dozen dollars per year at existing carbon tax rates. He really wants to increase that dramatically, under the naive notion that this will decrease demand; people have to drive to work either way, and for many people the increased short-term cost of buying an elecitric, and the increased maintenance cost is unbearable.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (16) Jun 27, 2014
Not to mention that Electric is only carbon-neutral if it's construction is by carbon neutral energy, and it's battery is charged by carbon-neutral energy.

Powering an electric car by using a coal-fired power plant is actually much dirtier than simply burning Gasoline in a typical ICE, which the traditional auto actually costs less to buy.

But nobody wants nuclear power, particularly since Fukushima, so where do you plan on getting clean energy for electric cars? Biofuels? sorry to inform you, but that is actually net carbon positive, though not as bad as fossil fuels, and we already burn ~45% of our grain as Ethanol...just to offset TEN PERCENT of our automobile fuel needs. There is no land to grow 10 times more grain for biofuels.

So that leaves solar thermal power generation, and wind power generation, which on the whole is not being promoted very much by the government, requires being installed in deserts, or on rooftops (or in medians between roads) which is barely possible...
Returners
1.7 / 5 (14) Jun 27, 2014
Yes, yes, I've shown wind and solar definitely pay for themselves over the longer term, under reasonable conditions, but they are vulnerable. Much of the U.S. is exposed to tornadoes, hurricanes, and nor'easters. Solar panels on heliostats are crap vs a hurricane or tornado, greatly increasing liability of your energy infrastructure, so you can't use that in the South East, because you can't afford to replace it every time you get hit by a category 1 storm, which statistically happens for any given location every several years.

But the Gulf states are near a Hadley cell boundary, which means they get little wind except from storms, so wind power isn't practical either, at least in the southern part of the states. I know of a guy who owns 3 large wind turbines, and they are profitable, but not like it would be a few hundred miles north of here.

You can replace 1/3rd of your electric bill by using a solar thermal water heater during Summer, and that's not highly promoted, because...
Returners
1.9 / 5 (13) Jun 27, 2014
...because it's very low tech, and anybody who looks at a professionally designed one would be able to make one of their own for half the sale price in a store, so there is very little industrial market for them. Technically it's illegal to make a boiler without a license, but some black hose pipe on your roof works just as well as a pre-heater to do about 80% to 95% of the warming, with little risk.

...but...the NIMBY attitude prevents this from happening. Where government COULD step in is require new homes to have a solar thermal water pre-heater on their roof, or somewhere attached (like the box ones I've seen on the ground). This is easily enforceable (at the point of sale or construction through inspection,) increases home price by about $300 to $900, depending on needs, but saves about $420 worth of energy per year at present prices (water heating is about 1/3rd of the average home energy bill).

This is very low tech, low maintenance, and much cheaper than PV on a roof top.
Returners
1.9 / 5 (14) Jun 27, 2014
Dan Rojas and his wife, Denise, had a video of a friend of theirs having made a home-made 12kw solar boiler power plant, and showing it powering a rotary saw to cut a 2-by-4 (indicating very dense, stable power).

I don't know how cost-effective it was compared to the price it took for him to make it, but in theory he could sell power to the grid, or even directly to his neighbors, in principle below the cost of the local grid, assuming he got the components at a cheap enough price.

It looked like it was made from recycled materials and salvaged parts.

https://www.youtu...AL7ty53M

Nimby, nimby, nimby...

It looks like you could get that generator for a few thousand dollars, remove the gasoline engine, and retrofit it to the steam engine to get "free" power. Well, the collector costs money, but the "fuel" is "free".

If you sell the excess to the grid, it'd pay for itself in less than a year...
Sigh
4.5 / 5 (14) Jun 27, 2014
people have to drive to work either way

Really? I've been using a bicycle for the last 35 years. Saved me a lot of money, too, so economics are hardly an obstacle.
The Alchemist
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 27, 2014
@returners, Just because weather threatens it now, doesn't mean it has to, why not do some clever tricks to wind generators and solar panels so when bad weather comes, you can take them down?
Just saying. Great stuff, thank you and sincerely thank you. Wind power was achievable in the 20's, solar in the 1970's, no matter what the media's been feeding us. Grid tie inverters are becoming cost-approachable, so wind --> charges battery --> home is very affordable and doable. Why aren't there home-loans for this?

By the way, the flattening of the Earth's recent temperature has good correlation to the use of ethanol in gasoline. CO2 has not been diminished, but the release of heat has...
and if CO2 is so persistent, why are we killing the ocean's ability to absorb CO2 by 5/8 through farming/Dead Zones?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (6) Jun 27, 2014
we already burn ~45% of our grain as Ethanol
Not true Lrrrkrr. Corn, not grains are used for ethanol. Corn accounts for only 2/3 of all grain crops worldwide.

And it's not even all the corn that's used.

"Only 1 percent of all corn grown in this country is eaten by humans. The rest is No. 2 yellow field corn, which is indigestible to humans and used in animal feed, food supplements and ethanol."

-And as to percentage of corn used for ethanol the numbers are open to interpretation.

"ethanol accounted for 27.3 percent of corn usage in 2011"

-is one interpretation.
Returners
2.3 / 5 (9) Jun 27, 2014
people have to drive to work either way

Really? I've been using a bicycle for the last 35 years. Saved me a lot of money, too, so economics are hardly an obstacle.


Uh huh.

Try being a contractor and driving around on a bicycle whilst hauling a trailer load of tools.

One spouse works in one city in a hospital 15 minutes away, the other drives 45 minutes to another city in the opposite direction for his 90k per year sales job.

A bicycle might work if you live in the city limits where your office happens to be, but for couples who's best earnings potential is in opposite driving directions, in different cities, that just doesn't work. Idealism =/= realism, obviously.
Returners
1 / 5 (6) Jun 27, 2014
@returners, Just because weather threatens it now, doesn't mean it has to, why not do some clever tricks to wind generators and solar panels so when bad weather comes, you can take them down?


Well, I don't know how practical fold-down is for off-shore wind turbines, because then you'd increase risk due to wave action. For on-land turbines It could make a lot of sense, and I've proposed that before in the past, but you have to realize that takes time, and likely man-hours to do, and we typically don't really have an effective warning on storms.

Let's say if there's a 3-day warning on a Hurricane. A lot of people don't take it seriously until 48 hours, which by then is really pushing it for preparations. A culture of changing the culture would need to be implemented first. Less beer on weekends, more watching the weather and paying attention. Now when it's really tropical season, especially aug-oct, I tend to check tropics every day or two, but many people aren't like that.
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Jun 27, 2014
Ghost:

According to the National Corn Growers Association, about eighty percent of all corn grown in the U.S. is consumed by domestic and overseas livestock, poultry, and fish production.


Not counting hay and other grains or animal feeds...

Source:
http://www.epa.go...jor.html

Which is yet another completely different value.

It is possible different sources are measuring consumption in different ways.

The source I originally used was from the farmer's channel, as I recall.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 27, 2014
people have to drive to work either way

Really? I've been using a bicycle for the last 35 years. Saved me a lot of money, too, so economics are hardly an obstacle.
--sigh
Perhaps it saved you money but cost a lot more than your shortsightedness would allow.
On average you would have consumed far more calories than the non-cyclist, and thus contributed far more CO2 just in getting that extra food in your mouth.
Sigh
4.6 / 5 (11) Jun 28, 2014
Try being a contractor and driving around on a bicycle whilst hauling a trailer load of tools.

You made a general claim that people need to drive. What proportion of those people are contractors?

A bicycle might work if you live in the city limits where your office happens to be, but for couples who's best earnings potential is in opposite driving directions, in different cities, that just doesn't work.

For as long as drivers don't pay the full cost, driving is subsidised. Take away the subsidy, and best earning potential once travel cost is factored in will change.
Idealism =/= realism, obviously.

Well, no. The idealised lifestyle built on cheap energy is quite different from the reality of the debts that are building up.
Sigh
5 / 5 (8) Jun 28, 2014
Perhaps it saved you money but cost a lot more than your shortsightedness would allow.
On average you would have consumed far more calories than the non-cyclist, and thus contributed far more CO2 just in getting that extra food in your mouth.

Less than walking. Then there are reduced health care costs from better fitness. The costs partly reflect the energy that goes into making equipment and drugs. Then there is the energy saved in not producing several cars for me. I don't think I can eat enough to make up for that, at least not given that I eat from the less carbon-intensive end of the spectrum. No meat, for example. Did you take any of that into account? If yes, do show your calculations. If not, be careful whom you accuse of being short sighted.
Returners
1 / 5 (7) Jun 28, 2014
You made a general claim that people need to drive. What proportion of those people are contractors?


More than you think. Residential and small office building construction drive a huge part of the economy. Not as much as it used to be, but it's still a very important factor.

Typically a general contractor:

then Subs as follows:
Earth movers and landscapers
cement finishers
carpenters
welders(sometimes)
plumbers
brick layers
dry wall

Why are these specialized? If you've ever done this type of work professionally, you'd discover that the myth that these are "unskilled" jobs really is a myth. If you don't do that task every day you will not be as good as the other guy, and won't make money. Guess what? They drive where the work is, and it's often in a different direction for every job.

Returners
1 / 5 (7) Jun 28, 2014
For as long as drivers don't pay the full cost, driving is subsidised. Take away the subsidy, and best earning potential once travel cost is factored in will change.


No, it won't. They'll just charge more money, because that's the only way it'll happen.

As for people who make 90k, like my brother-in-law, increasing the cost of a tank of gas by a few dollars isn't going to stop him from driving 50 miles to his office at his employer, and because he handles about 2 or 3 times the volume as his co-workers, he can't do this from a home office. He actually pays some of his co-workers cash to help with some of his paperwork, because he handles the calls better, and it's more profitable to him that way.

My sister has a Masters Degree in Nursing, and has 10 years experience at her present location, and works in Administration in Case Management. Her present employer pays about 5k more than any of the nearby hospitals, so it would not be profitable to move, even with an opening.
Returners
1 / 5 (6) Jun 28, 2014
I also forgot electricians in the above list two posts ago, for some reason, but they typically install the heating and air, and some of the appliances as well.

Crews typically carpool when possible, to save money, but if you knew how shitty the gas mileage is for a truck hauling everything a framing crew needs on a typical day, you'd cry. Sadly, you can't leave most tools, nor even a trailer, at a job site over night to save gas money, because some jackass will steal it.

As you can see, I've had this discussion with idealists before in the past. Maybe you have some counter-points I haven't seen yet, but I doubt it.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (12) Jun 28, 2014
In fact, chemtrails cause climate change. Doping the air with weather control chemicals for decades can do that. They've caused the number of tornadoes to skyrocket, and the date of their saturation of the atmosphere so new contributions precipitated out to form vapor lanes, around 1997, marks the beginning of the rapid fire staccato of manifestations generally associated with climate change! Carbon dioxide rose only a few percent since 1997, too little to cause all these effects. But the Liberals need to blame carbon dioxide so they can push "alternative energy". Windmills and solar farms cause immense damage to the environment; they need the engineered threat of carbon dioxide to "justify" the environment harming "alternative energy" technologies.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (5) Jun 30, 2014
we already burn ~45% of our grain as Ethanol
Not true Lrrrkrr. Corn, not grains are used for ethanol. Corn accounts for only 2/3 of all grain crops worldwide.

"Only 1 percent of all corn grown in this country is eaten by humans. The rest is No. 2 yellow field corn, which is indigestible to humans and used in animal feed, food supplements and ethanol."

-And as to percentage of corn used for ethanol the numbers are open to interpretation.

"ethanol accounted for 27.3 percent of corn usage in 2011"
.



TheGhostofOtto1923 says that "Corn accounts for only 2/3 of all grain crops worldwide." "Only" is a strange thing to say considering all of the rice that is grown worldwide. Corn is used for far more than what you mention here & I'm not going into detail if you do not care to look up all of the uses, such as corn syrups and starches.

"Corn is a key ingredient in numerous food items like cereal, peanut butter, snack foods and soft drinks. There
are more than 4,200 different uses for corn products, and more are being found each day"
http://www.kycorn...uses.pdf

13 Ways Corn Is Used In Our Everyday Lives
http://commodityh...y-lives/

Then we have some fools thinking that ethanol and bio diesel is the answer. I'm sure of that "green energy" some people want to believe is the salvation of the planet is as much of a waste of resources as windmills and solar.
"Science News
... from universities, journals, and other research organizations
Study: Ethanol Production Consumes Six Units Of Energy To Produce Just One"
http://www.scienc...2436.htm

jdswallow
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 30, 2014
The main theme of this article about University of Chicago climatologist Raymond Pierrehumbert is that the planet is warming.

Didn't anyone want to pay attention to this news?
"NASA AND NOAA CONFIRM GLOBAL TEMPERATURE STANDSTILL CONTINUES
Date: 21/01/14
Dr David Whitehouse
In a joint press conference NOAA and NASA have just released data for the global surface temperature for 2013. In summary they both show that the 'pause' in global surface temperature that began in 1997, according to some estimates, continues."
http://www.thegwp...ntinues/

Hadley Centre Central England Temperature (HadCET) dataset
The CET dataset is the longest instrumental record of temperature in the world.
http://www.metoff.../hadcet/
Saturday, October 12, 2013
Recent Monthly Average Mauna Loa CO2
http://www.esrl.n.../trends/

"Figure 6. Globally averaged temperature anomaly time series for the Lower Tropospheric Stratosphere (TLS). The plot shows the cooling of the lower stratosphere over the past 3 decades."
http://www.remss....perature
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (8) Jul 01, 2014
Temperature and increasing CO2 have always been a secondary effect to what is really going on.
Most people cannot even imagine what changing the "average temperature" of the Earth means.
It is a good exercise, think about it. Imagine an array of little heaters all over the Earth with the mission to increase the Earth's temp. 1 degree, how would they work and what would be their feedback mechanism?

CO2 apparently has increased and we have a flat-line.

Heat released has gone down... and we have a flat-line... hmmm.

It is still the water cycle that depicts what we are doing to the Earth far more than arguable changes and causes of temperature and effects of CO2.

Mona Loa is an active volcano. My CO2 meter responds to declining traffic by the minute. It changes dramatically when I am within 3 meters. And Mona Loa is insensitive to a geological source?! Mmmm-hmmmn.
howhot2
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 01, 2014
Didn't anyone want to pay attention to this news?
"NASA AND NOAA CONFIRM GLOBAL TEMPERATURE ACCELERATION CONTINUES
Date: 21/01/14
Dr David Whitehouse
In a joint press conference NOAA and NASA have just released data for the global surface temperature for 2013. In summary they both show that the 'acceleration' in global surface temperature that began in 1997, according to some estimates, continues."
http://noaa.gov
howhot2
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 01, 2014
Mona Loa is an active volcano. My CO2 meter responds to declining traffic by the minute. It changes dramatically when I am within 3 meters. And Mona Loa is insensitive to a geological source?! Mmmm-hmmmn.
And yet Mona Loa see the seasonal increase and decrease in CO2 just perfectly. So what's up with that?
jdswallow
1 / 5 (8) Jul 01, 2014
Didn't anyone want to pay attention to this news?
"NASA AND NOAA CONFIRM GLOBAL TEMPERATURE ACCELERATION CONTINUES
Date: 21/01/14
Dr David Whitehouse
In a joint press conference NOAA and NASA have just released data for the global surface temperature for 2013. In summary they both show that the 'acceleration' in global surface temperature that began in 1997, according to some estimates, continues."
http://noaa.gov


"In a joint press conference NOAA and NASA have just released data for the global surface temperature for 2013. In summary they both show that the 'acceleration' in global surface temperature that began in 1997, according to some estimates, continues."

Does this below signify what you are wanting sane people to believe?


June 27 Global Sea Ice Area Fourth Highest On Record – Highest Since 1996
http://stevengodd...ce-1996/

You people do not do well in the real world, do you?
holoman
1 / 5 (6) Jul 01, 2014

Carbon Emissions are Necessary for Seawater Acidification to Produce Cheap Hydrogen

Climate Change (carbon dioxide emissions) are GOOD according
to this research.

http://thomasinst...bly.com/

runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 01, 2014
June 27 Global Sea Ice Area Fourth Highest On Record – Highest Since 1996
http://stevengodd...ce-1996/

You people do not do well in the real world, do you?

mr swallow....

People in the real world know that sea-ice formation is not entirely a function of colder temps, especially in the Antarctic environment (where waters are slowly warming - but also of decreased salinity and stronger, more divergent winds made stronger by increases in deltaT between the Tropics and the Antarctic (due AGW).

That's what it means to "do well in the real world" my friend.
It is those of you who expect a linear response to planetary warming of such a complex climate system who are NOT in the real world, and the world's scientific experts do not need any correction by you or by Watts, Spencer or Curry.

http://www.scienc...f-list-1
http://journals.a...-00139.1

Oh - on average Antarctic ice is half as thick as that in the Arctic
The Alchemist
3 / 5 (5) Jul 01, 2014
And yet Mona Loa see the seasonal increase and decrease in CO2 just perfectly. So what's up with that?

@hht2-Why wouldn't it? CO2 changes with the number of cars on the road during the day. Certainly you'd expect seasonal varaitions... (?)

@runrig-Darn straight! Well said!
jdswallow
1 / 5 (8) Jul 02, 2014
June 27 Global Sea Ice Area Fourth Highest On Record – Highest Since 1996
http://stevengodd...ce-1996/

Oh - on average Antarctic ice is half as thick as that in the Arctic


 One can wonder how you can be so dishonest and disingenuous to say what you did about sea ice when for several years, until the amount of sea ice surpassed all other years accumulation, you were maintaining that this was just another sign of your agw; but, now it is not, according to you and your other prevaricating buddies.

"June 27 Global Sea Ice Area Fourth Highest On Record – Highest Since 1996
Posted on June 29, 2014by stevengoddard
Nobel Laureate Albert Arnold Gore Jr. said there was a 75% chance the Arctic would be ice free this summer, but in fact we have seen quite the opposite.
The amount of sea ice on Earth is 4th highest on record for the date, and the highest since 1996."
http://stevengodd...ce-1996/

jdswallow
1 / 5 (8) Jul 02, 2014
Is this below what you mean by your "That's what it means to "do well in the real world" my friend." Tony Banton? Your "real world" is one of make believe and dishonesty and that has been proven SO many times; but, yet you seem to be oblivious of that fact, as you are of most facts having to do with this subject.

According to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in 2012, the "average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July was 77.6°F, 3.3°F above the 20th century average, marking the warmest July and all-time warmest month on record for the nation in a period of record that dates back to 1895."
"The previous warmest July for the nation was July 1936, when the average U.S. temperature was 77.4°F," NOAA said in 2012.

"Two years ago during the scorching summer of 2012, July 1936 lost its place on the leaderboard and July 2012 became the hottest month on record in the United States," Watts wrote. "Now, as if by magic, and according to NOAA's own data, July 1936 is now the hottest month on record again. The past, present, and future all seems to be 'adjustable' in NOAA's world."
http://dailycalle...-record/

Below are your kind of folks, right, Tony Banton. In other words liars, cheats and out and out crooks.

Climategate 2 FOIA 2011 Searchable Database
 http://foia2011.o...hp?id=77
 
THE CLIMATEGATE EMAILS
  http://www.lavois...ails.pdf
howhot2
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2014
And yet Mona Loa see the seasonal increase and decrease in CO2 just perfectly. So what's up with that?

@hht2-Why wouldn't it? CO2 changes with the number of cars on the road during the day. Certainly you'd expect seasonal varaitions... (?)

@runrig-Darn straight! Well said!


Good point. On the CO2 emissions of cars on the islands brings home the point, only a signal as strong as the seasonal changes would effect the Mona Loa measurements. The cars and and local vulcanism is just background noise compared to the world output.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) Jul 02, 2014


Good point. On the CO2 emissions of cars on the islands brings home the point, only a signal as strong as the seasonal changes would effect the Mona Loa measurements. The cars and and local vulcanism is just background noise compared to the world output.


howhot2: You imagine yourself to really be on to some earth breaking revelation regarding Hawaii and cars but you over look the steady increase in air traffic to & from Hawaii and, guess what, they are putting out CO2 at high altitudes and since CO2 is I & 1/2 times more dense than the rest of the atmosphere, guess where it goes. That's right, it goes down; like everything does that is heavier than what it is surrounded by.

1979-1980
Overseas passengers totaled more than 9.4 million with a total of more than 400,000 aircraft operations in 1980. Hawaii commands the Pacific Air Flow and provides needed services for many foreign lines.

1985-1986
The constant coming and going by the air line companies was accompanied by an overall increase in passenger traffic of six percent.
           
1999-2000
In Calendar Year 1999, Honolulu International was the 21st busiest airport in the United States and 36th in the world.

2005-2006
Honolulu International Airport continued to be the State's busiest airport with a passenger traffic count of 20,072,782 a slight increase of 0.9 percent in FY 2006 compared to FY 2005. 

http://hawaii.gov...-present
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 02, 2014
...... they are putting out CO2 at high altitudes and since CO2 is I & 1/2 times more dense than the rest of the atmosphere, guess where it goes. That's right, it goes down; like everything does that is heavier than what it is surrounded by.

Mr swallow:
Out comes another myth, regarding CO2.

On simple reality check regarding the well-mixed nature of CO2 is that the human race has not suffocated!
Yes, CO2 leakage from volcanoes has suffocated people but the overwhelming mixing agent in the atmosphere is WIND - that is why we breath air and the atmosphere is NOT stratified into layers of gasses according to buoyancy.
The simple fact that the NH's seasonal change in CO2 is measured even in the SH (with a lag due CO2 mostly being produced in the NH) tells us so as well.

As I said away with the Fairies.

http://cdiac.ornl..._CO2.jpg

Oh and your last post is 1393 char (incl spaces).
Look, if we can stick to physorg guidelines then so can you.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) Jul 02, 2014

Out comes another myth, regarding CO2.

On simple reality check regarding the well-mixed nature of CO2 is that the human race has not suffocated!

Tony Banton: It appears that you do not want to explain how it is that NOAA can switch the warmest July from when it really was 1936, to magically be 2012. You do not want to discuss ice anymore either, it seems, when the amount has grown above the averages that you claimed a couple of years ago to be because of your devil in the sky, CO2. Now it is how the trace gas, CO2, is so well mixed in the total atmosphere. At 400ppm, that is not enough to do what you claim that it does regarding the climate because you have never shown an experiment that demonstrates that at its present amount it does anything as far as the climate goes. It would take over 4,000pppm to have any affect. Sane and logical people know that it is the sun that causes the earth's climate to do what it does and that has always been the case unless you can supply a repeatable experiment that demonstrates otherwise.

https://greenpart...-practic

http://www.neator...century/

jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) Jul 02, 2014

Out comes another myth, regarding CO2.

On simple reality check regarding the well-mixed nature of CO2 is that the human race has not suffocated!

Tony Banton: Talk about someone wanting to be lead around by the star dust spreading fairies. You imagine that a trace gas that is essential for all terrestrial life on earth, CO2, is doing what fools want logical people to believe regarding the climate of the earth? Remember this is what ppm is, in the real world.

Some other things that are one part per million are…
One drop in the fuel tank of a mid-sized car
One inch in 16 miles
About one minute in two years
One car in a line of bumper-to-bumper traffic from
Cleveland to San Francisco.
One penny in $10,000.

Let's picture this in another way to really get an idea of the scale of CO2 compared to the total atmosphere. The Eiffel Tower in Paris is 324 meters high (1063ft). If the height of the Eiffel Tower represented the total size of the atmosphere then the natural level of CO2 would be 8.75 centimeters of that height (3.4 inches) and the amount added by humans up until today would be an extra 3.76 centimeters (1.5 inches)
http://a-sceptica...ic-facts

jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) Jul 02, 2014
Global Cooling is Imminent
Dr David Evans, 27 June 2014
Cite as Evans, David M.W. "The Notch-Delay Solar Theory", sciencespeak.com, 2014, http://sciencespe...ar.html.
If the Sun mainly controls the temperature on Earth, a turning point is almost upon us
http://joannenova...cooling/

Greenland is cooling At the 4:10 mark Lüning brings up the Axforf paper of 2013, which shows Greenland was "2 – 3°C warmer 6000 to 4000 years ago than it is today" and that the ice survived. http://notrickszo...by-2020/


Antarctica sets new record for sea ice
Phil Jones, of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, waded into the global sea ice analysis in 2013 as well.
"Adding the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extents doesn't make that much sense as the two regions are at opposite ends of the world, and the seasons are opposite," Jones said at the time.
http://talkingabo...sea-ice/
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 02, 2014
Mr swallow...
You come back with more hand waving, cherry-picked quotes and links to denialist blogs.

Your link to "solar-notch theory" does not work and besides a theory does not cut it - there has to be correlation and causation. We've got it thanks and it's undeniable except by those who are desperate to see the slightest crack that can be exploited in any "theory" - this when they aren't regurgitating myths such as you last effort. It's called bias and it's not science. That is why you are away with the fairies. And those that are don.t know it - hence why I have to keep repeating it.
Did you look at the SP CO2 trace graph?
And what does it show, apart from the steady AGW rise?
An annual seasonable wobble - caused by the NH. And how did your not well-mixed gas get there then? ...... Winds. FFS.
Winds will overcome any buoyancy in a gas - the molecules get carried along amongst all the "air" gases, as a mix. Even Saharan dust gets picked up and transported 1000's miles. FFS
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 02, 2014
You imagine that a trace gas that is essential for all terrestrial life on earth, CO2, is doing what fools want logical people to believe regarding the climate of the earth? Remember this is what ppm is, in the real world.

I don't "imagine" anything ... it's empirical science and you don't get to overturn the way the universe works just cos you don't like it.
And that's why we have scientists - to teach us how the world works. Otherwise we become religionists who believe things cos its been written down "forever" and the "logical" people just know any new discovery is wrong. There are people in the world who know more than you. Is Quantum Theory obviously wrong to "logical" people. FFS.
You don't become a greater expert than them by displaying an almighty DK syndrome and drivelling the bollocks you do on here.
It's not ppm its the increase in ppm !! Up 40%.
CO2 does what it does in back-scattering IR and there's an end to it.
Go look up the ~150 yrs of science that says so.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 02, 2014
Greenland is cooling At the 4:10 mark Lüning brings up the Axforf paper of 2013, which shows Greenland was "2 – 3°C warmer 6000 to 4000 years ago than it is today" and that the ice survived. http://notrickszo...by-2020/


Of course it bl***y well was - that was in the HCO .... a warm spike in the MILANKOVITCH cycles.

http://www.scienc...ay-81458

FFS
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2014
Good point. On the CO2 emissions of cars on the islands brings home the point, only a signal as strong as the seasonal changes would effect the Mona Loa measurements. The cars and and local vulcanism is just background noise compared to the world output.

Or as strong as an active volcano? Diffusion, even through the inversion they say is a perfect CO2 shield must be dramatic for single-digits of CO2, especially over as strong as the CO2 source is... the most damming is that that it is not above board that Mona Loa, and so many other CO2 monitors are on active volcanoes. Even in Italy. Aren't there ones without? Sheesh.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) Jul 03, 2014

I don't "imagine" anything ... it's empirical science and you don't get to overturn the way the universe works just cos you don't like it.


Tony Banton: Once more we have a delusional "warmest" expounding on their unproven hypotheses about how CO2 is causing the earth's climate to act as it does and forgetting the object in the sky that they find hard to look at and that contains more than 99.8% of the total mass of the Solar System, the sun. Only an illogical fool would discount something as obvious as the sun and go with a benign trace gas that is 1 & 12 times heavier than the rest of the atmosphere and is absolutely essential for all terrestrial life on earth, CO2, that is a colorless, odorless, non-flammable gas that they themselves exhale with every breath, and may be that is the problem.

You rant on about empirical science without ever answering my challenge to you to provide the empirical repeatable experiment that demonstrates the CO2 does what you maintain. That should not be too much to ask of you if such an experiment has ever been conducted showing how, in the real world, this can be when it makes up only .038% of the total atmosphere.

I would hope that you know that at 18,000' there is only ½ of the atmosphere that there is at sea level; therefore, at what altitude does all of your "warming" take place?
jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) Jul 03, 2014

And what does it show, apart from the steady AGW rise?
An annual seasonable wobble - caused by the NH. And how did your not well-mixed gas get there then? ...... Winds. FFS.
Winds will overcome any buoyancy in a gas - the molecules get carried along amongst all the "air" gases, as a mix. Even Saharan dust gets picked up and transported 1000's miles. FFS


Tony Banton: It is laughable how any time FACTS are presented to you disingenuous "warmest" it is labeled cherry-picking and then you try to demonize the valid sources while all you have are unscrupulous people like Michel Mann and Peter Gleick &his shameful Fakegate scandal. Now we have it proven that James Hansen has "cooked the books" to make his imagined agw look like it is happening when the evidence is to the contrary for the last 17 years and that is something besides the ice increase that you will not address because you can not do so. You are a fraud as much as others in your old UK MET Office with your bad climate and weather predictions. What direction a cow is turned could have more validity, on any given day to predict what is happening in the real world.

Next tome you want to impress a child with your brilliance, fill a balloon with CO2 and then have them launch it. The child will know what will happen but it will be a total surprise for you and that is sad.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 03, 2014
Next tome you want to impress a child with your brilliance, fill a balloon with CO2 and then have them launch it. The child will know what will happen but it will be a total surprise for you and that sad.

What is sad my friend is that there is a psychological disorder, whereby the sufferers, believe they know more about a subject - any subject - but particularly science based ones, than the experts in the field. Why? Because it's "just logical".
That is you, as I said -away with the fairies.
Right, have you got it into your thick head that wind mixes all gases/aerosols around the planet? Even blows Saharan dust into the jet to be transported north to the UK. No? Yep, away with the faires in DK land.
Oh, and an organisation that forecasts anything 24/7 - MUST get things wrong - that is what a forecast does sometimes. It is delusional to expect 100% correctness instead of using probabilities. As of course the UKMO does. Did you tell us what you do for a living or is this it?
jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2014

What is sad my friend is that there is a psychological disorder, whereby the sufferers, believe they know more about a subject - any subject - but particularly science based ones, than the experts in the field. Why? Because it's "just logical".

Right, have you got it into your thick head that wind mixes all gases/aerosols around the planet? Even blows Saharan dust into the jet to be transported north to the UK. No? Yep, away with the faires in DK land.


Tony Banton: Are you actually trying to deny what a balloon filled with CO2 will do when released? I assume that you; therefore, have no idea about why CO2 is used in fire extinguishers (hint, it is more dense by 1 & 1/2 times what ambient air is) and maybe there is intelligent design after all because all of the life forms that require CO2 basically live on the earth's surface. The link that I provided to you about CO2 at altitude was put together by a trusted source,
"The CRC 85th edition 2004-2005 handbook on physics and chemistry..." while everything you put forth is conjecture on your part. Certainly dust storms in the Sahara travel into the upper atmosphere, the same as when the largest volcanic eruption in recorded history Tambora in 1815 with an estimated ejecta volume of 160 km3 (38 cu mi) caused the years with no summers.

… as CO2 levels are raised by 1,000 ppm photosynthesis increases proportionately resulting in more sugars and carbohydrates available for plant growth."
http://www.omafra...-077.htm

Tony, is what is stated above "bad" in your way of thinking since plants are the foundation for life as we know it?
jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2014
That is you, as I said -away with the fairies.
Right, have you got it into your thick head that wind mixes all gases/aerosols around the planet?

Tony Banton: I have repeatedly ask you for the experiment that proves that the present amount of CO2 in today's atmosphere does what you want to believe, for whatever reason, regarding the climate and you present none. If you did, would it be as stupid and meaningless as this below?

The Greenhouse Effect - Heat trapping
https://www.youtu...JuOjiNrb


If CO2 is doing what you claim it is, then why is CO2 ADDED to get the affects desired when it is known that CO2 is higher inside of buildings? If there is ANY science involved in this stupid BBC presentation, then why isn't the amount that is added recorded in ppm to get the result that occurs?

Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment
Replicating Al Gore's Climate 101 video experiment (from the 24 hour Gore-a-thon) shows that his "high school physics" could never work as advertised http://wattsupwit...eriment/

Just for you, Tony.
Kid's Science Experiment To Show CO2 Is Heavier Than Air
https://www.youtu...enpBXAmM
jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2014
"You go out and take a look at it and you find out that a lot of it is pure nonsense and wishful thinking on the part of the alarmists who are looking for more and more money to fall into their hands."
http://cnsnews.co...-science

From your post I understand how closed minded regarding this and everything, for that matter, you are. If it doesn't fit into your narrative that, at this point, you can't even understand where that came from because it was not from science, that is for sure; therefore, what you believe is like a cult's believes in some supernatural being, or substance. That established, it is a certainty that you not look into this link and the truth that Walter Cunningham puts forth, such as in his day the alarms did not go off in the modules until the CO2 levels reached 4,000 ppm and today they are set at 5,000 ppm.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2014

Tony Banton: What follows is the thoughts of someone who for sure has a better understanding of this issue than you or your equally delusional buddies ever will and that is someone who verbalizes my believes regarding this to the letter, Walter Cunningham. Why don't you be a total idiot and call him a member of the "flat earth society" because of his believes?

"Climate alarmism is "the biggest fraud in the field of science" and the 97% consensus claim is nonsensical,tells MRCTV in a preview of his presentation at the upcoming Heartland Instituteclimate conference, July 7-9."
howhot2
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 04, 2014
Climate denialism is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind with nearly 97% of the denier fraudsters being Repub or Cons of some sort. You know once you exceed 280ppm in atmospheric CO2, your entering uncharted territory for an environmental response. However, it's easily predictable as to what an increase in temperature does, even just a few 10ths of a degree can change dew points. 400ppm and growing is not just stupid on mankinds part, it stupid to deny the science that collected that data and tells you what WILL HAPPEN because of it from analysis.

In other words, being a CO2 and AGW denier is stupid and shows your ignorance straight up.

And guess who espouses this stupidity? Billionaire's like the Koch brothers. Guess who opposes the Koch deniers, 97% of the scientists in the world.

runrig
5 / 5 (6) Jul 04, 2014
Mr swallow...

I've done conversing with you - as I have done before.
There is nothing more to be said that a sane person viewing this thread will not consider the facts because "it's logical"

People such as you who hold experts/knowledge in contempt - because you consider it "logical" have no place in the modern world ..... As we see other examples of around the world.

Logic dictates a sane mind to know that the probability of the fraud you allege (after all if it's "logical" that CO2 doesn't mix in the atmosphere) indeed does belong in Fairyland.

You are a slayer who will go to any lengths to deny what you do not want to be correct.

Even mr watts holds you in contempt.

BTW I did not read your latest drivel.... Some again over 1000 char.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) Jul 04, 2014
"Farmers' Almanac" predicts a "bitterly cold" winter August 26, 2013, 10:24 AM
LEWISTON, MAINE "The Farmers' Almanac is using words like "piercing cold," "bitterly cold" and "biting cold" to describe the upcoming winter. And if its predictions are right, the first outdoor Super Bowl in years will be a messy "Storm Bowl." http://www.cbsnew...-winter/

NOAA's models are only as good as the information being put into them and if that info is influenced by biased, dishonest people like Tony Banton, then the outcome above is what is sent to the public and the public will probably not believe this organization again until the clean up their act and start getting things right, again.

While the "Farmers' Almanac" for sure doesn't have the funding that NOAA has and squanders they tend to be more accurate just watching how many times a dog turns around before it lays down or how wide the stripes are on caterpillars; but, their forecast are: "Based on planetary positions, sunspots and lunar cycles, the almanac's secret formula is largely unchanged since founder David Young published the first almanac in 1818."

jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) Jul 04, 2014
Mr swallow...

I've done conversing with you - as I have done before.
Logic dictates a sane mind to know that the probability of the fraud you allege
Even mr watts holds you in contempt.

BTW I did not read your latest drivel.... Some again over 1000 char.


Tony Banton: In your usual infantile & cowardly style you leave the field and that is for the best because you have nothing to submit that is relevant to this issue. On your "Oh, and an organisation that forecasts anything 24/7 - MUST get things wrong - that is what a forecast does sometimes." I will submit this to you regarding how an organization that use to do science until getting taken over by political forces; such as what you represent,& now makes predictions that are terribly wrong. They are losing the trust of everyone who use to believe their work.

"Surprised by how tough this winter has been? You're in good company: Last fall the Climate Prediction Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicted that temperatures would be above normal from November through January across much of the Lower 48 states. This graphic shows just how wrong the official forecast of the U.S. government was:"
http://www.busine...r-coming

jdswallow
1 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2014
You know once you exceed 280ppm in atmospheric CO2, your entering uncharted territory for an environmental response. However, it's easily predictable as to what an increase in temperature does, even just a few 10ths of a degree can change dew points.


howhot2: I understand you to say that you think that what Walter Cunningham says about this "dilemma of your own making" is not more relevant than what some idiot who can't even find their way out of their mother's basement has to say about this issue.

Here are more people that THINK like Walter Cunningham does:
49 Former NASA Scientists Send A Letter Disputing Climate Change
http://www.busine...e-2012-4

OPEN CLIMATE LETTER TO UN SECRETARY-GENERAL: Current scientific knowledge does not substantiate Ban Ki-Moon assertions on weather and climate, say 125-plus scientists.
http://opinion.fi...entists/

It would take a total idiot to think 97% of real scientist believe in this scam and hoax called anthropogenic global warming, or whatever the idiots call it now that there has been no warming for over 17 years and that somehow the Koch Brothers just have to have something to do with it.
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Jul 04, 2014
It would take a total idiot to think 97% of real scientist believe in this scam and hoax called anthropogenic global warming, or whatever the idiots call it now that there has been no warming for over 17 years and that somehow the Koch Brothers just have to have something to do with it.

so you even deny that scientists know (not believe) AGW is happening. New land now well beyond where the Fairies live. You have it bad eh?
The koch's are on record as funding anti-AGW scepticism...... Still money can't buy a new Universe and so a 40% increase in CO2 does indeed do what we are seeing, along with Ocean warming, where ~93% of solar energy is stored! and has been hidden from view due prolonged La Niña episodes since 1998, though 2005 was the warmest year on record according to GISS (cue data tampering whine).

Oh, I said I wouldn't converse with you .... But I will deny your bollocks on here.
Didn't read you last lot btw.
howhot2
5 / 5 (6) Jul 04, 2014
@jdswallowed; How does it feel to be on the wrong side of an issue and constantly be wrong about nearly every aspect. Facts are facts and there is little in the way of wiggle room when you begin to examine the likely outcomes of gobal warming. You deniers seem to want mankind to descend in a hell not only denying science it's say, but denying preventative and corrective actions that the science recommends and the majority supports. You deniers are so desperate that you make stuff up and try to pass it off as fact in science forums like phys.org; like; "there has been no warming for over 17 years". And yet this past May (2014) was the hottest may ever recorded for global average temperature (NOAA). Who is lying?
Google it.

I can't see what separates deniers from cannibals. Cannabals want to kill and eat their fellow man for their own gain, and deniers seem to what to kill their fellow man for their own gain. One for food, the other for greed or peer pressure of the right.

jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) Jul 04, 2014
Global Temperature Standstill Lengthens: No global warming for 17 years 10 months – Since Sept. 1996 (214 months)
Temperature standstill for '50.2% of the entire 426-month satellite record'
http://www.climat...-months/

NASA/NOAA Corruption Of The Northern Hemisphere Temperature Record
http://stevengodd.../page/2/

howhot2: Try to get some 10 year old child to help you with this one below.
U.S. Historical Climatology Network - Monthly Data
You have chosen site 486440, MORAN 5 WNW, Wyoming
http://cdiac.ornl...d=486440

Poll: 53 Percent Of Americans Don't Believe In Man-Made Global Warming
http://dailycalle...warming/
jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) Jul 04, 2014

"NOAA Confirms: Huge CO2 Emissions Have Zero Impact On U.S. Maximum Temperatures
The UN's IPCC claim that large modern consumer/industrial CO2 emissions are causing maximum temperatures to increase across the globe proves to be without any empirical and scientific merit.....NOAA's NCDC division documents U.S. maximum temperatures are exhibiting a declining trend, not catastrophic "global warming"... "http://www.c3head...res.html
Exception
Maybe you can get someone to help you to understand these charts that the link will take you to.
"City/State/Regional/Country Temperature Charts/Graphs"
http://www.c3head...phs.html

"July 2013 - Global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s, but have been relatively flat over the most recent 15 years to 2013."
http://www.metoff...-warming

jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) Jul 04, 2014
; "there has been no warming for over 17 years". And yet this past May (2014) was the hottest may ever recorded for global average temperature (NOAA). Who is lying?
Google it.


howhot2: How does it feel to be on the wrong side of an issue and constantly be wrong about nearly every aspect? Facts are facts and there is little in the way of wiggle room when you begin to examine the likely outcomes of NO global warming for the last 17.8 years. You alarmists seem to want mankind to descend in a hell not only denying science, but denying how important to civilization the use of fossil fuels is & the majority supports this because the EU, China, & India keep building more coal fired generators. You alarmists are so desperate that you make stuff up and try to pass it off as fact in science forums like phys.org when you know that there has never been an experiment done that demonstrates that CO2 in the present amount in the air has anything to do with the climate.

Since it is obvious that you, either because you are incapable of looking anything up or too stupid to do so, I will present this information is some detail for you to not understand. If you take exception to any of these sites, please show that you are smart enough to take the matter up with them.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) Jul 04, 2014
So; Tony Banton, in your line of thinking that is so distorted by a hoax that has never moved beyond being nothing but a false hypotheses, you are afraid that anyone that opposes your myth about CO2 causing the end of the earth, when it never did before when it was much higher than it is now. In the last 600 million years, our solar system passed through 4 spiral arms of our Milky Way. Earth's average temperature was 22C when outside our galaxy's spirals arms but decreased when inside each spiral arm.

From 450 to 420 million years ago, Earth passed through the Perseus spiral arm and average temperature dropped to 12C even while CO2 concentration was at 4500 ppm, 11 times today's CO2 concentration. Temperature drops during high CO2 concentrations contradict the global warming hypothesis. Upon exiting the Perseus spiral arm, Earth's temperature returned to 22C. I know that this is all news to you but that does not mean that it is not true because almost everything that is true is news to you.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) Jul 04, 2014
Please note this Tony Banton:
The skeptics have managed to turn the propaganda around against a tide of money, and it is really some achievement.

Entity USD
Greenpeace: $300m, 2010 Annual Report
WWF: $700m, ($524m Euro)
Pew Charitable Trust: $360m, 2010 Annual Report
Sierra Club: $56m, 2010 Annual Report
NSW climate change fund (just one random Gov. example): $750m, NSW Gov. (A$700m)
UK university climate fund (just another random Gov. example); $360m,UK Gov. (£234 m)
Heartland Institute: $7m, (actually $6.4m)
US government funding for climate science and technology: $7,000m, "Climate Money" 2009
US government funding for "climate related appropriations": $1,300m
USAID 2010
Annual turnover in global carbon markets: $120,000m, 2010 Point Carbon
Annual investment in renewable energy: $243,000m, 2010 BNEF
US government funding for skeptical scientists
$ 0
jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) Jul 04, 2014


The koch's are on record as funding anti-AGW scepticism......

Oh, I said I wouldn't converse with you .... But I will deny your bollocks on here.
Didn't read you last lot btw.


Tony Banton: Why would your line of reasoning not apply to James Hansen, whom I'm sure is a hero of yours? I imagine it is fine that James Hansen is 'First millionaire bureaucrat': NASA's James Hansen earns up to $1.2 million in 2010. James Hansen has become one of the most financially rewarded government employed alarmists.

"Didn't read you last lot btw." How are you going to "deny your bollocks" if you do not know what I wrote to you? Some more of your deranged thinking coming to the surface, I assume is the answer.

"Climate scientist Hansen wins $100,000 prize" http://www.reuter...20100407

The Heinz Center for Science, Economy and the Environment (run by John Kerry's wife Teresa Heinz) gave Hansen $250,000 in 2001 for promoting the AGW scare [http://canadafree...cle/3671] (Enron's Ken Lay was one of the founding board members of the Heinz Center (http://transcript....00.html], and Enron was one of the biggest promoters of the Kyoto cap and trade.)

George Soros' Open Society Institute gave Hansen $720,000 to promote alarmist claims
http://newsbuster...l-report

howhot2
5 / 5 (6) Jul 05, 2014
@jdswallowed; Your data is faulty, your claims are fallacies and your links are frankly deceptive at best. If that is what you read and believe, no wonder your head is full of mush. A weak human mind can not survive that much propaganda. All I can gather is you want everyone to follow you into the trash can of fossil combustion global warming and the corporate greed that attempts to maintain that rape of the atmosphere or you just can man up to the fact that your wrong.

How could this May (2014) have been the hottest ever recorded (similar for Jan & Feb too) and yet you claim 17.8 years of NO global warming? You know that is a blatant lie, and the only reason you would claim otherwise is if you have an agenda. Your just a paid troll propagandist that needs to keep your rightwing nutcase butties happy. Of course once your brain washed with stupid, its hard not to be one in real life.

On a brighter note: US gov funding for skeptical scientists $0 US don't fund stupid.



howhot2
5 / 5 (6) Jul 05, 2014
Old wingnut @jdswallowed is all upset with James Hansen. On James Hansen wining the Sophie prize; "Climate scientist Hansen wins $100,000 prize" for decades of work trying to alert politicians to what he called an unsolved emergency of global warming..

The line about The Heinz Center for Science, Economy and the Environment is untrustworthy.
Similarly about the story about George Soros' Open Society Institute is also from a rightwing conspiratorial propaganda.site. You can't find it on Google because it never happened!

Damn @jdswallowed. Is that what you want us to read, Fox News nut clips.

You haven't proven a thing other than you are seriously brainwashed with rightwing conspiratorial BS!
jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) Jul 05, 2014
"CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every
scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so…Global warming, as a
political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations
walking barefoot." - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of
Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan

These people know far, far more about this subject than you and Tony EVER will, given your mind set & your continual refusal to acknowledge FACTS, such as no warming for almost 18 years. It is well known that ignorance is redeemable through education but "stupid" is just something that you must learn to live with and you are not doing a very good job of existing with the affliction. It is too bad that there is not a pill to cure your problem, being stupid, but it would take more than could ever be produced in a month's time to do so.

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it

http://www.dailym...9KuxBwa9


jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) Jul 05, 2014
A weak human mind can not survive that much propaganda.
Of course once your brain washed with stupid, its hard not to be one in real life.


howhot2: Thank you for putting down in print just how intransient you are and how the truth will never cloud your mind that is crippled by unproven and false ideas about this hypotheses of yours regarding how CO2 is destroying the planet, when it has been at far higher levels in the past and never "destroyed" anything but lead to the carboniferous period with amazing plant growth. Stop with the MSNBC & NPR and try to get some facts, for a change.

"Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…
The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a
pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology,
which is concerning." - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos
of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more
than 150 published articles.
I always present some facts & that is something you NEVER do because you have none. This is about sea ice in the warming world of your imagination. http://arctic.atm...rend.jpg
http://arctic-roo..._ext.png
jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) Jul 05, 2014
Recent Monthly Average Mauna Loa CO2
http://www.esrl.n.../trends/

"Figure 6. Globally averaged temperature anomaly time series for the Lower Tropospheric Stratosphere (TLS). The plot shows the cooling of the lower stratosphere over the past 3 decades."
http://www.remss....perature

Taking the least-squares linear-regression trend on this dataset (the bright blue horizontal line through the dark blue data), there has now been no global warming – at all – for 17 years 5 months.
http://wattsupwit...-months/

Are these enough examples that what you say is a prevarication or do you want to see more examples,howhot2? You do not know enough to even realize what the truth is but yet you keep making a fool out yourself. It is too bad that you don't live in India and then you would have a different view of this issue, maybe. "On Tuesday, India suffered the largest electrical blackout in history, affecting an area encompassing about 670 million people, or roughly 10 percent of the world's population."
http://www.nytime...nted=all
jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) Jul 05, 2014
Phil Jones: "No global warming since 1995″
Richard Treadgold | February 14, 2010
http://www.climat...ce-1995/

THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office, but said it would need to last "30 to 40 years at least" to break the long-term global warming trend.
http://www.theaus...3112134#

"NASA AND NOAA CONFIRM GLOBAL TEMPERATURE STANDSTILL CONTINUES
http://www.thegwp...ntinues/

Hadley Centre Central England Temperature (HadCET) dataset
http://www.metoff.../hadcet/
jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) Jul 05, 2014
@jdswallowed; Your data is faulty, your claims are fallacies and your links are frankly deceptive at best.
How could this May (2014) have been the hottest ever recorded (similar for Jan & Feb too) and yet you claim 17.8 years of NO global warming? You know that is a blatant lie, and the only reason you would claim otherwise is if you have an agenda.


howhot2 said along with other untruths: "Your data is faulty, your claims are fallacies and your links are frankly deceptive at best."
How can you say that I presented incorrect facts about no warming for over 17 years? The only reason you can make that statement is either because you do not care enough about this issue of agw/ climate change to get the facts or are not honest enough to acknowledge those FACTS; such as the ones I present below.
http://www.cnsnew...15-years

SATELLITE TEMPERATURE DATA FLAT FOR OVER 16 YEARS
http://www.powerl...ears.php

Santer originally calculated 17 years of no warming to show a discrepancy between models and global temperature.
In his new paper:
"The multimodel average tropospheric temperature trends are outside the 5–95 percentile range of RSS results at most latitudes."
http://www.pnas.o...full.pdf

jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) Jul 06, 2014
Nineteen twenty-four saw the first global cooling scare followed by a global warming scare in 1933, then it went silent until the 1970's with another global cooling warning, and now we have another warming scare today perpetuated by fools like Tony and old dimwit,howhot2 . It's not new, scientists (I use the term loosely) do this from time to time; it seems; so now all we have to wait for is the next switch, and it's coming, of hot to cold.

If you really want to throw water on the average eco warriors barbecue(such as howhot2's) point them to the NASA data which says the worlds temperature is climbing still;(good times for howhot2 ) but, the UK Meteorological Office's Hadley Center for Climate Studies Had-Crut data shows worldwide temperatures declining since 1998 (bad times).... as do the two satellites circling the earth and taking extremely accurate temperature readings.

We are, of course, told that all this upward rounding of data is nothing to do with the fact that the person in charge of the temperature data at NASA is none other than Dr. James Hansen who just happens to be Al Gore's science adviser...... how convenient?
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2014
howhot2 said ....How can you say that I presented incorrect facts about no warming for over 17 years? The only reason you can make that statement is either because you do not care enough about this issue of agw/ climate change to get the facts or are not honest enough to acknowledge those FACTS; such as the ones I present below.

We can say that because warming is not expected to be uninterrupted IN THE ATMOSPHERE - because that comprises only ~7% of the climates reservoir of heat. You have been told countless times that the Oceans control heat distribution on this planet. Those who are not ideologically biased and are scientifically minded know this...

http://www.skepti...DK12.pdf

The world-wide scam of the world's experts on multiple AGW realated topics is not taking place. There are contrarians ... as there are in anything. Just human nature, and only the deluded would think such a small minority of opinion be correct.. yep deluded, via bias.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2014
"With PR successes like the Fisker Karma, does the Department of Energy need to worry about PR failures like Solyndra?

Solyndra, Solar-Panel Company Visited by Obama in 2010, Suspends Operation
Solyndra Inc., a maker of solar modules that received a $535 million loan guarantee from the U.S. Energy Department, suspended operations and plans to file for bankruptcy, saying it couldn't compete with larger rivals.
http://www.bloomb...als.html


Keep this list in mind the next time the media pretends that Solyndra was the only failure.
http://heritageac...success/
jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2014
'Green' Company Awarded Up to $120 Million Promised 70 Jobs — Creates Just Three Jobs in Three Years
http://www.michig...om/17123


The Myth of Green Energy Jobs: The European Experience


"Climate mania impoverishes electricity customers worldwide
Global-warming-related catastrophes are increasingly hitting vulnerable populations around the world, with one species in particular danger: the electricity ratepayer. In Canada, in the U.K., in Spain, in Denmark, in Germany and elsewhere the danger to ratepayers is especially great, but ratepayers in one country — the U.S. — seem to have weathered the worst of the disaster.
America's secret? Unlike leaders in other countries, which to their countries' ruin adopted policies as if global warming mattered, U.S. leaders more paid lip service to it. While citizens in other countries are now seeing soaring power rates, American householders can look forward to declining rates."
http://opinion.fi...failure/
jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2014

On a brighter note: US gov funding for skeptical scientists $0 US don't fund stupid.


howhot2 stupidly said: "On a brighter note: US gov funding for skeptical scientists $0 US don't fund stupid." It would take an exceptionally stupid far left person to say that what follows is a good way for my tax dollars to be squandered. I doubt that this is of importance to howhot2 who probably is among the 47% who pay NO federal income tax; but, I sure would not want to trade places with these ne'er-do- wells.
howhot2 thinks that these are going to help the US with jobs.
"How did a failing California solar company, buffeted by short sellers and shareholder lawsuits, receive a $1.2 billion federal loan guarantee for a photovoltaic electricity ranch project—three weeks after it announced it was building new manufacturing plant in Mexicali, Mexico, to build the panels for the project?

The company, SunPower (SPWR-NASDAQ), now carries $820 million in debt, an amount $20 million greater than its market capitalization."
http://www.humane...id=46761
jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2014

How could this May (2014) have been the hottest ever recorded (similar for Jan & Feb too) and yet you claim 17.8 years of NO global warming?

howhot2 offers up this bit of his wisdom and boy is it a doozy but it shows how when one is so smitten by this scam of agw the truth has no meaning, at all. Where were you last winter, 2013-14, to make such a stupid statement, and naturally you have nothing other than your delusional conjecture to back it up with? "How could this May (2014) have been the hottest ever recorded (similar for Jan & Feb too) and yet you claim 17.8 years of NO global warming?" Other people said this, not just me, in case the links were not understandable to you, & be reminded that if you take exception to their information take it up with them.

"The first quarter of 2014 was marked by unusually severe winter weather, including record cold temperatures and snowstorms, which explains part of the difference in GDP growth relative to previous quarters. The left chart shows the quarterly deviation in heating degree days from its average for the same quarter over the previous five years. By this measure, the first quarter of 2014 was the third most unusually cold quarter over the last sixty years, behind only the first quarter of 1978 and the fourth quarter of 1976. "
https://sunshineh...2014/05/


jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2014
"The interaction between water temperature and salinity effects density and density determines thermohaline circulation, or the global conveyor belt. The global conveyor belt is a global-scale circulation process that occurs over a century-long time scale. Water sinks in the North Atlantic, traveling south around Africa, rising in the Indian Ocean or further on in the Pacific, then returning toward the Atlantic on the surface only to sink again in the North Atlantic starting the cycle again."
http://science.na...r-cycle/]http://science.na...r-cycle/[/url]

"As water travels through the water cycle, some water will become part of The Global Conveyer Belt and can take up to 1,000 years to complete this global circuit. It represents in a simple way how ocean currents carry warm surface waters from the equator toward the poles and moderate global climate." [The Global Conveyer Belt has suddenly stopped for several speculated reason in the past and caused dramatic and rapid climate changes always to the cold side; therefore, warm is preferable to cold any day]
http://science.na...r-cycle/]http://science.na...r-cycle/[/url]

jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2014

We can say that because warming is not expected to be uninterrupted IN THE ATMOSPHERE - because that comprises only ~7% of the climates reservoir of heat. You have been told countless times that the Oceans control heat distribution on this planet. Those who are not ideologically biased and are scientifically minded know this...


It is evident that now Tony Banton is desperate by using a Skeptical Science site that did show an uncharacteristic bit of candor by saying "Reconciling changes in radiation flux at the top-of-the-atmosphere (TOA) with heat fluxes on Earth remains a challenge, in large part due to sparse measurements of deep ocean heat content (OHC) [2]." The whole agw alarmist bunch of charlatans are now in a real spot with not a sign of warming for this extended length of time while CO2 has increased to a paltry 400ppm; therefore, they now have to claim that the oceans ate the heat.

Is Tony disregarding logic, I know he cannot use such a thing, and forgetting that heat rises in the oceans as well as in the atmosphere? Is he also forgetting these established facts?
jdswallow
1 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2014
I put more credence in what Luboš Motl has discovered about this "missing heat" than what a cartoonist from Australia, John Cook, thinks about a paper that was presented and he has, John Cook, done no first hand research in the field on this issue.
"Ocean heat content: relentless but negligible increase
0.065 °C in 45 years
[…]
"The NOAA graph for the 0-700 meter layer gives us a jump from −7 to +11 units, so the ratio 2.6/4 from the previous calculation is replaced by1.8/2 and you get 0.09K, a larger amount than before (by about 50 percent). However, it's still a completely negligible amount."
http://motls.blog...but.html
Logic would indicate that if the oceans were warming then these facts would not be occurring:
Sea Ice Update July 4 2014 – Antarctica Still Amazes – 2.3 million sq km Higher Than 2002

A quick update for sea ice extent for day 184 of 2014
Global Sea Ice Extent is 176,000 sq km above the 1981-2010 mean. That is ranked 15 for the day. And still higher than the 1981-201 mean.
http://sunshineho...an-2002/
runrig
5 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2014
Mr swallow....

You have put up 7 anti-science posts on the trot ....
BTW 5 of those posts contained more than 1000 char+spaces.

I have not, nor will I, read them, and certainly will not respond to them for that is taking up again the conversation with an idiot. I cannot win. No matter what science I refer you to, or how many times I bust your myths and tell you that opinion from anyone, matters not a jot. You will take no note, for that is the psychological MO of the denier, His stance coloured by his ideological bias and by nothing else. Not even common sense, or probability.
You have obviously spent some time studiously cherry picking (what to you) are tasty bits that prove beyond all doubt that the whole world is against you, and it is just so shocking as to be beyond belief. It is beyond belief my friend - because the land of the fairies has many tales to tell and none that belong in the real one.
howhot2
5 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2014
You know what @Runrig? Your right. One really shouldn't feed these doofus trolls. But just this once;

You know @jdswallowed, almost every citation (or URL) of yours that I've read is linked to some virus malware infected BS, and ends in some teaparty recruitment site. There is nothing that a scientist can sink his teeth into. There is not one believable claim, factual, or science credible claim. Your just another flake teaparty wingnut who knows nothing about global warming except what your rightwing AM radio talkshow handlers feed you.

Lets look at this one; "howhot2 who probably is among the 47% who pay NO federal income tax". I appreciate the come back, but how do you figure that 47% number? I paid more taxes than these 26 billion dollar corporations combined; (note: the following URL is liberal biased, but is fact-checked as true). Since corporations are people now; complain to them.

http://www.huffin...763.html
howhot2
5 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2014
@jdswallowed says;
"How did a failing California solar company, buffeted by short sellers and shareholder lawsuits, receive a $1.2 billion federal loan guarantee for a photovoltaic electricity ranch project—three weeks after it announced it was building new manufacturing plant in Mexicali, Mexico, to build the panels for the project?

Given finances, how is that Stupid? Your just jealous you didn't think of it. Never mind, your just too dense to get the fact that we need solar panels to make solar energy to help shift us from a fossil fuel based energy system.

Is it made in mexico. or did you just make up this story too?
How is anyone supposed to believe anything you say, given your track record.



Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2014
You have put up 7 anti-science posts on the trot ....
BTW 5 of those posts contained more than 1000 char+spaces.
I have not, nor will I, read them, and certainly will not respond to them for that is taking up again the conversation with an idiot
@runrig
you are absolutely correct.
When someone that is this mentally disturbed gets a hold onto a "faith" that they can argue about and perform the duties of "acolyte extraordinaire" then they use it as a way of self gratification.
His irrelevant posts here are nothing more than electronic masturbation and have the same value as well- NONE.
no one can win (or teach) a person who refuses to acknowledge reality.

you've already warned him, now just downvote and report
he will not learn. he cannot participate in reality.

and you've been FAR more patient than I have... I just don't do blatantly stupid, so I ignore him (mostly...and sometimes try to push him over the edge)
He IS a good subject for my psyche study, after all
runrig
5 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2014
you've already warned him, now just downvote and report
he will not learn. he cannot participate in reality.

capt:

Yes I have and I will - the whole series of posts on here as multiple spamming,

I will treat as I do Uba - jump in to deny his bollocks then leave him to rant on his own.
He is his own advocate for stupid.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2014
You say: "I have not, nor will I, read them, and certainly will not respond to them for that is taking up again the conversation with an idiot. I cannot win." To which I respond that NO, you can not win when you are mendaciously trying to defend the indefensible & that is this hoax of agw.

It appears that you put no stock in what one of your famous scholars had to say:
"The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement" Karl Popper

"Popper is known for his rejection of the classical inductivist views on thescientific method, in favour of empirical falsification: A theory in the empirical sciences can never be proven, but it can be falsified, meaning that it can and should be scrutinized by decisive experiments. If the outcome of an experiment contradicts the theory, one should refrain from ad hoc manoeuvres that evade the contradiction merely by making it less falsifiable."

Kind of reminds me of the repeated request that I have presented to you to supply me with the experiment proving that CO2 rules the earth's climate today.

jdswallow
1 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2014
I have not, nor will I, read them, and certainly will not respond to them for that is taking up again the conversation with an idiot. I cannot win.


Tony Benton: I will respond in more detail to your diatribe aimed at me about what I post another time. I assume that when you post a link to an uninformative site's "paper" put out by Skeptical Science that does not , in your delusional mind, amount to "cherry picking" & that is how your mind works regarding all of this hoax of anthropogenic global warming that is now under threat because, guess what, the globe is not warming; so, now you maintain that the oceans have taken all of the heat; but, that leads to other problems. It is known by logical folks that warm water gives off CO2 & in the paleontological record, the warming comes at least 800 years BEFORE the increase in CO2. This leads to another problem for the delusional alarmist in that if the warm ocean is taking in CO2, contrary to what we know happens, then what does this do to your ocean acidification?

jdswallow
1 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2014
[…]Stark contrast
On a chart of global atmospheric temperatures, the hiatus stands in stark contrast to the rapid warming of the two decades that preceded it. Simulations conducted in advance of the 2013–14 assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that the warming should have continued at an average rate of 0.21 °C per decade from 1998 to 2012. Instead, the observed warming during that period was just 0.04 °C per decade, as measured by the UK Met Office in Exeter and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK.

[…]More importantly, the entire eastern Pacific flipped into a cool state that has continued more or less to this day.

[…] "What it skirted was the question of what is driving the tropical cooling."

[…]"I believe the evidence is pretty clear," says Mark Cane, a climatologist at Columbia University in New York. "It's not about aerosols or stratospheric water vapour; it's about having had a decade of cooler temperatures in the eastern equatorial Pacific."
[…]First, the historical ocean-temperature data are notoriously imprecise, leading many researchers to dispute Cane's assertion that the equatorial Pacific shifted towards a more La Niña-like state during the past century10"
http://www.nature...-1.14525


jdswallow
1 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2014
Tony Benton: This is what "Nature" said about the warming oceans and I present a few of the thoughts that they had on it and the main point is, unlike your favorite site, Skeptical Science, they do NOT know what is happening; but, I am to believe that you do? For sure not when you produce no verifiable evidence to back up what you maintain.

"Climate change: The case of the missing heat
15 January 2014
Sixteen years into the mysterious 'global-warming hiatus', scientists are piecing together an explanation.
[…]The latest suspect is the El Niño of 1997–98, which pumped prodigious quantities of heat out of the oceans and into the atmosphere — perhaps enough to tip the equatorial Pacific into a prolonged cold state that has suppressed global temperatures ever since.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2014

There is not one believable claim, factual, or science credible claim. Your just another flake teaparty wingnut who knows nothing about global warming except what your rightwing AM radio talkshow handlers feed you.


howhot2: Your last two post are very consistent with your knowledge of the subject of anthropogenic global warming because you offered up no mention of the subject and for sure no links to look into. I, after reading your post, am going to start sending money to the Tea Party because they more closely align with my philosophy than some idiot who knows nothing about anything, at all, and it really shows from your post. You say "There is not one believable claim, factual, or science credible claim." but give no evidence to prove your point, what ever it may have been. I have a question for you: Are all far left alarmist as ignorant and stupid as you are? You are fun to read and to see just what makes you people tick and just how disingenuous and out of touch with reality you really are.
runrig
5 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2014
Another string of cherry-picked denialist drivel I see (but not read).

Reported as spamming (and over char usage)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2014
if he truly believed that global warming (or climate change) is indefensible
NO, you can not win when you are mendaciously trying to defend the indefensible
Then you are in for a treat, jd hooker!
NOW you can PROVE IT TO THE WORLD!
http://dialogueso...nge.html

PROVE your position, jd hooker! go to the site and take the challenge. no entry fee, must be 18 or older, and prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring

now, remember... he is talking about CLIMATE, not WEATHER
this is your chance to shine! Thermodynamics posted this link and I will share it with all you deniers of science because it is PUT UP OR SHUT UP time.

You don't want to try? it only PROVES that you are a trolling spam-bot bent on disrupting valid science and interrupting legitimate scientific endeavors.

prove it and it will shut US up... IF YOU ARE ABLE.
money, fame, travel, bragging rights.... go for it
howhot2
5 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2014
@jdswallowed says;
howhot2: Your last two posts
and then some ramblings about they are not science. Dude; what I wrote was harsh criticism of the many invalid claims you've make. If they make you look like a teaparty wingnut, that's not my fault. If you don't recognize global warming from fossil fuel combustion then you should obviously be laughed at, tarred and feathered, and put in the same collection of fools that denied Copernicus' model of the solar system!

How do you wingnut's deny obvious? Ok, shift the subject; The Nature URL; a first for you.
This May was the hottest on record according to NOAA. However, the acceleration of AGW has slowed. Like a hockey stick with a small shelf. It's an artifact, certainly, but does it disprove the computer models? No. Computer models are based on sound Physics but the decades long expression of the caloric uptake/outtake of the elNino and laNina cycle could slow AGW's rate of increase.

So good find. Now you need to read it
howhot2
5 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2014
Computer models are based on solid Physics but the decades long expression of the caloric uptake/outtake of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (elNino and laNina) cycle could slow AGW's rate of increase for a decade or so. Regardless, that doesn't stop continuous climb of CO2 in our atmosphere. Nor does it effect the eventual the predictions of climate scientist everywhere. AGW is a very serious extinction event that is hanging over our heads like an axe ready to drop!

Our burden as humans is trying to stop that from becoming a real extinction event.

jdswallow
1 / 5 (3) Jul 10, 2014
Computer models are based on solid Physics


"Junk Science Week: The global warming hiatus? Climate models all wrongly predicted warming, so let's call it a discrepancy"
[…]The gray line shows the surface temperature record (HadCRUT4 from the UK Met Office) from 1860 to the present. The black line shows the average of climate model runs covering the same interval.

[…]It reports that over the 1998-2012 interval 111 out of 114 climate model runs over-predicted warming, achieving thereby, as it were, a 97% consensus.
http://business.f...-hiatus/


It amounts to, garbage in, garbage out, and if these models, when asked to reproduce the past ,known climate, can't even do that; how then will they with any accuracy predict the future?

"With these much more realistic estimates of sensitivity (known as "transient climate response"), even RCP8.5 cannot produce dangerous warming. It manages just 2.1C of warming by 2081-2100.
"…. you cannot even manage to make climate change cause minor damage in the time of our grandchildren, let alone catastrophe. That's not me saying this – it's the IPCC itself."
http://business.f...warming/
howhot2
5 / 5 (3) Jul 10, 2014
It amounts to, garbage in, garbage out, and if these models, when asked to reproduce the past ,known climate, can't even do that; how then will they with any accuracy predict the future?

GIGO is NOT the case here. There are too many different data that all report similar numbers from different groups from across the globe. Unless you have specific reason to doubt the instrumentation or methods used.for data collection, there is not valid reason to accuse scientist of GIGO in their analysis. If you want to know what is flawed, it's the nutty ideas you fruitcake wingnuts post here trying to support of denialism of global warming.
It doesn't take to many satellite measurements to see global warming and it's full damage across the globe.

You claim is 2.1C by 2081-2100. We've already done that from 1900 base temperatures, and the exponential curve of CO2 accumulation would indicate a much more severe response in temperature. Computer models are underestimating reality.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2014
The fact that no experiment has ever been done that shows that CO2 influences the climate like these charlatans maintain is because it does not do so or they would be falling all over themselves to show the results of such an experiment.

Look at this experiment that is on a par with what Tony Benton would put together and claim that now it is settled science, or some other such nonsense. Note that the CO2 is not measured in any way to get the results that are demonstrated. If CO2 does what some claim, there would be no need to add any CO2, especially since the CO2 content in a room due to living animals respiration bring it above what is observed at sea level from ambient air.

CO2 experiment
http://www.youtub...fl45X1wo
jdswallow
1 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2014

Tony Benton says with the same authority that he gives to his alarmist nonsense: "Another string of cherry-picked denialist drivel I see (but not read)." How does he know what the article in "Nature" says about his warming Oceans, or lack thereof? I see that when "Nature" puts out something it is now "drivel" to such a sadly uninformed individual as Tony is because he is afraid to face the truth that the global temperature standstill lengthens because there has been NO global warming for 17 years 10 months since Sept. 1996 (214 months) This temperature standstill represents 50.2% of the entire 426-month satellite record. This is occurring when the CO2 is increasing and that is directly opposite of what charlatans such as Tony Benton have been prevaricating about because when they have no proof, lying is the only thing they have left and a hypotheses based on a lie is indefensible and it makes the proponents of such a hypotheses out to be what they are, as shown from the climate gate emails, dishonest people and science has no place for deceit and prevarication.
howhot2
5 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2014
Jdswallowed said this;
the global temperature standstill lengthens because there has been NO global warming for 17 years 10 months since Sept. 1996 (214 months) This temperature standstill represents 50.2% of the entire 426-month satellite record.
Your basing this on more of your righwing propaganda sources. @Jd, there has not been a slow down or hiatus un global warming at all since the dawn of the industrial age when mankind began to use fossil fuel combustion to power systems. Your nutty as a fuitcake if you expect people to believe 17 year and 10 months there hasn't been global warming, when in plain site, the polar ice caps are melting, and globally temperatures have risen. You really need to look at data that is more the true to reality like this;

http://green.blog...amp;_r=0

The nature article simply suggests that El-nino, la-nina events could influence global temperatures not AGW global warming!
howhot2
5 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2014
So @jdswallowed, wingnut that you are, do you finally get the fact that AGW is real, and it needs immediate government attention to stop excessive CO2 production from fossil fuel combustion?

Your youtube video link was spot-on about how CO2 works. There are many other experiments that demonstrate CO2's heat trapping abilities. Including very fine ppm levels of CO2 on heat trapping ability (the basis of global warming).

Brainwashing can cause a lot of doubt. It takes a lot of mental strength to deprogram yourself.


Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2014
there has been NO global warming for 17 years 10 months since Sept. 1996 (214 months)
@jdhooker
NOW IS YOUR CHANCE TO PROVE YOURSELF TO THE WORLD!
IF you can

http://dialogueso...nge.html

PROVE your position, jd hooker! go to the site and take the challenge. no entry fee, must be 18 or older, and prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring

now, remember... he is talking about CLIMATE, not WEATHER
this is your chance to shine! Thermodynamics posted this link and I will share it with all you deniers of science because it is PUT UP OR SHUT UP time.

You don't want to try? it only PROVES that you are a trolling spam-bot bent on disrupting valid science and interrupting legitimate scientific endeavors.

prove it and it will shut US up... IF YOU ARE ABLE.
money, fame, travel, bragging rights.... go for it
IF YOU CAN!

jdswallow
1 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2014
A chilly Arctic summer has left 533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 29 per cent.
The rebound from 2012's record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013. (stupid people like howhot2 believed them)
http://www.dailym...ear.html


Had the ship carrying the trio of explorers in 1912, the Aurora, gotten icebound the same way the M.V. Akademik Shokalskiy did, there would have been no rescue option and certain death.
http://news.natio...tl_ot_w#

Does all of this make it seem that the ice caps are melting?
jdswallow
1 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2014
when in plain site, the polar ice caps are melting, and globally temperatures have risen.


howhot2: Are you actually as blindly stupid as your mindless post indicate when you make such ignorant statements as this:"….when in plain site, the polar ice caps are melting" ?

As The New American has reported extensively in recent months, despite NOAA's claims, its own data show that Antarctic sea-ice coverage hit record levels again in 2013. Sea-ice coverage globally on Dec. 31, 2013, meanwhile, was the highest since records began. Finally, snow coverage for the Northern Hemisphere last year was the fourth highest on record, according to data from Rutgers University's Global Snow Lab. NOAA did not respond to subsequent requests for comment on the issues.
http://www.thenew...-warming
jdswallow
1 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2014
[qYour youtube video link was spot-on about how CO2 works. There are many other experiments that demonstrate CO2's heat trapping abilities. Including very fine ppm levels of CO2 on heat trapping ability (the basis of global warming).

howhot2 said: "Your youtube video link was spot-on about how CO2 works. There are many other experiments that demonstrate CO2's heat trapping abilities. Including very fine ppm levels of CO2 on heat trapping ability (the basis of global warming)." Present me with the link that shows what you are saying because it is not true, like everything else you say is false. If CO2 is doing what you say it is, then why must undetermined amounts of CO2 need to be added to the ambient air in a room where the CO2 level is higher than outside and for sure higher than at 18,000 feet because of the respiration of humans in the room? You can't be so stupid that you cannot understand this, or maybe you are due to your far left brainwashing. If you love socialism/communism so much, why don't you move to North Korea where this view shows how your kind of utopia works in real time?

"Coastlines are often very apparent in night imagery, as shown by South Korea's eastern shoreline. But the coast of North Korea is difficult to detect. These differences are illustrated in per capita power consumption in the two countries, with South Korea at 10,162 kilowatt hours and North Korea at 739 kilowatt hours."
http://earthobser...id=83182
jdswallow
1 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2014
Your nutty as a fuitcake if you expect people to believe 17 year and 10 months there hasn't been global warming


THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office, but said it would need to last "30 to 40 years at least" to break the long-term global warming trend.
http://www.theaus...3112134#

NASA AND NOAA CONFIRM GLOBAL TEMPERATURE STANDSTILL CONTINUES.
In a joint press conference NOAA and NASA have just released data for the global surface temperature for 2013. In summary they both show that the 'pause' in global surface temperature that began in 1997, according to some estimates, continues.
Statistically speaking there has been no trend in global temperatures over this period. All these years fall within each other's error bars.
When asked for an explanation for the 'pause' by reporters Dr Gavin Schmidt of NASA and Dr Thomas Karl of NOAA spoke of contributions from volcanoes, pollution, a quiet Sun and natural variability. In other words, they don't know.
http://www.thegwp...ntinues/

Are these enough examples that what you say is a prevarication or do you want to see more examples, howhot2?
jdswallow
1 / 5 (2) Jul 13, 2014
Your nutty as a fuitcake if you expect people to believe 17 year and 10 months there hasn't been global warming, when in plain site, the polar ice caps are melting,

howhot2 " Your nutty as a fuitcake if you expect people to believe 17 year and 10 months there hasn't been global warming," You prove just who is goofy, howhot2, because you are too ideologically crippled to ever see what is the truth.

(CNSNews.com) – In a June 20 interview with Spiegel Online, German climate scientist Hans von Storch said that despite predictions of a warming planet the temperature data for the past 15 years shows an increase of 0.06 or "very close to zero."
http://www.cnsnew...15-years

POSTED ON AUGUST 27, 2013 BY JOHN HINDERAKER IN CLIMATE
SATELLITE TEMPERATURE DATA FLAT FOR OVER 16 YEARS
http://www.powerl...ears.php

Santer originally calculated 17 years of no warming to show a discrepancy between models and global temperature.
In his new paper:
"The multimodel average tropospheric temperature trends are outside the 5–95 percentile range of RSS results at most latitudes."
http://www.pnas.o...full.pdf

Phil Jones: "No global warming since 1995″
Richard Treadgold | February 14, 2010
http://www.climat...ce-1995/
howhot2
5 / 5 (2) Jul 14, 2014
@jdswallowed; I really don't need to say anymore given that lengthy and BS laden response. What are you? A propaganda device? A tool for rightwingnuts? Or just a flake A-hole like most rightwing-propaganda tools that post on global warming. In otherwords, physics was not you strong suit.

So you still can figure out how CO2 traps heat? Can you figure out how to box your self out of a paper bag? Probably not. Like everything you posted, either BS crap, or junk dragged over here from Watt's up, or a RW blog; rightwing republican discredited lame trash.

Nothing more needs to be said; jdwingnut.
A chilly Arctic summer has left 533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 29 per cent.
Hahahaha.

howhot2
5 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2014
Here @jdswallowed; prove it. Prove that atmospheric CO2 concentration isn't increasing exponentially. Prove that global average temperatures are not increasing exponentially. Prove that sea levels are not increasing. Prove the polar ice sheets are growing. Prove that weather extremes are not increasing. Prove satellite imagery wrong. Prove the increase in wild fires wrong. Prove a decreasing time of droughts. Prove that longer drought periods are not influenced by man made global warming. Prove global warming isn't man made. Prove fossil records lie. Prove ice core samples lie. Prove glaciers melting as a lie.

So far nothing you shown for your position proves anything except you being exceptionally delusional. You have a list above, go for it!

jdswallow
1 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2014
forecasts: http://thesiweath...-the-us/

Antarctic Peninsula: http://www.agu.or...59.shtml

Antarctic sea ice extent
http://www.ncdc.n.../2012/10
Arctic
http://www.alaska...percent/


"North West Passage blocked with ice - yachts caught"
http://www.sail-w...t/113788
jdswallow
1 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2014
Antarctic Peninsula
http://www.agu.or...59.shtml

Antarctic sea ice extent
http://www.ncdc.n.../2012/10

sea level rise rate for all 157 NOAA tide gauges active this century is just below 0.7 mm/year."
http://stevengodd...falling/
Greenland is still pretty close to the Arctic, right? The "trend" in Greenland has been going colder…..
http://www.foresi...ploads/2

Glaciers and Geography
http://www.uwgb.e...geog.htm
http://www.glacierbay.o
http://www.americ...blamed/1

Snow cover sets new record
http://iceagenow....-record/

India – Summer snowfall thrills tourists
http://iceagenow....ourists/
jdswallow
1 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2014
You have a list above, go for it!


howhot2: Why, if you think you have all of the "proofs" to what you list, don't you provide them? It is because you are incapable of doing so.
I don't have time to deal with insane people like you who are too stupid to ever learn anything; but I will offer you up some FACTS that you can never come up with or understand, such as your stupid inability to understand that I presented you with ample evidence regarding warming for the last 17 + years.

Drought
http://docs.lib.n...0212.pdf
http://www.srh.no...es_today

What do you mean? As bad of a fire season as in 1938.
The number of US fires this year is at a record low, and burn area is second lowest at 62% of normal. There were six times as many fires in 1938.http://www.nifc.g.../nfn.htm

extreme weather-related events in the US
http://thesiweath...-the-us/
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2014
there has been NO global warming for 17 years 10 months since Sept. 1996 (214 months)
@jd
so WHY HAVEN'T YOU GONE TO THE LINK AND PROVEN AGW IS FALSE????
I will post it again: http://dialogueso...nge.html
You said to Howhot
Why, if you think you have all of the "proofs" to what you list, don't you provide them? It is because you are incapable of doing so
I offer the SAME conclusions to YOU: WHY if you think AGW is false, are you not on the link PROVING IT?
BECAUSE YOU ARE INCAPABLE OF PROVING IT

YOU are incapable of using the scientific method to prove AGW is not real

THAT is why you post HERE, at PO
there is NO mod's forcing you to provide PROOF of comment
so you can SPAM us all into submission... it STILL DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACTS OR THE SCIENCE
NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU SPAM AND TROLL

and if you disagree, feel free to go win the $30,000 and prove me wrong
jdswallow
1 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2014
Something stinks in the "science", the anger regarding attempts at falsification, the political leverage being applied, the competing interests, the money and of course this "challenge". This challenge has the air of desperation and is intellectually disingenuous.

I therefore call for Dr. Keating to withdraw this dubious challenge, which appears to be a cheap publicity stunt. I also call for him to apologize to the scientific community for turning an issue of such great importance into a circus stunt and for him to personally advocate for debate and continued GENUINE falsification of the data and conclusions. To do any less would render him unworthy of the title of "Scientist".

Final note - my submission is "Anonymous" due to the inevitable and aforementioned ostracism I would undoubtedly suffer, if my name and credentials were attached to this criticism."
Reply
New comments are not allowed.
http://dialogueso...nge.html

Did you understand all of that, Private Stupid?
jdswallow
1 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2014
"…..these same observations in addition to the assertion that the challenge is bogus. I would like to add to that, that such a challenge posited by a man who has impeccable scientific credentials can only be a source of embarrassment to his peers. It stinks of shrill hectoring of those who have complained about the validity and "cherry picking" of the data presented by the proponents of the theory of climate change being fundamentally caused by man as opposed to natural causes.

Scientists are supposed to welcome skepticism, and push for the invalidation (falsification) of their theories and hypotheses. I can only observe that in the case of this issue, skepticism and attempts at falsification are met with strident ostracism. This only leads me wonder about the ulterior motives of the scientists themselves, their funding sources and the leverage that politics and green technology are exerting in order to pressure scientists to come up with the "right answer" "
jdswallow
1 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2014
there has been NO global warming for 17 years 10 months since Sept. 1996 (214 months)

so WHY HAVEN'T YOU GONE TO THE LINK AND PROVEN AGW IS FALSE????
and if you disagree, feel free to go win the $30,000 and prove me wrong


I, being a sane and rational person, quit reading Private Stupid's (AKA,Captain Stumpy) post long ago; but, due to his persistence, I did read this one and did go to his site and I will report on what I discovered:

This is the last post to the site run by Chris Keating
"AnonymousJuly 1, 2014 at 12:23 PM
I'm very disappointed that a physicist with a PhD would post such a bogus challenge. The logical axiom that a negative or that "nonexistence cannot be proven" certainly applies to this challenge, which makes me wonder if the challenge itself is a stunt designed to sway the less educated and sophisticated among us.

[…]
Now, let's talk about the immutable fact that climate change is always occurring. Entropy dictates there will always be climate change, even in the case of a planet earth, devoid of human existence. Modern man has been on this planet for 100,000 years and yet the planet has experienced numerous and drastic changes in habitability and climate over the course of its 3.5 billion year history."

howhot2
5 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2014
howhot2: Why, if you think you have all of the "proofs" to what you list, don't you provide them? It is because you are incapable of doing so.

No, it's simply that I'm not the one making extraordinary claims. It is you who make the extraordinary claims and therefore the burden of proof falls on your shoulders. I know you must have been excited when you found all of those web links that at first glance appear to support your view. For example sea-ice-extent from the poles. If one accepts that as meaning there is no global warming in effect, you might be wrong, Sea Ice volume extent is the true measure of global warming, as discussed in this blog;
http://tamino.wor...-part-1/
or
http://www.ncdc.n...w/2012/9
So a thin ice sheet that extends out doesn't mean the polar ice isn't melting. It's similar with most of your other links too. The article says something that you twist into something else. That is a propaganda!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2014
I therefore call for Dr. Keating to withdraw this dubious challenge, which appears to be a cheap publicity stunt
@jdhooker
I understand jdhooker VERY well! it is fear I smell from you!
there is NO WAY you can provide a logical empirical argument based upon the scientific method, and as such, you feel the best option is to have the challenge ridiculed because that is better than facing up to the FACTS that your arguments are invalid and without merit. This is no circus, but an attempt to show/prove to the idiots running the denier camps that IN ORDER TO REFUTE SOUND SCIENCE, you must PRESENT SOUND SCIENCE.
this is something jdhooker has FAILED to do, and this is why he attacks Dr. Keating rather than provide a proof, using the scientific method, of his own professed, publicized and oft spammed point of view
IOW - you cannot compete and make your case so you SPAM/TROLL here
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2014
I therefore call for Dr. Keating to withdraw this dubious challenge, which appears to be a cheap publicity stunt. I also call for him to apologize to the scientific community
FOR ALL FORUM READERS

the above mentioned Dr. Keating requested that ANYONE who could PROVE AGW false, using the scientific method, which is the SAME method scientists (NOT jd above) use to produce the peer reviewed papers that SUPPORT AGW, and if they could make the case, he would pay $30,000.oo

JD's argument is an attack out of fear because he KNOWS this is impossible. This is the situation deniers FEAR!
THAT THEY ARE BEING FORCED TO PROVE, WITH EMPIRICAL DATA, AND THE SAME LEVEL OF SCIENCE THAT SCIENTISTS USE, THAT AGW IS NOT REAL.

Deniers are supported by http://phys.org/n...ate.html
and
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

JD POSTS LIES and cannot post TRUTH when challenged!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2014
I, being a sane and rational person
@jdhooker
IF you were sane OR rational, you would be able to prove AGW false in the challenge.

YOU CANNOT, and therefore it supports my conclusions that you are in collusion with industry and big oil to spread confusion and doubt to the uneducated
Your various agencies supporting you, JD, are known: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

JD is incapable of providing EMPIRICAL evidence supporting his POV that AGW is not real because it is a blatant lie
JD is continually posting here because of lack of moderation and widespread promotion, however it is only lies, PROVEN by his failure to meet the criteria of the challenge, which was OVERLY simple: use the scientific method to prove AGW false

Likely JD is a paid agent: http://phys.org/n...ate.html

the ONLY logic to JD's posts are in the perspective of PAID agitator to known science & FACT
jdswallow
1 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2014
howhot2: Please consider these FACTS also in conjunction with what Amundsen was doing in the Arctic:

"Eighty three years ago today, Mawson was sailing along the Antarctic coast. In 2013, global warming nutcases trying to retrace Mawson's route are hoping an icebreaker comes and saves them.
Sir DOUGLAS MAWSON'S second expedition on SCOTT'S Discovery to Antarctic waters south of the Indian Ocean and Australia is by this time already near the coast which he skirted and explored in the Summer of 1929-30. He identified Enderby and Kemp Lands, first seen by British explorers a hundred years before."

http://query.nyti...448385F9

"Antarctic trap: Stranded ship awaiting Australian rescue after Chinese, French turn away"
December 29, 2013 10:17
http://rt.com/new...cue-935/]http://rt.com/new...cue-935/[/url]

"The Akademik Shokalskiy, with 74 scientists, tourists and crew members on board, has been on a privately-funded research expedition to Antarctica to retrace the footsteps of an Australian geologist, who explored the Antarctic a century ago. The voyage was to visit Douglas Mawson's Antarctic huts, which previously couldn't be accessed because of an iceberg." 
http://rt.com/new...cue-935/]http://rt.com/new...cue-935/[/url]

"Had the ship carrying the trio of explorers in 1912, the Aurora, gotten icebound the same way the M.V. Akademik Shokalskiy did, there would have been no rescue option and certain death.

[…]One hundred years after Mawson's journey, we still don't know much about the Antarctic."
http://news.natio...tl_ot_w#

Also consider this ,howhot2:
Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at "The Bergen, Norway.
US Weather Bureau in 1922.
http://www.sott.n...gs-Melt-
 
Then you have the audacity to present me with a link to a bogus site at the NYT about the debunked hockey stick graph that tries to lie and say that there was no MWP or LIA.
You people are truly insane, besides being stupid.

The 'Hockey Stick' Lives
http://green.blog...amp;_r=1



jdswallow
1 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2014
AMUNDSEN EXPEDITION
1. June 16, 1903
Roald Amundsen and his crew of six men and six sled dogs sail from Oslo in Gjøa, a 70-foot herring boat. Amundsen sets himself a maximum deadline of five years to chart a Northwest Passage and carry out scientific measurements at the magnetic north pole.

5. Winter 1903-Summer 1905
On the southeast coast of King William Island, Amundsen finds a protected bay in which to drop his anchor. …..Amundsen learns Arctic survival skills from the Netsilik, a band of Inuit people. He and his men also fulfill the scientific aims of their mission during these two years; they take many geographical measurements and locate the magnetic north pole.

6. August 13, 1905
Amundsen sails from Gjoa Haven. A few days later, Gjøa encounters a whaling ship from San Francisco coming towards it from the west in approximately this location. Amundsen now knows he will complete the Northwest Passage. In his diary, he notes, "The North West Passage was done. My boyhood dream—at that moment it was accomplished. A strange feeling welled up in my throat; I was somewhat over-strained and worn—it was weakness in me—but I felt tears in my eyes. 'Vessel in sight... Vessel in sight.'"
http://www.pbs.or...-nf.html
jdswallow
1 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2014
For example sea-ice-extent from the poles. If one accepts that as meaning there is no global warming in effect, you might be wrong,
So a thin ice sheet that extends out doesn't mean the polar ice isn't melting.


howhot2: Here is some current info on the arctic where you say, erroneously as usual, that the ice is disappearing.

"The drama begins - North West Passage sailors rescued from ice
2:52 AM Mon 14 Jul 2014GMT
A U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker had to break 12 miles of ice to reach the trapped sailors, Erkan and Elizabeth Gursoy, on Altan Girl, their rugged 36ft steel boat.
The incident occurred about 40 miles north east of Barrow. The Coast Guard cutter, Healy, had to be diverted from a research mission to respond to the sailboat"
http://www.sail-w...e/124426


Sea ice extent in recent years for the northern hemisphere.
http://ocean.dmi....r.uk.php

I know you do not remember when this happened and was reported by Sail World last year.
"North West Passage blocked with ice - yachts caught"
5:28 PM Thu 29 Aug 2013GMT
http://www.sail-w...t/113788

I also know that what follows is totally meaningless to someone who is unable to think but try to give it some consideration and report to me on what you come up with.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2014
ONLY logic to JD's posts are in the perspective of PAID agitator to known science & FACT


"Something stinks in the "science", the anger regarding attempts at falsification, the political leverage being applied, the competing interests, the money and of course this "challenge". This challenge has the air of desperation and is intellectually disingenuous. 

I therefore call for Dr. Keating to withdraw this dubious challenge, which appears to be a cheap publicity stunt. I also call for him to apologize to the scientific community for turning an issue of such great importance into a circus stunt and for him to personally advocate for debate and continued GENUINE falsification of the data and conclusions. To do any less would render him unworthy of the title of "Scientist"."
Dr_toad
5 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2014
Pompous idiot, why would anyone with half a brain heed your "call" or your dubious badge of "worthiness"?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2014
To do any less would render him unworthy of the title of "Scientist"."
@jdhooker
what he is DOING is PROVING A POINT ABOUT THE PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE

what he is DOING is showing to the mind-numbingly stupid deniers like yourself that YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE BASED UPON A FALLACY

what he is DOING is showing that people like you are ignorant about SCIENCE, and that your logic depends upon the suspension of logic!

What he is DOING is proving that the only way to REFUTE SCIENCE is with the same vigor, controls, peer review and methodology, TO WHICH THE SCIENCE IS!

IOW - SINCE YOU ARE NOT CAPABLE of refuting the argument USING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, then it PROVES< BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT, THAT YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE FALLACIES FROM THE START INTENDED TO DECEIVE THOSE IGNORANT OF SCIENCE AND UNEDUCATED AS TO THE METHODOLOGY AND CONSTRAINTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

to make a long story short- paid hacks like you fail because intelligent scientists like him give CHALLENGES like above!
howhot2
5 / 5 (2) Jul 16, 2014
@jdswallowed demands:
howhot2: Please consider these FACTS also in conjunction with what Amundsen was doing in the Arctic:
and then proceeds to school me on early Antarctic research expeditions. Hundreds of men, stranded on a ship in the polar ice for weeks. All manly men doing manly things! The point @jd appears to be making is that there is that it's still cold in in the Antarctic at times, and at times there is a lot of ice. What you completely ignore are the facts like satellite imagery that clear in black and white shows the polar caps slowly eroding of ice melt.
http://www.wunder...w-record
You need to be de-programmed from your anti-AGW brainwash the rightwing gave you.

As far as "Then you have the audacity to present me with a link to a bogus site at the NYT"
You can read the line between my fingers. Now that is audacity!

howhot2
5 / 5 (2) Jul 16, 2014
@Jdswallowed; since you didn't like the new yours times, and you've insulted me with a few blog comments of your own, it's only far to for you to read on of mine.

http://akwag.blog...-is.html

You deniers. The proverbial poo is going to hit the fan and with you deniers mucking up a logical and necessary response to control CO2, All I see is mankind heading right into a brick wall of stupid.

Dr_toad
5 / 5 (1) Jul 16, 2014
From some of the spam comments on your blog, I'd say you're absolutely right.